The Holocaust of America
Posted by alex in America, Michael O'Meara, Neocons at 12:59 am | 
Permanent Link
by Michael O’Meara
Comrades: I’m honored by this invitation to speak to
you today. Honor, though, comes with trepidation —
since my role at this conference is to report that the
main threat to white American survival is not what the
so called Devil Theory of Politics (however pertinent)
would have us believe, but rather something far closer
to home: Namely ourselves. For if we assume, like
Joseph de Maistre, that every people gets the
government it deserves, then the fact that we are
governed by scoundrels and race traitors has more to
do with who we are than it does with who they are.
Based on the assumption that we must first look to
ourselves to understand — and hence resist — the
catastrophe threatening our people, I want here to
look at several interpretations of the America
experience that speak to the question of why our
countrymen seem so indifferent to their impending
demise.
The Neocons’ Creedal Notion
I would like to begin with an interpretation favored
by our enemy: The liberals and especially their
right-wing, the Jewish neocons. In what is now the
standard narrative of American history, the United
States is portrayed as being unlike other nations in
representing not a specific people, but rather certain
timeless, universal ideas that have come to us from
the biblical Zionism of New England’s early settlers
and from the revolutionary political heritage of
18th-century liberalism. Constituting the country’s
alleged essence, these ideas were early on associated
with what is known as the American Creed and, in lieu
of a foundation myth, served as the rationale for its
national project. In the course of the 19th century,
the Creed would assume various forms, animating the
forces of Manifest Destiny, Progressivism, and other
of the country’s quintessential ideologies. Then, in
1917, as Woodrow Wilson launched his crusade to
Americanize the international order, it was codified
in a statement that spelled out its exact principles.
To this codification emphasizing equality, democracy,
and other fictitious liberal abstractions, there has
since been added principles of cultural pluralism and
multiracialism. Yet whatever its form, the Creed has
always defined the nation in ideological or
propositional terms dismissive of race, culture, and
history.
In recent years, this creedal conception of America
has become a hobby horse of the neoconservatives: That
semitically-correct “brood of liberals, social
democrats, and ex-Trotskyists” who routinely appeal to
the Creed to legitimate the Zionist direction of U.S.
foreign and domestic policy. In their hands, the
Creed acquires a particularly anti-foundationalist
character. For example, the neocon hero, Mayor
Rudoph Giuliani, in his farewell address at St. Paul’s
Chapel in New York, near the fallen Twin Towers,
describes the Creed in these terms: “It doesn’t
matter,” he argues, “if you came here rich or poor, if
you came here voluntarily or involuntarily, if you
came here in freedom or in bondage. All that matters
is that you embrace America and understand its ideals
and what it’s all about. Abraham Lincoln used to say
that the test of your Americanism was not your family
tree; the test of your Americanism was how much you
believe in America. Because we’re like a religion
really. A secular religion. We believe in ideas and
ideals. We’re not one race; we’re many. We’re not
one ethnic group; we’re everyone . . . So what ties us
together? We’re tied together by our belief in
political democracy.”
In Giuliani’s neocon rendering, American identity
becomes essentially a matter of believing in the
country’s democratic ideals (whatever they may be) and
not a matter of having an ancestral affiliation to its
people. Old stock or illegal, white or black — what
counts for the neocon is belief in America’s
democratic political heritage. Anyone, by this
reckoning, can be an American. For if certain
abstract political propositions constitute the
nation’s essence, it cannot but follow that the race,
culture, and history of its European founders are
entirely incidental to what it means to be an
American.
Most of you, I realize, reject the notion that the
American nation is based on a creed rather than a
genetically/historically formed people. This creedal
conception is not, however, without its historical
antecedents and not, therefore, without a certain
resonance in American life. Today, for example, it
serves as an ideological justification for
multiculturalism, globalization, and those disastrous
policies premised on the belief that American
democratic principles can, in the bloody
civilizational wars of the 21st century, triumph over
the insurgent forces of militant Islam. Given its
present neocon appropriation, white nationalists tend
to dismiss it outright, as if it were just another
shakedown of the unsuspecting goy and thus not
something integral to the dominant forms of American
identity. The argument I’m making contends that the
creedal interpretation of American identity, contrived
as it may be, nevertheless says something defining
about the American experience — and therefore
something defining about why the impending destruction
of white America leaves most American whites
indifferent.
But instead of convincing you of this by looking at
the actual historical role the Creed has played in
American life, I want here to examine a transatlantic
interpretation of American identity that offers a
related, though more persuasive, explanation of the
country’s creedal foundations.
The New Right’s View
A) Anti-Europe
The European New Right — arguably the most formidable
postwar school of anti-liberal thought — has worked
out a critique of American civilization that shares
certain of the neocons’ creedal premises (even if it
draws far different conclusions from them). At the
core of its critique is the contention that the United
States is not a real nation, but rather a collection
of disparate individuals without cultural cohesion and
common ancestry. American national identity
consequently comes to rest on a civil rather than an
ethnic designation of nationality that grants no
special status to the country’s origin as an organic
offshoot of Europe and hence no significance to those
racial, cultural, and historical ascriptions distinct
to nations in the European sense.
New Rightists point out that from the moment the
Pilgrims stepped ashore at Plymouth and at Salem, they
turned their backs on their homeland, imagining the
wilderness that was then North America as a New
Israel, pure and uncorrupted by the compromised moral
order they had fled. Given their biblical culture and
what David Gelernter calls “their uncanny tendency to
think like Jews,” John Winthrop, the first New England
governor, was made out to be a Moses-like figure who
had led the visible saints out of Egypt to the
Promised land, where their City on the Hill was to be
a beacon to the rest of humanity, a “light unto the
Gentiles,” “morally superior to all others . . . and
closer to God.” England in Puritan discourse was
accordingly depicted as “awash in thieves, drunkards,
idlers, prostitutes, and blasphemers,” while New
England was conceived as “the pivotal battleground for
the eternal fate of all mankind.” In this spirit, the
country’s Calvinist founders rejected those customs
and institutions which had offended God in the Old
World, doing away with “church courts and tithes,
bishops and archbishops, church weddings and ales,
Sunday sports and maypoles, saints’ days and
Christmas.” At the same time, their colony was seen
as a Promised Land, its settlers as a Chosen People,
and its creedal principles as part of a divine mission
to conquer the world.
New Rightists claim the implicit anti-Europeanism of
these beliefs could not but turn America into a sort
of anti-Europe.
That the Puritans’ godly-wise commonwealth was founded
in opposition to a spiritually “corrupt” Europe also
meant that it wasn’t long before the land of their
former kinsmen slipped from memory and that European
life and custom became a “matter of ignorance,
indifference, and contempt.” The hazardous Atlantic
crossing that had brought them to America’s shores was
thus soon imaginatively re-figured as something other
than a geographic separation from their former
homeland: It became a symbol of their moral
ontological rupture with it. Of course, this doesn’t
imply that European and English folkways didn’t
continue to have a major impact on American life or
that the arguments Hackett Fischer and Grayson Allen
make about the transplantation of European folkways
and institutions are unfounded. There’s no getting
away from the fact that New England’s settlers were
people of European extraction, however much they
sought to minimize it. The New Right’s point is that,
despite its European antecedents, America developed in
opposition to Europe — and thus, implicitly, in
opposition to its ancestors’ blood and heritage.
The Puritans’ anti-traditional, anti-European
convictions quite naturally came to affect everything
else. Thus it was that the American struggle against
British imperial reorganization at the end of the 18th
century was framed not simply as a colonial dispute
with the Mother Country, but as a world crusade
against “the traditional ethnic, religious, and tribal
loyalties of the Old World” (Gordon Wood). In this
vein, Tom Paine proclaimed the American cause to be
“the cause of all mankind,” part of the same Divine
Plan that had led the Israelites out of Pharaoh’s
Egypt and into the Promised Land. And it was not just
Tom Paine but the entire Masonic-Enlightenment
generation of 1776 that thought every step toward
American independence was prompted “by some token of
providential agency” (George Washington). The
founding documents thus speak to a project, whose
values and beliefs were to distinguish Americans from
the rest of humanity (exceptionalism), yet, at the
same time, make them champions of humanity’s highest
aspirations (universalism). Even in its original
whites-only form, this propositional definition of the
nation all but dismissed its European origins. A
neocon today can thus argue that: “We have no
biological fathers to provide an ethnic basis for
American nationality. For us the [Founders’] ideals
must do the work.” America’s ideological definition
of nationality, New Rightists conclude, could not but
transform it into “the living negation of all
specificity” — insofar as it dismissed the racial,
cultural, and historical character of its European
origin. At no point in its development, they claim,
is it even possible to speak of its disparate
population as a specific ethnonational entity.
B) The Homeland of Modernity
The country’s anti-Europeanism was not, however,
simply a facet of its Calvinist founding. America’s
emergence as the foremost exemplar of modern liberal
civilization also played a role in undermining its
identification with Europe. This gets us to the
second critique the European New Right makes of
America.
As virtually every student of modernity holds, the
“modern condition” entails more than a process of
secularization, structural differentiation,
industrialization, urbanization, and the growth of
science. More fundamentally, the modern condition
introduces a civilizational ethos entirely unlike that
of traditional or pre-modern civilizations, for basic
to this condition is the separation of past from
present: That is, the separation of present endeavors
from the heritage preceding them. The modernist
consequently favors an ideology of progress that
rearranges the world in ways indifferent to
established hierarchies, ancient authorities, and
accepted truths, assuming, in the process, that its
deracinating rationalisms apply to all mankind. This
subjects everything to a process of unceasing change
and accepts every change as an improvement. Modern
liberal civilization thus imagines that it has
attained a higher level of human achievement, though
actually the opposite seems to have happened, as it
sinks “to the lowest elements in man and . . . to the
needs inherent in the material side of his nature”
(René Guénon). Relatedly, the crass materialism of
such a devolution concerns itself only with industry,
commerce, finance, and with materialism’s corollary,
the nation-killing principle of equality.
