O’MEARA: The Foundations of the 21st Century
Posted by alex in America, Europe, Michael O'Meara, real American history, real history at 11:12 pm | 
Permanent Link
A White Nationalist Reading of Dominique Venner’s Le Siècle de 1914: Utopies, guerres et révolutions en Europe au XXe siècle (Paris: Pygmalion, 2006)
by Michael O’Meara
To recreate a new aristocracy is the eternal task of every revolutionary project. -Guillaume Faye
At the beginning of 20th century, peoples of European descent ruled the world. They made up a third of its population, occupied half its landmass, controlled Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and parts of coastal China; their industry and technology, along with their philosophy, science, and art, had no rival; the world was theirs and theirs alone.
A century later, all was changed: Peoples of European descent had fallen to less than 9 percent of the world’s population; their lands were everywhere inundated by non-Whites; their industry and technology outsourced to potential enemies; their state, social system, and media taken over by parasitic aliens; and, in the deepest demographic sense, they faced the not-too-distant prospect of biological extinction.
To understand this catastrophic inversion requires some understanding of the period responsible for it. We’re fortunate that after a lifetime studying its key movements, Dominique Venner, our greatest identitarian historian, has set out to chart its biopolitical contours.
BEFORE THE DELUGE
As a historical (rather than a chronological) period, the 20th century begins in 1914, with the onset of the First World War, whose devastating assault on European existence shook the continent in every one of its foundations, destroying not just its ancien régime, but ushering in what Ernst Nolte calls the “European Civil War” of 1917-45 or what some call the “Thirty Years War” of 1914-45. For amidst its storms of fire and steel, there spewed four rival ideologies — American liberalism, Russian Communism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism — each of whose ambition was to reshape the postwar order according to its own scheme for collective salvation. Our world, Venner argues, is a product of these contentious ambitions and of the ideological system — liberalism — that prevailed over its rivals.
Before the war of 1914 political ideologies lacked the “religious” fervor of their 20th-century counterparts. Europe then was more than a geographic assortment of different peoples and states identified with different political creeds. It constituted a single biocivilization (a Race-Nation), whose ethnonational variants embodied alternative facets of the genetic-spiritual legacy bequeathed by the Greeks, the Aryans, and the Cro Magnons. Not a single great phenomenon experienced by any one European people, it followed, was not also experienced by the others: From the megalithic culture of the stone age, to medieval chivalry, to the rise of nationalism. In the modern period, the ties of blood and spirit linking the different European nations took institutional form in the Westphalian state system of 1648, which, with the exception of the revolutionary period (1789-1815), limited their numerous wars and conflicts to family disputes.
The greatest casualty of what contemporaries called the Great War would be the destruction of this system — and of the aristocratic elites who were its incarnation.
On the war’s eve, the aristocracy still represented that historic body whose function was to command, to fight, and to defend. In fact, in one form or another, it had always dominated European life — at least since the Aryans, that offshoot of the White race whose existence was premised on the rule of the “noble.” Though property-based and attached to the permanances of family, tradition, and rank, the pre-war aristocracy bore little resemblance to the decadent hereditary ruling class of liberal historiography. For Venner, it was, as an ideal type, an ever-renewing estate infused with the spirit of honor, duty, and loyalty to what was highest in White existence. As such, it typified its people’s essence, associating nobility with those who put their people’s interests before their own.
Except for republican France and Switzerland, all of Europe’s pre-war monarchical and imperial states were governed by aristocrats, whose Prussian spirit exalted simplicity, austerity, duty, and political incorruptibility. Against the levelling aspersions cast by liberals and democrats, Venner emphasizes the aristocracy’s dynamic, modernist, and genial character — opposed in essence to bourgeois democratic societies, which subordinate everyone to money (the realm of the Jews).
CATACLYSM
No one in 1914 quite understood the type of the war they had gotten into. All the general staffs anticipated a short, decisive engagement like the “cabinet wars” of the 18th and 19th centuries — not realizing it might resemble the American War of Succession, whose closing stages anticipated the “Second-Generation War” of 1914 (a generation of war based on massed firepower, where “artillery conquers, infantry occupies”).
Though a traditional conflict between rival states at the start, by 1917, once the United States entered it, the war had been transformed not just into an industrial and social mobilization of unprecedented scope, but into an ideological crusade between democratic and authoritarian regimes. Worse, the democratic crusaders wouldn’t let the war end the way previous European wars had ended, when the jus publicum europaeum of the Westphalian system mitigated White strife and ensured the integrity of rival states. In the absence of this noble restraint, Europe was mutilated at its core: Nine million combatants were killed, the Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Romanov empires shattered, and an even greater hecatomb prepared for the next generation.
In the glow of this holocaust, Woodrow Wilson, the American champion of an anti-aristocratic, anti-European “democratism,” stepped upon the Old World’s stage to proclaim a new order based on liberal governance, free markets, and the egalitarian principle that the sovereign individual takes precedence over community, culture, history, and (in time) race — an order whose underlying principle rested on the rule of money — and, though Venner doesn’t say it, on money’s Chosen Ones.
The untenable Wilsonian settlement of 1918-19 collapsed soon enough, but it was hastened, in some cases provoked, by its ideological rivals. For Wilson’s plutocratic democracy did not go unopposed. In Russia, Communists proposed a more radically egalitarian version of his liberal utopia, a version whose methods differed from America’s market principles, but nevertheless upheld the same raceless materialist commitments born of Enlightenment liberalism. In Germany and Italy, a defensive Europeanism gave rise to more forthrightly anti-liberal ideologies to challenge the anti-Aryan or Jewish ethic of American capitalism and Russian Communism.
In this spirit, Mussolini’s Fascists called for a strong state exalting “authority, order, and justice” to unite Italian producers and soldiers in a national destiny free of the community-killing forces of liberal individualism and Communist collectivism. In a different way, Hitler’s National Socialists fought for a racial order, a Volksgemeinschaft, to overturn the Diktat of the Wilsonian peace, beat back the liberals’ assault on the body and spirit of the nation, and return Germany to its rightful place on the world stage. Both these movements opposing the anti-White subversions of the Wilsonians and Leninists did so, despite their plebeian-Caesarian politics, in a spirit akin to Europe’s ancient warrior aristocracies, whose tradition exalted personal power and regalian purpose.
WILSON’S DEMOCRATISM
The focus of Venner’s history is the interwar struggle between liberalism, Communism, Fascism, and National Socialism. The focus in this reading is Wilson’s liberal democratism, whose “mission” it was to champion the plutocratic democracy of American capitalist enterprise, as it endeavored to wipe the historical slate clean of its European (especially its German and Catholic) accouterments.
Wilson’s crusading democratism stemmed from the dominant Puritan strain of America’s national tradition. Having settled their New Israel far from the morally compromised Europe they had fled and having identified their election with economic success, the Puritans defined themselves not in terms of their ancestor’s blood and heritage, but (once the spirit of capitalism overwhelmed their Protestant ethic) in terms of the Lockian “pursuit of happiness” — the very notion of which was alien to any sense of history and destiny. Such a Hebraic form of Christianity imbued the Wilsonians with the belief that their system was not only more virtuous than that of other peoples, but that it made them immune to their failings. (Though formally a Southerner, Wilson’s approach to Europe followed in the steps of earlier Northeastern Yankee elites, whose secularized Puritanism, in the form of Unitarian/Social Gospel humanism, motivated their century long assault on the religious and racial practices of the American South).
The clash between aristocratic and democratic values — between Europe and America — reflected, of course, a more profound clash. Venner explains it in terms of Oswald Spengler’s Prussianism and Socialism (1919), which argues that the 16th-century Reformation produced two opposed visions of Protestant Christianity — the Calvinism of the English and the Lutheran Pietism of the Germans. The German vision rejected the primacy of wealth, comfort, and happiness, exalting the soldier’s aristocratic spirit and the probity this spirit nurtured in Prussian officialdom. English Protestants, by contrast, privileged wealth (sign of election) and the external freedoms necessary to its pursuit. This made it a secularizing, individualistic, and above all economic “religion,” with each individual having the right to interpret the Book in his own light and thus to justify whatever it took to succeed.
Given England’s influence on America’s formation, Venner sees an analogous process at work in the United States. In the 20th century, this process took the form of a money-driven variant of Calvinism, whose impetus has been to enfranchise those Puritan/Jewish/liberal/New Class projects that have been such a bane to White existence in the 20th century: Those projects proposing a rupture with the past, the destruction of historic identities, and the creation of a new world where everything was possible — a new world where Jerusalem takes precedent over Athens, where the Brotherhood of Man is proclaimed with ethnocidal conviction, and America is celebrated as an anti-Europe.
So armed, the Wilsonians set out to destroy Europe’s ancient empires and aristocracies.
THE NEW WORLD
The war’s Wilsonian settlement (premised on the lie of German war guilt) left the traditional order in ruins, but, of even greater consequence, it prepared Europeans for future catastrophes, preeminently the Second World War (1939-45) — which would subject them to Soviet and American occupation and to a Judeo-corporate system intent on de-Europeanizing them by re-programming their morals and mentalities, deconstructing their thought and art, decolonizing their Asian and African empires, and eventually opening their gates to the Third World. The destruction of Europe’s aristocratic heritage had, in effect, been prelude to the ensuing assault on its blood and spirit.
