web analytics

Category: Michael O’Meara

Categories
Evil Michael O'Meara

America’s

unpardonable crime

Or:

In committing the matricide of Europe
Americans heaped-up their own funeral pyre

 

On June 5, 2012 I reposted this article, originally posted on Counter-Currents, that is worth reposting in 2025 because I just realised that it was lost when I migrated it from WordPress, and although I just restored it, I just saw on my stats page that one visitor didn’t manage to see it today.

In 2012 I still believed it was possible to save the US, and even considered myself a radical white nationalist. It’s been a dozen years since we reposted it from C-C, and in the comments section of the old incarnation of this site, Sebastian Ronin commented:

As eloquent and penetrating as O’Meara can be, even he is blind to the blind spot, re “At that moment, white Americans will be called on, as New World Europeans.”

Amerika is a racial and cultural abortion. The scalpel of pop culture has performed a lobotomy on racial memory, with the full and eager endorsement of the patient. There can be no “European Amerikans” nor “New World Europeans.”

It’s amazing how I’ve changed since 2012. I now see NS and WN as very different animals. Anyway, Michael O’Meara, the best author C-C had in the past, wrote:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
In the Summer of 1942—while the Germans were at the peak of their powers, totally unaware of the approaching fire storm that would turn their native land into an inferno—the philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote (for a forth-coming lecture course at Freiberg) the following lines, which I take from the English translation known as Hölderlin’s Hymn “The Ister”:[1]

“The Anglo-Saxon world of Americanism”—Heidegger noted in an aside to his nationalist/ontological examination of his beloved Hölderlin—“has resolved to annihilate Europe, that is, the homeland, and that means: [it has resolved to annihilate] the commencement of the Western world.”

In annihilating the commencement (the origins or breakout of European being)—and thus in annihilating the people whose blood flowed in American veins—New World Europeans, unknowingly, destroyed the essence of their own being—by disowning their origins—denigrating the source of their life-form, denying themselves, thus, the possibility of a future.

“Whatever has commencement is indestructible.”

Americans destined their self-destruction by warring on their commencement—by severing the root of their being.

But Europe—this unique synergy of blood and spirit—cannot be killed, for her essence, Heidegger tells us, is the “commencement”—the original—the enowning—the perpetual grounding and re-asserting of being.

Europe thus always inevitably rises again and again—like she and her bull from under the waters, which sweep over her, as she undauntedly plunges into what is coming.

Her last stand is consequently always her first stand—another commencement—as she advances to her origins—enowning the uncorrupted being of her beginning—as she authenticates herself in the fullness of a future which enables her to begin over and over.

______ 卐 ______

 
The opposite holds as well.

America’s annihilation of her commencement revealed her own inherent lack of commencement.

From the start, her project was to reject her European origins—to disown the being that made her who she was—as her Low Church settlers pursued the metaphor of Two Worlds, Old and New.

For Heidegger, America’s “entry into this planetary war is not [her] entry into history; rather, it is already, the ultimate American act of American ahistoricality and self-devastation.”

For having emerged, immaculately conceived, from the jeremiad of her Puritan Errand, America defined herself in rejection of her past, in rejection of her origins, in rejection of her most fundamental ontological ground—as she looked westward, toward the evening sun and the ever-expanding frontier of her rootless, fleeting future, mythically legitimated in the name of an “American Dream” conjured up from the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

Americans, the preeminent rational, rootless, uniform homo oeconomics, never bothered looking ahead because they never looked back. Past and future, root and branch—all pulled up and cut down.

No memory, no past, no meaning.

In the name of progress—which Friedrick Engels imagined as a “cruel chariot riding over mounds of broken bodies”—American being is dissolved in her hurly-burly advance toward the blackening abyss.

Yet however it is spun, it was from Europe’s womb that Americans entered the world and only in affirming the European being of their Motherland and Fatherhood was there the possibility of taking root in their “New” World—without succumbing to the barbarians and fellaheen outside the Mother-soil and Father-Culture.

Instead, America’s founders set out to reject their mother. They called her Egyptian or Babylonian—and took their identity—as the “elect,” the “chosen,” the “light to nations”—from the desert nomads of the Old Testament—alien to the great forests of our Northern lands—envious of our blue-eye, fair-hair girls—repelled by the great-vaulted heights of our Gothic Cathedrals.

The abandonment of their original and only being set Americans up as the perpetual fixers of world-improvement—ideological champions of consummate meaninglessness—nihilism’s first great “nation”.

______ 卐 ______

 
While Heidegger was preparing his lecture, tens of thousands of tanks, trucks, and artillery pieces started making their way from Detroit to Murmansk, and then to the Germans’ Eastern front.

A short time later, the fires began to fall from the sky—the fires bearing the curse of Cromwell and the scorched-earth convictions of Sherman—the fires that turned German families into cinders, along with their great churches, their palatial museums, their densely packed, sparkling-clean working-class quarters, their ancient libraries and cutting-edge laboratories.

