To the anti-O’Mearan: You just don’t “get” it. O’Meara a failed academic? That explains it all. He’s so far out in front; his last week’s shit is still too complex an “ideological bouquet” for minds such as this anti-O’Mearan.

Toward the White Republic is the Mein Kampf, and Communist Manifesto of the Aryan Restorationist. No other mind has broken me free from realizing I was one of those “useful idiots”… and I already “knew” the Truth!

No, we are coming to the end of an ideological age. Perhaps the Mayas were correct: but it’s the end of THEIR world, not OURS, that is approaching. And I revel in it.

Also, IIRC, he describes this in an essay on Beowulf called “monsters and the critics”(?), where he mentions that the monster Grendel and his mothers are not really described physically, but in stead described as horrible, evil, dangerous, etc.

What is seen as good and evil changes through the generations, so for stories to have eternal appeal, and thus being able to survive through the generations by being retold for pleasure, they must be vague when it comes to what is exactly is good or evil, and instead focus on other subjects, like descriptions of battles, armor and how the characters looks.

It is pretty clear that you identify child abuse as evil, so if you were to write a fiction story where you describe the abuse in detail, people of the future would not be able relate to it, as the problems you describe is gone, while new forms of child abuse has been born.

If you on the other hand kept the descriptions of the abuse vague, while you concentrated on describing the common effects child abuse has on the victim in the story, chances are that more people would recognize themselves across cultural and temporal boundaries.

To go back to Tolkien, if he had modeled Sauron on Hitler and the ring being the power of propaganda, it would not appeal to us who do not think of Hitler as the ultimate evil. The same would have happened if he had made Sauron into Judaism and the ring’s power an allegory on money power, but with other people being turned off.

By not defining a strict symbolism about Sauron and the ring, he not only left the door open for people like Michael Colhaze to write an intelligent essay using “The Lord of the Ring” as a way to understand his own society, the door is still open for future generations to use the book in the same way.

How one sees the system, then, affects how one defines the principal enemy. And how one sees the Jews in relation to the system decides if this makes them the principal enemy or not. To the degree, therefore, that the esprit juif is the system’s spirit and favors specifically Jewish interests at the expense of white ones, the Jews are the real danger. But—and this is the qualification that muddies the waters—to the degree that it is the system itself, independent of the Jews, that is responsible for our predicament and thus the degree to which the Jews are only one of its instruments, then they are just facets of a larger, more complex web of subversion—which makes them an adversary to be sure, and one with a very distinct visage, but not, in themselves, the principal enemy.

Okay, here’s my problem with that: remove Ashkenazis from the equation, and there’s no “there” there. Who’s going to stop us? What weapons do White Uncle Toms have to defend themselves? And how motivated are they? I think they’d gradually collapse, without Ashkenazis there to prop them up. White men can’t cry HOLOCAUST!!! ANTI-SEMITISM!!! with any vigor without Ashkenazis to prop them up; their words ring hollow because they aren’t invested. They’d still have some momentum, but they’d gradually fizzle out. And without Ashkenazi brains, they’d lose most of their brain power, too.

I don’t see how O’Meara gets from “facets of a larger, more complex web of subversion” to “not, in themselves, the principle enemy.” Those are not mutually exclusive. If I and 9 guys are fighting 15 enemies, 10 of them x and 5 of them y, then x is my principal enemy, even though they’re only part of a coalition.

If, as O’Meara suggests, it is the system rather than the Jews which is the principal enemy, this is not to say that the Jews are not an important part of the system and are not an enemy.

The language is sloppy here. “The system” is really a shitty word, if what we mean is “a coalition.” Because “the system” implies “the way things are,” the “physics” of our society. To then conflate that with the coalition we’re facing seems almost deliberately obfuscatory.

It simply means that nationalists should address the Jewish problem as part of the larger problem of subversion and decadence afflicting Western societies.

Without the Ashkenazis, most of the subversion is gone. Not only are Ashkenazis the only ones with any real, persistent motive toward subversion, but they create and motivate the others; by way of analogy, if you remove one Ashkenazi subversive from the equation you remove two non-Ashkenazi subversives who were depending on him for motivation, training, leadership, and resources.

The Jewish problem cannot be understood by focusing upon the Jews exclusively, or combated by fighting the Jews exclusively. The political project of White nationalism must be against the system and not simply against the Jews.

Again, this “system” crap. I cannot help but think this is deliberate. Obviously we want to fight the coalition, but there are many ways to skin that cat, among them divide-and-conquer, encouraging defections, highlighting conflicts of interest, etc, but this “system” thing seems like the prelude to simply submerging Ashkenazis under the waters of “the system” for God knows whose interests.

