Print this post Print this post

Interview with James J. O’Meara

3,409 words

Editor’s Note:

Before beginning this interview, I knew very little about James J. O’Meara. Based simply on his writings, I would describe him as a New Right/Radical Traditionalist-oriented literary and cultural critic residing somewhere Back East.

He is a highly valued contributor to Counter-Currents/North American New Right. He has also published in journals ranging from Alexandria to FringeWare Review to Judaic Book News.

His own blog is Where the Wild Boys Are, http://jamesjomeara.blogspot.com/which has the arresting subtitle “Aryan Futurism, Heavy Metal Entheogenic Mysticism, and pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs.” At the very least, I hope to get an explanation of that!

James, give us some basic biographical background: When were you born? Where are you from? Who are your people? 

I have come to think that everything boils down to being born and raised in Detroit, a late Boomer during the period when Detroit was the true workers’ paradise, the High Tide of the American Dream, up to about 1972, when the city, and the country, and the West, entered its swift decline. Workers like my father had good jobs with high pay and amazing benefits; in his case, not in the auto industry, but the New York Central Railroad, itself soon to enter bankruptcy.

These were the last times that one man could support a family, buy a house and car with cash, no loans or mortgages, and men were expected to actually be doers rather than “consumers”; if shelves were needed, he made them, rather than go to some Home Depot. This is the background against which I try to analyze, and immunize myself from, all the post-1980 ideological nonsense of the Identity Left and Free Market Right. Yes, even Richard Nixon, in the light of today, was a wise and decent leader, and his world was the White Utopia.

More particularly, I witnessed in Detroit the utopia of White Youth—which I have identified with the concept of Wild Boys that Burroughs was just publishing at that time, as well as, later, with the Aryan Männerbund—that this relative prosperity provided, epitomized by the revolutionary political and musical groups of that time and place, unimaginable today; and also the destruction of all that through the encroachment of the Negro. Let’s say that having been exposed to “black educators,” I was already long familiar with candidate Obama’s idea that there are “really” more than 50 states.

This is not to say that my upbringing was ideal; it was, in fact, quite eccentric, to say the least. I was the only product of the late second marriage of a nearly uneducated, nearly elderly, second generation Irishman to an even less educated middle-aged woman he met inNassau.

Even aside from this, both parents would likely be diagnosed today as autistic.

My father spent nearly every waking hour at work, by choice; having made a mint and retired to the suburbs when I entered high school, he promptly dropped dead.

My mother spent the entire time I knew her on a sofa, watching soap operas; I believe that she wanted to come toAmericato see the programs she only knew by radio broadcasts in the islands. It was only later, near her own death, that I discovered, after finding her watching the Joseph Campbell PBS show (her!?) that she had actually been spending her time living in an extensive dream world in which she was continuing to live with her family and friends in the Bahamas. I suspect I inherited not merely their antisocial ways but also a precocious grasp of Jungian active fantasy, and even Corbin’s Sufi-inspired “imaginal realm.”

You can imagine the sort of dreamy, unpopular good-for-nothing this produced. I was the sort of kid that would attend the premiere of 2001 by myself and too young for drugs, and acquire an interest in Richard Strauss and Nietzsche. The sort of kid that would pick up Hesse’s Steppenwolf because I knew that was where the band had gotten its name, and then intensely identify with Harry Haller; later, at 50, I realized that I had indeed seen my future and become a 50-year-old misanthrope in a room full of books and cigar ash. 

Tell us about your religious upbringing and present beliefs.

My parents were nominally Catholic; my mother had been the daughter of a Welsh Methodist minister and missionary to theBahamas, whom I think I take after in appearance and interests, but presumably disinterested enough to become apostate. They had no particular interest in my religious upbringing any more than my social or educational, other than a formal interest in making me go to church, until I rebelled against it, and a fixed idea that Catholic schools would be the best, which of course was true.

Once in the best Catholic high school, my parents took no further interest, leaving things like course selection (the age of the “option” was upon us) to me. Hence my eccentric choices of German as a foreign language, the better to read Nietzsche and Hesse, as well as the abandonment of mathematics, a true loss, I believe.

My mother, bless her shop girl’s soul, had a fixed idea that I should “take shorthand and typing and you’ll always have a job,” which I must say did prove helpful in the days of typewriters, but shows the rather low career bar that was set for me. 

Your writing shows the signs of a wide and not entirely informal education. Where did you go to school?

Of course, while I can’t account for my uniquely odd birth and parenting (although Evola was fond of the idea that we choose our life’s course prenatally), I also cannot explain how I arrived at the idea of attending an obscure university in Canada; I can only assume that, growing up in Detroit, Canada, though universally despised by its own natives, had seemed like a colorful bit of the British Empire when visited as a child.

The school I chose had been quite a force in its little world back in the ’40s, when Wyndham Lewis and Marshall McLuhan spent some unhappy years of exile there (you can read about it in Lewis’s Self Condemned, a title which should give you some idea of how backward it was even then).

And for a little-known place, my classmates have had some effect on the world, from the actor Colm Feore, award-winning poet Phil Hall, the presidents of Chrysler and Fiat, to the Dean of the NYU Business School. I studied religion alongside Thomas Moore, whose popularization of archetypal psychology in The Care of the Soul was typical of the place, and very much in my own dreamy style; while my colleagues in philosophy included one who went on to become a billionaire as one of the architects of theCalifornia subprime mortgage disaster.

Going to an intellectual backwater, however, was I think the best thing for me. “Deconstruction” and other “critical theory” was only a dim rumor, and could be grasped only as some foolish modern misunderstanding of Hegel. We were taught—I’m speaking of philosophy, not physics or chemistry—in the grand French Thomist tradition of Gilson and Maritain. One read original texts, and lectures were devoted to “explication de texte,” like the English “close reading,” not fashionable PC claptrap.

And even the younger professors who chafed at the old school trappings were themselves useful, as they were pioneering what they called “informal logic,” which gave me an additional training in disassembling political arguments. Though short on “real world” facts, much better training, almost scholastic if not Platonic, than some sociology or arts graduate today.

Intellectually, the real influence was John N. Deck, an old school Platonist, a real “old time” Catholic, and an American who had fled to Canada during World War II to avoid fighting what he liked to call “National, I mean, Christian Socialism.” His combination of Neoplatonic idealism and personal eccentricity (he wore the same cheap Sears work clothes the rest of the faculty had given up after grad school, and shaved his head once a year, letting it grow out until he resembled Schopenhauer; a similar figure appears, eerily enough, in Mann’s Doctor Faustus, another book I read obsessively at the time) made a deep appeal to me, and I became one of many disciples of this guru who taught the most popular class on campus: a “kiddie” version of Plato called “Dream Worlds and Real Worlds,” a two semester long harangue worthy of a more sober Ignatius P. Reilly. Years later, I learned that an upstateNew York guru was using his one slender book as a holy text, and the group still keeps it in print to this day.

What is your occupation when you are not writing?

Reading, of course. As for paid work, well, with such a background, I was no more prepared for work than Reilly as well. I left graduate school and chose a profession simply because the training was easy and inexpensive, and some friends had gone the same route and actually got jobs. Eventually, in an equally somnambulist sequence of events, I came to New York, where I plied my trade at several major firms, until the recent economic downturn. 

What is “entheogenic mysticism”?

Perhaps one could consider as my first venture in online writing to be my involvement with Michael Hoffman (not the anti-Judaic crusader, Michael A. Hoffman II, though the coincidence is interesting) and his decades-long personal research project on the roots, literally, of religious experience in psychoactive drugs. He believes that drugs are a more effective means than prayer, meditation, etc. for producing the core religious experience, which he defines as a breakdown of personal control, a “cybernetic crisis” relieved only by a relinquishing of control to a Higher Power. His work is archived at egodeath.com, where some of my own postings can be found, as well as a “main article,” “The Entheogen Theory of Religion,” which I partially ghost-wrote for a journal that ultimately never came out. So much for “real” publishing.

I differ from Michael mainly in taking a more Evola-inspired approach, preferring a more active, Aryan, heroic model based on Mithra rather than Christ; consequently, he takes hippie psychedelia as his model for “modern mystery ritual for the youth,” while I prefer implicitly White heavy metal for that role. 

Who are your literary and philosophical idols and influences? 

Again, it all comes back to Detroit in the late ’60s, early ’70s. In those days, the FCC required radio stations to broadcast some kind of religious content, so the local “underground” station played lectures by Alan Watts early Sunday morning. Other than my immature reading of Nietzsche, this was my first exposure to philosophy and mysticism, and something like his “spiritual materialism” has remained my touchstone ever since. His autobiography, In My Own Way, is a model for a well-lived, interesting life. By the way, Michael Hoffman thinks his essay “Zen and the Problem of Control” in the book This Is It, is the greatest philosophical work of the 20th century.

Wattsof course was something of a Traditionalist, but he broke away for reasons I think more of personal style than principle. Later, after absorbing a certain amount of Thomism and Hegelianism, I found a Penguin paperback of Guénon’s The Reign of Quantity in the college bookstore, and having seen the name in Watts’s books tried to read it, but found it impossible to assimilate; a combination of puzzlement over his radically different perspective on the “metaphysics” I had been taught, and, frankly, a sense of dread and terror at his matter-of-fact presentation of the unstoppable pulverizing and disintegration of the universe. I can only compare it to the sense of “cosmic indifference” present in the long, late works of Lovecraft; though less intense than in Guénon, it arises from similar reasons, as I explore in my essays on James and Lovecraft.

