Embracing My Indo-European Side

Every day I read about new and brutal crimes committed against Europeans. It is hard to take, day after day, but I feel especially obligated to read about them because these crimes never appear in the news. Never. Even massive atrocities committed against us are never spoken of. People who follow the mainstream media will not have heard a word about these events of just today: the Egyptian “stabbing spree” in Ireland, the French policewoman lynched by immigrants, the Somali immigrant to Italy who stormed a delivery room and attempted to rape a pregnant woman in labor, the Ukrainian woman living in the UK who could be deported after her African partner murdered her son, because she no longer has a British dependant. There are things like this that happen literally every single day, and no one outside of a small “woke” group cares. The horrors start to get to a person, but in some ways the silence about them is even worse.

What is even worse than that is that people who only follow the mainstream media, besides being unaware of the day-to-day horrors, also have no idea about the massive atrocities committed against our people that are going on and have been going on for years. Thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Dutch South Africans have been murdered, many in unfathomably brutal ways, for no other reason than because they were European. At least 1 million British children have been raped by immigrants, and thousands, quite possibly millions, more women and children raped and murdered by non-Europeans across Europe, for no other reason than because it was possible to do so. The crimes that are committed against our people on a continent-wide, race-wide scale are too numerous to list here. And often it feels like no one cares. Our people have become victims, easy to abuse, easy to exploit.

It has been changing my views in some important ways. I am sad to say that it has been breaking down some of my idealism, my faith that all conflicts can be resolved by communication and mutual understanding. How do you communicate with someone like this, who brags about hurting German civilians because he can? I’m coming to the conclusion that there are some conflicts that talking will not and perhaps, even in ideal circumstances, could not, resolve. Sometimes people actually do not care about other people, and do not care about hurting them as long as they benefit. Sometimes the act of violence itself is viewed as a good thing by them, and the only reason they need to hurt people is that they can hurt them, without consequences.

You can’t talk when, as in a case in the article above about the British children who have been raped, a rape gang presents you with the choices of raping you, or raping your little sister. You cannot “connect at the heart.” I want to believe that people are fundamentally humane, and communication can awaken that humanity even in very difficult circumstances. But I try to be realistic, and this is the reality we are living in. Peace and love will not save us if all the person wants is to enjoy our suffering. Sometimes, you just have to straight-up be able to fight back.

Nonviolence is one of the fundamental moral values I live my life by, along with consent and virtue. I believe that people should always seek nonviolent solutions to problems they have with other people. However, I am not a pacifist – I believe in the non-aggression principle, which means I do not believe in offensive violence, but I do believe in defensive violence for protection if someone is trying to hurt you or yours, and I believe in use of force to physically remove someone trespassing on your property.

Those fundamental beliefs have not changed. I am still a voluntaryist, and I still believe in the non-aggression principle. But my fundamental views on the proper place of violence, or force, in a nonviolent society are changing. I no longer believe that force, or threat of force, is a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs. I am coming to believe it is a useful tool for preserving a nonviolent society, and that the ability to use violence effectively is a useful and quite possibly necessary skill I want to learn.

Violence is really very important for maintaining a nonviolent society. It seems counterintuitive when phrased like that, but all anarchists already know and live this. Consider these two scenarios. A robber runs into a bank with a gun. Security is called, hostages are taken, police arrive outside, there’s a lot of shouting and crying and somebody is probably going to die. A robber runs into a bank with a gun. Twenty other guns are immediately trained in his direction, from bank tellers and customers alike. Somebody has a tranq gun and uses it without further ado. That’s the difference between pacifism and non-aggression: one is a society of victims waiting to happen and one is a society of warriors waiting to be called upon.

This is the power of defensive violence to prevent aggression. It is why in an anarchist society probably everyone would have a gun collection, security protection on their house, and crime insurance, and subscribe to a police service. The use of force and threat of force to maintain a nonviolent society is a powerful tool that I don’t think I’ve appreciated enough. People are more likely to aggress against helpless victims than against people who can and will fight back.

This is a form of preventing costs from being externalized, one of the fundamental necessities for creating a moral society. People who hurt others are meeting their needs at great cost, but the cost is to others and not to them personally. The threat of the cost to them also being great is a deterrent from meeting their need using that strategy.

