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.

[Swedish] Lindholm and the night of the long knives

The old Swedish national-socialist party SSS (Svensk Socialistisk Samling), and to a large extent also their predecessor NSAP (Nationalsocialistiska arbetarepartiet), along with it's leader Sven-Olov Lindholm are often hailed as an example of "leftist nazism".

This may be true compared to the other "large" Swedish "nazi"-party SNSP (Svenska Nationalsocialistiska partiet). However, the very fact that SSS never truly distanced itself from Hitler, the last hope of the bourgeois world in Germany, to quote Ernst Niekisch' apt formulation, should be enough proof of SSS' essentially bourgeois stance. The picture becomes even clearer if we take a look at SNAPs reaction to die Nacht der langen Messer as it is presented in the party paper, Den svenske nationalsocialisten. Tempting as it may be to comment the following the excerpts speaks for themselves.

"Den tyska revolutionen fortsätter..

Tidningarna ha under den senaste tiden varit fyllda med meddelanden om händelserna i Tyskland. För den som känner förhållandena där komma dessa händelser inte som någon överraskning. Det stod tvärtom klart att något måste ske.

När Hitler den 30 jan. 1933 övertog makten vände han sig först mot den för ögonblicket farligaste fienden: marxismen. Den torde vid det här laget vara död i Tyskland. Men vid sidan av denna fanns det kvar en kanske ännu farligare fiende till folket: reaktionen.

Denna har på den senaste tiden på de mest lumpna sätt försökt sabotera Hitlers återuppbyggnadsarbete. Genom en småsint, söndersmulande kritik, har den sökt lamslå utvecklingen.

Att Hitler haft tålamod med dessa snyltgäster på den nationella revolutionen så länge, är förvånansvärt. Men måttet har blivit rågat. Hitler har slagit. Hårt, men rättvist!

Detaljerna och de smärre linjerna kunna ännu ej tydligt skönjas. Ej heller vet man vilken omfattning förräderiet haft. Men det kommer snart att uppdagas.

Men aktionen visar en annan viktigare sak: Den visar att Hitler och hans män ej svikit de idéer de svurit trohet! Hitlers kamp för socialismen är fortfarande lika revolutionär som innan han kom till makten. Han har mitt i en värld av lumpenhet och förräderi visat att det finns något som heter ansvar och plikttrogenhet. Han har visat att det finnes män, som ej fegt falla undan och kompromissa vid svårigheter. Och därför segrar han!

För dagen avstå vi från vidare kommentarer till händelserna i Tyskland vid månadsskiftet. Uppgifterna i dagspressen äro i mångt och mycket motsägande och tydligt felaktiga, varför vi föredraga att inhämta upplysningar genom våra egna korrespondenter på ort och ställe. I nästa nummer av tidningen återkomma vi emellertid utförligare."

Den svenske nationalsocialisten, 5 juli 1934

"Naturligtvis har man med anledning av dödsdomarna över de rebelliska SA-ledarna ånyo anklagat
nationalsocialismen för barbari och våldsmetoder, men man "glömmer" att Hitler genom sitt raska och djärva ingripande räddat Tyskland från ett förödande inbördeskrig, vilket blivit den oundvikliga följden om kuppmakarna lyckats i sina planer.

[...]

Det påstås från många håll att Hitler genom sin aktion krossat radikalismen inom sitt parti. Detta kan måhända vara sant till en del. Men man får då i "radikalismen" inte lägga något som helst politiskt begrepp. Röhm och hans revolterande stab voro inga politiker, de voro uteslutande soldater och syntes ha svårt att anpassa sig till det fredliga återuppbyggnadsarbetets natur."

Den svenske nationalsocialisten, 12 juli 1934

"Denna Tysklands avvaktande och experimenterande hållning har givetvis måst fördröja vissa socialekonomiska reformer, på vilka de stora massorna väntat. Särskilt S. A.-männen, som offrat så mycket för det nationalsocialistiska genombrottet, ha härigenom i viss utsträckning gripits av otålighet. Den breda massans oförmåga att förstå vilka reella förutsättningar som måste skapas för de radikala reformerna (börsens avskaffande, varuhusens socialisering o. dyl.) har gjort den till objekt för vissa maktlystna herrar, som tänkte utnyttja deras otålighet för en "andra revolution". En sådan skulle ha resulterat i antingen att den gamla högerreaktionen åter kommit till makten eller också att tygellösa marxisthorder begagnat tillfället, och Tyskland hade varit förlorat. Det visade ju sig även att konspiratörerna haft för avsikt att mörda Hitler."

Den svenske nationalsocialisten, 9 augusti 1934

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

Reflections on “Where we stand"

Unser Standort is perhaps not the best choice of text when it comes to introducing Ernst Niekisch. As stated before it can be labeled as “proletarian nationalism” and in that capacity contributes little positive knowledge. Of course it is not only of biographical and historical interest as some parts of it connects to the age in which we live today.

What Niekisch basically says in Unser Standort is first Versailles, then the capitalists. When we look at Niekisch' later work we se that Hitler is condemned as “West”, “Versailles” and “bourgeoisie” at the same time. (And for the later Niekisch these three was more or less the same.) We have there the insight that the “treaty” of Versailles and the bourgeoisie can't be separated.