Eventually, I was able to assimilate some of his more purely “principial” works, such as The Symbolism of the Cross, and actually found his perspective, or “personal equation,” as Evola would say of himself, to be muy simpatico. A purely intellectual perspective on a world unworthy of notice anyway, was just what my dreamy, withdrawn nature craved. Around middle age, however, sometime after arriving inNew York, I experienced something of a personal crisis, feeling a great need for more involvement with the “real world.”

My old schoolmate Thomas Moore provided a clue, with his attempt to translate or adapt Fincino’s Renaissance Platonism first to archetypal psychology, then to everyday life, which I leaned to find value in as an intermediate level, between Matter and Spirit, Dream and Real, called “Soul.” Archetypal psychology brought me in touch with Peter Lamborn Wilson, a popularizing Sufi scholar who made Watts seem like a Presbyterian elder, and who also, likeWatts, had his own radio show, this time on WBAI. A chance mention by Wilson of a “happening” on the Lower East Side led me make contacts with the most degenerate levels of the New York arts scene, perhaps the most currently well-known and respectable survivor being the torch-singer Antony.

Archetypes, Soul, angels, the “imaginal realm” of the Sufis (and thus, through Schuon, of the Traditionalists); reading around about these, I stumbled on the work of Jeremy Reed, who shared my obsessions with Bowie and Brian Jones, but also introduced me to J. G. Ballard, and above all, to the ultimate angelic White soul, Scott Walker.

Just at the point where I might have entirely drowned in pop ephemera, I finally made the acquaintance of the man of iron, Baron Julius Evola. His name had never been mentioned byWattsor any Traditionalist I had read in English up at that time, despite his long and close collaboration with Guénon. And why should they, since he presented an entirely different perspective from theirs, and on them? Evola was the first person I knew who neither ignored the Traditionalists nor ridiculed them nor slavishly adhered to them, but came with a fully-formed worldview of his own, and was more than a match for them intellectually. Like Marx with Hegel, Evola turned Guénon upside down, as it were, and made use of their much vaunted “principles” as a way to give form to his nebulous ideas of the ideal civilization for Aryan man, how it had been, how it degenerated, how it could be revived today. Evola was all about doing something in the world, and provided an excellent antidote to Guénonian inertia.

So much for what might be called intellectual influences.

In literary terms, Rolling Stone was the biggest influence, hard as it may be to believe today. In those days, Hunter Thompson, along with Lester Bangs from Detroit’s rival music rag, Creem, were early and I think bad influences on my writing and lifestyle, especially when it came to producing existential nonsense in all-night binges in lieu of term papers. More importantly, the Stone introduced me to David Bowie, and, through Bowie, William Burroughs, since he contrived to be “interviewed” by Burroughs and gushed on about their “mutual” influences. The Wild Boys had just been published, Bowie later turned it into his Diamond Dogs epic, and I acquired the symbol for what eventually became my blog musings.

So we have now, what—rock music, etheogens, and, courtesy of Burroughs’s British publisher, the blurb about “pitiless hordes of adolescents in rainbow thongs.” All clear?

Jeremy Reed revealed that the obsessive attention a fan pays to pop trivia can be the equivalent of a poet’s heightened perception, and I try to do something similar in looking at pop culture from a Traditionalist perspective.

But the most important influence was provided by Danny Drennan, who published, in the early days of the Internet, a “weekly wrap-up” of Beverly Hills 90210. Drennan was the anti-Reed; having started as an obsessed fan, he grew to hate and despise the show as only a former lover could, and was creating pages and pages of weekly commentary, minutely chronicling the show’s idiocies, lazy habits of writing (“So here comes the Obligatory Moment of Donna Praise”), aging and inept actors, etc. But what was liberating was the breathless, faux Valley Girl style, with its Homeric epithets and easy transitions from one part of speech to another, all facilitated by the paperless, non-quantitative medium of the Internet (“So Noah Look Away, Smirk, and Reply Hunter looks away, smirks and replies . . .”).

This was Thompson’s mania, Burroughs’ cut-ups, Reed’s pop idolatry, taken to a new digital synthesis, and delivered weekly with a knowing smirk. This was how I wanted to write.

But of what?

Wasting time at work Googling various “Evola and . . .” searches, I stumbled upon Alisdair Clarke’s blog, Aryan Futurism. Here was someone putting Evola’s ideas to work in the modern political and social context, and in particular attacking that great contradiction at the heart of The Right, the Judaic antipathy to homoeroticism. The circle was completed, and I had a comprehensive worldview, from wild boys to drugs to pop and heavy metal to imaginal realms to Traditionalist metaphysics to the Aryan Männerbund to the New Right.

I also had a medium—the blog—where my Drennanesque rants could be easily “published” and even endlessly rewritten, thus finally conforming to my way of having a bright idea suddenly pop up, feverishly writing it down lest it pass into oblivion, and then consigning it to oblivion by losing interest in developing it into something publishable months later; what I liked to call my “Nietzschean aphorisms” or “McLuhanesque probes” but really more like ADD.

If I consider my work in what Guénon liked to call “principial” terms, I would say that I took from F. R. Leavis the importance of criticism as the application and policing of standards; from Nietzsche the vow to only attack people as when they serve as the vehicles of ideas significant or dangerous enough to be worth consideration; and never the less, from both A. E. Housman and Paul Feyerabend (a modern, yet outré enough to find his way into my school’s odd curriculum) the taking of a gleeful interest in ripping apart those who have publicly failed to uphold those standards yet sit back and smugly expect acclaim.

And on that note, perhaps my biggest critical “influence” is a fictional character, Chaim Breisacher, also from Mann’s Doctor Faustus. This Judaic “private scholar” in 1920s Munich delights in discombobulating his stuffy, Prussian “conservative” hosts by constantly pulling the rug out from under their haute bourgeois ideals, such as Goethe and Bach, by diagnosing their “cultural degeneration” and finding “true” conservatism in ever more primitive, “barbaric” forms, such as Christianity and Prophetic Judaism in favor of the blood sacrifices of the Temple.

Some have lately speculated that he was based on a Judaic scholar known to Evola, and, perhaps, Evola himself! I find myself in a similar position, using the historical facts of Traditionalism to prove to “conservatives,” and even soi-disant Traditionalists themselves, that they are hardly as “conservative” or “anti-Liberal” as they may think; for example, using Evola to show that “family values” is a Judaic attack on the homoerotic and entheogen-based male groups that created Aryan civilization, or Alain Daniélou prove that jazz is more valid, with its “blue” notes and microtones, than “equal tempered” Western Classical music. 

Who are your favorite literary and cultural critics?

Seriously, it may sound like a commercial, or shamelessly self-indulgent, but my go-to cultural critics are the folks at Counter-Currents; yourself, Michael O’Meara (no relation, by the way), and Collin Cleary; for film, Derek Hawthorne and Trevor Lynch. Reading your blog is the first thing I do online each day. Also, anything by Troy Southgate or Keith Preston.

Jim Goad is always a good read, iconoclastic in the true sense, and hilarious as well. The aforementioned Michael A. Hoffman II is essential for keeping abreast of the Judaic and Zionist machinations of the our time; of course, being a Christian Fundamentalist, he’s actually extremely pro-Hebrew, he just thinks the current rabbinic sort aren’t the real Jews. As Robert Anton Wilson said of his book on the Kennedy assassination as a Masonic mind-control ritual, “he has the strangest reality tunnel I’ve ever encountered.”

Although technically deceased, the late Alisdair Clarke’s blog is recent enough to continue serve as a relevant and incisive commentary on contemporary happenings. I like to think of my blog, and now this book, as a continuation of, and tribute to, his work. 

Thank you, James.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

55 Comments

  1. Posted January 5, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    I love O’Meara’s blog. A good mix of humor, news, pop and “judeomachinations”. Thanks for interviewing him.

  2. Stig
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Very interesting interview, dear Sirs. I look forward to purchasing your book, and a productive new year to both of you with your excellent writing.

  3. Posted January 5, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    I think this is one of the most charming interviews I’ve ever read – certainly of a professed Evolian! Thanks to both of you.

  4. Greg Johnson
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    This interview made me realize something rather important but suppressed about my own influences as a writer, particularly a critic: Rolling Stone, which I read religiously in junior high and high school. I also found an old pocket book of the Rolling Stone Record Review, vol. 2. (1974), which I carried with me for years. I remember reading reviews, listening to albums in the vast record collections of my cousins (who were all much older than me), and then reviewing the review. It was a real education in writing and taste. I still chuckle sometimes about the review of Love Story.

    I still remember the day in college when the great paradigm shift came over me, from advocate of a classical liberal form of modernity to rebel against the modern world: It was 1987. I was listening to Sting’s The Dream of the Blue Turtles, really listening to the words and the music, and suddenly I was seized with such a loathing for Sting and myself for having liked this shit that I did not know whether to smash the record or my head against the wall. The next day, I hauled 90% of my vinyl to a used record store and sold it. From then on, I bought only classical music (with a few exceptions, like Zappa) for a very long time, but I still used reviews to analyze recording and recordings to analyze reviews.

