By Michael O'Meara | 13 Comments | 
Print
The Next Conservatism?
Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind, The Next Conservatism
William Lind
There are, in my view, only a handful of contemporary “conservative” thinkers in the US worth reading. William Lind is one of them.
Associated with the “cultural conservatism” of the Free Congress Foundation (which “advocates the creation of parallel institutions to counter the dominant left cultural forces”), Lind’s main claim to fame is the leading role he’s played in developing the theory of “Fourth Generation Warfare” (4GW), which is why I read him.
His “weekly” column “On War,” posted at the website “Defense and the National Interest,” offers, relatedly, not just one of the best analysis of America’s imperial misadventure in Afghanistan and Iraq (especially in explaining why America’s Second Generation Warfare is so inapt in its struggle against stateless 4GW guerrillas), it maps out a strategy we secessionists will need to heed, if we are ever to free ourselves from the unholy United States.
It was thus with a good deal of anticipation that I picked up The Next Conservatism, his latest book, written in collaboration with the recently deceased Paul Weyrich.
The book’s premise is that political conservatism, despite its numerous electoral victories, has failed.
Intellectually inspired by the work of Russell Kirk and William Buckley’s National Review, post-war conservatives, Lind and Weyrich argue, succeeded in capturing the Republican Party and, under Reagan, gaining national power. This did much to discredit liberalism and contribute to subsequent conservative victories.
But once having won the Cold War, which beat back the threat of Communism and ensured the triumph of the liberal market, conservatives became complacent, failing to respond, in effect, to their own success.
This complacency has since rendered conservatism so intellectually vacuous that under Bush II policies that were clearly anti-conservative — such as the Wilsonian crusade for “democracy,” globalization, massive trade and budget deficits, etc. — were not only labeled “conservative,” they were legitimated as such.
But more than eviscerating the meaning of conservatism, Republican rightists have remained indifferent to the left’s real source of power: Its near monopoly of the cultural realm.
Culture, Lind and Weyrich claim, is more powerful than politics, influencing, as it does, nearly every facet of life. Thus, despite numerous conservative successes at the polls, the nation has continued to deteriorate, so that today the real forces animating it are those disordering and perverted ones fostered by the left’s ongoing subversion of “Judeo-Christian, Western Civilization.”
The Next Conservatism, accordingly, will have “to renew the work Kirk, Buckley and others did so well in the 1950s and ’60s,” but do so by addressing the challenges specific to the 21st century. Foremost among these is the task of restoring both the republic and the culture. The Next Conservatism, then, will absorb whatever remains pertinent in the old conservatism (traditional marriage, balanced budgets, border controls, lower taxes, etc.), but at the same time it will need to refocus on fighting the culture war and opposing the forces that have destroyed the former republican forms of American governance.
Basic to Lind and Weyrich’s vision of the Next Conservatism is their understanding of the left’s source of power. Once conservatism discredited liberalism, they claim it was replaced by an even more potent ideology — that of Political Correctness or multiculturalism (as if these weren’t also forms of liberalism). In their view this new ideology is a form of “cultural Marxism,” as developed by the Frankfurt School, whose goal, allegedly, was the destruction of Western Civilization and the imposition of the “soft totalitarianism” described by Aldous Huxley in his 1932 novel Brave New World.
Their argument, in short, essentially rehashes much of the usual stock-in-trade of Cold War conservatives, only culture is now recognized as the key to power and the state is seen as increasingly unrepresentative of the nation.
It would be difficult to convey my disappointment with such a tepid understanding of our situation today. It did, however, convince me that the sort of political gruel it serves up as an alternative to the established right must be at least partially responsible for starving the anti-liberal right, leaving it too weak to combat the actual forces of subversion.
It would take a small book at least the size of Lind and Weyrich’s just to mention the historical, political, and theoretical problems with their proposed Next Conservatism. But if I had to express it in just a word, I would compare their argument to the vulgar anti-Semitism often found in white nationalist ranks — the sort that thinks everything wrong with white society is attributable solely to the omnipotent Jews. Such reductionist thinking stems usually not just from an ignorance of the real forces shaping American society and history, but from a refusal to own up to our own failings as a people.
