web analytics
Categories
Conservatism 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
Albert Speer Catholic Church Frederick the Great Heinrich Himmler Hitler's Religion (book) Michael O'Meara Nordicism Racial right Richard Weikart

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 3

(excerpts)

by Richard Weikart

In many of his private conversations and monologues, as well as in some of his public speeches, Hitler sounded like a rationalist, using science to undermine religion. Also, he denied a personal afterlife…

Hitler’s freethinking bent seems to go back to his youth and may have come from his father, who was also disgruntled with the church. When reflecting back on his childhood religion classes in a January 1942 monologue, Hitler claimed that he “was the eternal questioner.” He read a lot of freethinking literature, and he challenged his religion teacher with his findings, allegedly driving his teacher to despair. He would continually ask his teacher about doubtful themes in the Bible, but the teacher’s answers were always evasive. One day Hitler’s teacher asked him if he prayed, and he responded, “No, Sir, I do not pray; I do not believe that the dear God has an interest if a pupil prays!” Hitler also reported that he hated the mendacity of his religion instructor, who once told Hitler’s mother in front of him that Hitler’s soul was lost. Hitler responded by telling his teacher that some scholars doubt there is an afterlife. In February 1942, Hitler confessed that he had not believed in Christianity since he was about thirteen to fifteen years old. According to Hitler, “None of my [school] comrades believed in the so-called communion any longer.” Hitler regaled his secretaries with accounts of his youthful exploits, including stories about embarrassing his religion teacher, whom he considered unkempt and filthy. He told his secretaries that he developed an aversion to clergymen from his earliest youth…

This was not the only time Hitler praised Enlightenment philosophers. During a monologue in October 1941, he lamented that current discussions about religion were in a miserable state compared to the writings of the French Enlightenment or to Frederick the Great’s discussions with Voltaire. Nine months later, he told Bormann that of the books that Bormann had given him to look at, he was especially interested in Frederick the Great’s books, Briefe über die Religion (Letters on Religion) and Theologische Streitschriften (Theological Polemics). Hitler commented that it would be valuable if all Germans, especially leaders and military officers, could read these works by Frederick, because then they would see that Hitler was not alone in his “heretical thoughts.” Hitler obviously thought highly of Frederick, not only for his military exploits and tenacity but also for his Enlightened religious views. Hans Frank noticed this tendency, too, testifying that Hitler increasingly identified with Frederick the Great’s Enlightened rationalism, which completely suppressed his childhood faith. The theologian Paul Hinlicky claims that Hitler’s conception of God was shaped by Enlightenment thought, asserting, “Hitler embraced the rationalist, watch-maker God typical of deistic (not ‘theistic’) thought whose stern and ruthless law he discovered anew in Darwinian natural selection. In this way, Hitler renounced the God identified by biblical narrative”…

In 1927, Hitler corresponded with a Catholic priest who had previously supported Nazism but by this time had some misgivings. Hitler contradicted the priest’s claim that Christianity had brought an end to Roman barbarism. Instead, Hitler insisted that Christianity was even more barbaric than the Romans had been, killing hundreds of thousands for their heretical beliefs…

Hitler attacked those in the churches who opposed his regime, indignantly claiming that their resistance was “nothing more than the continuation of the crime of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, by which the Jewish-Roman world exterminated whatever offered resistance to that shameful parasitism.” In a February 1942 monologue, Hitler mocked the Christian story of God sending His Son to die for humanity. Then, after Christianity became established, Hitler complained, Christians used violence to force everyone to believe…

