Rockwell, Pierce, Hitler

I’ve seen enough specimens of white Untermenschen in my life to understand that skin color alone is unfortunately not enough…


Andrew Hamilton’s latest piece includes stupendous quotations that I can quote again apropos my provocative views that most humans are “Untermenschen,” including those whites who are behaving like the blond Eloi before the Morlocks.

Hamilton wrote:

We have been without genuine freedom of speech or association for so long that we don’t even know what they mean anymore. Ordinary whites are completely clueless. They’re anti-white racists and neo-communists because that’s what the System tells them to be. From morning to evening and birth to death that’s all they hear. They’re denizens of Oceania.

White racialists, an iconoclastic subset, think it means addressing a miniscule audience on a tiny website or individual blog, or organizing six people for a street protest—until a writer or activist is taken down by the System, at which point remaining racialists gleefully join the Left-wing mob in kicking the helpless victim to a bloody pulp. He didn’t get it! He said the wrong things! He acted the wrong way! I have witnessed this unedifying spectacle again and again over the decades.

Any given Counter-Currents article I write will be seen by roughly 1,000-2,000 people. Seen by (i.e., clicked on), not necessarily read or agreed with; only a small number will actually read a piece with some degree of sympathy and understanding, or have a seed planted that will eventually take root and grow, which is the best one can hope for…

The situation is especially strange in that in addition to theoretical access to a worldwide audience of English readers, market forces—supply and demand—are in my favor. I fill an unmet need. In a genuine marketplace of ideas there would be some demand, certainly more than there is now, for suppressed facts, information, and opinions. But this natural demand is not there. The absence of a greater positive response is like the dog that didn’t bark in “Silver Blaze,” alerting the perceptive observer that something was seriously wrong. (“I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others,” Sherlock Holmes noted.) In our case the primary culprit is disparate power, and the refusal of elites to play by the rules.

Conversely, those who hate my race—and I mean hate it—broadcast their hatred repeatedly, many times daily, to billions of people worldwide: a distinctly unnatural state of affairs in an ostentatiously “anti-racist” culture. Thousands and thousands of people make exceptionally good livings doing this. They monopolize not only the mass media of communications with their racist and totalitarian bile, but educational systems, governments, legal systems, and other institutions as well—everywhere. This, also, is not natural. It is exceedingly strange.

Such a lopsided disparity of power can have only one possible outcome in terms of who wins, who loses, and why. Therefore, I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: “Why are whites doing this to themselves?” I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement…

As one man long ago observed:

The fundamental error of the right wing—that sweet reason will change the world and save us from the Jewish tyrants.


Reason is still an infant in human affairs, a precious and rare development found in the mutational brains of an infinitesimal minority of Homo sapiens. And even the few geniuses able to exercise genuine, independent reason are almost entirely incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of that reason—which is one of the reasons so many of them end up as failures in a world which does not appreciate them or their reason.

It is FORCE, POWER, STRENGTH which rules the world, from the ebb and flow of the tides to the decision of your neighbor to join the Rotary. Only a negligible fringe of oddball humans change their mind as a result of being convinced by a superior argument. The overwhelming masses, including the mass of today’s “intellectuals” [emphasis added], change their minds only in order to CONFORM. In other words, the minds of the vast majority ALWAYS bow to the strongest opinion—the opinion which brings rewards and avoids punishment.

The right wing examines its reasons and arguments and facts and finds them true and good—as they may be. They then become outraged [or hopelessly befuddled] when the slobs next door cannot see and appreciate this rightness and, very probably, throw them out of the house for preaching “hate.” But this is only as things are. The slobs will hold whatever opinion seems to show the most strength and WILL TO POWER. They are completely, hopelessly female in their approach to reason and always, ALWAYS prefer strength to “rightness.”

This is a “secret” the Jews learned long ago.

Another voice from the past:

Things are very bad indeed, but they are far from hopeless. Only a people or a nation that gives itself up for lost is truly and irrevocably lost. There is a bloody and terrible ordeal ahead of us, and many will perish—but our race can still be saved, and that, in the long run, is all that counts.


Do not be discouraged by the indifference of the people around you. Remember, the great mass of people have always been like that and always will be. When the Christians are ahead they cheer for the Christians, and when the lions are ahead they cheer for the lions. They have no understanding or concern for anything but the present and for what they see as directly affecting their comfort, welfare, or security.

