Monday, July 22, 2002

"The Angry Whites."

Read the article on "the Wichita massacre" at Horowitz's Frontpage, and you'll only get half the story. Read the the full article at American Renaissance, and you'll find something new: everything the author was afraid to say outside of the white-supremacist readership of AmRen.

The Frontpage article ends with these words:

    The police and media reactions to these crimes-a refusal to think about race, draw larger conclusions, or even express outrage-are typical of today's whites, and in stark contrast to the sustained fury we could expect from blacks if the races were reversed.

Offensive to some, surely, but milquetoast in comparison to the ten paragraphs redacted from that version of the article, but preserved in the original. What Stephen Webster wrote for Frontpage was primarily an account of what happened, intermixed with the sort of sly racist insinuations that the more sophisticated brand of racists excel at. But the full article does not shy away from drawing conclusions that should appall Horowitz as much as anyone.

First, Webster attacks Christianity, intimating that it essentially emasculated the "five young whites" so they would not fight back against a black aggressor. (Like many other racist publications, AmRen advocates an "Identity Christianity" that mixes a kind of Christianity -- I hesitate to call it that -- with a vulgar Spenglerian national racism.)

    To what extent does this turn-the-other-cheek mentality [of Christianity] explain why five whites failed to fight back against two attackers? Three of the whites were young men, surely capable of serious resistance, and there must have been several opportunities for it. ... Why ... did five young whites ... kneel obediently in the snow to be shot one by one? ... [H]ad they simply been denatured by the anti-white zeitgeist of guilt that implies whites deserve whatever they get? One does not wish to think ill of the dead, but these three men showed little manliness.

This obsession with a masculinity in decline is a staple of white supremacy; less-genteel racists might blame miscegenation, but the AmRen writers concentrate on (big-C) Culture, which is a necessary component of (big-R) Race. Dilute the Race, they say, and dilute the strength of Culture. These are the heirs of the late and not much-lamented Francis Parker Yockey, the American Nazi-sympathizer whose book Imperium (dedicated to Adolf Hitler, the "hero of the Second World War"), is published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto's Noontide Press, for whom Jared Taylor has also written. (White supremacists have cited American Renaissance as a source for ordering Imperium, but it is not currently available through their website.)

Imperium is the bible for intellectualist white supremacists, in which Yockey argues that blacks are "primitive and childlike ... Like all primitive races, the Negro race is fertile, and possessed of strong instincts" to breed; and calls Jews "[t]he most tragic example of Culture-parasitism for the West." To Yockey, Culture is the source of the white race's strength, but it is the nature of whites to have Culture, while blacks and Jews are condemned to primitive tribalism or "parasitism." And it is this latter argument that the article uses to back its critics into a corner: if the murders weren't hate crimes, then they were evidence that blacks are "so depraved they can commit on a whim" the most terrible crimes. They are, it is implied, barely human at all.

    It is natural for whites to assume that behavior so vicious and odious must have been driven by consuming hatred. Most whites cannot imagine treating another human being the way the Carrs treated their victims unless there were some terrible underlying animus. ... However, it may be a mistake to project white sensibilities onto blacks. ... It may ... be that the Carr brothers are incapable of analyzing and describing their own motives with enough intelligence to make it possible for others to judge them.

    The angry whites do not seem to realize that what happened on the night of Dec. 14 may be only a particularly brutal expression of the savagery that finds daily expression in American crime statistics and African tribal wars. It may very well be that the Carr brothers are so depraved they can commit on a whim brutalities that whites can imagine only as the culmination of the most profound and sustained hatred.

In the end, we need to say very little to condemn Horowitz's racist, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic allies. Their own words speak far more eloquently than we ever could. And it is these words, going back at least twelve years, that Horowitz should have heeded. When he says that Taylor is "a man who has surrendered to the multicultural miasma that has overtaken this nation and is busily building a movement devoted to white identity and community," he is being disingenuous if not entirely mendacious. Horowitz's old enemy, the ADL, traces Taylor's thought as far back as 1983. He did not "surrender," he marched bravely into the world of white supremacy with utmost confidence, ready to lead his followers into a Blake's Jerusalem cleansed of alien people and cultures alike.

After all, anything else would be ... well, un-white.

No comments:

Post a Comment