Another way that Hitler paralleled Enlightenment rationalism was by stressing the variety of religions in the world. Hitler saw the presence of numerous religions in the world as a major hurdle to believing in any particular one. The basic idea was that since there were so many different religions, each claiming to be the sole and exclusive truth, most religions were necessarily wrong. Why, then, believe in one particular religion, just because by accident you happened to be raised in the society that embraced it? In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler expressed this point clearly. Where he got his statistics from is uncertain, but he claimed that there were 170 large religions in the world, so at least 169 must be wrong. The implication, however, was that all 170 were probably wrong. Then he claimed that no religion still being practiced was older than 2,500 years, while humans have existed for at least 300,000 years (having evolved from primates). This implied that religions were temporary phenomena of questionable validity. A few months later, he made similar remarks, claiming that human conceptions of Providence are constantly shifting. Only about 10 percent of people in the world believed in Catholicism, he claimed, and the rest of humanity had many different beliefs. This time, he gave the figure of 500,000 years for the existence of the human species, noting that Christianity only existed during an “extremely short epoch of humanity.”

In his 1935 speech to the Nuremberg Party Rally, he argued that religious ideas and institutions are inseparably linked to the continued existence of its practitioners and thus are not eternal truths. Religions, according to Hitler, are only valid to the extent that they contribute to the survival of the people (Volk) practicing them…

Five years earlier, he had given his first Nuremberg Party Rally speech after taking power and at the time presented his racial ideology as scientific. “In nature,” he explained, “there are no inexplicable accidents…. Every development proceeds according to cause and effect.” Therefore, in order to triumph as a Volk, Germans needed to discover the “eternal laws of life” and conform to them. Some of the most important laws of nature, Hitler explained, are that races are unequal and culture depends on the biological quality of the people, not on their environment. These two ideas—racial inequality and biological determinism—were prominent among German biologists and anthropologists, so in this case Hitler’s views were consistent with the science of his day…

After coming to power, Hitler continued to prioritize science over religion. When meeting with Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, Hitler reminded him that the world was changing, and he thought the Catholic Church should change with it. He reminded the cardinal of the Church’s past conflicts with science over its belief in a six-day creation and the geocentric theory of the solar system. Then he told Faulhaber that the Church must abandon its opposition to Nazi racial and eugenics legislation, because such policies “rest on absolute scientific research”…

When he was a boy, his religion teachers would teach the creation story from the Bible, while his science teachers would teach the theory of evolution. As a pupil, he recognized that these teachings were completely contradictory. He admitted that the churches in recent times had saved face somewhat by retreating to the position that biblical stories could be interpreted symbolically. However, he took the side of science and evolutionary theory against religion and the churches’ doctrines.

Another reason that some people might mistake Hitler for an atheist was his aforementioned rejection of a personal afterlife. Based on his interaction with Hitler, Walter Schellenberg, one of the most influential SS officers during World War II, testified the following:

Hitler did not believe in a personal god. He believed only in the bond of blood between succeeding generations and in a vague conception of fate or providence. Nor did he believe in a life after death. In this connection he often quoted a sentence from the Edda, that remarkable collection of ancient Icelandic literature, which to him represented the profoundest Nordic wisdom: “All things will pass away, nothing will remain but death and the glory of deeds.”

In his New Year’s Proclamation in 1943, Hitler publicly insinuated that he did not believe in an individual afterlife, telling his fellow Germans, “The individual must and will pass away, as in all times, but the Volk must live on.” According to Albert Speer, one of Hitler’s closest friends who met with him not long before he committed suicide, Hitler faced his own death without any hope of an afterlife. Hitler told him, “Believe me, Speer, it is easy for me to end my life. A brief moment and I’m free of everything, liberated from this painful existence.” Hitler clearly did not think there was any kind of personal afterlife and certainly had no inkling of any divine judgment after death…

In February 1942, in the midst of a screed accusing Christianity of destroying the noble, ancient world, Hitler blamed the Jews for introducing the “beastly idea” that one’s life continues in a future world. The Jews used this promise of life after death as an excuse, according to Hitler, to exterminate life in the present world. Hitler contradicted this allegedly Jewish view, asserting that persons cease to exist at death…

