Green Nazis in Space: New Essays in Literature, Art, and Culture

by James O'Meara

  [M]odern Western culture places high expectations on teens to demonstrate heterosexual interest, bombarding them with heterosexual images and role models, whether in song lyrics of teen movies, which pound into them that to be normal is to be [having sex with girls]. . . . As a result, adolescents in Western societies and in westernized cultures of the Third World direct their sexual energies for the most part toward the opposite sex [with] a corresponding explosion of extramarital heterosexual permissiveness and its attendant problems [such as] teen pregnancy and single mothers [which are] virtually unknown among those aboriginal societies still unaffected by Western cultural and moral values [sic].80

  The evidence drives Neill to conclude that:

  [T]he involvement with the opposite sex that is the norm among teenagers in Western culture represents a premature heterosexuality at variance with the ambisexual harmony observed among . . . many human societies.

  And what is the response of the “conservative”? Repression (abstinence), ignorance (no sex ed.), and above all, a healthy dose of “good old fashioned family entertainment,” the more girl-crazy the better! Goyishe kopf!

  In a traditional society, these erotic energies would be recognized, valued, and safely diverted into “homoromances” (along the lines of Nietzschean “sublimation” vs. Judeo-Christian asceticism). This is possible because, contrary to Freud and Hirschfeld, humans are, as Neill documents, an “ambisexual” species, which allows society to shape and prune human sexuality in various ways and into various channels.81 In this way, male/female relations are reserved for marriage at appropriate ages, and the whole problem of teenage pregnancy, STDs, knife-fights among pubescent Romeos, etc. is avoided.

  This leads to our second, more general point. Traditional societies, especially Aryan ones, direct those teenage energies not only away from inappropriate heterosexual relations but also into two main forms of homoeroticism: inter-generational pedagogic relations, and bonds of loyalty and affection between peers; teachers and warriors, in short.82

  These are the relations that create, and hand down (traditio) the unique cultural institutions of Aryan society—from the priesthood, to private/public schools, to the Boy Scouts. However, once The Homosexual arises as a “threat,” all relations between males, especially between generations, become suspect. To revert to pop culture again, consider that pre-War American audiences reveled in the tales of Bing Crosby’s Fr. O’Malley, and Clifton Webb’s Mr. Scoutmaster, or Robert Donat’s Mr. Chips; today, in movies or “real life,” such men would be presumed child molesters.

  Dennis notes at one point the similar effect on adult peer relations as well: “Men can be chummy ‘pals’, but they can never fully trust each other. Every masculine smile hides the potential for backstabbing and malice” (p. 232). This makes it almost impossible to create a true Männerbund in modern society.

  Consider—as we so often do—the advertising world depicted in Mad Men.83 Mad Men’s ’60s setting is about halfway between us and Andy Hardy, and this triumphalist Judaic take on the last days of WASP hegemony can be usefully seen in the light of Dennis’s analysis. Don, whatever his title, is clearly the creative leader of a shifting collection of Männerbünde, sometimes a small staff working on a project, sometimes reconfiguring the whole set of partners on the spur of the moment—leading a Christmas Eve mutiny to start a new firm, then sabotaging their IPO by merging with a hated rival. His selfishness renders these “bad” or “fake Männerbünde” like those of Capt. Ahab or Al Capone, which I have analyzed elsewhere.84

  Moving from the Gang Leader mode to the Pedagogic, Pete and Peggy (note the similar names, as well as Peggy/PEdaGoGY) both seek Don as a mentor, but Don, his womanizing establishing his hetero cred from the start, takes on the rather mannish Peggy and treats Pete as a rival to be stymied at every turn. That the “chauvinist” Don mentors Peggy is treated as surprising—another legacy of the previous paradigm—but it only makes sense; anything else would be “crypto-homo.”85

  In Peggy’s rise in the industry we see how this “premature heterosexuality” as Neill calls it, inculcated by popular culture, as Dennis shows, has led not only to the decay of the Männerbund but also to the parallel, only superficially paradoxical, result of a feminized culture. As Yockey observed:

  The true American People is a unit based upon matriarchy. . . . The soul of this People is too oriented to the feminine pole of existence, and it therefore cherishes peace, comfort, security, in short, the values of individual life. War, conquest, adventure, the creation of form and order in the world—these do not interest the American People. Empire-building demands sacrifice; yet, for sacrifices to be made . . . there must be an Idea. 86

  War, conquest, adventure, the creation of form and order in the world through sacrifice for an idea—these are the values created by the Männerbund.

