‘Clash of Civilizations’ Does Not Help White Folk

Godefroy de Bouillon faisant acte d’allégeance à l’empereur byzantin Alexis Comnène. Alexandre Hesse.
Godefroy de Bouillon faisant acte d’allégeance à l’empereur byzantin Alexis Comnène. Alexandre Hesse.

Eugene Montsalvat explained last year how White peoples’ understanding of their national struggles as an existential conflict between ‘European civilization’ and ‘Islamic civilization’ must be discarded in favour of coexistence and mutual aid against a common enemy. He showed how the current Islamic threat was in fact a creation not of the Arab world but of the globalist agenda of US foreign policy. The enemy, therefore, is not Arabs or Muslims but globalism and those who serve this false god, and against this enemy all who love their own nations must be united in struggle, both physical and spiritual.

Some, of course, will fantasize about removing kebab, and about doing to all the non-White powers of the world what was done to Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. This is madness. In a life-and-death struggle against the oligarchs who peddle globalism to dissolve our peoples in consumerism, White paranoia about non-White nations that stand up for themselves is a distraction that may kill us all. ‘We haven’t let anyone take us in. The dwarfs are for the dwarfs.’ So say some of the White nationalists, and so the Whites will remain in stature until they commit their attention to the problem of which mass migration from ‘brown’ countries, however harmful, is but a symptom. The deeper problem is driven by the globalist agenda of the US State Department and the institutions of the Washington Consensus, not by the forces of some unified Dar al-Islam pounding for expansion at the gates of Vienna.

As Alain de Benoist wrote in July 1992 about the theses then advanced by the Front National, ‘The logic of the scapegoat is unbearable to me. To suggest that the bulk of the problems facing our society today are caused by the presence of immigrants on the national soil is simply grotesque. If there were not a single immigrant in France, we would have exactly the same problems.’ Furthermore, ‘In truth, it is not because France has immigrants that it is losing its identity: rather, it is because France has lost its identity that it is no longer in a position to deal with and resolve the problem of immigration.’

The White peoples should not flatter themselves, any more than Chinamen and Indians should flatter themselves about China’s close-enough culture (see Hu Shih’s 1920s short story about Mr Close-Enough) and India’s degenerate caste system with its generations of children born into lives of sex slavery. Memes notwithstanding, White women are not magic. It is true enough that there is an immigration problem, and that H1B visas and the like, as part and parcel of White genocide, must end; but simply expelling the non-Whites by force, without prudence, will not solve the problem. Even if the last non-White person has left, has been removed, will that solve the White peoples’ spiritual problem? Will the spiritual Pharisee not still be there?

IQ will not save you, and neither, pace Richard Spencer, will the drive to ‘explore, conquer, and dominate’.

Though Richard is right that a narrow ethnonationalism will not achieve what some think it will, that is not what spiritually ails the White peoples; nor will the White peoples heal their sickness unto death by taking White identity as a Nietzschean will to power that explores, conquers, and dominates. It is a mind pulled up from its roots that so reduces White identity. Indeed, the White peoples are not the only ones to explore, conquer, and dominate – in times past, the Arabs have done as well – and neither are they always exploring, conquering, and dominating. There is no special magic in White genes that leads always and uniquely to the results Richard envisions.

A marginal but notable example, of particular importance to Americans, may show the truth better than the centre does. The Anglo-Saxons, once established in what became England, did just fine without colonizing the world. As Benjamin Schwarz details in ‘Unmaking England’, the genetic makeup of England’s folk changed very little from AD 600 to 1950, and in that stability England has developed a certain culture with a deep sense of collective identity, having its own organic common law and even playing some of the same children’s games since the 12th century. This culture developed without much reference to the conquest of non-English peoples, but was greatly dependent on a collective identity rooted in many centuries of virtually no genetic infusions from outside. But England, even in its ‘splendid isolation’, was not entire of itself. Though independent of the Franks on the continent, England was forged in relation with Rome, and with Christendom at large. After the Synod of Whitby in 664, England followed the churchly customs of Rome. Two centuries later, Alcuin of York was a prominent scholar at the court of Charlemagne. Around the time that England was taken by William the Conqueror and the Normans in 1066, some Anglo-Saxons left and served the Roman emperor in Constantinople as part of his Varangian Guard. Without the nearly unchanging population basically settled by AD 600, and without the Church of England as part of the larger Roman Christendom, there is no England as we know it. What the example of England illustrates is that the identity of the White peoples consists not only in biological continuity, in genes inherited through the centuries, but also in spiritual continuity, in a temporal and geographic unity in the one religion that has made Europe what it is.