In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed that true Aryan religion must uphold “the conviction of survival after death in some form.” This, however, still underscores the fuzziness of his conception of the afterlife, since “in some form” is rather vague and openended. It could mean a personal afterlife, but it could also simply mean continuing to exist in one’s descendants or in matter rearranged. The latter seems closer to the position Hitler stated elsewhere…

He reiterated this point in a January 1928 speech, where he posed the question crucial to all religions, “Why is the individual in the world at all?” He answered that we do not know why we are living, but we do know that we have an instinct not only to live, but also to continue our existence in to the future. This is “the yearning to immortalize oneself in the body of a child.” The highest humans—and Hitler clearly thought the Aryans were the highest—extend this desire to preserving the entire species, not just one’s own children.

The view that Hitler saw the afterlife as an impersonal return to nature or the Volk is reinforced by an entry in Goebbels’ diary during December 1941. The entry is especially intriguing because it was one of the only times that Goebbels noted a point of disagreement between Hitler and himself about religion. Goebbels claimed that in his view—but not in Hitler’s—the average German needs to regard the afterlife as a continuation of the individual. “One cannot make do by saying, he goes again into his Volk (people) or into his native soil (Mutterboden).” In this discussion, Goebbels states that Hitler did not believe in an individual afterlife, and he implies that Hitler took the position that afterlife simply means returning to the blood and soil from which one came.

The view that the afterlife is simply a continuation of life in future generations was reflected in an SS pamphlet on funerals. It quoted Himmler, who stated that death held no terror, because it found meaning in the continuation of life. He explained, “The individual dies, but in his children his people (Volk) grow beyond him even during his life. Because we love the future of the life of our people (Volk) more than ourselves, we freely and bravely consent to go to the death, wherever it must be.” This notion of an impersonal afterlife was not uncommon in Nazi circles. It was so widespread that Pope Pius XI criticized the Nazi view of the afterlife in his 1937 encyclical. Pius complained, “Immortality in a Christian sense means the survival of man after his terrestrial death, for the purpose of eternal reward or punishment. Whoever only means by the term, the collective survival here on earth of his people for an indefinite length of time, distorts one of the fundamental notions of the Christian Faith and tampers with the very foundations of the religious concept of the universe, which requires a moral order”…

Hitler’s vague notion of God inspired him because he considered God the creator and sustainer of the German Volk. When Hitler used the term Volk, he was referring to the Germanic people as a racial entity, so Volk was synonymous with the Aryan or Nordic race (terms also used interchangeably). But it was also conveniently ambiguous, making it a great propaganda tool appealing to Germans who might differ in their interpretations of it. It could mean all the German people belonging to the unified German nation, or it could mean all those who were ethnically German, or it could even mean all those having Nordic racial characteristics, even if they were ethnically Danish or Dutch or Norwegian or Polish. Hitler preferred this last definition and tried during World War II to construct a Greater Germanic Reich that incorporated all those identified as members of the Nordic race, no matter their nationality. However, most Germans opted for one of the first two definitions…

Hitler made the connection between God and the German Volk so often that Max Domarus, who edited a massive four-volume collection of Hitler’s speeches, claimed Hitler’s God was a “peculiarly German God,” not the God worshipped by most other people throughout the ages…

Domarus added this insightful footnote to the passage: “In this context as well it is evident that Hitler understood the term ‘Almighty’ to refer to a god that existed exclusively for the German people.” Of course, Hitler believed that God existed everywhere, but he also believed the Volk was God’s special people with a special mission, and he tried to instill this faith in his fellow Germans. Rather frequently Hitler encouraged his fellow Germans to believe that their work and struggle on behalf of their people was assured of success, because God was with them. In June 1937, while boasting of his achievements and preparing for future conquest, Hitler exhorted his compatriots to expect that God would bless them if they tenaciously worked for Germany…

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor:

Here is, with the honourable exception of GLR, the astronomical failure of American racialism. Only if they worked to restore Germany’s honour—the exact reverse of the anti-Nazi West of our day—could God help them.