The forest that took a thousand years to become itself perishes in a night of phosphorous flames.

It would be a long time—it hasn’t come yet—before the Germans—the People of the Center—the center of Europe’s being—rise again from the rubble, this time more spiritual than material.

______ 卐 ______

 
Heidegger could know little of the apocalyptic storm that was about to destroy his Europe.

But did he at least suspect that the Führer had blundered Germany into a war she could not win? That not just Germany, but the Europe opposing the Anglo-American forces of Mammon would also be destroyed?
 

______ 卐 ______

 
“The concealed spirit of the commencement in the West will not even have the look of contempt for this trial of self-devastation without commencement, but will await its stellar hour from out of the releasement and tranquility that belong to the commencement.”

An awakened, recommencing Europe promises, thus, to repudiate America’s betrayal of herself—America, this foolish European idea steeped in Enlightenment hubris, which is to be forgotten (as a family skeleton), once Europe reasserts herself [emphasis added by Ed.].

In 1942, though, Heidegger did not know that Europeans, even Germans, would soon betray themselves to the Americans, as the Churchills, Adenauers, Blums—Europe’s lickspittle—rose to the top of the postwar Yankee pyramid designed to crush every idea of nation, culture, and destiny.

That’s Europe’s tragedy.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Once Europe awakes—it will one day—she will re-affirm and re-assert herself—no longer distracted by America’s glitter and tinsel, no longer intimidated by her hydrogen bomb and guided missiles—seeing clearly, at last, that this entertainment worthy of Hollywood conceals an immense emptiness—her endless exercises in consummate meaninglessness.

Incapable therefore of beginning again, having denied herself a commencement, the bad idea that America has become is likely, in the coming age of fire and steel, to disintegrate into her disparate parts.

At that moment, white Americans will be called on, as New World Europeans, to assert their “right” to a homeland in North America—so that there, they will have a place at last to be who they are.

If they should succeed in this seemingly unrealizable fortune, they will found the American nation(s) for the first time—not as the universal simulacrum Masons and deists concocted in 1776—but as the blood-pulse of Europe’s American destiny.

“We only half-think what is historical in history, that is, we do not think it at all, if we calculate history and its magnitude in terms of the length… of what has been, rather than awaiting that which is coming and futural.”

Commencement, as such, is “that which is coming and futural”—that which is the “historical in history”—that which goes very far back and is carried forward into every distant, unfolding future—like Pickett’s failed infantry charge at Gettysburg that Faulkner tells us is to be tried again and again until it succeeds.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
“We stand at the beginning of historicality proper, that is, of action in the realm of the essential, only when we are able to wait for what is to be destined of one’s own.”

“One’s own”—this assertion of ourselves—Heidegger contends, will only come if we defy conformity, convention, and unnatural conditioning to realize the European being, whose destiny is ours alone.

At that moment, if we should succeed in standing upright, in the way our ancestors did, we will reach ahead and beyond to what is begun through every futuristic affirmation of who we European-Americans are.

This reaching, though, will be no “actionless or thoughtless letting things come and go… [but] a standing that has already leapt ahead, a standing within what is indestructible (to whose neighborhood desolation belongs, like a valley to a mountain).”

For desolation there will be—in this struggle awaiting our kind—in this destined future defiantly holding out a greatness that does not break as it bends in the storm—a greatness certain to come with the founding of a European nation in North America—a greatness I often fear that we no longer have in ourselves and that needs thus to be evoked in the fiery warrior rites that once commemorated the ancient Aryan sky gods, however far away or fictitious they have become.

—Winter 2010

_______________

[1] Martin Heidegger, Hölderlin’s Hymn ‘The Ister’, trans W. McNeill and J. Davis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), p. 54ff.

Categories
Michael O'Meara

Malaise

Our present malaise, I would argue, stems less from these ideological influences [JQ, capitalism, etc.] than from a more recent development—the Second World War—whose world-transforming effects were responsible for distorting and inverting our already tenuous relationship to Europe.

—Michael O’Meara

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Michael O'Meara Racial right

Deep, deep within

Judeo-centric white nationalism is just another variant of the prevailing country-club conservatism.

—Michael O’Meara

The O’Meara article linked in my post yesterday is basic, I said, to understand our point of view. In case something happens to Counter-Currents, where the article is hosted, I copied it for this site. Although C-C’s images are absent from our copy, you can read the 2011 comments in that copy’s thread.

If one reads the article carefully one will notice that, with his critique of Anglo-American capitalism, O’Meara unwittingly placed himself close to the young Hitler we were talking about yesterday in the context of Brendan Simms’ book. O’Meara even presents us with a competing paradigm to Kevin MacDonald’s: the paradigm that currently represents, shall we say, orthodoxy in American white nationalism. O’Meara said:

…anti-Semites prefer to indulge in fairy tales about “cultural Marxism” and the Frankfurter bogey man—unconscious of or uninterested in the larger subversion.

