Editor’s Note: Both the punctuation and capitalisation of the original piece have been preserved at the request of the author to maintain authenticity.

Introduction: A Genuine Cultured Thug

“Providence had not only rescued him from damnation but had, in fact, anointed him as one would a favored sorcerer. It was glorious.” – Thomas777, ‘Steelstorm’

What if one the most important contemporary thinkers was largely unknown? Consigned for years to intermittently espousing his views regarding philosophy, history, rightist theory, and economics on a peripheral internet forum. And moreover, imagine if this thinker was once a heroin addict, languishing in a Chicago ghetto. A man who — when not reading Yukio Mishima or Martin Heidegger — facilitated his addiction through robbing drug dealers with his oriental associate: the male progeny of a Korean mobster family. If Thomas777 didn’t exist, even the most adept novelist would have trouble inventing this cultured thug.

Bereft of everything, robbed even of the “icy detachment of his Apache and Aryan forebears”, Thomas777 experienced (to quote Céline) ‘Death on the Installment Plan’ during his prolonged heroin use. His proximity to death is not a-typical of rightist thinkers throughout history. Oswald Spengler was acutely aware of his poor health and Francis Parker Yockey was never without his cyanide capsule. Thomas777 put it succinctly, “in the absence of battalions, men of the Right will instead join the legions of the dead”.

As Summer waned in 2020, Thomas777 returned from his troubled hiatus. Feared to be dead, imprisoned, or chasing Serbian skirt and hounding Croat cooze on the ostfront to honour the Greek god Eros, those familiar with his equally insightful and hilarious posts on the Salo Forum were excited by his re-emergence, anticipating the transition of the Right’s eminent antinomian vagabond to the digital terrain of Twitter.

Prior to switching platforms, Thomas777 had, over the space of two decades, developed a cult-like following. Cutting his teeth in Phora threads in the mid-2000s — alongside similarly brilliant posters such as Il Ragno — Thomas thereafter switched to the Salo Forum as the main avenue through which he disseminated his views.

Now deceased, Salo was once the oasis from which posting legends sprang, including Bronze Age Pervert, who would frequently verbally spar with Thomas777. Although the aforesaid forums facilitated the cultivation of a loyal cadre of readers, Thomas777’s posts would continue to suffer from a dearth of exposure until his decision to join Twitter in 2020. Since then, his popularity has exploded among right-wing circles on the internet. 

A testament to his new-found Twitter influence is the proliferation of terms and phrases uttered by this CHI-TOWN Shaman. One is now subject to a near-ubiquitous deluge of the following words: ‘Peckerwood, ‘Top Sadie’, ‘Jagoff’, ‘Believe That’, ‘Sharkbox’, ‘Snorlax-F*cker’, ‘Stud’, and so on. Moreover, Thomas’ unique short-form writing style — frequently EMPHASISING IMPORTANT words via CAPITALISATION — has buttressed his brand’s distinctiveness on Twitter. He has even appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience.

For newer followers, it’s easy to misinterpret the man due to an ignorance of his long and extensive posting history —to view him simply as an aging eccentric, who has a penchant for slang, edgy apparel, and selfies at his local Burger King. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that Thomas possesses a formidable intellect, and has a command and knowledge of rightist theory that is paralleled by few others.

During a period in which the Right was alienated from its theoretical inheritance, and thus confusingly fixated with Austrian economics and the non-aggression principle, Thomas777 — alongside men such as Dr. E Michael Jones, Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, and Dr. Kerry Bolton — was one of the few figures that could be said to have been a standard bearer of rightist politics.

Furthermore, Thomas777 has a deserved reputation for his technical skill as a writer, with an intuitive ability to elucidate his ideas in a manner which is both intelligible and compelling to the reader. This extract from a piece on Thomas’ ‘Substack’, in which he speaks about having schizophrenia, illustrates his talent:

“[T]he most frightening thing about schizophrenia is the ‘shattering’ effect. One’s mind feels at times that it is quite literally dis-integrating —ceasing to be a WHOLE, ceasing to be one’s OWN personality and rather is fracturing into component elements, each only a very fragmentary piece of a true human being/personality. This is highly AGGRAVATED by the profound disconnectedness of modern life – where true and authentic, enduring ties that ‘bind’ are cruelly abrogated, elusively ephemeral or non-existent altogether.”

