Concerned about the events of this month, I began my work this morning by visiting the main sites of white nationalism. I felt completely dehydrated when I ran into the usual: these guys are bourgeois to the core! Not even with this transitional government that will hand over all power to an anti-white mulatta after the senile man doesn’t run for a second term, do they speak like Aryans.
Desperate, in a search engine I typed the words ‘revolution’ and the name of the retired revolutionary writer ‘Michael O’Meara’. I came across an oasis in the desert! I am referring to the article I added today, ‘Against white reformists’, although I had already quoted some of those passages almost seven years ago. The first sentence of the article was the water that brought me back to life after wandering in the wasteland of white nationalism: ‘Almost as depressing as the thought of our people’s extinction is that of the white opposition to it’. But O’Meara is not perfect. He said:
The Modern West, unlike its Medieval and Ancient counterparts, has shed all sense of tradition, transcendence, and fidelity.
Although he wrote it in 2007, this shows that he was unaware of the real history of Christianity (‘unlike its Medieval and Ancient counterparts…’). In fact, the best way to understand what’s happening today—a passion to destroy the West—is to see it as the second round of the anti-white zeitgeist in vogue since the House of Constantine, which includes his sons, took over the Roman Empire. (New visitors to this site should read the linked masthead in the sidebar that I once tagged as ‘Apocalypse for whites’.) But O’Meara got this other passage right:
Our people face extinction, it follows, because the entire structure of Western life—culture, civilisation, economy, whatever you want to call it—betrays the defining essence of their being.
A huge flaw in American white nationalism, and this is one of O’Meara’s greatest insights, is that it isn’t enough to expose Jewry but rather the enablers of Jewry: the whites themselves. That happened from the bishops of the Constantine House to date.
The development of alternative media, consciousness raising, various local activities to defend white existence must, to start, give no credence to the reformist snare that the system can be made receptive to white interests. This illusion is the greatest treason.
This reminds me of what Greg Johnson said on his most recent podcast: that the only thing we can do is keep talking in the hope that someone in power will support us sooner or later: a feminine stance unworthy of a true Aryan. But Johnson is not alone. All the sites that were ‘dehydrating’ me in the morning say virtually the same thing. As O’Meara predicted, ‘Only a social crisis set off by some cataclysm that makes their normal way of life impossible will cause them to look for alternatives’, to which he adds:
The white race will be reborn, then, not by electing Congressmen, hiring lobbyists, and participating in a system that seeks its destruction, but by returning to its original self—and to the challenge of creating a new elite, a revolutionary vanguard morally and organisationally armed to stand against the Jewish age—so that when the foul system supporting it collapses in decay, there will be someone around to fight for our fair share of the spoils. It’s in this way that the nobles of blood and spirit are born and come to rule.
Yes: this is not the time to write the obituary of the white race as the dollar crisis that we have been talking about is getting closer and closer. And Biden or his current VP when she reaches the presidency will likely be the fallen guy when the American currency collapses. By the way, when in 2014 I had already quoted some passages from O’Meara’s article a commenter said: ‘O’Meara pretty well nailed the White apathy problem here. Whites are unlikely to act, except as a response to dire economic, social and political crises. They really have to realise that they are threatened, dispossessed and hungry, before they will act’.
Very true. And speaking of those who dehydrated me recently Richard Spencer confessed that he is interested in political stability (!!) in his country with the excuse that he has a family, etc. Wanting stability for the establishment is the greatest treason, as O’Meara would say.
Compare such bourgeois way of thinking with what I wrote, and quoted from a Game of Thrones fan, in November 2019 about Baelish’s words, Chaos is a ladder: The character Petyr Baelish, popularly called Littlefinger, is not my favourite. But his biography arc shows a kind of ruthless man to achieve his goals that currently doesn’t exist in the racialist world. Watch Littlefinger describing his philosophy of manipulation at a time when he was allied to the evil King Joffrey.
The ‘climb’ is a metaphor for achieving power, and the ladder—chaos—is how Littlefinger climbs. When things are in disarray it allows him to manipulate so that he is ahead. Chaos means the great houses overlook his birth (he wasn’t a noble), because they need him. It means they are weakened, so they are brought more to his level. Chaos provides opportunities for him to advance, because there are problems to be solved.
I wonder who among so-called nationalists wants System stability, and who craves for utter chaos so that those who fight shall share the spoils after the dollar crashes?