Nowhere did modernization go farther and faster than
in America, which lacked a deeply rooted tradition.
Like the founding generation of Calvinists, the
revolutionaries of ’76 disclaimed those time-encrusted
hierarchies and authorities associated with Europe’s
“corrupt” moral order. In fact, their break with the
past was even more decisive, for the struggle they
waged against their British Motherland dictated that
American national identity shed its past affiliations
— and redefine itself in the bloodless postulates of
its revolutionary liberal ideology. Jefferson,
accordingly, thought the key to the country’s
exceptionalism was its “escape” from “history’s
nightmare.” In contrast to Europeans who saw
themselves in terms of past glories characteristic of
their higher modes of Being, he celebrated the open,
dynamic, and forward-looking spirit of the new
republic, free as it was of historical encumbrances
and free thus to realize a glorious future ex nihilo.
This has led one French observer (Jean Baudrillard) to
note that: “America avoids the question of origins; it
lives in a perpetual present.” To live in such an
on-going here-and-now means, however, to live in
isolation from former and future generations. Indeed,
it is this very absence of a common ancestral
tradition that seems to account for the fact that
there is no real organic cohesion, no deeper value, or
felt principle to knit the American people together —
only certain ideological ones, such as the Creed
provides.
And though it was Europe that gave birth to modernity,
it was the United States that zealously remade the
world in its modernist image. For given the absence
of a native aristocracy and the hegemony of its
business class, there was little in the New World to
obstruct modernity’s irrepressible onslaught.
Modernizers, progressives, reformers, developers, and
speculators had the field almost entirely to
themselves. Thus it was that, in the decades
following the revolution, the former colonies were
swept up and carried along by a wave of social
scrambling and economic development that shocked most
European observers. Even certain of the Founders were
taken aback by the restless, self-seeking changes that
marked the national life of the new republic. One
historian reports that in his old age Jefferson
himself, once he realized the vices of commerce had
achieved a decisive victory over the virtues
republicanism was to nurture, began to despair of the
democratic society born of the revolution. Instead,
then, of becoming more virtuous, the American people
seemed to become more materialistic, more egoistic or
self-centered, and hence more indifferent to the
rights of blood and heritage.
C) Leviathan State
There is a third New Right critique that converges —
again negatively — with the neocons’ creedal view.
This one is based on geopolitics and the geopolitical
view that America is preeminently a maritime (or
thalassocratic) power. Geopolitics, as you might
know, is the study of environmental influences,
physical as well as economic, on the evolution of
peoples and their territories, particularly as such
influences affect the strategic actions of states.
One student calls geopolitics “the political grammar
of world politics.” Within this grammar’s
interpretative frame, America’s creedal notion of
nationality is not simply an offshoot of its Puritan
heritage and liberal-modernist foundations, but also
of its sea-faring civilizational forms.
The great German jurist Carl Schmitt, who died before
the New Right’s birth but who continues to influence
it, writes that “World history is the history of the
struggle between the maritime powers and the
continental powers.” This idea is key to virtually
all schools of geopolitical thought. The Ancient
World’s Punic Wars, in pitting maritime Carthage
against overland Rome, represents the purest
paradigmatic expression of this land-sea conflict. In
the modern era, the “Anglo-Saxons” (the British,
succeeded by the Americans), assume Carthage’s role
and the great continental land powers — principally
Germany and Russia — that of ancient Rome.
This inherent antagonism between land and sea touches
everything else. In this spirit, the Russian New
Rightist, Alexandr Dugin, writes: “Through the
experiences of land and sea, earth and water, man
enters into contact with the most fundamental facets
of his existence. Land is stability, gravity, fixity,
space as such. Water is mobility, softness, dynamics,
time.” These two basic geopolitical concepts, land
and sea, cannot, then, but affect man’s other
relationships. Maritime empires tend thus to sustain
complex commercial societies that are open,
innovative, and cosmopolitan, as well as plutocratic,
materialistic, and individualistic, while land or
continental powers tend toward traditionalist
sensibilities privileging communal relations,
honorific commitments, and well-defined social
hierarchies.
Given this opposition between sea and land, island and
continent, America’s maritime supremacy — and I
should remind you that from the very beginning the
country’s republican principles were premised on
America’s maritime preeminence and the need to ensure
unimpeded access to foreign markets — has been
possible only at the expense of Europe. Since the
dawn of the American Century in 1945, U.S. maritime
power has pursued, as a consequence, not only
Britain’s former geostrategic logic, but its anti
traditionalist, anti-identitarian policies toward the
European mainland. Today, America’s New World Order,
premised on global markets and creedal civilizational
forms, continues to rely on its maritime supremacy to
project its military power into every corner of the
globe and to use its capital and markets to force
global economic integration on its own terms. This
money based order, with its multicultural ideology,
international labor markets, and missionary impulse to
impose American modernist forms on other peoples, is,
of course, something far different from the older
white America, with its independent yeoman producers
and its republican forms of governance, but it too has
its roots in America’s liberal rejection of its
biocultural heritage.
Conclusion
Let me conclude by drawing the strands of my argument
together. I began by suggesting that our greatest
enemy is ourselves — and the American system in which
we operate. I then suggested that the liberals, and
especially the Jewish neocons, exploit the system’s
creedal principles for the sake of their anti-white
agenda. I next looked at the way the New Right’s view
of American civilization negatively overlaps the
liberal/neocon one. For like them, New Rightists
believe the American experiment has never been about
the growth and identity of its white settler
population, but rather about certain Hebraic ideas,
modernist principles, and maritime practices
dismissive of all that culturally, historically, and
genetically defines white Americans as a people of
European extraction. In the optic of this New Right
representation, the holocaust whites face today is
less the consequence of their ever expanding
managerial state (as, for instance, the late Sam
Francis thought) or of the Jews’ invidious culture of
critique (as Kevin MacDonald suggests), than of a
civilization founded in opposition to blood and
heritage.
Though it discloses a reality we white nationalist
tend to neglect, this is not the conclusion with which
I want to leave you. For however much America
affronts its European origins (the main point of my
argument), the country’s essence is nevertheless not
reducible to a single monolithic interpretation,
especially one whose geopolitical, modernist, and
historical assumptions are less than certain. Indeed,
the neocon and New Right interpretations seem
especially disputable given that they ignore the most
important consideration of all: America’s biocultural
fundament. In this context, it bears recalling that
the philosophical tradition of our race — as it
stretches from Heidegger’s clearing pathways to
Greece’s pre-Socratic dawn — teaches that every
origin anticipates its future in the same way that
every life enhancing future is realized in reference
to its past. Given America’s European birth, its
possibilities are thus only meaningfully attainable if
it remains “true” to the essence of its original
European being. Despite the Hebraicism of its Puritan
settlers, the anti-identitarianism of its liberal
modernity, and the cosmopolitanism of its maritime
tradition, the fact remains that America’s roots are
European and will always be so, even if the Zionist
maffia in control of the political and social systems
succeeds in forsaking its original pre destination.
Indeed, the present universalizing cosmopolitanism of
the American polity, as it endeavors to make the
country into something it was never destined to be, is
very much a product of Europe, representing not just
one of its organic offshoots, but one of the purest
distillations of our race’s millennia-long flirtation
with nihilism. If white Americans, then, should ever
draw back from the racial-cultural abyss to which they
seem headed and recommence the possibilities latent in
their existence, they, like their transatlantic
cousins, will have no alternative but to reclaim that
which lies both nearest to and most distant from them:
The destining origination born of their ancestors’
blood and heritage.
Note: This talk was presented to a white-nationalist
gathering in October 2005 and appeared, slightly
edited, in the Spring 2006 issue of The Occidental
Quarterly.
7 January, 2007 at 1:48 am
The saying about “we get the government we deserve” is bullshit. I say “the worst kind of motherfuckers go into politics” is more apt and “the government grows itself until it’s the biggest industry of all” and “those who join the system have a vested interest in making the system as powerful and pervasive as possible” are more apt.
We don’t get the government we deserve. Jews control the money supply and the Federal Reserve. All else is semantics.
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”
—Mayer Amschel Rothschild (king of the jews)
The only government is money control.
7 January, 2007 at 9:26 am
Blah blah blah. I didn’t see “Jew” anywhere in there, did you? So much for “specificity”.
American anti-loxists already stand on their own feet. These Euro-panderers, like O’Meara, drag us backward through a gauntlet of spiteful, shallow, timid Europeans who cannot possibly understand the Jew as we here do across de big water. Europeans are provincials.
And is anyone else tired of their damn trumpery? “Comrades, I’m honored…” The classic words of a “conference”. And behold, here we are again, the primary threat! Did Linder post this piece, the same Linder who recently got on HG/Subrosa’s asses for implying that we are to blame for it all?
O’Meara. HG. New Right. Cunts all!
7 January, 2007 at 9:29 am
Never forget though, that all it would take to quickly change things is a leader that would instruct the military and National Guard to clean house and dispossess the chosen from their media apparatus, shut down the satellite uplink etc… Things could literally change in a matter of hours. Granted, it would take a leader with nuts, and we haven’t had one of those in quite some time.
7 January, 2007 at 9:37 am
“…but one of the purest
distillations of our race’s millennia-long flirtation
with nihilism.”
No, Mike. We didn’t flirt with nihilism. Jews, the black-haired devilish Jew described in ‘Mein Kampf’, waylaid us with it, and being good dumb goyim we allowed it to defile us. There’s your Devil Theory of Politics.
I don’t know why cunts like O’Meara are allowed a hearing anymore. The whole “we’re to blame” melodramatic traditionalist line should be thrown out of court immediately as a dangerous recall of post-christian delusion. It represents one direction of thought: self-blame. We represent the other direction: other-blame. Those still caught in self-blame tacitly admit that they are powerless, yet too afraid to play the game of other-blame; we admit we are powerless, and in seeking to explain this state of affairs, ultimately have to blame the Jew. In other words, traditionalists (or europhile white nationalists) ignore reality in favor of verbiage. Two ways of thought: the scientific (what is going on outside my body?) and the narcissistic (what is going on inside my body?). The traditionalists are romantics, narcissists, rousseaist however much they suck up to de Maistre, and usually odinists and quasi-christians (in the absolute worst sense of self-blame) to boot.
