from the Prof
Last summer, on a visit home to old haunts, and with the car in for minor repairs, I chanced to take a bus ride across the river to the heart of the neighboring downtown. Along the route I sat remembering such rides with my mother when I was perhaps five, when climbing up with excitement and dropping coins down that curious tumbling contraption by the driver. It was another time.
The ride was smoother now. And faster. In those days it had been a road, and now it was an interstate freeway. We came into the city. On the sidewalks were somber faces, some of them downtrodden, some no doubt certifiably insane. How different it all seemed.
Some of it, of course, was me. There were, after all, hard times in the old days, as well, and there had always been a certain grittiness in the downtown. There had always, too, been bums on this street. But I didn’t recall so many young ones. And not as crazily aggressive. As we approached the heart of downtown I listened to two women at the tail end of their talk trading words with rising intensity. The conversation was a blabby one that had gone on for several miles. It had dripped with insights about their lives and relationships, about “Chris” and his “sexism”, and their strategies for achieving a more fulfilled and assertive existence. It was essentially the conversation that has now filled parks, cafes, and campuses in America for a long time.
On the seat opposite me was the folded remnant of a morning paper. I picked it up and glanced idly at the advice column of one of those twin Jewesses who have dispensed wisdom in such vehicles for the past several decades. On this occasion some woman was describing the daily hell that her live-in mother was inflicting upon her and all her family. The victim read off with sorrow a litany of pain that this old wretch had caused in the past three years. But she recalled, again, the scriptural commandment to “honor they father and mother” and said that the guilt hence was “killing” her. She needed advice.
The advice was to communicate with mother and not let her ruin all of the lives involved. (Indeed. Given syndication, a hefty day’s wages, I am sure.) I turned an ear once more to the two in back chewing over their female angst. The younger one – she was a pleasant blonde of perhaps 25 – was annoyed with one of her meddling neighbors. The older, creased with years and somewhat butch – a jaded veteran, it appeared, of the psycho-fest 60’s and 70’s – listened and nodded, and offered back to her pretty companion a diagnosis based upon what-she-thought-she-was-hearing. Why, she asked, be judgmental? The blonde admitted that perhaps her annoyance at the offending behavior was a sign of “intolerance”. I shook my head and jotted down the word on a spare cash-teller receipt for memory’s sake.
* * *
Tolerance. There are few words that so well capture the moral tone of our age. It is taken to be a virtue. The lack of this psychic commodity is a vice and an accusation. One hears a “plea” for it among social activists. As a quality of character, tolerance goes hand in hand with such related qualities as charity, openness and the acceptance of diversity. It is the crowning glory of an integrationist, the cardinal excellence that unites a liberal personality in its quest for a brighter social tomorrow.
This prizing of tolerance, wholesale and unqualified, is a legacy of the 60’s. As such, it also fits well with the going mass agenda of race-destruction. It is also a manifestation of the tendency in recent decades to put all persons and all actions on a par; to suppose that values are, in the end, subjective, that one must at all costs refrain from “Judgment”, that no way of life is actually superior to another. As such it is an exercise in degeneracy.
The demand for tolerance – for putting up with the strange, the odd, the intrusive, and even the offensive, without registering complaint – is but one more instance of the pervasive leveling that has gripped this society in my own lifetime: the insistence that there is no real difference, but for surface anatomy, between the sexes; that the races, beneath the skin, are likewise identical; that the preference for one art, one music, one literature, over another is at bottom a matter of mere personal taste; that the raucous interruption of a speaker in a public forum is but a contrary and equally legitimate exercise of a common “free speech”; that “cultures” are somehow equal; that this thing called humanity is a homogeneous stuff that is acted upon and pressed into its various shapes by the forces of its environment; that deviance of every kind is merely a behavioral “alternative”, that to take action against terrorism is to “become what we hate” – the list goes on into the horizon.
Of course, the thesis of this across-the-board equalization is absurd. If cultures, for example, are deemed equal then presumably they are being measured with respect to something. How so? What is this thing that is present everywhere, to be objectively recorded, and that is magically the same across all varieties of space and time? The thesis, in fact, is not even consistent. For if all behavior is on a par, then intolerance itself is no more objectionable than is anything else.
But again, this ideology, as it turns out, is not itself lacking for judgments of value. It has passions of its own. It actively promotes, as a presumable good, whatever action or policy may tend toward the destruction of a hated Western tradition and the race that has dominated it. It applauds whatever insult or injury may figure into this process – as, for example, when a black person is given an advantage of some arbitrary kind over his or her white counterpart. In this respect it is hardly value-neutral.
* * *
For many years this leveling tendency was thought to exist principally as an external threat. It was a standard view in the cold war years, for example, that a foreign communist menace might overrun the west by sheer force if it were able. And the threat indeed was genuine. For the same raceo-political aliens who butchered their way to rule in Russia (and in time, in the Baltic nations and the nations of Eastern Europe) would surely have done the same here if circumstance had allowed.
The foreign threat, in large part, has evaporated. This was inevitable, in time, given its internal fallacy. But the problem is not gone. It is, in fact, eternal. This tendency to level, to obliterate genuine and important differences, is a constant potential of the human soul. It is an instance of an unfortunate yet ever-present capacity for moral dishonesty.1 It is, at bottom, the denial of both freedom and its attendant responsibility.
This denial arises not out of fertile imagination, or honest rebellion against a bad system, but out of envy, out of cowardice, out of the basic refusal to apply oneself with diligence to the inherently competitive task of life: If You have more than I, then the state should do something to “balance” this injustice; if you have accomplished more, it is because “circumstances” have decreed it If you seem abler of mind, it owes to the fact that I labor with some incidental quirk of cognitive “disability”, and not because you are truly more intelligent.