What Lind and Weyrich call “cultural Marxism” and blame for much of the current disorder ought, more accurately in my view, to be seen as a form of “cultural liberalism.”
Having spent twenty years studying the history and theory of Marxism, I can say with some confidence that Lind and Weyrich, like most American conservatives (as well as most white nationalists), know hardly a thing about it. I also suspect, given their view of it, that they don’t know much about the “civilization” they hope to defend.
The first point that needs raising here is that the left in general and Marxism in particular (including the Frankfurt School) have almost nothing to do with what today passes for the left — which instead of defending the popular classes from the market’s predatory forces endeavors now to remake them in the image of the postmodern tribes (feminists, gays, nonwhites, etc.) it champions. (In this context I might add that white nationalism, like fascism and national socialism before it, owes as much to the historic working-class left as it does to the anti-liberal right).
Historically, both liberalism and the anti-liberal left (Marxism, anarchism, utopianism, etc) arose as political offshoots of Enlightenment rationalism. As such, rationalism’s critique of Catholicism, aristocracy, and the traditional organization of Indo-European society served as a political/intellectual battering ram to clear away whatever impediments the ancien régime had posed to the ascent of the newly emancipated forces of late 18th and early 19th-century capitalism.
Because the anti-liberal or socialist left saw the capitalist market as an irrational force at odds with their program to rationalize the social order in ways favoring greater equity and because these leftists sought an alliance with the working classes ground down by industrial capitalism, the distance between liberalism and socialism, especially Marxism, began to divulge in the second half of the 19th century (though they continued to share the same roots).
But however anti-Catholic, liberals, socialists, and Marxists were not consciously subverting “Western Civilization.” In the eyes of these leftists, they themselves were the true representatives of the Renaissance humanism, Reformation individualism, 17th-century science, and 18th-century Enlightenment constituting the fundament of modern European civilization.
Today, of course, we know that the left’s vision of “Western Civilization” has come to threaten not just the existence of Europe’s cultural, but its genetic heritage as well. This, though, is something quite different than arguing that such was its self-ascribed aim.
A second point worth raising, especially for those in our own ranks who share the conservative view, is that liberalism was qualitatively more ruinous of traditional European values and beliefs than Marxian socialism (Communism). When Thomas Molnar, who played an important role in the US conservative movement of the 1960s and ’70s, returned to his native Hungary after the collapse of the Soviet empire, he found, to his astonishment, that traditional culture and education, which had virtually disappeared in the West, were still very much alive in the former Soviet bloc. Relatedly, the Italian conservative Catholic philosopher, Augusto Del Noce, could write shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall that “Communism died in the East because it had triumphed in the West” — and by “Communism” he didn’t mean simply Soviet-style Marxism but also the leveling, quantitative forces of economic society.
A third and final point I think worth making is that the Frankfurt School was largely irrelevant to the Cultural Revolution of the Sixties, whose devastation Lind and Weyrich also attribute to “cultural Marxism.” At the time, only the work of Herbert Marcuse was known and then only among a few. Indeed, much of the Frankfurt School’s work was translated after the Cultural Revolution. Revealingly, the foremost American proponent of Frankfurt School Marxism, Paul Piccone’s Telos, evolved (on the basis of its “critical” Marxism) toward a “federalist,” anti-statist populism akin to Lind’s own brand of conservatism.
What Lind, Weyrich, and most conservatives seem unable (or refuse) to recognize is that the nihilism assaulting our culture — along with the family, the existing institutions, and everything else that once made up our historic way of life — is a product not of a tiny group of exiled German Jews (Jews, by the way, whom they refrain from casting the slightest aspersion on and even treat as part of our cultural/civilizational heritage). Rather, this nihilism grew out of a political-economic system indigenous to the American experience.
In other words, the cultural/psychological conditioning that has turned most of our countrymen into a giant digestive tube wasn’t the work of a few exiled Jewish misfits intent on destroying Western Civilization. As the most cursory glance of the last century’s developments suggests, it was, instead, a product of Big Business and the consumer capitalism necessary to its new forms of production. All the things that Lind and Weyrich identify with cultural Marxism were, in fact, already at work in the early 1920s, before the Frankfurt School had even come into existence. It was only the Crash of 1929 that temporarily sidetracked the ascent of these cultural forces associated with the new corporate forms of mass production.