As can be seen, Niekisch' position in Unser Standort has striking resemblances to various forms of “two-step-revolutions” in marxist thought. First national liberation, together with the “progressive bourgeoisie”, then socialism. First democratic revolution, then socialist revolution. Those who advocate various forms of two step models today should have little problem with Niekisch. Still, many of those who, for example, support popular fronts between islamists and socialists in Iraq slander Niekisch as “reactionary” or even “fascist”.

It seems as if nationalism for marxists is a privilege reserved for “the third world”. Nationalism as privilege because in nationalism, as in socialism, there is an immense source of energy ready to be harvested. The question is if it can be used for post-national goals. However if we listen to Lenin it is no doubt that the Weimarian “Germany” was to be counted among the oppressed nations. Let us repeat what Lenin said on the Third International's second congress: “By means of the Treaty of Versailles, the war imposed such terms upon these countries [Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Bulgaria] that advanced peoples have been reduced to a state of colonial dependence, poverty, starvation, ruin, and loss of rights [...]”

The problem with “second revolutions” is that they are rare indeed. Seldom, if ever, has the national revolution been followed by a socialist revolution. Let us again take a look at what Lenin has to say: “[N]o Versailles treaties will subdue the power of the workers and peasants once they have learnt to deal with the landowners and capitalists.” As Niekisch later realized, the dictate of Versailles was bourgeoisie. Therefore no querfront with the “German” bourgeoisie was possible. On the contrary - socialism is national liberation (as well as liberation from the nation).

Niekisch, Where we stand

Unser Standort was first published in Widerstand in August 1926. The text is from the period in Ernst Niekisch’ life which Uwe Sauermann labels “proletarian nationalism”. Although Spöknippet considers Niekisch one of the finest thinkers of the twentieth century that is to a large degree based on his later works, foremost Die dritte imperial Figur from 1935.

A warning against Widerstand has been directed at the workers – and how may we have expected anything else? – suggesting that it fosters “nationalistic obscurantism” in the consciousness of the working class with the aim of winning that class over to the socially reactionary aims of the bourgeoisie. Reference has been made to certain terminological similarities as if they offered proof of such assertions; we have made use, it was said, of some expressions that one also hears from social reactionaries. Such terminological similarities might in fact be present; it cannot be helped that such persons also speak of vital national necessities for whom it is more a matter of the pocketbook than a serious consideration of these necessities. Naturally we presume that those who have “identified” these terminological similarities seek intentionally to misunderstand us. For it truly does not take much to grasp the essential tendencies that inform our position. We are wholly rooted in the vital feelings and sentiments of the working people of Germany; their needs and their instincts are our own. We do not want to lead them astray, do not want to betray them; we are flesh of their flesh, blood of their blood; our thoughts, feelings, and aspirations issue exclusively from the ground of their being and the current circumstances of their fate. What moved us most profoundly was this: that the burden of the tributes to which Germany has been subjected weigh most heavily on the working people; that it is the living conditions of precisely the German worker which have been called into question by the collapse of German status in the world. Here the challenges of the German nation coincide with the law if self-preservation of the working class. That to be sure can be truly understood only by those who are more than mere literary figures. So many such literary sorts are busy insinuating to workers what they are supposed to think that they have already diverted workers from many a good course of action.

We speak justifiably of the proletarian situation of Germany: the nation is oppressed and dependent; it slaves for others and lives hand-to-mouth. That signifies the historical moment in which the worker, the personification of the proletarian situation as such, has a national mission to fulfill: he turns against the ultimate causes if his social oppression, the victorious states of the Treaty of Versailles, he also rises up against the chains by which the nation is shackled. Is it not strange that social democracy, which has vainly set itself the goal of “liberating the working class,” continually conceals from the worker the social effects of the policy of acceding to the treaty demands? He is not supposed to know of them. How is this to be explained? Social democracy is vaguely aware that the moment the working class becomes conscious of the equivalence between its social struggle for liberation and the national struggle for liberation, it will become such an element, vehement, and vitally progressive force that no petty little party secretary will be capable of controlling it and no rootlessliteray type of interpreting it. Therefore it is silent on the question of the nation’s task! Therefore if resistance to the yoke of social oppressionmust necessarily take on a national coloration, better that there be no resistance at all, better that the workers patiently resigns themselves to the social yoke. We will have no part in lulling the workers to sleep – that is what characterizes us. This, however, does not convict us of sin against the worker’s livelihood. It is his freedom that we want, even if Mr. [Aristide] Briand and Mr. [Austen] Chaimberlain turn up their noses. To us, contrary to many social-democratic writers, the freedom of the German worker is more important than the welfare of Briand and Chaimberlain. To chase after their welfare – that is truly not the substance of socialism.

That is why we are far from being national socialists in the usual sense of the term. What distinguishes us above all from the latter is this: they are, similar to social democracy, driven almost exclusively by the point of view of domestic politics. They think to much of “hanging the criminals of November”; their intentions are too much dominated by hate, revenge, retaliation. Those are not the means by which one pulls a people together in a struggle for liberation. We are less destructive and negative. We affirm everything that increases the political power of the German people; we are concerned soley with the question of how it can be raised to the highest level. Those who want to hang the “November criminals” partout, will afterward probably have to let the French go free; they will scarcely have sufficient force in reserve to inflict upon the latter the justice they deserve.