Before the U.S. entered the new world war set off by the failures of the Wilsonian peace, the promulgation of the Atlantic Charter (August 1941) called for another liberal crusade. In this spirit, the Charter’s democratic principles envisioned a postwar order based on monied interests, Anglo-American commerce, and liberal democracy — the foundations of which have become the present anti-White system. As an alliance combining the democratists’ most starry-eyed ideals and hard-headed interests, the U.S. led coalition (the “United Nations”) aimed at destroying not just German Nazism, but the German nation, whose Prussian spirit rebuked everything the Wilsonians represented.
Eisenhower’s “Crusade in Europe” was accordingly waged with a ferocity unknown in European history. The two extra-European powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were thus each ideologically committed to uprooting whatever remained of Europe’s living heritage. Their “anti-fascist” crusade was especially intent on criminalizing the Entente powers and the European values they embodied. The Nuremberg trials following the war would be the most conspicuous example of this crusading anti-Europeanism, but so too was the Allies’ effort to hunt down, silence, or kill their wartime opponents and to level Europe’s inherently anti-egalitarian order. (In France alone, 600,000 people were imprisoned following the “Liberation” and more than 40,000 summarily executed!)
Broken, demoralized, occupied, Europe in 1945 was ripe for re-education. The occupying powers’ culpablizing crusade would be especially effective in overcoming resistance to the new liberal utopia, even after the former allies embarked on their so-called Cold War (1947-89). Revealingly, American democratists were qualitatively more subversive than their more racially-conscious Russian counterparts. In the western half of the postwar’s U.S.-S.U. Condominium, the culpabilitization of defeated Germany was extended to all of Western and Central Europe. (In the language of our little black brothers and sisters, original sin now became “a white thing.”) Europeans were henceforth expected to do penance for having once been powerful and creative, for having founded empires, for privileging rank, nobility, and valor, but above all for having been White and favored their own interests at the expense of Jews and other non-Europeans. The very idea of a White or European identity would, in fact, be treated hereafter as a pathology.
Japan, by contrast, suffered no such culpabilitization — not only because it experienced less of it, but also because Japanese culture refused to accept the victors’ image of itself. The culpabilitization of Europeans was so effective not simply because of the occupiers’ unchallenged power, but because it converged with a secularizing Christianity (a Judeo-Christianity?), whose Concordant with Caesar’s realm now sought to turn Europe’s former self-confidence into a form of self-loathing. The “irony” of this culpability (if irony is the word) was that the Europeans’ alleged guilt was a fraud: They had had no monopoly on so-called “crimes against humanity.” (The Anglo-American carpet bombing of civilians and the indiscriminate destruction of Europe’s great cities, the mass population transfers, the organized starvation campaigns, the unprecedented horrors associated with Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki — nothing of this affected the anti-European balance of Allied justice or brought Russian, English, or American war criminals into the dockets).
THE IRON CAGE
Following the Cold War, in which Europeans were mere spectators, a new view of history was programmed for popular consumption: The view that saw the history of 20th-century Europe in terms of its struggle for the cause of Holy Democracy, with its market utopia of general prosperity, the limitless liberties of its private life, the glories of its occupiers’ semiticly fabricated mass culture, and its rainbow mixture of diverse races and cultures.
Accordingly, the Soviets’ command economy and totalitarian controlled society gave way after 1989 not to utopia, but to a system animated by the forces of consumption, bureaucracy, spectacle, and sex. For though the democratists’ methods differed from those of the Communists, they too aspired to a raceless economic paradise and, to that end, now resort to totalitarian measures to criminalize, demonize, or pathologize whoever opposes their subversions.
In 1920, in his most famous book, Max Weber pointed out that a modernity subject solely to the market’s economic criteria engenders a ruthless rationalization of human life — what he called “the iron cage.” Venner argues that since 1945 Washington has imposed its version of the iron cage on Europe.
This has especially been the case in the European Union (EU). Though the idea of unification was an old one, Wilson’s heirs favored a model geared not just to Europe’s democratic re-education, but to its transformation into a U.S. economic protectorate, closely integrated into the transnational super-structures which Washington and New York set in place during the course of the Cold War. The Marshall Plan, for example, dictated greater economic cooperation and integration centered on U.S. regulated international trade, while Jean Monnet, the principal architect of the “common market,” was a Wall Street insider, friend to New York Jewish banking interests. Then, after America’s cat paw, Britain, entered the EU in 1972, Europe’s homegrown democratists (“the American Party” which has governed Europe since 1945) gave themselves over entirely to the liberal project, turning Europe into a free-trade zone subject to purely economic consideration. In this spirit, they now define Europe in anti-political (i.e., liberal) terms indifferent to all those historic, traditionalist, and national barriers obstructing the race-mixing imperatives of their monetary reign.
Venner calls the global order born of post-1945 Wilsonianism a “cosmocracy.” The cosmopolitan plutocracy of this cosmocracy, which became globally hegemonic after Communism’s collapse, makes the nation state obsolete, denationalizes its elites, and racially mixes incompatible peoples and cultures in the name of an abstract, quantitatively-defined Humanity indifferent to the survival of European peoples. Heir to liberalism’s inherent cosmopolitanism, as well as to Communist internationalism and the Judeo-Christian distortion of White identity, the collective culpabilitization that has been used since 1945 to manipulate the European conscience remains one of the cosmocracy’s most important supports. For to deflect criticism and squelch resistance, liberals and ex-Communists (whose chief distinction is their indifference to race, breeding, and every qualitative ascriptions resistant to the Judeo-liberal conception of democracy) need only appeal to their “anti-hate” laws and “human rights” to silence whoever challenges their inquisitional reign.
Having been guilty of the Holocaust, colonialism, and other so-called forms of racism, Europeans are now expected to open their arms to the overpopulated refuse of the Third World. The colored invasion now transforming Europe is gradually compelling Europeans to awake to what is happening to them and to take steps, however tentative at this point, toward the Reconquest of their imperiled homeland. But no one in their “democratic” ruling elites — these bloodless executors of that transnational super structure whose Hebraic spirit champions the interests of the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals, the established parties, the MSM, the NGOs, and the universities, whose guiding arm is the Jewish dominated banking system headquartered in New York, and whose principal geopolitical orientation is the Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis — no one in these elites has the slightest understanding of what is happening under their very noses, seemingly oblivious or indifferent to what the importation of millions of Africans and Asians means to Europe.
Fortunately for Europe’s scattered remnant (and it was a remnant that reconquered Spain), the cosmocracy is creating a crisis of such massive proportion that it is likely to provoke a catastrophic collapse that will give Whites one last chance to regain control of their destiny.
THE BEGINNING THAT STANDS BEFORE US
Europeans after 1945 fell into dormition, losing all consciousness of who they were as a people. Like Germans after the original Thirty Years Wars (1618-48), their thirty-year blood expenditure left them totally depleted, forcing them off the historical stage and into the arms of everything that today threatens their existence.
Dormition, though, is not death. This seems especially the case in that the democratists’ utopia has come to rest on increasingly uncertain foundations. Its objective failures, I think it is fair to argue, are more and more imposing themselves on the collective consciousness, while, subjectively, Europe’s once cowed and beaten nations are gradually beginning to reject the democratists’ cosmopolitan agenda, as national-populist parties snip away at the authority of the established regime. The rebellion of May 2005, in which the French, then the Dutch electorates, rejected the proposed EU constitution — and did so against all the concerted forces of the existing system — was a revenge of sorts on May 1945 and on the Judeo-liberal vision of a Europe indifferent to its own genetic-cultural heritage. Other, more meaningful rebellions have also begun to stir.
Bad as things have become, there is thus still reason for hope. Venner stresses that history never ends — wars are never decisively won. Fukuyama had no sooner proclaimed “the end of history” — the undisputed triumph of Wilson’s market model of world order — than Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations predicted that the end of the Cold War’s ideological strife would lead to even more apocalyptic conflicts.
Few defeats, then, are irredeemable, but only as long as the defeated remain heroic: For our vision of the past (our vision of who we were) inevitably shapes what we are to become. Venner’s study is cause, though, not for optimism, but for caution and circumspection. Every European of good stock, he claims, cannot but admire the reckless heroism of Homer’s Achilles, but the greatest Homeric hero is Ulysses — Ulysses of the thousand guises, who used all his patience and cunning to regain his home.
Historically, resistance, reconquest, and renaissance are the Ulyssean work of small groups bound by the asceticism of ancient military orders and inspired by a will for action, thought, and decision. Not coincidentally, the struggles such groups wage create new aristocracies, for war is the most merciless of the selective forces. Only this, Venner believes, will enable us to regain our lands and all that we once were.
As Europeans enter the 21st century, one thing alone seems clear: The future will not resemble the present. The unimaginable is already waiting in the wings. But though history is full of the unforeseeable, the forces of culture, race, and history never cease to weight on a people’s destiny, as they intersect with present circumstance to affect the future’s course. In this Venner finds hope. For his Europe (which has existed for 30,000 years) is the Europe whose spirit struggles for all that is noble.
22 February, 2007 at 12:37 am
Before Europe can be reborn, the Kwa must die. Without the Kwa to act as the enforcer of multiculturalism, our people will find their way back to normalcy.
22 February, 2007 at 10:56 am
A White Nationalist Reading of Dominique Venner’s Le Siècle de 1914: Utopies, guerres et révolutions en Europe au XXe siècle
Just what we’ve always wanted.
To recreate a new aristocracy is the eternal task of every revolutionary project. -Guillaume Faye
Yea, but first they all had to oust the aristocracy already in place. I’m afraid Faye is a little fay when it comes to revolutionary action. Instead, here’s Lenin’s view of the “revolutionary project” —
A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution.
