Yet another thoughtless remark casually offered as an absolute truth.
If I had a nickel for…..etc.

Orwell spoke about the power of facing unpleasant facts.
As far as I can see, that’s what we need to do, ie; face some unpleasant facts, about ourselves.

The one fact we could start with is that Whites are a disjuctive and dysfunctional category with, as yet, no organizing principle to inspire and unite us.

That is maybe a valid tactic for someone hoping to form a successful third party.

It is not going to attract the 1% we need to form a revolutionary movement.

Anyone who is afraid of the word “White” is too fearful to do the more revolutionary work.

On their own white sheeple will eventually accomplish much that race realists hope to: an end to immigration, deportation of illegals, termination of affirmative action. The current town hall meeting riots are proving that.

Anyone sufficiently racially conscious to subscribe to TOQ should be in the revolutionary camp. You need to be IRA instead of Sinn Fein.

However…. this is not enough.”

Trainspotter

These are some of the finest words, I submit, on the benefits and limits of Race Realism. Good work Trainspotter.

Then there is this excellent suggestion by Charles Kraft.

“I propose we ditch the word “White” and re-brand the movement National Futurism to confound our enemies and attract artists, poets, and myth makers.”

Yes, I couldn’t agree more. That is why I have proposed the term “Romanticism”.
It sounds good and is a real movement, one conspicuously top heavy with White men. But it does not draw attention to itself in the manner of other non-White or Jewish movements..
For me, constantly saying “We’re White, We’re White.” in the manner of other groups is like an Orchestra standing around before and after a rehersal or performance saying “We’re musicians, We’re musicians.”
Alright already! We get it.
Why would we mimic the behavior of people we are desperately trying to get away from (since I am in complete agreement with Mr. O’Meara about Secession, though I respectfully disagree with his terms).

But I would like to give some more detail to what I mean by the term “Romanticism.”

Romanticism was a reaction to the failure of the Enlightenment.
As Morse Peckham has said, Romanticism is a sharp break with the raionalizing and sentimentalizing Enlightenment, expressed in a number of words dramatizing and symbolizing spiritual death and rebirth.
Put in simplest terms for now and for the sake of a post, it could be profitably divided into two essential groups, Negative Romanticism and Positive Romanticism.
NR = the loss of a meaningful relation to the world provided by a metaphysic of static mechanicsm of the Enlightenment. The Negative Romantic was thus alientated from his society.
PR = a stage in which the individual was once more related to the world by acquiring a metaphysic of dynamic organicism, but was still alienated from society, which continued to be unself-consciously stuck in a kind of strange past/present. Also, there were a great many who continued to live on principles that were even pre-Enlightenment. Much of the Bible-belt and Jehovah’s Witnesses fall into this category, for example.
Romanticism developed specific values such as change, imperfection, growth, diversity, the creative imagination, and the unconscious. (PC hijacked many of Romanticisms terms and proceeded to use them in a semi-literate, mystified way. Their use of the word “diversity” comes irresistably to mind. PC’s use is, of course, a debasement of what the Romantics had in mind).
Also, it was a move away from Constitutive Metaphyscis (which claim to say what the world really is) and toward an Instrumental Metaphysics, which works toward bringing our attention to the situation we are in, the problems we are trying to solve, and how we are trying to solve them, ie; what ideas are we using to solve those problems
I hardly need to point out to The TOO Family and it’s Readers that this is not at all how our enemy operates. For this reason, Romanticism is a powerful means of undermining their position, and a means, moreover, that has enormous intellectual, artistic, cultural, and spiritual respectability, and for which we have a complete (though shamefully ignored or neglected) historical record that is simply oozing with powers of example.
Romanticism represents a Heroic going against the grain. Something a lot of us know an awful lot about.
Also, and along those lines, it gives us a deeper understand of what Nietzsche meant by the word “War.” From this perspective, the Romantic perspective, War as Nietzsche used it, simply means a recognition and acceptance of the Irresolvable Tension between Subject and Object, or, between us and the world.
The Enlightenments failure to accept this accounts for it’s failure, which, as I’ve said, Romanticism was a response to. The best response so far created by mankind, and one, again, top heavy with White men, Heroes of a Culture Crisis.
Romanticism has given us men such as Kant, Goethe, Byron, Stendhal, Wordsworth, C.D. Friedrich, Constable, Schopenhauer, Beethoven, Hegel, Carlyle, Balzac, Scott, Tennyson, Berlioz, Schumann, Hoffman, Baudelaire, Delacroix, Turner, Disraeli, Carlyle, Wagner, Ruskin, Browning, Flaubert, Hanslick, Bruckner, Zola, Darwin, Courbet, Manet, Swinburne, Wilde, Moreau, Whitman, Emerson, Brahms, Mallarme, Cezanne, Gaugin, Debussy, Nietzsche, Joyce, Faulkner, Hemingway, and Morse Peckham – to name a few.

