Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Manifesto of the Futurist Woman

Due to the layout of this page it is not very practical to publish longer texts. Luckily, some of the texts that should be published here are online elsewhere and can be linked. Valentine de Saint-Point's Manifesto of the Futurist Woman is one of them. Written over 90 years ago it is still one of the best (anti)feminist texts to this day.

The first four sentences of the manifesto establishes the most important thing when it comes to gender issues: "Humanity is mediocre. The majority of women are neither superior nor inferior to the majority of men. They are equal. Both deserve the same contempt." For Saint-Point it is clear that it is a question of gender, not sex: "It is absurd to divide humanity into women and men: it is composed entirely of femininity and masculinity."

When the mediocre nature of humanity has been established there is little reason to dwell upon what differences there may, or may not be, between men and women. Humanity, and along with it men and women, must be transcended.

Simply men is not enough, what is needed is a New "Man". "Man" for the lack of a better word as it will have less in common with the present man than the present man has with an amoeba. Since homo sapiens sapiens can't achieve the goals for which we strive, man as we know her must be destroyed and there is no reason for the New Man to have a sex. As the great F.T. Marinetti put it, "The sexual life should be reduced to only serve the continuance of the species". The New Man will not have to condescend itself to sex in order to reproduce, therefore the New Man will be sexless.

Saint-Point's description of the current situation is perhaps even more valid today then when it was written.
What is most lacking in women and men alike is masculinity.
To give back a certain masculinity to our peoples benumbed by femininity, they must be dragged to masculinity, even to brutality. But to all, men and women alike in their weakness, a new doctrine of energy must be taught, so that we may reach an epoch of superior humanity. Every woman must possess, besides the female virtues, male qualities: otherwise she is weak, womanish. And the man who has only male strength without intuition is nothing but a brute. But in the period of femininity we are living in, only exaggeration in the opposite direction can help.

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

[Review] Holland, The Political Soldier

Since first published in 1984 Derek Hollands The Political Soldier has had an immense influence on a number of nationalist groups. One can raise objections to Hollands description of the current situation and it should also be obvious that the goals of Holland differs from those of Spöknippet. The concept of the political soldier is however not tied to a certain ideology or movement.

The Political Soldier may be considered a meta-historical archetype, the superior man which by his life, and death, sets an example for his people. This man have throughout history revealed himself in various forms, fighting for various goals. The Spartans in ancient Greece, the Roman centurion and the medieval crusader, no matter if Christian or Moslem. In more recent days we have the Rumanian Iron Guard, the conspirators of 20 July 1944, the Bolshevik cadres of the Russian revolution and various forms of Islamic resistance fighters, in Iraq, Palestine and dozens of other places. (Of course many of the more or less secular groups in Iraq and Palestine are no less filled with Political Soldiers.)

As can be seen all of the above are warriors, military men. This does not mean that the military aspect necessarily is the most important, far from it. He who has dedicated his life to Kulturkampf is no less of a warrior then the soldier. To quote Holland:

The common denominator that allows all of these men to be put in the same category, despite their manifest differences, is the fact that they were inspired by a spiritual and religious ideal that totally dominated their lives. Nothing came between them and the Ideal. They were willing to sacrifice anything and everything for the victory of their Ideal.
In his preface to 1994 years edition Holland sums up the essential message of The Political Soldier:

that what is needed above all else is a fundamental shift in attitude towards struggle, towards life, towards destiny; that there cannot be, and will not be, any serious change in the overall direction taken by the countries of Europe until the New Man, like a giant on the horizon, capable of moulding and inspiring a New Social Order, arises and builds it not according to the clauses or sub-clauses of some abstract political manifesto, but according to the objectively true principles of a creed believed and acted upon, and drawing their life from the Eternal Law of God.

One can, as we do, in addition to afore mentioned issues, disagree with the last part. Spöknippet does not concern itself with "objective truth" nor God, but when it comes to the fundamental, the need for a New Man "who will act as a beacon and an inspiration", who by his very existence sets a shining example, there is no difference. The Political Soldier a booklet about the need for, and appearance of, cadres. But only cadres are not enough. The cadres must together form a single entity, a titanium organism, a pact of steel, a Generalstab for the struggle for the new Reich.

