24 March, 2007

O’MEARA: Race and Its Imperative

Posted by alex in Alex Linder, German nationalists, Michael O'Meara, white nationalism, White philosophy, White plans, White solutions, White thought, Whiteness Studies at 3:19 pm | Permanent Link

by Michael O’Meara

Note: The following is an excerpt from a longer,
heavily footnoted article titled “Freedom’s Racial
Imperative: A Heideggerian Argument for the Self
Assertion of Peoples of European Descent,” which
appeared in the fall 2006 issue of The Occidental
Quarterly
. Minor changes have been made for the sake of
this format. Thanks to Dave Cooper for the idea.
-M.O.

Since the Cold War’s end, Heidegger has been the
target of an on-going campaign of stigmatization and
quarantine, for it’s now clear that he was not only an
ardent supporter of the National Revolution of 1933,
but a convinced (though idiosyncratic) National
Socialist. That the greatest philosophical mind of
the 20th century was a Nazi is a scandal, of course.
But, surprisingly, the inquisitors deconstructing the
suspect forces animating Heidegger’s thought stress
that there is “no spoor of biological racism” (George
Steiner) in his published works.

It is, in fact, a matter of record that Heidegger
opposed what Julius Evola and Francis Parker Yockey,
along with Leon Trotsky, called the “zoological
materialism” dominant in Nazi ranks. Like the Italian
and American prophets of Europe’s imperium, Heidegger
believed the philistine, positivist, even liberal
modernist character of this scientistic doctrine was
symptomatic of all the Conservative Revolution of the
1920s (of which National Socialism was an offshoot)
had fought against.

Is it contradictory, then, to argue that the
Heideggerian concept of freedom has a racial
imperative?

Against a good deal of contemporary commentary, it
must be insisted that Heidegger’s anti-biologism was
not that of a nationalist indifferent to race, but
rather that of one who subsumed the nation’s spiritual
and demographic aspects within a single notion of
Being — a notion that may have privileged the former
at the latter’s expense, but nevertheless one that
presupposed the spirit’s manifestation within a
specific biocultural community or Volk. Emphasizing
the history, destiny, and line of descent that makes a
people a nation, the nationalism latent in Heidegger’s
thought is reminiscent of what Walker Connor calls
“nationalism in its pristine sense,” in that it
designates “a people who believe they are ancestrally
[i.e., biologically] related.”

Even though a man’s body is subject to a purely
biological analysis, Heidegger argues that it is never
simply biological, but “something essentially other
than an animal organism.” This “other” belongs to
man’s Dasein [i.e., to his quality as a situated
expression of Being] and thus has “a fundamentally
different way of Being to that of nature.” “Living,
our body bodies forth as a wave in the stream of chaos
— it is what comes to know, grasp, and take over the
world.” Biology in this way enters history and
becomes historically significant. Man’s body as such
is not equivalent to a plant or animal organism, but
part of man’s Being-in-the-world, situated in that web
of meanings, relationships, and histories which make
up his world and which no science can successfully or
adequately reduce to an empirical representation or
valuation.

For the anti-scientistic Heidegger, the essence of a
nation (or Volk) lies not in genetics, but in the
destiny born of its collective experience of Being and
time — or what in Contributions to Philosophy he
describes as that belongingness to a god who commands
a people to go beyond itself to become the being
inscribed in its destiny. A people’s essence lies
thus less in its organic manifestations (life) than in
the being that makes it what it is (living): It lies
in the being that forges blood and spirit into an
identity defined by a specific destiny. By contrast,
a purely biological construal reduces a “race” of men
to one of Descartes’ abstract, becomingless objects —
to something understandable factually or empirically,
as if human races were analogous to those of the lower
life forms.

Heidegger doesn’t say so explicitly, but the turn of
his thought suggests that though a people’s blood may
be basic to its biological formation, its determinants
as a people, even genetically, reside elsewhere,
outside of biology, in that Being whose inexplicable
force molds a body of kindred human beings into a
destining entity. To contemporize a bit, one might
say that for Heidegger man’s biological constitution
(heredity) disposes him to certain cultural and other
potentialities, but the latter are never mere
offshoots of nature. For history, he argues, is not
biology and culture is not applied zoology — except
to a scientistic consciousness oblivious to all that
distinguishes man from animal.