With the recent release of his sci-fi novel ‘Steelstorm’ — a brilliant work which I personally endorse — in September through Imperium Press, and the forthcoming release of ‘Steelstorm II’, we can expect much from the once peripheral renegade right-wing writer over the coming months and years.

Originally, I had planned to conduct an interview with him via email. However, while on my daily strut through my locale, I encountered Thomas777 by chance. I found him clad in an Ailtirí na hAiséirghe themed t-shirt, exhorting the buxom and spritely South Dublin Sadies of Sandycove to form a mujahideen-esque organisation, with the aim of engaging in a reconquista of our ancestral homeland: Darndale —whereupon, they should deport all occupying hostiles and install Ulick Fitzhugh as the satrap of this formerly skanger satrapy. He said it, not me.

On the spot, I invited him to my private Yacht and conducted an interview – naturally, the fridge was STOCKED with SUNNY D.

Interview with Thomas777

“History was once again asserting its sovereign dominion over men and their petit designs.” – Thomas777, ‘Steelstorm’

UF: As a novel, ‘Steelstorm’ is characterised by its descriptive richness, immersing the reader in the world of the psychotic-junkie serial killer, Billy Wong, and his 3rd millennium spiritual compatriot, “the newly blooded killer-priest” Zartax. Yet, as an aesthetic medium “the novel and novelist bring something essential to political discourse in conceptual terms”, rather than merely being a channel through which the author can demonstrate their literary skills.

This is most obvious in a section pertaining to the creation of Zartax via the blasphemous diktat of LeMay Alexis Huber: “The pestilence of apostasy rendered [Huber] frail by his terrible and powerful creation, designed to guarantee for posterity his grip upon the affairs of men throughout the Solar System —only to witness that very creation become the instrument of God’s wrath!”.

It is apparent that the figure of Zartax serves a partly allegorical purpose, aiming to communicate to the reader your view of history. A philosophy which places an emphasis on the intervening hand of God in the course of history – whose intermittent punctuation of human events quashes man’s Promethean ascent of Babel through social engineering and technology.

Can you elaborate on your philosophy of history? Specifically, as it relates to Hegel, a thinker you’re intellectually indebted to.

T777: Certainly. It’s difficult to approach historical questions in the present epoch —odd as it may seem to some, I actually agree with the late Eric Hobsbawm’s view of the 20th century. Not the man’s ”values” obviously —he was an unreconstructed Stalinist, but for a dyed-in-the-wool dialectical materialist, he did in fact put a premium on the symbolic-psychological features of history. He had a unique view of ”humanism” as an analytical methodology, or more correctly, in my own opinion, as a conceptual BIAS. 

Forgive the tangent, but what I am getting at is that Hobsbawm viewed Epochs as being defined as much by zeitgeist as by punctuated occurrences relating to war and peace or revolutionary advances in technology. These things of course play a role in the constitution of an Epoch, but the psychological and symbolic configuration is what is paramount. Thus, Hobsbawm referred to the 20th Century as the ”Short Century” — in his estimation, what existed previously in the Modern world truly ”ended” in 1914 — in every sphere of human activity. And this process ended on November 9, 1989, the night the Inner German Border ceased to exist, literally smashed to pieces by ordinary people acting as the literal ”architects’ (or in that particular case the demolition crew) of history. 

Obviously, I am a Christian, a European-American, and a man of the Right. I have no common ground with the ideological values, ontological and existential assumptions of men such as Hobsbawm, but I am a strong Hegelian  —and the pre-1968 LEFT (the traditional Marxist-Leninist Left is what I refer to) did in fact contribute something of value (collectively to Hegelian scholarship). So if it seems odd that a man such as myself, with my political views and commitments, would cite Leftist and even Stalinist thinkers periodically I wish to make it clear that the proverbial tie-that-binds is Hegel. Were and ARE there Hegelian theorists of the Right who are worth reading and citing? Absolutely  —but these men were very much hounded out of academe in the early years of the Nuremberg System.