From this perspective, it should come as no surprise to learn that once the forces of Anglo-American liberalism, in alliance with Russian Communism, succeeded in destroying Europe — not just culturally, but physically, reducing much of it to a heap of rubble — corporate capitalism, in tandem with the new managerial state, began redesigning American culture and society to accord with its specific social-economic imperatives. In this spirit, what was good for General Motors was deemed good for the United States; military Keynesianism replaced the free market and became a welfare provider for the corporate sector; the country’s historic racial hierarchy, the one thing preventing it from succumbing to the market’s nihilistic egalitarianism, was overturned; cities, in the name of “urban renewal” (i.e., social engineering) were ethnically cleansed and white communities destroyed; masses of Negroes, many of whom, contrary to Lind’s claim, were incapable of sustaining civilized forms of urban life, were not just allowed into, but imposed on, white society; suburbanization and television began to resocialize whites as mindless, deracinated consumers; the state, now an empire, no longer a republic, started assuming traditional communal and familial functions; most cultural and educational institutions were taken over by Jews or market forces hostile to tradition.
The list could go on, but the upshot is that our present predicament is the consequence not of the esoteric ideas of a few unpleasant people with names like Horkheimer, Lowenthal, Benjamin, etc., but of the “progressive” technoeconomic civilization that arose in early 20th-century America.
I hate to disappoint Lind (whose works, especially on 4GW, I’ll continue to read), but there will be no “next conservatism.” There is, indeed, no longer anything left to conserve — except our imperiled generic heritage. And that will be preserved not by promoting retroculture, the dead forms of the old republic, or “parallel structures” — an exercise in futility if ever there were one. Our people will survive only if white men, in struggle, learn again to stand, like their ancestors, on their own two legs and fight for a land of their own, free from everything associated with the monstrous Leviathan that has become the United States.
Perhaps one day our conservatives, many of whom remain decent and sympathetic people, will discover, once their backs are against the wall, that the only political option left at this point in time is either the ethnostate championed by white nationalists or submission to the Judeo-corporate forces of the Obama Nation.
Michael O'Meara
Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and modern European history at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2004).
Michael O’Meara,
What a gem of a post! You are definitely one of the best thinkers in this movement.
The only difficulty that I have with your review/essay is your claim that America’s traditional racial hierarchy was dismantled for the cause of nihilistic market forces. Yes, it is definitely true that market forces have greatly contributed to the new post-war egalitarian consensuses; however, I don’t think you can sustain the argument that it was market forces (or the logic behind them) which imposed the very urban renewal that ran off traditionally White communities from their cities. It boggles the mind to suggest that market forces would want to dismantle America’s settled urban communities (and the racial hierarchy behind them) so that it can fill up our cities with Negroes. How did the market benefit from that? Methinks that you’re not giving enough credit to ideological forces on this point.
” How did the market benefit from that? Methinks that you’re not giving enough credit to ideological forces on this point.”
White flight has and still is HUGELY PROFITABLE.
The fact is that a perfectly suitable framework is available to us to re-activate and to use, perhaps as a club, perhaps as a refuge, or perhaps as a tiny voice to the occidentals among us, and that would be the Articles of Confederation, the legitimate voice that was roughly pushed aside by the US Constitution.
White flight has and still is HUGELY PROFITABLE.
That is true and is the best explanation. But it doesn’t explain what motivated the “social engineers” to set to teaching whites to accept it all. That explanation rests on the work done by the Boasians, a movement which largely arose in response to early 20th century American racialism. By the 60s the egalitarian view had made its presence felt, and when people capitulate they capitulate hard (see newly minted WNs). The 60s social revolution announced a new day had arrived and everything would now be different, and part of that “everything” was race.
When a fatally flawed system is in free fall, what is left to “conserve”? We whites, especially the ‘Anglo-American’ branch, are drowning in our hypocritical, ludicrous star spangled fantasies and ‘equality’ delusions, yet cannot grasp what is the innate cause of our death wish delirium. Didn’t Pogo say that: “We have met the enemy, and he is us!”. Others of a more predatory nature have simply compounded a problem of our own making. Our foibles are legion, yet, as Paul Craig Roberts recently said, we are “dumb and insouciant” and think that we are the “salt of the earth”.