An analogy here might help. One wouldn’t claim the
essence of Breker’s The Torchbearer or Burne-Jones’
Dream of Lancelot is the material from which it was
sculpted or painted. The essence of the German Volk
— or any of Europe’s nations — is likewise not the
DNA constituent of its genotype. Instead, it is the
spirit animating it, making it a people with a
history, an origin, and a destiny. In compelling it
to experience the world in a way all its own, this
spirit is not the cultural superstructure familiar to
the anthropologist or sociologist, but something akin
to “the power that comes from preserving at the most
profound level the forces that are rooted in the soil
and blood of a Volk, the power to arouse most inwardly
and to shake most extensively the Volk’s existence.”
It is this spirit that nourishes the soul of a people
and infuses its blood with a will to destiny.
Heidegger’s ontological defense of European man may
therefore reject the scientific racism of bourgeois
materialism, with its abstract and deracinated concept
of human being, but he’s hardly indifferent to
Europe’s racial heritage, for though emphasizing a
Volk’s spiritual or destining character, he also sees
that this entails a specific bodily expression of
being.

In the historical world of European man, human biology
and human being are indeed one, with the biological,
the ontic, subsumed to the ontological realm of
self-assertion — like the material subsumed in the
artist’s vision. Together, they comprise the Dasein
of man and Volk, the blood and heritage of a people.
For like the “and” in Being and Time, the “and” in
“blood and heritage” is not additive but unitary. The
two differ as terms, standing for different things,
but there’s no heritage outside a specific blood group
and no blood group without a heritage. “Everything
merely ‘organic’ is foreign to the law of history, as
foreign as what is ‘logical’ in reason.”

Human biology is consequently more ontological than
zoological, more a product of Being than a facet of
nature. This is evident in such terms as “descent,”
“lineage,” “heritage” — along with related notions of
“breeding,” “upbringing,” “development,” “education,”
“refinement,” and “culture” — terms evoking not
animal instinct or even human consciousness, but
rather a specific biocultural transmission of
existence. A people, in a word, is not an autonomous,
self-contained, ahistorical biological object, it’s
not even a specific gene pool, but a way of Being
whose origin, history, and particular
self-understanding is essential to what it is — even
physiologically. In order not to be misunderstood,
let me stress that this doesn’t negate the importance
or even the primordiality of race as a zoological
category, but it does subordinate our understanding of
it to philosophy’s larger ontological appreciation of
its significance.

What Heidegger calls the “naturalist conception of
human being” (i.e., the purely biological
understanding of human race) has been integral to both
liberal modernity and the history of the white man’s
decline. The roots of this conception are admittedly
ancient. Aristotle was the first to see man as a
special kind of animal — the rational animal (zoon
logikon). With the 18th-century Enlightenment and the
advent of liberal modernity, when “reason attained its
full metaphysical rank,” this “humanist” concept
became hegemonic, introducing an era which confused
man, a Being-outside-himself, with something
“present-at-hand” (i.e., with the decontextualized
substance of a quantifying science indifferent to a
being’s specific qualities). As Being in this
scientistic conceptualization withdraws from human
being, the latter is depleted, reduced to a
one-dimensional ontology fit for an animal that moves
about on all fours — not for an upright assertion of
Being capable of producing Homer, the Greek temples,
or the invincible Hoplites.

It’s pertinent here to point out that “scientific
racism,” especially its Darwinian distillation,
originated as an offshoot of liberal thought and that
the zoological “metaphysics” of this racism (in
understanding human existence at the animal level)
played a not insignificant role in getting us into the
predicament that threatens us today. In this sense,
it seems hardly coincidental that the liberals’
understanding of the “highest animal” excludes any
understanding that humans differ from animals not just
in their reason or consciousness, but in their caring
for the Being of their being. Natural science, the
inspiration for this scientific racism, treats the
body abstractly, objectifying, decontextualizing, and
uprooting it from all that is native to human being.