The essays and speeches from these people just get longer and longer, and we allowed our mouths to drop ever lower in awe of this worthless verbiage. It “discloses a reality” of bullshitting that should be put far from us. We have the unmatched advantage of having the balls to talk about Jews and only Jews, while these academic vermin want to talk about how imperfect we are, how we need to “reclaim our destining origins”, etc. Cuntery, that simple. Weak-kneed, anti-scientific, feminine, boring, in a word: modern european.
7 January, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Nevertheless, there is a reason why the USA is more jewed than Europe.
7 January, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I don’t wish to deter the New Right from their esoteric ramblings, but they do have a tendency to overplay certain tunes; the split between the New World and the Old is neither as significant, nor as fundamental as they wish to portray it; both America and Europe have been inundated with culture-distortion. “Break with tradition” is also not one-dimensional; America, Europe, and the former Communist Bloc have all been stripped of different traditional ideas and values, and, indeed, retained different ones. Certainly, the disintegration of the ethnic state is at its most advanced in America, followed by Western Europe, particularly England and France, where non-white intrusion has been the greatest. I don’t believe it is coincidental that this order reflects the progress and popularity of the modern mass media under control of the culture-distorter.
7 January, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Europe is potentially even more Jewed than the USA – one cannot criticize Jews there without fear of being tossed in the clink.
7 January, 2007 at 1:08 pm
“Nevertheless, there is a reason why the USA is more jewed than Europe.”
The reason is quite simply WW2, not some magical property of the American consciousness. Prior to Hitler, Europe was “more Jewed” than America.
7 January, 2007 at 1:16 pm
“The essays and speeches from these people just get longer and longer, and we allowed our mouths to drop ever lower in awe of this worthless verbiage. It “discloses a reality†of bullshitting that should be put far from us.”
How true. We must never forget that the “New Right” is a thoroughly postmodern movement. Postmodernism thrives on pretentiousness; long-winded, high-minded and ultimately meaningless verbiage which originates in thumb-sucking rather than reason and evidence. Speaking of “tradition”, don’t bother with these “intellectuals”; read the works of actual thinkers like Charles Murray and Kevin MacDonald, who represent the true intellectual tradition of the West.
7 January, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Many of O’Meara’s points were made by Adolph Hitler in his table talks and mentioned in Mein Kampf. I’m old enough to remember when it seemed that everybody was white and had a British or German last name. Most of those folks neither knew nor cared anything about their heritage or ancestry. If you want to see what they thought, look at the Norman Rockwell paintings, or the Frank Capra films from the 1930s. All the equalitarian bullshit is there.
The jew must go, of course, but the white man has always been his worst enemy, particularly in America. We’ve been screwed by our own from the beginning.
7 January, 2007 at 5:00 pm
O’Meara makes valid points – jAmerica never developed into a people for the general reasons stated in his talk – the only people that made an effort to do so were Southeners, who failed. The muliti-cult anti-Aryan system is a logical result of the jUSA’s adherence to the cultural prototype referenced. The jUSA joined in the physical destruction of Western Europe in the 20th Century and oversee’s (through its Zionist masters) the final liquidation of European genetics in Western Europe as well as jAmerica which will occur in the 21st century – barring some genuis gettting the Euro’s together and ridding it of jAmerican influence.
7 January, 2007 at 6:25 pm
One thing which must be knocked before it starts is the idea that there is gulf between European whites and North American whites or with whites anywhere. Your race is your uniform now. All else, such as language, culture, religion or history are secondary. I only judge a man now by whether he stands for his race and is willing to name the jew as the enemy. People who put themselves up as leaders of the white cause need to be judged by their effectiveness, ie in what they do rather than what they say.
There are many like Anti-European who are tired of the talking without action. In a sense though, he is wrong because we are in this terrible plight because we just went along with the jew’s program rather than fighting it. The National Guardsmen at Little Rock should have mutinied and the white citizens whose children were going to be bussed should have rioted. Emanuel Cellar and Ted Kennedy should have been killed for pushing the emigration bill. The politicians and businessmen who flooded a racially homogenous Europe with muds should have been attacked physically. There are countless points in history where we should have taken violent action. But, we just talked; on both sides of the Atlantic.
Admitting that we were wrong is not weakness. The jew has known how to press our buttons all the time and we have allowed it. Admitting that we have allowed it is not cowardice. We are not wallowing in guilt either. The problem is getting enough of our people, especially the wealthy and influential, to acknowledge that we have been used and abused by the kike so that we can then act appropriately and permanently solve our jew problem.
7 January, 2007 at 7:24 pm
All rackets, Eric Thomson writes (VNN 9-7-06), require the cooperation of their victims. The struggle against the racketeers — against those who seek the destruction of our people — is thus at the same time a struggle against everything in ourselves that leads us to cooperate with them. Those who refuse to examine their own complicity and await the savior who will free them from themselves simply perpetuate the racket that is killing us. “Anti European” and his fellow Holy Rollers can beat their chests and profess their self-righteousness till the seas run dry, but their lack of self-criticism, their colossal ignorance of history, and their inability to follow more than a paragraph of reasoned discourse doesn’t bode well for our movement. In my apparent thoughtlessness and verbosity, I had naively believed we were fighting the Jews because they are the enemy of our people — that is, because they seek to destroy White America — or what, dear boys, is otherwise known as European America. (You might consult my posting of 8- 16-06). Is it now necessary to point out that anti-Europeanism is just another form of anti-white hatred? Given this level of degeneracy, any clarification I might make about the New Right, postmodernism, the relationship between America and Europe, or any of the many other things you know so much about would be like casting pearls before swine.
7 January, 2007 at 8:54 pm
“Speaking of “traditionâ€, don’t bother with these “intellectualsâ€; read the works of actual thinkers like Charles Murray and Kevin MacDonald, who represent the true intellectual tradition of the West.”
I say don’t bother with traditional at all, and don’t spend too much time on actual thinkers. There’s only so much one can learn here, after which you’re just reading the same things from different people to kill time. No more books then. No more thinking: just hate, hate, hate. That’s all we need to give at this point. And laughter meanwhile to make the campaign a little easier for us. People have this whole matter backward; either they rely too much on intellectualism, or to much on symbolism, or on that lazy hermaphrodite constructed by frenchmen, “tradition”. VNN approach is much simpler: mock, scorn, laugh at, defame, in short turn the tables on the defamer. Satire is our best tradition, not a great one, but more essential to our nation’s history than anything offered by euros and europhiles. And in the end there is killing or it never comes to anything but more thumb-sucking.
“Many of O’Meara’s points were made by Adolph Hitler in his table talks and mentioned in Mein Kampf.”
Rather: many of Hitler’s points are watered-down and strung-out beyond recognition in O’Meara’s suckup prose for consumption by weak-kneed guys who won’t call a spade a spade and certainly won’t read ‘Mein Kampf’. Linder often says that government without the Jew wouldn’t be perfect, just better than government with it. Naturally. Societies are seldom perfect or only for a brief period. We’d still get fucked over by our own kind in one way or another. We’d still see poor whites, prostitution, alcoholism, etc., but we would be in a better position to MINIMIZE such things. The Third Reich, leaving aside everything else, was at least an attempt in this direction. (A country like England went from one system of abuse to another, Victorianism to Multiculturalism, with a brief bout of besotted anti-German euphoria between.) Liberalism – economic or whatever – has been the curse of this country since the Civil War. Liberalism is exploitation with a sexy name. The Jew is just the best of the exploiters. The Jew is, to come to the point, a deus ex machina: we may abuse each other all we like, but the Jew makes it unnecessarily exponentially worse. Get rid of the Jew – not saying that is possible, mind – and we could go back to our regular routines of abuse, or as an “intellectual” might say, “altruistic punishment”. But all this talk of could and would is bullshit, as all such talk is. There is no could or would, only a puny little should running at the heels of WHAT IS as it tramples us to death. My point was that we’re not so much to blame. However much white has abused white, nation decimated nation, none has afflicted itself or another with the biological scourge of niggery (except France in their occupation of the Rhineland), or at the very least not with intent to flood or murder. We’re talking about existence and quality of existence, here. No nation, no state, no town, no street is worth living on if it is poisoned by the mere sight of a “free” modern nigger, or any other non-white not thoroughly humbled and in the severest minority, preferably 1:100000. The Jew, the largest breed of cockroach to be found in every city on Earth, brought this about, and we must only think of our hate for him and how we shall we repay him. With this ever in mind, our faults will fall away or become dwarfed. And those who wish to ignore this responsibility and go on prating about our faults, how rotten we’ve been to each other, they may go on prating thus until the day when they have nowhere safe left to prate, the day when existence will belong to the strongest and most cunning, not t those with the longest and most durable tongues!
7 January, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I look at it this way.
We all live under unfreedom of speech. Every culture has its taboo in this respect; our modern taboo was imposed on us by the Jew. We feel we have to tailor our speech to suit our company – leaving aside the callous and those able to dispense with tact – because the Jew has taught our kind to become highly emotional when certain “trigger words” are spoken. We hate complying with this, but in many cases we do, or try to cut down on the extent and frequency of our compliance. In certain cases it is appropriate. If, for example, one’s grandma doesn’t want to talk about Jews, for what grandma would, it’s probably best to leave grandma alone about it. If on the other hand one is talking to some cunt and doesn’t feel like muffling the topic right away to avoid exhaustion, one shouldn’t hem n haw with shit like, “well, yes, you could say that I am uncomfortable with a certain demographic…” One should instead learn to say: “Yea. I fucking hate niggers. What of it, cunt?” Now, that is what you have up there — the academic equivalent of the hem ‘n haw. Instead of “I fucking hate living around niggers because the Jew willed it and I can’t do anything about it”, you get: “…our race’s millennia-long flirtation with nihilism.” How about O’Meara’s decade-long flirtation with French academics in tweed jackets? I’d say that’s more palpable here than “our race’s millennia-long fliration with nihilism”. It might be argued that having anything to do with the Jew is itself the extremist form of nihilism. It might be argued that along this, the only line of historical development, we are bound to decline and become as rodents under the irreversible refinements of technology; nonetheless we have a duty to look outward at those who’ve needlessly augmented the tenor of our decadence and have in any case threatened our very existence: the Jews.