But the masses do not make history. [Again, “the masses” includes academics, intellectuals, and high-IQ and socially successful people generally. It is not a class thing.] That is and always has been the task of the few. Those few must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination. They must know what they want and be willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal.

Today the old order of things is crumbling into ruin, and the world will never again be restored to what it was before. But a new order will eventually emerge from the wreckage of the old.

It is only too late to save the present order from final collapse. It is not too late to begin building the new.

How many are “the few”? Here’s the assessment of a formidable achiever, also deceased, whose judgment on such matters cannot be taken lightly, much less dismissed out of hand:

“In my view, when there are nine thousand men in a country who are capable of facing prison from loyalty to an idea, this idea remains a living one.”

For conceptual purposes, this might be adopted as a provisional benchmark since, implicitly, the reference is to a minority existing amidst a hostile majority in a Jewish-Leftist state. It imparts concrete substance to the idea of “the few” whose task it is to embody within themselves a majority of will and determination.

Of course, the speaker was probably referring to an extraordinary level of commitment, on the order of an Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh. Even so, he added:

“And as long as a man [i.e., presumably one man] is left to carry the flag, nothing is lost. Faith moves mountains.”


Each of the three men just quoted was an optimist. They said so explicitly and their words and deeds bore them out. Yet each “failed.” I qualify “failed,” because in a larger spiritual sense (as far as white survival is concerned) they were all successes given the insurmountable odds they faced.

Moreover, the battle in which they were engaged still rages. It is world-historical and spans generations. The outcome has yet to be determined.


My 2 cents:

Quotations in order according to Hamilton: George Lincoln Rockwell (“reason is still an infant in human affairs”); William L. Pierce (“must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination”); Adolf Hitler (“9,000 men” / “a man left to carry the flag”).

But Hamilton is wrong. Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler were not. Hamilton said, “I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: ‘Why are whites doing this to themselves?’ I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement.”

Well, he has the answer right in front of his nose and he chooses not to see it. He is willfully blind indeed.

The same site that recently published Hamilton’s piece has also published, yesterday and today, pieces about homosexual “wild boys” by an author that Franklin Ryckaert nailed not long ago:

It is a pity that Greg Johnson has this attitude, because he is fairly intelligent and writes and promotes a lot of good stuff. I could accept an in-the-closet homosexual WN, if only he had no homosexual agenda. But people like James O’Meara, who promotes the idea of a homosexual “Mannerbünd” as the vanguard of WN, or Greg Johnson who pleads for homosexual “marriage”, seem unable to do that.

WN not only means the survival of the White Race, but also its flourishing, and that entails cultural and moral regeneration. Homosexuals-with-an-agenda cannot really contribute to that.

I have stated many times that the 19th century is the most important one to understand how whites empowered the subversive tribe. But that subject aside, Hamilton just cannot see that if whites were not doing it to themselves prototypical white nationalists like his editor, so conscious of the Jewish problem, would simply not subscribe a liberal agenda, such as homo “rights.” And Johnson is not alone in the pro-white movement promoting this. Alternative Right, the site for white Untermenchen has also joined the fad.

I must say something outside the subject of both sites to better illustrate my point. A hetero blogger who over the pro-white boards has been willing to discuss with me about the extent of Jewish influence in our woes, a man from Louisiana (who incidentally also defends the homos), has stated that his daughter has decided to be independent, in the sense of not being bothered with a traditional marriage and lots of kids, and he has no problem with that.

This is the same man who is so conscious of the Jewish problem that always jumps over the boards to defend his point of view. But at the same time he—like Hamilton—is unwilling to see that once you tolerate the liberal view of placing individualism whims above racial duties (both the gay movement and feminism are the product of runaway individualism), you simply cannot blame the Jews. You must blame yourself.

There’s no other interpretation of the facts. If the editor of CC and this Louisiana blogger are so conscious of the subversive tribe, why on earth they themselves subscribe the toxic aspects of the tribe’s agenda for whites?

The answer is simple: Modern suicidal liberalism, and the economics-over-race policies since the times of ancient Rome and even before are white phenomena. Or haven’t you read my very recent posts quoting Yockey’s magnum opus?

