Victory through death

The word used to describe the events in London one and a half week ago seems to be “barbaric”. It appears that the word was first used by Tony Blair in his first statement 7 July while still at the G8 summit.

(Before continuing it should be noted that this post, for the sake of argument, will assume that the information provided by the media is, in large, correct. After all, perception of “reality” is more important than “reality” itself.)

After that various commentators rapidly picked it up. Indeed a telling display of what is really meant by the much hailed journalistic “independence”. Tony Blair used the term in his first speech in Gleneagles – the horde of sheeps known as journalists followed. Spöknippet has discussed the terminology used in the so called war against terrorism before.

When a state fights its political enemy in the name of humanity, it is not a war for the sake of humanity, but a war wherein a particular state seeks to usurp a universal concept against its military
opponent. At the expense of its opponent, it tries to identify itself with humanity in the same way one can misuse peace, justice, progress, and civilization [Spöknippets italics] in order to claim these as one’s own and to deny the same to the enemy.
Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, p 54

Although this dehumanization of so called terrorists, or more correctly – the enemy – is far from new it seems to be more outspoken now than, for example, after the events in Madrid 11 March 2004.

You can’t talk about barbarism without contrasting it to civilization, whether it is articulated or not. In this case it was, according to Blair the barbarians attacked all “civilized people”. “Pope” Benedikt XVI was even more explicit in labeling the events as “barbaric acts against humanity”.

In consequence it is just natural to argue that the “suicide bomber defies ordinary human logic”. If we ignore the abuse of the word logic we see yet again that western values are confused with human values. A quick look at history shows us that the contemporary, western, obsession with comfort and safety is quite the exception.

That said it is obvious that the willingness give ones life is perhaps the ultimate breach with the modern worlds fixation with the individual. It is hard to think of any other single act that means such a complete refusal of the “values” of the modern world. Martyr operations are propaganda of the deed like nothing else.

What we have in “Islamism”, or “political Islam”, in general and martyr operations in particular, is truly a revolt against the modern world. This tendency is of course not isolated to the Muslim world. It has a number of different expressions but it is perhaps most clearly visible in the Muslim world. Ernst Niekisch believed in the early 1930’s that Germany’s road “to Potsdam, back to itself” could only be found via Moscow. The road back to Germany may today very well go through Mecca.

Feel no fear though, Tony Blair assures us that it is no clash of civilizations we are witnessing. What Blair basically says is that there is nothing wrong with Muslims – as long as they adopt a western lifestyle. Yet another wonderful display of the multiculturalists never ending generosity and tolerance.

A recent survey among Swedish children shows that the youth are not very happy at all, despite individualization, “equality” and lack of values. As Oskorei notes that itself is probably the problem.

Lack of identity and belonging is not, regardless what some nationalists claim, limited to the native European population. Rather, the rootlessness of the western world is often even more clearly visible among “second generation immigrants”.

Some try to use the “frustrated, degraded, young men from the ghettos”-rhetoric. A number of people involved are now believed to be identified. First of all, one of the men who appears in the press was around 30 years old. It is, not suprisingly, found that the attackers came from relatively “integrated” homes. It even seems as “the forth bomber” was a convert to Islam.

However, most, if not all, studies of suicide bombers show that they usually are well educated and socially comes from the middle stratas. In other words the alleged suicide bombers seems fairly typical.

If we are to believe the liberals the antidote to “fundamentalism” is more of what we already have. More equality, more democracy, more secularization and so on. In short, more of the western “values” which cause the rootlessness which characterizes the modern world. But the will to give ones life for something higher, greater, holier and more eternal than ones own person, be it God, Nation, Class or Family, can not be suppressed by hollow liberalism.

Pacifism will rise and fall with the times. A period of weariness or one that lacks great ideas will always give it a clear field. And rightly, for when young men have no great aim before their eyes, why should they sacrifice themselves? When they have, on the other hand, they will of their own accord be carried away by the force that quails at nothing.
Ernst Jünger – Copse 125, p 153

The need for heroism and the longing for myths remains. The struggle to reconnection with the eternal continues. Our stronger and more deeply realized will to power will turn the scale.

Hail Victory! Hail Death!

The futility of political discussion

Two days ago swedens largest newspaper published an essay about Jürgen Habermas, on account of two recently published books about him. Focus in the article is Habermas' theories about "deliberative democracy" and the public sphere. Nothing is however said about Carl Schmitt's influence on Habermas.

