On Resistance to Replacement by Force

The Morality of the Coming Long Struggle for the Survival and Dignity of Our Peoples

‘Violence is never the answer’, according to virtually everyone on the ‘right’, particularly when popular anger against one or other of the many evils of mass immigration spills over from words to action. We heard it most recently after the protests in Southampton over the despicable, anti-white behaviour of the police towards Henry Nowak, as they mocked and handcuffed while he bled to death. We hear it every time.

‘Violence achieves nothing’ is how many others express the same sentiment. Which is rather odd, since every scrap of history reminds us that ‘they’ – the various elites who are, or have at times been, our masters, ALWAYS use violence against us at home, and against those whom they deem to be their enemies abroad. The conditioning against violence is for us, not for those who rule us, or for those who enforce their rules.

Those in power routinely use violence, or the threat of violence, against us. And – with the exception of the all too rare elites genuinely influenced by traditional Christian teachings – every concession, every last shred of decency and justice which rulers have granted to their subjects, has been won not by polite requests and obedience to the law, but through violence, or the threat of violence.

All the rights we have already lost to the creeping tyranny of totalitarian liberalism were extracted from former elites by militant struggle, confrontation and martyrdom by our ancestors.

Those few rights which still remain were not given to us out of the goodness of the hearts of kings, popes, archbishops and politicians, but because there were more of ‘us’ than them, because ‘We the People’ organised to turn those numbers into power, and used force or the threat of force – sometimes implicit, often explicit – in order to compel them to do the decent thing.

Rights are never granted, they are taken. And if each generation does not organise to secure them then, sooner or later, they will be taken away. Such is the natural, eternal tension between those with formal and economic power, and the rest of the population.

‘Violence is never the answer’, say those who parrot the containment propaganda with which all citizens are brainwashed throughout their school years, continually reinforced by the elite’s media outlets, and by politicians who lecture us on the sacrosanct nature of peaceful submission, while constantly threatening us with the violence of their police, courts and prisons if we fail to obey their demands.

‘Violence is never the answer’ is at the dark heart of the conditioning process whereby We the People are trained from the start of our schooldays to obey and submit. It is one of the most ridiculous of the control myths they stuff into minds of the children groomed through the ‘education system’ to be obedient citizens. It is, needless to say, closely related to the tale that having a lifetime ration of pencil crosses, to use in elections dominated by plutocratic media outlets and social media algorithms, in some way gives you a say in the running of your country.

But here’s the plain truth: Violence is almost always their answer to their enemies – and, make no mistake, they know far better than we do that we are potentially their most dangerous enemies. This is true not just of the actual physical violence which the state and ruling class deploy through police batons and soldiers’ guns when all other means of persuasion and control fail.

Their courts and prisons are methods of compulsion as well. Their force is ritualised and legitimised by custom, and often by our own agreement, since it is often directed against individuals who thoroughly deserve it. But, if push comes to shove, the ruling regime will empty prison cells of real criminals, in order to free up space for political prisoners and those who dare to resist their nation-killing agenda. Their rule is enforced through violence.

‘Violence is never the answer.’ Really? Let us consider a few historical examples which give the lie to this convenient elite untruth.

Why do we in Britain have a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch? Because we cut the head off one king, chased another out of his kingdom, defeated him, his son and his grandson in a series of rebellions which lasted more than fifty years, and repeatedly slaughtered their supporters.

Did the United States celebrate the 250th anniversary of writing a polite letter to King George which persuaded him of the justice of releasing the colonies from his rule and from the financial death-grip of the Bank of England? Or is the United States an independent nation because American rebels threw tea into Boston harbour and then killed thousands of British soldiers and German mercenaries who were sent to crush them?

For that matter, how did a small group of colonies on the eastern seaboard expand until they stretched ‘from sea to shining sea’? By sitting down with the Red Indians and convincing them that they should stop butchering and scalping white settlers, and that they would be far better off accepting rule from Washington?

The abolition of slavery and the granting of votes to upper-class women before they were given to working-class men were changes advocated by peaceful argument. But that was not the only method used. Slavery was ended on the High Seas by the armed might of the Royal Navy. The Pankhursts and other feminist harridans pressed their case by smashing windows, burning down shops and churches, burning down Arsenal football ground, horsewhipping politicians and inventing the letter bomb.

