comment on the silence of the last few weeks before resuming my common activities on this site (which will be postponed anyway because the day after tomorrow I begin moving from a Mexican Indian village, where I live, to the capital where there are still some white Iberians).
I suppose the reason for the silence is that my neighbours north of the Rio Grande cannot conceive of someone south of the river speaking truths that, for American racialists, are still taboo. Therefore, I want to remind you that a few years ago, an American—although not a National Socialist—made critical comments about his nation’s project that, in some ways, converge with our approach. I am referring to the retired writer Michael O’Meara, whose articles we have summarised on this site. I will give just one example.
Michael O’Meara (1946-)
The white nationalist I respect the most is Kevin MacDonald. But MacDonald recently wrote in his webzine that he was disappointed with Trump for behaving like Bibi Netanyahu’s bitch, by declaring war on Iran with his bombings. Naturally, MacDonald used much more polite language than I did, but he confessed: “And on a personal note, I feel betrayed given that I have strongly supported Trump since he first ran”.
This would be inconceivable to Michael O’Meara! for the simple fact that, unlike the reactionaries on the American racial right, O’Meara is a revolutionary (the kind of revolutionarie I like: it’s not yet time for violence but our ideology must be revolutionary). What distinguishes O’Meara’s thinking from that of virtually every notable figure on today’s racial right is that, for Michael, “the greatest treason” consists precisely of hoping to use Establishment institutions to try to bring about substantial change. From this perspective, those in the American racial right who believe in democracy and capitalism (I would add the Christian churches) find themselves inadvertently betraying their goal: racial preservation.
While I won’t complain any further about the racialists who don’t comment on this site, I do suggest that those who remain silent reread some of O’Meara’s writing. And I’d love for someone who knows him personally to let me know what this man is up to these days, or if he’s still alive…
5 replies on “A final”
Five years ago an insightful commenter saw what I still don’t want to see!:
And ten years ago, another commenter wrote:
Recently, I heard that a people capable of revolution must first be capable of imagination.
America is the land where creativity is killed for the sake of profit. That’s why mainstream media produces degenerate music and art that is addictive and will keep them consuming, draining not only wealth but also mental energy that could be used to harvest original thoughts instead.
With a people like that, trying to ignite a revolution in America is like trying to ignite a warehouse full of gunpowder that has been thoroughly soaked.
Yesterday, I removed the links to several posts I wrote under the “Michael O’Meara” category (the thematic red letters above each entry) because they were unnecessarily critical of him, leaving only the best of Michael’s writing. Today, I’ll continue that work, as there are still many articles linked under that category.
I mention this because I think O’Meara hits the nail on the head with what you said; and his reading, written in much less abrasive prose than mine—and therefore more eloquent for the American palate—, should, at least in theory, start waking these people up.
I invite you to click on that category and read his articles when you have time. Unlike the conservatives who comment on racialist forums, O’Meara was a true intellectual.
I think I agree—they’re cowards in some sense. If it’s not intellectual cowardice over ‘difficult’ issues they ‘don’t like’—as if reality had to be in their favour to be discussed—it’s a straight-up lack of bravery towards what has to be done (as Gaedhal pointed out recently).
As it stands, not a single ‘Nationalist’ party in the UK takes anything but a pacifist stance. Rather than just being buoyed along by them, and held back, I’ve come to the conclusion that the majority—all—bog-standard right-wingers do still have that choice, and yet choose the pacifist option freely, thinking anything else either ‘silly’ (as if it would make them look bad?! who cares at that level?!) or ‘a waste of time’ (so, defeatist then) or ‘a bit much’ (so, morally wrong in some way). It’s all (tentatively) ‘encourage remigration!’ these days from them, not ‘butcher the enemy!’.
If Trump ever, just as a thought experiment, took the National Guard or the Marines, and had them shoot down all illegal immigrants residing in America, how would these cowards react? I’m imaging they’d call it a war crime, or a tragedy, or an ‘act of madness’, and treat Trump the way they treat Dylann Roof. That’s the level of idiots we’re dealing with.
By having him ‘sort it all out for them’, knowing he wouldn’t never pick that harsher option, they are safe and protected by the System, knowing that they never have to do anything against it of a serious nature, and, of course, that nothing will ever change, whilst still continuing their lucrative, showboating grift, desperate to be decent and popular.
Personally, in the UK at least, to confirm my speculations in my second paragraph, I’d love to know at full demographics how many of the right were affiliated directly with a political party and how many were free-standing. I think that would alter their ability to think/act significantly. Annoyingly, I get the idea that most have been snapped up, by one or other group, which then preaches this pacifism dogma to them from top level… and of course they don’t want to be chucked out, having replaced underlying white racial loyalty with in-group factional loyalty.
In general, as I wrote to you by email, I find it very easy to forget that there can be vast swathes like this, as I always imagine anyone coming to the site and commenting thinks pretty much like me. But they’re not like us. I imagine them threatened in some way also, or envious, or, somehow, just bored. Maybe they wanted a very slim topic-set to discuss, and when the issue proved deeper than the JQ they just lost their paradigm, and consequently didn’t know what to say, whilst still not quite wanting to adopt the new paradigm, or admit that they had been wrong.
It’s been slander, and insults and subtle ad hominems (or brusque, brute silence) for months—years probably—on end, but yes, they’ve yet to admit the obvious: their worldview is categorically—empirically proven—wrong. It’s the nature of ego.
A postscript to what I said above:
The fact that I’m now promoting Michael O’Meara’s writings doesn’t mean I completely agree with him. Let’s look, for example, at what O’Meara said in a book review:
O’Meara was anything but a reader of Nietzsche, who saw Christianity as the primary cause of European decline.