If the blond Eloi are not ultimately responsible for what the Morlocks do to them, who is? I have already said it and I’ll say it again: What moved me to change my mind from blaming the Jews to blaming Whites was the ethno-suicidal behavior (feminist whims; homo tolerance, and more) coming from the white nationalists themselves. That’s why I have abandoned the term White Nationalism and adapted instead the old-fashioned National Socialism.

Stick to the giants! Stick to honorable men like Hitler, Rockwell and Pierce. Forget white nationalists. As the Swede Panina said in the comment linked in the epigraph, the American movement is just pathetic.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece?

Oh! That my spirit were yon Heaven of light
To gaze upon thee with a thousand eyes



Tomorrow Sunday I won’t post any entry here to leave my visitors the opportunity to read carefully my latest entry on “Women and marriage” in Sparta. The uttermost importance of what the author says in that post is explained in my “metaphysical” comment in that thread.

Since that post is related to Eros in Ancient Greece, the issue of other forms of Greco-Roman sexuality should be addressed.

It irritates me that LGBT deviants and writers like James O’Meara want to usurp the legacy of the classical world to rationalize their lifestyles. The fact is that the missing color in their rainbow flag—the Hellenes’ infatuation with handsome adolescents, not adults—was the only form of homosexuality tolerated in some Greek and Roman cities. This had nothing to do with the contemporary “gay” movement or sex between coeval adults.

As a dilettante in classic literature I tried to say something about it in “On classic pederasty,” but there are people who are far more knowledgeable than me. Today, surfing the internet starting here, I found several posts by a blogger in The Phora that complement what I have said. The erudite blogger, Ixion, is the one who uses as an avatar an image of the Virgin Mary; you may skip the other comments in that thread, “Debunking Ancient Greek Homosexual History.”

But all of this is a distraction related to my differences with Counter-Currents: what really matters is the subject of hetero-sexuality in Ancient Greece.

Not impressive

by Iranian for Aryans


I’ve come to the conclusion over the past few years that the mantra, “The conservatives of today are the liberals of tomorrow,” is axiomatic. Whereas the Racialist Right of the past, viz., Rockwell, inveighed against rock’n’roll, modern-day WNs promote it to the hilt and consider it part of White cultural heritage. Thus, it’s not surprising that James O’Meara’s latest essay is part of this trend.

Essentially, O’Meara’s essay is an attempt to belittle the Western musical canon and replace it with something more “progressive” (with a homosexual tinge). There are several problems with this. Allow me to begin with the most inconsequential and then I’ll work my way up to the crux of the matter.

James O’Meara’s writing style is irritating. It’s filled with references to “pop culture” and various modern/modernistic sayings. It’s a snazzy, jazzy, and frenetic writing style with a lot of names thrown in to give it the flavor of credibility. This invoking of the modern “world of pop” is alien to me and others from the Old World. More than half-the-time, I have no clue who or what he is referring to. O’Meara is steeped in the modern world. This is not good and it’s a sign of worse things to come.

Now, I’m not an expert on Equal Tuning (ET). However, I know enough of Western music, with its modes and diatonicity, to realize that the latter expanded the possibilities of the former by allowing for better direction and finality due to harmonic progression. Contrary to what the “composer” Dane Rudhyar claims, Western music did not revoke Mysticism. The Western canon is spiritual to the core, from chant up to and including the pathos of  Elektra. Incidentally, I listened to Rudhyar’s “compositions” and they are ugly and miasmic. I thought it wryly humorous that he should speak about the West losing its Mysticism with his cacophonous compositions.

Once O’Meara is done attempting to denigrate the foundations of Western music, he states that the twelve-tone diatonic system is bankrupt and washed up: it’s discordant, it’s anti-Tradition, it’s “merely psychological”, etc. If O’Meara knew anything about Western music, he would know that it goes beyond the mundane. Western music moves the Soul. Actually, it invokes various States. Those who are moved by a Beethoven symphony, a Haydn string quartet, an Ockeghem mass, and a song of courtly love by Machaut, know of what I speak. For example, the last movement of the Pastoral symphony, where the double basses take the melody, makes the music soar, and one feels as if the clouds have been ripped asunder and the Heavenly Host has shown itself in its full glory. This is not mere theatrics. If individuals, bereft of a sense of beauty, cannot see it, then they are blind.