Synthesis One: Codreanu - Marx

Under the headline Synthesis Spöknippet will publish various attempts to create some sort of synthesis between persons generally thought to be at opposing ends of the political spectrum. It may take the form of more elaborate analysis or, as is the case below, just some short quotations.

"This country is dying due to lack of men, not lack of programmes: at least this is our opinion. In other words, it is not programmes that we must have, but men, new men."
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu 1903-1938

"Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes."
Karl Marx 1818-1883

[Excerpt] Berlin Stahlhelm Manifesto

The manifesto was first published in Stahlhelm und Staat 1927. Its publication here should not be viewed as sign of shared beliefs, allthough that is true to some extent. Rather, it has been published to give a better understanding of some of the movements that Ernst Jünger argues against in, for example, "'Nationalismus' and Nationalismus".

Stahlhelm, the union of battle-tested Germans soldiers returned undefeated from the front and the German cadets trained by them in the spirit of valor, announces on the eight annual memorial to the Reich's soldiers of the front in the capital city of the Reich the political goals, to struggle for which it and all its comrades accept anew as their duty.

Stahlhelm proclaims the battle against all softness and cowardice, which seek to weaken and destroy the consciousness of the German people through renunciation of the right of defense and will to defense.

Stahlhelm declares that it does not recognize the state of affairs created by the Treaty of Versailles and its later supplements. It therefore demands the recognition of the national state for all Germans, the restoration of the German right of defense, the effective revocation of the extorted acknowledgment of war guilt, and the regulation and reparation of war damages on the basis of the collective liability of all peoples responsible for the world war. These goals may not be abandoned in the execution of the rights stipulated in the treaty in the premature clearing of the occupied territories and in the adjustment of the eastern borders.

Stahlhelm demands the renewed recognition of the national colors: black, white and red. Under this flag the German Reich conducted the period of its incomparably heroic struggle against a world of enemies.

The economic and social want of our people is caused by the deficiency of Lebensraum and the territory in which to work. Stahlhelm supports the foreign policy that opens up settlement and work territories for the German population surplus and that maintains vital cultural, economic, and political ties between these territories ande the core motherland. Stahlhelm does not want the German people, driven by want to desperation to become the victim and storm center of bolshevism.

Stahlhelm embraces the conviction that the destiny of the German people may be determined only by a strong leadership able and willing to bear responsibility for it. Therefore Stahlhelm demands an increase in the competency of the president of the Reich; the securing of the welfare of the nation and people against the caprice of parliamentary emergency agreements and contingencies; and the creation of an electoral right the results of which guarantee both the true will of the people and the possibility of genuine administrative responsibility.

Stahlhelm does not want to form or become a new party. But it does want to represent the civic will of the former front soldiers. It wants for its members to acquire the possibility and right of decisive participation in all positions of public service and popular representation, from the local community to the national government. The right of the front soldiers to this participation is based on the special aptitude that they gained through the closest connection between personal accomplishment and the most severe struggle of the German people for its rights and its future. [...]

True to its origins and its history, Stahlhelm opposes all efforts and conceptions that seek to divide the German people. It esteems highly the experience of old comradeship at the front and unity and wants to develop out of it a national sense of unity. It denies the validity of the materialist conception of history and the Marxist doctrine. It opposes the idea of class struggle. And in full recognition of the value among enterprise, entrepreneur, and fellow workers, Stahlhelm will not hinder an honest and decisive settlement of natural conflicts of interests. It demands, however, the maintenance and preservation of the transcending interest of the German community.

Stahlhelm looks with concern on the increasing separating of healthy popular forces from the native soil which accompanies increasing industrialization, and demands an agrarian policy that makes settlements possible. Interior colonization and a settlement policy for the strengthening of German Austria by filling the border area with German peasant villages are weapons in the struggle for national preservation in the employment of which Stahlhelm is able and willing to assist.

Stahlhelm demands that measures be taken against the increased foreign influence in our political, economic, and cultural life since the revolution and against the degeneration of ethical views.

Stahlhelm demands the recognition and achievement of its goals by the constitutional representatives of the German people in the administration and parliaments. It has firmly decided to struggle for its goals only through the employment of just and legal means together with all parliamentary and extraparliamentary forces among the German people that desire to maintain community with it for work and struggle.

This is the path and the will of the Stahlhelm for the internal and external liberation of Germany.

Hail to the Front!

[Excerpts, Swedish] Strasser, Den tyska Bartholomeinatten

Written by one of those who lay the foundation for the machtübernahme Dr. Otto Strasser's book should be read by anyone who still has illusions that some sort of trace of socialism could be found in Hitler's "Germany". When first published in 1934, less then six months had passed since, amongst others, Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm was murdered during die nacht der langen Messer. The excerpts are from the Swedish edition published in 1940.

Ty den dagen [30 juni 1934] stod Hitler vid skiljelinjen mellan två utvecklingsmöjligheter, mellan vilka hans uppstigande till makten lämnade honom valet fritt: möjligheten till en socialistisk revolution och ett fascistiskt krig.
s 5 f

[...]Hitlerpressen festartiklar [gör] det påvrast tänkbara intryck – icke i ord, men så mycket mer i fråga om innehåll!

Upplösning av partierna? Mycket bra! Men vari ligger den principiella skillnaden mellan mångpartivälde och enpartivälde? Är icke detta i stället en taktisk gradskillnad, som ej äger det ringaste gemensamt med en verklig revolutionär nydaning? Är riksdagen kanske avskaffad och ersatt med en representation från alla stånd? Nej, visst inte, den förträffliga riksdagen lever än, det är bara det, att de som företräda riksstaten samtliga tillhöra det regerande monopolpartiet! Partibelöningar vid utnämningar och klickväsen – har sådant avskaffats och ersatts med folkets beslut genom egna revolutionära organ? Nej, visst inte, sådana företeelser tränga sig fram i främsta ledet oblygare, oförskämdare, fräckare än någonsin tillförne, nu utan någon kontroll genom avundsjukan mellan konkurrerande partigrupper!
[…]

Folkets enande genom och under Hitler? – Ja visst, den som ser den likriktade pressen, hör den likriktade rundradion iakttar de påbjudna massuppmarscherna av befolkningen och de påträngande demonstrationerna från partiets sida, bibringas den föreställningen, att ”aldrig har ett folk stått enigare än det tyska under Adolf Hitler”. – Vartill behövs då koncentrationslägren ett helt år efter övertagandet av makten? Vartill det kategoriska mötesförbudet, det helt genomförda undertryckandet av tryckfriheten? Hur skulle det se ut i riket, om bara under en enda månad mötesfrihet och tryckfrihet vore rådande? – Vad bleve då kvar av denna enhets komedi, som åstadkommits på det viset, att fyra man lägga munkavle på sina sex motståndare och sedan med glad stolthet prisa den outsägliga enhet, som är rådande mellan dem alla?
[…]

Social rättvisa? – Var icke just detta huvudstycke och kärnpunkten i Hitlerpropagandan? Skulle icke ”tredje riket” skänka uppfyllelse åt ”den antikapitalistiska längtan, som hyses av 95 % av det tyska folket”, genomföra den gyllene kalvens fall och bortom kapitalism och marxism upprätta en ”tysk socialism”, som klingar som fanfar i partiets själva namn och som i en klart formulerad fordran ingår i partiprogrammets 25 punkter? – Mycket litet har till och med den av propagandaministeriet matade partipressen att säga härom. Ty händelsernas eget språk är härvidlag vältaligare än festtalens svada. Ett faktum kvarstår: efter 12 månaders Hitlerregim står kapitalismen starkare och mera aggressiv än någonsin.

Arbetarestammen, som fått sig frånhänd rätten att tillvaratagna sina egna intressen, är försvarslöst prisgiven åt oblyg exploatering, som tar sig uttryck i sänkta löner, försämrade arbetsvillkor och fullständig rättslöshet.

Bönderna, omhuldade och smickrade med vackra ord, digna alltjämt under de kapitalistiska ränte- och hypoteksskuldernas börda, under de oförändrat höga och lika obarmhärtigt indrivna skatterna samt de stegrande priserna som – på arbetares, anställdas och tjänstemäns bekostnad – genomdrivits av kapitalet, men som åter uppslukas av tvångsbidragen till den våldsamt utvidgade förvaltningsapparat, som representeras av ”riksförsörjningsdepartementet” samt det statsorganiserade tiggeriet för skiljda ändamål.
s 7-10

Sedan mars 1933 skrider spöket genom Tyskland, den andra revolutionens spöke. Hitler hade knappt segrat, hans parti likriktat hela Tyskland, så stod spöket redan bakom honom. I början brydde man sig icke mycket om det. Man betraktade det som att alster av national-bolsjevikiska alarmrykten, sinnesförvirrat radikalt prat. Men från vecka till vecka växte det högre och högre, så att till sist icke ens Göbbels höll sig för god vifta med en andra revolution. […] Göbbels höll nu endast evolutionära anföranden! Men spöket var omöjligt att få bukt med. Det var seglivat. Snart är det åter framme och sprider ut bland den tyska allmänheten, att det går utför: med partiet, med S.A., med arbetsfronten, med ungdomen. Spöket blir högljuddare och högljuddare!
[…]
Det finnes slagord, som skapa historia, då de bryta fram ur historiens källflöden med styrkan hos en naturkraft, ”tidens lösen”, vari tidens strävan, den nya sinnesarten hos dess människor, deras anspråk, inriktning och längtan avspegla sig. Man vet ej vem som skapat dem, vem som fört dem vidare. De likna folkvisan: folket, tiden hava arbetat på den. Åt gamla ord förlänas en ny, oanat mäktig innebörd, de abstraktaste begrepp växa ut i historisk verklighet. Då tiden är inne, då en stat skall mogna till liv, uppställer den för sig det lösande ordet. I det historiska skeendets dialektik är det ett ord med hård, till kamp uppfordrande, medryckande klang. En tidssignal, som kallar ungdomen till kamp för det man offrar och strävar för! En dödssignal för alla våldsstater! Sådana ord voro en gång folkviljan och tredje ståndet; klass, proletariat, nation och socialism. Ett sådant ord är nu i Tyskland lösenordet om ”den andra revolutionen”.
s 16 f

Den misstar sig grundligt, som betraktar Hitler, den ursprungliga Hitler, som en demagog i kapitalismens tjänst, nej, Hitler är ledaren för den tyska gironden, den tyska revolutionens ”Kerenski”, subjektivt ärligt övertygad om sina vägars nödvändighet och riktighet, men själsligt icke i stånd att förarbeta revolutionära känslor till revolutionär verklighet.
s 53

I det stora hela ger kännedomen om Hitlers utpräglat kvinnliga natur nyckeln till en förståelse av hans väsen och hans handlingar. Hans vacklande stämningar, som gåvo kamarillan omkring honom ett sådant fruktansvärt inflytande; hans förskräckelse för alla avgöranden, som är ent av grotesk; hans avväpnande brist på logik, som sätter honom i stånd att förneka sina egna ord med säkerheten hos ett gott samvete; hans andliga beroende av en eller annan om än aldrig så ovederhäftig, men tillföljd av hans brist på bildning kritiklöst anammad lära eller åskådning; hans aversion mot alla karaktärsfasta, självsäkra människor och däremot svarande förkärlek för ostadig, kompromissande, ja, brottsliga människor – allt detta finner sin förklaringsgrund i Hitlers feminina natur – liksom icke minst i hans inlevelseförmåga, i hans fantasirikedom, i hans överkänslighet, i hans rent av hypnotiska färdigheter, som äro av både passiv och aktiv art.

Är Hitler en ledarnatur? – Kan man beteckna en person som ledare, vilken visserligen har öra för en nations innersta känsloyttringar och även behärskar konsten att sätta dessa lidelser i svallning – men som saknar all djupare insikt om de innersta orsakerna till folksjälens yttringar och varje vetskap om de drivkrafter, som sätta dem i rörelse, och om de mål, mot vilka de röra sig? – En människa, som i oklar aning om egen andlig otillräcklighet (endast nödtorftigt maskerad under överdriven självkänsla) erfar ängslan inför varje klart avgörande och som därför finner behag i att yttra sig i allmänna ordalag, som varje åhörare kan utlägga efter egen uppfattning?
[…]

Men en taktiker är han av stora mått! Med en känslighet i fingerspetsarna som en kvinna! Med all rekvisita för människopåverkan som en skådespelare! Med en förmåga att slingra sig som en hal ål och med en oljig mångtydlighet som en hovman av den gamla skolan! – Då skrattar han vinnande, blickar trohjärtat, markerar tårad blick (det finnes väl knappast en intern sammankomst, där inte Hitler försöker spela ut detta trumfkort), för att plötsligt bryta ut i ursinniga skällsord, övergå i ett hotfullt rytande, om han beräknar göra ett starkare intryck med detta!

Falsk? – Nej! Ännu alltjämt äga Goethes ord sin giltighet: ”Man bedrager aldrig, man bedrager sig själv.” – Vad är det då som gör, att vi taga en skådespelares gester, en kvinnas tårar, en mans svaghet på allvar? Blott och bart vår egen vilja, vår egen tro!
s 53-4

Med lögner började talet [här syftas på Hitlers tal i riksdagen den 13 juli 1934]: den tusen gånger vederlagda frasen, att den 9 november 1918 en utomordentlig, blomstrande stat lömskt tilldelats den dolkstöt i ryggen, medan i motsats härtill den 30 januari 1933 en stat, ”som politiskt och ekonomiskt befann sig i ett tillstånd av fullständigt förfall” fått övertagas av honom, ljuder i detta nu särskilt oförskämd, när det politiska, ekonomiska och finansiella samt icke minst utrikespolitiska läget efter ett och ett halvt års Hitlerregim ter sig snart sagt förtvivlat. (I detta förtvivlade läge allenast har man i själva verket att söka förklaringen till den 30 juni – och till allt som därav följde!)

Lögn, vartenda ord om hans egna [Hitlers] prestationer: om den numera återställda ”riksenheten” (under det att delstater och delstatsministerier frodas långt yppigare än under Weimar tiden), om den övervunna ”partisplittringen” (under det att alla motsättningar kvarstå oförändrade – och såvitt de icke nedtystas genom munkavle – träda i dagen inom själva partiet, varom just den 30 juni bär vittnesbörd), om de fyra och en halv millionerna nyanställda (under det att den officiella statistiken blott utbasonerar två och en halv millioner och varenda människa känner väl till – allra bäst de direkt drabbade – skillnaden mellan en i sitt yrke verksam arbetare och de Hitlerska kategorierna av lantbruksbiträden, nödhjälpsarbetare, arbetslägerinterner o. s. v.).
s 115

Profetiskt ljuda i mina öron Gregor Strassers sista ord i maj 1933: ”Adolf Hitler kommer att sluta sitt liv genom självmord!”
s 119

Vad det inte läget i Tyskland beträffar, så betecknar den 30 juni 1934 följaktligen en seger för den politiskt reaktionära riktningen Hindenburg-Papen-Blomberg i allians med den kapitalistiska gruppen Thyssen-Göring och den girondistiska gruppen Hitler-Göbbels över den andra revolutionens påträngande krafter, den tyska socialismen!
s 119

För Hitlers politiska ställning innebar förlusten av den ”vänstra” flygeln ett uppgivande av den angenäma vågmästarställning, som hittills gjort det möjligt för honom att genom fritt val av den ena eller den andra sidan giva övervikt åt vem han ville och att därmed bestämma utgången. Denna suveräna ställning var hädanefter icke längre möjlig, Hitler hade själv underminerat grundvalarna för sin skiljedomarställning, lagt grunden till den ”högra” flygelns övermakt, gjort denna övermakt slutgiltig och på detta sätt i viss mån blivit ”fånge hos reaktionen.”

Författaren är förvissad om, att Hitler insåg denna för honom och hens maktställning ogynnsamma förskjutning av krafterna (då hans makt i långt högre grad berodde på denna gynnsamma vågmästarställning än på hans egen kraft) och i överensstämmelse med sin natur med (väl dolt) raseri reagerade mot de personer som försatt honom i detta läge.
s 127

[Excerpts] Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy

Excerpts from Carl Schmitt's The crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, first published in 1923.

What numerous parliaments in various European and non-European states have produced in the way of a political elite of hundreds of successive ministers justifies no great optimism. But worse and destroying almost every hope, in a few states, parliamenatism has already produced a situation in which all public business has become an object of spoils and compromise for the parties and their followers, and politics, far from being the concern of an elite, has become the despised business of a rather duboius class of persons.
p. 4

To discussion belong shared convictions as premises, the willingness to be persuaded, independence of party ties, freedom from selfish intrests.
p. 5

The belief in parliamentarism, in government by discussion, belongs to the intellectual world of liberalism. It does not belong to democracy. Both, liberalism and democracy, have to be distinguished from one another so that the patchwork picture that makes up modern mass democracy can be recognized.
p. 9

A democracy demonstrates its political power by knowing how to refuse or keep at bay something foreign and unequal that threatens its homogeneity.
p. 9

The state theory of the Contrat social also proves that democracy is correctly defined as the identity of governed and governing.
p. 14

A democracy can be militarist or pacifist, absolutist or liberal, centralized or decentralized, progressive or reactionary, and agian differant at differant times without ceasing to be a democracy. [...] What remains then of democracy? For its definition, one has a string of identities. It belongs to the essence of democracy that every and all decisions which are taken are only valid for those who themselves decide. That the outvoted minority must be ignored in this only causes theoretical and superficial difficulties.
p. 25

The will of the people is of course always identical to the will of the people, wether a decision comes from the yes or no of millions of voting papers, or from a single individual who has the will of the people even without the ballot, or from the people acclaiming in some way. Everything depends on how the will of the people is formed.
p. 27

If for practical and technical reasons the representatives of the people can decide instead od the people themselves, then certainly a single trusted representative could also decide in the name of the same people.
p. 34

A threefold division of powers, a substantial distinction between the legislative and the executive, the rejections of the idea that the plenitude of state power should be allowed to gather at any one point – all of this is in fact the antithesis of a democratic concept of identity.
p. 36

The usual definition of sovereignty today rests on Bodin’s recognition that it will always be necessary to make exeptions to the general rule in concrete circumstances, and that the sovereign is whoever decides what constitutes an exception.
p. 43

The last remnants of solidatity and a feeling of belonging together willl be destroyed in the pluralism of an unforeseeable number of myths.
p. 76

[Excerpts] Schmitt, The Concept of the Political

Exerpts from Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political.

The concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political.

According to modern linguistic usage, the stat is the political status of an organized people in an enclosed territorial unit. This is nothing more than a general paraphrase, not a definition of the state. Since we are concerned here with the nature of the political, such a definition is un warranted. It may be left open what the state is in its essence – a machine or an organism, a person or an institution, a society or community, an enterprise or a beehive, or perhaps even a basic procedural order. These definitions and images anticipate too much meaning, interpretation, illustration, and construction, and therefore cannot constitute any appropriate point of departure for a simple and elemenarary statment.

In its literal sense and its historical appearance the state is a specific entity of a people. Vis-á-vis the many conceivable kinds of entities, it is in the decisice case the ultimate authority.
p 19-20

The political must [...] rest on its own ultimate distinctions, to which all action with a specifically political meaning can be traced. Let us assume that in the realm of morality the final distinctions are between good and evil, in aesthetics beautiful and ugly, in economics profitable and unprofitable. [...]

The specifice political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. This provides a definition in the sense of a criterion and not as an exhaustive definition or one indicative of substantial content.
p 26

The political enemy need not be morally evil or aestetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he ism in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined general norm nor by the judgement of a disintrested and therefore neutral third party.

Only the actual participants can correctly recognize, understand, and judge the concrete situation abd settle the extreme case of conflict. [...] Emotionally the enemy is treated as being evil and ugly, because every distinction, most of all the political, as the strongest and most intensiv of the distinictions and categorizations, draws upon other distinctions for support. This does not alter the autonomy of such distinctions.
p 27

The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. He is also not the private adversary whom one hates. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity.
p 28

A world in which the possibility of war is utterly eliminated, a completely pacified globe, would be a world without the distinction of friend and enemy and hence a world without politics.
p 35

A war need be neither something religious nor something morally good nor something lucrative. War today is in all likelihood none of these. This obvious point is mostly confused by the fact that religious, moral and other antithesis can intensify to political ones and can bring about the decisive friend-or-enemy constellation. If, in fact, this occurs, then the relevant antithesis is no longer purely religious, moral, or economic, but political. The sole remaining question then is always whether such a friend-and-enemy grouping is really at hand, regardless of which human motives are sufficiently strong to have brought it about.
p 36

Every religious, moral, ethical, or other antithesis transforms into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively according to friend or enemy. [...] A religious community which wages wars agains members of other religious communities ir engages in other wars is already more than a religious community; it is a political entity. [...] Also a class in the Marxian sense ceases to be something purley economic and becomes a political factor when it reaches this decisive point, for example, when Marxists approach the class struggle seriously and treat the class adversary as a real enemy and fights him either in the form of a war of state against state or in a civil war within a state.
p 37

If a part of the population declares that it no longer recognizes enemies, then, depending on the circumstance, it joins their side and aids them. Such a declaration does not abolish the reality of the friend-and-enemy distinction.
p 51

Political thought and political instinct prove themselves theoretically and practically in the ability to distinguish friend and enemy. The high points of politics are simultaneously the moments in which the enemy is, in concrete clarity, recognized as the enemy.
p 67

[Excerpt] von Salomon, Die Geächteten

Excerpt from Ernst von Salomon's Die Geächteten (Güthersloh: Bertalsmann, 1929).

They were the Landsknechte – but were where the land which they served? They had recognized the greatest swindle of this peace, they did not want to take part in it. They did not want to participate in the wholesome order, which was praised to them in a slimy way. They had remained under arms according to an infallible instinct. [...] The sensed the word, yes, they even spoke it out loud and were ashamed of its washed-out sound; they turned it over, tested it in secret fear, and left it out of the interplay of manifold conversations, and yet it stood over them. The word stood wrapped in deep gloom, weather-beaten, beckoning, full of secrets, beaming magical powers, felt and yet not recognized, loved and not yet bidden to them. And the word was Germany.

Where was Germany? In Weimar? In Berlin? Once it had been on the front line, but the front fell apart. Then it was supposed to be at home, but home deceived. It was sung in song and speech, but the note was false. The spoke of fatherland and motherland, but even the niggers had that. Where was Germany? Was it in the people? But they cried for bread and voted for the fat-bellied ones. Was it in the state? But the state sought its form garrulously and found it in reunciation.

Germany burned darkly in daring brains. Germany was there where it was being fought for, it showed itself where armored hands reached out for its very existence, it beamed dazzingly where those possessed of its spirit dared the final sacrifice for the sake of Germany. Germany was on the border. The articles of the treaty of Versailles told us where Germany was.

p 48-49

[Excerpt] Jünger, The Storm of Steel

Excerpt from Ernst Jünger's The Storm of Steel. Below are the three last pages.

Now I looked back: four years of development in the midst of a generation predestined to death, spent in caves, smoke-filled trenches, and shell-illuminated wastes; years enlived only by the pleasures of a mercenary, and nights of guard after guard in and endless perspective; in short, av monotonous calendar full of harschips and privation, divided by the red-letter days of battle. And alsmost without any thought of mine, the idea of the Fatherland had been destiled from all these afflictions in a clearer and brighter essance. That was the final winnings in a game on which so often all had been staked: the nation was no longer for me an empty though veiled in symbols; and how could it have been otherwise when I had seen so many die for its sake, and been schooled myself to stake my life for its credit every minute, day and night, without a thought? And so, strange as it may sound, I learned from this very four years’ schooling in force and in all the fantastic extravagance of material warfare that life has no depth of meaning exept when pledged for an ideal, and that thereare ideals in comparison with which the life of an individual and even of a people has no weight. And though the aim for which I fought as an individual, as an atom in the whole body of the army, was not to be achieved, though material force cast us, apparently to the earth, yet we learned once and for all to stand for a cause and if necessary ro fall as befitted men.

Hardened as scarcely another generation ever was in fire and flame, we could go into life as though from the anvil; into friendship, love, politics, professions, into all that destiny had in store. It is not every generation that is so favoured.

And if it be objected that we belong to a time of crude force our answer is: We stood our feet in mud and blood, yet our faces were turned to things of exalted worth. And not one of that countless number who fell in our attacks fell for nothing. Each one fulfilled his own reslove. For to every one may be applied the saying from St. John that Dostovievski put in front of his greatest novel:

‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.’ [John 12:24, Spöknippet]

To-day we cannot understand the martyrs who threw themselves into the arena in a transport that lifted them even before their deaths betond humanity, beyond every phase of pain and fear. Their faith no longer exercises a compelling force. When once it is no longer possible to understand how a man gives his life for his country – and the time will come – then all is over with that faith also, and the idea of the Fatherland is dead; and then, perhaps, we shell be envied, as we envy the saints their inward abd irresistible strength. For all these great and solemn ideas bloom from a feeling that dwells in the blood and canot be forced. In the cold light of reason everything alike is a matter if expedience and sinks to the paltry and mean. It was our luck to live in the invvisible rays of a feeling that filled the heart, and of this inestimable treasure we can never be deprived.

I had the good fortune to be taken out at Hanover and sent to the Clementine infirmary. One of my companions there was a young flying-man of Richthofen’s squadron, named Wenzel, who had shot down twelve of the enemy. The last of them had first shot him through the shoulder.

On the 22nd of september 1918 I had the following telegram:

‘His majesty the Kaiser has bestoved on you the order Pour le Mérite. I congratulate you in the name of the whole division.
‘General von Busse.’

As soon as I was fit enough I celebrated this event with Wenzel, my brother, and a few friends. As a doubt had been expressed whether we should soon be passed out fit for active service, Wenzel and I felt ourselves compelled to jump again and again over a lagre armchair. We came out of it, however, very badly. Wenzel broke his arm again, and I was kept in bed next morning with a temperature of 104.

In spite of this it was not long before we were in exellent form for another winter campaign. This was deferred for a while; and soon we had to take part in other battles than we ever dreamed.

Now these too are over, and already we see once mmore in the dim light of the future the tumult of fresh ones. We – by this I mean the youth of this land who are capable of entusiasm for an ideal – will not shrink from them. We stand in the memory of the dead who are holy to us, and we belive ourselves entrusted with the true and spirutual welfare of our people. We stand for what will be and what has been. Though force without and barbarity within conglomerate in sombre clouds, yet so long as the blad of a sword will strike a spark in the night may it be said: Germany lives and Germany shall never go under!

p . 316-319

Swedish Military Tattoo

Until now there has been all metapolitics and no march music, or militaria, but since Swedish Military Tattoo was held the past week there will now, at last, be some march music.

Swedish Military Tattoo is held every other year with music corps from Sweden as well as abroad. Swedish military is more or less notorious for their lack of skill when it comes to marching, so it was intresting to see how they compared to the foreign corps. The answer is, fairly well. Obviously, music corps has more march training than ordinary troops as there usually are more important things to be done with the time in the military than doing marching drills. More important however is the general posture. The posture of a country's youth says a lot of the spiritual condition of the people as a whole.

The Finnish drill team made a good impression, and showed good posture. This illustrates well fateful loss of the eastern part of the realm 1809. To this day, Finland is, after all, still the most Prussian of the Nordic countries, quite naturally due to it's geopolitical position. Prussia is anti-west, this does not mean that it is eastern, Prussia is the synthesis of the west thesis and the east anti-thesis. "To all appearance the eastern and western influences has amongst the Prussians achieved such a balance that a system of command and obedience, of lustful obliging can function harmonious." (Ernst Jünger)

The case of Finland may be analogous. If we look back in time we find that some intellectual circles around the Lappo-movement asserted that the racial superiority of the Finns was due to the mixing of Germanic and Slavic. This indeed resembles Ernst Niekisch's description of the Prussian disposition: "Germanic subjectivism mitigated by Slavic-collectivistic atmosphere".

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Oberst Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg

Today we proudly remember Oberst Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg - Savior of Germany and the last hero. It is today 60 years since he placed his famous bomb in Wolfsschanze.

As is well known Hitler survived the bomb, while Stauffenberg was arrested and executed by a firing squad hours later. Despite this the attempt on Hitlers life can't be seen as a failure. Through his actions Stauffenberg took on the sins of a whole generation of Germans. Not only the third Reich but also the Weimar-republic.

We salute not only Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg but all conspirators who were murdered by Hitlers henchmen. Uncompromising to the very end, many of them refused to flee as they considered this to be a betrayal against their already captured comrades. With straight backs they died as befits Germans - in the struggle for the real, clandestine, Germany which lives inside us.

In times like these, bogged down with materialism, with decadence spreading and it seems like all that exists are different forms of bourgeoisie, it is more important then ever to keep the memory of these fallen heroes alive. In times like these, when virtues like duty and honor are scoffed at, the example of those who gave their lives so that Germany could live only shines stronger and brighter.

Read and ponder for a moment the conspirators oath:

Wir glauben an die Zukunft der Deutschen.

Wir wissen im Deutschen die Kräfte, die ihn berufen, die Gemeinschaft der abendländischen Völker zu schönerem Leben zu führen.

Wir bekennen uns im Geist und in der Tat zu den grossen Überlieferungen unseres Volkes, das durch die Verschmelzung hellenischer und christlicher Ursprünge in germanischem Wesen das abendländische Menschentum schuf.

Wir wollen eine Neue Ordnung die alle Deutschen zu Trägerndes Staates macht und ihnen Recht und Gerechtigkeit verbürgt,verachten aber die Gleichheitslüge und beugen uns vor den naturgegebenen Rängen.

Wir wollen ein Volk, das in der Erde der Heimat verwurzeltden natürlichen Mächten nahebleibt, das im Wirken in dengegebenen Lebenskreisen sein Glück und sein Genüge findetund in freiem Stolze die niederen Triebe des Neides und der Missgunst überwindet.

Wir wollen Führende, die aus allen Schichten des Volkes wachsend, verbunden den göttlichen Mächten, durch grossenSinn, Zucht und Opfer den anderen vorangehen.

Wir verbinden uns zu einer untrennbaren Gemeinschaft, diedurch Haltung und Tun der Neuen Ordnung dient und denkünftigen Führern die Kämpfer bildet, derer sie bedürfen.

Wir geloben:
untadelig zu leben,
im Gehorsam zu dienen,
unverbrüchlich zu schweigen,
und füreinander einzustehen.

Let us finally repeat the last word the immortal hero, the greatest of Germans, Oberst Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg spoke:
Es lebe unser geheimes Deutschland!