The exceptions were men like Ernst Nolte —who is probably the historian whose views as well as methodology I find myself most in agreement with. But this is the whole point I am making: Nolte’s continued presence in European academe was what truly underlay the ”Historikerstreit ” —yes I stipulate the Cold War was the proverbial backdrop of the controversy as well as the proximate cause of what became the ongoing debate, but the deeper question (and ultimate cause) presented was the mere fact of an unapologetic Right-Hegelian (and German Nationalist) being permitted to participate in national life as a public intellectual in the first place.

For sake of brevity, let me say that I identify as a Right-Hegelian with strong influences drawn from Spengler on the nature of ”culture” as a historical phenomenon. Were I to distill my thought on history — and political variables of a historical nature — to one thinker’s influence, that thinker would be Francis Parker Yockey. But that is a whole other discussion!

UF: Irish Republicans frequently castigate Unionists for holding blind fidelity toward a nation, namely Britain, which is apathetic to their fate and that of the six counties as an independent state. Notwithstanding the veracity of the claim that British people care little for Ulster Protestants, the hackneyed charge of blind faith is false, betraying an ignorance of the enemy’s conceptual viewpoint. Ulster Protestants have little in common with Filmerian Absolutists and Jacobite Restorationists.

As Tim Pat Coogan notes in his book on the Troubles, “[a]nother characteristic of Unionism, particularly strong in the Presbyterian Dissenting tradition, was, and is, the concept of conditional loyalty”. A statement by Ian Paisley is illustrative: “[i]f the Crown in Parliament decreed to put Ulster into a United Ireland, we would be disloyal to her Majesty if we did not resist such a surrender to her enemies”.

Given your Presbyterian faith and concomitant interest in the affairs of the occupied six counties, can you explicate the Calvinist disposition toward political authority?

T777: I believe, and let me qualify this strongly — I am an AMERICAN — so there are matters relating to IRELAND and to Protestant Ulster that I do not properly have the right to speak about (despite the fact that I share blood and a confessional faith with the latter). I have, however, made a strong study over time of Ulster Unionism, as well as its more extreme and uncompromising configuration that most refer to as ”Loyalism”. I don’t believe that people who draw such a distinction are playing word-games or merely avoiding a painful question by resorting to bad-faith efforts at distancing themselves, and the Unionist community generally, from the viewpoints, values, acts, and bloodshed condoned and carried out in the name of the Protestant community.

That said, I DO think it’s inarguable that there was (and remains) a difference between men like Billy Wright and George Seawright on the one hand, and men like Gusty Spence on the other —AFTER the latter disavowed violence and became adamant that there was not a paramilitary solution to the problems facing his people. Yes, I realise Spence may appear a strange standard bearer for ”moderate” Unionism, but I believe (as an outsider) his change in values was genuine.

As regards the question at hand, the Dissenter view of political authority and sovereign legitimacy, is very, very different from the view of both Roman Catholicism and the Church of England. The Dissenter view — in Ulster, in the Boer Republic in Africa when it existed, in the United States, in Canada, etc. — has always been that what is owed to political authority is no more and no less than what a Christian owes to any secular power. 

In the case of Ulster Loyalism, I believe there is a misunderstanding that men (including, and perhaps especially, more extremist elements) harbor some sort of fealty to the Crown or to the United Kingdom itself. This may have been true of High Church parishioners many years ago —obviously I cannot say for certain. However, I can say that it’s not, and has never been, the motivation of Dissenter Protestants under arms in Ulster or anywhere else. The Protestant people came to compromise with the Crown on grounds of an absolute guarantee that their way of life, FAITH, belief, worship and the culture that is centered on these congregational concerns (and the Congregation truly is the ”core” around which such cultural matters orbit to Calvinist Presbyterians) would be guarded, defended and would be free from interference —from or by any government, and especially from or by the government of the Republic which, in the estimation of Loyalists rightly or wrongly, and not unlike Klansmen of the 1920s era in the USA, was a proxy of the Roman Catholic Church. 

There are tribal and ethnic reasons motivating the tension between Protestants and Catholics, but the origins of the ”Troubles”, or at least the cycle of violence than ensued with the Easter Rising, can be primarily attributed (in the minds of Loyalists, I mean) to the political narrative that I just explicated.

UF: The Right undoubtedly owes a theoretical debt to apologists for authoritarianism and opponents of liberal democracy —Carl Schmitt, Joseph de Maistre, and Francis Parker Yockey immediately come to mind. However, the Right is also typified by an opposition to state-enforced social engineering and mandatory covid vaccines.