Now that I’ve realized this, I’m certainly not going to sit around and wait for an anarchist society before I learn how to protect myself and my family better, because we’re living in much worse than an anarchist society. And beyond that – I strive to serve my broader community as well as myself and my family, and I would like to be able to contribute to protecting them as well if need be, because you never know when you might see somebody who needs help, especially since the government and police are much more of a threat than a protection and can’t be relied on.

This has also changed my conception of an anarchist society in a very important way. Until now I’ve thought war is a symptom of a violent society and would not exist if a society were truly nonviolent. Now I’m thinking that war, or the potential for war, would be a part of a nonviolent society. Just as violence in self-defense is necessary and moral when someone violates the non-aggression principle, I think violence in self-defense might be necessary and moral if another nation were to violate the non-aggression principle. Js took over Palestine and made it theirs because they could. It is absolutely critical that any autonomous society be able to prevent a “might makes right” group of outsiders that doesn’t follow the NAP from doing that to us. That means having the power to fight back and stop people who would aggress against us to our detriment and their benefit.

If we lived in a European society, I think I could afford to be more idealistic and trust in the basic goodness of people. But that is not the world I live in, and it is definitely not the world my children will be living in if things continue on as they have been doing. What if someone wants to torture one of my children for hours with a blowtorch just because they’re white? What if someone wants to rape one of my daughters to death with an iron rod just because she’s a woman? And what if they succeed, because I was too busy writing blog posts about whether squirt guns promote violence to wonder if my children might actually need to defend themselves in the future? Thinking nonviolence means pacifism, rather than ethical non-aggression, could have been the worst mistake I ever made.

I will no longer be raising my children to be pacifist. I will be raising them to be non-aggressive: able to use violence to protect others rather than exploit them. Now I intend to raise my children to be good at fighting as well as communicating. Now I intend to teach them military strategy as well as conflict resolution. My whole conception of the purpose of education is to equip them with whatever skills they might need in the future, after I am dead and gone and can no longer provide for them. Being able to fight to defend themselves and others, including the helpless and innocent, is a skill they very possibly will need to have. If there are harsh things in store for them, I want them to be warriors, not victims.

This has also had a major impact on how I view the Indo-European side of my ancestry. I’ve been appreciating it a lot more.

I do not identify with the Indo-Europeans very much at all. In fact, I’ve often resented our Indo-European admixture. It is a conflicted feeling – they are our ancestors, but they were also our invaders once upon a time. By my standards all of our good traits are those that are Old European – our virtue, our instinct to nonviolence, our agricultural ways and attachment to kith and kin, our writing, our art, our science. And what desirable traits have the Indo-Europeans bestowed on us – our migratory instincts, our pastoralism, our violence, the conjugal system, weaponry, the destruction of Old European culture to be replaced by conquering and pillage and 5,000 years of war? I used to think the only good things we got out of being Indo-European were the wheel and the horse.

But now I have realized what the main disadvantage of being Old European was: They were destroyed. They couldn’t defend themselves. It’s not that they fought to the last and ultimately succumbed to a greater military power – it’s not even clear whether they were able to fight at all. It’s possible they were as incapable of fighting as a little child would be incapable of killing a kitten. As a result, their culture – their spoken and written languages, their ability to produce art, their grasp of mathematics, engineering, and medicine, their avuncular kin system and peaceful way of living, their 30,000 years of history – was wiped out, and there’s not a single white person alive today who doesn’t have both Old European and Indo-European blood in their veins. They were helpless.

The Indo-Europeans gave us that missing piece. Now we have the goodness and intellect of the Old Europeans, and the fighting instincts of the Indo-Europeans. Now we can create, and protect what we create. We just have to channel our fighting instincts into protection and service instead of destruction and domination. It’s hard for me to value violence in any circumstances, even violence for self-defense, but it’s better than watching helpless as everything we love is destroyed.

The only way to prevent violence is to make violence more costly and less effective than nonviolence. We make nonviolence effective with all of our instincts to help and understand, but you cannot make violence costly when you are a helpless victim. Power and influence separate victims, from those who can resist aggression.

And it is good to have powerful people who also have fundamentally altruistic instincts, so there are people who are not only willing, but actually able to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Europeans are the perfect storm of capabilities. We just have to live our heritage.

One thought on “Embracing My Indo-European Side

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s