The extreme physical force employed by the suffragettes is glossed over by the liberals who celebrate their victory, and it is clear that the positive work done by decent women during the First World War was far more important in winning the argument for votes for women than all the mayhem caused by the extremists. But they are liberal icons nonetheless.

Ulster stayed British in the early part of the 20th century not because the majority of her citizens desired it, or voted for it, but because they organised an army of 100,000 men, smuggled in 30,000 Mauser rifles and five million rounds of ammunition in one weekend, and made it clear that, if necessary, they would fight the entire British Empire, in order to resist Irish Home Rule.

On the other side of that fence, Irish independence came not from ballot boxes packed with Sinn Fein votes, but from the rifles, grenades and bombs of the Irish Brotherhood and the IRA. They never defeated the British, but the level of violence the Irish rebels applied, and the way they kept applying it, generation after generation, eventually helped to convince the Westminster elite to grant them the freedom which, more recently, their descendants so carelessly gave away to Brussels.

Coming right up to date, Sinn Fein/IRA now run the government of Northern Ireland. Not because of the reasonableness of their arguments, but because of the damage their bombs did to the City of London, and because the women of their community had more babies than the Prods.

The state of Israel was born out of the genocidal violence launched with the massacre at Deir Yassin. The Arabs weren’t convinced to share their land by gentle debate, but by having their throats cut and their corpses thrown down wells, compelling hundreds of thousands of terrified survivors to flee. The Zionist state was created through psychotic violence, and has been sustained and expanded by it ever since. Did you ever hear a British politician trying to tell the IDF that ‘violence never achieves anything’?

More mundanely, the entire liberal establishment romanticises the Stonewall riots whose violence marked a key point in the long cultural and legal war for the legalisation – and current exalted status – of homosexuality.

The most bestial violence becomes acceptable when the liberals agree with its aims and targets. The same elite who so often tell patriotic dissidents that ‘violence is never the answer’ stood foursquare behind the ANC when Winnie Mandela’s ‘football squad’ militia were busy placing burning tyres round the necks of Africans who refused to support their war against white minority rule.

I could give many more examples, but that should be enough. So let’s leave the final word on the verdict of History to the Communist theorist who was such a strong influence on the ’68 generation and their proteges who now run every institution in our society – Chairman Mao: ‘All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.’ Actually, as we will see, there are other sources of power, but that is what the left believe.

Force in all its forms determines relations between nations and governments, but also of the balance of power between governments and their subjects. Can you name any government that changed its fundamental direction, any oppressive system which reformed, any rights won by any oppressed people or group, without the use of force?

With the exception of Sweden granting independence to Norway, and the mutually agreed ‘Velvet Divorce’ between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the answer is ‘no’.

Now, before various fools and low-level touts start screaming ‘fedpost’, let me make one thing very clear: I am not calling for the use of violence. Not against either our oppressors or any of their pet ‘minorities’. Far from it.

In exploring this question in depth, we should start at the very top. If anyone really believes that violence is ‘never the answer’, yet claims to be a Christian, let them consider Jesus. Faced with the stinking corruption of the money-changers and the Sanhedrin’s hangers-on in the Temple, He didn’t waste time debating the problem. Christ didn’t try to convince them to mend their ways with kindly words.

He sat down and spent several hours braiding a cat of nine tails, a ferocious whip, then He rushed in, threw over the tables, and drove the crooks and hypocrites from the House of God with the lash. An act of premediated, calculated, morally inspired, ‘cold rage’.

I am not, however, going to argue that the violent example of our Lord gives us the right to turn to violence whenever we feel that our rights, or the boundaries of fairness, have been trampled upon.

Far from it; a proper understanding of the problems of oppression, resistance and violence tells us that physical violence must always be a last resort. It should also tell us that – even under a ruling elite which has empowered the invasion of our country and turned us into second-class citizens in our own land – we are, at the time of writing, nowhere near that point.

Let us move the discussion on from indoctrination and containment propaganda by doing away with the loaded term ‘violence’. Things will become much clearer if we instead use the neutral term ‘force’.

Next, let us recognise that, when it comes to human relationships, whether oppressing a people, securing rights or suppressing wrongdoing, there are two different categories of force: Physical Force and Moral Force.

They are of course related. In a savage world without rules or concern for consequences, moral force would count for nothing. In the diseased and dangerous world which exists in the brains of Nietzscheans, ‘Might is Right’ and moral force is some sort of weakness.