Oppose all euros and europhiles and self-blamers. We didn’t make segregation happen, Jews and shabbos goyim did. We didn’t make up feminism, the atom bomb or MTV, the Jews and shabbos goyim did. One may safely forget about the masses of whites and focus only on this little point. Lace yourself up too tightly, you’re useless to the struggle and bound to fall the harder. Focus on the Jew. Forget your standards, forget the masses, forget everything but your hate and need for revenge. And pay no attention to intellectuals or romantics.
7 January, 2007 at 9:33 pm
By the way — I have looked through O’Meara’s turgid little book, mostly to get a handle on precisely the terms in which his set likes to lie to itself and others, and somewhere toward the back (hats off to anyone who read it straight through!) he does make one itty bitty parenthetical allusion to the identity of the “neoconservatives”. It’s something vague like “who, incidentally, happen to be Jewish”. Oh, yes. We’re back in “happen to be Jewish” land, now.
Hem n haw. Even Yockey, another vague europhile American, was more explicit than that. Ultimately these guys are WRITING BOOKS THEY WANT REMEMBERED, not WRITING BOOKS THAT WILL INSPIRE ANTI-LOXIST AGITATION.
8 January, 2007 at 9:34 am
O’Meara himself! Excellent. Now I’ll cut him up good.
“The struggle against the racketeers — against those who seek the destruction of our people — is thus at the same time a struggle against everything in ourselves that leads us to cooperate with them.”
RACKETEERS? Hem n haw, hem n haw. Come on now, Mike. You’re already here. They know you don’t like da j00z. Why not just come out with it already? I admit “racketeers” is a clever word. But we know what you’re thinking. Why oh why aren’t you saying it? playing modest, I guess? don’t want to offend your less forthright comrades?
I should also like to know how you struggle, by the way. You’ve written a book – which most will agree: sucked – and a few tepid essays which unfortunately have found their way here. Please “disclose the reality” of your struggle, if you would. If the word is to mean anything, that is.
” “Anti European†and his fellow Holy Rollers”
Gentlemen, O’Meara evidently imagines I am some kind of Christian. I don’t know why; I didn’t mention Christ anywhere, and I don’t seem to have any fellows, though more came out in favor of my posts than his essay. Hm, the average reader of VNN prefers my chest-beating self-righteousness to O’Meara’s boring, postmodern, euro-suckup verbiage. Go figure.
What interests me particularly about this facile, groundless little charge is that I called him a christer first. Remember that? I said,
– The whole “we’re to blame†melodramatic traditionalist line should be thrown out of court immediately as a dangerous recall of post-christian delusion. It represents one direction of thought: self-blame.
O’Meara, in insisting that we ourselves are to blame, is harping on a basically christian line. I say we do that and dump O’Meara and his frogmen in the gutter, where these shy, croaking gentlemen belong. And it’s truly amazing that the people who give the best proof of wanting to do nothing more than wait “til the seas run dry” – academics like O’Meara and his frenchie doms, and the whole professional WN clique – accuse me of precisely this! No, sir: I want the seas to run red — with your blood, with their blood, with my blood. Most of us here do, you know. And those who don’t, why, they’re just cunts. WN needs more balls, not more talk, not more intellectual posing. Or at the very least more ballsy talk like one USUALLY gets at VNN.
“but their lack of self-criticism”
See, that sounds decidedly christian to me. How about you? Yes, let’s all gaze at our navels. Self-criticism is JUST what we need now. There are ALWAYS guys like this around to call you away from the heart of the matter, because they themselves make a living, and take their stand, on words, obfuscation; they’re Anti-Loxist Lite. This fellow has spent far too much time in his books and his college to be of any use to us. Unless someone cares to step forward and tell me that his writings lit a fire under their ass.
Not to say spending time in books is wrong, of course! But spending too much time in the wrong books is fatal and merely confirms one in bad habits of thought.
“their inability to follow more than a paragraph of reasoned discourse doesn’t bode well for our movement.”
In what world does “reasoned discourse” beat the Jew? In Mikey’s world, that’s where…
“In my apparent thoughtlessness and verbosity, I had naively believed we were fighting the Jews because they are the enemy of our people”
Ah! finally! He says it. No, what you naively thought is that your academic pomposity is worth anything in the “struggle”. In fact it’s probably more retarding to proper assessment of the situation than dressup Nazis who pose for cameras. Our problem, among ourselves, is mostly stuckup guys like you who are desperate to believe there IS a “movement” and in service of this delusion will write titantic essays packed with just the kind of bullshit one tries to avoid from Jews and the like. That’s where you’re naive. You’re naive in that you obviously think you’re a demagogue, when in fact you’re a typical new-rightist europhile poser. There are dozens of guys like you out there all writing the same rehash of de Benoist and Yockey, who themselves were only rehashing. You write because you enjoy your own intellect, NOT to inspire anyone, NOT to offer anything new: nothing new CAN BE offered at this point. We’ve read all the articles and essays and spintros we need to last us another fifty years of inconsequence. What next? Oh, another essay. Wonderful. Another “perspective”, “interpretation”, “discourse” on this and that. How learned you are; we defer to you; here, we’ll lie down before you because you quote quasiphilosophers like Dugin and Guénon. You are naive because you imagine everyone here to be naive.
“Is it now necessary to point out that anti-Europeanism is just another form of anti-white hatred?”
I don’t know, but I feel it is necessary to point out, and repeat until I am blue in the face, the seas run dry and the cows come home, that academic White Nationalism is sheer pretentious verbosity on the face, effeminacy in the mind, and emptiness of the guts. You call ME self-righteous, and write like this! It’s incredible. If White Nationalism is to be a “school of thought”, I’m pretty sure only the most placid young men will want anything to do with it. If White Nationalism is, rather, a current of sentiment along which run the disparate characters and temperaments of thousands of angry young men, then there is room for some of them to aspire to more than writing long, tiresome essays, making vague what is already clear. — But you’re a career White Nationalist. A pro. You have an interest in “theorizing” resistance to jewry as a kind of MENSA social club. Well, I think you’re full of shit. I theorize resistance to Jewry as what Linder once said: “This is not fucking art appreciation class. It’s gross raw brutal racial warfare as one group tries to eliminate the other. That’s why I write like I do, to prepare you for the fight.” — Why do you write the way you do, Mr. O’Meara? to what end? I’ll tell you why, again: because you spent your life in a college and enjoy seeing your own byproduct. It’s not funny, novel, or informing in any way, but you love it because it’s long and conforms to the straitlaced standards of the academy. Your whole set is just like you: smug, vain, long-winded, and missing the point by miles. I say go “theorize” your “project” of stroking euro ego elsewhere. Our greatest enemy is the Jew, after him the shabbos goy, after him woman, after her the nigger, and after that, mealy-mouthed academic croackers like you.
“Given this level of degeneracy,”
Given this level of pomposity,
“any clarification I might make about the New Right,”
any obfuscuation I might make about the ugly little frenchmen and sourpuss Germans who live for bashing Amerikkka,
“postmodernism,”
which I imitate,
“the relationship between America and Europe,”
say wha?,
“or any of the many other things you know so much about would be like casting pearls before swine.”
Oink oink!
Now, you can imagine, I hope, Mr. O’Meara walking away from that feeling very, very satisfied. Pearls before swine. Historical ignorance. Anti-white hatred. Degeneracy.
He represents a certain kind of personality one sadly must deal with from time to time in the online nationalist realm: the INTELLECTUALIST. These people live to speak vaguely of things easily solved by a few words – not to speak of actions – and turn up their noses at anyone who doesn’t buy into their obfuscations. Smug, smug, smug.
8 January, 2007 at 10:11 am
re bry:
“There are many like Anti-European who are tired of the talking without action.”
I’m more tired of academics whose talk rejects action itself in favor of navel-gazing and expect everyone to follow their pomposity, or they’re swine, brutes, etc. People like this – and they all revolve in a weird halflit quasi intellectual circle where occultism and subpolitics meet – will browbeat you into thinking they know something you don’t, that they are hip to some ultra-refined “interpretation” or another which you’re too crude to get. The plain fact is, their egos are hard at work making THEM think this. The whole europhile movement is a great danger to clear thinking and hard speech concerning the Jew. All these guys want to do is spend their time blathering about “tradition”, runes, Evola, and frigging Ayurhathevadada Aryo-Buddhismus, or something. Cunts, in a word.
“In a sense though, he is wrong because we are in this terrible plight because we just went along with the jew’s program rather than fighting it.”
How can I be wrong on a point I’ve not made? You’re looking for a reason to blame your own kind, more than I’m blindly absolving them. Didn’t you see me call goyim “dumb” up there? I’m only saying that goyim have been dumb not just when it comes to the Jew, but also, today, right now, when it comes to intellectual posers like O’Meara. New-rightists drag us further from, not closer to anti-loxism. They drag us away from calling out the Jew into the old pascalian torture chamber of the soul, into vagueness, talk of “methodology” and “approach”, and so on. In short they drag us away from maybe OPPOSING THE JEW BY OUR ACTIONS at the cost of our precious little lives. Why? Because they like hearing themselves speak. Sure, they can write long, eloquent essays filled all the postmodern professional-WN keywords which make gullible men salivate. I couldn’t do it. Wouldn’t want to. I’m just saying they’re actually harmful in that they WATER DOWN anti-loxist rhetoric, which must be constantly stoked to a white hot fever pitch if we’re to inspire young men to ACT. No revolution ever, I mean EVER came out about through “loving your race” or saying shit like “discloses a reality”. NEVER. We gain nothing from letting these europhile blatherers “theorize” away our edge, our venom, our bloodlust.