In actuality, O’Meara’s thesis is not novel. Others have besmirched Western music before. O’Meara’s approach, however, is to attack Western music by quoting the school of Sophia Perennis in order to sanctify his agenda. This doesn’t fly as it’s disingenuous and manipulative. A case in point is O’Meara’s homosexuality and probable pederasty. O’Meara is quick to quote and use Guenon to further his agenda; to wit, his viewpoint is in tune with “Aryanism”. Yet, Guenon converted to Islam and moved to Egypt, married an Egyptian woman, and fathered a half-Egyptian daughter. Indeed, Lings, Burkhardt, and Schuon, all big names in Tradition, converted to Islam and even took Islamic names. Next time, when O’Meara raises the issue that the anti-homosexual stance is Abrahamic and not Aryan, why doesn’t he quote Guenon, Lings, Burkhardt, and Schuon, all “Aryans”, in order to see what they think of homosexuality, given their conversion to Islam?

After having attacked Western music and attempting to destroy its edifice, O’Meara calls for a new music. This new music is exemplified by a horrid modernist by the name of Partch. Said modernist, miracle of miracles, is yet another “wild boy”; i.e., a homosexual. As disgusting as homosexuality is, what’s more intolerable, philosophically, ideologically, and aesthetically, is the hubris with which O’Meara pontificates on the merits of Partch. Partch is nothing but a gasbag and a pretentious pseudo-iconoclast. This microtonal moron (like Haba and Harrison, another homosexual) is touted because he developed a new system of music and new instrumentation to go along with it. Big Deal. Experimentation is nothing but another sign of the times. Is it any wonder that Hitler stated, “There shall be no experimentation”?

Experimentation is proof that music, including other fields of cultural expression, are dead and stinking. When an artist must create something novel, for the sake of novelty, then there is no creative spirit present. Hasn’t one witnessed that every degenerate and soporific (at best) “composer” of the modern era has been noted for one hare-brained form of experimentation or another? One can take serialism, minimalism, microtonalism, and their various permutations and amalgams as proof that not one of these turds (how appropriate, given their homosexuality) has anything to say. Further, isn’t it also telling that there is a large degree of perverse sexuality (homosexuality) in these aesthetically horrid circles: Harrison, Cage, Partch, etc.?

A Traditionalist would look to the past and stick with that, refusing to infuse today’s cacophony and faux-music (“folk metal”, for example) to build something new, since the age of creativity in the Arts has passed and said Frankenstein will be a chimera full of monkeyshines. This lack of understanding shows that O’Meara’s utilization of Tradition is flawed. It’s quasi-Tradition raised on rock’n’roll and other types of “pop culture”. All that this ridiculous talk does is, yet again, show that O’Meara and his ilk lack musical refinement while exhibiting, unbeknownst to themselves, the utmost hubris. As a case in point, O’Meara’s third installment on Partch refers to the decomposer as “Our Wagner, Only Better”! My God, what fatuousness!

Speaking of Wagner, he’s considered an idol because the NS, Hitler in particular, made him such at the expense of others. This is a case of sycophantism. In fact, the Right doesn’t know any better, because it, too, lacks knowledge and aesthetic sensitivity, to a large degree. Brahms and other composers who weren’t revered by Hitler and Co. didn’t shine as strongly for the Right as we currently witness. Be that as it may, I agree with Rossini: “Mr. Wagner has beautiful moments, but bad quarters of an hour.”

You who love the Western musical heritage and give it more than cursory lip-service  should be aghast at what this pederast has written. He has an agenda of promoting the most absurd ideas as novel and almost always with some homosexual angle. His “wild boys” are charlatans, hacks, freaks, homosexuals (excuse the redundancy), modernists, and purveyors of ugliness. I have yet to listen to a piece by Partch that can compete with the most nugatory of classical compositions.

The fact that Western youth do not listen to their musical hits and wonderments is not a reason to forego the Musical Masters, but to accept the fact that Western youth are degenerate through and through and must be redeemed. They need the light and they need to be re-acquainted with their heritage. Simulacra of a nadir variety are simply not to be brooked.

Johnson’s tactic

Wild Boy
(This pic of a transvestite appears in one of the “About me” pages of James O’Meara’s blogs)

Greg Johnson responds to these threads [that criticize his stance on “gay marriage”] as he’s done before, by placing James O’Meara front and center today. In your face. It says to readers and contributors at Counter-Currents, if they want me, you have to take my foul-smelling monkey, too. The second I saw the name, I clicked out of the site.