The Enlightenment started with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson but from it’s own principles also led to Robespierre and Marx and ultimately, to monstrosities from Political Correctness to Homer Simpson.
I think it’s run it’s course and does not in any way shape or form deserve to be given another chance, rehibilitated, or reformed.

Romanticism sounds good to me. It is a Cultural and Spiritual movement for which we have a record and explanation that makes everything else look like childish fumblings. It has lots and lots of powers of example, men of great courage, honesty and intelligence. And most of all – it represents a conversion to a permanent de-conversion. And as such represents the very best alternative to the four sanctions being leveled against us as a people.
The four sanctions are –
Economic Deprivation
Imprisonment
Torture and
Death.
The Inversion of the Four Sanctions are
Economic Ease
The Privileges of Freedom
Respect for the Individual and
Respect for Life.

We all have choices to make in life. But it is very possible to have your will disabled by family and culture to the point where the choice making ability is severely damaged. That this has happened to millions of Whites in the West is an undeniable fact, and I would include myself. My discovery of Romanticism was the result of my attempt to free myself from the consequences of the violation I was subjected to for years because I was White, Male, American, Straight, etc. and that journey led to my embracing a position that is anti-ideological, anti-Enlightenment, anti-Redemptive (resolutely refusing at accept the validity of any “Salvation” System, or Utopia). It led me to the most profound understanding I have come across in terms of what it means to be a Man, White, American, Western, and all, ultimately, an Individual.
What held me together during years of Alienation and Isolation so intense it felt like a giant hand was squeezing my heart and head was Romanticism and the fact that it inspired me while keeping me grounded in reality.
I have been researching the Internet now, in relation to Romanticism, for six years now and I have not found anything that comes even close. Happily that disabled will has been repaired and the sense of well-being restored. I can vouch for the Carlyle’s Everlasting Nay, Center of Indifference, and Everlasting Yea! Or, the story of Spiritual Death and Rebirth. As a result, my choice making ability has improved considerably, and I have made my choice – Romanticism.

The word Science is mentioned fifteen times but no definition of the word is offered. This is unfortunate, because I think that if that were done it would be very possible indeed to show without a doubt that Whites as a Race are simply leaps and bounds above any other, thanks largely to what it is that makes modern science so vital. More importantly, it would also be possible to see that there may be another way of looking at Science than what Mr. O’Meara suggests in his article.

I do like the fact that he mentions myth and he does say some interesting things about it that I certainly agree with. But from that perspective a connection between Myth and Science could be shown in that Science really is attenuated Myth, or Corrected Myth, if you prefer. But that there is a connection, one best seen historically and not through yet more moralizing.

In one way he is spot on for mentioning the importance of Myth, and the way he seems to talk about it – meaning, that we need a poetic myth that emerges from the direct and heroic encounter with reality, and not a cold concept hatched from an ivory tower. If that is a way of putting it that he would accept.

But is he really talking about promoting the idea of creating yet another untouchable myth that operates in the realm of the absolute and can only be kept alive by blind obedience?
I’m not sure, but a first reading certainly gave that impression. In other words, a myth we can not correct should it no longer turn out to be useful.
Given the fact that we’re in the position we’re in today as a result of decades, even centuries, of clinging to old models that we automatically and continuously apply to problems that are constantly growing in their uniqueness and complexity, and that this old model/new problem situation is rapidly rendering us a biologically mal-adaptive species that shouldn’t laugh at the dinosaurs for getting themselves extinct, it doesn’t seem like wise behavior to indulge in promoting yet another uncorrected myth that promotes conformity for conformities sake. It very well might work against our survival.

