Print this post Print this post

The Soul of White Folk

refugeeseurope1,226 words

I came across a truly terrifying quote from Xenophon the other day: “You will know that strength and weapons alone do not always prevail in battle. When an army is stronger in soul, then their enemies cannot withstand them.” 

This quote appears in Xenophon’ s Anabasis which chronicles the 10,000 Greek soldiers who, in 401 BC, were stranded in Persia without leadership and forced to fight their way out. But it is just as true and meaningful today as it was in Ancient times. For today’s liberal, such a quote would certainly not elicit any kind of visceral reaction. He might appreciate the pithiness of the expression and the poetic notions behind it, but not much more.

To a conservative, especially a race-conscious one, such a quote means nothing less than life and death.

These days, we have the strength and the weapons, but they have the soul. And who are “they”? To a lesser extent “they” could mean the Hispanics who are storming our southern border with the long term goals of reclaiming American territory in the name of la raza. They have a strong race consciousness and don’t care too much about what the gringos think about it. We could also be talking about blacks, who, at the very least, shout a whole lot about how great it is to be black and how racist and evil white people are. That’s a lot of soul right there. Fortunately, however, they kill each other in such large numbers, generally lack the intelligence and skills to wield real influence, and are so reliant upon the largesse of whites that any threat they pose to Western Civilization here in the United States, although bad, is a little less existential.

“They,” in effect, are the Muslims. More specifically, the Arab “refugees” from the Middle East who are invading Europe by the millions intent on rape and Jihad. We on the alt-right are fully aware of the danger such people pose. Where a liberal may point to the fact that we have armies and carrier fleets and nuclear weapons and the like to justify not taking these poor Islamic urchins seriously, we on the alt-right counter by saying, “Yes, but they have soul.”

They are a unified people with a militant Holy book which preaches world domination through holy war against non-believers. A not insubstantial percentage of these people are willing to break laws, kill, and (most importantly) be killed for their imperialistic cause. Very formidable indeed.

The only way to defeat these people over the long run is for whites to re-acquire soul. This will enable us to forego scruples when dealing with the existential threat of Islam. Soul will enable us to realize that, whatever sins we must commit to defeat the enemy, victory will ultimately be worth it because we are better than they are. Even a Soviet Union squatting over every square inch of land on this planet would be preferable to a universal caliphate.

But what is soul? It can mean a lot of things depending on context, of course. In this instance, I am defining it as “the degree to which one believes in the righteousness of one’s associated tribe.”

Soul is all around us. Libertarians have soul. Mormons have soul. Villanova basketball fans these days have a lot of soul. But what we see with white people mostly is very superficial soul. There’s no biological imperative behind it. It’s all about conscious choice. The Pollyannaish platitudes about America the melting pot being an e-pluribus-unum state of mind is good example of what I would call skin-deep soul. It’s temperamental and, in the long run, fleeting. Once upon a time, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs was one of the most soulful conservatives around. Now, God knows what he is.

But there is nothing skin deep about race. Nothing cuts to the quick like it. Ultimately, all historical forces must bend to the exigencies of race. Look at the 7th-century Arab conquest of Persia. The Arabs had conquered Persian-controlled Mesopotamia after a series of crushing victories but wished to end their expansion there rather than needlessly invade Persia proper. The Persians would not have it, and continually raided Mesopotamia until the Arabs were forced to invade and subjugate Persia.

Why did the Persians antagonize the Arabs? For two reasons: 1) the Arabs possessed Mesopotamia, and 2) the Arabs were not Persian. The exact same reasons applied to French enmity towards Germany after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, only replace Mesopotamia with Alsace-Lorraine. Back then, you see, Europeans in Europe had so little contact with non-whites that Germans might as well have been a distinct race from the French.

Around the same time, according to conservative writer Russell Kirk, the great Confederate general and cavalry commander Nathan Bedford Forrest stated unequivocally that “if he hadn’t thought he was fighting to keep his niggers, and other folks’ niggers, he never would have gone to war in the first place.”

So yes, race. This is why I don’t follow the NRO crowd. They abjure race consciousness like good little boys and girls and stay above the fray so when they die they will go to heaven. They seem to think that piety over free markets, limited government, Ronald Reagan, and traditional marriage is enough to give people of all races enough binding soul to make a nation great.

It cannot.