It’s because Greg is such a strong thinker and writer that he does more damage than his weird monkey whose brain is steeped in 60’s purple haze. Greg speaks and writes eloquently about White values, while at the same time he adamantly promotes a person who, in interviews and writings, pushes an agenda that is completely contrary to White values.


The blogger “MOB” wrote the above in this thread on Occidental Dissent. Just compare the transvestite with the face of Botticelli’s Venus on the sidebar’s top: my inspiration to fight for the survival of the fair race…

Protected minorities

The point I was trying to make in my previous post and in a related discussion is that during my first internet experience in 2006-2008, for the group of Alice Miller’s fans the subject of child abuse in the Muslim world was taboo. These pseudo-followers of Miller had in their minds a protected minority—Muslims—even when these Sub-Saharan Africans practice genital mutilation on pubescent girls on a massive scale.

The next internet group I became active was the counter-jihad blogsites, where I was active from the latest months of 2008 to the beginning of 2010. These people too had a protected minority in their little minds: Jews. They would not argue with me even when I typed long excerpts from an academic Jew that demonstrated that the Jewish problem was not a gentile hallucination at all.

Finally, when I arrived to white nationalism after distancing myself from Jew-blind counter-jihadists I expected that this later movement wouldn’t have protected minorities. I was wrong. Many of them still have a protected minority that, like the other minorities, is deleterious to our interests as Guillaume Faye knows: homosexuals.

HomoNegroThe fact that Tom Sunic and Robert Stark have interviewed Counter-Currents’ philosophical catamite James O’Meara without asking him tough questions during their respective interviews, proves that at least some of today’s nationalists don’t have the moral caliber to say what the Nazis said about faggotry, or even the first American incarnation of white nationalism one or two generations ago.

That this “new generation” is fond of what my beloved Nazis called “degenerate music” means that they have a rotten soul compared to the one which flourished not so long ago.

On the electric guitar and more

“I apologize as it’s not my purpose to browbeat you, but your promotion of said ‘music’ is prima facie evidence that the West is defunct.” —Iranian for Aryans

Music is the external side of the soul. If a culture’s soul is rotten, the external side of that culture must be rotten too.

Together with sexual mores and architecture, music has been my litmus test that shows that many white nationalists have not really rejected the rottenness of our world.

In another thread the illustrious Roger said:

You are right that jazz requires some skill from the performer. What it does not require, however, is discipline from either the composer or the performer. It is inherently transient because of its improvisational character—if not for audio recording technology, alleged classics like Kind of Blue would have no posterity. The only thing that most jazz musicians bother to compose is what they refer to as the head, whilst the rest [is] improvised. Their structure is a binary A-B-A-B-A-B-A form: A represents the head, and B represents the improvisational passages led by each of the soloists. It is about showmanship and impulsiveness. That might be impressive for unruly teenagers and permanent adolescents, but it is not serious music. The mere form and structure of jazz prevents it from integrating any thoughtful counterpoint and orchestration. The harmony tends to be very basic and trite.

As for heavy metal, I don’t deny that people like Steve Vai and John Petrucci are capable performers with their electric guitars. Their problem is that they adore a bastardised conception of music, and they seem unable to perform without using artificial amplification and/or sound effects (which automatically close the instrument off to subtle dynamics and articulation). The electric guitar is one of the worst inventions of the 20th Century. Its steel strings create a sound which is not at all conducive to interesting polyphonic music (unlike, for instance, the classical guitar music of Fernando Sor). You will seldom hear an unaccompanied electric guitar, and if you do, it will be no more appealing to the ears than the accompaniment of an overbearing drum kit, a bass guitar, a screechy “singer”, and perhaps a keyboard synthesiser.

degenerateIt might also be added that jazz and rock music are both highly repetitive. The song you have posted is a good example. Not only are the lyrics juvenile and unpoetic, “sung” in a lacklustre fashion, but the lauded guitar solo is unmusical and (as expected) affected by irritating wah-wah sound effects. James O’Meara might enjoy it, because it is filled with bent notes and whammy bar movements, defying the twelve-tone equal temperament which he so opposes. It certainly does not require the same discipline from the performer as, for example, Joachim’s cadenza for Brahms’ violin concerto. There is no attention to ornamentation (e.g. staccato, legato, trills), harmony or dynamics, and there is no real craft involved. Joachim’s cadenza has all of those things, and it requires a very high level of skill to perform all of the double and triple stops—and that’s just the cadenza! It is the least interesting part of the concerto, in my view, as I find Brahms’ orchestration far more compelling and ingenious than any violin solo. The third movement is more exhilarating than anything one can find in heavy metal, regardless of how much the New Right wishes to think of it as “Viking” music (as if!).