“Admitting that we were wrong is not weakness.”
No, sir. But writing long essays about it and imagining it forms a viable platform from which to combat the Jews, certainly is weakness, and worse: weakness masquerading as superiority.
“I only judge a man now by whether he stands for his race and is willing to name the jew as the enemy. People who put themselves up as leaders of the white cause need to be judged by their effectiveness, ie in what they do rather than what they say.”
Well said. Please demonstrae then Mr. O’Meara’s effectiveness. Did he make VNN?
“One thing which must be knocked before it starts is the idea that there is gulf between European whites and North American whites or with whites anywhere. Your race is your uniform now. All else, such as language, culture, religion or history are secondary.”
Well said, again. But you’re missing the flavor of O’Meara and his europhilia, I’m afraid: the New Right is more anti-American than it is anti-Jew. This comes out very plainly in his book. Also that new-rightists are more inclined to cower behind the “religious argument”, as almost all euros do, than the racial or loxist. And there you have a fundamental weakness. Europeanism does not belong in our circle, for it constitutes a danger to our freedom of speech, not legally but in our worldview. We have the more “free” worldview, while European nationalists, and American neofolkites who like to suck up to them, are hidebound by little provincial matters as always. We may draw on the best and speak plainly. We don’t have to read Willigut or Niekisch to know the Jew, do we? Yet these europhiles would browbeat you for just that. In fact what they share most with Europeans, and this you won’t find anywhere in their strained musings on “heritage” and “tradition”, is nothing more than the acquired habits of thought which make Europeans disagreeable, pompous, shallow, and just plain wrong themselves. You have to understand that Europeans are at a severe disadvantage: not only are they bound by law to speak vaguely and never about the Jew, they are temperamentally weak and disinclined to do that anyhow, and bound by centuries of ACADEMIC tradition to observe certain formalities in writing and philosophizing: which is to say they believe more in philosophizing than plain speech or action. The New Right comes straight out of l’Academie, with its monstrously dull and strict rules for study and advancement. Look it up, see for yourself. The New Right and all “traditionalism” is basically, today, one Frenchman’s obsession with Indo-Europeanism dragged through the French academy, to come out on the other end with none of the charm of our humble, indo-european origins, and all the pompous quasi-leftist anti-Americanism (which is not wrong, but dull and beside the point) of an ex-Braudelian. Same thing with, let’s say, Germanic history; these nuts take every little detail of German history – runes, stones, long hair, gods – as religious material and cling to a really obtuse idea of the ancient Germans as the most pious people in all the world. Why? Because they’re cunts, and cunts need to make everything else look cunty to bolster their egos. Same thing with these “National Bolsheviks”. They can’t take the starkness of “national socialism”, so they call themselves, instead, national bolsheviks, or social nationalists, or national anarchists, or radical traditionalists after some guinea, or national futurists, or this, that, the other, and so on. It’s all euro-vagueness. Why do we need it? why do we need O’Meara preaching to us about what’s wrong with America, etc.?
One thing that tickled me was that in his book O’Meara is obviously somewhat upset by the droll anti-Americanism of his euro masters. I forget what he said exactly, but there’s one line where you can just see the good Irish boy finally losing patience with gallic gall. It’s hilarious and in that one little lapse of worship lay my whole point.
8 January, 2007 at 10:24 am
You guys nipping at Omeara’s ankles are the cunts. Omeara has written a ton of articles naming the Jew if you had noticed, and you merely illustrate your ignorance by saying otherwise.
What I see on this website are a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies who think they know it all. You’re the foul-mouthed cunts that ought to get roasted. What have you accomplished such that you’re able to talk down to Omeara? That’s the internet I guess, a bundle of dry sticks, nobodies and Jews pretending to be Whites who have something relevant to say.
8 January, 2007 at 10:37 am
“If white Americans, then, should ever
draw back from the racial-cultural abyss to which they
seem headed and recommence the possibilities latent in
their existence, they, like their transatlantic
cousins, will have no alternative but to reclaim that
which lies both nearest to and most distant from them:
The destining origination born of their ancestors’
blood and heritage.”
I’m going out RIGHT NOW and starting a Revolution. Whiteness is an unfinished project — quick, pass me the scissors & glue!
Is it clear to anyone else what the pet phrase of the New Right – that our origins are an “unfinished project” – really says? no?
It says, some euro intellectual was fascinated by Dumézil’s books, and for his thesis, he “theorized” that we can revive these old myths and ways to combat America (the “anti-Europe”) and multiculti. Because only a strong ethnic consciousness prevails.
Hm. A very big project, indeed. Sound feasible to anyone here? resurrecting the long-dead and forgotten corpse of “indo-european” myths to combat a political and biological menace? Like trying to penetrate a brick wall with a limp dick, if you don’t mind the crudity.
Of course, the principle in itself is right, but the material is not right, the day late, and game already lost. It is, in other words, an INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE, a “well this would be cool if” writ large and in French. That’s all. Your average quasiliterate WN daydreamer has a better chance of seeing his RaHoWa come to pass than the shit dreamt up by Benoist & co.
8 January, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Or look at it this way. The New Right “theorizes” that we must hark back to “Indo-European” myths and “folkways” to build an “identity” which will, it is imagined, oppose “nihilism”.
Now, who else likes to talk about “identity”? Feminists, Jews, “Native American” academics, and all such congenital malcontents with an axe to grind against the character of the Aryan man. Why do they use “identity”? Two reasons: to “deconstruct” us and “construct” themselves in the process. That is to say, their identity comes to be the “negative dialectic” itself, the “culture of critique”.
Traditionalism, a movement borne of romanticism and resentment, is weak and needs a remote, reconstructed past to give its adherents a sense of “identity” and a reason to exist, though their identity is allegiance more to the demagogues and tenets of traditionalism as such. So, while they resemble jewish/leftist deconstructionists psychologically (being motivated by weakness and resentment), their “project” – an intellectual exercise to imagine they have something important to do – is naively “constuctive”. It’s exactly like “heathenism”, another patchwork wanna-be religion, though far more pretentious. A test-tube ideology with no brawn and no blood, however much it talk of the latter.
I say, then, that we here form our kind of “negative dialectic”, in that OUR identity is built squarely on resistance to the Jew: nothing before it, nothing after it. We are Anti-Loxists. We are the Anti-Critics. Let us not fall into the vain habit of thought which holds dwelling on one’s origins is a viable political or revolutionary platform. A friend of mine said once that obsession with the mere fact of being nordic (or whatever) is like a racehorse staying in its stall, telling itself how thoroughly bred it is and forgetting all about its game. That’s traditionalism, too. They want you to stay in your stall, complaining about our obscene anti-Europeanism, worried about your brethren “flirting with nihilism”, all while the Jew thrives unchecked in your society. They want conferences and discourse, not action, not an end to the tyranny. Do you think Michael O’Meara will ever take up arms against Judah? Or let’s not raise the bar too high, to avoid embarrassment: does Michael O’Meara inspire YOU to take up arms against Judah? The question is, of course, whether anyone believes anymore, through this thick fog of romanticism laid out by traditionalists and the professional WN class, that we even SHOULD take up arms against Judah. WN, it’s very bourgeois at heart. It has to be: what it wants is deeply bourgeois — families, houses, neighborhoods. That’s all. So there’s no wonder its ideology is limited by its wants. The New Right is the european, and more specifically french, expression of bourgeois desires. It has that uptight, verbose, smug character european intellectuals tend to have. And you, you’re a brute for opposing its sublime folkish narrative, which naturally goes right over the heads of the folk, busy flirting with nihilism, and we degenerate swine here obsessed with negative dialects.
Europe is not a platform. Indo-European is not a platform. The only thing binding us, in the end, is how much we hate the Jew for not letting us live normal lives. Yet we must beware of the extent to which that desire limits what we are capable of. If we constantly have in the back our minds that there is hope for normal life, then we won’t risk anything and won’t fight hard enough. O’Meara and his clique keep alive the illusion that academic manners are the ultimate arbiter of rightness. What might be called the West’s “obsession with classicism”, all the more ridiculous in its adoption by White Nationalism, which uses it as a foil to leftist academia. As though intoning “Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Spengler” like “ommmm mani padme sum” is really the way to correct nihilistic mischief in culture. The only way to do that is by FORCE. O’Meara does not represent the voice of FORCE, but the voice of REASON, in the “constructed” sense of TALKING A GOOD GAME.
8 January, 2007 at 12:27 pm
“What I see on this website are a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies who think they know it all.”
O’Meara wrote his book when, 2003? A few years ago in any case. When did KMac write his books? when did Linder create VNN? when did Hitler write “Mein Kampf” and Ford “The International Jew”?
We’re all come-latelies. O’Meara though is in the professional WN class, which imagines it’s always contributing new shit and you have to like it or you’re degenerate self-hating white (who does that sound like?) or a jew pretending to be “White”.
You’re right though, I hadn’t noticed O’M wrote articles naming the Jew. And I don’t care. The Jew has been named. He’s always been named. You have to be a special kind of idiot to miss it, at this point. I don’t know where Mr. O’Meara’s more explicit articles are going, but we seem to be getting only his more tepid product, rather paradoxical given the nature of VNN.
8 January, 2007 at 1:46 pm
“Anti European†and his fellow Holy Rollers can beat their chests and profess their self-righteousness till the seas run dry, but their lack of self-criticism, their colossal ignorance of history, and their inability to follow more than a paragraph of reasoned discourse doesn’t bode well for our movement.”