    I don’t know what became of the Rolling Stone book. Maybe it will turn up on one of the shelves at my parents’ house some day.

    • Posted January 7, 2012 at 3:47 am | Permalink

      It’s perhaps hard today to grasp how significant RS was in creating and presenting what one might call a ‘lifestyle’ or even alternate reality to pre-video, pre-internet kids, when familiar only with today’s bloated, corporate insider version . I don’t think I’m alone in thinking the change dates from the move from SF to NYC, and the abandonment of the iconic pulp tabloid format for the literally slick Life style [Lifestyle, get it?]

      Thompson’s Fear and Loathing, which appeared over two issues in 1971 [the book, appearing the next year, would undergo some censorship, such as replacing "Leary' with 'the guru' but the lawyers were dumbfounded by Oscar Acosta's insistence on being named, disguised only as "Samoan' rather than 'Chicano'm since they were sure he'd be disbarred and 'why lose your license to steal?'; he felt the book gave him street cred] blew my mind, as the kids were saying, although it was already backwards looking — I had already missed the wave, which must have peaked in ’65! — which Gilliam’s film emphasizes, with 30 years of extra hindsight.
      Subsequently, I leaned the art of politics from his campaign coverage in 1972, seeking out issues in Paris and Rome during the summer conventions. And his advice on sports — or any — writing was priceless. “Always use a thesaurus,” since even a night editor in St. Petersburg would have a problem with this lead:

      “The precision-jack hammer attack of the Miami Dolphins stomped the balls off the Minnesota Vikings today by stomping and hammering with one precise jack-thrust after another up the middle, mixed with pinpoint-precision passes into the flat and numerous hammer-jackstomps around both ends…”

      But really the point is that Detroit was enough of a Whitopia to have its own somewhat independent ‘scene’ if you will, although the city fathers [remember that phrase?] were able to hammer-jackstomp our Haight, Plum St., by building freeways around it. That’s the Detroit way!

      [I find it interesting that White musicians from Detroit continue to dominate the music industry -- Madonna in the 80s, Eminem in the 90s, although it's stretching things to add White Stripes for the 2000s; so we need to include, as I pointed out in my White Rock essay, the implicitly White black nerds from the Detroit suburbs, like Juan Atkins, who created Techno].

      So we have less use for RS since we had our own Stone, namely Creem, where writers like Lester Bangs, Greil Marcus and yes, Patti Smith could get get their start writing record reviews that took bad music as a person affront needing to be avenged, such as Bangs epic feud with Lou Reed. If anyone’s interested, there’s a history of Creem published a while back, but it’s not very good; I suggest going directly to Bangs writings, collected in Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung.

  5. Jef Costello
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    I am speechless. This place you call “Detroit” — is it in this star system? You are a very singular fellow — and a great asset to our cause.
    Have you considered writing fiction? I think it is your duty (to us) to try.

    • Derek Hawthorne
      Posted January 5, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

      Yes, I concur with Jef. You really should try your hand at fiction. Don’t shoot for writing a novel (yet). Write some short stories. Set them on earth. Base them on your own experiences. You don’t need to make a whole lot up. Your life is filled with enough material for many stories — which will inevitably be dismissed by some as “implausible.”

    • Posted January 6, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

      Thanks, Jeff. Detroit was not another planet, but rather, a Whitopia!

      Here’s some fall of Detroit info a friend just sent me, with a link to AmRen.

      http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021380.html

  6. Eric Hale
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Good interview. I frequent this gentleman’s blog every week…following his writing is difficult but rewarding. Quite a brilliant and humorous man!

  7. Catiline
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    O’Meara is a fascinating figure. A true gem among Rightist bloggers. It would be interesting to see his work exposed to a wider audience. He would certainly do us proud if so.

    I first became acquainted with James’ writing from an old comment he made at Majority Rights.*
    I googled him and discovered his blog. Now it appears he’s branching out. This is a positive sign.

    *http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_tyranny_of_individualism_in_a_liberal_democratic_society/#c52237

  8. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps we need another Northwest American Republic starting from San Francisco up to Oregon. South Cascadia could be an ally to the East. The Covingtons are never going to be down with the gay thing. What you’re saying may be true, but the Jews are using Homosexuality to destroy American Culture in the present. I can’t see how this can be to our advantage at all. The only possibility is to discriminate between their degenerate Homosexuality and Our healthy one a la Jack Donovan. Good luck even getting a hearing on that.

    • Posted January 5, 2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

      @ “healthy one a la Jack Donovan”

      Can you explain that?

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted January 5, 2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

        Let me take a stab at it. The unhealthy and corrosive homosexual is a relatively recent invention of the culture of critique, characterized by self-loathing, resentment of straights and “breeders,” anti-masculine attitudes and behaviors (even as they fetishize masculinity), and an agenda of transvaluation, seeking to dethrone all norms and measures by reference to which they are found wanting. A healthy homosexual is at peace with himself and the society around him (whether they approve of him or not — and that’s the rub for psychologically weak people), including the idea that heterosexuality is normal and the heterosexual family (ideally the heterosexual extended family) is the best institution for breeding and nurturing new generations.

      • Posted January 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for this explanation, Greg.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted January 5, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

      Basic political organizing requires both unifying one’s own camp and splitting the other side. Currently, homosexuals are basically owned by the Jewish-minority coalition, as are feminists, yet their interests (like feminist concerns) always take a back seat to the Jewish race-replacement agenda. Writers like Donovan can help split the enemy coalition, which is important for our long-term survival, which requires that we address all white constituencies and unify them behind an agenda of racial preservation and progress.

      Beyond that, a society without blacks and Jews is not only possible, but highly desirable. Yet a society without homosexuals might be desirable, given that it can be viewed as a misfortune, but it is not really possible, given that a homosexuality seems to recur generation after generation in every known society, and in a racially conscious white society, the homosexuals would be racially conscious members of our larger racial family. Persecuting or killing such people is frankly an evil notion that arises from the Black Book of the Evil Ones. It is not a policy that would be entertained if one started from Aryan reason.

      As for your suggestion of a second republic, I think there is a kernel of truth there that applies to our political activity in the present day. What we really need is a racially conscious Left, to work in tandem with a racially conscious Right, in a pincer movement to crush our enemies. For more thoughts on this, see my article on “Hegemony.” http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/hegemony/

      I think that Counter-Currents is developing into a forum for working out a “crunchy,” West Coast, racially-conscious Left — although not exclusively so, since we are also in active dialogue with the racially-conscious Right. Indeed, I suspect that that dialogue goes on in many of our heads and hearts.

      I would love to find the feminist equivalent of Jack Donovan.

      • Posted January 6, 2012 at 1:34 am | Permalink

        This is a great explanation. Going further, I think the Jews have had to debase the homosexual more so than the general population, as gay men (AKA Mannerbund) can be especially dangerous if not derailed. A man alone can devote much more time to critical thought and writing and is not subject to the fear that his actions would negatively impact his wife and children. Without any real dependents he is much more free.

        But of course now the Weltenfiend have truly corrupted most of them, and to be perfectly honest, disgusted a great deal of white people in the process (and conversely justfying the Heeb propaganda that gays shouldn’t trust white breeders). Just another divide and conquer strategy I suppose (Or is the strategy to just up and kill them by their own hand? I once spent a few hours reading the tweets of a gay guys, and even as a very hippy dippy social liberal I was aghast.)

      • Petronius
        Posted January 6, 2012 at 3:19 am | Permalink

        “feminist equivalent of Jack Donovan”

        I’d say Camille Paglia comes close in some respects at least, but she is an universe of her own.

      • Posted January 6, 2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink

        I haven’t read much Jack Donovan. But I think that Camille Paglia comes close to being his feminist analogue.

        She has said that drag-queens taught her how to be a woman. So she is “into” the cult of the hyper-feminized male. But she’s also into the cult of the butch-male whether overstated in leather or understated in dusty t-shirt on a scaffold. She has said that construction workers are the “last real men of action” left in the West. Lesbianism aside, she has obviously made a loving study of iron-workers who embody understated male grace and courage.

        She’s an Italian who cuts-it both ways. The artist and megalomaniac in her grasps Benvenuto Cellini’s robust madness as a sculptor, soldier and lover of boys. The “ragazza” in her grasps the the construction worker, the auto-mechanic and the neighborhood meat-cutter. Wherefore comes the affection? It’s in the blood.

        I’ve read Paglia as the missing link who connects Michelangelo to the humble craftsman. Like Evola, she calls herself a “Pagan-Catholic.” They share a similar sense of hierarchy. In both cases, it has led to controversy. Paglia equates the downward pull of the chthonic with Female Power. She considers it the dominant earthly force that is only cyclically cleansed by Apollonian solvents or escaped by Faustian Thrusts upwards. Any guy who has struggled with being a momma’s boy, or a pussy-whipped pud, understands the worldly basis of her metaphysics. But just as Paglia clarifies and consoles for one readership, she clarifies and “hates” for another readership. She has said, if you’ll allow a paraphrase, that if women ruled the world we’d all be living in grass huts. Arch-feminists wince. As do social-engineers.