You also wrote:

We can not listen to Beethoven all day, we also need a more basic entree to lighten our daily burden, which is “folk music”. Which has to be reinvented after a total extermination process since the 40’ties.

This is wrong on several counts. Starting with your last point, it is not true that folk music needs to be “reinvented”. I rather like Breton and Scottish folk music, and I can testify that these are two very strong living traditions. If you visit Lorient during the first two weeks of August in any given year, you will have a hard time making it down a street without hearing at least one busker (or a group of them) performing traditional music. People flock in from all over France and Europe for the “interceltique” festival in Lorient, and the enthusiasm on the streets is a stark reminder of Old Europe (there’s rarely a black face to be seen, either).

I love it, and I find the music of the Breton bagads delightful. The sound has a wonderful sense of discipline, and the better ones have a strict regimentation of the different sections of the band. It is well-suited for outdoor events in general, and street parades in particular. This is just one example to show that the folk traditions in most European countries have not suffered a “total extermination”, contrary to your claim. Most people are disconnected from them in the West (many favouring the modernist music you offer as an alternative), but they still exist, and enough people take an active interest for competitions, festivals, sessions and concerts to be regularly staged. The strong rhythm of this folk music is designed to complement traditional dance forms like the hornpipe, the an dro, the hanter dro, the gavotte and the reel, incidentally (this is also a function of much classical music). Jazz dancing is a different thing altogether, as is the frenzied idiocy of rock crowds. To compare the two is laughable. One of them serves the cause of decency, and the other serves the cause of debauchery.

As for the first point, nobody is suggesting that we ought to “listen to Beethoven all day”. There is so much variation in the Western classical canon that it would take at least a decade to properly absorb the full catalogues of all the major composers—and that’s without even mentioning the all of the lesser-known composers of merit (neglected or unesteemed composers still have more value than slimy modernist music). Beethoven is the acme of late Classical music, but there is obviously more to it than him alone. Frequently played favourites in my house include Dowland, Buxtehude, Bach, Monteverdi, Josquin, Dufay, Byrd, Haydn, Elgar, Schubert, Rachmaninoff and Dvořák, with many others in between. It is not hard for an attentive listener to hear the distinctions between each one of these composers, nor to understand what it is that unites them as part of the same broad musical tradition.

I think it comes down to this question: are we to behave as animals or as men? Their music appeals to the body because of the primacy of its rhythm (and, in the case of rock music, its deliberate, artificial loudness). Western music, on the other hand, appeals to the soul. This is something that you appear to be contemptuous of with your comments about “repression” (a favourite word of the feminists). I do not hold out much hope of convincing you to reject the sensualism which underlies your assumptions about the purpose of music.

(Source: here)

“Give me the Old Right!”

Photo_Sound of Music

I have told to myself in hundreds of soliloquies that white nationalists just cannot have it both ways. They cannot love pop music (which must not be confused with the legitimate folkloric music of the diverse western nations) and classical music at the same time. I have told myself in hundreds of self-conversations that that is like, say, for Captain Georg von Trapp trying to raise a traditional family while, at the same time, indulging himself in secret escapades to gay clubs (something that, of course, never happened in either the 1959 musical or the famous 1965 film, The Sound of Music).

The following are excerpts of some of the recent posts by a blogger known as Roger at Iranian for Aryans’ blogsite. (Warning: James O’Meara must never be confused with another contributor of Counter-Currents Publishing, Michael O’Meara).

Iranian for Aryans said:

It is with much felicity that I welcome Roger to this website. He has commented, in both a virile and eloquent manner, on this site with a sure knowledge of Western music. Perhaps more importantly, he has shown a dogmatic aversion to that which parades—and is paraded—as Western music (e.g., rock, hard rock, heavy metal, et al) in White Nationalist circles.