The pro-White blogger ‘Prozium’ referenced this post on his blog @ http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/07/10/capitalism-and-white-racial-decline/
Mr. O’Meara is one of my favorites. I was actually excited by this one because it touches on a couple of ideas I mentioned in the paper I wrote for the Essay Contest that TOQ held last month. Namely that, what I refered to as the Culture of Over-Simplification, was the result of the Frontier mentality that the West took on as it entered the North America and moved westward (the same pattern is discernible in South America too).
For me, and for the sake of brevity, the West was done in by the One-Two punch of the Frontier Culture and the Slave Revolt in Morality. These two are in one way distinct and even a little incompatible, in another however they were tailored-made for each other and a lethal, deadly, combination.
With these two Western Man simply let himself go.
But, apparently, not all of us. For that one has to be grateful, no matter how this all turns out.
Still, I have said it before here and elsewhere; I am convinced that the, what I refer to as the Liberal-Left-Neocon Leviathan (or, the Politically Correct, Multi-Cultural Police State) will not survive. The short, “it’s late and time for bed”, answer is that the Leviathan is simply way too dumbed down. It a mass, both literally and figuratively, and it will meet the same fate of all masses. A bunch of egocentric atoms (people) will scurry toward a center ( in the competitive sense, so that each one can BE the center) but, being a mass, it has no center. So it will implode and explode in no time flat. It’s already well on its way.
It has no vitality, no REAL motivation, no sense of innovation, no real trust (thanks Putnam), and when you get past all the glitz and glam that the Leviathan’s mouthpiece, the MSM, cover it in, you see a strange and depressing combination of apathy, as well as chaos, confusion, and corruption.
America today is like a bad bit of land on which nothing can grow.
Anon — what motivated the “Boasians”? Isn’t it obious — Franz Boas, like Karl Marx, was a Jew.
Can I add anything, on that topic, that has not already been brilliantly covered by Dr. Kevin MacDonald, Henry Ford, poor old Adolf (really — every synagogue on Earth ought to have a shrine to Hitler), and the Christ.
It’s all about racial mandates.
That’s the problem with Whites. We have allowed our curiosity and generosity to subdue our natural survival instincts. Our highly-developed Outer brain is killing our Medulla Oblongata. The Angels of our better Nature is smothering the limbic system of our Snake Selves — the ancient suspicion, wariness, fear, and hatred of anything we don’t know.
Non-Whites have achieved supremacy over Whites largely because we have allowed them to do so. Millions of Whites think they are “above” Race. Those types get killed of every day, fyi. Read local news headlines). This is false moral vanity, and suicidal hubris. The sweet, good-natured, kindly “tolerant” millions that comprise Great White Herd are being culled.
I don’t know if Whites will survive as a Race. Those of us that are Racially Aware are so few in number. Our enemies our so many. Those of us that survive — and it is coming down to a case of elemental survival — will be the progenitors of the Future. I pray that Mother Nature takes our genes in hand, and shears the White genetic markers for decency, kindness, and altruism for the Other RIGHT out of us.
I like the first part of this essay, where O’Meara demonstrates that there is no connection between the Frankfurt School and the 60s counterculture. This connection is often asserted by conservatives, but it’s all handwaving. Nobody in America read the works of Adorno et co. back then, and few have read them since. They were not available in English, and in any case they are so cryptic that they could not offer a basis for a political movement. It’s unclear if Frankfurt School philosophy was even compatible with the counterculture; in the 60s, Adorno was attacked by German leftist radicals who considered him a stuffy conservative.
Marcuse is the only genuine connection between the counterculture and the Frankfurt School, but he certainly did not create the movement by himself. For the most part, he just rode the wave.
The rest of O’Meara’s essay is unsatisfactory. He seems to blame capitalism for the degeneration, disregarding the influence of social liberalism. 150 years ago Thomas Carlyle wrote prophetically:
“These two, Exeter-Hall Philanthropy and the Dismal Science, led by any sacred cause of Black Emancipation, or the like, to fall in love and make a wedding of it — will give birth to progenies and prodigies; dark extensive moon-calves, unnamable abortions, wide-coiled monstrosities, such as the world has not seen hitherto!”