Now, as I go along hacking up your piece, O’Meara, I will come back round to this quote, to see if you measure up to it.
To understand this catastrophic inversion requires some understanding of the period responsible for it. We’re fortunate that after a lifetime studying its key movements, Dominique Venner, our greatest identitarian historian, has set out to chart its biopolitical contours.
A real Columbus in that respect, I’m sure. But you don’t have to charter the Nina, Pinta or Santa Maria to trace the “biopolitical contours” of Aryan decline; in fact you need just three little letters: J – E – W. All the understanding the modern man needs of the catastrophic inversion is of the persons responsible for it. You’re already tapping your way around the point.
I should like at this point, before going on, to submit that any man using phrases like “biopolitical contours” is in serious need of a smaller horse.
The greatest casualty of what contemporaries called the Great War would be the destruction of this system — and of the aristocratic elites who were its incarnation.
Thank God! Anyone who sighs over the Habsburgs is a first-class idiot.
In fact, in one form or another, it had always dominated European life — at least since the Aryans, that offshoot of the White race whose existence was premised on the rule of the “noble.â€
Ah, I see, very nice — now the Aryans were merely a branch of some great “White race”, and not, rather, the race which gave sense to a broader mass of white-colored europids. Charming.
Venner emphasizes the aristocracy’s dynamic, modernist, and genial character — opposed in essence to bourgeois democratic societies, which subordinate everyone to money (the realm of the Jews).
Venner, then, is a first class idiot. I’m not sure anyone here would find aristocratic society dynamic or genial; read any novel from the time and you’ll quickly find yourself gasping for air. Of course Venner, being a learned Frenchman, would be right at home in such society. You, O’Meara, for imposing his milieu upon us, are committing no less a “biolpolitical” sin as the Jews in imposing negroes. We are not aristocrats, and the world is better of without crusty old European aristocrats. You are not an aristocrat, and no amount of theorizing or essaying about aristocracy and so on will make it so. That time is long gone. In this age, one fights dirty. Instead, you opt for sitting on your haunches daydreaming about a “new aristocracy”. Neofolk bilge!
And please note the very european reversion to the Jews as merely the worshipers of Mammon. That is just an archaism; it is what a 19th century politician or civil servant would tell you about Jews, and just that is what O’Meara is trying to emulate. The Jews deserve far more credit than that, though, nicht wahr? have they not come a very long way from mere capitalism? Boas, Adorno, Kissinger, Foxman, Chertoff…..? Beware of Europhiles who would put the Jews back in the safe little “capitalist” category to avoid admitting everything else about them.
In the glow of this holocaust,
Right there you have the pitiful “I’m a victim, too” kind of rhetoric which has long been prevalent among White Nationalists and Europhiles. He is “reclaiming” the word holocaust, like feminists say they “reclaim” words like cunt and fucking. It’s self-help mentality. “We’re all holocaust victims now.”
In this spirit, Mussolini’s Fascists called for a strong state exalting “authority, order, and justice†to unite Italian producers and soldiers in a national destiny free of the community-killing forces of liberal individualism and Communist collectivism.
And what’d the Italians get out of that? Timely trains and bungled adventuring in Africa and Greece.
“The colored invasion now transforming Europe is gradually compelling Europeans to awake to what is happening to them and to take steps, however tentative at this point,”
Tentative = powerless.
“these bloodless executors of that transnational super structure whose Hebraic spirit champions the interests of the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals, the established parties, the MSM, the NGOs, and the universities, whose guiding arm is the Jewish dominated banking system headquartered in New York, and whose principal geopolitical orientation is the Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis”
*breath*
Good Lord, that one sentence contains the whole of European “anti-NWO” ideology. I don’t know what a Trilateral is, but it does sound threatening. It’s important keep in mind that O’Meara got all this straight from European sources, who, by law, are forced to name “safe”, ambiguous culprits like the MSM – whatever that is! – in a grand conspiracy of orgs and whatnot. They can’t say, for example, “Jews and goyish capos”, as we free Americans would. They have to say….well, you see. The error arises from oppressive speech laws attempting to formulate a “legal” oppositional ideology with an international coloring, to appeal to all European nationals. Of course this has nothing to do with we Americans; our greatest sociopolitical threat is from watchdog groups and our own government. Jewish money has been around for a long, long time; Tel Aviv, despite Ahmadinejad’s wise counsel, will not be wiped off the map anytime soon; and whatever a Trilateral is, we face more immediate injustice at the hands of Jewish poisoners and overseers, and should think rather of chastising them — not focusing on these grand bogeys of international conspiracy theory, which we cannot ever possibly attack.
“The occupying powers’ culpablizing crusade”
What a fucking tard you are, O’Meara.
Fortunately for Europe’s scattered remnant (and it was a remnant that reconquered Spain), the cosmocracy is creating a crisis of such massive proportion that it is likely to provoke a catastrophic collapse that will give Whites one last chance to regain control of their destiny.
And here you have the most dogged article of faith among White Nationalists and Euro-nationalists: the collapse idea. No mention of how, or what, or when or where, just that it is coming. That is belief, hope, faith, not reasoned thought. A White Nationalist article must end with these success-words or it is for naught: as a quasi-ideology, White Nationalism cannot allow itself to depress the follower; to survive it must pull the wool over the follower’s eyes to preserve its already pitiable contingent. Does it not remind anyone else of the Christians who, for two-thousand years, would occasionally drive themselves mad with the belief that the world was about to end, Jesus was coming back, and the New Age would be ushered in? Among White Nationalists one always finds this “Golden Age” which is “coming”, with a “collapse” and a “chance” to “redeem” the “White race”. It’s all ridiculous drivel. It’s so easy to shut one’s eyes to the depth and extent of the decline and just go, “Well, it’s becoming so bad, something has to give” — no: those are words, not science. We’re not standing on a teetering bridge, here. We are standing on a very stable infrastructure. No matter how bad it gets, the infrastructure will not collapse, because it is not something which can collapse. It’s more like we’re in a big boat with huge holes poked in the side, and our choices are to go down or jump overboard and get eaten alive. My point however is the logical fallacies inherent to White Nationalist dogma. Its errors are symbolic, meaning it cannot separate the circumstances of reality from its own figurative reasoning. So, for example, although the mechanism of our decline is microsocial (the destruction of exact locations, like Johannesburg, or Miami, or your town), the WN-messianist will rest easy in a macrosocial eschatological fantasy. Chomsky, I think, said: “The map is not the terrain.” White Nationalist “theorists” like O’Meara soothe themselves, and fool their readers, by focusing on the map, not the terrain. The terrain has niggers and all kinds of creepy things; the map is whatever O’Meara says it is, really. If O’Meara says it’s coming, if Linder says it’s coming, if a hundred WNs all join together and say ITZ COMING!, then…….well, they’ve convinced each other it’s coming. NO matter that White Nationalism has been saying this for well-nigh sixty years. No matter the disparity between microsocial dysgenics and macrosocial fantasy; no matter anything but the need to believe that we will have just one more chance to make it right. Imagine for a moment – this is a big thought experiment, try to bear with me – that the situation we face, Jews and niggers and mongrelized whites and all of that, is put on a bar-graph. How big would that bar be? pretty big, right? Now imagine the size of that “chance” bar. Do you think it would measure up even a fucking quarter? do you really? — WN’s “ita missa est” hopefulness is so obviously empty and naive, how can one properly dissect it? how do you dissect naivete like that?
Europeans after 1945 fell into dormition,
Dormition….that’s like sleep, just not.
losing all consciousness of who they were as a people
Give me a fucking break. Has O’Meara ever talked to French people, I wonder? He castigates Europeans for not living up to this haughty “pan-European” neo-traditional ideal in his favorite books, when all the while, Europeans think of themselves much as they always have: as better than their neighbors. Sure, they’ve been infected by political correctness and negritude and all that. But at bottom a Frenchman knows he is French and European. O’Meara is way too melodramatic, here. Losing all consciousness my ass. As a people! When were “Europeans” ever “a people”?
Dormition, though, is not death.
You’re playing with concepts which aren’t real, O’Meara. “Europeans” are not “a people”. They are not in “dormition” or a coma or anything else. They’ve been miseducated, at worst. But what goes on in European heads doesn’t matter all; what matters is what goes on in European streets. Take a walk through Kreuzberg and fucking tell me multiculturalism can be solved by any means short of mass-bloodshed. Tell me white folks stand a chance against the huge hulking niggers we see everywhere. Tell me your little daydream aristocracy and bogus patchwork traditions can oppose street power, money power, fire power.
What a fucking simp you are, O’Meara. You do nothing but propagate the goddamned LIE that we can get ourselves out of this mess by repeating pretty words to that effect. Fuck you. We are in this shit for the long fucking haul, and all your kind does is obscure the gravity of the situation with naive little academic daydreams.