What should the Right’s attitude toward authority be? Should we embrace authoritarianism, and thereby risk being subject to the whims of arbitrary power? Or, rather, should we adopt a libertarian hostility to government encroachment, but risk the poisonous and petulant idea of atomised individualism infecting our worldview?

T777: The attitude of the RIGHT towards authority — the correct disposition ethically and pragmatically — should be inextricably bound up with conceptual LEGITIMACY. At risk of appearing pedantic, the question must be posed, ”what is the purpose of government”? The purpose of ANY government, be it the System in place in the USA, in the Irish Republic, in the Russian Federation, in any territory, is to guarantee the security and welfare and ultimately the posterity of a PEOPLE. This is the only reason for its existence. 

Yes, as Schmitt (and De Maistre) both emphasized — as did Hobbes I would add — there are profound Theological and symbolic-psychological features of government that inform its function and role and come to affect its very configuration. These things cannot be de-emphasized nor should they be treated as unimportant sociological curiosities or basically meaningless vestigial components of pre ”secular” governance. However, at base, the PURPOSE of government is what I just stated, and the question that must be posed by every man of the Right is: ”Is this System providing for the Defense of and guaranteeing the posterity of MY PEOPLE?” . 

In the case of the United States and the European Union, we are talking about governments whose raison d’etre is the eradication of the culture of the people who constitute these nations by way of violent (literally and figuratively) social engineering. Thus, not only are such regimes ”failing” to fulfill their function, they are engaged in the OPPOSITE of that function. They are tantamount to the ”Fire Department” in the Ray Bradbury classic Fahrenheit 451 — in that story, Bradbury envisions an absurd dystopia where ”Fire Departments” are constituted in order to START fires and burn things in lieu of preventing the destruction wrought by fires and arriving to extinguish them when they ensue.

UF: Somewhat out of place in America, the enigmatic womaniser and rightist theorist, Francis Parker Yockey, is a thinker who you’ve consistently attributed significance to. Why do you consider Yockey’s intellectual contribution to be so important to the Right?

T777: The importance of Yockey to the Right, especially the American Right, cannot be understated. He must be praised for his ability to introduce American readers to theoretical constructs and ideas that, even to a relatively adept student of history, are going to be very unfamiliar, owing to a long standing prejudice against Continental philosophies that goes back centuries and enjoyed peculiar cache in the United States, even in the early days of its existence (with some notable exceptions) due to an unfortunate conceptual bias against European ideas.

This disdain for European political theory and historicism took on a zealousness unseen at the conclusion of the American/Communist/Zionist war of annihilation against Europe —a War that not only destroyed the European way of life for all time and availed the European continent and its peoples to the same type of violent social engineering that Americans themselves were availed to after 1865, but the conclusion of the War led to the creation and implementation of an entirely new moral-juristic-political structure of world order, created at Nuremberg by way of the show trials of the leadership of the German Reich and implemented in earnest by a combination of military power, complex interdependence and reward incentives that were especially attractive in the developing and non-aligned world.

Within this new system, and amidst this backdrop of a literal TOTAL war waged against the West by a state (the USA) that purported to BE part of ”The West”, there was naturally a tremendous amount of intellectual and moral confusion, even among otherwise learned people. For all practical purposes, the political RIGHT had been rendered ILLEGAL by the Nuremberg system. Any man who had held ”America First” views in America prior to the War against Europe found himself no longer tolerated in ”polite” company. The single exception really was Robert Taft —who was for all practical purposes ”EULOGISED” in John F. Kennedy’s ghost-written book, ”PROFILES IN COURAGE”. The inclusion of Taft in the book appears totally out of place unless the reader understands the phenomenon of which we are speaking —the author(s) of the book were declaring victory over the American Right, as Taft had been its LAST standard bearer.

Back to Yockey —in 1960, to be ”RIGHT-wing” in America was to either follow libertarian gadflies like Barry Goldwater or to follow the ”fringe” element such as the John Birch Society — basically a crank-ish discussion group of middle class types from what we’d now refer to as ”flyover country”, who constantly railed against MOSCOW and the Soviet Union, and assigned every negative global trend to some sort of legerdemain hatched in the Kremlin. The intellectual cadre of the American Right post-Nuremberg was of course Buckley’s National Review —and Mr Buckley DID in fact retain some genuine Rightists on the staff (James Burnham for example), but these men also were tolerated because they understood the parameters of what was considered morally ”acceptable” in American discourse. Anything that skirted too close to genuine historical Revisionism or sympathy for the European cause was unceremoniously censored and the author sent packing, on grounds of the ANTI-FASCIST orientation of National Review.

Francis Parker Yockey was able to present a theory of history that made the then present dilemmas (virtually all stemming from the Cold War and its exigencies) intelligible, and to lay to rest this idea that opposition to Stalinism was somehow a ”right-wing” imperative. Evil as the Warsaw Pact garrison states may have been in their treatment of Christians and the brutalization of their populations, they were far, far less interested in assaulting and eradicating the European way of life through social engineering. And frankly, after the early 1950s, the USSR itself, and especially East Germany, actively opposed the State of Israel and quite literally criminalised ”Zionism” and ”Zionist propaganda” within their own borders.

In other words, Yockey was able to explicate America’s relationship to Europe as regards ‘deep culture’ as well as its fundamental differences from it, and was able to present a Hegelian theory of history that placed the Cold War in context, thereby allowing the intelligent reader to understand what truly underlay the war against Germany and the subsequent rabid hostility to Moscow by the same elements who had demanded the former. I’ve made the point again and again that Yockey provided the actual AMERICAN contribution to third positionist thought —not bizarre Vaudevillians who enjoyed dressing up in Hollywood brownshirt costumes and insulting people on public streets.

UF: Violence is a pervasive motif in ‘Steelstorm’. Thankfully it isn’t used to morally proselytise to the audience about the horrors of war. Nor is violence a lazy device by which you shock the audience. Rather, it intersects with your personal beliefs regarding warfare and spirituality. 

Echoing a certain essay by Joseph de Maistre, you state: “Victor knew, with that unreasoned assuredness that only zealots can muster, that of all His children, God especially loves the mujahideen who sacralize the soil of the myriad worlds of His dominion by the spilling of blood —and of these pious murderers, the Executioners were His very favorite sorcerers.”

Those familiar with your corpus are cognizant that the aforesaid Savoyard opponent of Jacobinism plays a central role in your worldview. As do George Sorel, Julius Evola, and Yukio Mishima. These men contend that the warrior and the executioner are theologically significant archetypes in history, or posit the redemptive nature of conflict, socially and personally.  

Can you outline how these figures have influenced your — from a contemporary perspective — peculiar view of violence?

T777: There is a tendency in European and European-derived societies — and to a lesser degree in some Islamic and Oriental cultures — to banish DEATH from public spaces. Quite literally. It is simply not something that is to be discussed or contemplated other than in the most abstract and remote terms. I’ve made the point, many years ago now when this debate was quite a bit more active, that even American states that zealously execute condemned criminals with great regularity do so under cover of night at deliberately odd hours. Although the authorities in these states very much WANT to kill these condemned men — possessing the will and support to do so — the American view is that there is something ”dirty” about the process of death and particularly judicial execution. This was less the case in Catholic societies —and in Byzantine derived cultures it seems to be entirely absent. But in America it is very much a cultural tendency that endures.

This raises serious problems of both a psychological and political nature. Ontologically, one of the practical functions (sociologically) of religious belief is to allow and assist men and women in coming to terms with death —not just to be able to manage the grieving process as they go through life and lose loved ones, but to come to understand their own role in God’s creation and to come to terms with the fact that there is nothing to be afraid of. One should not dwell on death, nor fetishise it in positive or negative terms, but it is essential that people are exposed to the reality of it, its formative and destructive power, its essential function as a symbolic-psychological metric against which values, historical time, justice and other metaphysical phenomena are measured so that they can approach it unafraid and with an ”openness” towards accepting it as the defining occurrence within their own life and works.

Thus, De Maistre is speaking of something very human when he identifies Sovereign authority as inextricably bound up with power over life and death. There is a practical dimension to this, as a sovereign that, owing to lack of will or instrumentality, was unable to kill could not be said to be ”sovereign” at all —any man, actor, competitor to the Throne (actual or metaphorical) capable of homicide would enjoy a power greater than such a pretender ”Sovereign”. In theological and symbolic-psychological terms, the distilled essence of SOVEREIGNTY itself is death —the power of life and death. Thus, the Executioner stands as an unknowable figure who embodies the mystery that attends the process of death itself. His violence is detached, consummately dispassionate, yet inescapable and deadlier than any ordinary man, animated by the rage of vendetta.

So in the world of ”STEELSTORM”, a thousand years subsequent to a nuclear war between NATO and the WARSAW PACT in 1983 (the origins of which remain mysterious to ALL — including the reader — until much, much later in the series) ”warfare” has been outlawed by a ruling, Globalist theocracy. In lieu of soldiers, it deploys highly trained EXECUTIONERS to slaughter the military enemies of the System, to carry out judicial sentences, and to also conduct bizarre (to our eyes) ritual human sacrifices. This corps of Executioners is an Aristocracy of Death in other words —and it gives literal, corporeal form to the essence of sovereignty and its implicit violence.

UF: The Right has been defined in a myriad of ways. American conservatives view it as synonymous with individualism and a hostility to an intrusive state. Those further to the Right disagree, and contend that the Right stands for inequality. Others, however, posit that the Right, like the Left, is not a trans-historical phenomenon, but instead merely one side of a conceptual binary that allows us to easily navigate the political landscape.

What does the right mean to you? Does it have an enduring essence?

T777: To ME ”the Right” entails a series of aesthetic as well as ethical preferences and a way of living and thinking that is basically God-centric and historically grounded. It’s a way of understanding one’s life as a component (however small) of history and historical processes, and within that paradigm obviously the enduring, linear life of a PEOPLE.

WIth regard to my own nation, I believe the PROPER American Right entails identification with the values, ways of life, mores, Faith, and martial virtues of the Antebellum SOUTH. Obviously, there are men of the Right in the USA of immigrant stock who are very sincere people and contribute very valuable things, and these men would not and DO not identify in any organic way with the Confederacy, with Southern martial tendencies, with Dissenter moral preferences, and that’s fine. In fact, it would be misplaced for non-European people or people who are NOT of Old Stock in the New World to identify with these things. But an ORGANIC American RIGHTIST sensibility is what I just explicated. I stand by this.

UF: A diverse array of thinkers, including James Burnham and Bruno Rizzi, identified a common post-liberal denominator between National Socialism, Communism, and FDR’s ‘New Deal’. Later, Paul Gottfried supplemented this account of the supersession of 19th century laissez-faire, stating that Managerialism had “progressed” from its exclusively economic focus, concerning itself presently with the liberation of individuals and suppression of “hate”.

Emblematic of this is a statement by Bo Rothstein: “[the] state is held up as a positive institution because of its mission to individuals, whom it liberates from an archaic past and assists toward self-actualization”.

Is this an accurate depiction of the state’s mutating relationship with the populace since the early 20th century?

T777: The problem with the State vis-a-vis the 20th Century is that, as per Carl Schmitt, it became an essentially Theological configuration. Psychologically speaking, extricating SOVEREIGNTY from an individual such as a Monarch or Emperor and, in other systems such as in America, abolishing consent of natural, organic polities — spontaneous community structures I mean — as the metric of legitimacy for the Constitutional order of the State led to bizarre outcomes.

This idea that what amounts to a bureaucracy has not only the moral and historical legitimacy, but also the power to do everything from educating children to improving people morally to engineering social outcomes of entire ethnic groups is an incredibly strange notion. This is one reason the RELIGION of ”progressivism” is so bizarre. Communists, though they had no intention of doing so, rationalised their rather brutal program on grounds that the State was a temporary instrumentality. National Socialists — if one reads between the lines, not just of Adolf Hitler’s public and private statements, but pays attention to the thoughts of men like Ludendorff, Rosenberg, and Himmler — quite obviously, at least in my opinion, had a rather traditional (and limited) view of the role of the State as an instrumentality of mobilisation, its business basically being War and Peace and little else.

Of course, there were men in the German Reich who were corrupt and took advantage of this, but this is one area I part ways with Ms. Arendt in her book on ”Totalitarianism”. The German Reich did NOT harbor any notion of the State as some kind of end-in-itself —and its existence cannot be extricated from the military-strategic situation then underway. I’m not suggesting anyone is required to love the German Reich or consider it to be an example of great governance in history —but this idea that the NS state was something like Orwell’s OCEANIA, full of cynics of the sort like the character O’BRIEN who sought to perpetually manufacture crises and reasons for the State to penetrate all aspects of life and confabulate rationalisations for its (basically superfluous) existence is highly ahistorical. 

America or Great Britain today has more in common with that sort of thought experiment than did the German Reich or even the USSR. The rationality for its actions notwithstanding, the Third Reich was actually rather self-limiting in what it viewed as its function. The roles it DID assign itself to, it did not apply any restraint to —but there were really very few roles it carved out for itself is my point. It was very much Sparta and not Athens, if that metaphor makes any sense to the readers.

UF: The Cold War is a topic which particularly interests you —the first chapter of ‘Steelstorm’ takes place during this epoch. Dovetailing with this is your well known love of heavy metal music. Beyond being temporally co-extensive, the lyrical content of the latter, moreso than any other genre, signals the imprint left upon the collective zeitgeist by the prospect of Nuclear Armageddon. Emblematic of this are the following lyrics from Megadeth’s ‘Rust in Peace… Polaris’:

“High priest of holocaust, fire from the sea

Nuclear winter spreading disease

The day of final conflict all will pay the price

The third world war rapes peace, takes life”

Do you think that Metal’s decline in popularity owes to the end of the Cold War?

T777: DEFINITELY. The band MEGADETH literally took its name from a strategic nuclear war planning concept coined by Hermann Khan (a prominent figure and public intellectual in the middle Cold War). Khan spoke of ”mega death” —a countervalue strike in which at least one million enemy civilians would perish. Macabre stuff, but very real considerations for the era. Metal is definitely bound up with the late Cold War. Rob Halford discussed growing up in the industrial midlands and tasting the toxic fumes in the air. A combination of brutal industry shaping the worldview(s) of these guys coupled with the very real apocalyptic anxiety wrought by the balance of terror created and sustained the Heavy Metal aesthetic.

UF: Among the Right, there are innumerable theories put forth to explain why left-wing values and opinions are ascendent in Western societies. In a recent Washington Post opinion piece, ‘critical race theory’ was attributed to Immanuel Kant and the NSDAP. On the other end of the IQ bell curve, internet reactionaries contend that the origin of wokeness lies in the rejection of ontological realism by nominalists like William of Ockham.

In contrast, you assert that the prohibition of genuine rightist values owes to a more proximate and plausible cause: the Nuremberg Trials. Can you describe this in further detail?

T777: I believe it was Céline who said Stalingrad was where ”Right and Left Hegelians met to settle their differences once and for all”. There’s a basic truth in this. America — in alliance with the Communist world — waged a genocidal war against Europe and was prepared to wage unrestrained NUCLEAR warfare against Europe had the Reich not been destroyed before the Atomic Bomb was completed. In other words, America was prepared to EXTERMINATE Christian Europe in the course of a crusade of ANTI-FASCISM. I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I don’t quite understand how it is mysterious to people why (close to a century on from this Anti-Fascist Revolution implemented in 1933) it is de facto illegal to hold RIGHTIST views. It’s rather like a Muscovite in 1955 acting befuddled that there are not an abundance of Churches in his home city that preach against the Nomenklatura and encourage people to embrace Christ.

UF: Do you have any forthcoming projects that you can tell us about?

T777: I am launching a PODCAST on December 8th. The second volume of STEELSTORM will hopefully go to publication in December as well, but it may be more realistic to set a date of January.

UF: Thank you, Thomas777, for taking the time to do this interview. Do you have any final words?

T777: Thank you, my friend! I am very, very blessed to have such a fantastic group of men and women who support my efforts and who, frankly, I learn from everyday. There is not a day that goes by that I am not thankful for my good fortune. I believe we are living in (proverbial) ”interesting times”. I’ve no doubt that the young men among us are up to the challenge. I feel optimistic for the first time really in my adult life. It’s extraordinary. All I got, my Man. Stay COO.

Posted by Ulick Fitzhugh

3 Comments

  1. I had hope for the Burkean after the recent excellent interview with Gerry McGeoch, but what the hell is this????

    Reply

  2. Totally unexpected to see Thomas here. Great interview

    Reply

  3. Well what I get from this TRACT is that the Hitler was the man.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.