Don’t flatter yourself, philophaster. I encounter no difficulties in following the discourses of Heisenberg, Goedel or Kant; the confounding effect your Heideggerian Denken has on me is a matter of its obscured meaninglessness and not of of my paltry intellect.
“Given this level of degeneracy, any clarification I might make about the New Right, postmodernism, the relationship between America and Europe, or any of the many other things you know so much about would be like casting pearls before swine.”
Pearls? Crusty barnacles clinging to the belly of a whale would be a more apt image of your clique. I know you have rejected reasoned, empirical thought, but must you also be oh so uncreative in the realm of limitless possibilities you have therewith unlocked? The heirs of Spengler? Spengler is the pearl, and you are the swine.
Oh, these verbal exchanges you adore are so distasteful to my character. Ultimately, the difference between your kind and mine lies not in the bottomless gulf between the intellectuals and the intelligent, but in the fact that this sort of effrontery which impels you to pick up a pen, makes me want to punch you in the face. That’s how I deal with enemies. That’s how I’ll deal with the Jew. Contrary to the hopes of intellectuals, the sword is in fact mightier than the pen.
8 January, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Excerpt from Mein Kampf
“In 1919–20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the
compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. It just had to be taken because it was good for one: but it certainly tasted unpleasant. If it
were possible to tie ropes round the German people and forcibly drag them to these bourgeois meetings, keeping them there behind barred
doors and allowing nobody to escape until the meeting closed, then this procedure might prove successful in the course of a few hundred
years. For my own part, I must frankly admit that, under such circumstances, I could not find life worth living; and indeed I should no longer wish to be a German. But, thank God, all this is impossible. And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoilt masses shun these
‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.”
“I came to know the prophets of the bourgeois Weltanschhauung, and I was not surprised at what I learned, as I knew that they attached little
importance to the spoken word. At that time I attended meetings of the Democrats, the German Nationalists, the German People’s Party and
the Bavarian People’s Party (the Centre Party of Bavaria). What struck me at once was the homogeneous uniformity of the audiences.
Nearly always they were made up exclusively of party members. The whole affair was more like a yawning card party than an assembly of
people who had just passed through a great revolution. The speakers did all they could to maintain this tranquil atmosphere. They
declaimed, or rather read out, their speeches in the style of an intellectual newspaper article or a learned treatise, avoiding all striking
expressions. Here and there a feeble professorial joke would be introduced, whereupon the people sitting at the speaker’s table felt
themselves obliged to laugh – not loudly but encouragingly and with well-bred reserve.”
“And there were always those people at the speaker’s table. I once attended a meeting in the Wagner Hall in Munich. It was a demonstration
to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig.17) The speech was delivered or rather read out by a venerable old professor from one or
other of the universities. The committee sat on the platform: one monocle on the right, another monocle on the left, and in the centre a
gentleman with no monocle. All three of them were punctiliously attired in morning coats, and I had the impression of being present before a
judge’s bench just as the death sentence was about to be pronounced or at a christening or some more solemn religious ceremony. The socalled
speech, which in printed form may have read quite well, had a disastrous effect. After three quarters of an hour the audience fell into a
sort of hypnotic trance, which was interrupted only when some man or woman left the hall, or by the clatter which the waitresses made, or by
the increasing yawns of slumbering individuals.”
The Weltanschauung may have changed, but the people certainly have not. Where’s your monocle Mike?
8 January, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Anti-European, you’re making me laugh myself into a hernia with your righteous mockery of the ‘odin’s-gonna-save-us-if-not-odin-then-Spengler-or-Yockey-beacuse-we-the-
masturbatory-readers-of-too-many-books-because-we’ve-spent-half-our-lives
-in-a-classroom-will-win-the-day-and-convince-the-creatures-who-are-busy-
murdering-us-out-of-existence-will-read-our-books-and-agree-with-our-points-
and-those-who-say-otherwise-are-White-trash-who-aren’t-as smart-those-of-us-who’ve-done-nothing-in-life-except-bury-our-noses-in-books-
and-look-down-on-those-who-haven’t’ crowd that imagines itself as the elite vanguard that will save us from that nebulious nihilism without a name.
At this point I’d rather the jews go ahead and finish us off if it means we can be spared another Yockey/Spengler/Evola-esque exercise in masturbatory intellectualism that isn’t intellectualism at all but rather more of the same loopy metaphysical cant that has wrecked enough havoc with the West these last 200 years. I love the Germans but damn their metaphysical bullshit to the deepest circle of hell where it belongs!!!
8 January, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Petőfi:
HolyROTFLMAO.
8 January, 2007 at 4:23 pm
The National Socialists succeeded because they were led by men of quality with vision and supported by men with physical courage. Hitler tried to take over with violence first in the 1923 Putsch, but when that failed he built a foundation to achieve power by political means. Hitler and many of his compatriots were intellectuals and were well versed in political thought, history and culture, but they were also men of action. Most of them had survived the trenches with honour. They knew that the jew was their enemy and acted accordingly when they were in power.
Unfortunately, we face a far greater task than Hitler ever did. The jew is many times more powerful and we are much weaker. The situation is so bad that I think that most of us cannot even imagine ourselves in power, unlike the Nazis who clearly could. In addition, the jew will not permit any white political party to even start the road to power unless they are compromised or made ineffective through infighting. In the meantime, our civilization is continuing its slide to oblivion. It seems to me that violent conflict and upheaval all across the white world is now inevitable unless, of course, we just continue to sink to slavery and extinction without a struggle. Much of the debate and discussion here often seems to be without focus. Our problems as a race are very real and immediate. I think that part of what we should be doing in preparing our people psychologically for the tough times that are approaching.
I’m not sure that Sandor is right that the sword is mightier than the pen. The exhortations of the pen can get the sword drawn or sheathed if the writer is convincing enough and an orator can get the ideas across. However, if he is willing to punch the jew in the face he can’t be all bad.
It all comes down to power. Who wields it. That is what politics and war are about. The jew wields power over us now and is using it to destroy us. We have to take it from him by whatever means we can and we mustn’t waste our time misdirecting our energies.
Anti-European, I have to admit that I didn’t read Mr O’Meara’s essay. I generally skip what passes for philosophy or deep political thought these days. I don’t even read Mein Kampf any more because it isn’t relevant to our situation. I agree that we need to stoke up a righteous rage among our men and that anything that dissipates it must be avoided. The simple, crude slogan is more powerful now than the finest philosophising. For example: the jew is the source of all our problems. Kill the jew!
8 January, 2007 at 5:42 pm
“. . .exercise in masturbatory intellectualism that isn’t intellectualism at all but rather more of the same loopy metaphysical cant that has wrecked enough havoc with the West these last 200 years. I love the Germans but damn their metaphysical bullshit to the deepest circle of hell where it belongs!!!. . .”
Could be called Metaphysical KANT, considering the enormous influence of this German (Immanuel Kant). There are three huge philosophers of the West- Plato, Aristotle, and Kant.
The most influential of Kant’s books is the Critique of Pure Reason. It has been claimed that this book is the biggest mind fuck of all time. The introduction ALONE (to the 1781 edition) is 150 pages. Here is an excerpt:
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781)
The following is an excerpt from the Introduction (“B” edition).
I. Of the difference between Pure and Empirical Knowledge
That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it.
But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skilful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation, and not to be answered at first sight, whether there exists a knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all sensuous impressions? Knowledge of this kind is called a priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge, which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in experience.
But the expression, “a priori,” is not as yet definite enough adequately to indicate the whole meaning of the question above started. For, in speaking of knowledge which has its sources in experience, we are wont to say, that this or that may be known a priori, because we do not derive this knowledge immediately from experience, but from a general rule, which, however, we have itself borrowed from experience. Thus, if a man undermined his house, we say, “he might know a priori that it would have fallen;” that is, he needed not to have waited for the experience that it did actually fall. But still, a priori, he could not know even this much. For, that bodies are heavy, and, consequently, that they fall when their supports are taken away, must have been known to him previously, by means of experience.
By the term “knowledge a priori,” therefore, we shall in the sequel understand, not such as is independent of this or that kind of experience, but such as is absolutely so of all experience. Opposed to this is empirical knowledge, or that which is possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. Knowledge a priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge a priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. For example, the proposition, “Every change has a cause,” is a proposition a priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience.
II. The Human Intellect, even in an Unphilosophical State, is in Possession of Certain Cognitions “a priori”.
The question now is as to a criterion, by which we may securely distinguish a pure from an empirical cognition. Experience no doubt teaches us that this or that object is constituted in such and such a manner, but not that it could not possibly exist otherwise. Now, in the first place, if we have a proposition which contains the idea of necessity in its very conception, it is a if, moreover, it is not derived from any other proposition, unless from one equally involving the idea of necessity, it is absolutely priori. Secondly, an empirical judgement never exhibits strict and absolute, but only assumed and comparative universality (by induction); therefore, the most we can say is- so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no except n to this or that rule. If, on the other hand, a judgement carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori.
Empirical universality is, therefore, only an arbitrary extension of validity, from that which may be predicated of a proposition valid in most cases, to that which is asserted of a proposition which holds good in all; as, for example, in the affirmation, “All bodies are heavy.” When, on the contrary, strict universality characterizes a judgement, it necessarily indicates another peculiar source of knowledge, namely, a faculty of cognition a priori. Necessity and strict universality, therefore, are infallible tests for distinguishing pure from empirical knowledge, and are inseparably connected with each other. But in the use of these criteria the empirical limitation is sometimes more easily detected than the contingency of the judgement, or the unlimited universality which we attach to a judgement is often a more convincing proof than its necessity, it may be advisable to use the criteria separately, each being by itself infallible.