Also, again, in this article, supposedly written with our survival in mind there is no mention of Family.
I often wonder if anyone who visits these sites has ever heard of Family Systems.
It’s worth looking into for a number of reasons. But I can assure you it is relevant to our interest in survival. Just as I can assure you that Family Systems wasn’t created to do anything other than examine and help mend the sorry state of the Family in the modern age.
The White Family is in a sorry state and in desperate need of understanding if anything is to be done, or can be done.
My own position on the matter is that much of what Family Systems has pointed out is simply irrefutable. I see evidence of it everywhere. It could be summed up as one collective false self masking it’s disabled will. A study of Family Systems would also help us understand why so many were so easily hoodwinked by those anxious and eager to exploit our situation. And why so many of us were so susceptible to Pop Culture Messiahs. ( And as far as the authenticity of all of them, but espeically the most recent Pop Culture Icon, the great line from “Life of Brian” comes to mind.
“No messiahs in here, there’s a mess alright, but no Messiah” )
And, quite frankly, FS’s explanatory system is far stronger than almost anything else I’ve seen out there today.
I certainly wouldn’t absolutize it, but it is most definitely worth considering.

Another thing in Mr. O’Meara’s article is his mention of Darwin, “a revival of Darwinian biology (with its propensity to see organic life in terms of self-regulating market principles)”

Are we to understand from that quote that Mr. O’Meara is saying that Darwin thought that way, or that this is what is said on behalf of Darwin? By the way, for an excellent essay on the difference between what is IN the Origin and what is SAID about the Origin see Morse Peckham’s “Darwinism and Darwinisticism” from “The Triumph of Romanticism”.

For my own part, I think that the most conspicously intelligent White men in History have been the Romantics. I am convinced that strictly speaking, we are still in the Historical period known as Romanticism (it having started around the time of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the publication of Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther).

Be that as it may, Romanticism was a reaction to the FAILURE of Enlightenment Rationalism and Sentimentality. From this perspective the U.S.A. is hands down the most Enlightment nation on earth and things have not turned out so well as a result. I believe what we are witnessing today is a cruder and dumbed down version of the sort of forces at work during the French Revolution. A sort of second collapse if you will.

Qualitatively the most important thing to happen to the West was Romantiism.
Quantitatively it was the spread of Enlightenment values throughout the West.

But today we are witnessing the end of the road of Enlightenment values. I think we can pretty much count on the consequences of this being pretty impressive. In fact, immense, would be a better word.

For two hundred years now the West has been applying old models to new problems. The principle area of innovation has been to come up with new and improved methods of concealing this fact from ourselves. And today the cultural situation is such that we can no longer do that.
So to that extent we owe it to ourselves to scrutinize any and every proposal offered, or attempt made, to see if, in fact, it is another example of applying an old model to a novel situation.

Quiet frankly, and with all due respect to a writer I admire, with Mr. O’Meara’s latest offering, it wasn’t so easy to tell.

I can only thank the authors of this website, which I have discovered just today. As soon as I can get a teleprompter, I will try to get my strong message through YouTube.

Keep up the good work.

With compliments,

Chechar

The problem of myth and transcending information today is that it is easily inundated to the foaming and compelling rivers of information society. Heroic myth? James Bond, Indiana Jones, Spider Man, Die Hard etc. Transcending music? Well, you can listen all the great composers 24/7 with you Ipod if you want to. Poetry and thriller story books? There are millions and millions of them, and big publishers have advanced marketing methods and large marketing budgets. Political myths? Talk radio, newspapers, internet knights, TV, political consultants, public relations methods, political marketing, countless politicians filling large variety of niches etc. Etc.

The present societal arrangement is, despite it’s many flaws, very resistant to change and alternative visions. They become easily assimilated in one way or another to the present order. This resistance to change is the planned side effect of the system’s configuration; it’s ability to internally colonize every aspect of people’s lives, either commercially, socially or bureaucratically. Also, the present system represents the bottom state of humanity, reduced to certain compulsory natural instincts. To escape this deep canyon such an arrangement is needed that it has the capability to replace the current instinctual arrangement, i.e. replacement to the current liberal biopolitics is needed (Foucault).

Immigration can not be stopped by resisting only immigration. The liberal and socialist Jews are only small and highly inadequate represention of our problems. The system’s parts are interconnected and interdependent. The whole system must be replaced with better system.

