Tag Archives: socialism

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

Against Libertarianism

Libertarian philosophy, which achieved it’s clearest development in the work of Robert Nozick, rests on the state of nature fantasy, conceived of by Rousseau, which conceives of man as a self sufficient automaton who rationally gives up a portion of his independence to benefit from the law and order of a just society. Thus, for liberals of all stripes, but especially libertarians, the relation between man and society is contractual, man serves society only insofar as it is beneficial to his own self interest. The conception of a cause greater than individual self interest is discarded, if not explicitly then implicitly. Libertarians may pay lip service to nationalism, community, religion or other forms of tradition, but this can only be considered lip service – their philosophy relegates these to a place of subservience to the self, and their existence is thus contingent on their being perceived to benefit a collective of this self interest. To make these tings contingent on individual interest is to remove all their significance, and to condemn them to an inevitable downfall among a mass of other superstitions which, in the liberal mindset, were only hindrances on the individuals growth.

Libertarianism differs from other forms of liberalism in that it is completely amoral. Other forms of liberalism leave a place for some kind of universal morality, generally based on universal compassion or the remnants of a Christian morality, libertarianism by contrast sees it’s amoral principles as steadfast due to their objective fairness within the conception of man the libertarian holds. This a priori, objective nature is what draws a lot of young intellectual types to the movement, they, like socialists, want an easy solution, a few basic principles which are applicable to all forms of social organisation, at all times, for all people. Taking these principles as sacrosanct, any societal problems which develop under them are seen as faults of he individual, protecting the objective rightness of the principles involved. But there will be losers under libertarianism, and these losers will be those who cannot make themselves valuable in the open market.

This is another problem of libertarianism, it is almost wholly an economic philosophy. It’s founders and chief propagators, Friedrich Von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard and others, were economists who sought to build a wholly a priori economic science which was not so reliant on the whims of politicians and changing circumstances as Keynesianism was. Keynesianism necessitated politicians deciding when the time was right to stimulate the economy with tax payer money, and when the time was right to restrict growth to prevent eventual downfall. With an understandable and natural distrust for this kind of cynical authority, they sought to take this power over people’s lives out of the politicians hands and into the individuals, through their collective choices to supply and demand the market and thus dictate a fair equilibrium, and also to objective, fair, a priori principles, which could do the job politicians tried to do better than the politicians. Libertarianism is the philosophy of the modern automaton. The wholly individual, self seeking economic unit, the “ego and his own”, free to forge his destiny through the amoral pursuit of his desires.

But man is more than an economic unit. Who has ever seen the Individual that the libertarians speak of? Man is an aspect of, a reflection of, a creation of and an integral part of his community. Man is his family. Man is his religion. Man is his nation. Man is his ethnicity. Man is his people’s history. Man is NOT simply a pleasure seeking animal, man, as Aristotle says, is a social animal. And more importantly, man is a being who thirsts for something greater. In his day to day life, he chases one pleasure after another, life, as Schopenhauer says, swings like a pendulum between pain and ennui. And yet, there is an intuition within us all that there is something greater than the material, that there is a good or goods to be pursued, whose pursuit goes beyond any narrow economic interests, and whose pursuit we feel is the justification for this endless game of survival.

Finally, libertarianism, more than any other credible political philosophy, is anathema to nationalism. For the libertarian, every individual is equal and should be given an equal chance, there is no concern over mass immigration for within libertarianism this is fundamentally fair. Let as many immigrants come as they please, the best will be hired, the worst will not, that is what’s fair. This is also to suppose that outside of the government’s interference we can have a totally color blind world, where individuals escape the shackles of the ignorance of racism and other prejudices. Libertarianism is also steadfastly opposed to all forms of protectionism, and, in it’s usual a priori way sees Free Trade as objectively fair and right, regardless of national interest. What this unabashed free trade would mean is a fully global market and the removal of borders in any meaningful sense.

This is hardly surprising when one looks at the founders of libertarianism. Von Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, Nozick and Ayn Rand were all racial jews. Kevin MacDonald in his book The Culture of Critique gives two characteristics of Jewish intellectual movements. They are generally internationalist in nature, and propose a world free of nationalism and national interests, and they rest on unproven, often unprovable a priori assumptions. This fits Marxism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and of course libertarianism. It is easy to see why it has attracted many prominent jews among it’s ranks, for it promises a world free of nations, free of irrationality, free of collective interest in any groups, and favours a society which would inevitably be run by a small economic elite, free from taxation or responsibilities to their host nation. Let no man call himself a libertarian who opposed internationalism, liberalism, atheism, modernism and the materialism and selfishness which accompany it.