The effect of both economic liberalism and liberal humanitarianism must be taken into account when diagnosing the condition of our civilization.
O’Meara’s proposed solution to our predicament sounds even less feasible than the alternatives that he disparages.
Sir,
An excellent analysis and spot on. The Marcusian-Gramscian elite, as based on the Marixist-Leninst Vanguard theory were the intellectual elite of the nation and culture destroyers of the Left, but whilst they eviscerated Western nations from within via political correctness, it was the global forces of Consumer Capitalism that were busy dismantling the concept of the nation state from without.
Fabianism is where they met. Corporate taxes subsidize the politically correct Servile State. We have consumerism denuding our individual identity and replacing it with corporate identities in the private sphere at the same time as political correctness destroys society in the public sphere.
The Neo-Conservative Republicans and the Neo-Trotskyite Democrats both believe in the same things ;
The destruction of national borders
The destruction of the autonomous individual
The creation of a Servile State that serves the interests of corporations/political correctness before the interests of the people
The environment is simply a product to be used and exploited
No end to population limits
Mass immigration is a good thing creating new consumers and voters
Mass immigration means cheap labor and cheap votes
Only fools cannot see that both the Scylla of socialism and the Charybdis of consumerism serve the same masters–the Fabian International Corporate Fascist elite–the Banksters, the Military Industrial Bloc, the oil companies, and Zionists who support the interests of Israel before the nation state and the people.
I must say I thoroughly enjoyed Michael O’Meara’s essay on TOQ today, Preparing for America’s Collapse: Lessons from the Soviet Union.
While I certainly don’t celebrate the conditions described in the essay, I am grateful that thoughtful people are at least trying to understand the anti-White forces we see at work on a daily basis. Ten years ago, even at the end of the (Bill) Clinton era, I would not have predicted that things would have deteriorated to such an extent.
Now, perhaps because Mr. O’Meara was busy working on such a long article, I wonder if that had something to do with what I perceived as some rare contradictions in his previous TOQ online piece, “The Next Conservatism?” I think he was right to argue that Lind and the late Weyrich fool no one that matters by using the code words “cultural Marxism” to escape from the charge of “anti-Semitism.” Though important people in the movement such as Gramsci were not Jews, the animating spirit was/is (or is understood to be). Throwing in references to the Frankfurt School only reinforces that impression.
Maybe it was just my reading of the review (and I’ve faithfully read O’Meara’s works in the TOQ journal, so I know he is not as convinced that Jews play as leading a role in the demise of the West as is, say, Kevin MacDonald), but it came across as generally dismissing the vast Jewish roles in this process of White dispossession over at least the last hundred years. Sure, there were antecedents in Western thought going back centuries that contributed to our current plight, but I hardly see them as sufficient.
On the contrary, it seems that Jews are a far more necessary element than even capitalism. After all, capitalism (or the free market) is compatible with racial separatism, old-style nationalism, child labor, or a global economy. It can function with a wide range of “externalities” imposed on it. So why did it turn on Whites?
Just as I’ve read O’Meara’s work in TOQ, I’ve also enjoyed what Sam Francis wrote on the managerial elite (I think one of his proteges also published one or two interesting pieces there). While that certainly conditioned Whites–especially Anglo-Americans–to go in a certain direction, I just don’t buy the argument that capitalism itself is the autonomous cause of the genocide of the White race.
After all, Japan operates under capitalist rules (we can quibble about differences), yet it steadfastly also enforces its unbroken commitment to the Japanese as a people. In fact, as globalism falters in the West–yet perversely advances as well–Japan is again tightening control over its less than 2% that are non-Japanese (with Whites being a tiny fraction of that).
I think the only way to begin explaining the specific nature of Western capitalism–particularly as yoked to an emerging totalitarian state (Sunic’s arguments here help)–is to include Jewish action, much as KMAC has done with the various movement he’s catalogued. Isn’t it obvious that we now live under a JEWISH-dominated form of capitalism? I mean, by all accounts Jewish elements on Wall Street have somehow acquired all the capital and there is yet to emerge an opposing non-Jewish force. On the contrary, the process is reaching a critical stage.