P.s. Self-interest must always become after ingroup altruism. Altruism references (filter away any and all liberalism etc.): E. Sober and D.S. Wilson; Unto Others / Christopher Boehm; Hierarchy in the Forest / D. Fetchenhauer et. al.; Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior / Samuel Bowles and Robert T. Boyd; Moral Sentiments and Material Interests, The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life.

Excellent essay!

When it comes to nationalist vanguards it may be useful to look to past movements of this type. The Romanian Iron Guard and the National Fronts ‘Political Soldiers’ faction (at one time led by Nick Griffin) may be useful templates alongside your mention of ‘The Troubles’ in your previous essay Mr. O’meara.

“This [is] not the case today, where the issue is a matter of asserting ourselves as a free people, rather than defending an already established status quo.”

Vital insight, and very well put.

This is not to say that race realism isn’t doing important work, I think it is. The race realists are steadily undermining the intellectual foundations of the modern anti-white state. They are pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and this is a tremendously important thing. The status quo must be revealed for what it is: a tyranny based on lies and white dispossession. A tyranny that facilitates rape, murder, and ultimately genocide. Race realists help to reveal this ugly reality of the dominant orthodoxy. Therefore, I do not condemn the race realists. I wish them the best.

However, as you point out so eloquently, this is not enough. This is not nearly enough. While race realists are making an important contribution, the simple reality is that things are too far gone. It’s going to take a lot more than race realism to secure the existence of our people. Also, race realism can be easily corrupted if it lacks a solid mythical foundation. I’ve seen too many race realists say, in effect, “Asian immigration is fine by me. They are sooooo smart. ” Hard to know whether to laugh or cry, as this isn’t the point at all. This is about more than IQ and crime rates. It’s about much, much more than that. Discussions of genetic interests are vital, but cannot in and of themselves be a transformative force. Nor can such discussions create or sustain a civilization. There is much more to it than that, as you essays so ably demonstrate.

So to the extent that race realism can undermine the current status quo, fine. But, alone, it can’t lead us out of the fever swamps and into a home of our own.

It’s going to take whites, men and women, utterly dedicated to the struggle for power, to the struggle for a land of our own, a destiny of our own.

What motivates such men? What can hold them together, and cause them to struggle for a common purpose? Well, with your superb essays, we now have a good start on answering those questions. We need a body of work that speaks not only to our minds, but to our blood, marrow, soul and spirit. You are really making a tremendous contribution to that. Thanks again.

Zero.

“Salterism” and “MacDonaldism” might not be perfect, but they are the logical outcomes of a lot of very real and mainstream scientific theories.

QUOTE:“above all, a political struggle in the Schmittian sense of determining who our real enemy is and of knowing that the ultimate goal is not about abstract truths, but about white survival.”

I’ve also written about the necessity of building a mythical vision of the future around the ultimate goal of ‘White survival’; see – http://whitesurvival.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/white-survival-a-mythical-vision-for-the-future/

My reason behind this is that I think appeals to ‘White survival’ in the face of possible ‘White extinction’ will be more effective in igniting pro-White action amongst many ordinary Whites as opposed to the ‘White Republic’ because most Whites in America and elsewhere still live mostly around other Whites and thus feel no pressing need to found a ‘White Republic.’ However, semi-alarmist appeals to normal/everyday Whites regarding easily understandable raw demographics (overall declining White population numbers at the same time ever-increasing billions of non-Whites continue to encroach upon White territorial claims and White resources) would likely work to snap many millions of the most ‘aware’ Whites in to taking action that will ameliorate the crushing demographic threat that these hungry and hostile billions of non-Whites increasingly pose to White/Western civilization.

Well said; it is easy to get overly involved with the ‘historicity’ of what has gone before. Sadly, it falls on the ‘bards’ to repeat this mantra. Stick with the vision and the ongoing structure, if you are to drive your point home — those greater and lesser minds should follow this example as well.

I would encourage you to visit stormfront.org, and create a Thread there under the Heading: O’Meara Essays . . . for you have a burgeoning base there, with many fine intellects which may, as time allows, give you a broader reaction to your material.

All the Best.

But I think it is very important not to be one-dimensional in your thinking. There is no reason why a heroic/mythic worldview should exclude such powerful tools as sociobiology and science. A balanced combination would probably make us the strongest we can be.