        Paglia delineates between her warm Italian Catholism and the cold Irish Catholicism that she confronted in upstate New York. Maybe this provided an early template for her delineation between Jewish intellectualism and WASP intellectualism. She is an out-spoken Judeophile and a critic of the old Anglo elite. I must say, as a Polish-Catholic, I didn’t “get” the English curriculum or the prize sobriety of its teachers at MSU. I studied Saul Bellow on my own. A Russian-Jew with an alternately woolly and refined imagination. So I can understand how Jewish mentors, like Harold Bloom at Yale, were key to developing Paglia’s robust madness.

        But she has only morphed so far. She remains true to her blood and her native Italian milleau. Ultimately, Whites need to plant their flag and then create more space for fringe characters. That’s the way to fortify the core from the wilderness. Today’s fetish for looking to racial-outsiders for a distant mirror must come to an end.

      • Petronius
        Posted January 6, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

        Paglia’s “Sexual Personae” is a masterpiece, and there are several stunning parallels to Evola’s “Metaphysics of Sex”, only somewhat mirror-inverted to a female point of view. Her brand of feminism stands in a refreshing contrast to the anti-male attitude and agenda of most of the feminist establishment, which hates her guts. She also said once “What defines me as a woman, is made by nature not nurture”, and spoken by a lifelong rebel like her this has quite some weight. Her study of English poems “Break, Blow, Burn” is also excellent. Like Jim Goad, she is one of those lone wolf individualists…

      • Lew
        Posted January 6, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

        Sexual Personae is indeed a masterwork. But even Camille Paglia, despite her sheer brilliance and astounding knowledge of the arts and the Western Canon, rejects the importance of race. You would think she would fit right in in the HBD world given that she is a sex realist to the point (IMO) of near biological determinism. It does not seem to be true, however. I can’t remember where I read it or heard it, but years ago Paglia completely dismissed the possibility of race differences in intelligence. She suggested that Blacks simply have a different type of intellect than the Apollonian intellect of the West.

      • Petronius
        Posted January 7, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

        “She suggested that Blacks simply have a different type of intellect than the Apollonian intellect of the West.”

        Well, that would be just a polite way of framing the fact of racial intelligence differences… and of saying that Blacks are quite different from Western (White) people.

        Alex Kurtagic argued in a similar way about “types” of intellects:
        http://takimag.com/article/yes_africa_must_go_to_hell#axzz1ilqaarWI

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted January 7, 2012 at 4:12 am | Permalink

          Yes, to say that black consciousness is chthonic it is just a nice way of saying what Earl Butts said, namely that all blacks care about is soul food, tight p*****, and a warm place to shit,–everything centered in the lowest three chakras.

      • Posted January 7, 2012 at 3:52 am | Permalink

        “Yet a society without homosexuals might be desirable, given that it can be viewed as a misfortune, but it is not really possible, given that a homosexuality seems to recur generation after generation in every known society, and in a racially conscious white society, the homosexuals would be racially conscious members of our larger racial family”

        I once found on the ‘net an anonymous essay on “NS and Homosexuality” which made the point that every society has an elite, the question is, who will it be? The Jews are our elite, but they are an alien elite, closed off genetically and socially. Homosexuals, however, are an integral part of White society, since they could be part of anyone’s family. Proud parents could look forward to one of their children serving in the highest levels of the state, while in our society the goyim are simply, well, the goyim, cattle to be ruthlessly milked and slaughtered.

      • Posted January 7, 2012 at 7:13 am | Permalink

        Greg,

        Not that it matters, but I recalled the Butz remark differently, and googled “loose shoes” to find it. That’s the line that puzzled me at first hearing it, then figured it out. It’s an interesting feature of the time, since Negroes were known for shiny, pointed, presumably tight but not too tight shoes, back when they were given points for flashy dress — zoot suits, like Denzel and Spike Lee wear at the start of Malcolm X, big hats, canes, etc. Pimp clothes, in short.

        The obsession with shoes — rather feminine, come to think of it — continues today, though today’s “athletic shoes” are presumably not too tight.

        This actually relates to what I say in the Homo and Negro Manifesto [also reprinted in the Book]. Negros today dress like the ultimate slobs, and I sometimes think it’s part of the well know “challenge YT” ghetto mode, “whatcha lookin at?” etc. They DARE us to laugh or sneer. Meanwhile, the pimp style is mocked, worn only as satire, like Dave Chapelle doing Rick James. You’ll notice that Whiggers only copy the baggy pants look, never the pimp look; only frat boys having “pimp parties” do so, and of course are condemned as ‘ray-zist’.

        When Malcolm X turned his back on the zoot suit lifestyle, he basically created a Black Prep look, which eventually evolved into the iconic look associated with the Fruit of Islam today. A function of the times, which would be condemned as “acting White” today. It’s no surprise that stylish dress and racial consciousness go together. There’s a great photo of George Lincoln Rockwell and aides sitting up front at a Black Muslim rally, and everyone is so neatly tailored as to fit into an episode of Mad Men.

        Anyway, here’s what I found:

        “Resigned as Secretary of Agriculture after telling this joke to John Dean and Pat Boone: “I’ll tell you what the coloreds want. It’s three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit.”

        Pat Boone! News to me.

        “Newspapers reported that he had said a racist remark, but few were actually willing to report the remark itself. The San Diego Evening Tribune offered to mail interested parties the uncensored text of the remark, a service requested by several thousand.

        “While cleaning out his office, Butz lamented to a Time magazine reporter: “You know, I don’t know how many times I told that joke, and everywhere — political groups, church groups — nobody took offense, and nobody should. I like humor. I’m human.”

        Church groups? A bit of a stretch, unless you count Klan meetings. Or were these presumably Southern churches a lot more laid back than today’s Santoria?

      • Posted January 7, 2012 at 7:17 am | Permalink

        Also, the Annotated Lyrics of Lou Reed, or whatever it’s called, feels the need to explain the phrase “PR shoes” in “Waiting for my man” to future generations thus: : “PR refers to Puerto Ricans, who often wore pointed shoes.”

    • Posted January 7, 2012 at 5:35 am | Permalink

      “The only possibility is to discriminate between their degenerate Homosexuality and Our healthy one a la Jack Donovan. Good luck even getting a hearing on that.”

      I’ve tried, on my blog, from time to time to highlight some historical personage who demonstrates both the essential Rightism of homosexuals, as well as their contribution to the established order. One, on Noel Coward, became my first contribution to CC. From another angle, my profile of Humphrey Bogart as the ideal Aryan Male, also on CC, deals at one point with his dealings with various homos, both on screen [Sam Spade with Joel Cairo, Kaspar Gutman and Wilma the gunsel] as well as “real life”, such as how he acquired a wary respect for Truman Capote on the set of Beat the Devil. Both will appear in my forthcoming CC book.

    • Posted January 7, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

      We the HardRight need friends, not enemies….and that means everyone willing to contribute. Who defended Germany’s borders during the post-WW I chaos, put down the Red uprisings, and then played a decisive role in overthrowing the Weimar gang? Two male-bonded military brotherhoods: the Freikorps and the SA. Of course, our bent progenitors then overreached and got slapped down, hard. What we want, is for history to rhyme. Not repeat.

  9. Armor
    Posted January 5, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    GJ: “homosexuality seems to recur generation after generation in every known society”

    What about polygamy? If we try to discourage polygamy, are we guilty of persecuting the polygamists? Polygamous tendencies seem to recur generation after generation in every known society. Who are we, to criticize polygamous instincts? If another man has sex with your wife, don’t blame him. He was probably born that way.

    I think the theory that men are divided between homosexuals and heterosexuals is nonsense. What is true is that some men engage in sexual activities with other men. Period. James O’Meara’s theories, like the idea that fascism is gay, mainly have to do with intellectual, political, artistic movements and behavior, not with actual sex. Black people have more testosterone than we have, but even so, the main difference between them and us is not that they are more masculine while we are more interested in gay sex.

    “What we really need is a racially conscious Left, to work in tandem with a racially conscious Right”

    It is always difficult to know exactly what is the right and the left. What must be encouraged and advertized is the development of explicitly pro-white movements in every field : gay literature, feminism, trade-unionism, environmentalism, Christian activism, music for young people, and so on – every movement that has been hijacked by the Jews and their media.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted January 6, 2012 at 2:13 am | Permalink

      Polygamy is illegal and polygamists are prosecuted in the US. Of course negro males who father children with multiple women are not persecuted. Only white men who wish to take responsibility for multiple wives and their children. Personally, I think polygamy should be legalized, since monogamy means that some women will never find mates, females being more plentiful than males in white societies due to higher male mortality rates.

      Polygamy is an entirely different issue than cheating on one’s spouse.

      O’Meara does not say that fascism is gay, but Christian rightwingers probably would, since fascism is a masculine movement that emphasizes male-bonding. This is the classic accusation of any intensely bonded masculine group, from warrior bands to fraternities to “Fight Club.” O’Meara’s point, which is developed in his blog, is that male-bonding is the foundation of Aryan society, and that male bonding is chilled by Biblical religion’s hangups about homosexuality as an offense against God, leading to the subversion of Aryan society. It is false to equate male bonding and comradeship with homosexuality and sin. O’Meara does not make that error, he decries it in the family values conservatives whose Old Testament moralizing ironically undermines society as much as liberalism, but in a different fashion.

      • Yule Tide
        Posted January 6, 2012 at 5:02 am | Permalink

        The opposite though seems true though – male bonding in the US seems to have been stronger when we were more Christian and homosexuality was locked up in the closet. Or is there some evidence to suggest that now, in our very much less Christian USA, that men bond more closely than before ?