Let us remember the words of Michael O’Meara: ‘The greatest of the “conservative” thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, pointed out long ago that the French Revolution led the revolutionaries rather than was led by them. For he believed that certain Providential forces rule our lives. These forces he saw in Christian terms, but others, like Heidegger, for instance, saw them in terms of Being, over which humans have no control. In either case, the force of Providence or Being or Destiny has a power that has often made itself felt in our history. For this reason, I have little doubt that Europeans will eventually throw off the Judeo-liberal system programming their destruction. I’m less confident about we Americans, given the greater weakness of our collective identity and destiny. But nevertheless even we might be saved from ourselves by this force—as long as we do what is still in our power to do’.

But O’Meara failed in one of his articles to honour the German Chancellor and his Reich because of, I suspect, the Catholicism of his Irish parents. Like many other Americans, he clung somehow to the Semitic god of the Christians.

The salvation of the Aryan consists in honouring Hitler and no longer Jesus. Then, and only then, the true God will help them.

Nicht in kalten Marmorsteinen,
Nicht in Tempeln, dumpf und tot:
In den frischen Eichenhainen
Webt und rauscht der deutsche Gott.

 
 
 
 
 

Not in cold marble stones,
Not in temples dull and dead:
In the fresh oak groves
Weaves and rustles the German god.

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
1st World War Michael O'Meara Stefan Zweig Ukraine War!

Mass formation!

‘The West has developed a toxic brew of essentially anti-civilization mind viruses, which have acquired cultural hegemony, and which all outside cultures & polities would be very well-advised to firewall themselves from’. —Anatoly Karlin

Lately I have seen the term ‘mass formation’ used to describe what, in my vocabulary, I call folie en mass or madness shared by all westerners.

And madness it is, indeed. Fox News’ Sean Hannity ready to start World War III? A seizure of Russian sovereign assets with no precedent in post-war history? US Senator Lindsey Graham calling for President Putin’s assassination? A Russian store in Germany vandalised? Restaurants in Prague that say Russian citizens have to apologise before being allowed to enter? Russians out of chess tournaments just for being Russian? I mean: if globalists can steal a yacht of a Russian oligarch with no due process, they can easily steal your home and your savings account (cf. Trudeau’s Canada). The cause of all this has been explained by Raiden today on Twitter (to whom I sent the link to the masthead on this site):

Culture is a shared intellectual software that helps people navigate through life. If the software is good—if one is operating from correct first principles—he will find a solidity and constancy to his ideas, continually adding to and refining them.

The problem with the Western mind is this to some extent has been the issue with our civilization as a whole, ever since the traumatic destruction of classical antiquity, in which we were sundered from our spiritual traditions.

Because of the above tweet I sent him the masthead.

Today westerners are spiritual orphans.

They lack intellectual and spiritual solidity, and thus wander from ideology to ideology.

From Christianity to Marxism to anti-white woke ideology. And just as Fox News when push comes to shove is no better than CNN, in racialist forums something similar is happening.

Today for example I deleted my Sunday post, linking to a Pat Buchanan article on The Occidental Observer, and put in its place my mantra post about the word racism. The reason is that, while I had liked Buchanan’s first piece on the Observer, in his article today in the same webzine, ‘Is Putin Considering Using Nukes on NATO?’, the patriotard has joined the mass formation by saying that NATO should secure the independence of Ukraine, effect the removal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory and that Finland and Sweden should be invited into NATO (today Fox News’ Jesse Watters just said something similar). Even Richard Spencer recently said that, as a good patriot[ard] he is, he’s siding his country and NATO.

I still believe what I said in ‘Putin’s show’: that since the US is the spearhead in the war against the Aryan, anything that weakens it should be welcome. That doesn’t mean that I’ve suddenly rejected everything I’ve written on this site about Solzhenitsyn, but that this war has broken the US monopoly on who gets to do the violence in the international arena. If the gringos no longer have that monopoly, and that is why they are all hysterical (including Hannity and Buchanan), thanks to Putin’s war there is a better chance that they will wake up and we may save the Aryan DNA that still exists in America.

