In the light of recent events, it has felt necessary to not only criticise the current path by many self-professed “radicals”, but to show ways in which people can choose a more radical path rather than participating in the Elite’s game of political control, which ensures the entrapment of the radical.
The following passage is divided into three parts:
- The Failure of Political Struggle
- The Path We Take
- The Strangling Grasp of the State
For further reading, the following authors are a must:
- Rene Guenon [Traditionalist]
- Julius Evola [Traditionalist]
- Savitri Devi [Esoteric Hitlerist]
- Sergey Nechayev [Nihilist]
- Corneliu Codreanu [Fascist]
- James Mason [National Socialist]
- Mikhail Bakunin [Anarchist]
1. The Failure of Political Struggle
Within the light of the events unfolding at Charlottesville, Virginia, in which the rally Unite the Right took place, one should be – if previously in support of ‘peaceful’ action – utterly demoralised: GOOD. Ever since 1945 the call to a political struggle, the one of the ballot box, the one of playing their own game, has utterly failed. It has never been achieved. Indeed, with the demographic shift – in which Europeans shall start becoming a minority in their own nations by the end of this century – a democratic option will be even less of a ‘possible’ option.
When Mussolini marched on Rome, did he ask for the ballot box? When Hitler became Chancellor, was he voted there? No! In fact, upon his becoming of the Fuhrer, in the year 1933, the National Socialist German Workers Party received 17,277,180 votes, 43.91% of the vote, 288 seats, an increase of 92 seats. Why the gain? Failure of the state and the prowess of the Brownshirts on the streets, smashing through the communist hordes on the streets. The banning of the Communist Party after the Reichstag fire only cemented his power within the Reichstag to usher in total control – it was a legal loophole via Article 48 of the Weimar Republic’s constitution, not one of the ballot box! Did Codreanu rely on his elections? Nay, they continued in perpetual struggle against all odds, aiding the peasants and striving to pure excellence of the virtue of self-sacrifice.
The arguments used by modern Fascists for winning via the ballot box are absurd. They change their ways to accommodate more-so to the public. They liquidate their message and become more materialistic in nature, they become subdued to the demands of the masses.
Even the Anarchists, who hold the opposite of our worldview, which advocate the domination of the Shudra caste and the destruction of all hierarchy in the material and spiritual sense, still see the issues of the ballot box.
The National-Syndicalist thinker George Sorel In Reflections on Violence (1908), stated that a revolution would come about through a general strike, a ‘revolution of empty hands’. The general strike was a political myth, a belief that has the capacity to provoke political action by virtue of its emotional power rather than through an appeal to reason. Through this appeal to the emotion of the people would a universal strike occur, causing the capitalist infrastructure to collapse. They believed that boycotting products, sabotaging machinery and organising mass strikes would help ushering in said collapse.
The Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin led a conspiratorial brotherhood named the Alliance for Social Democracy. Errico Malatesta in Italy, Russian Populists and Zapata’s revolutionaries in Mexico worked for a peasant revolution in the 19th and early 20th century. Some still placed emphasis on terrorism and violence. The late 19th century and the 1970s were peak periods of said action via clandestine violence through bombings and assassinations to create an atmosphere of terror or apprehension. Victims include Tsar Alexander II (1881), King Umberto of Italy (1900), Empress Elizabeth of Austria (1898) and Presidents Carnot (1894) of France and McKinley (1901). They justified this by stating that it mirrors the everyday violence of everyday society hence it is revolutionary justice. Russian populists portrayed violence as propaganda by the deed. The Russian Nihilist Sergey Nechayev ensured that the Narodnaya Volya – People’s Will – assassinated Tsar Alexander II, rather than using their resources to free him as was originally perpetuated by the group. In Catechism of a Revolutionary, Nechayev realised that the revolutionary is a doomed man. If his comrades succeed because of him taking a sacrifice then he had fulfilled his ‘duty’.
But said revolutionary violence and direct action is not limited to them, indeed the Bolsheviks – a faction in the Social Democrats – took power via the October Revolution in 1917, using weapons given to them by the 2nd Minister-Chairman of the Russian Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky during the Kornilov Affair. The Bolsheviks made an alliance with the Kronstadt Sailors, and with their ship the Aurora they enclosed the city, taking over communications and key strategic positions, and storming the Winter Palace.
