Needs, born from human nature and interaction, create morality. Needs determine the myriad of codes, values and customs through which a society seeks to instill an intuitive sense into a person how to act. Morality steers human nature, within the bounds of human nature. Therefor, within the bounds of the human environment. Add a new element to this environment, and the morality will die or adapt.
A safe, privileged society has few greater needs than making interaction pleasant. These are the needs of the human in the safe environment; this will feel moral not only via upbringing and general peer pressure, but even through personal experience. The environment creates the need, thus creates the morality. This environment relies on the rule of law. It relies on a Leviathan.
To create such a environment, you must persuade men to forfeit their Honour Morality. Before men will hand over the function of honour; of retaliation as a deterrent, to a third party, the State, it does help to have a powerful moral code that is counter to honour morality. A religion urging meekness could very well be what convinces the hearts of men to let their “better” nature rule their nature overall. Christianity, then, is the womb for the Leviathan; its meek followers partake in a social contract, a common understanding that kindness to thy neighbor is kindness to thy own. But like man, this religion has roots in a different nature.
Recently, an anti-Islam attack has taken place. A real attack. Fabricated stories about hijab-pulling and cans of coke played no part. Shrouded by the predictable screeching of the far-left, ultra-liberals and Muslims, who finally have something more tangible than foreign policy for a narcissistic-victim complex, is something rather serious. Compare this recent attack to the fury Anders Behring Breivik unleashed in Norway.
We could consider the mindset both attacks betray. One was a meticulously planned. It came with a manifesto. It was aimed at the youth of those who sacrifice the youth of others. Such a motivation speaks of one consumed, one considering the root cause of leftist policies. An poetic justice, from Breivik’s perspective, perhaps: for once it was the young of the perpetrators; future perpetrators, that bore the brunt. The conclusion and follow through of a nihilist and a fanatic. One hoping to be a catalyst for more to follow. One should wonder, has he inspired any further attacks?
In this Finsbury Park mosque attack, who was the target? Members of a notorious mosque. How was the attack carried out? With the same every day implements recent Islamic attacks have been carried out. Hoping to be a catalyst? If he truly shouted “kill me”, perhaps, but with how much foresight? His actions will most likely reinvigorate the hollow moral front of leftist Islam-apologia. The lack of extensive planning, training, political scope and weapon of choice make it eerily similar to “lone wolf” attacks in the name of Islam. All that’s lacking is a strong motivation. Something in the way of religion? “Tooth for tooth”? But perhaps religion wasn’t needed, perhaps he felt the primal, moral code merely by observing the world. This attack smells like Honour Morality, manifesting itself in a wild attack.
The state of Western honour should be considered.
Consider the chivalrous spirit. The wild, often bloody spirit of the protector and local ruler, a role integral to human society itself, “the noble”, bowed it’s head to the gentle Christian spirit. The powerful moral mandate of religion did not extinguish, but tempered, the primal moral of honour. The knight, the cavalryman, the officer, the gentleman. Men of strength, bravery and intellect; men embodying the West. Even among these exemplary figures, the a wild lust for conflict would seek an outlet in duels. A dangerous game for the educated classes, one might wonder how much intellect, talent and innovation have been lost to satisfy the pride of this tempered warrior-class. In the best light, we could conclude that for this reason, duels were forbidden. And end to the waste of young, promising life by royal decree. A more cynical view would be that the Leviathan shall bite to death any teeth but its own. It is in the nature of power to desire more power still, to gain full control. The tempered warrior was made into a tool for the state and nothing more, their chivalrous spirit regulated to rules of war and ceremony.
Thus the tempered warrior ceased to be.
With honour forgotten as a unwholesome, at best unfashionable, relic of the past, and reduced to plastic Hollywood tropes, the western man has no means to grapple with its reality. Whereas honour morality does not merely allow, but encourage retaliation, the Western man finds himself faced with a moral and legal hurdle. Even worse yet, he will find himself with peer-pressure to kowtow:
“go upright amongst those on their knees…. Your reward will be what people have at hand; whip of laughter, murder, trash”.
The proud white man shames the self-effacing through his mere existence; the cowardly will invent any hollow, faux-moralism to bring down the proud, elevating themselves, soaring upwards on wings of lies and sneers. Who can blame them? Contemporary culture offers pre-packaged moral tropes of this nature, ingeniously twisting sense of duty, showing betrayal to be sacrifice, the frightful rictus a generous smile; even with the wings of a cockroach one might soar over those who merely stand.