Its objective failures, I think it is fair to argue, are more and more imposing themselves on the collective consciousness,
What collective consciousness? You just said Europeans at least have no collective consciousness. Is there or is there not a collective consciousness? and so what, anyway? If this “collective consciousness” mattered at all, we’d see real fighting. Do we see that? when has “consciousness” ever been able to oppose guns and laws and mass-brainwashing? You are so simplistic, it’s just unbelievable.
while, subjectively, Europe’s once cowed and beaten nations are gradually beginning to reject the democratists’ cosmopolitan agenda
Uh, how is that? because France and the Netherlands rejected the Constitution? so what? Point to one law, one even proposed law, or anything of the kind, which bodes well for Europeans as a whole. And do not point to that worthless little collection of right-wingers in Parliament passing themselves as some major new “force” in Europoliticks. Europeans love their groups and their names and their theories, and by God their countries are as bad off as our own. And anyway who gives a fuck about Europe anymore? why should we Americans care? who says we’re “brothers”? Europeans shit on us at every opportunity. Germans live for bashing “scheiss Amis”. Just attempt the lightest political talk with any German you find and see if you’re not instantly ignored because you’re from “Bushland”. These people are not us, do not understand the world as we do, are narrow and ill-mannered and we should not concern ourselves with them.
as national-populist parties snip away at the authority of the established regime.
Again, show me the money. Just ONE example of this. You specialize in success-words. Let’s see some of what you’re claiming, O’Meara. How is “Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty” snipping away at the “established regime”?
See, the biggest error here is thinking that the whole thing rests on a regime, or head of state, or system, or whatever Europhiles like calling it. As a matter of fact, and as VNNers well know, the problem lay directly with the brainwashed masses, that immovable swamp of idiocy which cannot possibly be got through. From the shady orgs, to the Jewish watchdog groups, to the goyish watchdogs, right down to your neighborhood full of brainwashed hysterical idiot goyim, we face absolutely insurmountable opposition. No European “national” party is going to save Europe or us. The European establishment can afford a few “nationalists” running about saying much the same as O’Meara, just as the American establishment can afford letting us blather, and Amazon.com can afford to sell the Protocols and Mein Kampf and The International Jew — in fact profit from them, and thats when you KNOW you are fucked: when your enemy profits socially and financially from your one single means of attack. All the Jew has to do is point, and the goyim all join together in a great bleat of reproof. How do you oppose that, O’Meara? with identity, tradition and sovereignty? I don’t think it’s working. Maybe some of your readers do. I don’t know. I think you’re all lousy shallow neofolk cunts.
The rebellion of May 2005, in which the French, then the Dutch electorates, rejected the proposed EU constitution
See that sleight of tongue, there? Instead of a droll little plebiscite, it becomes under O’Meara’s greedy eye a “rebellion”. The problem with Europe is no longer the overseers and the engineers, but the people themselves, who are no longer worth saving.
and did so against all the concerted forces of the existing system
More melodrama. Plebiscites among people who don’t matter, about shit that doesn’t matter, staged by people who don’t really give a fuck what plebes think, are approximately worthless. Only dragging those puppeteers out of their beds and beating them to death matters. That’s just like White Nationalism though: it’s pleased to damn democracy and parliamentarianism when Sunic is leading the choir, but when the NPD wins a little vote in the swamps of Mecklenburg, or the Vlaams Belang stages a little show and the frogs vote Non — they lose their heads: proof that they will take anything they can get, which is exactly the position of one with absolutely no power or chance of success.
was a revenge of sorts on May 1945
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Now that is just fucking absurd! WWHD?
the Judeo-liberal vision of a Europe indifferent to its own genetic-cultural heritage.
Only a Mike O’Meara could see so much in that referendum. Seriously. I know nationalists in France who could only laugh at that little sideshow – in which whites and nonwhites took part – as the usual ecstatic leftism obtaining in the streets of those two nations. But under O’Meara’s needful eye, the referendum was nothing less than revenge for ’45 and a harkening back to Europe’s genetic-cultural heritage.
If this strikes anyone as pompous and moronic, and completely the wrong interpretation of a fairly straight-forward minor agitation in Western Europe, you’re on the right track.
Bad as things have become, there is thus still reason for hope.
Merk das wohl, Kerle — France and Nederland voting no means there is a chance that Jamal and Tyrone won’t molest your daughter when she is of, erm, molestable age.
Venner stresses that history never ends — wars are never decisively won.
And Venner is dead fucking wrong.
Few defeats, then, are irredeemable, but only as long as the defeated remain heroic
Or: some defeats, those when the defeated remain heroic, take on an irredeemably pathetic character. That is the nature of postmodern life, after all — we are free to remain to appear heroic, just as the other guy is free to dress up like a girl, and so on. It’s all about appearances, here. Putting on your heroic face is virtually the only criterion for becoming a respected White Nationalist.
For our vision of the past (our vision of who we were) inevitably shapes what we are to become.
Count me out. Honestly, I’d rather ape niggers than become like you traditionalists. There’s no salt, no laughter, no mockery, no violence in any of you. And how can you trust a man with none of those qualities?
Every European of good stock, he claims, cannot but admire the reckless heroism of Homer’s Achilles, but the greatest Homeric hero is Ulysses — Ulysses of the thousand guises, who used all his patience and cunning to regain his home.
Yes, I’m sure the European everyman is quite admiring of old Akhilleos. Hey, I have an idea, O’Meara — go take a look around on MySpace for some Europeans and see what they’re about. Linder can help you out with your profile, I think.
All this mock-heroic crap gets us nowhere. Never has, never will. This is conservitardism in a european key.
Historically, resistance, reconquest, and renaissance are the Ulyssean work of small groups bound by the asceticism of ancient military orders and inspired by a will for action, thought, and decision.
How many times can I say it, phrase it differently — the academic lives for putting together things like this. He’s shoveled in Ulysses, asceticism, military orders, all kinds of delicious things. And woh, he even uses the word “action”, rendering me fit to expire of mirth, I do declare.
For his Europe (which has existed for 30,000 years) is the Europe whose spirit struggles for all that is noble.
Always, always, always, push the origins of your fetish further back in time than the other guy’s.
22 February, 2007 at 10:57 am
Before Europe can be reborn, the Kwa must die. Without the Kwa to act as the enforcer of multiculturalism, our people will find their way back to normalcy.
Well said, Jim. Unfortunately, Mr. O’Meara does not recognize Kwa. He recognizes only NWO. None of the grit & grime of our beloved Kwa!
22 February, 2007 at 11:31 am
Forget Lenin, allow me to quote Adolf Linder himself:
Look, it’s this simple. If the other guy is willing to go lower than you, your choice is to match (or exceed) him, or lose. Most people have a hard time admitting that to themselves. They’re middle class people. They want high quality and low price. But life doesn’t work like that.
The price of doing away with the jews who currently exercise dominion over the reported world will be great heaping scoops of carnage.
The other alternative is losing, and cutting a fine figure in the minds of the final generation. And then disappearing for all time. No man is more admired in the South than Robert E. Lee, and rightly so, but I tell you that his way will not work and is poison to our cause. You cannot defeat dishonor and treachery and murder by above-board means. Certainly not when those who practice them are in the driver’s seat, as jews are today.
***
Call me nutty, but I think O’Meara and what he represents falls short of all this.
22 February, 2007 at 1:48 pm
“Look, it’s this simple. If the other guy is willing to go lower than you, your choice is to match (or exceed) him, or lose.”
I have no reservations about genocide. Our ends justify any means. So tell me, anti-European, what is it I am supposed to do?
22 February, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“The appointment of two Muslim politicians to the new Dutch cabinet has reawakened a row in the country over dual nationality.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6385463.stm)
Remember — this is one of the no-voting nations of the Great Constitutional Rebellion, in revenge for ’45 and in affirmation of their “genetic-cultural heritage”!
“Down, but not out,” says Europhilia.
“Down, out, and denying it,” say I.
22 February, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Interesting, that is to say what O’Meara, over looks and what Anti-European dismisses. Anti-European is as guilty as O’ Meara in his dismissal of certain facts as if they were irrelevant. Nevertheless O’Meara exists, as does Linder, as does Anti-European.
“for want of a nail…” Dismissing factors in an equation will often produce a incorrect answer. Does Anti-European have enough strength to “search himself”?
“Thrice the brinded cat hath mew’d.”
22 February, 2007 at 3:53 pm
So tell me, anti-European, what is it I am supposed to do?
Wreak terror in the land. Forget all else but terror.
22 February, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Anti-European is as guilty as O’ Meara in his dismissal of certain facts as if they were irrelevant.
I dismiss them because we all know them by now. Linder isn’t a dogmatic type; most of his judgements and inclinations are in stark contrast to the ideations of 90% of WNs, but he doesn’t impose a view on anyone, sticks to exposing the machinations of Jewry. At the same time, he allows other voices to get through, so there is a competition between worldviews, which amounts really to a competition between temperaments, and in this milieu of “benign neglect”, essayists like O’Meara thrive and facts are repeated ad nauseam, along with the moralistic hangups of traditionalism. When Linder himself expresses an opinion, it is generally of a far more radical nature, but it passes quickly after thrilling the reader. I’ve always felt it necessary to play up this radicalism, at the very least to balance, though better to completely destroy, the lukewarm traditionalist blathering of guys like O’Meara. So, I don’t waste time with facts, with what is already known. O’Meara will be treading this water come 2030, mark my words. And there will be another guy like me who castigates him for his tepidness, and there will be another guy like you who puts on airs and says the other guy “dismisses facts”. Every movement has its conservitarded and radical wings. To survive, WN has to emphasize conservative ideas. If anyone goes too far along the road of nihilism, the believers are horrified, for they sense their comforts are threatened. WN comes down to wanting to get rid of Jews, but not having the balls to risk what we have left of our civil freedoms to do it. Anyone who dissents from the radical line is essentially timid or has some interest in promoting a more comfortable line. O’Meara is that to the core.