I make no bones of my disagreement with neopagans: their fantasy of traditional Europe without Christendom is not much closer to the Europe that was made in the Middle Ages – the only Europe that has ever been as a cultural entity – than is the Muslim ‘Eurabia’ they fear. Their best hope, in my judgement, is to accept what historic Christendom is and, if they love Europe, to fight for what remains of it. To fight for one’s own small pagan plot and disregard the struggle as a whole is a losing endeavour, and it is no nobler than for a soldier to fight for his own body only, without regard for those others who are fighting the adversary. I need not say how doing so is opposed not only to the warrior values of Sparta but also to common sense.

Varangian Guardsmen, an illumination from the Skylitzis Chronicle, fol. 26va.
Varangian Guardsmen, an illumination from the Skylitzis Chronicle, fol. 26va.

Nor, as a Christian, am I unaware of the pains and persecutions Christians have suffered under Islamic rule, at the hands of Muslims. Christian converts from Islam, in particular, can face harassment or even death; to such treatment of converts, a Christian who values the teaching of the gospel to all nations must in principle be opposed. But the task of building up the White peoples, and even of helping other folk tied by history and sympathy to Europe and Christendom, is not a matter of bombing Islam into the ground. The much-vaunted imagination of the White man seems stunted of late: usually, it envisions either a nationalism that does nothing but remove aliens beyond one’s own borders, which is introverted chauvinism, or a nationalism that destroys the aliens utterly in their own homeland, which is extraverted chauvinism. There is a world beyond self-regarding chauvinism.

For US-backed Salafis to be defeated or held at bay, in order that Muslim aliens may go home, the world’s patriots – especially Christians – ought to support the victory of those who fight them in the Middle East, and to pray for the lives and the general welfare of Muslims. As Eugene says,

In Libya, radical Salafist forces became the tools of United States with which to overthrow the Gaddafi regime, and now we are seeing them once again being deployed in Syria in an effort to overthrow the Ba‘athist government of Assad. We should note that in these latter cases, the victims of radical Salafism were Muslims, and it is Muslims fighting on the front lines to stop these radical terrorists. In reality, it is Islamic civilization itself fighting Islamic barbarism that is being funded by the United States and their Salafist allies. The brunt of the fighting against radical Islam has truly been carried out by Muslims themselves. The forces of Hezbollah, Iran, and the Syrian Arab Army defend religious minorities such as Christians from the Salafists, while the United States continues to back the ‘opposition’, which is dominated by fundamentalist groups. In effect, the United States plays a double game. They use radical Islam to destabilize and destroy their opponents in the Middle East, and then use the specter of radical Islam that they have conjured to justify further involvement in the Middle East. This in turn benefits the major American ally in the Arab world, Israel, as a divided Arab world poses no threat to its existence.