The larger subversion! (this smells like the content of The West’s Darkest Hour). Too bad that, because of his Irish Catholicism, O’Meara didn’t admire Hitler. Several years ago I asked in a thread on this site why Solzhenitsyn didn’t espouse Hitler’s cause if both Solzhenitsyn and Hitler wanted to destroy the Soviet Union. An English commenter replied that, for axiological reasons, Solzhenitsyn’s Christianity prevented him from doing so. I think that although Solzhenitsyn was an Orthodox Christian and O’Meara a Catholic Christian, the commenter’s response is accurate. In the 2011 thread on C-C, O’Meara continued:

Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves NOTHING (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de- Europeanization of the American people.

We have focused on the Christian Question on this site because it is a taboo subject among many on the American racial right. But O’Meara, like Hitler, was absolutely right to mention other factors. For example, when I read MacDonald’s entire trilogy on Jewry, after finishing the third one I was left with the impression that his analysis—basically blaming the Jews for the West’s dark hour—fell short. Those were times when I considered myself a white nationalist, before I began to harbour some doubts about that simplistic explanation. O’Meara was one of the intellectuals who began to broaden my perspective.

I think the discussion thread in that relatively old C-C article is paradigmatic in terms of how, unlike O’Meara, white nationalists don’t want to look in the mirror. O’Meara stopped being active on racial right forums when he realised that American racialists weren’t going to abandon their monocausal dogma. Something similar happened with the retired blogger Sebastian Ronin, whom I mentioned in my recent entry on the 42 films I will no longer review individually. The following year of the discussion in C-C, Ronin wrote: ‘The betrayal of the White European race stems from deep, deep within, so deep that it is not visible or obvious for most’, and then added:

The first step of the revolution does not begin with the expedient and safe blurting of Jew, Jew, Jew; that is after the fact. The first step of the revolution begins upon the surface of a mirror to identify the source of weakness that has allowed the penetration of an alien and poisonous spirit.

Looking in the mirror is precisely what I try to do with my autobiographical books. Hopefully, the lengthy review I will be doing of Simms’ book will do something to broaden the POV of the common racialist, insofar as Hitler’s meta-perspective was certainly broader than the short-sighted perspective of those who criticised O’Meara in C-C, including Johnson.

Categories
Michael O'Meara Vladimir Putin

Putin vs. Murka

by Michael O’Meara

Editor’s note: In yesterday’s post I mentioned Michael O’Meara. While it is true what I said about his Christian sympathies, as can be seen in the article below, this piece by O’Mearea from nearly a decade ago is surprisingly topical, and helps us understand what is going on these turbulent days.

Originally published in Counter-Currents on 7 October 2013 under the heading ‘Too Much Putin?’, it also helps us understand how that webzine’s editor, Greg Johnson, has (like Richard Spencer) betrayed the cause by taking the wrong side in the recent conflict in Ukraine. Unlike this pair, in the first paragraph my red emphasis on the author’s words indicates why I believe the issue of these days in Ukraine is of vital importance:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

US hegemony may be approaching its end. Once the world refuses to acknowledge the imperial authority of its humanitarian missiles, and thus stops paying tribute to its predatory model of the universe, then American power inevitably starts to decline—and not simply on the world stage, but also domestically, among the empire’s subjects, who in the course of the long descent will be forced to discover new ways to assert themselves.

Historically, America’s counter-civilizational system was an offshoot of the Second World War, specifically the US conquest of Europe — which made America, Inc. (Organized Jewry/Wall Street/the military-industrial complex) the key-holder not solely to the New Deal/War Deal’s Washingtonian Leviathan, but to its new world order: an updated successor to Disraeli’s money-making empire, upon which the sun never set.[1]

The prevailing race-mixing, nation-destroying globalization of the last two and a half decades, with its cosmopolitan fixation on money and commerce and its non-stop miscegenating brainwashing, is, as such, preeminently a product of this postwar system that emerged from the destruction of Central Europe and from America’s Jewish/capitalist-inspired extirpation of its European Christian roots.[2]

The fate of white America, it follows, is closely linked to the “order” the United States imposed on the “Free World” after 1945 and on the rest of the world after 1989. This was especially evident in the recent resistance of the American “people” to Obama’s flirtation with World War III—a resistance obviously emboldened by the mounting international resistance to Washington’s imperial arrogance, as it (this resistance) momentarily converged with the worldwide Aurora Movements resisting the scorched-earth campaigns associated with US power.[3]
 

* * *

 
Everyone on our side recognizes the ethnocidal implications of America’s world order, but few, I suspect, understand its civilizational implications as well as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

On September 19, barely a week after our brush with the Apocalypse, the Russian president delivered an address to the Valdai International Discussion Club (an international forum on Russia’s role in the world), which highlighted the extreme degree to which Putin’s vision of world order differs from that of Obama and the American establishment.[4] Indeed, Putin’s entire line of thought, in its grasp of the fundamental challenges of our age, is unlike anything to be found in the discourse of the Western political classes (though from the misleading reports in the MSM on his Valdai address this would never be known).[5]

Putin, to be sure, is no White Nationalist and thus no proponent of a racially-homogeneous ethnostate. This makes him like everyone else. Except Putin is not like everyone else, as we’ll see.