Contrary to its claim, this ideology of all-things-equal is not open in any favorable sense of the word. As C. S. Lewis2 once pointed out, open-mindedness with respect to particular hypotheses is a virtue; open-mindedness with respect to basic guiding principle (whether in reason or in value) is rational suicide. To cite again a case in point: Tolerance. It is, in and by itself, neither a good nor an evil. Tolerance of some things (say, for example, a personal hardship for the sake of some worthy cause) is a good thing. Tolerance of an offense is not. (It is, in fact, either cowardly, or masochistic, or both.)
Which kind of tolerance is expected of white citizens, with respect to current racial policy? In theory, of course, it is something quite innocuous, namely, the willingness to extend respect to persons of diverse appearance. But one look at hard facts (i.e., outside the sealed devices of mass media) tells us something else. In theory, we are asked to accept a plurality of human color in our social midst. In practice, we are made to put up with the obnoxious behavior of third world miscreants in our stores, schools, theaters and shopping malls; if possible, in fact, we are to ignore it altogether. (Or again, we may perhaps voice an objection, within civil limits, but when this effort is crushed with contempt we must accept the outcome in any case. For our restraint, after all, is what holds “society” together.) We are to maintain a race-neutral stance in hiring with blind optimism no matter what the voice of experience may tell us. We must support efforts to import armed gang-members from across town and into our schools even knowing that our children will be terrorized in the process. To this end the average white man bears his discomfort.
He is not altogether unmindful of the offense. He sees it, in fact, everywhere he looks. He walks the street and it confronts him. A pack of congoid imbeciles struts toward him on the street with menace in their faces. He edges a little to the side. One brushes him with a slight grunt in an assertion of what blacks now call their “manhood”. For all his liberal training he feels this insult. It sinks to his marrow. In response he goes home and thinks about the situation. Perhaps he confides his feelings to his spouse, who may (I presently know of such cases) respond by calling him a racist. He then does what white men are urged to do by the aliens who program them: He scours himself with introspection. Perhaps the discomfort is his fault. Why, after all, does he harbor resentment toward the variant mores of this perfectly legitimate subculture? And what is the alternative? Violence? With no objective basis, he supposes, for his resentment, he absorbs his fate and hopes for better next time.
* * *
All of this is idiocy. Our culture, our safety, our very lives are jeopardized by mongrel thugs who take joy in the fact. Out of reverence for the lives of these half-trained primates and their alien mentors we are asked to remain obediently within the framework of the system that they have turned against us. Wherein lies the admirability of this obedience? And. what say we of this absolute rejection of violence? It is time to ask hard questions.
A strange thing has happened on the way to our demise. Our culture has been saturated with the sight and sound of mayhem, to the point where we can accept it as a constant accompaniment to our daily experience. Yet it horrifies us in principle. So much so, to take one case in point, that a white man may wonder if he would want to be armed in the event that roaming savages should one night break down his living room door. He cannot believe that our own violence (except when part of a grand design decreed by overseers in the nation’s capital) is an option.
Just what is wrong with violence? In asking this question I am not asking what is wrong with wanton murder or random terrorism. These things do seem wrong to me and I have no wish to defend or advocate them to the readers of this journal. What I want to know is, why is violence necessarily wrong? Is it that violence accomplishes its goal abruptly, in sudden fashion, and not as gradually as might some other strategy? If so, perhaps we should forbid the use of explosives to accomplish our ends, as for example, in the work of construction and mining. To this it will be said, I suppose, that the use of such force for building or for excavation is beside the point. For these activities do not have personal injury as their end. But if this is the objection, then tolerance must surely be an evil. For its end – foreseen and causally certain – will be the injury, and the destruction, of a great many persons. And indeed these victims, on the whole, will be those about whom we care most. Can any man worth the name live with this as a consequence of his behavior?3
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.4 Our real choice is not between injury and non-injury, nor between one scenario that shall have violence and another that shall lack it. It is instead the choice of who shall suffer the injury and what specific form the violence shall take. The perfect rejection of violence is a paradox. Those white citizens who pride themselves upon non-violence should in fact be prepared to take credit for a major share of the violence that is to come. For out of their passivity will come atrocity on a scale hitherto not imagined and with the innocent as its primary victims. Categorical non-violence is thus a participation in atrocity. With this in mind I console myself with one thought – that whichever way my race may turn, it will in the end get what it deserves.
1 In saying this I do not mean to say that an effort to broaden the base of wealth must be wrong-minded. An inheritance-based capitalistic system can be as much an outrage as can a state-controlled communistic one, and this is a problem with which racialists, in time, will have to come to grips. But the tendency I address in this brief commentary, I am convinced, is a categorical evil.
2 Lewis’ best statement of this thesis is found in his classic The Abolition of Man (Macmillan, 1947). While Lewis is a bit out of fashion in contemporary circles, the book is probably one of the best of the 20th century. And though Lewis himself had some rather conservative religious leanings, one needn’t share them in order to profit from his discussion.
3 There are, of course, other possible objections to my line of reasoning that could be voiced by those in the mainstream. One is that there exists some very important difference, in principle, between committing an act of violence and merely allowing one to occur. The pain caused to our children by our acquiescence in raceo-political atrocity is perhaps only a foreseen but unintended” consequence of our policy; and so better, the conventionalists may say, to mind one’s manners and allow Providence to decide who shall be the victims. I have little to say to this particular objection except that I find it strangely arbitrary and typical of mainstream mental helplessness.
4 These summary fourteen words are attributed to David Lane, a member of The Order who currently resides in Leavenworth Prison (#12873-057 / P.0. Box 1000, Leavenworth, KS 66048).
SOURCE: Liberty Bell, February 1995