Strangely, this individualistic, anti-nationalist poison invariably infects the brains of the physically weakest and most mentally delicate specimens. Giving credence to the syphilitic Nietzsche (or, more accurately, to the works edited by his equally disturbed sister) is a vice of soft-handed intellectuals, so let’s recognise that moral force exists, and move swiftly on.

Good governments use moral force – custom, beliefs and institutions whose power rests largely on tradition and consent – to nudge their subjects into conformity with commonly agreed values. In a healthy society with a monocultural base, such moral power is enough to maintain order and good behaviour among the vast majority of the population.

The dual nature of the obligations and restrictions on state and governments are mirrored by those which apply to individuals, local communities and the nation. The state is ultimately subordinate to the nation; no government may place itself above the nation – the collective will of the majority, informed by loyalty to the legacy of the past and tempered by the interest of those still to be born.

In a good state, run for the current and future generations of the people who created it, and based on the customs and morality of their ancestors, citizens freely give their right to self-defence over to it. The right to declare and wage war becomes a matter for the head, rather than the body, of the nation. When a state goes bad, there comes a time when the people can and should take back their right to self-defence.

Similarly, with war, there can come a time when the state and its allies are so perverse, so wicked and so dangerous to the nation that it can become necessary to seek to turn its wars into a civil war, in which the nation overthrows the tyranny which, if left in charge, would bring all to ruin.

In a normal, healthy society, however, such drastic measures are wholly unnecessary. Physical force may properly be used by the state, although, in practice, it rarely is. It is generally deployed, with near unanimous popular support – only against those who break tradition and accepted norms. In a state whose laws grow from the people and tradition, only those who refuse to comply become outlaws.

Elite use of physical force beyond these traditional boundaries turns the state itself into the outlaw. Our ancestors groaned under, and fought to end, such evil in past centuries. The two-tier ‘anarcho-tyranny’ which is a noted feature of late-stage liberalism is an example from our own times.

This is not a matter of ‘moral force good, physical force bad’. There are times and places for each. Whether in an argument between two individuals, two communities, a people and their government, or two states, there is invariably the option of using moral force or physical force. The question of which should be used and when, was developed most fully in the traditional Christian doctrine of the ‘Just War’.

As we will see, the theory set out by the Church Fathers is every bit as valid for nationalists and traditionalists up against the repressive force of the liberal state and the violence of its favoured client minorities, as it is in the case of quarrels between nations.

Christian Just War theory developed as an attempt to reconcile the Christian commitment to peace with the reality that governments may sometimes need to use force to protect the innocent and preserve justice. It was part of the broader Church effort to house-train the Dark Age warlords, a feat without which High Medieval Europe could not have been created. The theory was shaped primarily by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

According to their traditional theory, a war must satisfy several criteria before it can be considered morally justified. First, there must be a ‘just cause’, such as self-defence against aggression or the protection of innocent people from grave harm.

Second, the war must be declared by a ‘legitimate authority’, typically a recognised government rather than private individuals or groups.

Third, those waging war must possess ‘right intention’. The aim should be the restoration of peace and justice, not revenge, conquest, or economic gain.

Additional criteria were developed over time. War should be a ‘last resort’, undertaken only after peaceful alternatives such as negotiation or diplomacy have been seriously attempted. There must be a ‘reasonable chance of success’, since launching a hopeless conflict that causes suffering without achieving its goals would be immoral.

Finally, the expected good achieved by the war must be ‘proportional’ to the harm it will cause. The Church Fathers were far too worldly wise to believe the old lies about war being ‘glorious’.

Just War theory also places moral limits on conduct during war (‘jus in bello’). Combatants must distinguish between military targets and non-combatants, and force used must be proportionate to the military objective. Deliberate attacks on civilians are morally unacceptable.

In summary, traditional Christian Just War theory holds that war is never a positive good in itself, but may be morally permissible under strict conditions. A just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, probability of success, proportionality, and respect for non-combatants are the key criteria that must be met for a war to be considered ‘just’ within the Christian tradition.

‘Just War’ theory is not generally taught in state-approved education systems. For one thing, it’s rather too complicated for dumbed-down modern brains. More important is the fact that an appreciation of what constitutes a ‘Just War’ rapidly produces the understanding that the vast majority of the wars waged by successive elites in our name, and with our blood and our taxes, are thoroughly unjust – and thus illegitimate. Which is why they are always preceded, sustained and excused by warmongering propaganda and fictitious atrocity stories.