Indeed, further violence took place in many less-economically-developed-countries [LEDCs] using the idea of Lenin’s Revolutionary Vanguard. Said Vanguard was comprised of devoted revolutionaries, well versed in Marxist ideology, who would lead the working class towards class consciousness to help provoke revolt.
These groups have one key thing in common with us, the Traditionalists: they are radicals.
2. The Path We Take
In Julius Evola’s Heathen Imperialism, Evola states that we have three possible paths to take as “the rhythm accelerates, [as] the circle of Western ‘civilisation’ threatens to close’ [Our European Symbol, Nietzsche Misunderstood]. He mentions that we can:
- Withdraw, putting up barriers and leaving everyone else behind, the lemmings, and to break the bridges before the sons of Muspell think of it (a reference to Ragnarok when the sons of Muspell ride over Bifrost) and hence prevent them from reaching us
- To accelerate the ongoing closing of the circle, provoking it, to give way to a new beginning
- Or we unite to revolt, with a ‘destructive force on one hand, with a creative force on the other’
To summarise, we either flee to the hills and never return, accelerate the decline in any way possible, or we mass-revolt and plunge the West into chaotic violence.
To note, Heathen Imperialism was written in 1928 and then again in 1933. In 1928 the Italian Fascists were well situated, although he particularly notes in The Path of Cinnabar that:
“The Fascist ‘revolution’ in Italy had only affected certain political bodies: even from a political perspective, it had only been a half-hearted attempt at revolution, which never led to the development of a coherent, systematic and uncompromising doctrine of the State.”
As such, the Italian ‘revolution’ of the Fascists led by Mussolini was ultimately one of failure. It was materialistic, it did not change society in the manner Evola perpetuated.
As we well know, times have changed. No longer is WWI weaponry circulating our markets, no longer can we avoid the ever-growing eye of the state through their means of electronic over watch, no longer can we battle the state in the streets without superior technology flying over us, and no longer can we rally enough men to the streets to take action like the brave men of the Blackshirts, the Brownshirts, the Legionaries; nay, for our men lack the heroic courage such heroes held. We shy from violence, we shy from wanting bad public reputation, we shy from any concrete action!
Of course, the latter bullet point does not necessarily dictate a mass revolt, but a battalion, Nietzsche’s “last Battalion” of men who, unlike the other men of the period, will shape the destiny of the future of the West against all odds. For Savitri Devi, the fallen fighters of 1945 were “against Time”, as are their heirs, they are “the bridge to supermanhood”. We are the sword of the Last One, the avatar of Vishnu, Kalki, of which the Vedas foretold, who shall come striking down and create a world anew. With or without a wielder, the fight must continue.
This overlaps with accelerationism. Indeed, with such times one must not give way to too much emphasis on violence, for the state shan’t be pleased. Accelerationism not only denotes violence (see the Years of Lead), but it also denotes the idea of breaking the System by any means possible. Actively take yourself out of the System. Go off-grid, do not feed the System! Be self reliant, not reliant on the state. Five, ten, one hundred, one thousand, one million – it does not matter how many do, it is still a punch to the System. The socialist Charles Fourier made experiments in communal living, such as 1800 member phalansteries. Harmony in Indiana (1824-9) was set up by Robert Owen, modelling it on the Israeli kibbutz system which was a cooperative rural settlement system. Many other such communes were established by both socialists and anarchists, with the majority being incredibly self-reliant.
As for Evola’s first point, this does convey the idea of total withdrawal, being completely off the grid, completely self-sufficient, isolated and hence a total recluse… From the perversions of the modern world, of the Kali Yuga. A path can be forged in which the hero, the Solar Warrior, the Men Against Time, can prevail and aid the ushering in of the new age – the Golden Age.
But this is only possible not just through the damaging of the System, but through the pursuit of the path of the Warrior, the becoming of the Aristocrat of the soul. Men must become and fulfill their destiny, they have to embody Evola’s Solar Warrior, the Man with a higher cause than himself, a Man fighting not just for his blood, his soil, but for the very spiritual foundation the West lays upon. He must fight for Truth.