Certain East Europeans, instinctively anti-Russian, like our Cold War “conservatives,” refuse to appreciate Russia’s new international role because of historical grievances related to an earlier legacy of Tsarist or Soviet imperialism (though their grievances, they should know, bear little comparison to those “We Irish” hold against the English ruling class). In any case, such tribal grievances are not our concern, nor should they prevent the recognition that East Europeans and Russians, like Irish and English—and like all the national tribes belonging to that community of destiny distinct to the white man—share a common interest (a life-and-death interest) in being all prospective allies in the war against the globalist forces currently assaulting them in their native lands.

It’s not simply because Russia is anti-American that she is increasingly attractive to the conscious remnants of the European race in North America (though that might be reason enough). Rather it’s that Russia, in defying the globalist forces and reaffirming the primacy of her heritage and identity, stands today for principles that lend international legitimacy—and hence a modicum of power—to patriots everywhere resisting the enemies of their blood.

* * *

 
Qualitative differences of world-shaping consequence now clearly separate Russians and Americans on virtually every key issue of our age (more so than during the Cold War)—differences in my view that mark the divide between the forces of white preservation and those of white replacement, and, more generally, between the spirit of European man and the materialist, miscegenating depravity of the US system, which approaches the whole world as if it were a flawed and irredeemable version of itself.

In this sense, the decline of American global power and the rising credibility of Russia’s alternative model can only enhance the power of European Americans, increasing their capacity to remain true to their self-identity. US imperial decline might even eventually give them a chance to take back some of the power that decides who they are.

Putin’s discourse at the Valdai Club addressed issues (to paraphrase) related to the values underpinning Russia’s development, the global processes affecting Russian national identity, the kind of 21st-century world Russians want to see, and what they can contribute to this future.

His responses to these issues were historically momentous in being unlike anything in the West today. Cynics, of course, will dismiss his address as mere PR, though the Russian leader has a documented history of saying what he thinks—and thus ought not be judged like American politicians, who say only what’s on the teleprompter and then simply for the sake of spin and simulacra.

Foremost of Russia’s concerns, as Putin defined it in his address to the club’s plenary session, is “the problem of remaining Russian in a globalizing world hostile to national identity.” “For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society.” In a word, Putin sees identitarianism as the central concern of Russia’s “state-civilization,” (something quite staggering when you consider that the very term [“identitarianism”] was hardly known outside France when I started translating it a decade ago). Identitarianism in the 21st century may even, as Putin implies, prove to be what nationalism and socialism were to the 20th century: the great alternative to liberal nihilism.

Like Bush, Clinton, or other US flim-flam artists, Obama could conceivably mouth a similar defense of national identity if the occasion demanded it, but never, not in a thousand years, could he share the sentiment motivating it, namely the sense that: “It is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural, and national self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor will we succeed in global competitions.”[6]

The operative term here is “spiritual, cultural and national self-determination”—not diversity, universalism, or some putative human right; not even money and missiles—for in Putin’s vision, Russia’s historical national, cultural, and spiritual identities are the alpha and omega of Russian policy. Without these identities and the spirit animating them, Russia would cease to be Russia; she would be nothing—except another clone of America’s supermarket culture. With her identity affirmed, as recent events suggest, Russia again becomes a great power in the world.

The question of self-determination is necessarily central to the anti-identitarianism of our global, boundary-destroying age. According to Putin, Russia’s national identity

is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times [1917 and 1991]. The result was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face.

Then, following the Soviet collapse of 1991, Putin says:

There was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology [promoted by Wall Street and certain free-market economists with Jewish names], would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite—those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.

Putin here has obviously drawn certain traditionalist conclusions from the failings of the former Communist experiment, as well as from capitalism’s present globalizing course.

A new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character… [It’s an integral part of every true nation.]

The former Communist KGB officer (historical irony of historical ironies) stands here on the stump of that political/cultural resistance born in reaction to the French Revolution and its destruction of historical organisms.

In developing new strategies to preserve Russian identity in a rapidly changing world, Putin similarly rejects the tabula rasa contentions of the reigning liberalism, which holds that you can “flip or even kick the country’s future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything…” Like Burke, he in effect condemns the “junta of robbers” seeking to rip the traditional social fabric for the sake of short term profit, as these money-grubbers prepare the very revolution they dred.