My wish is to provide a niche here, on this website, for those who are appalled, aghast, and disgusted by the asininity, vacuity, loathsomeness, and degeneracy of that which is promoted as a current and past manifestation of Western Culture by the ignoramuses of the “Right Wing”.

Thus, prepare yourselves for a hateful passion (!) towards all ugly music that has corrupted, and continues to corrupt, Western peoples and is promoted by the know-nothings of the “(bowel) movement” as part of “real” Western heritage.

Roger said…

[James] O’Meara seems to have two primary objectives: to promote homosexuality and to promote degenerate music, both under the banner of “traditionalism”. These are the two recurring leitmotifs in his articles. Greg Johnson and Michael Polignano are evidently sympathetic to his crusade, or else they would not have published a compendium of his articles in book form. That aside, here is a slight elaboration of the earlier points […].

Then we have his false claim that Berg and Webern were Jews. Dodecaphonic serialism was invented by a Jew, but serious websites should not be pretending that the Second Viennese School was a wholly Jewish affair. It wasn’t. The collaboration of goyim should not be glossed over; instead, the enthusiasm of Berg and Webern for Schoenberg’s new music should be emphasised, because it is similar to the promotion of degenerate music by some white nationalists.

Far from being a great critic of the Viennese serialists, O’Meara shares their active scorn for the “bourgeois” Western tradition and seeks an alternative to it. He thinks himself clever for criticising the twelve-tone tuning system, but he does not provide us with any convincing reason to oppose it, nor does he justify his assertion that “the possibilities of expression are defective” in the Western tonal system (this assertion is self-evidently fatuous to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Western canon). I’m not sure what it is that separates his ideal world of “pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs” from the grotty cabarets of the Weimar Republic.

Nordeuropa, TruppenunterhaltungIf he cannot get basic facts straight, he should not be pontificating to us about music—especially if the primary source of his diatribe against Western music is Alain Daniélou, a homosexual who rejected Western civilisation in favour of Indian Hinduism.

O’Meara would know all about that, being a homosexual himself. If this is what the “New Right” is all about, give me the Old Right!

Johnson and O’Meara are just wrong

A formal response to Greg Johnson (editor) and James O’Meara (author) about the latter’s new book defending homosexuality appears now in the new Appendix to The West’s Darkest Hour.

My article is entitled “On classic pederasty,” or “Pace Johnson and O’Meara, the Greco-Roman ‘lover-beloved’ institution was not ‘gay’ in the modern sense of the word.”

A question

One of the things that disappoints me in today’s white nationalist movement is that they are unwilling to pronounce value judgments about homosexuality. When they interview overt homos, just as Robert Stark recently interviewed James O’Meara (who must never be confused with Michael O’Meara), the questions are always respectful, as if Stark believes that the kind of behavior that James promotes is perfectly okay.

Greg Johnson will soon publish James’s book The Homo and the Negro for Counter-Currents (CC).

Johnson also included an essay of James in another book, the compilation of CC essays that has been released today and that contains no essay coming from the pen of the one who, in my opinion, was the best thinker among the writers that Johnson published in 2009-2011: Michael O’Meara.

My question:

Do you think that people like James are an asset to the movement? In Stark’s interview last week James mentioned his “wild boys,” the “heavy metal music” he loves, “drug induced mysticism” and said that all of this is compatible with “Aryan culture.” He also mentioned “androgyny”, “hermaphrodites,” “sexual rituals,” and that “all these are roots of Aryan culture.” James even spoke of “drugs creating Western culture” and that “the great opponent of that is the Jew,” who has hated “the horrible faggotry of paganism.”

(See my formal refutation of these sorts of claims in Gitone’s magic.)

In the comments section I’ve already mentioned James’ blog, Where the Wild Boys Are, with the arresting subtitle “Aryan Futurism, Heavy Metal Entheogenic Mysticism, and Pitiless Hordes of Adolescent Warriors in Rainbow Thongs.” Following next is what I already said at that comments section of my blog, some syntax corrected:

Who are the “warriors in rainbow thongs”? When James linked Johnson’s interview in his blog, he used a pic of a transvestite under the title “Shameless Public Posturing.” I guess James is trying to say that there’s nothing wrong with such posturing.