        From my view, the belief that homosexuality is immoral actually allowed men to bond normally. Because it would be such a strong charge to level at someone, it rarely was leveled. Guys doing things together was the norm in the Christian USA. Why does O’Meara think otherwise ? When did two guys going fishing/hunting/etc. become gay ? Just recently. When did all-male clubs become gay ? Just recently. All-male activities were the norm when we were more Christian.

        However, in today’s world, where homosexuality is fun and acceptable, everyone is accused of it, and it is that that chills male bonding. This is a problem that comes from the left and not from ordinary Christians who would be less likely to throw around accusations – liberals, on the other hand, love to see homosexuality everywhere.

        Christianity probably makes it harder to have non-intimate female relationships, but makes male bonding much easier.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted January 6, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

          You’re right, of course. Before the gay rights movement and the gay subculture polarized matters, male bonding took place even in a predominantly Christian society. Gay consciousness made straight men more self-conscious, which had a chilling effect on male bonding. Years ago, I wanted to review Brokeback Mountain, but the only angle I could come up with is that this movie will spoil men’s fishing trips for a long time to come.

          Yet the ability of the left to polarize society around homosexuality, and the bitterness of that polarization, arises from the predominance of Old Testament attitudes in America. I think that the gay rights movement exploits genuine grounds for discontent (as did feminism) but is directed by Jews with the malicious intent of undermining the male bonding at the foundation of Aryan society.

  10. Eric Hale
    Posted January 6, 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Something about male bonding and the queer-pushing on the left that I’ve noticed: I spent my undergraduate years working as a personal trainer in several gyms, and I noticed (along with the rest of the young guys I worked with) that men above the age of 55-60 could spend hours at a time in the locker room conversing with each other completely nude, often in close proximity with each other without the slightest discomfort. We laughed about this phenomenon but couldn’t figure out why it didn’t freak them out to behave so openly like that amongst their friends until I realized one day that the “homo/no-homo!” divide hadn’t been formed for them in their minds/hearts during their youth because the homosexual agenda of the left had not formed at that time.

    The men simply saw each other as men, comrades, and friends. The love of men one for another is something beyond description, particularly if they have gone through “the shit” together, be it in warfare, sports, fistfights, chasing tail, or general youthful mayhem. Women cannot understand this level of mutual respect and devotion and are quite jealous of the affection, as women always are possessive.

    The “homosexual agenda” has been very, very effective in always putting the brakes on heterosexual men of my generation from ever developing a fully-formed comradery due to the always present fear of being looked at as homosexuals. It stifles us from spending the necessary amount of time together to develop a revolutionary movement. Tragic.

    • Posted January 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

      That is an excellent summation Hale. Good observation of older blokes at gymns, something that I hadn’t thought of the way you explain it, but was uncomfortable with them yacking at me naked.

      Another one is boys, and older men holding hands, or arms slung over the shoulder. If you observe subcontinent boys and men, holding hands is common amongst close friends and does not have the connotation of homosexuality. Yet there is no way I would ever hold another blokes hand.

      Personally, I like the company of other men. I miss the old style pubs, where men would get together and talk about men’s things without the distraction of women. Modern pubs are all about chasing women – alpha/beta competitiveness. No conversation, or what there is just dumb, superficial natterings interspersed with “check that one out!”, and everyone turns to check her out.

      Just before my time, or fading when I was a lad, was the public bar, back bar and women’s bar. Beer garden for families. Public bar for men, working class mixture. Back bar for white collar types, more civilised and women’s bar for the women. That’s the way it should be.

      You can see why revolutions were formed in pubs in the old days as it was only men there. Would a revolution be formed in a modern pub? No way.

      In Oz, with the increase in grog taxation more men are brewing their own and gathering at mates’ places, in the “drinking shed”, to talk about men’s things. There you can talk about race and other important subjects in relative comfort, knowing that the thought police won’t come down on you. The women stay out. So, there is hope.

  11. Lew
    Posted January 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    James J. O’Meara is a fine writer, and an important one, and an impressive prose stylist too I might add. O’Meara’s work has everything most people look for in a good essayist — insight, humor, wit, erudition and originality. His work is also fairly unique on the White right. O’Meara is the only author I know of whose work consistently draws on serious literature and other high brow materials and pop culture. O’Meara is very much like Camille Paglia in this regard.

    Regarding homosexuality, I personally find the contemporary “gay” culture repulsive — it is the same culture that both O’Meara and Donovan reject from what I gather. At the same time, it is the culture that is repulsive not the people. Some of the best people I have ever known in my life happen to be homosexuals.

    Regarding the place of homosexuality in a theoretical future White homeland, my sentiment is simply this. As long as it is not being promoted as a social norm or upheld up as an ideal, it would probably be dead last on my list of concerns.

    It should be obvious that homosexuals can contribute to society in other important ways if not through procreation. The arts might be one area where homosexuals could make major contributions. As Camile Paglia observed, many of the greatest periods of cultural achievement in the West were accompanied by a high incidence of male homosexuality.

    CC, incidentally, is the last place I would expect to find people with attitudes toward homosexuality influenced by the moral framework of a bunch of primitive Hebrew goat herders.

    • Posted January 7, 2012 at 5:40 am | Permalink

      I honestly never considered Camille Paglia as an influence, but indeed I have several of her books, and enjoy her occasionally pieces on Salon. FWIW, Steve Sailer has called Sexual Personae one of the most important books of the XXth century.

      Related to her views on the decline of “gay culture” from pre-Stonewall to today is another book that I should have perhaps mentioned, Daniel Harris’s The Rise and Fall of Gay Culture, which, as hostile reviewers in “gay” publications have said, suggests that “when we were in the closet we were so much more interesting and creative” which is sort of a twisted version of my and Alisdair’s thesis.

  12. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted January 6, 2012 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

    I would like to draw a distinction, which I think has a bit of a difference, between homosexual relations, and homogenital relationships, particularly those homosexual relationships with a homogenital component.

    Our society has been transformed into a matriarchal, viciously anti-male social order that hates all things Masculine, save for controlled organizations at a safe, fantasy-fulfilling distance. Football, for example. With organized masculine behaviors being forced into “safe” organizations, we are left with extreme sports, the open spaces of woods, hill, and mountain, or, pretty much alone in terms of organization, the Inner Worlds of the Internet. Think HALO, for example, or Call of Duty, and World of Warcraft.

    Marriage? It has become, for the most part, simply, in the words of Tom Leykis, “Bait and Switch.” I know a lot of married guys. I know of only one who is remotely satisfied with what his marriage became, a day at a time, an event at a time. I know when he realized what she was doing to him (after he did est/The Forum), he told her he was prepared to live in a van, working night shift custodial work, rather than be ruled in her personal Hell. He told me, “We are being lied to so damn often, most of those who take the Red Pill end up taking the Blue Pill. Too much social pressure.” Incidentally, he is a member of the Priesthood within the Pagan Community.

    The desire to marginalize, displaced and replace Men has full Institutional support at all levels of society. The problem is, “homosexuality” has been defined as the false equivalency of homogentiality. We have been “scared” of being in the Company of Men by such false equivalencies. Look how, when women are involved in relationships with you, the first thing they do is slowly remove your masculine friends and associates from your life. In time, your gelding is complete – your doing “The Four Hour Body” program is replaced by your WATCHING football. Your going to the gym is replaced by your watching UFC. Your friends have their girlfriends pulling the same Game on them. Slowly, softly, the process of pussification moved forward. As she has full State sanction behind her, particularly after she has the children she wants by you, you are placed in a “No Win” situation.

    This is what Tom Leykis spoke on one day, on one of his most moving monologues. Loosely paraphrasing, Leykis said to his MALE listeners, “Look at you. Look at your life. You might think of dropping by a sports bar on the way home. You know, sports bars were created for guys who do not want to go home. That’s true. Look in the eyes of the men in the cars around you, the ones you see on the street. They look like beaten dogs. Many, many of you right now have already pulled into yur driveway at home, but are still in your cars, listening on the radio, because you are listening to the one men who tells you it’s not your fault, you are smart, a good man, wise, discimplined and hard-working. I’m here for you.”

    As one Leykis caller said, “A hundred years from now, when they look for the epicenter of the failure of men to get married, they will look to Tom Leykis on Los Angeles radio.”

    THAT is the Key. to the status quo we have no rights they must respect, and no value of our own, save as mules in the field. We are allowed certain distractions – the NFL Network – which reminds us of what is was like to BE young, powerful, virile, and effective Men in a controlled environment, but we are not allowed to BE Men in the modern world.

    The Answer is to remove their power to define us to their satisfaction. The Answer is to stop being Charlie Brown, and start being a bit more like the REAL MEN your Patriarchal Ancestors were. We over at the-spearhead.com are working on these issues. An important element of the Mindset both est/The Forum and the-spearhead.com have in common is our choosing not to be victims, but to define our Selves, and our Lives, as we think is correct.

    This is one of the reasons why I speak so often of Harold Covington, and the Northwest Republic as an analytical model. This entire Culture is vehemently opposed to us, on all places, at all times. We deserve Better, but we will have to make it so. This can best be done by simply recognizing that this Cultural Moment in Western Civilization is slowly collapsing, and Something better, much damn BETTER, must replace it, if THE Race is to not merely survive, but flourish in the fulfillment of a Destiny.