Programmatically, this means:

Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity [against which America’s counter-civilizational system relentlessly schemes] are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic.” [That is, only Russians, not Washington or New York, ought to have a say in determining who or what a Russian is.]

Self-criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive. [These sorts of havoc-wreaking critiques are evident today in every Western land. Without loyalty to a heritage based on blood and spirit, Russians would be cast adrift in a historyless stream, like Americans and Europeans.] We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward…

The challenges to Russia’s identity, he specifies, are

linked to events taking place in the world [especially economic globalization and its accompanying destruction of traditional life]. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious, and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people [i.e., the Americans and their vassals] are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. [Hence, the US-sponsored desecrations of Pussy Riot.]

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations [infected with the system’s counter-civilizational ethos] are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

Tolerant and pluralist though he is here, Putin nevertheless affirms the primacy of Russia herself. Our politicians get this 100 percent wrong, Putin only 50 percent—which puts him at the head of the class.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardized [i.e., Americanized] model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.

Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional [as the Americans think they are], but unique, original, and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path…

This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia’s role in global politics. [Instead, then, of succumbing to America’s suburban consumer culture and its larger dictates, Russia seeks to preserve her own identity and independence.]

Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.

The grandeur of Putin’s assertion here has to be savored: against the latest marketing or policy scheme the US tries to impose on Russia, he advances his queen, pointing to a thousand years of Russian history, as he disperses America’s corrupting ploys with a dismissive smirk.

Though seeing Russia as a multiethnic/multi-confessional state that has historically recognized the rights of minorities, he insists she must remain Russian:

Russia—as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it—has always evolved in ‘blossoming complexity’ as a state-civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilisation model that has shaped our state polity…

Thus it is that Russians, among other things, “must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature… to serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness, and their basis for understanding the national idea…” Following Yeats, he might have added that the arts dream of “what is to come,” providing Russians new ways of realizing or re-inventing themselves.

I want to stress again that without focusing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs…

Think of how the “democratic” powers of the Americanosphere now hound and persecute whoever insists on managing his own affairs: e.g., Greece’s Golden Dawn.

The years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to herself, to her own history, just as she did at other points in its history. [This forward-looking orientation rooted in a filial loyalty to the Russian past makes Putin something of an archeofuturist.] After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.

As an ethnonationalist concerned with the preservation and renaissance of my own people, I hope Russia succeeds not only in defending her national identity (and ideally that of others), but in breaking America’s anti-identitarian grip on Europe, so as to insure the possibility of a future Euro-Russian imperium federating the closely related white, Christian peoples, whose lands stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals.

But even barring this, Russia’s resistance to the ethnocidal forces of the US global system, will continue to play a major role in enabling European Americans trapped in the belly of the beast to better defend their own blood and spirit.

And even if Europeans should persist in their servility and the United States continues to lead its “mother soil and father culture” into the abyss, Russians under Putin will at least retain some chance of remaining themselves—which is something no mainstream American or European politician seeks for his people.

If only for this reason, I think there can never be “too much Putin,” as our Russophobes fear.
 
__________

Notes

[1] Desmond Fennell, Uncertain Dawn: Hiroshima and the Beginning of Post-Western Civilization(Dublin: Sanas, 1996); Julius Evola, “Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers” (1940).

[2] Boreas Rising: White Nationalism and the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” (2005).

[3] Against the Armies of the Night: The Aurora Movements” (2010).

[4] President of Russia, “Address to the Valdai International Discussion Club” September 19, 2013. (I have made several grammatical and stylistic changes to the translation.)

[5] Much of my understanding of this comes from Dedefensa, “Poutine, la Russie et le sens de la crise” (September 23, 2013) at [broken link].

[6] Samuel P. Huntington was the last major representative of the US elite to uphold a view even vaguely affirmative of the nation’s historical culture—and he caught hell for it. See Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005).

Categories
Michael O'Meara Miscegenation Racial right

Bolton, O’Meara, Strom

In his comment on this site today, Fredrik said: ‘Bolton was always my favourite new right/neo-fascist writer, he’s up there with Michael O’Meara and Kevin Alfred Strom. Sadly it seems like he’s sold out, becoming somewhat of a trad catholic, similar to how Spencer became a Biden shill. Thankfully his old essays and books are still available online’.

Kerry Bolton, as we have said on this site, has PhDs in theology and history of theology. He never fully crossed what we have called the psychological Rubicon (who has crossed it?). I also asked in a recent post whether Bolton knew the real history of Christianity, or the studies that show that Jesus didn’t even exist. (Keep in mind that the evangelist Mark invented the story of the first gospel just after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem: which makes me think he was a Jew who was mad at the Romans.)