The roaches have their own morality. Do nothing, be nothing; cherish the phantasm of the nanny in your heart: never strike back. Feel it slither and slide to the tip of thine tongue; it is the moral of the herd. How fearful we are of locking horns, of the bull’s charge. And what purpose serves the bull, for our herdsmen are benevolent. With prods and bows to keep order, and no interest but the law, men should forget their horns: this makes for a safe and a just society. These herders with prods and bows will surely protect the mother and the calf. And supreme in the moral mandate: do and be as others, this keeps the peace. This leads the herd to tranquility. Within the herd, the moral need is popularity. Lay down your horns, pull out your claws; take this shortcut towards the kingdom of the meek.
Opposed to this is the active encouragement of retaliation and sadism. A need not to be loved, but to be feared. All the more so with an absolute moral mandate, a religion, based on the schemes and delusions of a perverted psychopath. This was brought in among these meek, these clawless, these people living for pleasure.
The banalities with which we describe this clash of civilizations really don’t do justice to the cruelty of this venture.
Revenge is a human urge. Honour is a primal morality. With the veils of collective self-denial becoming threadbare, there is yet one substantial dynamic keeping this down. Opening the eyes to the state of affairs is painful. Realizing the implications are a scrourge to the soul. Because, for men to accept honour morality once more, men must face their dishonor. How many young girls were gang-raped and tortured? How many families destroyed? While we, as non-communities, could only hope the test would pass us by. “If it happens to my own, THEN I will seek revenge”. But it has been done to your own. To the Muslim rapists, the kuffar girl is your tribe, yet you don’t protect her. But then again, how could you, if you are not allowed to see her as your own, to not accept her as a precious member of your people?
The question is often raised: why won’t white Western European men protect their women? It is a dishonest question: in addition to the aforementioned loss of honour, this beaten breed was told to never, under any circumstance, acknowledge their racial identity. White men act accordingly. A default state of surrender.
With sadistic pleasure, white men are told white women they are not THEIR women. White men act accordingly. The implications have become consequences.
Simply put, in liberal society, it is the liberty of any adult to hook up with whoever they want. But this is not entirely true, for white men were not free to openly state: if you rejected our race in favour of another, I am free to reject you on that basis. Abhor the reality as liberals may, but the Alt-Right hit the mark in their use of the phrase “cuck”: ultra-liberal culture demands of every white man to emasculate himself. The noble front of personal choice and love was proved hollow by the cruel mirth in which the same “message of love” would be used to ridicule and deride the white male.
The shameful nature of the topic of sex, making it such an appealing instrument of psychological torture for the cruder class of sadist, made it harder to address openly. Because of this silence, the ultra-liberal ideal became ever more inconsistent in its presentation. The very absolute taboo on race (by whites) it relied on made it blind to its own folly: as in all racial matters, white men came to realise they will be branded sexist, racist and nazi, no matter what. Whatever spirit of chivalry might have been left in the white, Western men faded away. To put it more bluntly: Western white men are more likely to resent white women than to feel a need to come to their aid. Observing the contempt with which white women treat white men, some members in far-right circles, perhaps seeking to out-edge one another, have coined the term “white sharia”.
Whereas chivalry was the result of an almost organic moral process, akin to Moral Cultivation, “White Sharia”, taken beyond the jest, it is a clear attempt to construct a system of Honour Morality. The result of promiscuous, “unowned” white women appears to be attracting African and Islamic rapists, even justifying the rape in the rapists views. With Islam being the closest thing at hand to Honour Morality, something similar really might become its outlet.
Our lives have been ignoble; we are a ridiculed people who have excused their cowardice with the cowardice of others, and attacked those who would stand. But there is redemption:
“Our nation is like lava,
On the surface it is hard, hideous and debased.
But its inner fire,
Cannot be extinguished even in a hundred years of coldness.
So let us spit on the crust,
And go down, into the true core”
If we want to hand our children and their children something better, we have to learn to spit on the crust. We need to begin accepting the shame, and the pain it brings, to hand over a light to the next generation. We’d better:
“That it may be an inferno, casting a long, black shadow, if none come to their aid.”