22 February, 2007 at 5:42 pm
For heaven’s sake AE, it’s a summary of the 20th century, not a plan of attack. I’m as ready to attack as you are – I don’t know about O’Meara. Doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate the history of the situation.
I like the European slant, because I’m convinced that the kwa is hopeless. I’ve despised it for four decades, since I realized it was populated with idiots who’re actually proud to be fighting for the Jew.
It’s not that it’s on the verge of collapse. It’s that it will, eventually. The Jew is seeing to that. Of us, only Europeans will be left.
22 February, 2007 at 7:06 pm
‘O’Meara will be treading this water come 2030, mark my words. And there will be another guy like me who castigates him for his tepidness, and there will be another guy like you who puts on airs and says the other guy “dismisses factsâ€. ‘
Almost right. There will still be a guy like him, and a guy like you, but as for me, there is only one. Notice the difference? You put something on me which doesn’t belong. It belongs to you, that other guy and another.
Lady, three white leopards sat under a juniper-tree
In the cool of the day, having fed to satiety
On my legs my heart my liver and that which had been contained
In the hollow round of my skull.
I am not the third. :)
22 February, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Plato maintained a difference between that which is “always becoming but never is” and that which “is but never becoming”. This idea has its counter part in Aryan philosophy. That which fills the all and is the all, can not move as it has no space within which to move.
The story is told of a man who hated god with all his being. He constantly went over ever part of god and what he hated about him. No little corner or cranny was spared his contemptous eye. The upshot was his realisation that he was god from which followed his liberation from illusion.
“My brother, if thou be fortunate, then wilt thou have one virtue and no more: thus goest thou easier over the bridge.”
22 February, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Of us, only Europeans will be left.
Don’t be fooled by the euro-pandering of the O’Mearas. We Americans possess much more savvy, spirit and depth than the Europeans of today, perhaps excluding the dying breed of cloistered French scholars, from whom O’Meara draws his rhetoric.
Europeans are not us. Europe is not ours. Europe is small, cramped, expensive, and beset by the same social problems as we are; it is not Paradise and it is no longer worth idealizing, just like America. Europhiles need Europe to feel better about being alive, not because it presents any verifiable promise of a better future; and their traditionalist fantasies were cooked up in a Frenchman’s lab. It’s all worthless romanticism. Nothing is “falling”, “collapsing”, the Jews are not busily at work destroying themselves, there is no Golden Age round the corner, and so on.
It’s all wishful-thinking.
Better to stop with all that and promote a more radical viewpoint than entertain these damned ideological shysters. That “European slant” has beneath the judgement that you, as an American, are inferior to the European, that this nation is bankrupt, and Europe is just full of rich cultural treasures, etc. All those treasures are worth fuck all. We have more value as outspoken, ideologically consistent anti-Semites than European nationalists will ever realize, so busy are they prating about Kultur and Tradizione. Fuck them. Pandering to the Europeans and the high-sounding platitudes of the Europhiles is surrender to an alien worldview no less ignominious than allowing Jewry to “define” us. Trust in Linder, not O’Meara.
22 February, 2007 at 8:06 pm
What a fantastic article by O’Meara. It really helps me understand the big picture, specifically the way in which the Protestant insanity eschers into the judeoism.
22 February, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Anyone who dissents from the radical line is essentially timid or has some interest in promoting a more comfortable line. O’Meara is that to the core.
I agree with your basic approach, but I don’t think it applies to O’Meara. He does name the jew. That’s what matters in academics.
He’s giving us the big picture, not the how-we’re-gonna-turn-it-around. False posing of radicalism vs tradition.
My view has always been that we must exterminate the jews. I don’t say it that to be radical or for any other reason but that it seems to me the only conclusion that can be drawn from studying the history O’Meara outlines. But that’s not his job to say what should be done any more than Macdonald’s.
Let’s try to keep the personality out and stick to the argument. I love reading stuff like this above because I studied international relations, exactly the happenings and theories he discusses above, and nothing was ever put in the correct context. Which O’Meara does. I like to think that people are printing these articles out and showing them to high-school students.
What will inspire people to do what needs to be done — having kids, amassing money, slitting jews’ throats — is understanding that there IS more to life than some crappy spectacle. That one is part of a glorious tradition, part of an enduring race.
I believe too that things are not as bad as they appear. It is purely a function of who controls tv. We don’t, and there’s no reason to think we will. You are probably right that collapse is the wrong metaphor, but certainly micro-degeneration can become macro, as we transform into just another third-world country. But I do believe that will yield chances for those who are prepared. It’s not all one way. We must inspire and reclaim where we can, and take advantage of the opportunities we see. And make our own. It’s a struggle, there’s no doubt. We aren’t winning yet, but that more Whites are moving our way is verifiable.
22 February, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Woodrow Wilson, the American champion of an anti-aristocratic, anti-European “democratism,†stepped upon the Old World’s stage to proclaim a new order based on liberal governance, free markets, and the egalitarian principle that the sovereign individual takes precedence over community, culture, history, and (in time) race — an order whose underlying principle rested on the rule of money — and, though Venner doesn’t say it, on money’s Chosen Ones.
This is excellent. It names the jew; it puts things in a context damn sure no AmeriKwan student is being taught. Once you have the big picture, then you can fill in the details as you go along.
And this:
Wilson’s crusading democratism stemmed from the dominant Puritan strain of America’s national tradition. Having settled their New Israel far from the morally compromised Europe they had fled and having identified their election with economic success, the Puritans defined themselves not in terms of their ancestor’s blood and heritage, but (once the spirit of capitalism overwhelmed their Protestant ethic) in terms of the Lockian “pursuit of happiness†— the very notion of which was alien to any sense of history and destiny. Such a Hebraic form of Christianity imbued the Wilsonians with the belief that their system was not only more virtuous than that of other peoples, but that it made them immune to their failings. (Though formally a Southerner, Wilson’s approach to Europe followed in the steps of earlier Northeastern Yankee elites, whose secularized Puritanism, in the form of Unitarian/Social Gospel humanism, motivated their century long assault on the religious and racial practices of the American South).
The clash between aristocratic and democratic values — between Europe and America — reflected, of course, a more profound clash. Venner explains it in terms of Oswald Spengler’s Prussianism and Socialism (1919), which argues that the 16th-century Reformation produced two opposed visions of Protestant Christianity — the Calvinism of the English and the Lutheran Pietism of the Germans. The German vision rejected the primacy of wealth, comfort, and happiness, exalting the soldier’s aristocratic spirit and the probity this spirit nurtured in Prussian officialdom. English Protestants, by contrast, privileged wealth (sign of election) and the external freedoms necessary to its pursuit. This made it a secularizing, individualistic, and above all economic “religion,†with each individual having the right to interpret the Book in his own light and thus to justify whatever it took to succeed.
Given England’s influence on America’s formation, Venner sees an analogous process at work in the United States. In the 20th century, this process took the form of a money-driven variant of Calvinism, whose impetus has been to enfranchise those Puritan/Jewish/liberal/New Class projects that have been such a bane to White existence in the 20th century: Those projects proposing a rupture with the past, the destruction of historic identities, and the creation of a new world where everything was possible — a new world where Jerusalem takes precedent over Athens, where the Brotherhood of Man is proclaimed with ethnocidal conviction, and America is celebrated as an anti-Europe.
In no public school will someone come away with this contextual understanding. O’Meara has built a structure for a smaller understanding. You can fit the details into the big picture. I think that’s very important. Then you just combine his context with KM’s explanation of the nature of the jew and its cultural perniciousness. Soon we begin to see how it all fits togethrer. It’s our job to decide what to do about it, and that’s where VNN picks up.
23 February, 2007 at 8:45 am
I don’t say it that to be radical or for any other reason but that it seems to me the only conclusion that can be drawn from studying the history O’Meara outlines.
I would say it depends on a bit more than that, Alex. Plenty of people study that history now. Very, very few come to the conclusion we have. And just that is what frustrates the hell out of me, and what, I think, guys O’Meara promote in their approach.
But that’s not his job to say what should be done any more than Macdonald’s.
One may except MacDonald as a special case. He actually contributed something the world has not seen before — O’Meara regurgitates the prejudices and artificial value system of French and European intellectuals. I say it is the job of everyone involved to be as explicit as possible, to not hide behind any bits of rhetoric or general ideas, to push the most radical line in an attempt to radicalize as many young men as possible. I don’t think that’s a bad way to look at it, and from comments of yours I’ve read in the past, neither do you. “I’m trying to reach young men who can effect a revolution, period.” O’Meara is not one of those men, and his writings do not produce such men. I would bet absolutely anything that a Linderian ‘Outline of History’ would be more useful to us than this one from O’Meara — which is not simply an outline, as a tried to show, and will emphasize here as well. If he had simply gone down a list of events, that would be an outline; but he also interprets and imposes his own value system on that outline, which other people read, are influenced by, and perpetuate. At some point there shall have to be a more radical approach to all of this than is no offered by just about everyone outside of you and your set.