    What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

    • Jaego Scorzne
      Posted January 7, 2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      Could you explain what you mean about the distinction between Homosexual and Homogenital? And how could any of this fit in Covington’s Northwest Republic which seems to be geared for some of the most conservative elements of the old United States, namely Christian Identity. Don’t get me wrong – I admire them for their defiance and sincerity. But that’s not the same as being able to get along with them in person.

      I have been encouraged by Mr Covington’s consideration of legalizing pot.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted January 8, 2012 at 12:54 am | Permalink

        THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

        Jaego Scorzne in blockquote:

        Could you explain what you mean about the distinction between Homosexual and Homogenital?

        In my framework, “homosexual” means, basically, masculinity is foremost, and men organize along “sexual” lines. (Western) Masculine energy looks over the horizon, and build pathways to the Stars. This IS Tradition, of course, as only Hierarchy actually accomplishes anything. In contrast, “homogenital” means same sex alliances for the purpose of, well, sex.

        And how could any of this fit in Covington’s Northwest Republic which seems to be geared for some of the most conservative elements of the old United States, namely Christian Identity. Don’t get me wrong – I admire them for their defiance and sincerity. But that’s not the same as being able to get along with them in person.

        Mr. Covington has wisely noted, in so many words, that the commonplace acceptance of homosexuality (to be more precise, homogenitality) generally went along with social decline, and I suspect this is a lagging indicator of social decline.

        Read Evola on the metaphysics of sex. When sex becomes an end unto itself, rather than a means to an end, the Collapse phase of a Culture is well underway. Why?

        Because the First Purpose of the social order is no longer pursued, and it has not been replaced by a higher purpose. The instrument of expansion no longer works effectively to meet the needs of the new cultural moment. Remember, hedonism is the Cultural response to despair. Seen any hedonism around lately? Yes, among the people who have nothing much more to live for.

        If I might presume to speak for The Master, those “conservative ” elements in Covington’s Northwest Republic are SOCIAL conservative in the highest and best meaning of the term. They have linked their lives to the fulfillment of the temporal manifestation – the temporal Bridge – to the metapolitical order, the fulfillment of a transcendent Purpose. With such value systems, incidentally, all social decisions are fairly easy.

        Christian Identity is one manifestation of this, and while I am no fan of Christian Identity, it beats nothing, particularly because it is inherently Masculine, and Patriarchal. For that, alone, they are succeeding where most of the contemporary practice of Christianity – “Judeo” Christianity with Feminist control – has, and will, fail. I have been having long discussions with the local Druid Priest, and he is a strong advocate for intentionally developing the next generation to be strong leaders. Specific Initiation Rituals are in their system for boys who want to become Men, and Men who want to become better.

        This is not as shockingly discontinuous as it might seem. The Mormon Church formed its own internal Priesthood systems, with strong support for men growing in Leadership positions.

        I have been encouraged by Mr Covington’s consideration of legalizing pot.

        I am delighted that Mr. Covingtion has succeeded where all WNist thinkers have failed, by linking our plight to an opportunity to Do Better, in the fulfillment of a transcendent destiny.

        One day, our Posterity will walk “Among The Stars.” (HT: Kevin Alfred Strom)

        It is our DUTY to build the bridge that makes that possible.

        The Northwest Republic is the ONLY Answer.

        What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted January 8, 2012 at 11:54 am | Permalink

          I think it would be less confusing to distinguish between male-bonding on the one hand and same-sex sex on the other hand. Using words like “homosexual’ to describe male bonding is too confusing. Even the word “homoerotic,” which could technically apply to non-sexual forms of same-sex attachment, is too confusing,

          Male bonding is being crushed in the pincers of uppity gays on the left and uptight Christians on the right, with jealous pen-peckers belonging to both camps. We aren’t going to change this situation merely with precise language, but it would be a good start.

  13. Stronza
    Posted January 6, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Look how, when women are involved in relationships with you, the first thing they do is slowly remove your masculine friends and associates from your life. In time, your gelding is complete – your doing “The Four Hour Body” program is replaced by your WATCHING football. Your going to the gym is replaced by your watching UFC. Your friends have their girlfriends pulling the same Game on them. Slowly, softly, the process of pussification moved forward. As she has full State sanction behind her, particularly after she has the children she wants by you, you are placed in a “No Win” situation.

    I have never seen nor even heard of any woman who “remove[s]…masculine friends and associates from [a man's] life”. What a crock of shit. If the men you are so worried about had a set of gonads & a functioning brain to begin with, they would never permit such a situation to develop. You’d have to be some kind of castrated dog chained to a post to let some woman take your friends from you, never mind needing to be told by someone else what’s happening.

    • Posted January 7, 2012 at 12:39 am | Permalink

      Stronza, I happen to know a man who became the most extreme case of co-dependency with his wife I’m aware of, my own father; and wrote a 700-page book on how my dad’s self-nullification before his spouse’s will destroyed the life of their children. This is a genuine phenomenon, albeit a taboo in a society that does not allow extensive analysis of one’s own parents. (When have you heard about a son or daughter spending a quarter of a century to research the destructive folie à deux between his father and mother?)

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted January 7, 2012 at 1:46 am | Permalink

      THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

      Stronza in blockquote, cites in italics:
      Look how, when women are involved in relationships with you, the first thing they do is slowly remove your masculine friends and associates from your life. In time, your gelding is complete – your doing “The Four Hour Body” program is replaced by your WATCHING football. Your going to the gym is replaced by your watching UFC. Your friends have their girlfriends pulling the same Game on them. Slowly, softly, the process of pussification moved forward. As she has full State sanction behind her, particularly after she has the children she wants by you, you are placed in a “No Win” situation.

      I have never seen nor even heard of any woman who “remove[s]…masculine friends and associates from [a man's] life”. What a crock of shit.

      Tom Leykis was the Number ONE drive time radio jock in LA – the most competitive entertainment market on Earth – and he made that status by describing for many of us what WAS happening, but we could not allow ourselves to SEE what was happening.

      Reread the section about “Beaten Dogs”; going to jobs they hate, to buy things they don’t need, for “families” – women – who hold them in low esteem. Women discuss how to evalauate us – our “Potential” to make their dreams a reality – and how to control us, subtly, using verbal controls only when you have been visually primed by their nonverbal messages that surround you.

      If you have never “seen or heard” of such women, it’s not because they weren’t there.

      It’s because you weren’t looking, so trapped have you been by the “Consensus Trance.” (HT: Horus the Avenger)

      Check out the-spearhead.com, Marky Mark’s site – particularly the comments from Christopher in Oregon – and the happy bachelor site. Tons of Red Pills out there, and one might work for you, Charlie Brown. Above all, start with Leykis’s archives. Listen to the words of The Master.

      If the men you are so worried about had a set of gonads & a functioning brain to begin with, they would never permit such a situation to develop.

      They had “gonads,” and “functioning brains.” They gave the first to their wives, and the second to the “Consensus Trance.” “Double Plus Good!”

      When Charlie Brown takes the Red Pill, he sees where his balls are, and begins to take them back. At THIS point, SHE is aware the Consensus Trance is starting to break down, and SHE does all in her power to Change The Subject, deny she is holding his balls, and never address that issue again. All he must do is what Judeo-Western Civilization does not WANT him to do, which is simply slowly, quietly, and without the approval of Others, take his life back, one minute at a time, with one thought at a time. As Leykis says, “I am the only man out here telling you YOU are good, YOU are smart, and YOU are worthwhile in your OWN right.” THAT is his message to the guys parked in the driveways of their houses, who do not want to enter the (overpriced!) Hell they make monthly payments on for the rest of their working life.

      Nobody will give you approval to be your self, except your very few friends who wonder what took you so long. Oh, sorry. Your wife removed them from your life, a comment at a time. New vocations, new friends. It’s about time, isn’t it?

      Remember what Leykis said: “Your girl friends/wife/whatever will TELL you she is all for your spending Sunday afternoon watching football. Then, suddenly, at the ONE time of the week that is yours, and yours alone, she will start running the vacuum cleaner, or remind you – repeatedly – that the grass needs cutting, or something, anything, to showe you and remind you – (by Soft Suggestion! ed.) – who is In Charge.

      You’d have to be some kind of castrated dog chained to a post to let some woman take your friends from you, never mind needing to be told by someone else what’s happening.

      SOMEONE is taking tons of prescription tranquilizers in this country, because they can not face what their lives have become. SOMEONE is self-medicating with Budweiser by the case, because they need to shut down the Small, Still Voice in side their head telling them, “This Is Not Working.”

      Stronza, re-read Roger Devlin’s pieces on how Civilization requires Beta Males, and why women simply hate them.

      There is a LOT of castration going on out there, and the Owners of this country want that.

      They want ONE Tony Stark, to lead the Team, to show men what Greatness is.

      They want the rest of us not to BE Tony Stark, but to work for him – solid, reliable, Beta Males. Just what your wives and girlfriends wanted to turn you into, while they hate what you have become. “Hey! The football’s over HERE, Charlie Brown. One more time! Lucy will hold it in place for you!!”