The only racialist blogger who has good preservation instincts these days is Andrew Anglin, who in his post today said that Russia now has a quarter of Ukraine under control and that this is a lot faster than the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When will Americans understand the obvious? To save Aryan DNA north of the Rio Grande you need to hate your state. If your race is your nation, the state is the enemy of your nation: the original stock that founded your country. Or haven’t you read American Michael O’Meara’s 2004 article about why the US has been the greatest threat to the white race?

In times of mass psychosis, the healthiest thing to do is to cancel your cable news subscription, never use your cellphone (I bought one just because the bank needed a cellphone number, but I always have it turned off in a drawer and don’t have any plan or contract with the company that sold me it), and read a printed book that sheds light on what mass formations have been.

(Holding the copy of The World of Yesterday that I read when I lived in Houston, Texas.) I would suggest reading Stefan Zweig’s The World of Yesterday about the days before the First World War. It describes how all Europeans began to beat the war drums with no idea about what was going to happen…

If the visitor to this site has a warm room where he can enjoy traditional literature, he might be able to insulate himself against the mind software—a massive formation—Anatoly Karlin and Raiden were talking about that is literally driving all Westerners mad through TV, the internet, mobile phones and woke friends and relatives.

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, considering what I said that day, 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 (see ‘External links’ here), 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
Harold Covington Judeo-reductionism Michael O'Meara Racial right

The war on whites

In yesterday’s featured article on The Occidental Observer (TOO), ‘The War on Whites: Harold Covington’s Northwest Novels’, Edmund Connelly used my old, now obsolete penname ‘Chechar’ (I currently use my initials, C.T.). I would like to comment on some of the things Connelly said:

The War on Whites is moving to a higher level—fast. Signs are everywhere; they are undeniable. First and foremost, understand and accept that this is happening. For many, there will be no escape. If you are White and don’t yet grasp what is happening, quickly find out from someone who does. Lives will depend on it.

In my previous TOO article, I reviewed ‘collapse’ novels by Matthew Bracken as a means to put average Whites in the frame of mind needed to accept that ‘our’ government is now fully ready to attack us. All institutions are now arrayed against the White Christian founding stock of the United States of America: from the government, to the media, to education, to corporations, to the military, to the churches—all of it. And I know many of you readers see this…

This war is being waged by the mainstream, organized Jewish community. This cannot be denied.

This is short-sighted. While what Connelly says is technically true, in the West there are more traitorous whites than subversive Jews. Before Jews came to Connelly’s country in substantial numbers, the US had already waged a bloody war of secession against the white and in favour of the black. The racialised right has been particularly blind to this history, as the American Robert Morgan has pointed out so many times in the comments section of The Unz Review. (A selection of Morgan’s ideas when he was commenting on TOO under another penname can be seen: here.)

To my amazement, however, a hefty majority who correctly write about the danger facing the White race either fail or refuse to take their analysis to its obvious conclusion: Who is behind this vast swatch of anti-White activism? I would have thought that with the release of Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jews in the 1990s and its subsequent filtering into the growing culture of the Dissident or Alt-Right, the matter of who is on the attack would be settled.

Technically true but still myopic, since what happens now is a re-enactment of what happened 1,700 years ago when other white traitors, incited by Christianised Semites, seized the power of the Roman Empire: as a few years ago we explained on this site with a series under the title ‘Apocalypse of whites’ (our core essay) which I recently linked on another thread at the TOO comments section.

Myopic I say because Connelly ignores not only what happened in Europe when Constantine came to power, but what happened in Latin America more than a millennium later.