  The Masculine Principle is to realize higher ideas through art, warfare, Politics. Nothing could be further from the American ideal than that.87

  We can see here a phenomenon similar to what Andy Nowicki has noted in his critique of the “Game” culture of the man-o-sphere:

  There is, I think, something essentially degraded about a mindset which takes it as self-evident that sex in itself is a thing to be prized and sought after and salivated over, simply because cultural forces scream to us that indulging our appetite is some kind of biological imperative. It is, of course, no revelation to admit that the male libido is a potent, often growlingly insistent force, but this does not mean that it must be placated, or that it defines who we are as men. In fact, is there not something appalling in the prospect of being led by the nose to do the bidding of our loins? Think of how easy it is for this drive to be harnessed and manipulated by those who, for one reason or another, seek control over us! I am in fact astounded that fewer manosphere-scribes and readers haven’t wised up . . .88

  How could they “wise up” as long as everything from “orthodox” Christianity to Hollywood Nihilists have drummed the same message for three score and ten years?89

  One could, perhaps, see in this another turn of the cycle of the regression of the castes,90 from the aristocratic priestly and military, arising from and structured as Männerbünde,91 to the purely bourgeois or even plebian merchant, organized purely as selfish individuals pursuing material advantage for their private families—the ideal of the modern “conservative,” epitomized by Margaret Thatcher (beloved by conservatives as “The Iron Lady”) snapping “There is no such thing as society.”92

  The post-war, crypto-Judaic transformation of bromance into family values could not be better shown than in Dennis’s analysis of Isaac Asimov’s 1948 Second Foundation (pp. 192–94). Unlike the earlier, wartime Foundation stories, bromance is non-existent, “pals” turn on, betray and torture each other at the drop of a hat, and the asexual Mule is replaced by the leaders of the newly discovered Second Foundation—Pappa and Mamma. It’s hard to type it without cringing, but the new, Judaic or Judaic-friendly writers like Asimov could churn it out endlessly. Sci-Fi, once home to Aryan bromance, was now occupied territory; it’s no surprise that the State of Israel was founded in the same year.

  The results of “girl-craziness” have been out-of-control teen sex and the decline of all culture-forming institutions, now tainted with “gayness.”93 As Yockey was analyzing the American character in the early ’50s, the deleterious results for White America were already plain.

  The tragic fact is that the attenuation of the national instinct has proceeded so far that one cannot envisage how a Nationalist Revolution would be even possible in America. For practical political purposes, the “White America” which still existed in its strength in the 1920s has today ceased to exist. Whether that submerged spirit will rise again in some remote future is unforeseeable . . .94

  By the time of the ironically named, Judaically led “Summer of Love,” the transformation was complete.

  Every teenage boy in mass culture, whether he was drawn for children
, teenagers or adults, whether he was a star, sidekick or villain, would be portrayed as aggressively and unequivocally girl-crazy. The homoromantic Arcadia had vanished. (p. 242)

  The results were a disaster for white culture, from the uprising of Charlie Manson’s appropriately named Family to the epidemics of teenage pregnancy and STDs that are now simply taken for granted.

  Today, any boy expressing the kind of emotional intensity expected of pre-1940 boys would be labeled a fag, to be curb stomped by some skinhead as “conservatives” cheer on the negroidally bald, reggae-loving champion of white values; while any adult male showing an interest in boys—priest, teacher, scoutmaster, etc.—is presumed a pervert until proven otherwise; Bing Crosby’s Fr. O’Malley and Clifton Webb’s Mr. Scoutmaster would soon find themselves in the crowbar hotel, where “conservatives” would cheerfully look forward to their rape and murder by those other well-known champions of white values, negro convicts who have proven their real-manliness by raping white girls and fathering dozens of offspring with innumerable “baby mamas.”

  In response, the “conservative” has his usual panoply of useless and irrelevant fixes—no sex ed., chastity rings, etc.—and above all “censor that Hollywood dreck”—little realizing that the “traditional family values” entertainment he proposes instead is just another brand of Hollywood dreck, and is itself the root of the problem!

  And so we see how “conservatives” have concentrated their ire on the relatively piddling “gay agenda” (the Leftist notion that “we’re all the same and probably better parents anyway”) while ignoring, or rather, helping promote, the wide-spread illusion of teenage boys as “just naturally girl-crazy.” Like their unwitting models, the Pharisees, they strain at the gay marriage gnat and swallow the girl-crazy propaganda at a gulp.

  Just as Neill’s book, as I show in my Kindle essay, establishes that male-bonding is both rooted in evolutionary biology and culturally productive—as opposed to the unnatural and culture-distorting “family values” of the Semites—so Dennis’s book demonstrates that popular culture, at its origins, reflected these same healthy values, before they were distorted, calumniated, and buried beneath a filthy flood of Judaic pseudo-psychology and war propaganda.

  “Conservatives” are right to complain about “Hollywood shoving the gay agenda down our throats” but wrong (again!) to imagine that the answer is “bring back Andy Hardy.” As Dennis shows, Andy Hardy and the rest were culturally foreign ideologies already forced down our throats long ago, first to prepare us for “The Good War” (good for you-know-who), and ultimately for “the anti-national impetus of the [post-War] American System, which wars on the forces of history, culture, and nature.”95

  The good news is, if we labor under the delusions of a foreign ideological system, then we can change that, if we set our minds to it. As Christian Larson, a spokesman of the New Thought movement—America’s native-born Neo-Platonism and two-fisted Traditionalism, itself the decades-long target of the knife-happy Judaics of the American Medical Association—put it a century ago:

  [E]very undesirable inheritance can be removed. Every impression formed in the mind is a seed that will produce some tendency; therefore we should not only remove those impressions that we do not wish to cultivate, but should also prevent inferior and undesired impressions from forming in the mind in the first place.

