Tag Archives: Marxism

Rising from the Ruins

Ur ruinerna

Finally arriving in the mailbox, “Rising from the Ruins” (Ur ruinerna) is a beacon of hope for Northern and Western Europe and the West in large, as these bleak days that are being heralded with jumbled and insignificant words are falling more and more on deaf and indifferent ears: “Progress”, “Democracy”, “Diversity”, “Open Society”; but which in reality are euphemisms for Kali Yuga or the Twilight of the Gods, Ragnarök.

Joakim Andersen is the head contributor for the Swedish New Right, Alt-Right – or whatever label you prefer – think-tank Motpol, (Counter pole) and a chief figure in the growing Swedish underground political and cultural sphere which is represented, aside from Motpol, by the publishing house Arktos, Logik Förlag and many more Swedish alternative media outlets.
He and the Motpol gang have committed themselves to the re-invigoration of the Swedish culture and political sphere. They describe one of their chief goals as follows: “Lifting forth a spectrum of culture left out from an increasingly narrower and infantile public discourse.”

Being a former Marxist with a keen eye for the history of ideas, Andersen has delved and shed light on the principles of Traditionalism and the New Right school of thought brought forth by the likes of Alain de Benoist and the French think-tank GRECE, (Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne), chiefly responsible for introducing these ideas to Swedes seeking to find their way out of the mirage of Liberalism. He continues this admirable trade in his book debut.

Just like the eponymous title suggest, “Rising from the Ruins” proclaims “The End is Nigh”, that the liberal order of the West is doomed to perish from the internal contradictions and crises that it has afflicted upon itself via mass immigration, multicultural politics at the expense of native cultures, cultural and spiritual neglect, and unprecedented demographic change, (Progress, according to Liberals).
But as they say about “blessings in disguise”, this means that from the metaphysical ruins, not any physical rubble (with the exception of Detroit and the growing European suburbs), a new type of world is taking form, at least in the form of ideas and street activism.
“Rising from the Ruins” examines the growth of the Alt-Right phenomena and its similarities and distinctions with the European New Right. It looks at the Donald Trump phenomena, (albeit before his shift into the same-old interventionist and Zionist pandering). The book highlights a number of thinkers from which the New Right/Alt Right have reaped ideas from: Julius Evola with his Riding the Tiger, Martin Heidegger with Daesein, Ezra Pound with Usura, René Guenon with the Crisis of the Modern World, Samuel T. Francis with his Foxes and Wolves analogy of power struggle, Aleksandr Dugin with Eurasianism, Guillaume Faye with Archeo-Futurism, Antonio Gramsci with Cultural Hegemony; the seed to Cultural Marxism, Hans Blüher with the Männerbund; a fraternity of Men keeping (or re-invigorating) the flame of Civilization, (i.e. the Monks after the fall of Rome laying down the groundwork for Christian Europe), as well as highlighting the intellectual, cultural and social movements: Casa Pound; (the Männerbund), the Eurasian movement, Génération identitarie, etcetera.

Joakim Andersen proves himself an accomplished summarizer. His wide encyclopedic knowledge of the intellectual history of the Right and the various movements mentioned above is impressive to say the least. Drawing inspiration from Spengler, Evola and many others, the book does not merely linger on the political, but on the spiritual and cultural sphere, from a possible re-Christianization to a revival of European heathenism  a sargued by Alain de Benoist and others of the French New Right. The optimism one feels while reading the book makes it stand out from all the echoes of defeatism and short-term strategy that characterizes the black-pillers. Andersen allows the thinkers and ideas to speak for themselves without muffles, very seldom sharing personal thoughts or insights on the issues.

It must be noted, Andersen stresses, that the nations of Europe differs and thus one ideology or movement in a particular country may not succeed in another. The Identitarian movement in France and Germany being a good example. Both countries are unified states, composed of several historical “nations” or tribes with strong sense of “local patriotism”. In the case of France, we have the Celts of Brittany, the German heritage of Alsace, and in Germany, the state of Bavaria. In Sweden, where the nation state has gone further and local identities been swallowed up in the homogenization process – the exceptions being the provincial identities of Dalarna, Skåne and Gotland – the Identitarian movement have not picked up here as great as in France. Likewise, Casa Pound, being a product of Italian sensibility and cultural formation might prove difficult in exporting to other countries that lacks that some vigor and thumos that Italians have stored. Possibly the incomplete and non-dogmatic Fourth Political Theory could blend well with the different historical, cultural and religious backgrounds of respective European nations and peoples.

The English edition is under way, and I can highly recommend it for its spiritually and life affirming importance. Time is due to learn how to ride the tiger through all the rubbles and funeral pyres.

Aleksandr Dugin and the 4th Political Theory

The Psychology of Identity Politcs

It’s becoming all too common in Western political dialogue. More and more those engaging in debate focus intently on their position as part of a perceived social or economic grouping, they let this group define who they are, shape their outlook on the world and dictate their political opinions. Of course, if a policy is right it should make sense with the interests of society as a whole paramount, but to many in the regressive left, the interest of certain groups trumps the fruits of a successful society – a society of equals.

Browse social media and it won’t be long before you see the type of person who identifies themselves solely as part of a collective. It may be “The LGBT Community”, this person will repeatedly proclaim their sexuality, often in a vulgar manner, celebrate famous people who share their sexuality, have their body vandalised with tattoos proclaiming their sexuality, (presumably if they ever forget what sex they are attracted to they can look at the tattoo on their wrist and be reminded), they will judge every political party by what it has done or will do for the LGBT community, and will attack anyone who is even slightly skeptical of their idea of the good as a bigot and homophobe (I don’t for a second deny that many of them are).

Of course they aren’t generally focused solely on the issue of their own group, very often they will also champion the cause of other minority groups. They will cry outrage at how groups like the poor, migrants and women are treated, and celebrate the solidarity of all the oppressed, toiling masses as Trotsky called them, against the oppressor’s – generally the people who don’t belong to any of these groups, especially white, middle class males, and more generally anyone who doesn’t share their vision of utopia. Rarely do they engage these people in rational debate, instead they declare such a pursuit to be a waste of time seeing as the opponent is blinded by their racism, sexism, fear of ‘progress’, religious superstitions and bigotry. One wonders, if they are so unwilling or incapable of arguing for their worldview, do they have any good arguments for it? I don’t think it’s the case that there aren’t good arguments for their point of view they could pursue, rather they never really cared to think out their world view or why it is rationally the right one, rather, once they had accepted as being paramount their place within a certain social grouping, they adopted a world view to suit that position. Their politics is dictated by their focus on their own self.

This gets to the core of the issue. Identity politics are for people who HAVE no identity. They are a retreat into collectivism to deflect away critiques of these people as individuals, and place blame on whole groups with whom they can they rarely interact with. It’s an interesting mix of self-obsession paired with a complete lack of introspection; there is always some nebulous scapegoat, be it patriarchy or systems of oppression or “whiteness”, to blame for their own personal lack of fulfillment. Once something as important as politics and the shape of society becomes a tool for the fulfillment of people lacking an identity, using these as a way of grasping at something meaningful, rational debate and the pursuit of the ideal system of governance vanishes. Before one can make a meaningful contribution to these fields, they must throw off the superficial labels they identify with and become independent, moral and rational agents worthy of their stake in the democratic process.