I consider myself fairly tolerant toward homosexuality. But tolerance is restricted to the homos who live discreet lives and keep their preferences in the privacy of their homes. Overt transvestite behavior crosses the line. And not only transvestism. Consider this:

James’ blog features the below image at the top of his blog (just as I feature the face of Botticelli’s Venus above). Note the blood/semen—whatever—running through the hairy legs, presumably of a male with rainbow butts.

The Wild Boys is a novel about the violent world of homosexual renegade boys. It was authored by William Burroughs, a well-known writer who despite marrying a Jewess he picked up boys in steam baths and moved in a circle of homosexuals and runaways. Something analogous without the overt sexuality can be said about the grotesque cheering that, in the commentariat section of CC, Jef Costello got for his review of Fight Club: another nihilistic novel written by another homosexual.

Am I living in a different cultural world from the one that white nationalists inhabit? Like the monocausalists who cannot see that Christian axiology is involved in the darkest hour of our civilization, nationalists seem to be clueless about the fact that some of them are part of the cultural movement that is driving our civilization straight toward the abyss.

This is the pic advertised in James’ “About Me” section of his blog. Does this look like a white nationalist to you?

Even a child could easily grasp the idea that nationalism means a nation for whites with hetero men enjoying the privilege to woo young females (see the first Max Parrish pic that I advertise in this blog) and found large families: an institution that, in the recent Stark interview, James seems to abhor. Yes: both James and I suffered from abusive Catholic upbringing. But unlike me James doesn’t seem to have come out in one piece after such upbringing (cf. my essay, “A woman chasing after her revenge” to see what do I mean).

Last February I watched a documentary of the Hassidic Jews in New York. Guess what? They forbid among themselves the sort of heavy metal music and “drug induced mysticism” that James so heartily approves; the kind of nihilistic films and novels that are reviewed at CC, and even the internet: the only way to convince all of their women to get married, according to the rabbi interviewed in the documentary.

Hitler and the Nazis saw it clearly too. They forbade non-closet, overt homosexuality and degenerate music. And male bonding among the Teutons was basically heterosexual. They ended up forming families—nothing of the sort found in the novels of outright degenerates like William Burroughs.

Fleeing Gomorrah

Recently Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents published still another apologia of rock, this one written under the pen of James J. O’Meara (who must never be confused with Michael O’Meara, whose essays I’ve been republishing recently). Obviously this not only corroborates that Johnson likes rock, but that he believes that this sort of music is, or could be, healthy inspiration for white nationalists (the same happened to Kevin Alfred Strom; cf. my previous entry).

Nothing can be farthest from the truth! As I said in recent posts (here, here and here), together with sexual mores music is the most obvious acid test to see whether someone subscribes the decadent culture that has been killing whites since the Second World War. In the case of sexual mores, this claim can be demonstrated objectively (I’ll soon be reproducing shorter, more readable excerpts of Roger Devlin’s work rather than those long articles). Unfortunately, in the case of music this can only be appreciated subjectively.

For every être supérieur virtually all rock is trash, and the fact that some of the most sophisticated nationalists promote this decadent music has moved me, now definitively, to part ways from those who object that whites are committing cultural suicide, blaming instead the Jews for all our problems. For one thing: pop music for mass consumption can only degrade our souls, and the fact that white nationalists, the vanguard to defend their race, promote this trash can only mean that even whites conscious of the Jewish Question are committing cultural suicide.

Together with the 9/11 conspiratorial myths that they embrace, the nationalists’ musical tastes demonstrate that their degenerate cities badly need to be purified under Heaven’s fire. Biblical wrath is good for white sinners (cf. Michael O’Meara’s essay that I reproduced yesterday, which I rebaptized as “Most Americans will have trouble feeding themselves”). If my interpretation of the human soul is correct, musically and sexually the uncontaminated nationalist—does that entity exist?—should feel utterly alienated in today’s culture. Conversely, by liking and promoting heavy rock and black metal nationalists are part of the suicidal culture that I call Gomorrah. This is my open letter to white nationalists:

Who among you feels extreme loathsomeness, Jeremiah-like abomination toward the pop music composed after the 1950s for mass-market consumption? Who feels like Lot in Gomorrah? Am I alone fleeing the city with my two daughters?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 197 other followers