  We are therefore not in bondage to what we have inherited, because we can change everything and bring everything in ourselves into harmony with natural law.96

  As Greg Johnson has said:

  [T]his regime was not imposed on our people by a violent revolution. They accepted it because of the transformation of their consciousness. They can be saved the same way.97

  With Chuck Hagel proposing that the military be cut back to its 1940 level (and being denounced by the Judeo-cons as an “isolationist,” of course), perhaps there is a chance to take our culture back—back to the days of Aryan boyhood.98

  Stop pontificating about “Faustian Man” and bring back Adventure Boy!

  Counter-Currents/North American New Right

  March 13, 2014

  THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES:

  THE JUDEO AS CUCKOO

  “‘How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 16:11–12).

  Having, for a number of years now, used the archetypes of the Homo and the Negro in performing what some have been kind enough to dub “cultural criticism,” it is perhaps time to remember that behind the Negro, hidden away, as always, is the darker, more sinister figure of the Judeo. The Negro is the shock troop; the Judeo is the ultimate beneficiary.

  Sometimes, the Judeo hides in plain sight: you can hear him when the Christian speaks, and not only the really nutty ones that claim to be the “real Israelites” or want to enact Deuteronomy into positive law in their new kingdom.

  Speaking of creating new kingdoms (while making sure that Judeos feel comfortable) you can hardly peruse the Comments sections of White Nationalist websites without eventually coming across something like:

  Once our homeland has been set up, without any homos, then we can . . .

  I confess I find the mentality hard to understand. Now, I’ll admit that in the context, “no Jews” and “no negroes” go without saying, so, yes, literally, they aren’t said. But homos? Really, that’s your biggest concern as you look over your imaginary Whitopia?99

  This sort of thing always reminds me of Alan Watts’ great insight that the Christian church had become first moralistic to the exclusion of any concern with spirituality (hence, the well-known “spiritual hunger” among the young); then obsessed specifically with sex:100

  What can you get kicked out of the church for? Any church—Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, and the synagogue I think too. What’s the real thing for which people get kicked out, excommunicated?

  For “envy, hatred, malice, and all un-charitableness”? “Pride, vainglory, and hardness of heart”? Owning shares in munitions factories? Profiting off slums? No sir. You can be a bishop and live in all those sins openly. [Or live in a White Nationalist homeland] But if you go to bed with the wrong person, you’re out.

  So one has to conclude that, for all practical purposes, the church is a sexual regulation society; and it really isn’t interested in anything else. Christianity is more preoccupied with sex than even Priapism or Tantric Yoga [are]. Because that’s the thing that counts, that’s the sin, the really important sin.101

  The parallel here is between elevating sexual etiquette into the sine qua non of being a good Christian as well as being a good White citizen. Just as the all-too eager decline of Christianity into Protestantism and then into moralism is a tribute, or backhanded compliment, to Judaic subversion—Judaism itself being hardly a religion itself, being empty of all spiritual content; nor even a moralism, being, as Gilad Atzmon has pointed out,102 dedicated to the anti-universalism of “Jews über alles,”103 but simply a form of obsessive compulsive disorder inculcated in the Jewish masses to facilitate the domination of the rabbis104—so is the decline of what we might call “cultural building” among White Nationalists, having, like the political Right and the Neo-cons, swallowed a whole lot of Judaic ideas—such as “No Homo!”—under the illusion that they represent “tough talk” and “serious thinking.”105

  Since Jews and culture, in the context of delineating how to compose the ideal society, have come up, we might profitably look who T. S. Eliot, no mean traditionalist himself,106 thought should be excluded. As the Forward describes it:

  During a 1933 lecture in Virginia, published in 1934 as “After Strange Gods,” (which he later refused to reprint107) Eliot, following Maurras, stressed the importance of social “unity of religious background. . . . Reasons of race and religion co
mbine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable,” Eliot declared.108

  Now the phrase in question is certainly more than enough to brand Eliot an “anti-Semite” by today’s hair-trigger standards (as the Forward article attests109), which amount to nothing more than what Steve Sailer calls “noticing things.”

  But looked at closely, as Eliot would advise us to read any poet’s work, the phrase is rather restrictive: “any large number” and “free-thinking Jews.” Eliot seems to be insinuating that a small number of Orthodox Jews would not be a problem,110 perhaps would lend a little color to drab London.111

  The idea seems to be the old saw about the role of the Jew as cultural “outsider,” providing a needed, indeed a necessary, “objective” and “critical” perspective.112 Needless to say, it’s a popular idea . . . among Jews.113

  To suggest what might have been in the back of Eliot’s mind, preventing him from just calling for the summary expulsion of “the Jews,” consider one of his greatest epigones, Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan, though born on the Canadian prairie,114 developed, after attending Oxford, a loathing for the Puritan provinciality he saw all around him, even—or especially—in Canada’s grand metropolis, Toronto—then a bastion of Presbyterian righteousness known semi-ironically as “Toronto the Good.”115