The propaganda tactics of the NSDAP are worth mentioning in that their campaigns were always as closely coordinated as possible: everyone had the same line, the posters said one thing, city speakers were sent to other cities, town speakers sent to the towns, etc. What I mean to say is that the NSDAP presented a platform of absolutely consistent radicalism. This, of course, alienated the moderates (DVP) and the patriots (Stahlhelm, vaterländischen Verbände), and drew in pissed off young roughnecks and intellectuals who were always the meat of the NSDAP. — I don’t mean to imply that I believe in forming an organization or anything like, only that the NSDAP succeeded inter alia by sticking to one single radical line against the Jews. Not just naming the Jew – everyone did that – but proposing with the next breath what should be done. Making it an obsession, as it were. Dragging strange entities like the Bilderberg group and Trilaterals only weakens the message. I maintain that the time for nearly naming the Jew is over; the newcomer to anti-Semitism does not want for material to get him through the question as speedily as his temperament permits; we, however, should not languish behind thinking that just pointing out the Jew is enough. It is above all important to radicalize the audience and present one voice with regard to what should be done. O’Meara, and all traditionalist-conservatards, are not on board here. They prefer to stay behind with Plato, Achilles and the French professors’ discourses on virtu and nobilitas and the color scheme of Aryan societies, betimes aggrandizing Evropa, Evropa at our expense. So be it, these people cannot be eliminated; but I never let their ideological shallowness go unchecked. I say traditionalism is the greatest Trojan Horse we face, for behind it are the most stagnant, complacent instincts, and on the face a lot of “heroic” posturing. Traditionalism is conservatism with a European face.
He’s giving us the big picture, not the how-we’re-gonna-turn-it-around. False posing of radicalism vs tradition.
Not at all. Much of his piece I don’t have any problem with, insofar as it is the “big picture” (though the academicsprach is utterly repulsive and unnecessary to us); it is rather the naive little morals he decorates it with that I point to. Let me go back for an example, to wit:
Few defeats, then, are irredeemable, but only as long as the defeated remain heroic: For our vision of the past (our vision of who we were) inevitably shapes what we are to become. Venner’s study is cause, though, not for optimism, but for caution and circumspection. Every European of good stock, he claims, cannot but admire the reckless heroism of Homer’s Achilles, but the greatest Homeric hero is Ulysses — Ulysses of the thousand guises, who used all his patience and cunning to regain his home.
Now all that will sound to the casual reader very nice and noble. You cannot fail to please with airy success-words like that. Give the reader hope, you’ve gained a follower. But is it realistic? or is it rather only the hopes of O’Meara masquerading as analysis and philosophy? At the same time he rather absurdly denies his optimism and calls for, who would’ve guessed, caution and circumspection: two words beloved of all without fire. Go slow, don’t take risks, think twice, thrice, four times is best; do nothing severe, dangerous, don’t cause any trouble — that’s how I hear O’Meara. All I’m trying to do is point to the morality and ideology clinging to his “outline”, and secondly the motivation. O’Meara is undoubtedly a talent: but of what value is that talent?, is the question I pose. Is his naming of the Jew something that will grab and shake the reader? No, someone will argue, but it will good for the unitiated; one must go slowly. But we shouldn’t treat readers like virgins who need to be coaxed into spreading their legs. It is far better to punch them in the face and have at it. The only sort of people this will bring in are those temperamentally timid. You’re the very model of contrast, for God’s sake: VNN is a lightning-rod for radicals. I am merely saying that that needs to be played up, and not O’Meara-style analysis.
and nothing was ever put in the correct context. Which O’Meara does. I like to think that people are printing these articles out and showing them to high-school students.
Well, I’m pretty sure that is not happening, and if it were, I would call it a first-rate danger to anti-Semitism as a whole, for the reasons given above. But I don’t disagree with you on the “correct context”. He does that, can’t deny it. Maybe it is the callousness of familiarity which in part inspires me to attack him.
What will inspire people to do what needs to be done — having kids, amassing money, slitting jews’ throats — is understanding that there IS more to life than some crappy spectacle. That one is part of a glorious tradition, part of an enduring race.
On the contrary: what inspires people to take action is hard speech and calls for action. Gothic architecture, Achilles and Ulysses, Spengler and Devi have not once inspired anyone to take up arms against the Jews, and they never will, because they are aesthetic phenomenon. At best they can make someone’s life a little deeper, but they are not what inspires men to fight. Leonidas’ speech at Thermopylae; Urban II’s speech at Clermont; Adolf Hitler’s speech at Zirkus Krone — these inspired men. Words, words, words, and again words, an incessant, hoarse cry for revenge is what will inspire men to do what must be done, nothing else. Frankly I’m surprised you are claiming the opposite. We can talk about tradition and glory and nobility and aristocracy for the rest of our damned lives, of course, and as you once said, “cut a fine figure before the final generation.” Or we can strive to radicalize as many people as possible and see what results.
You are probably right that collapse is the wrong metaphor, but certainly micro-degeneration can become macro, as we transform into just another third-world country. But I do believe that will yield chances for those who are prepared.
Well, that is a better way to put it, and there will certainly be opportunities in the future.
Your response has given me a clearer picture of your “ideology”, so to speak. You give out ideas here & there so it’s hard to get a complete picture of what you actually believe/want. I liked your idea of having a team of lawyers before anything else. I don’t agree with that route, of course, but for what path we’re on, if we remain on it, it is the most mature idea anyone has put forward.
23 February, 2007 at 10:00 am
Any jerk who advocates being against Europeans who ARE OUR BLOOD RELATIONS is a fucking retard, dangerous and a traitor. This dickhead, Anti-European/Anti/A — who doesn’t like that SOME Germans have a problem with the “Amis” — can’t even understand that being an “Amiphile” is even worse than being a Europhile. If you’ve lived in Germany (I did for 10 years) and saw what the nigger-loving Amis and their African soldiers do, you’d probably not like us either. To divide us against each other is a jewish tactic and this Anti-European fool just plays along while SIMULTANEOUSLY railing about the jews. You have to laugh to keep from crying. Pathetic.
The prophecy of a coming collapse is not fantasy or a threat like THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH of the religious fanatics and quacks. Whites are dying and going extinct. Further, the US is turning into Third World country as are all European nations. The twilight of the White race is surely in sight and inevitable. I don’t think Anti disagrees with this necessarily, he just doesn’t like hyperbole and evangelist tactics, and I agree. That doesn’t make the facts of our demise exaggerated.
Solution: To build white mass media to get enough of our own in our ranks to carry out the great white revolution in AmeriKwa that Anti hopes for. That doesn’t mean O’Meara doesn’t want the same revolution even though his essay is the height of academic blowhardedness IMHO. There will be blood and carnage when we TAKE OUR FUCKING COUNTRY BACK from the jews and start deporting the niggers and other non-whites. How many will be needed to have a successful white revolution? A half million whites? A million? Less? More? Who knows? Let’s reach our fellow whites with the truth first with our own mass media before we start calling for action of the lone wolf variety which is doomed to fail with the current few numbers of our “awakened” brethren and let’s stop the Europe bashing and promote solidarity. Even if the europeans can’t help us, we can and should help them instead of screwing them like we have in the past. O’Meara’s articles, even though I don’t entirely agree with him or the people he cites, and even though his articles are certainly not rousing, he’s pro-white nonetheless and we should appreciate his efforts to remind us of our roots no matter how incorrectly and non-revolutionary it comes across. He’s not setting policy for our actions in a dogmatic fashion, which Anti appropriately disdains, so being hard on him is not cool.
23 February, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Your response has given me a clearer picture of your “ideologyâ€, so to speak. You give out ideas here & there so it’s hard to get a complete picture of what you actually believe/want. I liked your idea of having a team of lawyers before anything else. I don’t agree with that route, of course, but for what path we’re on, if we remain on it, it is the most mature idea anyone has put forward.
Fighting back legally – we need a core of lawyers, around which to wrap middle-class brains and money. These lawyers, and street activists, can show up wherever White are abused, and demand action. That’s something we could be doing now on the legal front. And at the same time, we should have Whites putting together complete curricula for White children, so that all can withdraw from the public schools.
That is in no way to speak against violent action. However, that’s not my forte, strategic thinking in that regard. To the extent I’ve talked about it, I observe that jews only begin to lose when people are willing to die to defeat them – hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqis in Iraq. I don’t think we have a genuine movement yet. I think it will fairly be described as a movement when neocon jews and their appeasers begin to be killed for their genocidal agenda against the Aryan race.
23 February, 2007 at 7:35 pm
in response to anti’s response to alex:
alex wrote:
What will inspire people to do what needs to be done — having kids, amassing money, slitting jews’ throats — is understanding that there IS more to life than some crappy spectacle. That one is part of a glorious tradition, part of an enduring race.
anti replies:
On the contrary: what inspires people to take action is hard speech and calls for action. Gothic architecture, Achilles and Ulysses, Spengler and Devi have not once inspired anyone to take up arms against the Jews, and they never will, because they are aesthetic phenomenon. At best they can make someone’s life a little deeper, but they are not what inspires men to fight. Leonidas’ speech at Thermopylae; Urban II’s speech at Clermont; Adolf Hitler’s speech at Zirkus Krone — these inspired men. Words, words, words, and again words, an incessant, hoarse cry for revenge is what will inspire men to do what must be done, nothing else. Frankly I’m surprised you are claiming the opposite. We can talk about tradition and glory and nobility and aristocracy for the rest of our damned lives, of course, and as you once said, “cut a fine figure before the final generation.†Or we can strive to radicalize as many people as possible and see what results.
in reply:
Peter Shank made the most astute observation; all that the goddamn JEWS have accomplished, they have accomplished without firing a shot. They did it through control of the words you heard, and the pictures you saw. They changed your Mind, for you – whether you liked it or not.
Only a change of Mind, will save our Kind.