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.


The Peculiar Cult of Ayn Rand

Go to the Modern Library’s list of the 100 greatest novels of all time and you’ll see a strange result. The experts choice isn’t too controversial. Ulysses is a triumph, a tribute to the capacities of the human mind, Brave New World is a perfect example of dystopian fiction, Lolita is fabulously written. The Reader’s List makes for strange reading in itself. No one with a good knowledge of literature would seriously nominate Lord of the Rings as one of the 5 best books ever written, but the really strange thing is the first 2. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Really? The 2 greatest novels ever written are those long winded, frankly boring books expounding selfishness which were unpopular in their day and are widely regarded by experts as pretty average pieces of literature? Not only this, but 4 of the first 8 are books by Rand. Judging by the list, Ayn Rand a better author than Joyce or her fellow countrymen Nabokov, Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky. it is, of course laughable. As is the whole cult which has grown around Ayn Rand.

Of course, this cult didn’t develop as a grass roots movement. Atlas Shrugged didn’t slowly capture the hearts and minds of the public thanks to the enduring genius contained in it, it was hoisted into the spotlight by big money interests. As Bloomberg has reported, “John Allison, former chairman of bank holding company BB&T Corp., admires author Ayn Rand so much that he devised a strategy to spread her laissez-faire principles on U.S. campuses. Allison, working through the BB&T Charitable Foundation, gives schools grants of as much as $2 million if they agree to create a course on capitalism and make Rand’s masterwork, “Atlas Shrugged,” required reading.” That’s right, the big money interests which most benefit from adopting an Ayn Rand approach to politics and economics are the people paying to have children brainwashed with her message.

What is her message? In a word, selfisheness. She called her philosophy objectivism.  She claimed to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle, the only one she said she owed any debt of influence to. She advocated total egotism within an atheist worldview. There is no God, there are no moral values, the best thing you can do is get ahead as much as you can before you die and disappear forever. Of course, there’s nothing new in this message, Max Stirner advocated a philosophy of egotism in his book “The Ego and It’s Own” published in the 19th century. Most of her ideas about morality were just second hand Nietzsche, although she didn’t express them as eloquently as he did, and she took them a lot more seriously. She applied her conclusions to the world of politics to advocate a total laissez faire society. Capitalist anarchism. Society shouldn’t come together to provide things like healthcare because, frankly, it’s nobody else’s problem if a cancer patient can’t afford their health costs. If everything is left to the free market, people will be free from ethical and societal obligations, free to realise their full potential.

One man to adopt this philosophy was Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 (An appointment of Ronald Reagan). He adopted an Objectivist approach to economics, and convinced Bill Clinton to further deregulate the financial sector, eventually leading to the worst financial crash since the great depression. Greenspan, when asked to explain how this failure, admitted that it was evidence there was a flaw in the view he had approached his job with for 19 years. The flaw was adopting the views of a second rate philosopher and writer. Many prominent Republicans too, have adopted with open arms the views of Rand. Former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan is a particularly big fan. This despite the fact that Rand openly stated her views were incompatible with religion of any kind, especially the altruism of Christianity.

In fact, one feels a certain embarrassment calling Rand a philosopher. None of her views are taken seriously in the philosophical community, she didn’t advance any new philosophical views, and the ones she subscribed to were either wrong, or she gave terrible reasons for identifying with them. For example, she thought she had refuted idealism and all world views other than materialism with her claim that “to be conscious is to be conscious of something”, thus proving there exists an “other” to consciousness. Thus proving the existence of an objective reality which takes primacy over consciousness. This is the school boy’s refutation of idealism, it’s not even worth refuting here, it’s flaws should be obvious to anyone familiar with idealism or philosophy in general. Yet, so convinced was she of her correctness that she ridiculed other philosophers, calling the great Immanuel Kant “the first hippy.” Rand is an intellectual lightweight compared to Kant, hardly fit to be spoken of in the same sentence. Yet she truly believed she was the best, perhaps excepting Aristotle.

It’s ironic Rand chose Aristotle as an example of another great philosopher, in the past few decades advances in science, particularly quantum physics, have shown that he was wrong about almost everything he wrote on. Maybe he and Rand have more in common than she realised.