“The good fighter does ‘what has to be done’ and does not let himself be troubled by any scepticism’ – Evola
He must not be stopped by petty materialistic desire, nor by himself, he must strip aside the petty I, the ego, the body – and conjoin his soul and spirit into one. He must manifest the being of a god, to become the overman.
“The blood of the heroes is closer to God than the ink of the philosophers and the prayers of the faithful.” – Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World
It is not by words, but by deeds.
“Fascism is not Tory Reaction in a black shirt or a brown shirt, but the steel piston of realist revolution.” – William Brooke Joyce
3. The Strangling Grasp of the State
As such, the matter of being a radical is not simply committing to senseless acts of violence, but for a larger purpose. You are no longer invested in yourself but for a higher cause, a justification from the spirit. You must be radical in deed, not by thought – the pen does not change society. As we face an uncertain future, one must look away from conventional politics which have entrapped not only us – the Traditionalists – through the means of the ‘Alt Right’, but also the socialists through the Fabian Society which was founded in 1884 which took up the cause of parliamentary socialism in the UK, taking the name from the Roman General Fabius Maximus who was a patient and defensive tactician against Hannibal’s invading armies. They accept the use of the state as a neutral arbiter, rather than the Marxist belief of it being as an agent of class oppression. Eduard’s Bernstien’s Evolutionary Socialism (1898) developed ideas that paralleled the Fabian belief in gradualism, progress brought about via gradual improvement rather than dramatic upheaval and is thus achieved through legal and peaceful reform. The traditional working class, composed of manual labourers in established heavy industries have declined in size, giving rise to the idea of two-thirds, one-third societies, giving the socialist the belief that they can gradually shift society through the ballot box. Both ends, for the Traditionalist and for the Communist, are dead ends and dead weight. As such, the ruling Elite have entrapped the radicals which threatens them most via the appeasement of the proletariat (be it through utilitarianism or social welfare) to halt any uprisings.
Charlottesville and the fiasco of the Unite the Right Rally should hence serve as a primary example as to how the Elite can keep the ‘Right’ subdued. The false lead of change through protest, through ‘numbers’ (albeit not many considering the hype towards the event and the actual number of viewers/members for all the websites/groups combined for this event), and through legality has caused such membership to become eunuchs. Eunuchs of whom are not willing to go further, who are emasculated by the state through such false hopes. Even now in the aftermath, with the comments of President Donald Trump denouncing the so-called ‘Alt-Left’ gives such members a false hope. They made no impact whatsoever, indeed their actions – rather ironically – has caused the further destruction of Confederate statues, monuments and even possibly graves (as some leftist groups claim to be plotting), and hence their idea of defending Robert E. Lee’s statue through legal means, of winning over both the public and government authorities, did not work. And now members who attended this event are facing consequences via the release of their personal information on social media, and is being encouraged not just by the public but also by the media and officials. As such their potentiality of losing their stake in society through means of a career and social standing is high. And without a stake, these disgruntled young men will have no means of economic prowess.
The Conservative One Nation view on this matter would be thus; growing social inequality contains the seeds of revolution, and without members of society fulfilling an acceptance of duty and obligations, the individual would succumb to a rebellious attitude. To quell such rebellious attitude, the Conservative Party Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli implemented the Second Reform Act of 1867, giving the right to vote to the working class, and improving the housing conditions and general hygiene. An analogy can be made to our current situation, with the unemployed being given free housing and benefits, such as a monthly income. As such, the newly unemployed due to their actions at this rally have two choices: to either remain cushy with the state and maintaining their so-called ‘stake’ in society, or they can turn to more radical measures. Thus far we have established that: the radicals of the left took power through non-conventional means of revolutionary violence and direct action, the need for the individual to fulfill the role of the Solar Warrior for a higher cause than himself, and the fact that the state has ensured entrapment of the radicals through false-leading incentives. As such, the participants from Charlottesville should pursue a new path as dictated; one of accelerationism.