Having said all this, I again point to areas of confusion I encountered in O’Meara’s review. After seemingly distancing himself from Lind and Weyrich’s (tepid) argument that Jews (or “cultural Marxists”) played a central role in our demise, he closes by referring to our “submission to the Judeo-corporate forces of the Obama Nation.”
Apparently, I’m not the only confused reader. Below, Larry Auster (to whom I have yet to warm in the slightest degree) makes a similar point, though with his usual snark.
Perhaps we could use this opportunity to sharpen our arguments about the cause of our predicament.
————
A CRITICISM OF LIND’S AND WEYRICH’S HACKNEYED “NEXT CONSERVATISM” REVEALS ITSELF AS HACKNEYED ANTI-SEMITIC WHITE NATIONALISM
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 13, 2009
Harry Horse sent me an article, “The Next Conservatism?”, by Michael O’Meara, about the late Paul Weyrich’s and William Lind’s new book, The Next Conservatism, and asked my opinion about it. I read the article and wrote back to him:
What a strange article. I like the fact that he shows the inadequacy of Lind’s and Weyrich’s naming the problem as “Cultural Marxism.” I’ve always felt that “Cultural Marxism” was a hackneyed phrase that failed to convey much that was useful and did not adequately describe the belief system that is destroying our culture. But then O’Meara’s own explanation of what is wrong with Lind and Weyrich’s idea, and what is wrong with America, is itself so longwinded and tendentious that it offers nothing useful. He says, correctly, that it’s not some foreign import of Cultural Marxism that has undone us, but our own institutions and beliefs. Fine, I agree. But then on one hand he says it’s liberalism that has undone us, on the other hand he says that it is capitalism that has undone us, and he fails to untangle these two statements, except that it turns out that his main focus is on capitalism as the problem. It is the capitalist culture that has destroyed America, destroyed the white race. Then he also blows it by denying any remaining value to American political and cultural traditions and saying that the only thing of value left in America is the white race itself, the white gene pool, a view that cancels out any kind of conservatism other than racial conservatism. Further, after decrying Lind’s and Weyrich’s supposed “vulgar anti-Semitism” of blaming all our problems on a few Jews in the Frankfurt School, and after saying that our problems are due to our own development as a culture and an economy, not to some external force, in the last sentence of the article he defines the conflict as “ethnostate championed by white nationalists” versus “the Judeo-corporate forces of the Obama Nation.”
So, he reduces America to nothing but whiteness (sans Jews), and he reduces the threat to America to nothing but Jews plus capitalism. After all that complicated argumentation showing that Lind and Weyrich are reductive and supposedly quasi anti-Semitic, O’Meara reveals himself as an anti-Semitic, anti-free market reductionist, a White National Socialist.
When writing the above, I had only read O’Meara’s article in the e-mail. After I finished writing it, I clicked on the link in the article’s title and was taken to the original article online: it is at The Occidental Quarterly.
Harry Horse replies:
Exactly. Thank you for taking the time to put into words what I was unable to articulate. I was left scratching my head after reading the article–not clear at all what is the alternative to Lind and Weyrich (the latter, you may recall, was having some issues, as his corporeal flame was flickering out), which always was an oversimplification.
Nevertheless, you will see conservatives who are taking the next step in their journey to freedom from liberalism, get hung up in the Marcuse/Frankfurt issue. Unfortunately, some ultimately come to resolution here by pursuing antisemitism.
I’ve been trying to dig up something on the author, (anyone who “gets it” gets my interest) but there is very little on him and I haven’t been much more successful when reading his older articles. I wanted him to clarify!
If he knowingly reduces the situation to what you’ve articulated, we shall have yet another unhelpful, and disappointing author.
LA replies:
I only realized after I had read the article in the email and written back to you, that the article is published at The Occidental Quarterly, which is an anti-Semitic website that includes Kevin MacDonald.
I can’t overstate the intellectual “coming down” experience I had when, after reading all his fancy argumentation, I came to his closing phrase, “submission to the Judeo-corporate forces of the Obama Nation.”
O’Meara makes a valid argument in my opinion.