By subscribing to the hypothesis that the JQ is the primary cause of the war against the white man, white nationalists have been reluctant to see that, in Mexico, its War of Independence (1810-1821) was consummated by white Criollos against the Peninsular whites, and its Revolution one hundred years later (1910-1917) lowered racial taboos and led to the rise of non-Criollos.

They don’t know either that the first president of Paraguay went to anti-white extremes that the US has not reached even in 2021: banning marriages among whites who were only allowed to marry mestizos or mulattos! Revilo Oliver knew better the history of Latin America. Who of the white nationalist pundits knows it now? It’s precisely because Connelly ignores the history of Europe from Constantine, or what happened in the Americas, that he writes:

This present essay names Jews as ‘the architects of this modern horror show’, the sponsors of this War on Whites…

Rather, I’d argue that Covington’s premises in his Northwest novels concerning a Jewish War on Whites are more relevant now.

However, Connelly’s article has good points. Earlier this year I complained that except for the retired writer Michael O’Meara, the pundits of white nationalism today are reactionary, not revolutionary. In his article, Connelly vindicates revolutionary thinking by introducing the TOO readership to the fiction of Harold Covington, especially the best of his novels, The Brigade.

One of the last chapters is [literally] an incendiary account titled ‘The Hotrod of the Apocalypse’… The point is that O’Meara has an unusually deep understanding of Covington’s intent in writing the Northwest novels.

Those who want to read my excerpts from The Brigade can do so: here. It’s on my list of must-read books.

Covington’s rendering of this White war for survival is gripping, compelling, and prescient beyond measure. I’ve read the book three times and without fail the 517 pages flew by as if it was only a few hours of reading.

After quoting some passages from The Brigade, Connelly tells us:

If I were to give you five narrow-lines pages of notepaper and let you loose on the Internet, how long would it take you to fill those pages with examples of how America is now lost to us? Not long, I suspect. And the main reason for this state of affairs is spelled out in MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and other works. We face a Jewish War on Whites.

Sorry but this is myopic once again. The pundits of white nationalism ignore the anti-Aryan war that the white man already waged both in the Roman Empire when it was Christianised and what happened in the Americas: an experiment that resulted in colossal miscegenation throughout this continent. (The Iberian whites irreparably polluted their DNA when the Inquisition kept even the crypto-Jews at bay!) I am not saying that Jewry doesn’t want to destroy the best of the Goyim, but that whites themselves have been their worst enemies because of Christian ethics: the paradigm of this site that replaces the paradigm of white nationalists.

And speaking of Christian ethics, a notable Christian among the pro-white forums is Hunter Wallace, who today published a piece, ‘Der Movement: Frazier Glenn Miller has Died in Prison of Natural Causes’, whose abstract reads: ‘The death of Glenn Miller is symbolic of the end of an era’. Wallace is the typical reactionary who rejects revolutionaries. As stupid as Glenn Miller’s act that landed him in jail may have been, Wallace picks on flawed revolutionaries like him instead of picking on mature intellectuals who advocate revolution like Michael O’Meara.

However, what Connelly later says under the heading ‘Media Silence and Distortion’ referring to Jewry is completely true. Regarding black-on-white crime, Connelly adds:

The truth is not hard to find—but paradoxically, it is impossible to see. Well, it seems paradoxical only to those who do not know about the evil surrounding the Jewish Question.

Unlike Revilo Oliver, monolingual racialists don’t realise that in Mexico newspapers like the Christian-owned Reforma are as subversive as Jewish-owned newspapers in the neighbouring country to the north. At least in the Americas, it isn’t only Jews but mestizos and Criollo traitors who promote the anti-white zeitgeist. The vast majority of Criollos I know are traitors to their race (see e.g., what I say in Spanish in a brief note: here).

Given that Connelly linked this site from TOO and some TOO visitors have come today to see what we say in the link that Conelly put in his article, I would suggest that visitors familiarise themselves with our new paradigm that doesn’t leave the JQ aside but rather expands it into what we call the CQ, the Christian Question (see the book The Fair Race whose PDF is available on the sidebar).