Against the naturalist conception, Heidegger holds
that the human body is not simply a vehicle of drives
and instincts, but something linked to the human
striving for Being. Science may have the power to
manipulate the world’s physical properties, but for
Heidegger it ignores man’s “peculiar transposedness
into the encompassing contextual ring of living
beings.” It consequently misses what is most distinct
and essential to him.

Accordingly, the Dasein of a Volk, like that of an
individual, is not manifested in biology (at least not
directly), but rather in the decisions it makes and
the goals it sets for itself. How it exists in the
world in which it is thrown, how it appropriates the
past it is bequeathed, the possibilities it pursues as
it approaches the future, the call of destiny it heeds
— these are what make a Volk what it is. There is,
moreover, nothing arbitrary or subjective in this.
Dasein is not only Being-there, but Being-with
(Mitsein). For the most radical individualization of
Dasein is always situated within a larger collective
context — of history and culture, to be sure, but
also of kin, community, and Volk. “Each man,”
Heidegger writes, “is in each instance in dialogue
with his forebears and perhaps even more, and in a
more hidden manner, with those who come after him.”

Because an individual’s fate, like a nation’s destiny,
is shaped by its specific heritage, individual Dasein
is invariably a co-happening with a community or
people, even if it should rebel against the dominant
social trends or disavow its beliefs. Unlike the
quantitative, atomizing impulse of liberal modernity,
which separates “I” from “we” and treats the former as
if it were a monadic ego shorn of the history and
heritage situating and defining it as a distinct way
of Being, Heidegger’s approach dissolves individual
boundaries. The individualization of an individual
consequently becomes a co-historicizing with a people.
Though potentially a force for conformity, Mitsein is
a necessary condition for Dasein’s authentic
realization. Man and nation, Dasein and Mitsein, it
follows, are free only to the degree they open
themselves to what is inherent in their common
heritage — to what constitutes the history of their
related experience of Being — to what forms their
destiny.

If a Volk exists as a Volk, then blood group, history,
and destiny are one, for ontologically they constitute
a single, encompassing experience of time and Being.
In this sense, a people’s essence transcends the
purely “organic,” as it asserts its Dasein as a
distinct destiny. Otherwise, it ceases to be in any
meaningful sense.


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 01/29/08 Conservatism Without Race as its Core Feature? 40% similar
  3. 08/17/06 Michael O’Meara’s Discussion of White Nationalism Continues 38% similar
  4. 03/25/07 O’MEARA: France: Torch-Light Demonstrations? 37% similar
  5. 02/21/07 O’MEARA: The Foundations of the 21st Century 35% similar
  6. 09/24/07 O’MEARA: Through the Barrel of a Gun or Not At All: A Rant Against White Reformists 35% similar
  7. 23 Responses to “O’MEARA: Race and Its Imperative”

    1. Fred Says:

      We screwed up when we allowed Non Anglo-Saxon Protestants political power in this country. Especially the whiskey drinking, IRA, potato eating Irish.

      Things were fine until we gave Ireland and Scots their independence.

    2. Fred Says:

      Again, where are my post concerning the degenerate, whiskey drinking, IRA, potato eating Irish who have worked with the Jews to destroy this country?

      It’s the non Anglo Saxons that have sold us out to the jews and weakened our power around the world

    3. Anti Says:

      Is having an extramarital affair with the jewess Hanna Arendt considered “idiosyncratic”, or grounds for dismissal among White Nationalists?

      http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/14/jan96/lang.htm

    4. Warrior Says:

      Anti, why not ask Alex our fearless moderated and founder of this site:

      Linder is an ex-member of the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi, white-nationalist group. He left after deciding to allow criticism of the National Alliance to appear on the VNN forums

      Since I’ve been hearing rumors that he has been severely censoring certain people comments, I wonder if he will allow this comment to be posted.