The most important contribution to ideas on the subject in recent times is On Resistance to Evil by Force, in which Ivan Ilyin sought to provide moral support for the anti-Bolshevik struggle. As the White Russians called for armed resistance to Lenin’s coup d’etat and the depraved brutality of Bolshevism, Ilyin set out to answer the question that had become particularly urgent in the aftermath of revolution and civil war: What is the moral duty of a Christian when confronted by real evil?

His work was written largely in response to the Christian pacifism of Leo Tolstoy, whose interpretation of the Gospel emphasised non-resistance to evil and the rejection of all violence. While Ilyin admired the moral seriousness and sincerity of this position, he asserted that it failed to reckon adequately with the reality of evil and the obligations that human beings owe to one another.

Evil, Ilyin maintains, can be real, deliberate, destructive and implacable. Some individuals and movements consciously seek domination, cruelty, and the destruction of moral order.

In such circumstances, he argues, appeals to conscience, persuasion, and personal example may prove insufficient. A person who encounters evil cannot always overcome it through passive endurance alone.

A person who refuses to resist an aggressor may keep his own hands clean, but in doing so he leaves the innocent undefended. Christian love, in Ilyin’s view, is not merely a matter of refusing to do harm; it also requires the active protection of others. Under certain circumstances, therefore, resistance to evil may require coercion and even physical force.

Yet Ilyin is careful not to portray violence as something good in itself. Force remains a tragic necessity rather than a positive moral achievement. The soldier, police officer, judge, or citizen who acts to restrain evil does not escape moral burden simply because his cause is just. The use of force inevitably involves suffering, guilt, and spiritual danger, but it remains – in the face of genuine evil – a moral necessity.

This understanding extends to political authority. Ilyin argues that the state exists in part to restrain evil and preserve the conditions necessary for moral and social life. Courts, police, armies, and other institutions of coercion perform an indispensable function.

A society which renounced all forms of force would not become a realm of universal peace; rather, it would leave itself vulnerable to those without scruples or compassion. The existence of lawful authority is therefore justified not by a desire for domination but by the need to defend justice and protect the innocent.

Themes of conscience, sacrifice, responsibility, and moral burden occupy a central place in Ilyin’s argument. The defender of justice appears not as a triumphant hero but as a tragic figure who accepts painful duties for the sake of protecting others.

On Resistance to Evil by Force is an attempt to grapple with a profound moral dilemma. Ilyin sought to explain how a Christian could remain faithful to the demands of love while acknowledging the existence of genuine evil in the world. His answer was that love sometimes requires resistance and that resistance may sometimes require force. Such force is never pure, never desirable for its own sake, and never free from moral cost. Yet in a fallen world, he believed, a refusal to oppose evil can itself become a form of moral failure.

Thus, far from force never being the answer, in a Fallen World, in which evil is rampant, force is very often the answer.

When faced with real evil, it is refusal to use force which is impermissible. Knowing the intended audience of this essay, I will take it as a given that you already understand that there have been few things in History more evil than the systematic and sustained effort to impose policies and conditions which are ethnocidal, arguably even genocidal, on the English, the other home nations, and all the other peoples of European descent who make up no more than 8% of the world’s population.

It would be evil if done to any of the divinely-ordained separate nations or peoples of humanity. It is doubly so since the targets have, over many centuries, produced the highest expressions of religious and political thought, architecture, music, art, culture, technology, law and decency ever seen on God’s good earth.

We are not merely entitled to defend our people, we are duty-bound and morally compelled to do so, since decades of trying to do so through appeals to reason and fairness have manifestly failed. A poisonous cocktail of greed, ideology, racial hatred, religious bigotry, power-mania and jealousy in an interconnected network of elite groups – together with many failings of our own – has marked our peoples for dispossession, replacement and elimination.

Complaining about the Great Replacement is no longer sufficient. Force is required. The only question is: What sort of force? Politics being in itself a form of warfare, this question can only be answered properly by reference to Just War theory.

We have already seen that there are six principal requirements for a Just War, and understood that they are every bit as applicable to tensions and conflict within nations as well as between them. Let us look briefly at each in turn, and decide whether the threshold has been crossed:

First, there must be a ‘just cause’. We hold it to be self-evident that securing a future for our kinsfolk does indeed qualify.