For FIFTY YEARS, at the cost of millions of dollars, and tens of millions of man-hours, the Conservatives – our parody of Traditionalists – have accomplished exactly NOTHING, for our RACE. They have played the Fool’s Games chosen for them; as Dr. Revilo Oliver observed, they played that Game very well, indeed, and won every round, every time.
The few “inspiring speeches” that led to action in America were usually (1) given by our RACIAL traitors, and (2) had little effect, save as a source of bad publicity for us, in the actions that followed. Bill White noted what a great job the FBI informer did for the NSM; White also noted what a poor job the NSM has done for us.
It requires a new kind of thinking, a new System of Thought, to SEE clearly what is wrong, and what needs to be done.
The Foundation is FAMILY; in particular, the Foundation of RACE is FAMILY. Anything that does not actively support that conception simply plays into the hands of our RACIAL enemies, the demons who walk the Earth in human bodies known as JEWS.
A people who surrender their children’s souls to the public fool and indoctrination system deserve to have their children turn on them, their FAMILY, their RACE and their CULTURE.
We also work too many things backwards, from the materialistic conception forward. Traditionalists, like Devy, Yockey and Spengler, did not fall into this trap. For instance, I believe that the correct Foundation of Culture is Religion. The meeting ground for FAMILY and CULTURE is, obviously, RACE.
RACE then becomes an active, transforming FORCE in the lives of the members of the Community, as well as the Community.
The goddamn demonic JEWS have a system where there is no true Individuation; everything – EVERYTHING – is defined purely in terms of whether or not it serves their ONE RACIAL COMMANDMENT – “Is it good for JEWS?”
It has worked spectacularly well for them, binding a RACE of demons over the course of millennia in the fulfillment of ONE goal, ONE purpose – the subjection of Mankind as their animals, to serve the Satanic JEWS as cattle serve their OWNERS.
Simply stated, the JEWS wish for one thing to never happen – they NEVER want to be observed objectively, as the Asiatic Hive Consciousness moving in the fulfillment of their RACIAL purpose.
This is where the hidden spiritual forces come to work WITH us, in the fulfillment of a much greater Purpose than the demonic JEWS can begin to understand.
This is a continual focus of the Traditionalists, and requires a degree of focus and discipline most of us can not imagine; thus, we go back into the Matrix, and watch television – usually mindless games, at that.
There is an easy way to condense the abstractions of RACE into a simple conception – “Is what I am about to do, no matter how trivial it is, something that my grandparents, and my grandchildren, would support, and would support their dreams, and our destinies?”
With FAMILY, correctly defined, as the Foundation, a lot of issues become clear; with that intellectual clarity comes a moral clarity, and the resolve to do what needs to be done…
New America
An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!
23 February, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“Only a change of Mind, will save our Kind.”
White Nationalism sinks ever deeper into this sickly self-help coloring. It always reminds me of that part in ‘Fight Club’ where the narrator is saying how all the cancer and tumor support groups have upbeat names like “Getting Well Together” and neutral words are used to mask the gravity of the conditions. White Nationalist ideology, today, is 90% this kind of euphemistic wishful-thinking. Why don’t we just go a step further . . . .
Everyone put on your hap-py face,
your hap-py face,
your hap-py face,
Everyone put on your hap-py face
and save the white race now.
All of us need some liv-ing space,
some liv-ing space,
some liv-ing space,
All of us need a little living space,
so stomp all those tapirs right noooow.
Don’t get me wrong though! I am feeling the tapirsprach. Totally. All in, dawg.
23 February, 2007 at 10:18 pm
This dickhead, Anti-European/Anti/A
Hey! I resent being confused with A. He is a prophet, a poet, sui generis.
who doesn’t like that SOME Germans have a problem with the “Amisâ€
Pretty much all of them have some problem with America, be it nationalists who whine about Dresden and the expulsions, or just your average Deutsche Michel who saw ‘Fahrenheit 9-11’ and thinks he knows “all about” the nefarious American administration. They’re not a nation of thinkers anymore, I’m sorry to say. Everyone is by now familiar with that obnoxious, self-satisfied bigotry of the average European who believes American negroes are still in chains and we all wear cowboy hats, just like Joe American “hates the French” because they “smell bad”. The New Right is basically an elaboration of that petty resentment complex of popular European sentiment; it magnifies it, gives it historical depth, but is nothing but the same old European parochialism. Of course, I don’t cheer for the Americans when I read a history of WWII; but one must face squarely distributions of power and legitimacy. The spirit hath departed from Europe, to speak A.ishly. Our geist is more important than anyone else’s. The Jews are here, we are here, this is the most incredible nation the world has ever seen, the destiny of the world proceeds from right here — bothering about Europe is the damned distraction. There mere fact that our nation, not any of theirs, produced a Kevin MacDonald and an Alex Linder, is proof of Europe’s intellectual bankruptcy and the rationalistic bounty of our own. European intellectuals, already laboring under their native intellectual traditions, had after the 50’s to conform to strict speech laws, and out of this double-straitjacket came the “NWO”/traditionalist/quasi-leftism of modern European right-wing political thought. Instead of saying Jew, they had to say “Israel”, which misses the point entirely. Even the most extreme right-wing German bands, I kid you not, talk more about “Zionismus” than “Juden”. Half of them have songs about “Palestine”. This makeshift, amorphous ideology has gained a lot of steam in the past few years. In general it is another symptom of the drawing away from Old World/Nazi-style anti-Semitism and radical politics, and represents, not valid political science or philosophy, but dying nations trying to come to terms with their degraded existence. They put on a “socialist” facade when in their hearts they’re the same callous, Pole-hating krauts they’ve always been.
The prophecy of a coming collapse is not fantasy or a threat like THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH of the religious fanatics and quacks.
It is exactly like that. It is an article of faith, not a demonstrable probability. You can’t peel a rock, and highly complex and decentralized social infrastructures, which rest a myriad of social conditions, do not “collapse”: it is a misapplication of the concept “collapse” to a complex of phenomena which has no relation to that verb.
Whites are dying and going extinct.
This is another piece of rhetoric which is far from demonstrable. What is demonstrable, plainly observable I should say, is that whites are undergoing wholesale debasement of one kind or another, though it’s all coming long after the watershed of Second World War, which did away with, as O’Meara kinda-almost points out, the last remnants of the Old World. Populations generally do not simply disappear, and you have to be careful when someone says a people is just “heavily mixed”: populations are genetically more static than dynamic, is my point. It is correct to say that whites have been thoroughly degraded and that that is getting, can only get, worse. No one is going extinct — unfortunately. Linder believes it’s reversible provided we regain control. I say it isn’t without lopping off great chunks of the post-white populations by various means unpleasant.
I don’t think Anti disagrees with this necessarily, he just doesn’t like hyperbole and evangelist tactics, and I agree. That doesn’t make the facts of our demise exaggerated.
Certainly not. Again, all I was doing there, was pointing out the origins of O’Meara’s rhetoric. It is wrong to say he is simply giving a run-down of how we got to 2007, Anno Judaei. It’s much more than that. Voices are never neutral. Behind them is always an understanding of the world which suits the speaker, but may not be beneficial to the spoken to, or not as much as another voice. White Nationalism has adopted the underdog’s error of supposing that everyone has to “work together” – an unrealistic goal, premised on an unrealistic self-conception – to achieve victory, whereas history shows, and Hitler declares, that alliances are at best temporary measures and must not be the basis of politics, which is dog eat dog, as everywhere else. While all the other groups in Weimar Germany were buddying up here & there like gelatinous maritime organisms, the NSDAP alone had the wisdom to stand apart, hold to the most radical line, and browbeat everyone else into submission. That is how it’s done, not “working together” or allowing some traditionalist preacher to spread false hopes.
24 February, 2007 at 12:05 am
in reply to anti re “Fight Club,” and “Changes of Mind”:
# Anti Says:
23 February, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“Only a change of Mind, will save our Kind.â€
White Nationalism sinks ever deeper into this sickly self-help coloring. It always reminds me of that part in ‘Fight Club’ where the narrator is saying how all the cancer and tumor support groups have upbeat names like “Getting Well Together†and neutral words are used to mask the gravity of the conditions. White Nationalist ideology, today, is 90% this kind of euphemistic wishful-thinking. Why don’t we just go a step further . . . .
Everyone put on your hap-py face,
your hap-py face,
your hap-py face,
Everyone put on your hap-py face
and save the white race now.
All of us need some liv-ing space,
some liv-ing space,
some liv-ing space,
All of us need a little living space,
so stomp all those tapirs right noooow.
Don’t get me wrong though! I am feeling the tapirsprach. Totally. All in, dawg.
in reply:
“Fight Club” is a critically important film for all of us.
Remember, “Tyler Durden” – dynamic, Aryan, Real Man Brad Pitt – was the denied Masculine Aspect of The Narrator. When the collapse of all of the illusions he had built his life around became obvious, The Narrator (Ed Norton, as in “American History X”), reduces his life to a ruthless removal of all in his life that works against him coming in touch with his Masculine persona.
This is an example of “the change of Mind that will save our Kind.”
The issue is personal responsibility; not waiting for The Collapse, Pierce to return, Rockwell to reincarnate, none of that. His back to the wall, he rejects all of “the paste jewel of middle-class respectability,” AND works aggressively to deal with the removal of what doesn’t work – metrosexual, kinder and gentler – with what DOES work – straight from the hip, no bullshit.
This denial of the physical Reality around us is the hallmark of our gelding brethren, the same ones who would turn on us in a minute for being “haters.”