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Stronza
        Posted January 7, 2012 at 10:16 am | Permalink

        It’s hormonal. Men are turning into little ladies and the once-women are acting like men. I’d look to the chemicals in the environment instead of continuing the big battle. Feminized fish caused by estrogenic contamination is only one sign. Men developing tits. Men putting ads in the paper: “Spankings wanted”. Women spending a billion to remove hair from their faces & bodies. You can’t predict which way it will go, exactly, but when large numbers of folk act & look like the opposite sex, it isn’t necessarily caused by “feminism”. Why can’t anyone resist feminism?

        Worst of all, men getting all catty and vicious and pouty about their status as pussified servants to women. Now who traditionally behaves like that in response to injustice or stress?

        Re the Budweiser, white men have had a problem with alcohol since Day One. It’s a white thing, no matter how masculine they are. Booze weakens your liver, preventing the inactivating of excess estrogen. It may take generations to get this bad, but here we are. Let’s leave the baloney psychology out of it. Psychology is not ours. The men’s movement is going to fk you up as bad as feminism fkd up the females.

        Biology is the mother of it all. Or did you want me to say father.

      • Greg Paulson
        Posted January 7, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

        I think you make valid points but at the same time that your views ares skewed. It reminds me of the period of my early youth when I was sick and tired of being attracted to girls that didn’t like me in return; ones I had to constantly chase after and be prostrated to. At that point of being sick of it, I associated massive pain with being “beta” and everything desirable, such as respect, happiness, satisfaction, etc. with being “alpha.” During that first transition I became rather radical in my beliefs and attitudes and was denigrating and demeaning to females. Eventually I realized this attitude was partially coming from my resentment towards women. Slowly but surely I managed to let go of these unhealthy and racially harmful attitudes and beliefs.

        Now I feel confident being a man without making women out to be some kind of ball crushing she-demons intent on our unhappiness, which is characteristic of resentful, angry, hurt, and frequently divorced men (dare I say childish as well?).

        While the women you describe DO exist, far from all women are like this. My experience is that many women find it refreshingly attractive to meet a man who is a confident alpha, who doesn’t shy away from commitment and responsibility, is intelligent, and challenges the tyranny of the majority (a real “rebel”). Think about it, most women have NEVER encountered such a man (even minus the real “rebel” aspect). They usually don’t know what to think at first but find a growing attraction to such a man. I think most women naturally find healthy men attractive. Of course many women find it unattractive too, but alas, there have always been such women, even if there are many more due to social engendering appealing to women’s lowest instincts today.

        There is also the whole issue that most women seek out or are attracted to men resembling their father in behavior (the first example of a relationship they saw, which is what they internalize as being “normal”). That causes a serious problem in this day and age, but a generally more healthy woman will be attracted to a man who is healthier than her father in many ways (although almost always retaining certain traits, good or bad).

        I freely admit that most men are not able to come to the same conclusions and actualization of the healthy “alpha” characteristics I described above. I have always been someone who is attracted to the underdog, challenges the majority, etc.. There are limits to my contrarian nature, for I despise those who like things merely because they are unpopular, (e.g. I would be content with going along with the large majority of the official beliefs and policies in the Third Reich regardless of their immense popularity among the masses).

        So we have this problem: how can we persuade some of these “on the fence” betas to make that leap intro true “alphahood?” I admit I don’t know the answer. It may very well require propaganda that appeals to the immature, resentful side of men, like this Leykis radio host, in order to foster a more natural progression of men to the more ideal attitudes concerning our female comrades. This is wholly normal when conducting prescriptive propaganda for the masses, as is exemplified in the Third Reich (lthough I fear theirs would be above the heads of many Americans today).

        That being said, among the intelligentsia or emerging organic elite/aristocracy we should aim at a higher mark, such as what I described above, bypassing the longer and largely unnecessary foot holes that could possibly result in the stunted growth of otherwise capable, intelligent, masculine/alpha men.

      • Lew
        Posted January 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

        Stronza:

        In the comments on Andrew Hamilton’s article on skinhead culture, someone with experience working in an environment that draws many young men pointed out that White males today generally appear weaker and less muscular than in the past. Just as you suggested, it occured to me that chemicals in the food and other environmental factors have to be the cause. However, if chemicals and environmental factors are the cause, it seems to me that Blacks and non-White males would be affected too. This does not seem to be the case, however. Based on what I see anecdotally with my own eyes, young Black males look about how I remember from my high school days, and I attended a public school with many Blacks. It takes a certain amount of physical exercise to develop your muscles. It makes me wonder if video games are actually a bigger contributor to this epidemic of White males with scrawny and puny physiques than the environment.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted January 7, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

        Stronza:

        Lew addressed your issues of biochemistry rather well. I’ll leave that one to him, simply adding that Ritalin and other psychoactive drugs are forced on our children at horrific rates, and this is not by accident.

        As for the rest…

        Stronza in blockquote:

        Why can’t anyone resist feminism?

        Worst of all, men getting all catty and vicious and pouty about their status as pussified servants to women. Now who traditionally behaves like that in response to injustice or stress?

        How do you propose to resist the triumph of the French Revolution, which is culturally so powerfully inculcated that resistance simply gets you encapsulated, and removed from the body politic?

        “Feminism” has degenerated into simple man-hating, and has been institutionalized in the divorce process. THAT one is the one where you can lose everything you have worked for all of your life, even your son, who c an be taken from you, moved to another state, have his name changed, and be forbidden to contact you. THIS type of feminism is enforced by court order, by men with guns. You ask, “Why can’t anyone resist feminism?” The answer is, when it is enforced by court orders and enforced by the law enforcement community, no one. For now.

        Re the Budweiser, white men have had a problem with alcohol since Day One. It’s a white thing, no matter how masculine they are. Booze weakens your liver, preventing the inactivating of excess estrogen. It may take generations to get this bad, but here we are.

        No force on Earth forces us to drink alcohol. We drink to excess to kill off the Small, Still Voice within us telling us SOMETHING is profoundly wrong. THAT is the Cause we must deal with. We are being defined down, and see ourselves as being helpless in the face of that. We aren’t, of course, but as long as w accept uncritically the wall of hostility we see in the media, we shall always accept lesser for our selves.

        Alcohol is merely the symptom. Self-selected impotence is the disease.

        Let’s leave the baloney psychology out of it. Psychology is not ours. The men’s movement is going to fk you up as bad as feminism fkd up the females.

        No, the psychology at issue is no baloney. It is a deadly effective tool being used in a deadly serious Game, the destruction of our Men, and our Race. We are being subtly controlled by suggestion, very incessant suggestions, that erode away our sense of Who and What we are as a soft drip wears away the rock beneath it, shaping the rock to ITS Pattern.

        Biology is the mother of it all. Or did you want me to say father.

        Biology deals with matters of the Body, psychology deals with issues of the Mind and the Soul. They work together rather well.

        What we must focus on is the construction of the New Civilization, the foundational Culture – including religions – of same, so our Posterity can not merely “survive,” but conquer. Patriarchy will return. The only question is how, and when.

        “First Rule of Fight Club IS…?”

        What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted January 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

        THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

        Greg Paulson in blockquote:

        …While the women you describe DO exist, far from all women are like this….

        I am not stating ALL women are like this. Rather, I am stating that this is the trend adopted and enforced by The System; the default choice is the functional equivalent of anti-Male, in general, and anti-Warrior Caste/Patriarchy in particular.

        So we have this problem: how can we persuade some of these “on the fence” betas to make that leap intro true “alphahood?” I admit I don’t know the answer. It may very well require propaganda that appeals to the immature, resentful side of men, like this Leykis radio host, in order to foster a more natural progression of men to the more ideal attitudes concerning our female comrades. This is wholly normal when conducting prescriptive propaganda for the masses, as is exemplified in the Third Reich (lthough I fear theirs would be above the heads of many Americans today).

        What is needed is to have a “Fight Club/Red Pill” type moment, when you realize how bad things are, and can accept that THIS IS NOT YOUR FAULT, and YOU should not be blamed for them.

        It’s not that these men are “immature (and) resentful.” It’s that they have been so indoctrinated, so mind-numbed, that they are not consciously aware of being resentful. “Immature,” of course, because They Who Rule find it pretty easy to control adolescents. “Brave New World,” indeed.

        That being said, among the intelligentsia or emerging organic elite/aristocracy we should aim at a higher mark, such as what I described above, bypassing the longer and largely unnecessary foot holes that could possibly result in the stunted growth of otherwise capable, intelligent, masculine/alpha men.

        Yes, we should. How to do that is a challenging issue with two means of resolving the potential conflicts.

        One, development of the organic meritocratic aristocracy within our Selves, starting where we are. Ludovici and Evola offer very worthwhile leading thoughts.

        Two, identifying the purpose of our lives with the metatpolitical project. In this case, defining the life you would like to live in the Northwest Republic, while contributing financially (monthly!) to counter-currents.

        Other lines of action present themselves, all the while acting in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)

        What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  14. Posted January 7, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    As far as women trying to control men, yes a lot of women are possessive and controlling. But women are water, fellows, and (unless they suffer from the crazies) they only tend to push you as far as you let them.

    I don’t think a woman who genuinely loves her mate would feel anything but happy for him to enjoy some male bonding. But the culture has corrupted us…who knows…the consensus seems to be that women are pretty horrible now.