    5. AustrianIrish Says:

      It’s the non Anglo Saxons that have sold us out to the jews and weakened our power around the world
      Fred

      Well Fred, the Bush family is originally from England… and most of our politicians have been those darn WASPs…

      Whites don’t need the infighting. They need to be cohesive against the yids. You don’t see the Ashkenazi and Saphardic bitching at each other’s background and loyalties in public – they do it in private. They also still work together toward common goals. So Fred, if some Irish guy banged your girl, that’s just the way it goes. Grow up.

    6. Anti Says:

      Seems to me Beck is responsible for the recent spate of censoring. He has a quiet, insidious kind of egomania that sneaks up on you.

    7. New America Says:

      Sometimes, you just have moments of crystalline clarity of Insight, and O’Meara has done has rescued an incredibly valuable Idea for all of us.

      Heidegger, as well as Yockey and precious few others, focused on the idea of RACE as a Dynamic Process, where what we truly are is seen by our actions in the fulfillment of goals far beyond our lifetimes.

      As always, look at the demons in shoe leather known as goddamn Jews.

      They work, in the Real World, quietly, slowly, and without ceasing, in the fulfillment of their One Commandment: “Is it good for JEWS?” – and their One Goal – Domination of ALL Life, in general, and Domination of the Goyim, the subhuman animals that are all who use human bodies, but are not of the Jewish RACE.

      This same idea can be useful in the service to our RACE.

      ANY decision, no matter how small, is framed in the Question, “Is it good for JEWS?” NO question is too small, no transaction too trivial. United, this creates a tremendous amount of social – and socio-cultural – Force, in the fulfillment of the One Goal. At the very least, they can distract us, and slow us down, from seeing the issues before us in the same RACIAL terms they have – the RACIAL terms that frame ALL issues to the benefit of their RACIAL “success.”

      I have argued that Cultures are the Outworking of Religions, and our Souls work within that framework. The issue then becomes the nature of God.

      The God of the Jews is the Jewish People; simple as that.

      THAT’S WHY they refuse to even mention the name of God; if they did, all of this JUDEO-Christianity (which is like saying Poisonous-Medicine) would stand revealed as the Myth that it is.

      This excellent article by O’Meara helps define Positive RACISM in the context of, for some of us, Positive Christianity, and reminds one and all that Transcendent CULTURE, and Temporal Man, are two sides of the same coin, or, to be more precise, two Aspects of the same Entity.

      Why we see fit to scorn the Divine Gift that is our RACIAL Heritage, and our RACIAL Hallmark, is beyond me.

      Guess we’ve been watching too much television.

      Our RACIAL enemies seem to like that a lot…

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    8. Stronza Says:

      On the other hand, maybe we N. American whites have been so enmeshed and embroiled in, and stained by, our lives in a place where we were never intended to be, that, like an omelette, we can’t be unscrambled and returned to some pure original state. We may not be truly white anymore. New geography, climate, diet, language/dialect, etc. over a few generations are, I think, changing us too much. My own motivation for identifying with the not-truly-white-anymore “white” race is just a desire to not be enslaved any longer by you-know-who, not to mention all those minority groups with their hands out. Even these groups, though they seem to be so cohesive compared to us, are being transformed into something other than what they were in their proper original homes.

      Yes, I know humans are a migratory species, but that is our undoing. Our ancestors should have just bloody well stayed home and done whatever was necessary to improve their lot in the places where they were designed to work out our destiny. Really, what it boils down to is that we ran away from our problems, and now it is obvious that they have merely followed us around the world.

    9. Fred Says:

      O’Meara article is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Sounds like something a dirt bag Irish who was taught by his Jew handler would say. We are not Jews so lets not think like them. I bet the murdurous pagan IRA of which O’Meara is probably a card carrying member would not understand a single word of O’meara’s wordy Irish potato garbage.

      Lets end multiculturism, and we can start by kicking out and deporting all Non Anglo Saxon Protestans not only the jews but the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Slavs Spainards, Hispanics and etc. Only then can we get back the greatness of the British Empire.

      We had the right idea at the beginning of the century when we tried to stop all the immigration of Europe’s filth and trash who are now intergrated in WASP society. We were able to conrol our niggers before the onslaught of the NASP- non Anglo Saxon People. They sold us out to the jews and we lost the empire.