The Political Soldier may be found online

Friday, August 20, 2004

Anti-multiculturalism - From the other side (v 2.0)

Among the more widespread liberal dogmas of today we find multiculturalism. Although the competition is hard, it may well be one of the more stupid thoughts present day bourgeoisie has produced.

What is the goal of multiculturalism? To maximize the number of existing cultures? Why would anybody want that? If you want to keep a maximum number the only solution is to prevent interaction between different cultures, ergo one form of apartheid or another.

Multiculturalists comes mainly in two shapes, ethnopluralist (often inspired by McCulloch) and the mainstream PC liberal one. The first is more honest, not denying that any serious approach to "ethnic rights", and so on, means global apartheid. The liberals, as always, are hypocrites.

What happens if you put people from 57 different cultures in one place? The answer is culturecide, if returning one hundred years later you will find not 57 different cultures but a significantly lower number, perhaps just one.

There is a lot more that can be said about this. Take only the repulsive westernization that strikes every part of the world, this is the largest ethnocide ever conducted - but the liberal hypocrites who a minute ago praised diversity remain silent. Not to mention the very notion of any kind of "universal rights". We see here that the liberal pluralism is as shallows as always. Everyone is permitted to have their "native" food and clothes, as long as they subject themselves to the ways of the petit bourgeois.

The problem of westernization is not that it's ethnocidal per se. There is no reason to shed any tears when people stop believing that we live on a great turtle, stop wearing "ancient" national costumes or give up rites at solstice. All such phenomenon has little to do with the true Tradition which lies deep under the surface. In the words of Julius Evola:

There is a superior unity of all those who despite all, fight in different parts of the world the same battle, lead the same revolt, and are the bearers of the same intangible Tradition. These forces appear to be scattered and isolated in the world, and yet are inexorably connected by a common essence that is meant to preserve the absolute ideal of the Imperium and to work for its return.

The problem of westernization, and the inevitable culturecide that follows, many times lies not in the customs destroyed but in the values brought; convenience, materialism, "reason", cowardice and others. To sum up, emasculization.

All this does not mean that we should be (real) multiculturalists, on the contrary. It is an all to common mistake to simply watch the enemy and then act in whatever way is the direct opposite. We are every bit as culturecidal, the difference lies in what we strive for; the rise of our geheime Deutschland and the creating of a Weltstaat based on the ancient Prussian befehlsprinzip - To serve obedient and to command with humility.

Thursday, August 19, 2004

On democracy

When looking upon democracy it is easy to concur in Ernst Jüngers words, "I hate democracy as I do the plague". This of course depends quite of the definition of democracy used, it is perfectly clear that Jünger had various forms of mob rule in mind, such as parliamentarism and other forms of modern mass-"democracy". A century of experience of such "rule" clearly shows that little good can come from such arrangements.

However, this conception of democracy may be to shallow. According to the brilliant German political theorist Carl Schmitt democracy is best looked upon as the identity between rulers and the ruled. This is actually rather simple, take two examples.
First, think of a state where all power is centralized in the hands of one person, and this person rules accordingly to the will of the people.
Second, you have a state where public life is regularly paralyzed by party squabbles, where no one thinks further than to the next election and, since there is no stable majority, compromises has to be made that satisfies no one.
Which of the two is most democratic? As can be seen, democracy and dictatorship is not mutually exclusive.

Democracy has two components, the demos and crate. In parliamentary "democracy" neither is usually present. That there isn't really question about any real rule should be obvious from the liberal division of society in different spheres - political, economic, private and so on.
The lack of demos is perhaps less clear but it doesn't take much time to realize that there isn't any fundamental identity between "citizens". This is why any pluralistic system is doomed, parties represent antagonistic interests, therefore it can be no real deliberation, only petty chatter.

Monday, August 16, 2004

[Sketch] The need for millenarianism

The response to every accusation of being utopian, or as it may be, dystopian, must not be one of denial but one of affirmation. We must posses the courage to stand up and proudly say; Yes, we strive for a new and more glorious Reich. Yes, our goal is to make sure that there is no outside. No, we do not accept any notion of "impossible".
For in essence we defy the very notion of utopian, we acknowledge only the eternal movement, the everlasting struggle for lebensraum - the will to power.

In addition to this we must never be ashamed of what we are. Spöknippet bears "totalitarian", "technocrat", "Bolshevik", "Fascist", "modernist", "reactionary" and more with equal pride. As long as the presentation is non-bourgeoisie there is little to complain about.