As we saw in Part I, the leftist definition of “love” is a blanket feeling of warmth and sympathy to everyone and everything, but especially things and people that are bad and harmful to you. That makes no sense at all. What should we love, really?
Popular admonitions in liberal culture include “Love your neighbor”, “Love your enemies” and “Love those that hate you.” All of these come from the Bible, but as quoted from the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on the Mount. They quote Jesus without the understanding that Jesus was quoting something else, the Old Testament.
“Love your neighbor” means- love your neighbor. A person in that context a person living near you, of your own nation. “Love your enemy” means- love your neighbor even if he is a person with whom you have rancor and dispute. One passage in the OT says if you come across the unattended ox or donkey of your enemy, you should lead it back to his house. This is a wise and just counsel- the animal may injure itself or be stolen by an unscrupulous person. Just because you have enmity towards someone you should not want them to suffer a serious financial loss. “Love those that hate you” means- love those in your community even if they have bad feelings for you. “Enemy” in the context of other nearby nations that are hostile means something else entirely, and the OT authorizes actions up to and including genocide to deal with outside threats.
So, we should love our families, and love our communities. This comes quite naturally to Europeans, as we built our civilization on cooperation and mutual assistance. There is a Pashtun saying- “Me against my brother. Me and my brother against our cousin. Me, my brother and my cousin against the world.” Hard to build more than mud huts on that philosophy. We love our family, community, and nation. These are all, naturally, ethnic and racial distinctions. The “multicultural” or multiracial nation is a modern lie. Empires have conquered nations, but while the Roman, Hapsburg and British empires controlled many nations, they never insisted on mixing them.
In addition to this, some cultures have an obligation on assisting strangers. A traveler without shelter in a hostile climate might die. Abuse of helpless travelers might make ones own at risk when traveling, so this sort of reciprocal assistance aids in establishing ties with other communities and nations.
Community is a matter of survival in hostile conditions, but the northern European version has a dark side to it. It has been described as “Jante law” and as part of maintaining a harmonious community, it insists that individuals don’t put themselves above the group in any way. George Orwell described something similar in English upper-class attitudes, a sort of taboo against rocking the boat.
These two last things- an obligation to help strangers in need and a prohibition against disturbing the social consensus- form a sort of “security hole” in European culture. Even the first, love of community, is problematic. If a group can be portrayed as strangers in need, whites can be pressured into assisting them. There is of course a great difference between one night of food and shelter and being a permanent guest. If a group can be portrayed as part of our community, whites will feel obligated to help them, although people of different races are not part of our community, just as we are not part of theirs. And if such attitudes can be portrayed as part of the legitimate social consensus, whites will be very reluctant to challenge them.
All this drives pro-white whites to distraction. We seem to be our own worst enemies, but our values are precious and the best thing about us. We must and will take care of our people. We will care for children because they are our future. We will care for the old because they contributed to what we have now. We will care for the weak until they get strong and the sick until they get better. We will care for the handicapped, but with the understanding they will make what contribution they can. We never have and should not support any freeloaders of our own and certainly not any freeloaders, especially hostile and predatory ones, of other nations and races.
Legitimate love extends concentrically outward from the family, community, and nation. The individual and family may need to sacrifice for the nation, because a legitimate nation protects the family and individual and allows them to exist. This does not include any modern state. We wish other nations well in their own territory and maintain peace with them if we can.
We can also not support people of our own race who are actively hostile towards it and working for people who want to harm it. This includes elite whites and their stooges.
Since active resistance is futile and dangerous, we need to concentrate on helping ourselves and each other and maintain a strategy of passive resistance towards the power structure.