Habermas' focus on deliberation as the essence in democracy is a loan from, or more correct, a perversion of Schmitt. The essay describes Habermas' view as follows: "In public discussion, the citizens discuss various political questions and arguments alone should be decisive, not who presents them." This can be compared to Schmitt: "To discussion belong shared convictions as premises, the willingness to be persuaded, independency of party ties, freedom of selfish interests." (The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy p. 5) Although Schmitt says that as a critique of the pluralistic parliamentary "democracy", the validity of the statement that discussion demands shared convictions is perhaps never more clearly shown than on the internet. One need only to look to the nearest political forum.

Most internet users has at one time or another witnessed a "debate", be it between marxists and objectivists (randians), tradtionalists and modernists, or others, where it, for all with a minimum of intelligence, was obvious from the start that the discussion would lead nowhere. The question is then, what criteria has to be met for a discussion to be fruitful? The paradox here is that real discussion is only possible between equals, but the greater the identity, the less need, or indeed room, for discussion.

It should also be noted that Schmitt makes a distinction between deliberation and discussion. Discussion does not simply mean conversation or negotiation but "an exchange of opinion that is governed by the purpose of persuading one's opponent through argument of the truth or justice of something, or allowing oneself to be persuaded of something as true and just". (The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy p. 5)

The essay describes the bourgeois public sphere as "a sphere where private persons meet to discuss cultural and political concerns". It remains unclear whether Habermas actually meant that such a sphere really existed, or if it should be taken as an account of a bougeoisis ideal. In conclusion, where Schmitt talks about discussion, Habermas uses deliberation.

The belief in discussion between political antagonists can be traced to the enlightment's spirit of "rationalism". There is no way to combine communism and capitalism, atheism and Christianity, militarism and pacifism and so on. In fact there can't even be any real discussion. If someone does changes his opinions due to a discussion it's rarely a participant, but rather a listener. In fact, he who indulges in debates with antagonists for the sake of argument acts as a liberal, although some people does seem to derive a strange kind of pleasure from fruitless debating.

Similarly, there is no discussion (in the traditional, non-schmittian, sense) more meaningless than the one between an atheist and a believer. The fundamental of faith, be it the faith that God exist or does not exist, is based on a living feeling rather than rational arguments. The same can be said about the belief in capitalism or communism. To say that the conviction is based on self-interest, not morals, does not change anything. The faith in the truth of one's morals are simply replaced with the faith in that one has correctly identified what serves one's interests the best. Fundamental beliefs, axiom or whatever one wishes to call them, are very seldom changed due to "rational" arguments. They rest upon a much deeper part of reality – faith, feelings, conviction, all of which the rationalist can not grasp.

Under the mask of humanity

Yet another program about U.S. violation of human rights in the “war against terrorism” was aired by Swedish radio today. The details are of little importance although it should be noted that the violations were described as systematic, not isolated events, conducted not by individual grunts, but sanctioned and encouraged by president Bush and secretary of defense Rumsfeld.

The most fascinating thing is that each new information is greeted with a sense of surprise. Fascinating not because of the considerable amount of atrocities previously known, but because of the premises under which the “war against terrorism” is fought. Of course it is always interesting to see liberals cling on to their illusions. History has proved the so called “realist” school of international relations if not right, at least fairly correct over and over the last century.

When it comes to wars fought in the name of humanity, or to protect human rights, they tend to be more brutal then wars not fought under that kind of justification because it necessarily dehumanizes the enemy. Carl Schmitt realized this more then 70 years ago, the relevance of the passages below from The concept of the political today is almost frightening. Of course all this should not be seen as some sort of defense of the liberal metaphysic conception of rights. The notion of rights are, as Schmitt rightly argues, despite liberal claims of the opposite, political to the extreme. Spöknippet disapproves all notions of transcendent “rights”.

At some later point there will hopefully be a text dedicated exclusively to establishing Spöknippets standpoint on rights. For now it is sufficient to establish that there has never been a crime to great to not be committed under the mask of humanity. Indeed many of the most gruesome atrocities has been committed under the mask of humanity. Let us now look upon what Schmitt has to say about war and humanity:

Humanity as such cannot wage war because it has no enemy, at least not on this planet. The concept of humanity excludes the concept of the enemy, because the enemy does not cease to be a human being – and hence there is no specific differentiation in that concept. That wars are waged in the name of humanity is not a contradiction of this simple truth; quite the contrary, it has an especially intensive political meaning. When a state fights its political enemy in the name of humanity, it is not a war for the sake of humanity, but a war wherein a particular state seeks to usurp a universal concept against its military opponent. At the expense of its opponent, it tries to identify itself with humanity in the same way one can misuse peace, justice, progress, and civilization in order to claim these as one’s own and to deny the same to the enemy.