Japan has a system in which the desire of capitalists for cheap labor has not been able to trump concerns for preserving national homogeneity and identity. The US has always had a very different system, in which the desire for national homogeneity and unity usually takes a back seat to business interests in cheap labor, hence the importation of black slaves, Asian coolies, and Mexicans, as well as increasingly heterogeneous white populations.
This system was in place long before Jews were a power on these shores. They existed in small numbers from the beginning of the colonies, but they certainly cannot be blamed for the nature of the system. It is, moreover, the system that allowed them to begin immigrating by the millions at the end of the nineteenth century, which led to the rise of their present hegemony.
Also, the Jews’ ability to form a coalition with native cheap labor interests is one reason why Jews were able to tear down the barriers to non-white immigration and keep them down.
I have no doubt that America is worse off for having Jews. Just as a smoker is worse off once he develops lung cancer, but the lung cancer is the result of the bad habit he had before the cancer. The same is true of our Jewish problem.
As Sam Dickson has point out, however, from a practical point of view, we will never solve our problems without dealing with the Jews first. And flagellating ourselves for our own weaknesses that led to the present situation does not really help with that. It is like lecturing the lung cancer patient about quitting smoking. We need to cut out the tumor first, then worry about lifestyle changes!
I don’t care what Larry Auster thinks — who is he, anyway? Not someone I read — and obviously not the sharpest knife in the draw, having completely misread my article.
I do care, however, what Edmund Connelly thinks — whose work, at TOQ and TOO, I’ve read with pleasure and profit.
I’m also concerned that you, Edmund, allowed Auster to influence your reading of my article.
So let me clarify myself:
1.I did not, as you will find if you reread my piece, criticize Lind/Weyrich for resorting to a surrogate anti-Semitism when advancing their Frankfurt School Thesis. That’s a matter of the utmost indifference to me. Instead, I criticized them for making a pathetic argument.
As a life-long student of 20th-century European history, aware of the profound forces assaulting us, I think such an argument feeble and naive.
But in addition to criticizing Lind/Weyrich for their misunderstanding of the forces assaulting us, I criticized them for their “Judeo-Christianity” — for thinking that the Jews are white and part of our Tradition — and thus for not seeing that they are, in fact, part of our problem.
Usually, those who advance the Frankfurt School Thesis as an explanation either do not or do not want to know how we ourselves have prepared our own demise. The Jews, as I’ve written in numerous essays, are the principal instrument of our subversion, not the subversion itself.
2.This may be related to another matter that Auster, narrow academic tribesman that he appears, does not understand. When I refer to liberalism or capitalism or scientific rationalism, I’m referring to processes that go beyond the small-minded academic compartmentalizations that see these different things as relatively autonomous of one another. For me, it’s not that there’s capitalism in the economy and liberalism in the state, but that these different things stem from a larger historical/civilizational heritage and are thus ultimately inseparable. References to Japan and other non-European countries are simply irrelevant here; capitalism in those countries didn’t come with the cultural baggage distinct to the West. The issue of our dispossession, I hold, is a matter of ontology — but that’s a concept that most of our comrades have trouble comprehending.
3.Above all, I’m disconcerted that you, dear Edmund, should think I dismiss the role of the Jews in our dispossession. Indeed, I’ve read your work, and that of KM, with great interest and find it infinitely preferable to the stuff RR emphasizes because it recognizes the pervasive role of culture in human affairs.
But you and KM, I believe, mistake a part of the subversion for the whole of it — even if you are far closer to the truth of things than those who restrict their understanding to matters simply of DNA.
In numerous essays over the years, especially in “Evola’s Anti-Semitism,” archived at this site, I have repeatedly emphasized that the Jews are not white, that they have historically played a destructive role in our lives, and that the opposition between Aryan and Jew is profound, rooted in antithetical spirits. While your critique of the Jews is behavioral, mine is ontological or spiritual. These different critiques shouldn’t, in my view, be seen as opposed, but rather as complementary.
The most important thing in all this is that we don’t let our different understandings of the forces of our dispossession divide us. I consider you and KM kindred allies in the struggle for our liberation. It is my hope that we, like the conservative and revolutionary nationalists mentioned in “Toward the White Republic,” will struggle together for the sake of our common nationhood.
-Michael O’Meara