Categories
Feminism Feminized western males Game of Thrones Michael O'Meara

Lord Snow

‘Lord Snow’ is the third episode of the first season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones. It first aired on May 1, 2011. The bad message of this episode begins when Ned Stark discovers, already settled in King’s Landing, that his little daughter Arya has a real weapon.

Ned Stark: ‘This is not a toy. Little ladies shouldn’t play with swords’.

Arya: ‘I wasn’t playing. And I don’t want to be a lady’.

Keeping in mind the medieval literature of my mother tongue, there was nothing like it in Spain despite the fact that its literature flourished with stories of medieval warriors. This dialogue in ‘Lord Snow’ is a pure invention of our time. (I have said elsewhere that the film that started this reversal of roles, that a saving warrior could be a woman, was the 1979 Alien.)

Very kindly Ned tries to reason with his daughter in her room, asking Arya if she remembers the House Stark motto, ‘Winter is coming’. He makes Arya see that she was born in the middle of a long summer (in George R.R. Martin’s universe summers can last for years, and dreaded winters too). Ned wants to show his daughter that she hasn’t yet known the harshness of life.

Contemporary Americans are like Arya in the sense that they haven’t suffered those long winters: the thirty to one hundred years that, according to Revilo Oliver, we must endure to bring about a true psychogenic change. This could even be said of all contemporary Westerners who require a long winter to generate the gravitas to form a new nation. Fortunately, what the Europeans have suffered will soon begin to be suffered by the Americans. On page 131 of Toward the White Republic the American Michael O’Meara said:

Qualitatively more persuasive, though, is Orlov’s claim that the Soviet Union was better situated than the United States to endure and recover from a political-economic breakdown. In his view, Americans see their ‘spendthrift debtor nation’ as a ‘land of free ice cream and perpetual sunshine’. Never having experienced invasion, world war, famine, or bloody dictatorship, it’s hard for them to imagine a future unlike their past. More than Russians, Americans have been severed from their past and redesigned as gratification-oriented consumers whose defining character is materialist rather than ethnic, historical, or cultural. They also lack the psychology of resilience ‘bred’ into the long-suffering Russians. Finally, they are more ideologically deluded by the system’s pretences, just as they are more integrated into its increasingly dysfunctional institutions.

In Winterfell the boy Bran has awakened from his coma. In the novel this is due to the telepathic intervention of Bloodraven, a man fused to a weirwood tree (see the weiwrood trees on the sidebar) who had appeared to the comatose Bran in a dream as a three-eyed raven, thanks to ancient magic on the other side of the Wall.

Old Nan, the caretaker of the now crippled Bran, for the first time in the series talks about the legends about what long time ago had been a winter that lasted a whole generation. (The actress who played Old Nan died before ‘Lord Snow’ was released. The episode is dedicated to her memory in the end credits.) Old Nan speaks to Bran about the White Walkers who had been a scourge to mankind during the long winter, so the Wall was built millennia ago in order to keep them at bay.

On the other side of the kingdom King Robert remembers with the members of his Kingsguard their first killings. The masculine dialogue reminds me, once again, of today’s feminised western men. Who among the so-called defenders of the West on the internet has killed someone? If there is something that distinguishes us from women it is our passion to kill, and without manhood there is neither war nor white republic. (This said, I recognise it’s impossible to kill since WW-II as our governments are anti-white and there are no good wars to fight.)

King Robert recounts that during a war he fell from his horse and a young soldier charged at him, receiving him with a hammer blow that broke all of his ribs. Jaime Lannister and another member of the Kingsguard tell the king who their first victims were.

Having won the Allies we can no longer have this kind of dialogue. And together with tolerating that, the System has even taken women away from us through feminism: a sign of the mental state of the white man. Only if Hitler had won would we be telling ourselves who our first victims were.