Regarding O’Meara, it’s a pity I didn’t save a snapshot of one of his comments in the comments section of Counter-Currents, but I remember years ago, on one occasion, he said that if the West is to reassert itself in terms of forming a White Republic, it would have to incorporate Christianity (say, like the novels of the late Harold Covington).

As for Strom, who unlike Bolton and O’Meara is anti-Christian, I reproduced here his series on a new religion for whites. But we differ from Strom in that he subscribes to the belief that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of our misfortune. It’s hard to sell that idea to a Latin American like me, who sees lots of brown people every day as soon as he opens the door to the street, as the Inquisition in New Spain kept Jews and cryptos (‘judaizantes’ they called them here) at bay. And yet, the Spanish and Portuguese (the Portuguese also imported the Inquisition to Brazil) committed the greatest sin Europeans could commit: miscegenation. In other words, Strom ignores that the Christian question, not the Jewish question, should be considered the primary factor in white decline.

I feel rather foolish in reiterating this argument hundreds of times on this site. But it is clear that white nationalists, even those as erudite as Bolton, O’Meara and Strom, haven’t been honest enough to see the stark truth.

Postscript:

I recently reproduced two long articles by Bolton, which both add up to some 15,000 words, because they shed light on US-Russia relations these days. In conjunction with what we have also been saying about John Mearsheimer (see the latest article in The Occidental Observer, which also mentions him), both provide a different POV to the lies of the Western media.

Categories
Americanism Aryan beauty Michael O'Meara

O’Meara’s handwriting

Currently I only spend a couple of minutes and sometimes only seconds a day while visiting the racialist sites of the Americans. Curious as to what they said on July 4th, I listened to a fraction of a Greg Johnson guest on his podcast and the titles of Brad Griffin’s articles (I think from now on I’ll call him on his real name instead of his penname Hunter Wallace).

I was surprised that Greg’s guest talked about the American flag. Perhaps I am wrong, but in the mere fraction I listened to, his ideology was indistinguishable from what you can hear on Fox News, which reaches an audience incomparably larger than these sites of American racialism. Funny, I thought to myself, since Michael O’Meara, the first featured author in 2009 and 2010 when Greg began his career at TOQ Online, was aware, like Yockey, that things were wrong with the founding principles of his country:

Believing herself God’s favorite, this New Zion aspired—as a Promised Land of liberty, equality, fraternity—to jettison Europe’s aesthetic and aristocratic standards for the sake of its religiously-inspired materialism. Hence, the bustling, wealth-accumulating, tradition-opposing character of the American project, which offends every former conception of the Cosmos.

For the source of O’Meara’s quote see: here. Nothing could be further from what we hear today on forums from American racialists than what Yockey and O’Meara saw. I think Ronin is correct in calling names on today’s white nationalists, such as patriotards, not true racists.

If they were the latter, they would want to learn Scandinavian languages or German, repudiate the golden calf, revalue their values and the centre of gravity would revolve around Europe, as we see on this Twitter account that only posts photos of Aryan architecture and beauty. Instead of repudiating their country they make the Jews the primal threat, the easy way out intellectually so as not to see the beam in their own eye.

Jared Taylor seems to exemplify patriotardism. He wrote on July 4 about what his country’s founders had in mind (again, I only read the title, not his article). It is curious that an ad for the book in which O’Meara summarised his views appeared within the essays of The Occidental Observer in 2010. The ad was a pic of another copy of the book that shows O’Meara’s handwriting above, addressing me by my first name.

It is true what Jack F. says of Ronin’s unreadable prose. But a close reading of O’Meara’s essays, which can still be read online, are much more eloquent than what Ronin or I can say here because, unlike O’Meara, Ronin and I aren’t Americans.

It is a pity that Michael O’Meara, who is still alive, is no longer intellectually active.

Categories
Michael O'Meara Racial right

Oasis

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 posted 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’. He added:

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. In my opinion that happened from the times of 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 here Littlefinger describing his philosophy of manipulation at a time when he was allied to the evil King Joffrey. A fan wrote:

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?

____________

(*) ‘The Climb’ was the sixth episode of the third season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones.

Categories
Conservatism Democracy Michael O'Meara Racial right

Against white reformists

Editor’s note: The following text by Michael O’Meara originally appeared on Vanguard News Network, September 24, 2007 and Greg Johnson later republished it on Counter-Currents, July 17, 2012. It also appears in O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

‘Je crois à la Révolution dans la mesure où je ne crois ni à la durée ni à la valeur de la Société qui m’entoure’. —Pierre Drieu La Rochelle (pic left)

Almost as depressing as the thought of our people’s extinction is that of the white opposition to it.

It’s not just that this opposition is minuscule in number, confined to the internet, has a negative rather than a positive understanding of what needs to be done, lacks consensus as to its common aim, and attracts a great many asocial, dysfunctional types incapable of sustaining any sort of nationalist resistance.