The concept of humanity is especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.*
p 54

Schmitt adds in a note:

* Pufendorf quotes approvingly Bacon’s comment that specific peoples are “prescribed by nature itself,” e.g., the Indians, because they eat human flesh. And in fact the Indians of North America were then exterminated. As civilization progresses and morality rises, even less harmless things than devouring human flesh could perhaps qualify as deserving to be outlawed in such a manner. Maybe one day it will be enough if a people were unable to pay its debts.

It follows from the above that a war sanctioned by the United Nations has all the more potential to be exceedingly brutal then a bi-lateral conflict. What can possibly be a stronger argument to present a war as fought on behalf of humanity then one formally sanctioned by the “international community”? It is hard not to think on the sanctions imposed on Iraq, and also the annihilation of Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait.

Schmitt finishes The concept of the political with some observations regarding terminology, perhaps even more corret today then when first written.

An imperialism based on pure economic power will naturally attempt to sustain a worldwide condition which enables it to apply and manage, unmolested, its economic means, e.g., terminating credit, embargoing raw materials, destroying the currencies of others, and so on. Every attempt of a people to withdraw itself from the effects of such “peaceful” methods is considered by this imperialism as extra economic power.
p 78

For the application of such means, a new and essentially pacifist vocabulary has been created. War is condemned but executions, sanctions, punitive expeditions, pacifications, protections of treaties, international police, and measures to assure peace remains. The adversary is thus no longer called an enemy but a disturber of
peace and is thereby designated to be an outlaw of humanity. A war waged to protect or expand economic power must, with the aid of propaganda, turn into a crusade and into the last war of humanity. This is implicit in the polarity of ethics and economics, a polarity astonishingly systematic and consistent. But this allegedly non-political and apparently even antipolitical system serves existing or newly emerging friend-and-enemy groupings and cannot escape the logic of the political.
p 79

Codreanu and myths

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu's For my legionaries is a modern classic of an importance to many present day nationalists that hardly can be overestimated. Although the never ending ranting about Jews and fervent nationalism are tiresome, he who can look beyond this will find a rich source of inspiration.

The Legion of the Archangel Michael was not only a political group but a religious and militant order. The most important lesson taught by For my legionaries is the importance and power of myths, the legionary movement overcame near insurmountable obstacles because of their unshakable belief in God and nation.

"The Legion prefers to stand united even if it choose the wrong way. If the Legion ends up in hell, it shall still be united. After successfully conquering hell, we return victorious. It doesn't matter if we win, lose or sacrifice our lives. The most important thing is that we do it together as a entity of iron."

Myths create movement, the truth of a myth is not without importance altogether but it is not the determining factor in the mobilization of the masses. The successful myth strikes at the heart of the masses, makes it beat harder and faster. Of course the myth that yesterday made people move mountains may today be incapable of creating any reaction at all. Marx may be wrong on every account, that doesn't change the fact that masses fueled by Marxism acted differently than they would have without Marxism. The same holds true for the Iron Guard, even if God really is since long dead and the nation only a mere construction, the faith in the eternal truth and value of the two gave the legionaries the irresistible strength that comes only from the feeling of struggling for something higher and greater.

For millennium religious myths have dominated, the last centuries have seen the rise, and perhaps also fall, of the myths of nationalism and class struggle. None of these three great myths are dead but their power has diminished. We live, perhaps for the first time since the creation of spoken language, without any great myths. The closest thing we ever came to a liberal myth, the slow but constant progression, beneficial to all, is more dead then the others. Some may object that "human rights" would constitute a modern liberal myth but since it's function is to legitimize rather than mobilize that is not the case.

Myths are in a sense neutral, what is essentially the same myth can be used for mobilization in entirely different directions. Leftists often accuse Christianity for functioning as a means to preserve the status quo. That this does not have to be the case has been shown by, among others, the Legion of the Archangel Michael but also by South American liberation theologists. The same is true for, as an example, nationalism. Although it too more often than not has been a conservatory force it is not always so. Thus one should look upon myths dialectical; what was intended to perserve or legitimize may in fact mobilize in another direction.

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.

http://www.futurism.org.uk/manifestos/manifesto44.htm

[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 here.

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.