Enlarging the definition of the enemy may appear to make things more complex and more difficult for ourselves. But this is a matter of recognising our enemies as enemies rather than of choosing enemies. They are what they are, and they will not go away if we fail to recognise them as enemies. Our attitude to their numbers should be that of the German saying: “Many enemies, much honour!”

I’ve been saying from day 1 that our coming conflict will be between Whites. We have to peel enough of our own away from the Ashkenazi coalition to begin that conflict; Ashkenazis are static in this sense – they are not “in play,” cannot be captured and turned against the coalition. But funny, no one complains when I bust SWPL chops.

First, he quotes O’Meara:

How one sees the system, then, affects how one defines the principal enemy. And how one sees the Jews in relation to the system decides if this makes them the principal enemy or not. To the degree, therefore, that the esprit juif is the system’s spirit and favors specifically Jewish interests at the expense of white ones, the Jews are the real danger. But—and this is the qualification that muddies the waters—to the degree that it is the system itself, independent of the Jews, that is responsible for our predicament and thus the degree to which the Jews are only one of its instruments, then they are just facets of a larger, more complex web of subversion—which makes them an adversary to be sure, and one with a very distinct visage, but not, in themselves, the principal enemy.

Then White Republican comments (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):

The definition of the enemy is no way exclusive. To define a particular group as the principal enemy is not to say that other groups are not enemies. If, as O’Meara suggests, it is the system rather than the Jews which is the principal enemy, this is not to say that the Jews are not an important part of the system and are not an enemy. It does not mean the elimination of Jews and Jewish influence from Western societies is not imperative. It simply means that nationalists should address the Jewish problem as part of the larger problem of subversion and decadence afflicting Western societies. The Jewish problem cannot be understood by focusing upon the Jews exclusively, or combated by fighting the Jews exclusively. The political project of White nationalism must be against the system and not simply against the Jews.

Enlarging the definition of the enemy may appear to make things more complex and more difficult for ourselves. But this is a matter of recognising our enemies as enemies rather than of choosing enemies. They are what they are, and they will not go away if we fail to recognise them as enemies. Our attitude to their numbers should be that of the German saying: “Many enemies, much honour!”

I think that what O’Meara is really criticizing among many White nationalists is their inadequate definition of the enemy as well as their lack of a political project. It may be significant that the latter point has been largely ignored by commentators. If we are to break the grip of the Jews, we have to do more than hate this hateful people, we have to inspire and mobilize our own people according to our own project of civilization.

Back to my metaphorical language, I say: A bucolic Shire, now grotesquely enamored with Gold, has lost its love and respect for it.

O’Meara was the first nationalist author that made a dent on me when I still was a naive counter-jihadist and discovered a couple of his articles at The Occidental Quarterly. His essays “The Sword” and “The Edge of the Sword” made a huge impression on me and allowed my finally thinking outside the silly conservative box.

I agree with you that I’m contradicting myself with this comment of mine above your own, since Colhaze clearly places blame on the Jew. So I’ll explain my (apparent) contradiction.

I could expand Colhaze’s article into another article pointing out that, in both Wagner’s and Tolkien’s epos, Siegfried and Isildur fell into temptation for the Ring: just as, in Western history, white conquerors, governors and leaders have fallen into temptation of Gold.

Take the story of the conquest of some part of North America for example. Governor Diego de Velázquez ordered Hernán Cortés to return to Cuba. But Cortés and his henchmen had only one thing in mind: the Gold of the Aztecs. The risky gambit worked for Cortés but since it was an unplanned conquest, unlike their Anglo-Saxon counterparts during the next century the Spanish soldiers arrived as bachelors to the continent. Soon after stepping on American land they started to take native Indian women as concubines. The present mess we have today in Mexico has its roots not in Spaniard lust for brown bodies, but for Gold.

The point is that, since New Spain (1521 to 1821) was Judenfrei thanks to our Inquisition, we cannot blame the tribe for the miscegenation that eventually destroyed that viceroyalty and created a new entity, “Mexico”. Analogous examples can be found in the history of other European countries, but you get the picture.

While presently the Ring is certainly wielded by the Jew, in the past some historical figures equivalent to Siegfried and Isildur also wielded it. In Wagner’s opera there’s a curse: “Whosoever holds the Ring, by the Ring they shall be enslaved.” Even the hero of the monumental Tetralogy, Siegfried, dies as a result of it. It is in this sense, in this expansion of Colhaze’s article so to speak, that I still believe that O’Meara has a point. Using now LOTR’s imagery, that victory goes beyond defeating Sauron (the Jew) is manifested when Isildur did not throw the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom. He wanted power: a catastrophic move.

Unlike him, if an ethno-state is ever created we must and will destroy the Ring. Defeating Sauron is not enough.

I am saddend that you have not released yourself from the spell of O’Meara, a wraith if ever there was one.