Remember the OJ Simpson trial? The prosecutors thought that if they stuff the jury with women, regardless of race, they could manufacture enough intra-gender sympathy for Nicole Simpson to convict. They assumed that sexual soul could trump racial soul. Boy, were they wrong.

Essentially, soul grows in strength the closer it gets to what is irreplaceable about a person. This is what I mean about biological imperative. One can change one’s favorite basketball team, political party, social group, religion, even one’s gender. But race is about as close to one’s genotype as you can get. And make no mistake, the Islamic invasion of Europe is very racial. If Islam did not exist, the Arabs would simply invent a different excuse for conquest. After all, white Muslims have lived in Europe for centuries, and never behaved the way the Arabs are behaving.

Racial soul is the most powerful kind of soul there is because it affirms three fundamental truths: Who you are, who your ancestors were, and, most importantly, who your children will be. Think John Wayne in the Searchers when he tried to kill his daughter (played by Natalie Wood) rather than let her be raised by savage Indians. He was white, and his daughter would be brought up white or there would be no daughter. This is racial soul at its most extreme and pure. It puts a person in a direct line from the alpha and omega of humanity, starting and ending with God. If a person truly believes he is a link in this metaphysical chain, and has a holy book to back it up, then he is formidable. And, as we are learning in Europe, an army of such men will be very hard to beat.

And the sooner we realize this the better, because once the Arabs do gain the upper hand in Europe, we will all learn that they tolerate no racial soul except their own.

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Peter Quint
    Posted April 13, 2016 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    ” Think John Wayne in the Searchers when he tried to kill his daughter (played by Natalie Wood) rather than let her be raised by savage Indians.”

    That was his niece.

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted April 13, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      Hi Peter,

      In the script and the source material, yes, she is his niece. In the film, however, it can be easily interpreted that Debbie is Ethan’s illegitimate daughter from his sister-in-law Martha. I learned this from an Amazon review, and I find it quite convincing:

      “As much as any Ford film, “The Searchers” is a story about a family reunited, a theme to which Ford returned time and again. But in no other Ford film is that theme played out at such a tremendous emotional and spiritual cost.

      The implication that Debbie is Ethan’s daughter and not his niece comes from Ford and not Alan LeMay’s original story. By giving us a date–1868–in the opening fade, then belaboring the exposition of Debbie’s age, Ethan’s long absence, the barely suppressed tenderness Ethan displays toward Martha and his guilty uneasiness with his brother, it is not hard to do the math. Debbie is Ethan’s daughter.

      As the theme of family plays out, there is repeated discussion about what constitutes blood kin, especially regarding Marty, who was once “saved” by Ethan, just as Ethan will “save” Debbie. Ethan discounts Marty’s entire existence because Marty is one-eighth Cherokee.

      Conversely, Ethan endures an epic search for Debbie because she is not only kin and perhaps his last remaining relative, but in fact his daughter. The thought both motivates and crazes Ethan.”

      There was a scene in which Martha and Ethan stare wordlessly at each other for a long time, right before he was about to depart to find Debbie. That’s what did it for me.

  2. Peter Quint
    Posted April 13, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    She was full grown when he was trying to kill her at the Indian camp; Jeffrey Hunter kept getting between John Wayne and Natalie Wood so he could not shoot her. Then John Wayne took an arrow in the shoulder; later on, at the final rescue John Wayne was able to put his prejudices aside and bring Natalie Wood home. Your point is still valid though, you just need another film as a reference, something like Kevin Costner blowing himself and his daughter ( Ivana Baquero) up, rather than let her become a brood cow for another species in “The New Daughter.” At the end of the movie Ivana Baquero changes form and Kevin Costner does the merciful deed.

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted April 13, 2016 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      Hi Peter. Thank you for your response. I will have to check out that Kevin Costner movie.

  3. Peter Quint
    Posted April 13, 2016 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    “If a person truly believes he is a link in this metaphysical chain, and has a holy book to back it up, then he is formidable.”

    True, but we are not going to do it with the white christian clerics out there at this time–they betray us at every opportunity. We need to return to our pagan roots to find the metaphysical strength too survive. There are a several books about this subject on this site.

  4. Arindam
    Posted April 13, 2016 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    ‘Look at the 7th-century Arab conquest of Persia. The Arabs had conquered Persian-controlled Mesopotamia after a series of crushing victories but wished to end their expansion there rather than needlessly invade Persia proper.’

    This is a most interesting claim: what is your source?

    My own understanding – based on everything I’ve read on the subject so far, is that the Arabs overran Persia soon after the battles at Qadissiya (636 AD – four years after Mohammed’s death and ten years after the Hijra) and Nehavend (642 AD ). (Source: La Perse Antique by Philip Huyse). Given the weakness of the Sassanid empire at the time (it had been worn out battling the Byzantines under Heraclius, and its new Shah had only acceded to the throne in 633 AD), it seems implausible that they would be in a position to raid Mesopotamia after those defeats.

    See also:

    ‘If Islam did not exist, the Arabs would simply invent a different excuse for conquest. After all, white Muslims have lived in Europe for centuries, and never behaved the way the Arabs are behaving.’

    I beg to differ. Prior to Islam, Arabs were relatively peaceful polytheists more interested in trade than conquest: indeed, they seemed to have reverted to their mercantile pursuits after the first century of Islamic expansion, thus paving the way for their own subjugation by the Turks (who, as recent converts, were more fanatical).

    White Muslims in the past were a very small number of individuals, completely enclosed and incorporated into the greater Euro/American society. One cannot even speak of a ‘community’ in such cases. However, once there are sufficient Muslim converts to form a community – and especially, a ghetto, then it is only a matter of time before their attitude towards the wider non-Muslim society becomes unfriendly – and ultimately, hostile. On this matter, there are plenty of examples across the world – be it among African Muslims, Bengali Muslims, Filipino Muslims, Muslims in the Balkans, etc…

    Furthermore, it is not just Arabs who are invading Europe – Turks, Kurds, Afghans, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Albanians are also involved: Islam is quite multi-racial. Indeed, for Muslims, religion overrides race.

    • Spencer Quinn
      Posted April 13, 2016 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      Hi Arindam,

      Thank you for your response. My source was Wikipedia, which has an entire section of its “Muslim Conquest of Persia” page dedicated to “Raids of Persians in Mesopotamia (638-641). Here is a passage referring to the initial reluctance of the Arabs of invading Persia after annexing Mesopotamia:

      “After the conquest of Jalula, a Muslim force under Qa’qa marched in pursuit of the Persians. The Persian army that escaped from Jalaula took its position at Khaniqeen fifteen miles from Jalula on the road to Iran, under the command of General Mihran. Qa’qa defeated the Persian forces in the Battle of Khaniqeen and captured the city of Khaniqeen. The Persians withdrew to Hulwan. Qa’qa moved to Hulwan and laid siege to the city which was captured in January 638.[26] Qa’qa sought permission for operating deeper into Persian land, i.e. mainland Iran, but caliph Umar didn’t approve the proposal and wrote a historic letter to Saad saying:

      I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them.[27] The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war.”

      If this source is incorrect, I will stand corrected.

      Your point about Muslim invasion being more than merely Arabic is well-taken. Perhaps I should have widened my categorizations of these people as nonwhite Muslims. I do however continue to believe there is a powerful racial element behind this: the rapes, the savagery, the way they oppress their own…This is a very Middle Eastern and African thing. I find it hard to believe that religion alone can cause this behavior. Notice how Indonesian Muslims don’t behave this way. Notice also how European Christians no longer live according to the Book of Leviticus.

      Perhaps the Arabs were very peaceful 1400 years ago. I remain skeptical on this since being weak and disorganized and therefore militarily ineffectual does not make them necessarily peaceful. Perhaps Muhammad nurtured a bellicosity that was already there? In any case, 1400 years is a long time in human reckoning. Does it really matter how they were before? What’s more important is how they are now.

      • Arindam
        Posted April 14, 2016 at 3:21 am | Permalink

        Thanks for the reply.

        I took a look at that Wikipedia page – and found something interesting: there is only one source for that claim – ‘The Muslim Conquest of Persia’ – a book written by two Muslims – one of them a Pakistani military officer (A. I. Akram). This, in my view, immediately raises questions about the objectivity of this account, especially since Pakistanis are wont to embellish their own side by portraying Muslims as responding to aggression, rather than as aggressors.

        Intriguingly, I find absolutely no mention of this whatsoever in M. J. Akbar’s ‘The Shade of Swords’ – which also deals with the Islamic conquests, and is also written by a Muslim. Though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I do find it curious that it never crops up (especially since he mentions that Nehavend is regarded by Muslim chroniclers as ‘The Victory of Victories’).

        My view that the Arabs were ‘relatively peaceful’ prior to Islam is due to the following:

        1) The fact that at the time (in the early seventh century AD) when the Byzantines and Sassanids were at war, the pagan Arabs stood outside the fray (rather than getting directly involved as a more martial race would).

        2) Their reaction to the caravan raids by Mohammed and his followers – i.e. they mobilized against them and fought a number of battles with the early Muslims. If caravan raids were simply a part of their culture, their response would have been milder – maybe haggling with the Muslims over reparations.

        3) The violent revolt against Islam following the death of Mohammed. This, in my view, is a sign that the Arabs did not take kindly to Islam – that Islam was not a natural outcome of their earlier beliefs and customs. It was regarded as an alien imposition – hence the revolt.

        [Of course, this raises the question – if Islam does not come from the Arab culture, where does it come from? I believe there are another set of Semites who hold the answer to that.]

        Does it matter? In my view, it does. Portraying Islam as an ‘Arab national movement’ or as ‘Arab Imperialism’ (as Anwar Sheikh and V.S. Naipaul, respectively, do) gives it a certain respectability (which it does not deserve) -by putting it on par with other national movements and imperialisms. This is neither correct nor desirable.

        My own view is that it belongs in the same category as the Jewish revolt in Masada or the Tai’Ping rebellion in China – an outbreak of nihilistic, monotheist fanaticism that unfortunately, didn’t get suppressed (unlike the other two) and ended up getting established instead.

        • Spencer Quinn
          Posted April 15, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

          Hi Arindam,

          Thanks again for your points. Very interesting indeed! I am willing to be stand corrected about the conquest of Persia if the wiki source is as dubious as you say it is.

          Do you notice however that you seem to be arguing against yourself a little bit? One on hand, you argue that the Arabs were not reluctant to conquer Persia, which indicates their being warlike and aggressive. Then later you argue that the Arabs were *not* like that…that they were peaceful, so peaceful that they led a violent revolt against Islam after the death of Muhammad.

          Your position that we can blame Islam for all of this could very well be correct. I agree with your assessment that Islam is a “nihilistic, monotheist fanaticism.” But to say that Islam is entirely the reason why the Arabs, Turks, and other Muslims behave the way they do seems a little weak to me. Call it a hunch, because I cannot prove it. But it is my opinion that people simply don’t adhere to a doctrine, especially a violent, fanatical one, unless they already have genetic capability to be violent and fanatical to begin with. And not all of us have that.

          It’s chicken and egg sort of thing. For example, did more peaceful religions like Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism take hold in more peaceful populations because the populations were more peaceful to begin with? Or did these religions make people more peaceful?

          Or was it just Darwinian environmental pressures that changed people over time? Perhaps the majority of the pagan Arabs *were* peaceful as you say, but Muhammad and his warlike minority killed them all. That would certainly give the Arab population an evolutionary face-lift, wouldn’t you say?

          Genetics is usually my default when pondering such questions. Call it a kind of fatalism, but ultimately the genome is the arbiter of who we are both on the individual and population levels. I keep thinking of the so-called ‘warrior gene’ that scientists may have discovered among the Maori tribe in New Zealand. It represents that hardest evidence possible when explaining human behavior. It is also the most difficult to refute.

          • Arindam
            Posted April 15, 2016 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

            Yes, there is something I should clarify, otherwise what I said can seem contradictory: I refer to the pagan Arabs as ‘relatively peaceful’ – not absolutely peaceful. Even a relatively peaceful community can be driven to violence by sufficient aggravation/provocation, (for example, the Buddhists of Myanmar with regard to the Rohingya Muslims).

            The polytheist Arabs did respond violently to the banditry that the early Muslims indulged in – but this does not make them any more inherently ‘violent’ than any other society that responds to banditry with force (be it with the police or the army).

            The polytheist Arabs did revolt violently against Islam after Mohammed’s death: this was the pent-up rage of decent people who had seen their temples occupied and idols smashed by self-righteous fanatics who had slandered their ancestors (the Koran actually refers to the forefathers of the Arabs as ‘void of knowledge and guidance’ (Sura 5, Ayat 104 for example).) Needless to say, Europeans – in the face of similar Muslim misbehaviour can surely begin to understand their feelings.