Accelerationism denotes different things to different people: a total withdrawal, terrorism, or random mob violence. A clear-cut definition of accelerationism is simple: to speed up the decline of the state. Such a method should be employed by all those who are certain that:
- The decline of the state is occurring and its collapse is inevitable
- They have no obligations but to their cause
- They are willing maximum sacrifice
The revolutionaries who fought and died for the Anarchist utopian dream were not held back by material luxury, they were not held back by pondering on ‘what if?’. They were dedicated, they were fixated, and they knew what they wanted. One cannot and should not expect to be able to employ similar tactics to the ones of old in the 1920s and 1930s, nor indeed during the late 19th century under the various Anarchists. Instead, we have to look to a newer, updated vision. Upon using the three options given by Evola in part two, we can conclude that the best path forward is a self-reliant, effective route: and such a route would be the initiation of not only self-withdrawal from society, becoming autonomous and self-reliant, but of a decentralised framework of radicals whom – not endangering the larger group as a whole [as is the danger with a centralised system being infiltrated] – operate on, largely, their own. Of course, to go into depth on the matter would ensure not only the author and potentially reader being put on the watchlist of the state, but to get a lovely knock on the door by authorities. As such, the matter of much more radical and devoted matters shall remain untouched, leaving it to the reader’s imagination. However, one can explore methods employed by groups already in effect in the modern world.
The tactic of fear shall always remain an effective choice. Whereas it does not accelerate the decline per say, it does ensure that: the enemy knows of your presence, and the attraction of radicals to your group. I point to groups such as Atomwaffen Division and Antipodean Resistance, with their posters not only explicitly stating their views and intentions, but give them attention and a spotlight – allowing the establishment to spread their message far and wide. The tactic of self-reliance has been dropped around this post rather frequently. Self-reliance and offgrid living come hand in hand; you do not rely on the state for your electricity, you do not rely on the corporations for your food; instead you supply your own energy, instead you grow your own crops. Such independence grants you autonomy, such independence grants you a cheaper, humbler way to live. Indeed, with soaring prices of both land and houses in the UK – for example in 1987 the house price to earnings ratio was 3.2 compared to in 2015 5.1 – and the same trend occurring across Europe due to the growth in housing demand, there is sensibility for not only buying land and living cheaper, but to group together for such a purchase. Such a group purchase is a risky move, for not only do you throw yourself completely into the group you will be sharing with, you make a financial commitment. You effectively throw all your wagers in. All or nothing. Codreanu, although not going so far with this, ensured that all members for example paid a membership fee – their stake was now in the group, in the ideology, rather than with society. The Anarchist communes previously mentioned had operated in a good manner, with people from varying economic backgrounds being able to participate in such group purchases.
Finally, the tactic of compassion. What is meant by this is not one of peace, love and happiness, but one of doing good in the world. Casapound for example put to use the idea of squatting, illegally taking buildings for their own and aiding the poor, those without a community. This doesn’t just infer squatting, but taking up the aid of your local community, too – helping with projects around say your village, your town, your city block – resurrecting the lost community spirit, which has been ultimately fractured by the atomisation of the individual and the concern of the I. Such tactics seem obvious, but they help breed and attract the radical. The masses aren’t going to come flocking to your banner, we have seen the failure time and time again. You don’t want moderates who aren’t wholly committed, who back out at the last moment and say “well, I’m not a racist!” or “I’m not a Nazi, I just want to protect history!”, or whom do not stand by their comrades and abandon them for their own safety. What we want is to forge a community, a community of radicals who become a family, and not atomised individuals. We must escape from the snare of the state, who wish to impede our efforts, and not feed it – after all, the Alt-Right only give way for the Elite to play at their own game.
Become the Man Against Time, become part of the sword which will begin a new Golden Age, and do not be swallowed into the false ideals of hope through comfortable, democratic means. The path forward is one of hardship and sacrifice. It is one where you take the plunge, removing yourself from that stake which pins you to the government, and using that stake, plunging it fully into the Truth. Your stake must not belong to the government, but the Truth. Your stake is not theirs to hold onto. Become radical in motive and you shall become the man who you were destined to be.