Worse, it seems at times not even to know the enemy. Whether racial conservatives endeavouring to stem the rising tide of colour and get back to the high ground of pre-1965 America or white nationalists ‘who are not revolutionaries, but paleoconservatives who don’t want to change the system, but to make it work for them’, the white opposition fixates on media (i.e., the internet), on consciousness raising, and on political policies aimed at reforming a system that is inherently anti-white.

Worse still, its Sisyphean activities are engaged in the belief that the old white America, dedicated to money-making and happiness, can be won back and is worth winning, that this can be done through ideas, in the form of media-conveyed information, exposés, and arguments, and through existing institutional channels, like the courts and the electoral system.

If only it were that simple.

Our people face extinction not because the Jews or the liberals monopolise the media, force feed us anti-white ideas, control the leading institutions, and wield all the power and influence. This is a big part of it, to be sure, but to see things solely—or principally—in these terms is to overlook the last two or three centuries of Western history.

The threat to white existence is profound, rooted in the civilisational, ontological, and spiritual disorders undergirding the Judaification presently pervading our daily lives.

When Yuri Slezkine boasts that the modern age is the Jewish age, he gets to the heart of this in a way few white nationalists ever do. Based on the Levantine behaviour of ‘rule breakers, border crossers, and go-betweens’, the entire course of the modern Jewish age works, in effect, toward our collective de-Aryanization.

Since its advent, with the liberal-democratic revolutions of the late 18th century, the Modern West, unlike its Medieval and Ancient counterparts, has shed all sense of tradition, transcendence, and fidelity; it violates the natural order of things; it pursues a purely practical, economic course geared to the lowest order of existence; it can’t see the higher points of reference; and it replaces the rights of blood and heritage with false creeds and material acquisitions.

Whether the modernisation spurred by the liberal-democratic revolutions was inherently Judaifying or not (the anti-Semitic tradition is divided on the question) is irrelevant to the fact that Judaification and modernisation—what Kevin MacDonald calls ‘the rise of Jewish power and the disestablishment of the specifically European nature of the US’—happened in tandem, being obverse expressions of the same historical phenomenon.

With the advent of modernity’s Judaification, the Aryan spirit that gave form to our race at the dawn of history and accompanied it through every subsequent stage of its Greco-Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and European growth was exiled from the world.

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.

What is to be done?

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. For it is the system itself, communicating vessel of the Jews’ lunar spirit, that de-Aryanizes us, contaminates our blood, and seeks our destruction. It is the enemy. It cannot be reformed, only abandoned—if we are to live. All talk of working through it is but Utopian chatter, better left to sheenies, darkies, and schoolteachers.

The notion that racialists follow the left’s Gramscian ‘march through the institutions’ is equally unserious. Covington’s Northwest Volunteer Army is a hundred times more realistic than the thought of re-establishing the integrity of white life through elections or an expanded media.

Of necessity, our course must be Aryan, not American. The old America may have been racially conscious, but in a typically liberal way, privileging the lower functions of production and reproduction—which fated it to become ‘capitalist, cosmopolitan, and anti-national’. Its racialism was thus not the blood consciousness native to the warriors who sired our race, just as its upper world of wheeling-dealing money men, bought politicians, and leading families is but the respectable verso of its criminal underworld—alien to traditional Aryan standards of hierarchy, form, virility, transcendence, authority, and sovereignty.

As for the white masses—whose vegetative existence is lived unconscious of the higher forces governing them and oriented to the materialist and family concerns of the lower orders—they’ll never be moved by ideas and principles openly challenging the existing order. Only a social crisis set off by some cataclysm that makes their normal way of life impossible will cause them to look for alternatives. And at that point, what matters most will not be ideas and principles, but men and organisations whose exemplary stature instils in them the confidence for decisive action.

What need, then, have we for more education, more programs, more market strategies, more media, more time in the Gay Old Party to make the existing anti-white system work for us? Any self-respecting white man who wants to know what’s going on or what to do doesn’t have far to search. All the answers are already there, waiting for the taking.

In any case, the increasingly totalitarian character of contemporary liberalism, not to mention the plantation of a hundred million muds on our soil, makes the entertainment of such reform an exercise in folly.

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.

All the ancient Aryan civilisations arose, in fact, from ‘a race of conquerors who overcame lands and peoples on the basis of a higher calling and qualification’—a higher calling and qualification modelled on the Aryan Doctrine of Battle and Victory. Hierarchy, order, courage, and a solar universality came, as a result, to inform white life.

If our people are to restore European America (in the Pacific Northwest or elsewhere), it will be in the Aryan way, through a return to the ancient practices that formed us in the beginning and made us who we are. It will not come about through a process dependent on all that is the root of our present humiliation.

Categories
Michael O'Meara Racial right Sword

Broken sword

After William Pierce’s death, the only intellectual who knew that sooner or later the sword had to be wielded was Michael O’Meara, whose essays were published by Greg Johnson when the latter was editor of TOQ Online and later continued to publish essays by Michael at Counter-Currents. But Michael became disillusioned with the bourgeois movement and has abandoned his practice of writing. Yesterday I reread two of his essays, ‘The Sword’ and ‘The Edge of the Sword’, and came across these phrases:

‘The historical course offered by myth, in contrast to the inherently passive determinism of scientific rationalism, is a choice for heroes, not bookworms or computer hobbyists’.

‘If I want to build a nationalist movement, I know it’s going to take something more than the virtues of Frank Salter to convince whites to abandon their individualistic and materialistic lives (which, incidentally, are usually led under the sign of self-interest)—it will take something bigger and grander that touches them at the core of their being’.

Yesterday also Apollokult, a European commenter of this site told me the following:

Yes, the world is stuck in a welter of insurmountable contradictions, and the (natural?) course of events goes to a gloomy denouement… So, like in Greek tragedies, sooner or later, a Deus ex machina has to cut the knot of human hubris, excessive pride and sin against proper cosmic order. And his hypostasis will be definitely wrathful, not pacificatory. A Tolkien’s term, eucatastrophe [from Greek ευ- ‘good’ and καταστροφή ‘destruction’], is very worth meditating about its hidden non-lying-on-the-surface meanings.

There is an inspiring thought: none of these sickly advocates of schizophrenic outlooks will become a foundation of any better world, because they are just gutters for muddy waters of the modern pseudo-intellectualism. Some fastidiousness speaks inside me: you, Ceasar, overspend your time and energy on them. Leave them in their delusions alone.

In any way, some will cross the Rubicon, and some will be swallowed up by Lethe. Let’s look forward, not looking back at the always past beings. The time for a wohlmeinend or gutgesinnt [well-meaning or well-disposed] re-education attempt has gone by in 1945. And you know it very well, too well… [link]

What Apollokult tells me motivates me once again to consider what I had uselessly promised me not long ago: to stop visiting the sites of white nationalism as long as they don’t want to take up the sword. I don’t mean to go out and fight immediately, as that would be crazy and premature. Michael O’Meara never did anything crazy or premature, but his thinking was clearly revolutionary.

While normies are like children living in Normieland, white nationalists, I said yesterday, are like drunken teenagers in the middle of the psychological Rubicon who don’t want to take more steps. Since it has already become a bad habit for me to be yelling at the latter to come with me to the other side of the river, why not, as Apollokult advises me, dedicate myself to speak only to those who are already on firm ground on this side? (That would mean starting to get a little more familiar with National Socialism. There are many things to do in this area, even being so close to the convergence of catastrophes that will change the world.)

Incidentally, Michael’s book is out of print on Counter-Currents.

Categories
Americanism Judeo-reductionism Michael O'Meara

Kindergarten WN

Michael_O'Meara

by Michael O’Meara

 
For white nationalists—whose cyber-based “movement” is still in its infancy—simple explanations tend to be the rule.

The reductionist “anti-Semitism” that dominates WN ranks and serves as a catch-all explanation for the predicament white people find themselves in today, to cite the most prominent example, is wont to attribute every assault on white life to Jewish perfidy.

There is, certainly, no disputing the existence of this “perfidy,” for no other group—not the browns or blacks, not the former powers of international Communism, not anyone or anything—is or has been so disposed to breaching the color line, undermining America’s traditional racial hierarchy, or propelling the processes responsible for the present dispossession of the country’s white majority.

To think, however, that Organized Jewry has been the alpha and omega of this dispossession is not just simple-minded, it’s dishonorable.

It’s simple-minded because it understands complex historical processes in Kindergarten terms. It ignores other, no less culpable factors.

More fundamentally, it ignores or conflates the differences between structural imperatives and conspiratorial designs, between concrete objective forces and the subjective influences of interest and conscience.

History, as such, offers few cases where monocausal explanations suffice, for the confluence of fortune, structure, and subject (fortuna, necessita, virtu) undergirding the historical process means that significant historical changes are almost always the consequence of a combination of forces unique to their specific time and place.

By the same reasoning, monocausal explanations focusing exclusively on a demonized “other” are dishonorable because they spare whites all responsibility for their misfortunes, refuse to acknowledge the dysgenic and self-destructive forces indigenous to modern society, and ignore the numerous, inherently Jewish facets of the American project.

In criticizing this, I do so not to absolve the Jews, but to preface the subject of this essay—the anti-white consequences of the Cold War—which offers a somewhat broader explanation of white dispossession (though there are at least a couple of others that can also be made).
 
_________

Editor’s note: You can read the rest of the reprinted, 2011 article on Counter-Currents (here). But I much prefer the original 2010 article at The Occidental Quarterly divided in four pieces. Reason: in three threads of the comments section O’Meara responds to his monocausal critics (here, here and here).