And speaking of feminism and would-be warriors, the episode closes precisely with the reversal of sexual roles. Upon learning that Arya doesn’t want to become a lady but rather wants to be a swordsman, Ned hires Syrio Forel to teach her the art of handling her Needle. In the first lesson Forel tells the girl Arya:

‘You are late, boy’.

That, and not the last season that angered the toxic fandom so much, should have triggered the rage of viewers. But whites are bananas. When a man accepts these inversions he is accepting masturbation as a substitute for those women who (like Arya) aren’t going to marry. The betrayal doesn’t come from the woman but from the Aryan male (women only follow the strong, and the strong one today is the anti-white System).

Within the cultural revolution that has been unfolding in the West for a few decades, critics of Game of Thrones have praised Maisie Williams for her portrayal of Arya Stark and her sword lesson scenes. The whites among these ‘critics’ represent the worst scum Western history has produced. But the havoc that the long winter ahead will cause will also wipe out all degeneracy of America’s summer (actually, historically it’s already autumn).

The episode ends with Arya training with Forel and Ned Stark watching them. The scene is paradigmatic of the bad messages of Game of Thrones as Ned was the character considered, by the toxic fandom, as the most honourable man of the 2011-2019 series.

Categories
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn Michael O'Meara Third Reich

Michael’s schizophrenia

I use the term ‘schizophrenia’ in its popular sense of a divided mind, not in the psychiatric sense.

A week ago I honoured the retired revolutionary ideologue Michael O’Meara in the context that, unlike him, white nationalists are merely reactionaries.

Today I came up with the idea to look in the discussion threads of the webzine where O’Meara used to post his articles to see when was the last time O’Meara discussed one of his articles with the commenters. I found out it was a reply to a commenter in one of the threads from September 2012:

No offense taken. I was pleased that someone had commented on the Catholic aspect of the piece. Another take on religion is my ‘Only a God Can Save Us’, archived here at C-C.

O’Meara refers to his article on Nietzsche originally published in The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer 2008), which Greg Johnson later republished in Counter-Currents on July 1, 2010. This means that O’Meara wrote his article before the Spaniard Evropa Soberana published his long essay on Judea vs. Rome, which I later translated and adopted as the masthead of this site.

O’Meara’s last comment in Johnson’s webzine reminds me that, in another of his articles, O’Meara said things about Hitler that denoted a critical spirit towards what, in my opinion, has been the apex of western history to date: the Third Reich.

Years ago I asked a question in one of the discussion threads of this site. I didn’t understand why Solzhenitsyn, who so longed for the destruction of the USSR, had not sided with the Nazis who wanted to destroy Bolshevism even after writing his two non-fiction books: The Gulag Archipelago and 200 Years Together. How was this possible, taking into account that Solzhenitsyn was a hawk during the Vietnam War (insofar as he wanted to prevent communism from spreading)? Roger, a British commenter with great sensitivity to why we should reject the degenerate music of the past decades, replied that it was due to Solzhenitsyn’s Christianity.

The Briton hit the nail. It was Solzhenitsyn’s orthodox Christianity that made him ‘schizophrenic’ in the sense of not siding with the good guys during the greatest conflagration between Good and Evil in Western history (check out my most recent sticky post).

The same with Michael O’Meara, whose parents I guess were Irish Catholics. Although O’Meara was far more courageous than today’s white nationalists in suggesting that only revolutionary thinking can save us, he fell short in not appreciating the greatest mental revolution of our day, embodied in the figure of Hitler. And since unlike Roger most American racialists are sympathetic to Christianity, they will remain as schizophrenic as Solzhenitsyn and O’Meara until they stop idealising everything related to the god of the Jews.

Michael’s ‘Only a (((God))) can save us’ is truly schizophrenic if he has in mind the god of his Catholic parents (triple parenthesis added).

Categories
Constantine Currency crash Feminized western males Game of Thrones Michael O'Meara Racial right

Oasis in the middle of the desert

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?