Second, the war must be declared by a ‘legitimate authority’, typically a recognised government rather than private individuals or groups. Equally clearly, this is not the case. However, taken literally, it would make resistance to the most monstrous and brutal tyranny impossible. A tyrant might be elected, supported by the leaders of the mainstream churches, backed by the whole of the plutocratic media and funded by the richest corporations.

In strictly legal terms, he and his supporters would form the only ‘legitimate authority’, but once his regime starts robbing and oppressing people, is it necessary to wait until it begins torturing them to death, or until one of the bought-and-paid-for bishops finally finds the courage to speak out, before taking steps to end his tyranny? Of course not! And, when the ‘rebellion’ in question fits with the liberal agenda, our masters certainly have no such scruples – just check out the terrorist activities of the Communist bomber Nelson Mandela, and his ‘necklace’-happy wife.

The ‘legitimate authority’ in our case is provided not by the voice of a pope or bishop, or a high-profile political opponent of the regime. As nationalists, we understand that tradition gives voices and moral votes to the dead of our folk, and enfranchises the unborn of the nation too.

Despite decades of deliberate dumbing down and deracination of our education system, despite years of liberal brainwashing, we – and growing millions – know what freedom really means, and which freedoms must never be relinquished.

We know who are ‘our people’, who we are prepared to accept as permanent guests, and who should be on the first plane out. We know the difference between legitimate ‘free enterprise’ and corporate looting. We know the difference between tolerance of the odd and the essentially harmless, and surrender to foul and dangerous perversions.

We know this from what we feel in our own bones, but also by giving due consideration to the writings and example of past heroes of our people’s long struggle against oppression and looting by previous elites every bit as wicked, albeit in somewhat different ways, to that under whose heel our folk suffer in our own time.

The great William Cobbett, for example, wrote in his epic and indispensable Rural Rides:

“The people have (the right) to insist upon measures necessary to restore the greatness and happiness of the country”, and if our rulers “show not that disposition, it will be my bounden duty to endeavour to rive (them) from the possession of power.”

We know, in short, that the time has come for resistance, and we do not need anyone’s permission to organise for resistance and to begin its goodly – and Godly – work.

Third, those waging war must possess ‘right intention’. The aim should be the restoration of peace and justice, not revenge, conquest, or economic gain.

Now, we have to face the truth: There are some among the indigenous would-be resistance who have already been driven mad by the injustice of what has already been done to our people and by the fear of what is yet to come. Repression has already begun the familiar cycle of alienation, hatred, violence and more repression. There are some out there, people who parrot what we say, or preach hatred and impossible ‘solutions’, because such soundbites get them hits and make them money.

The vast majority of people in our wavelength, however, are motivated by completely legitimate grievances and genuine fears and aspirations. ‘Right intention’ is indeed all present and correct.

The road to Hell is, however, paved with good intentions, and even when these conditions are met, it is still not enough. War – and, in internal affairs, physical force short of war – must be a ‘last resort’. It must be undertaken only after peaceful alternatives such as negotiation or diplomacy have been seriously attempted.

Among the alternatives open to a people in legitimate struggle against unjust government, moreover, are various moral force tactics which are not available in the case of clashes between nations.

Do not be confused by that word ‘moral’. Yes, moral force does include rational argument – the works of Thomas Paine, for example, played a major role in the success of the American revolution against King George. It takes in all sorts of things, including appeals to the better nature of the rulers and their enforcers, mass prayer, hunger strikes, having extra babies, and protests which remain peaceful even in the face of brutal provocation and repression.

One of the best examples of this is also in our native tradition of resistance to tyranny. Shelley’s Masque of Anarchy was written in 1819, in direct response to the Peterloo Massacre, where cavalry charged a peaceful crowd demanding parliamentary reform, killing around 18 people and injuring hundreds. It includes a call to passive resistance which predated, for example, Gandhi, by more than a century:

Stand ye calm and resolute,

Like a forest close and mute,

With folded arms and steady eyes,

And little fear, and less surprise,

Look upon them as they slay

Till their rage has passed away.

Then they will return with shame

To the place from which they came,

And the blood thus shed will speak

In hot blushes on their cheek.

Every woman in the land

Will point at them as they stand.

They will hardly dare to greet

Their acquaintance in the street.

And the boldest will turn pale,

When they hear the people tell

Of the meeting, and the rout,

And the trampling, and the shout,

And the cry of “Liberty!”

‘Ye are many—they are few’, the poet concluded, echoing the position of Etienne de Boetie as he sought to galvanise the French against absolute monarchy.