            That said, a genetic theory could explain a lot. Perhaps a long period of prosperity and relative peace led to the expansion of the Arab population prior to the advent of Islam. Thus, a critical mass of say ‘violence- prone’ individuals arose (say 2% of the population; in the past this violent 2% was too small in number to form a critical mass; but once the total population reaches the hundreds of thousands or millions…). This critical mass was mobilized by Mohammed and his ‘companions’ and unleashed. It attained and secured political power – and then, spurred on by religious frenzy and its own inherent tendencies, invaded the neighbouring territories.

            At length, war took its toll, and the ‘violence prone’ population was diminished: more peaceful individuals (such as the caliph Muawiya – who justified bribing his foes, declaring ‘War costs more’) took charge, and things settled down again (the Umayyad period).

            However… the establishment of Islam as the dominant faith sowed the seeds of fanaticism for the future. I’m of the view that the entire history of the Arabs – and indeed, of Asia and Africa, would have been very different if Christianity rather than Islam had emerged supreme in the Middle East. Similarly, I suspect that a comparison between the Arab Christian and the Arab Muslim communities in the West, would reveal that Islam, rather than Arab culture, is the cause of strife.

    • Leon
      Posted April 13, 2016 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

      You’re wrong about Arabs. Before Islam they were not ‘peaceful polytheists’, they were raiders who largely subsisted on ambushing caravans in the desert and competing with tribes over the oases. Arab culture is the root of Muslim culture, and it all goes back to the (barbaric) traditions of the Bedouins.

      Also, what Spencer Quinn meant by ‘White Muslims’ I presume is historically-Muslim indigenous European groups like the Bosniaks and the Albanians, and although they do have somewhat a reputation for violence, so does that entire region. Quinn’s point is well taken that race is an inseparable part of the problem. European Muslims have never waged campaigns of conquest and extermination against their neighbors, and have always behaved in a more civilized way than Arabs and other non-European Muslims do now. This of course does not negate the fact that Islam is itself an evil and destructive ideology.

      • Spencer Quinn
        Posted April 15, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink

        Well said, Leon.

  5. Nero
    Posted April 13, 2016 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    “white Muslims have lived in Europe for centuries, and never behaved the way the Arabs are behaving.”

    Bosnia? Albania? And look at the Caucasus region(not Europe I know) with Chechnya.

    • Leon
      Posted April 13, 2016 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      What about Bosnia and Albania? They did not start those wars.

  6. Peter Quint
    Posted April 14, 2016 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    “There was a scene in which Martha and Ethan stare wordlessly at each other for a long time, right before he was about to depart to find Debbie. That’s what did it for me.”

    You are correct, this is the scene where Martha brings Ethan his coat. I am still leery, but later on during the first search to draw the men away from the ranches the Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton asks Ethan why he came back, he had been ready to chuck it in before the Civil War. I can envision a situation where Martha had been involved with both Nathan, and Aaron. Martha became impregnated with Nathan’s child, and chose Aaron because he was more reliable and tractable. Poor Aaron, unsuspecting, had been cuckold by Nathan. Nathan, feeling guilty and running off to the Civil War at the first opportunity, probably at some level hoping he would not survive. But, saying that, Debbie was still grown up when Ethan tried to kill her and it was several years later after the killing raid. It does add a lot of complexity to the characters and situation.

  7. Ragnvaldr
    Posted April 16, 2016 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    One cannot become connected to and strengthen the folk soul, when they are worshipping other peoples gods and pursuing other ethnic spiritualities.

    Once one goes on the journey of discovering who their ancestors were, discover the old ways of their pre-Christian indiginenous cultural identity, expression and beliefs.

    It is and will be the single most powerful awakening one can or ever will experience. So powerful in fact that transcontinental telepathy and the drawing of those for whom the gods and godesses have returned…is like coming home.

    No missionaries will call, no preachers will be sent, however by the gods its happening spontaneously at an accelerating pace…

    • Peter Quint
      Posted April 16, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      Well said! I do not need gods myself, I am a Nietzschean. Our children must be taught values, morals, and virtues from our own racial soul.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace