Tinyclos is a fairly sophisticated implementation of OO and the MOP, written in Scheme.
Its descendants, COOPS, GOOPS, and others, are in most schemes today. Many of them are written in their respective dialect of scheme, with little or no specific compiler support.
SXML allows for writing XML in native scheme syntax.
The anaphoric macros (aif, acond, etc.) are all, well, macros, and thus use metaprogramming principles.
tclOO, [incr tcl], and other OO TCL systems are usually implemented in regular TCL.
Give or take, any large Lisp or Smalltalk codebase takes advantage of dynamic typing, late binding, and some form of metaprogramming.
However, you've made it clear that you hate Ruby, Dynamic Typing, and other such things, as given as much of metaprogramming requires this sort of flexibility, I very much doubt anything I say will convince you that dynamic languages are in any way useful.
All your examples are programming gimmicks, and I've yet to see stuff that solves actual hard problems. I'm not interested in programming for programming's sake. I want to use it to make my computer do useful stuff.
Maxima is a descendant of the original MACSYMA, developed at MIT. It is still a usable and viable system, even if it has ageda bit.
Emacs is a popular programmer's text editor written in C and a dialect of lisp.
Both of the above programs are large, useful, and written in an HLL - one particularly amenable to pointer chasing, I might add - and they make use of the variety of abstractions which that HLL provides.
If those aren't modern enough for you, check out some Clojure applications.