‘Halting immigration’, says Dr de Benoist, ‘implies both deep criticism of the capitalist logic and help for the Third World countries to break with the mirages of development as conceived by the World Bank and the IMF. It implies, above all, the recognition that the first victims of immigration are the immigrants, and that it is first and foremost their identity that finds itself threatened today.’ (The sex criminals of Rotherham and Cologne, of course, we must not excuse: the law must be consistently enforced.) Until they can be rooted securely in a thick culture they can call their own, neither liberalism nor Salafism, these immigrants are like salt that hath lost his savour. I do here reveal my deep bias for this idea: I myself am more deeply rooted in traditional Chinese culture than very many Chinese Americans, and for that I have my parents to thank, as well as my grandparents, my Chinese church communities, and my Chinese school I went to every Sunday after church. God has blessed me with the ability to be reasonably well integrated in mainstream American society, yet without assimilating into most of its cultural degeneracy or losing my roots. To this rootedness, however strengthened by artifice, I attribute my ability to resist the vain seductions – both figurative and literal – of modern Western society’s tendency to dissolve both Christianity and Chineseness. So I am sympathetic to Dr de Benoist’s praise in 1998 for communitarianism, bearing a ‘pluralism of identities’ (as one would within the right sort of empire), and for the sort of multiculturalism – not the liberal and capitalistic kind, hostile to political life itself – that would offer ‘the possibility, to those who wished, of not having to pay for their social integration by forgetting their roots’.

Angel Island poem 135, carved into a lavatory wall by a Chinese detainee.

As Eugene also argues, stable governments in the Middle East that oppose Salafism make it feasible for the White nations of Christendom to negotiate to send aliens back. They can return to their countries of origin with skills and educations that help their own nations develop according to the law of nature, and not according to either the barbarism of the Western liberals or the barbarism of the Salafis. (My own hope is that these mostly Muslim nations, practising the best of Islam, by the best and truest of human aspirations, will also in time be granted by God to taste and see the goodness of Christ.) Reason is often taught by experience, as well as by the best philosophers, that a man’s own good is not complete in himself: instead, since men depend on one another to have what they need for happiness, one’s own good is completed and secured in the common good. Thus has the providence of God arranged the lives of men. And the fullest happiness of man is naturally that which encompasses all men – not in the manner of the globalists, in which the plebs are cogs in a machine serving their masters, but in a godly œcumene that both calls upon and respects the work of each nation, with Christ as its Head. While this ideal will not be perfectly realized till Kingdom come, it is useful nonetheless to recognize that it is in fact the form of well-being.

Understandably, the Whites resent having to keep paying non-Whites. It is not most of them, after all, who through the Opium Wars once ruined China with high taxes and political disorder and now have also destroyed the peace of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen; but it is upon them, among those receiving immigrants, that the burden has fallen. Today, the White working class is hard pressed by the same forces, and the same people, that have driven immigrants to the shores of Europe and America in order to depress already low wages. Let’s not keep our accounts like Pharisees, which benefits the Pharisees alone. To allow resentment to deny other nations the means to get back on their feet, back from the tyranny of international usurers, is to refuse to make the rentier leeches pay and to identify their loss with our own. It is to tip the scales in favour of the mighty who tip the scales against us. By such bourgeois Shylock niggling, (pseudo)-Kipling’s Saxon himself becomes a Shylock and hates the wrong folk. As Solomon says, however, A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. The scales must instead be made just. The struggle for national survival must be turned against those who profit from our social disorder and ethnic unrest. The aliens’ education and training for return to their countries of origin must be paid for by expropriations from what has been stolen from all of us, that the peoples of the earth may be united in struggle for their own nations.

This common struggle, for humanity against inhumanity, for the honest against the dishonest, is the right thing to do: not a clash of civilizations, but a fight for civilization against the messianic antichrists that are out to deceive the nations. The Lord delights in just weights, in right judgement, in the faith of the righteous and the purging of wickedness from our hearts. In him ought the nations to put their confidence, lest they all be destroyed by thieves who are without a people. Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed by thy Name. Thy kingdom come; thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

About Lue-Yee Tsang 2 Articles
Lue-Yee Tsang is a second-generation Chinaman in America, who hopes some day to see a China that confesses Christ without Americanist corruptions of the catholic and apostolic faith. Speaking Latin, and reading Vergil on the destiny of the Romans, makes him huwhyte and redpilled. He thinks Anglicans are the master race.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*