      So lets end Multiculturism, English should remain English, French – French, Germans -Germans, Polocks – Polocks etc. If we were meant to intermix our cultures we would not have separate languages.

    10. Anti Says:

      American Jewess sues grandson of James Joyce to publicize letters between the author and his mentally-ill daughter, Lucia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6493095.stm

    11. JimSummers Says:

      Fred is way off base. The Anglo-Saxon protestant elites lost power in Britain and America because their obsession with climbing the corporate ladder made them willing assistants to the Jewish money-men. To accuse the Scottish and Irish working class of being at fault for Jewish dominance is absurd.

    12. Fred Says:

      Jim, I suggest you study the political history of the Irish and Scots after they received the right to vote in America. I also suggest that you look at the combative and hostile actions they have perpetrated against the Anglo – Saxons of England in the past and present. If they would have just behaved and followed our instructions the Empire would still be intact.

      Who do you think started and continue to make up the majority of the labor unions and workers/communist party at the beckon of their jew controllers. Jimmy Hoffa was head of the AFL-CIO because he was Irish and could influence the Irish and Scot workers. So yes I can accuse the Scottish and Irish working class for selling out to the jews thus giving the jews dominance and power.
      To be honest, we just can’t trust the Irish or Scots never have and never will. They are always looking for an opportunity to stick a knife in the back of all true white Anglo Saxons Protestants.

    13. Aquinas Says:

      Heidegger was the leading student, protege and successor of jewish philosopher Husserl. Heidegger was lover to jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt. Heidegger was tutor to jewish philosopher Leo Strauss. Heidegger would dress up in full pantomime ‘nazi’ costume to deliver lectures.

      Heidegger was just one more philosophical con-man ramping up the ‘nazi’ half of the revolutionary dialectic that suckerred the German public into war and revolution.

    14. Celtic Warrior Says:

      Re Fred

      Well what is so terrible about potato eating? We all eat ‘French fries’ don’t we? Or should I be calling them ‘freedom fries’!

      Most people of Irish extraction in USA or Britain still do generally vote for the Democrats or the Labour party. Why? Mainly because they have always considered the Republican and Conservative parties to be hotbeds of WASP prejudice. Historically that was true but doesn’t necessarily apply now. A good percentage of Boston Irish would gladly string-up Ted Kennedy and his ilk.

      Aryan unity is the only way forward. History shows that when Celts and Germans work together as a team they are unbeatable. The Austrian Empire during the 18th century owed much of its military prowess to the large numbers of Irish officers commanding its armies against the French and Turks. Only when when facing the forces of Federick the Great did Austria suffer defeat.

    15. Celtic Warrior Says:

      O’Meara in his wish to place WN on a firm philosophical foundation seems to be in debt to the French school of WN thought. The English speaking world tends to disregard ‘theory’ and instead rely on gut reaction.
      Surely, it is the ‘will to life’, identified by the great German thinker Schopenhauer, that we need to rekindle in the hearts of our people.

    16. Ignorance is bliss Says:

      O’Meara is at full blowhardedness again. This “essay” is full of dogmatism.

      Tit-for-tat for your dogma: Heidegger wasn’t greatest philosopher of 20th C., Hitler was. Heidegger was certainly lower on Hitler’s respected philosophers list and behind Schopenhauer (a great philosopher and a recommended read!) and Nietzsche (a misanthropic nut).

      To Fred, get a clue or FU. Anyone who comes in here or any NS/WN area and starts proselytizing for hate against our own White brothers for pety reasons such as Catholic vs Protestant, etc., should be kicked out on his stupid arse.

      Aquinas wrote: Heidegger was just one more philosophical con-man ramping up the ‘nazi’ half of the revolutionary dialectic that suckerred the German public into war and revolution.

      What the fuck is this? Stupidity and ignorance again? War was not started by Germany, dumbass. Hellooooo. Morons. Your bus is leaving. Anyone who reads Hitler and understands NS knows that Hitler was right and his way is what all WN want to happen, whether they know it in their ignorance or not. Heidegger does not even fit into the equation.