It is the same reason that more than HALF of them are on prescription tranquilizers, and most of the rest watch the narcotics called television, and video games.
This is also why I strongly recommend our children – starting in elementary school – take courses in judo, so they can accept this Aspect of their Persona, and live without fear in a world where they would otherwise be at the mercy of the jungle savages the goddamn JEWS have sent after us.
That’s part of My Dream for our children in junior high school, where they have a phrase written on their notebooks:
“First Rule of Fight Club IS…?”
Now, THAT’S a change of Mind, that will save our Kind!
New America
An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!
24 February, 2007 at 10:17 am
You’re like the Joel Osteen of VNN.
One more thing, then I’m out: Anti Anti says up there that Europeans are our “brothers”. Such figurative speech has no basis in reality, of course, so there’s no need to get into that, but there is also the fact that German nationalists, for example, would never, ever, not for anything call American nationalists their “brothers”. I can provide you with a long list of German national fora and you not once see anywhere even the slightest hint of appreciation of American nationalism, such as it is. You’ll see only their incessant locust-buzzing about Dresden, child molestors (?), das System ist krank, etc. There is no reason for idealization of Europe or Europeans, is my point — no reason at all. They don’t like us, would as lief see the whole continent sink into the ocean. Sucking up to Euros at this point is exactly like Amurrcan goyim who suck up to Jews: completely one-sided relationship.
Also, they’re usually really ugly, much like people in the NSM and so on. Am I to call such people brothers: http://bremen.antifa.net/was_ging/langwedel_081005.php ? As I always say, look at the women…..
24 February, 2007 at 10:19 am
Excluding the devilishly handsome Andreas Hackmann (#50), of course!
24 February, 2007 at 11:02 am
I’ve been reading VNN for a while. Great comments. I get the anti-intellectualism of anti-european. Way too many intellectuals live in a world of their imaginings, far removed from every-day hard work reality. I like O’Meara’s essay; makes me think. Thinking is the first step.
We face a group that has specialized in the use of ideas as weapons.
A bloodless enslavement of the mind. Force is their weapon of last resort. They generally don’t need it. They understand the mind; how to shape the common consciousness to their ends. This is where we must begin.
Ideas lead; Action follows. Timing is everything.
24 February, 2007 at 2:53 pm
in reply, at least in part, to anti, again:
you wrote:
*snip*
White Nationalism has adopted the underdog’s error of supposing that everyone has to “work together†– an unrealistic goal, premised on an unrealistic self-conception – to achieve victory, whereas history shows, and Hitler declares, that alliances are at best temporary measures and must not be the basis of politics, which is dog eat dog, as everywhere else. While all the other groups in Weimar Germany were buddying up here & there like gelatinous maritime organisms, the NSDAP alone had the wisdom to stand apart, hold to the most radical line, and browbeat everyone else into submission. That is how it’s done, not “working together†or allowing some traditionalist preacher to spread false hopes.
*snip*
in reply:
“White Nationalism” has always accepted their RACIAL ENEMY’S terms and defintiions; the battle was won before we took the field.
We are so far gone that, bluntly, only a Vanguard will be able to pull through and do what MUST be done on The Other Side of what is ahead.
The idea of “White Nationalism” is too malleable, and too easily perverted. I prefer the more correct formulation “WN2/M,” for “White National/Western Nationalist Movement.” Indeed, “White” as a skin tone is being pretty much defined out of existence, but the unique soul qualities of the West, which are truly responsible for all of our RACIAL greatness, are still there, waiting for us to call upon them and use them to transform the Universe before us.
THESE are the spiritual forces than transformed Christianity into what it SHOULD have been; in effect, it took the Zoroastrian foundation of Christianity and infused it with a dynamis of effective Creative Power. THIS, in turn, transformed Christianity into a force that could harness the pagan forbearers into a true People – the European People. I suspect that King Olaf, Savitri’s critique notwithstanding, knew his priests saw that the pagan Gods needed something more, something greater, Someone Greater, to bind them to a higher purpose; I suspect they saw Christ as the Solar God, and said, “All of our centuries of preparation are to this end.”
I look with admiration at the NSDAP Moment for several reasons. While I agree that the European nationalists, by and larger, hold us in low esteem, well, it’s not like we don’t deserve it. The NSDAP Moment had one defining Impulse – FOR Europa, and AGAINST Judaism – the Asiatic Hive Consciousness. By simply neutralizing the forces of the demonic goddamn JEWS, by simply neutralizing their instituitons of usurious interest, control of the mass media, and influence within both Institutional Christianity and the educational system, it was possible for the European Soul to shine forth, creatively transforming the horribly indebted, collapsed state of Weimar into the Aryan model it was meant to be.
We had the unique opportunity to organize our country along NS lines, but the goddamn JEWS who controlled Roosevelt made sure that would never happen. If it had, we probably would have celebrated the 1960 Presidential Election with live television from our base on Mars, with Russia restored to its Christian heritage…
However, the foundation of spiritual power is righteous responsibility.
And, in Peter Shank’s perfect phrase, “We LET THIS happen to us.”
And Joel Osteen would never allow his children to take Judo classes, which help them to gain the mindset they need to conquer their opponents,
Indeed, quite the contrary.
“The First Rule of Fight Club IS?”
Incidentally, think Sam Francis would be able to answer that question?
No – none of the CONservatives could, as they are trapped in the Old thinking that brought us to this horrible state of affiars.
Only a change of Mind, can save our Kind.
King Olaf certainly thought so…
New America
An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!
24 February, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“While I agree that the European nationalists, by and larger, hold us in low esteem, well, it’s not like we don’t deserve it. ”
You sound exactly like a self-hating white, right there. Do not scrape before anyone. Do not make it part of your ideology or movement. Do not allow anyone to come down on you for mistakes you yourself did not make. Have some fucking self-esteem. That’s all I’m saying with regard to Europeans. We are more important in this equation. We have the answer, they do not. Anyone who gets caught up in their drivel, which arose form their circumstances and suits their needs, is not thinking clearly.
I wasn’t insulting you by comparing you to Osteen, by the way. He makes a basically bad idea palatable to a bunch of hopeless numbskulls through his sugary wit and lukewarm eloquence. I do not hesitate to put him on before “Meet The Press”, come Sunday. I’m sure many here feel the same way about you.
24 February, 2007 at 7:09 pm
in reply to anti:
you wrote:
# Anti Says:
24 February, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“While I agree that the European nationalists, by and larger, hold us in low esteem, well, it’s not like we don’t deserve it. â€
You sound exactly like a self-hating white, right there. Do not scrape before anyone. Do not make it part of your ideology or movement. Do not allow anyone to come down on you for mistakes you yourself did not make. Have some fucking self-esteem. That’s all I’m saying with regard to Europeans. We are more important in this equation. We have the answer, they do not. Anyone who gets caught up in their drivel, which arose form their circumstances and suits their needs, is not thinking clearly.
in reply:
I’m not talking about US.
I’m not talking about those of us who are trying to develop a positive theory of WN2/M society, like Bill White, Harold Covington, Alex Linder, Peter Shank – no, I’m not talking about any of us, at all.
I’m talking about the co-opted Talking Mules of what the goddamn JEW-controlled media calls “White Nationalism” – guys like gap-toothed, green-teethed, three-hundred-and-fifty pound mouth breathers, and the deviants, perverts, pedophiles and Satan worshippers that WN seemed to attract, guys that made Bull Connor look like Commander Rockwell.
In truth, if you will look at the videos of the Scandinavian White Nationalists, with their matched uniforms, disciplined marching style, and torchlight parades, and contrast it to what the goddamn JEW-controlled media shows as being our version of them, you might be forgiven for thinking that, somehow, the next Nietzsche won’t be coming from THIS gene pool!
That’s what I mean about the work of Bob Whitaker, Bill White, et. al., in developing a POSITIVE theory of where we came from, where we are going, and how we should get there. The “Deliverance” crowd, who somehow managed to make Junior Sample look like Cary Grant, could never define what they were FOR in remotely positive terms; it was always “Get rid of the niggers.”
OK, Barnyard. We’ll wave the Magic RACE Wand and get rid of all of the Coloreds.
NOW WHAT?
The POSITIVE theories that White, Covington, Shank, Whitaker and Linder are developing are most important, because it means that WE have taken the responsibility to define who we were, who we are, and who we are becoming.
you wrote:
I wasn’t insulting you by comparing you to Osteen, by the way. He makes a basically bad idea palatable to a bunch of hopeless numbskulls through his sugary wit and lukewarm eloquence. I do not hesitate to put him on before “Meet The Pressâ€, come Sunday. I’m sure many here feel the same way about you.
in reply:
Osteen seems to be like the AMWAY of Christianity; soft, Feminine Christianity needs soft, Feminine Preachers, who make you Feel Good, even as your country and economy slip into Second World status, and the efforts of your RACIAL forebears are turned to trash before their eyes.
And, I use Judo training as the FOUNDATION of a true, “Fear No Man” mindset, that our posterity needs to simply survive the Third World Hellholes that our public fool system has become.
How much better to replace “ROOTS,” which is the code film that always inspires Negro wilding in the halls for days after, with them watching something a bit more to OUR liking?
“300” is looking better and better, all of the time.
Instead of “The First Rule of Fight Club IS?,” perhaps we might have a new phrase, indiciative of a focus, disciplined Mindset.
How about this?
“ALL RIGHT! DROP AND GIVE ME THREE HUNDRED!”
;)
New America
An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!