The West as a Tomb

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

TF: a nice fresh perspective on alternative ways of fighting the Jew World Odour.



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.

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 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.

Source: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... more-10983

[Michael K.]

Timothy Fitapatrick,

Here are some excerpts from Aleksander Dughin.  See if you detect a connection between what he says and the essay above.  Because I would reason that they are on the same wavelength:

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=15000

from:  "The metaphysics of national-bolshevism"

The term "bolshevism" has at first appeared, as it is well known, during the discussions in RSDRP (Russian Social Democratic Labour (Worker's) Party) as a definition for the fraction, which took the part of Lenin. Let us remind, that Lenin's policy in Russian Social Democracy consisted in the unlimited radicalism orientation, compromise refusal, accentage on the elite character of the party and on "Blankism" (the theory of a "revolutionary conspiracy"). Later the people who did the October Revolution and seized the power in Russia were called "bolsheviks". Almost immediately after the revolution the term "bolshevism" has lost it's limited meaning and has become to be perceived as a synonym for the "majority", "all-national policy", "national integration" ("bolshevik" can be approximately translated from Russian as a 'representative of the majority') . At a certain stage the "bolshevism" was perceived as purely Russian, national version of communism and socialism, opposed to the abstract dogmatics of the abstract Marxists and, simultaneously, to the conformist tactics of other social-democratic trends). Such interpretation of "bolshevism" was, at large degree, characteristical for Russia and almost exclusively dominated in the West. However the mentioning of "bolshevism" in a combination with a term "national-bolshevism" is not limited to these historical sense. The question is about a certain policy, which is common for all the radical left tendencies of the socialist and communist nature. We may call this policy "radical", "revolutionary", "anti-liberal". The aspect of the left teachings, which Popper reckons in the "totalitarian ideologies" or in the teachings of the "enemies of the open society" is meant here. Thus, "bolshevism" is not just a consequence of the Russian mentality influence on a social-democratic doctrine. It's a certain component which is constantly present in all the leftist philosophy, which could develop freely and openly only in Russian conditions.

In these latter days the most objective historians more and more often raise a question: "And whether the fascist ideology is really "right"? And the presence of such a doubt, naturally, points to an opportunity of interpretation of "fascism" as a more complex phenomenon, possessing a great deal of typically "left" features. As far as we know, the symmetric question - "And whether the communist ideology is really a "left" one?" - is not raised yet. But this question is more and more urgent. It is necessary to raise it...

The utopian socialists, which were undoubtedly included by Marx in a number of his predecessors and teachers, are the representatives of a specific mystical messianism and forerunners of the "Golden Age" return. Practically, all of them were the members of esoterical societies, inside which an atmosphere of radical mysticism, Eschatology and apocaliptical apticipations prevailed. This world was a mix of some sectant, occult and religious motives, the sense of which was reduced to the following scheme: "The modern world is hopelessly bad, it has lost it's sacred dimension. Religious institutes have degraded and have lost God's blessing (the theme which is common for extreme Protestant sects, "Anabaptists" and Russian old-believers). The world is ruled by evil, materialism, deception, lies, selfishness. But the initiated ones do know about a soon upcoming of a new golden age and promote this upcoming with the enigmatic rituals and occult actions."

The utopia socialists reproduced this common for western messianist esoterism motive on the social reality and gave to a coming gold century the social and political features. Certainly, there was a point of the eschatological myth rationalization in it, but at the same time, the supernatural character of the coming Kingdom, Regnum, is obviously seen in their social programs and manifestos, in which one could easily detect a mention of future communist society wonders( navigation on dolphins, weather operation, common wives, peoples flights in air etc. ). Absolutely obvious, that this policy has almost traditional character; and such radical eschatological mysticism, idea of return to the Beginning, makes it absolutely logic to name this not just a "right" component, but even "extremely right"...

It was just the "right Marxism" that triumphed in Russia, which obtained the name of "bolshevism". But it does not mean, that only in Russia the matter was as such. The similar tendency is present in all communist parties and movements all over the world, if, certainly, they do not degrade to the parliamentary Social Democracy, conforming to the liberal spirit. Thus, it is not surprising, that socialist revolutions have taken place except Russia only in the East: in China, Korea, Vietnam etc.. It emphasizes once again, that just traditional, non-progressive, the least "modern" ("alienated from the Spirit") and, correspondingly, the most "conservative", the most "right" peoples and nations, have recognized the mystical, spiritual, "bolshevik" essence in the communism.

The national-bolshevism takes turn of just such bolshevik tradition, the policy of the " right communism ", which was originated by the ancient initiatic societies and spiritual doctrines in remote ages. Thus the economic aspect of communism is not diminished, is not denied, but is considered as a gear of the teurgic, magic practice, as a particular tool of a reality transformation. The only thing that should be rejected here is an inadequate, historically exhausted Marxism discourse in which the accidental, inherent to the past epoch, humanist and progressist themes are often present.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Maybe somewhat similar, but the above essay is more in line with John the Baptists' "Men must change before Kingdoms can." And not in a Bolshevik-revolutionary kind of way.

I like the emphasis on creativity:

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.

Jews may have higher IQs in general than non-Jews, but they can beat us in the creativity department.

This also stood out to me in Kurtagic's piece:

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.

Also, wasn't moral depravity characteristic of Bolshevism? Whereas Western Civilization is characterized by moral restraint. And Kurtagic is right, the racialist right—that of small dick skinheads, like MSMD—is largely rooted in fear and negativity.

[Michael K.]

Dear Timothy Fitzpatrick,

I find those two lines you quoted to be some of the best in the essay, too.  I don't mean to give Kurtagic's piece a national-bolshevik label. I just want to compare the two side by side, and so see what the similarities are.  Because it seems to me that Dughin and national-bolshevist ideology is being regarded by WNs in the West as a source of inspiration.  Kind of like Caroline Yeager, who recently echoed some of the same "righto-leftist" (to quote Monty Python) ideas.  

One thing I find particularly disturbing is the concept of "conservative revolution" and "right communism".  This is why the modern Republican party is in the "Red states" imo.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Dear Timothy Fitzpatrick,

I find those two lines you quoted to be some of the best in the essay, too.  I don't mean to give Kurtagic's piece a national-bolshevik label. I just want to compare the two side by side, and so see what the similarities are.  Because it seems to me that Dughin and national-bolshevist ideology is being regarded by WNs in the West as a source of inspiration.  Kind of like Caroline Yeager, who recently echoed some of the same "righto-leftist" (to quote Monty Python) ideas.  

One thing I find particularly disturbing is the concept of "conservative revolution" and "right communism".  This is why the modern Republican party is in the "Red states" imo.

I, too, cringe at the sound of the word revolution. Perhaps it should be more accurately described as conservative reversion—a reverting back to traditional norms. I also liked the perspective of offensive rather than defensive Kurtagic offers. This has better persuasive results, IMHO.