      These comments… just like every goddamn forum everywhere from un-Free Republic to VNN Forum… is the perfect example of why democracy, or better mobocracy sucks ass. The morons drown out the intelligent, and the blowhards confuse the rest.

    17. Sándor Petőfi Says:

      logomachy
      n. game of word making; dispute in words only, contention regarding words; insignificant war of words

      O’Meara is an obscurantist who fits right in with the little postmodern school and their idol Heidegger. “Peculiar transposedness into the encompassing contextual ring of living beings.” Pah! T’was brillig, and the slithy French intellectuals did gimble and gyre in the wabe.

    18. Sándor Petőfi Says:

      Here we have a further example of a twit who hadn’t the cerebral capacity to study hard science, and so decided to avenge his diminutive intellect by attacking his betters with lavishly woven sentences of meaninglessness.

      If you want to explore the veritable nuclear device that is REAL phenomenology, read Goethe, Mach and Klages. They actually had brains.

    19. Sándor Petőfi Says:

      What the hell is “scientistic”? You’re a fucking spawn of Satan, O’Meara.

    20. Sándor Petőfi Says:

      Tit-for-tat for your dogma: “Heidegger wasn’t greatest philosopher of 20th C., Hitler was. Heidegger was certainly lower on Hitler’s respected philosophers list and behind Schopenhauer (a great philosopher and a recommended read!) and Nietzsche (a misanthropic nut).”

      Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are not 20th Century philosophers. Heidegger was not a philosopher at all; you can throw him onto the trash heap occupied by Focault and Satre.

      And before names like Wittgenstein, Spengler, Klages and Whitehead? Fucking spawn of Satan.

    21. sgruber Says:

      Philosophy informs the whole culture from which ACTION springs, gentlemen. And Martin, despite his alleged opportunism, reflected accurately the deepest stratum of German culture, which said: “Race is all. We are a special people, with a destiny.” Hitler and the SS emerged from this culture.

      I never read Heidegger (he’s said to be almost impossible to read, but I’d like to see for myself sometime). If O’Meara’s summary of his thought is accurate, I agree with it.

      The essay is pretty easy to understand despite all the big words. It basically says that just like the nature of the physical world makes the body racial, so the nature of consciousness also makes consciousness racial. Understanding this is probably helped by some familiarity with the mind-body problem, but that’s not absolutely necessary to understanding it.

      This essay if full of fine things. Get this: “The individualization of an individual
      consequently becomes a co-historicizing with a people.” Read in context, that’s huge.

      Related to this: I just learned that Steve Sailer, who on the pop level discusses biological differences of race, is a self-identified jew. Here (read second grey box down):
      http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000770.html

      Is Sailer’s intent to reduce our race to a mere matter of biology, i.e. genes and IQ scores? Is this a subtle sabotage of our people? After reading O’Meara/Heidegger, I believe so.

      Fuck jew Steve.

    22. Sándor Petőfi Says:

      “The essay is pretty easy to understand despite all the big words. It basically says that just like the nature of the physical world makes the body racial, so the nature of consciousness also makes consciousness racial. Understanding this is probably helped by some familiarity with the mind-body problem, but that’s not absolutely necessary to understanding it.”

      You are mistaken. In phenomenology there is no mind-body problem. We, however, do not need philophasters who read like opium eaters to tell us there is more to our existence than invisible atoms and numbers on a sheet.

      “Is Sailer’s intent to reduce our race to a mere matter of biology, i.e. genes and IQ scores?”

      The problem there is reducing life to a function of abstract parts. The absurdity of this is evident when we begin examining percentages of common genetic material and inferring from these that race and racial differences do not exist despite the obvious fact that they do. “Look, my DNA is 99% similar to that of a negroid, so I’m 99% similar to a negroid. Numbers are so much more real than reality!”. Its Newtonian thinking at its best, or worst.

    23. alfonso bedoya Says:

      I was expecting porn, but ended up at Gene Expression. What’s up?