Remember the story of multiple blind men describing the part of the elephant they are feeling?
Medieval Europe was:
- “Anarchistic” politically (my own emphasis with “Medieval Anarchy”), that is, politically de-centralized
- ...and more!
However you want to think about it the "powers and principalities" (Ephesians 6:12) want to destroy it.
I find myself in alliance with all who want to save the elephant... No matter which part of the elephant they've gotten hold of.
Some of these allies have a purely racial focus. That is, this attack is only about people of other races attacking whites.1
Let me acknowledge right here that these friends are understandably sick and tired of people dancing around the racial aspect. (It is understandable why people do this! Our overlords have somehow made it toxic for us to talk about race while they talk about race constantly, in particular making explicit anti-white statements constantly.)
I am not here to dismiss the "White" part of the list above.
But here is the problem I see with a purely racial focus.
Let’s imagine that other races like what Europe built and just want to take it over.
It might look like this…
We don’t know exactly what gave Europe its success. Let's keep the Christianity, the rationalism and science, de-centralized polities as in the Middle Ages, relatively free markets, etc.
But we’ll just have brown people displace the white people so the brown people can get all the benefits of Europe's model.
The problem is that this is not what we're seeing.
All these aspects of our European heritage (and more that I haven’t thought of) have been under sustained attack for a couple hundred years at least… Before brown people, or even Jews, were players.
In fact, it looks to me that the racial attack on whites is a final stage of a series of attacks.
Rough estimates off the top of my head of when earlier attacks started:
Decentralization (medieval anarchism): Centralization in Europe goes back several hundred years at least.
Capitalism: Obviously by the time of Marx but there is a whole pre-history of socialism which Marx is coming out of (he derides his forebears as “utopian socialists”.) Note that Rothbard thinks it quite significant that the young Marx was already committed to Communism well before he got into economics and became well known. So by 1840 or earlier communism is out there enough for a Satanically2 inspired young Marx to commit to.
The key to the intricate and massive system of thought created by Karl Marx (1818-83) is at bottom a simple one: Karl Marx was a communist.3
Science: This is tricky since, as Hayek argues in The Counter-Revolution of Science4, “scientism” is really an attack on the West in the name of science. (Think of Marx's “scientific” socialism for example!) Seeing scientism for what it really was I could argue strongly for an early 19th century start if not earlier. The attack on science is now unmistakable. I can't resist quoting an amusing version of this attack:
mind was male. Nature was female, and knowledge was created as an act of aggression—a passive nature had to be interrogated, unclothed, penetrated, and compelled by man to reveal her secrets.5
Christianity: You could point to the rise of Protestants as breaking up the Medieval unity under the Catholic Church (or the split between eastern Orthodox and western Catholicism before that). You could start a bit later and look at the rise of serious revolts against all forms of Christianity like the attacks during the Age of Enlightenment and earlier. The 17th century would be a conservative starting point. By the 18th century you have Deists all over the American founding and the Cult of Reason after the French Revolution.
So here’s how I’m thinking about this from the perspective of my work on mass murder by states.6
First, you disarm the target population. This can be quite literally taking away means of self-defense but can also include property theft and, more squishy, “ideological disarmament”. Then you just outright start killing people in large numbers.
In many ways they got ahead of themselves with 20th century communism. It basically failed to destroy the medieval economic/property system in the West, mostly succeeding to the east in Russia and (briefly) Eastern Europe. So Gramsci smartly suggested backing off the property attack and shifting to a cultural attack.
None of this is to deny that, at this point, white people are under attack just for being white (that is, historic European peoples). But it is an attempt to place this attack as part of a larger narrative… An attack on Europe from all these angles culminating in a final stage of just outright displacing/murdering the historical European peoples (whites).
Crude! But there has been a long buildup.1
If you have no idea what I'm talking about with "other races attacking whites" then I suggest you look into the industrial-scale mass ethnic rape of primarily white English girls by primarily Pakistani men that has been going on in England for decades ("grooming gangs") and the murder of whites in South Africa ("farm murders"). There's much more! But that's a start.2
Richard Wurmbrand, Marx and Satan (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1986).3
Murray N. Rothbard, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought Volume II: Classical Economics (1995; Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006), p. 317.4
F. A. Hayek, The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1952; Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1980).5
Quoted from "A set of “feminist scholarship guidelines” sponsored by the state of New Jersey for its college campuses" in Murray N. Rothbard, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor" in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (1974; Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000), p. 290.6
Stephen W. Carson, "Stealing and Killing", Independent Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 381-395.