Now, that in the sphere of human cognition we have judgements which are necessary, and in the strictest sense universal, consequently pure a priori, it will be an easy matter to show. If we desire an example from the sciences, we need only take any proposition in mathematics. If we cast our eyes upon the commonest operations of the understanding, the proposition, “Every change must have a cause,” will amply serve our purpose. In the latter case, indeed, the conception of a cause so plainly involves the conception of a necessity of connection with an effect, and of a strict universality of the law, that the very notion of a cause would entirely disappear, were we to derive it, like David Hume, from a frequent association of what happens with that which precedes; and the habit thence originating of connecting representations- the necessity inherent in the judgement being therefore merely subjective. Besides, without seeking for such examples of principles existing a priori in cognition, we might easily show that such principles are the indispensable basis of the possibility of experience itself, and consequently prove their existence a priori. For whence could our experience itself acquire certainty, if all the rules on which it depends were themselves empirical, and consequently fortuitous? No one, therefore, can admit the validity of the use of such rule as first principles. But, for the present, we may content ourselves with having established the fact, that we do possess and exercise a faculty of pure a priori cognition; and, secondly, with having pointed out the proper tests of such cognition, namely, universality and necessity.
Not only in judgements, however, but even in conceptions, is an a priori origin manifest. For example, if we take away by degrees from our conceptions of a body all that can be referred to mere sensuous experience- colour, hardness or softness, weight, even impenetrability- the body will then vanish; but the space which it occupied still remains, and this it is utterly impossible to annihilate in thought. Again, if we take away, in like manner, from our empirical conception of any object, corporeal or incorporeal, all properties which mere experience has taught us to connect with it, still we cannot think away those through which we cogitate it as substance, or adhering o substance, although our conception of substance is more determined than that of an object. Compelled, therefore, by that necessity with which the conception of substance forces itself upon us, we must confess that it has its seat in our faculty of cognition a priori.
III. Philosophy stands in need of a Science which shall Determine the Possibility, Principles, and Extent of Human Knowledge “a priori.”
Of far more importance than all that has been above said, is the consideration that certain of our cognitions rise completely above the sphere of all possible experience, and y means of conceptions, to which there exists in the whole extent of experience no corresponding object, seem to extend the range of our judgements beyond its bounds. And just in this transcendental or supersensible sphere, where experience affords us neither instruction nor guidance, lie the investigations of reason, which, on account of their importance, we consider far preferable to, and as having a far more elevated aim than, all that the understanding can achieve within the sphere of sensuous phenomena. So high a value do we set upon these investigations, that even at the risk of error, we persist in following them out, and permit neither doubt nor disregard nor indifference to restrain us from the pursuit. These unavoidable problems of mere pure reason are God, freedom (of will), and immortality. The science which, with all its preliminaries, has for its especial object the solution of these problems is named metaphysics- a science which is at the very outset dogmatical, that is, it confidently takes upon itself the execution of this task without any previous investigation of the ability or inability of reason for such an undertaking.
Now the safe ground of experience being thus abandoned, it seems nevertheless natural that we should hesitate to erect a building with the cognitions we possess, without knowing whence they come, and on the strength of principles, the origin of which is undiscovered. Instead of thus trying to build without a foundation, it is rather to be expected that we should long ago have put the question, how e understanding can arrive at these a priori cognitions, and what is the extent, validity, and worth which they may possess? We say, “This is natural enough,” meaning by the word natural, that which is consistent with a just and reasonable way of thinking; but if we understand by the term, that. which usually happens, nothing indeed could be more natural and more comprehensible than that this investigation should be left long unattempted. For one part of our pure knowledge, the science of mathematics, has been long firmly established, and thus leads us to form flattering expectations with regard to others, though these may be of quite a different nature. Besides, when we get beyond the bounds of experience, we are of course safe from opposition in that quarter; and the charm of widening the range of our knowledge is so great that, unless we are brought to a standstill by some evident contradiction, we hurry on undoubtingly in our course. This, however, may be avoided, if we are sufficiently cautious in the construction of our fictions, which are not the less fictions on that account.
Mathematical science affords us a brilliant example, how far, independently of all experience, we may carry our a priori knowledge. It is true that the mathematician occupies himself with objects and cognitions only in so far as they can be represented by means of intuition. But this circumstance is easily overlooked, because the said intuition can itself be given a priori, and therefore is hardly to be distinguished from a mere pure conception. Deceived by such a proof of the power of reason, we can perceive no limits to the extension of our knowledge. The light dove cleaving in free flight the thin air, whose resistance it feels, might imagine that her movements would be far more free and rapid in airless space. Just in the same way did Plato, abandoning the world of sense because of the narrow limits it sets to the understanding, venture upon the wings of ideas beyond it, into the void space of pure intellect. He did not reflect that he made no real progress by all his efforts; for he met with no resistance which might serve him for a support, as it were, whereon to rest, and on which he might apply his powers, in order to let the intellect acquire momentum for its progress. It is, indeed, the common fate of human reason in speculation, to finish the imposing edifice of thought as rapidly as possible, and then for the first time to begin to examine whether the foundation is a solid one or no. Arrived at this point, all sorts of excuses are sought after, in order to console us for its want of stability, or rather, indeed, to enable Us to dispense altogether with so late and dangerous an investigation. But what frees us during the process of building from all apprehension or suspicion, and flatters us into the belief of its solidity, is this. A great part, p haps the greatest part, of the business of our reason consists in the analysation of the conceptions which we already possess of objects. By this means we gain a multitude of cognitions, which although really nothing more than elucidations or explanations of that which (though in a confused manner) was already thought in our conceptions, are, at least in respect of their form, prized as new introspections; whilst, so far as regards their matter or content, we have really made no addition to our conceptions, but only disinvolved them. But as this process does furnish a real priori knowledge, which has a sure progress and useful results, reason, deceived by this, slips in, without being itself aware of it, assertions of a quite different kind; in which, to given conceptions it adds others, a priori indeed, but entirely foreign to them, without our knowing how it arrives at these, and, indeed, without such a question ever suggesting itself. I shall therefore at once proceed to examine the difference between these two modes of knowledge.
[Source: Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Norman Kemp Smith (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1929, 1965), pp. 41-48.]
8 January, 2007 at 5:58 pm
The transition from lemming to fighter exists. The more intellectual lemming has a longer transition period (usually). They progress incrementally, through a long route of gateways. Getting stuck in transition in the problem here.
O’Mary writes for the intellectual-lemming-in-transition crowd. That’s his niche, his specialty; he lives there. And apparently getting Whites to live there with him is about all he seems to accomplish, if the above article is a fair indication of his activities and views.
A successful transition from intellectual lemming to fighter can be effected with such writings as Prof. MacDonald’s. A hard dose of evolutionary science also helps. Anything steering an intelligent mind away from the metaphysical (=bullshit) and toward the physical (=reality).
Psychology is absolutely secondary (or tertiary) in a proper intellectual’s interests. It goes without saying that spending even one minute parsing religious minutae is poison.
10 January, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Thank you for a good article, Mr. O’Meara: good general ideas, and excellent poethically-charged English language. It is a pleasure to read you contributions.
13 January, 2007 at 1:44 pm
This little ersatz crowd of macho critics of OMeara is probably just one cunt giving himself a bunch of names.
Omeara’s book is snickered at again. What book have you written that has sold more than ten copies? Dont snicker at writing a book until you’ve done it and sold a few yourself.
That’s one of the things people hate about “WN.” A bunch of cunts always criticizing the next guy’s productive effort. Has that got a class dimension? Sure it does– this kind of spiteful jealousy at another’s competence is the Scarlet Letter of the Prole.
Now just to show what a chump AntiEuropean is, he there admits he was wrong about naming the Jew and then dismisses it. Gee, thanks, you prick.
Tell you what: there is nothing more cynical than a guy who sneers at a European trying to grow some balls and stand up for his kind, and dismisses the fruit of his serious scholarly effort as worthless. What have you accomplished you sneering cynical asswipe? I’d rather have one “academic” like OMeara with balls by my side than a hundred anonymous sneering cynical socalled WN cunts who can just sit around spitting on other people’s efforts.
13 January, 2007 at 8:49 pm
WHY, HOW, WHEN AND WHERE DID THE HOLOCAUST BEGIN?
Would Michael O’Meara’s explanation of the Aryan holocaust be more effective if he traced the history of genocide against the Aryan race back to the race war that began when the Indo-Hittite ancestors of Aryans invented farming in Canaan, about 18,000 years ago?
Negroes, Jews and other savage predators (like lions) steal anything they see and want (even from their own kind). The highly mobile and well armed savage Semitic horsemen who herded cattle in the grasslands around the nearly defenseless Fertile Crescent farms of the ancestors of Aryans terrorized Aryan farmers in order to steal their crops.
Would Aryan civilization be light years ahead of where it is now if Semite horsemen (Chaldeans, Hyksos, Hebrews, Arabs. etc.) had not conquered and enslaved to the point of extinction the Aryan civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Canaan, etc., and thereafter via Islam and Christianity (two religions designed by Semites for the conquest and division the Indo-Hittite race), etc.?
After the north warmed up enough for farming most of the Aryan survivors (but not the Kurds) of the Fertile Crescent holocausts fled north, then east and west into Eurasia. The civilizations they rebuilt in southern Europe (ancient Greece and Rome) collapsed because of miscegenation between Aryans and Cro-Magnons (the Basques, etc. were driven towards the coasts of Europe during the last age).
Pockets of the blond haired blue eyed Aryans who settled in India now exist only in northern mountain villages. What can be done to prevent this outcome in Europe?
Cro-Magnons did not have time to repopulate northern Europe before Aryans did, so the further north European Aryans settled, the less affected by miscegenation, and the more civilized (domesticated), they remained.
In order to more effectively divide and conquer the civilizations which Indo-Aryans had created, Semites invented Christianity and Islam, and violently imposed these religions on them (except in parts of India).
Might Israelis be behind the divide and conquer strategy being employed in Palestine and Iraq today?
Hebrews have benefited from Islam and Christianity because both are Hebrew-centric, yet universalist.
Although Islam and Christianity are less strong and durable than a kinship-based religion like Judaism, and socio-political structures like Aryan clans and families, without them, could a relatively small tribe of Hebrews have conquered and enslaved such huge herds of Aryans and mighty Indo-European civilizations?
Both Islam and Christianity are escapist religions which make incredible claims for which there has never been any scientific evidence. Both have benefited Hebrews by:
1) psychologically terrorizing and dividing the Indo-European flock Jews prey upon,
2) adversely affecting the life-long spiritual qualities, sanity, and rationality of the Aryan children they inculcate and disparage with their lies (e.g., that a Jew is God, and that Jews were chosen by God above all other nations on earth).
The savage nature of Semites is the foundation of all Hebrew-centric religions. The less savage aspects of Islam and Christianity were designed to make Hebrew-centric religions more acceptable to, and compatible with, the more compassionate and self-sacrificing nature of Aryans.
Has inclusive universalism turned the compassionate nature of Aryans into a disease that is now devouring the last remnants of Aryan civilization?
Are Christianity and Islam are the most deadly weapons in the Hebrew arsenal?
Jeremiah 25
15 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it.
16 And they shall drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them.
17 Then took I the cup at the LORD’s hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the LORD had sent me:
27 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you.
28 And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink.
—
RE: MICHAIL O’MEARA
Although I perceive the genius of other contributors to this forum, Michael O’Meara’s “The Holocaust of America” at http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=1426, is the most intelligent and well-written post which I have read at VN so far. I assume Michael O’Meara proudly worked on his speech for weeks (not one wasted word!).
Michael O’Meara’s talents are a great asset to the Aryan race. He probably graduated at the top of his class.
I am proud that Michael O’Meara is willing to risk his future in a Zionist-Christian and Jew dominated culture, by publicly supporting Aryan values.
Intellectuals like Michael O’Meara are our enemies’ top priority targets.
If anything can, the bravery and intelligence of leaders like Michael O’Meara should inspire our noblest citizens to do their part to save our civilization.
Can people like Michael O’Meara lead the Aryan race better than the envious anti-intellectual hate-mongers who work for the enemies of Aryan civilization by attempting to discredit Michael O’Meara’s wisdom on this forum, with their empty-headed profanity? Nothing angers a savage more than the truth. Who wants to waste time listening to the spewers of hate?
Do hateful, foul-mouthed people posing as Aryans do the work of our enemies by enforcing their false stereotypes of Aryans (which our exploiters have manufactured out of thin air – ex nihilo in Michael O’Meara’s words – and sold to the world)?
14 January, 2007 at 6:18 am
(Please delete the previous version of this revised post.)
—
WHY, HOW, WHEN AND WHERE DID THE “REAL” HOLOCAUST BEGIN?
Would Michael O’Meara’s explanation of the Aryan holocaust be more effective if he traced the history of genocide against the Aryan race back to the race war that began when the Hamitic ancestors of Aryans invented farming in Canaan, about 18,000 years ago?
Like lions, Negroes, Jews and other savage predators steal anything they see and want (even from their own kind). Did the highly mobile and well-armed Semite horsemen who herded cattle in the grasslands close to the nearly defenseless Fertile Crescent farms of Aryans terrorize Aryan families and homes in order to steal their crops?
Would Aryan civilization be light years ahead of where it is now if savage Semite horsemen (Chaldeans, Hyksos, Hebrews, Arabs. etc.) had not conquered and enslaved to the point of extinction the ancient Aryan civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Canaan, etc., and thereafter Eurasia in the name of Islam and Christianity (two religions designed by Semites for the conquest and division of the Indo-Hittite race)?
After northern Eurasia warmed up enough for farming, most of the Indo-Hittite nations (but not the Kurds) that survived the holocaust and enslavement of their Fertile Crescent civilizations fled north, then east and west into their current their current Indo-European homelands.
The magnificent civilizations which Aryans created in southern Europe (ancient Greece and Rome) eventually collapsed because of miscegenation between Aryans and Cro-Magnons (the Basques, etc. were driven towards the coasts of Europe during the last age).
Pockets of the blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryans who settled in the Indian sub-continent now exist only in northern mountain villages. What can be done to prevent this outcome in northern Europe?
The Cro-Magnons that survived the last Ice Age in southern Europe were short-limbed, stocky and dark skinned. The hair on their bodies was long and dark. Their dark head hair was tightly curled. These anatomical adaptations to the dark forests of Ice Age Europe are similar to those of Neanderthals.
These savages did not repopulate post-Ice-Age northern Europe because Indo-Aryans settled there first. The further north in Europe Aryans settled, the less the Aryan race was affected by miscegenation, and the more civilized (domesticated), tall, blond, blue-eyed Aryan beauties remained. Are fair skins, blond hair, blue-eyes and more prominent noses characteristic of anyone but people of Aryan ancestry?
Does the fact that Amorites are represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, aquiline noses, and pointed beards …and that they were men of great stature; their king, Og, is described by Moses as the last “of the remnant of the giants” (Deut. 3:11) prove that Amorites were the Hamitic ancestors of Aryans?
I suspect that the Amorite nation of Canaan was the progenitor of the tall Germanic branch of the Indo-Hittite race. Goliath is an Aryan name according to linguists.
Amorites and Hittites were descendants of Ham, not Shem (Genesis 10:15-16). If Amorites were one of the approximately 13 Aryan nations of Canaan which were holocausted by Hebrews, why do Jews falsely claim that Amorites were Semitic? Because enslaved Amorite survivors of the Hebrew tribe (under the command of Moses and Joshua) which holocausted Canaan were forced to speak a Semitic language?
WHY DENY THE REAL HOLOCAUST of Aryan nations by Hebrews? Do savages usually claim that someone else committed their crimes, and that they were the victims?
The bonds of kinship-based religions like Judaism, and socio-political structures like Aryan clans and families, are stronger and more cohesive than those of Islam and Christianity.
Did Semitic conquistadors invent Christianity and Islam, and violently impose these religions on the Indo-Hittite race as far East as India in their own interest, in order to more effectively divide and conquer the Indo-European civilization, etc.?
Might Israel be behind the divide and conquer strategy being employed in Palestine and Iraq today, so that devastating wars between Christians and Muslims, and between various Muslim sects and parties, decimate the Israel’s rivals?
Have Hebrews benefited from Islam and Christianity because both religions are Hebrew-centric, yet universalist?
Without these Hebrew-centric “faiths”, could a relatively small tribe of Hebrews have conquered and enslaved such huge herds of Aryans and their mighty Indo-European civilizations?
Are both Islam and Christianity escapist religions which make incredible claims for which there has never been any scientific evidence? Have both religions benefited Hebrews by:
1) psychologically terrorizing and dividing the Indo-European flock which Jews prey upon?
2) adversely affecting the life-long spiritual qualities, sanity, and rationality of the Aryan children they inculcate and disparage with their lies (e.g., that God is a Jew, that Jews were chosen by God above all other nations on earth, etc.)?
3) making Jews the focus of every Aryan holiday (Easter, the winter solstice, etc.) except Halloween?
Once the Jewish enslavement of the rest of humanity becomes irreversible, will January 1, 2008 become the 23rd of Tevet, 5768? Will Sunday (Sun-day) become Yahweh-day? Will Monday (Moon-day) become Abraham-day? Will Tuesday (Mars-day) become Purim-day? Will Wednesday (Wodens-day) become Moses-day? Will Thursday (Thors-day) become Torah-day? Will Saturday (Saturn-day) become Sabbat-day? Or will Hebrew completely replace English as the international language?
Is the savage nature of Semites the foundation of all Hebrew-centric religions? Were the less savage aspects of Islam and Christianity designed in order to make Hebrew-centric religions more acceptable to, and compatible with, the more compassionate and self-sacrificing instincts, and human and humane quality of the Aryan soul?
Was the self-sacrificing and excessively compassionate nature of Aryans bred into their gene pool in order to create the most secure and powerful civilization on earth?
Has the inclusive universalism of Islam and Christianity turned the generosity of Aryans into a disease that has undermined Aryan civilization (in the name of compassion for non-Aryans)?
Are universalistic religions like Christianity and Islam the most deadly weapons Semites ever devised for the destruction of our overly trusting and generous Aryan race and civilization?
Jeremiah 25
15 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it.
16 And they shall drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them.
17 Then took I the cup at the LORD’s hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the LORD had sent me:
27 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you.
28 And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink.
—
RE: MICHAIL O’MEARA
Although I perceive the genius of other contributors to this forum, Michael O’Meara’s “The Holocaust of America” at http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=1426, is the most intelligent and well-written post which I have read at VN so far. I assume Michael O’Meara proudly worked on his speech for weeks (not one wasted word or skipped beat!).
Michael O’Meara’s talents are a great asset to the Aryan race. He probably graduated at the top of his class.
I am proud that Michael O’Meara is willing to risk his future in a Zionist-Christian and Jew dominated culture, by publicly supporting Aryan values.
Intellectuals like Michael O’Meara are our enemies’ top priority targets. If anything can, the bravery and intelligence of leaders like Michael O’Meara, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt and President Jimmy Carter should help inspire more of our noblest and most intelligent citizens to stick their necks out where their hearts are, and risk doing their share of the work needed to save Aryan civilization at its brink. If so, the critical mass needed to liberate our civilization from its exploiters may develope sooner than expected.
Can people like Michael O’Meara lead the Aryan race better than the envious anti-intellectual hate-mongers who work for the enemies of Aryan civilization, by attempting to discredit Michael O’Meara’s wisdom via forums like VN, with their empty-headed profanity?
Who wants to waste time listening to the spewers of hate? Nothing angers a savage more than the truth.
Do hateful, foul-mouthed people posing as Aryans do the work of our enemies by enforcing the false stereotypes of Aryans which our exploiters have manufactured out of thin air, “ex nihilo” in Michael O’Meara’s words, and sold to the world? ’nuff said about the Hoaxocaust?
14 January, 2007 at 9:07 am
Womyn speaks — the spirit sinks.