  15. Greg Paulson
    Posted January 7, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

    Somebody implied in one of the comments that there is less homosexuality among black men. I disagree. While there is certainly much less support and much stronger social shunning of homosexuals in the black community, there is at least as much and probably more physical homosexual activity. Thus the substantially higher odds of black men getting HIV through homosexual activity as opposed to needle drug users (compare this to the data of HIV infection among mestizos). Their homosexual activity is “on the DL” (down low), whereas I think a lot more white men feel comfortable being open about it considering the relatively greater level of acceptance of homosexuality among whites.

    ***

    Am I the only one who still doesn’t understand the “pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs” reference? Is it something from the book The Wild Boys? Forgive me if it is obvious and I missed it, I have been very ill with a stomach bug and my thinking is still not as clear as it should be.

    My admitted ignorance on the reference aside, I somehow don’t think an Aryan society would ever uphold “pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs” as even remotely desirable. Maybe it’s supposed to be funny, but honestly I think at best it sounds more like a joking label of our enemies among some future white army/resistance group.

    • Posted January 8, 2012 at 7:03 am | Permalink

      Greg,

      Sorry to be so oblique. I said that it was “courtesy of Burroughs’ publisher” meaning it’s the blurb on the back of a cheap, sensationalistic Corgi paperback — not one of the oh so dignified ones he gets these days — which I bought in London in 1972. The glorious colour cover appear on my blog’s masthead. My point is simply that it’s not Bill’s description, but it’s too over-the-top to pass up.

      “Adolescent guerrilla packs of specialized humanoids are routing the forces of civilized nations and ravaging the earth. When wholesale slaughter erupts, the battle continues underground where the survivors evolve into The Wild Boys, hordes of pitiless homosexual warriors who move in and destroy the cities.”

      I also recall a reviewer who seemed especially offended by the “rainbow jockstraps” — actually, many colors are employed, in line with the “specialized humanoids” line — which I updated a bit.

      It’s interesting that you ask if this is a “desirable” future since that is exactly the word Burroughs used in the Rolling Stone interview with Robert Palmer that I referenced:

      “Is the book a projection? Yes. It’s all simply a personal projection. A prediction? I hope so. Would I consider events similar to the Wild Boys scenario desirable? Yes, desirable to me.”

      Notice how Burroughs steps back from either offering a detailed prediction ['similar to'] or endorsing his scenario as anything other than a personal fantasy, just as he would later present his Dead Roads trilogy as just a boy’s story about gunfighters. All of Burroughs more ‘accessible’ work [vs the cut-up of the 60s] was presented as “just an old man daydreaming, nothing to see here” but this is disingenuous, of course, since precisely the more accessible work is more likely to have a societal effect– the Wild Boys even showed up in a Duran Duran video.

      Another is Mad Max — Burroughs specifically mentions a ‘societal breakdown’ leading to loss of communications and … gasoline. Ironically, the WB get their start as gangs of Arab street kids who douse tourists with gasoline and set them ablaze.

      So we might ask, whether it is more desirable to set tourists on fire than to set oneself on fire, like the Cairo street vendor whose suicide sparked the Arab Spring. More desirable for oneself, at least, to ‘take arms against a sea of troubles” as an active hero rather than a passive, though perhaps inspirational, victim.

      Desirable or not, the fact, if it is a fact, for Evola, Bluher and others is that such warrior bands were the creators of Aryan civilization. So we might well ask, if our civilization is collapsing [due to the anti-male bonding influence of You Know Who, currently embodied in the likes of Rick Santorum and Mitt "I'm so fucking married you won't believe how married I am" Romeny], would they not then be what remains of them, and where else will the possibility of its rebirth be found, and hadn’t we better seize the opportunity on our own initiative?

  16. Who+dares+wings
    Posted January 10, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    Klaus Theweleit’s Male Fantasies is the neo-Mannerbunders bible and I can think of no other study of the German weltanshuung that approaches it in Jewey postmodern blatherskite. As much as I enjoy O’Meara’s erudition and snappy writing I can’t help but imagine that the end result of his downtown white nationalism and homosexual elitism is rocky horror weirdness á la Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, a thought that scares me straight.

    An Amazon reader’s review… MALE FANTASIES Volume 1: Women, Floods, Bodies, History (Paperback) Examines fascism as a Reichian phenomenon gone awry – the fascist male experiences ego-dissolution in early infancy, finds it threatening, and so builds for himself a “body armor” within which are contained such “female” traits and emotions (unaknowledged) as weakness, fear, guilt, etc. Through repetitive conditioning and a brutal pedagogy, these negative, shadowy perceptions are then projected outward onto the despised classes of society and made to represent the chaotic forces of the collective cultural unconscious. Like Adorno said, “fascism is psychoanalysis in reverse.”

    …or as The Desert Peach is puts it, “Oh, oh Udo! http://thedesertpeach.com/

    • Posted January 11, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      Wings, baby, what does everyone always fly to the assumption that we want, or will get, some kind of Ragnarok? Surely this is what our enemies want us to believe; the devil you know, etc. As I think Nock said when faced with a Kansas City mayor boasting about how Prohibition had made his town a citadel of culture or some such, “Some of us would prefer Athens or Florence.”

      And in fact, were either “peaceful” communities? “Peace” is another one of those feminine, Judaic “family values” that serves to justify every encroachment, since who’s against it? “World Peace” is always the Jew’s cry, since like nationalism, racialism, etc., he knows he’d be the first to go if the goyim were set free, and it also provides justification for his “one world” ideas [see Soros et. alia].

      It’s like how we’re supposed to believe Dorothy would prefer b&w Kansas to Oz [the movie, not the TV show]. Of course, like the TV Oz, has its share of violence; falling houses, wicked witches, flying monkeys. I am reminded of someone who complained about the cult of “It’s a Wonderful Life” and pointed out that the imaginary Potterville is far more interesting that dull old Bedford Falls.

      Like all real art, the question is endless: is Potterville, with its implied [Hayes Code!] strip clubs and liquor, the fate of the White man under the Judaic Banker’s rule, or is Bedford Falls boring because it is under the crypto-Judaic yoke of Methodism? As always, the Jew always wins because he heads up both sides.

      And psycho-analysis; is it not the Jew-Science epitomized? Impudent falsehood imputed to the rest of us as “scientific” through sheer bluff? Adorno’s aim, as MacDonald has shown, was to “diagnose” Fascism and anti-Semitism as psychological disorders, rather than rational responses to Judaic behavior. With that caveat, I do rather like the idea of Fascism as “psycho-analysis in reverse.”

      As for Klaus, he may be the go-to for the Mannerbund today, but his work will certainly be abandoned in favor of Wulf Grimsson’s new e-book on Male Mysteries and the Secret of the Mannerbund, available here: http://lulu.com/spotlight/lokisway

      You’ve also reminded me of a ‘dark folk’ or whatever concert the lovely Jane Elizabeth of Tesco USA was sponsoring a number of years ago in NYC. Changes, Douglas P, etc. The New York Press [now defunct] sent a reporter to cover the “Nazi rock” invasion, and they were rather puzzled how to account for the appearance in the –small – crowd of one G. P-orridge, in full hot drag mess. They speculated that these “thugs” must have “grandmothered” her in out of respect for Throbbing Gristle. They even wound up illustrating it with a caricature of G-P. — rather hard to do, I would think.

  17. Posted January 11, 2012 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    This is an excellent article with worthy comments. Both Guenon and Spengler say that the city drains youthful energy from the country. I’ll say that it drains “heart” from the country. In which case a kind of powerful senility reigns in the capitals. Hyper-analytical and self-magnifying.

    I’m from Detroit, and it’s a pleasure to see that O’Meara carries, for all his geekiness, a proper Motor City chip on his shoulder. He has not become the scourge of the modern city: a disembodied intellectual. God bless him. His writing is daring, and it’s daring to carry him on Counter Currents where common cause must be made with rural Whites who conform to the ol’ ways. There are Whites whose lives have been ruptured by the sexual-revolution, fame-quest, and myriad self-inflicted or imposed idiocies. And there are Whites who’s lives aint broke, and are in no need of fixin’. O’Meara comes from the former group. He’s a reconstituted survivor.

    He has a blue-collar urbanity that reconciles white-hot creative voltage with rehabilitive vision. Personally, it was very nice to read a guy whose touchstones, in Detroit, Windsor and NYC, were familiar. Then, it was liberating to see that he’s smarter than I am. This makes O’Meara inimitable: an alternately inviting and, for lack of a delicate word, repellent totem.

  18. Stronza
    Posted January 11, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Tks, boychix, for your responses to my post. It looks to me as if nothing short of total economic and social collapse will separate the white men from the white boys, then you take it from there. That is what so many say, and it sounds sensible to me. It is said that our/your problem (other things being equal) is lack of formal rites of passage, since men are made and not born. Total collapse with its widespread violence & hunger and your response to it, if you can survive it, will pass you into the manhood of our ancestors. It’s the universe prompting you to experience what your elders should have forced on you.

    Black men’s muscularity is meaningless, Lew. They are known to be cowardly when confronted by those with a take-charge, fearless attitude. Re the biochemical aspect: white men have been into the liquor for aeons, whereas blacks’ experience with it is much shorter. Don’t worry – they’ll catch up to us. I would actually opine that Alcohol is a major issue for us and the origins may be lost in the mists of time. Asians, Jews, Moslems, etc. have never had the same level of difficulty with it. What do you think.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance