Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 23rd, 2011 #1
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
Default The West as a Tomb

By Alex Kurtagic

In earlier articles I discussed the negative culture within the racialist Right, focusing on two common examples: the ‘worse-is-better’ mantra, and ‘naysayerism’.

A third example is the insistence that the racialist Right, White Nationalism, White advocacy, whatever you may want to call it, is about ‘defending Western culture’.

It may seem strange to conceive the defence of Western culture as a negative, and it certainly does not have to be one. However, it is a negative when the movement that claims to be for it, the very nature of the struggle, is conceptualised in defensive terms.

The implication is that Western culture is static and that it is its enemies who are in motion—in this case by attacking it.

This leads to a further implication: that Western culture is not dynamic, that it has no outward thrust of its own, that it is therefore dead, essentially a tomb in need of preservationists, and is consequently faced with either holding out or being flattened by the enemy charge.

This makes the cause for Western civilisation not active, but reactive. It makes said cause a reaction against a dynamic enemy that has seized the initiative and is aggressively pursuing self-defined goals—a dynamic enemy that is expanding and therefore needs to make space at the expense of what stands in its way.

Zombie Civilisation

There is no denying that Western culture has come under attack—and not on one front, but on all fronts, from multiple enemies, who hate each other but who for now operate in a freakshow coalition.

There is also no denying that Western culture needs to be defended against its enemies.

But defence alone is insufficient if one is truly for Western culture, because to be content with just defending is to accept that Western culture has died, that it no longer has creative possibilities, that at least for us this is truly the end of history. That the West is a zombie civilisation.

By contrast, a dynamic force sees itself in a perpetual state of revolution.

Revolutions seek to destroy, but they seek to destroy in order to create, in order to replace what was with what is, and what is with what will be.

The initiative is always with the revolutionary, because he has a destiny, a project, and a vision of what could be. He is dissatisfied with the status quo and is actively involved in the process of creating something better—or at least different.

Therefore, if one is truly for Western culture, one is a revolutionary.

To see Westernism as revolution is to accept that Western culture is alive, that it is full of creative possibilities, that it is actively making history.

Mere preservationism, also called conservatism, or cheering the previous revolution, equals death.

Pathways to Revolution

Now, when we speak of revolution, we usually imagine youngsters in balaclavas hurling Molotov cocktails, raiding government buildings, and vociferous agitators shouting slogans through megaphones.

However, revolution is not only about Wall Street in flames and politicians hanging from lampposts.

There are also cultural revolutions, scientific revolutions, economic revolutions, and more.

There are also slower and less obvious but still profound revolutions, such as that brought about in painting by the development of perspective, or that caused by the introduction of agriculture.

And the same way that there are many types of revolution there are many types of revolutionary.

In a cultural revolution, which is the one that concerns us, since it is a prerequisite for viable identity politics, an author, a painter, a musician, a philosopher, an economist, or a mystic can be a revolutionary.

Past cultural revolutions have involved all of the above, since otherwise the citizenry would not have had the ideals, the images, or the sounds to animate them and direct their energy towards systemic change.

Without them, a mobilised citizenry produces merely a riot—a riot like the ones we saw in London back in August, where the uprising took the form of mindlessly smashing property and raiding shops for their consumer goods.

It is perhaps significant in understanding the difference to note that the only shop that was left alone was Waterstones, the bookshop.

Blah, Blah, Blah

Frustration with the persistence of modern trends in the face of the decades spent trying to resist them or reverse them is often voiced within the racialist Right.

‘It’s time to stop talking and start doing!’ they say.

Such frustration is understandable.

But the fact is that revolutions begin with words.

Marxism began with Karl Marx writing long, boring essays about economics and history.

Marx, in fact, wrote a lot of words: the English edition of Das Kapital contains nearly a million of them.

Freud was the same: all he did was produce words, without any scientific basis, so we can literally say he was all talk.

And yet, our entire academic establishment, particularly in the humanities, is in the grip of a Freudo-Marxist scholasticism: all of the required reading in universities is in some way or another part of a tradition founded on the vocables of these two word-mongers.

By the time the first Molotov cocktail is flying through the air on its way to a government office window, millions upon millions of words have been poured into people’s homes.

Indeed, the Molotov cocktail is propelled by a torrent of words, masses upon masses of them, which over time have been distilled into a few catchy slogans—slogans that have been delivered alongside a specific imagery, iconography, and musical accompaniment.

Those who were old enough in the 1960s witnessed how it is done.

Sclerosis of the Left

I return to the phrase ‘the end of history’.

It is no surprise that it was coined by a neo-conservative.

In other words by a person that combines the worst of both worlds: a liberal who is also a conservative.

This is symptomatic of where the Left is today. As their paradigm accelerates towards its logical extreme, they are reaching the end of the line.

It is literally the end of history for them.

And it suits them to see the world this way, as it suggests there is nothing beyond, and certainly nothing better, than what they have put on the table.

However, to us it is a sign of their intellectual bankruptcy.

For them, everything that could be thought has been thought, and everything could be said has been said. They even admit to it themselves; see Jean-Francois Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition.

They have not yet succeeded in doing everything they could do, but that does not matter because hardly any cultural revolution ever achieves all of its objectives. All that remains for them is to repeat themselves over and over again, ever more stridently, ever more insistently, and ever more desperately.

Hence, the progression towards totalitarian methods: the speech laws, the thought police, the prison terms, the CCTV, the limits on freedom of association, and so on.

Hence also the entrechment of an academic scholasticism, rather than the sweep of vibrant intellectual movements.

What we are witnessing is the scelotisation of their revolution, the exhaustion of its possibilities.

This sclerotisation has opened possibilities for another revolution, for, not only has the Left failed across the board, on every level, but the citizenry is manifestly tired of always the same faces, the same names, the same slogans, the same arguments, and things getting worse and worse, with the persistence of problems always being explained in terms there not being enough of the same.

If the citizenry is not rising up, and keeps voting for the same politicians, it is because they have yet to see an alternative that to them seems credible.

Pushing Outwards

Evidently, pushing that which is falling is not enough, anymore than defending the previous revolution is not enough.

Similarly, attacking simply in order to send enemies away is not enough because it is still a defensive strategy. It is still merely reactive in that the enemy is already at the gates.

Being for the West has to be a creative process—it has to involve the active production of culture, Western culture.

Only by actively producing culture—culture that is new, vibrant, relevant, unique, and of a high standard— will the West prosper and its enemies wither.

Only by pushing outwards through growth and densification will what is inside be safeguarded and increased, and the enemy outside forced to retrench or disperse.

A measure of success is when the enemy begins to define himself against what we are for—when the enemy goes from calling themselves liberal, modern, and egalitarian, to calling themselves anti-Traditional, anti-futurist, anti-elitist, and so on, because their own terms have already been discredited and all they have left is negation of the opposite.

Practical Implications

What does this mean for the person who is for the West?

The answer is different for each individual, because each individual is different, and has a different suit of traits—a different set of inclinations, skills, and natural abilities. Also a different national culture. What each individual can do for the Western cause is usually a function of what each individual is good at and enjoys doing, as well as a function in most cases of his national culture.

In a sense it is no different from what we already do in our daily lives. If we have musical ability, we make music; if we are intelligent and enjoy science, we become scientists; if we are French and like philosophy, we write philosophical tracts in French. And if we speak several languages and have specialised knowledge, we translate.

In another sense it is profoundly different, because many presently—out of ignorance or necessity—work for the enemy, either by lending the enemy their time or their talent or by letting the enemy to get all their money.

Each individual has to find his or her own way of channelling their time, their talent, and the resources they generate with them into endeavours that further the Western cause, and therefore the prosperity of the race.

For creative types the challenge is maintaining artistic and moral integrity, finding the way to make a living without having to sell out to the enemy’s system.

For others the challenge may be in fostering—through funding, organising, or both— the creation of alternative vehicles for the creative process, alternative structures that enable the production, promotion, distribution, delivery, and validation of creative output that operate outside of the establishment’s matrix.

The latter is just as important as the creative process, and ought to be regarded part of that creative process, because in Western societies the anti-Western enemy enforces compliance mainly through the citizen’s dependency on the resources it controls, be it money, employment, or status systems.

Ultimately, it boils down to each person recognising what is possible and enjoyable for him or her and having the initiative and the courage to follow through.

And in the majority of cases, talent, hard work, and a can-do mentality is more important than exceptional courage.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...est-as-a-tomb/
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 AM.
Page generated in 0.49505 seconds.