Andrew hits another one out of the ballpark. Read it here.
His responses to reader comments are particularly good as well.
The antifa are the new Brownshirts.
Attack the System
Categories: Uncategorized
Editors
-
academiccompositionab
-
Empowerment Equalizer
-
SSaragian
-
Antony Sammeroff
-
Ann Sterzinger
-
Rodney
-
RJ
-
busterjames
-
cainusmaxus
-
Craig FitzGerald
-
David Heleniak
-
Caity & Dan Greene
-
keirmartland
-
Keith Preston
-
Bill the Butcher
-
ljp711
-
MRDA
-
Jack Donovan
-
Rachel Haywire
-
comrade hermit
-
Michael
-
Vince
-
robertstark2014
-
Noonan
-
S E Pearson
-
Rachel Haywire
-
Nexus X Humectress
If mass immigration and “diversity” are part of the new ruling class ideology, then the so-called “antifa” are merely useful idiots and unwitting enforcers of the very system they’ve been deluded into thinking they oppose. You can’t even call them controlled oppositon at this point, because they’ve went far beyond that. Are there any hisorical precedents for this?
“Are there any historical precedents for this?”
Sure, there are. What about the Red Guards from the era of the Cultural Revolution?
They essentially played the same role in Chinese society as the antifa do in the West today. Both are examples of violent youth gangs who think they’re being rebellious by attacking “reactionaries” but in reality they’re just being used by those at the top to squelch dissent. The antifa are to Cultural Marxism/totalitarian humanism what the Red Guards were to Maoism.
How long do you think it will take before people on the left realize this and jump ship to our side?
Talking to leftist friends of mine, I’ve explained the reasons I look down on anti-fascists, and they generally agree (with possibly one or two exceptions) that the violence and thuggery perpetrated by the anti-fascists is counter-productive and unnecessary, but they still can’t let go of the idealism of the cause. The reason for this is the pervasive paranoia that a violent nationalist revolution is just around the corner, and that the only people brave enough to stand up to it are our antifascist friends. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth; nationalist movements are feeble in the West, considering the economic and social circumstances they could be exploiting to their advantage.
Once this irrational fear of the Nazis under the bed can be dealt with, and the realities of the 21st-century break apart the consensus-hallucination that it’s still 1968, then I guess the more morally consistent and intellectually advanced sectors of the Left *might* start to cautiously edge towards us as an alternative.
When I was first developing my worldview, I felt politically homeless. On the one hand, I knew the empire, police state, corporate system and such were the main enemy, but I also knew something was seriously wrong with the cultural analysis offered by the academic left, particularly in its authoritarian forms. So ultimately I was left with oddy syncretic views. When I first discovered the ENR, NA, NB, and so forth, Ir realized I wasn’t alone. I hope we can be the next great dissident movement in this country.
Quagmire,
“How long do you think it will take before people on the left realize this and jump ship to our side?”
I think the PC coalition will last a few more decades. As it becomes more deeply entrenched, it will have fewer and fewer qualms about showing its true fangs. We’re already starting to see that, both in terms of the private behavior of the leftoids (like the recent attack on BANA), and in terms of state policy, like efforts in Britain to criminalize racist jokes. As this happens, many former PC sympathizers will turn away from the Left. There are two relevant quotes here:
Pablo Picasso: “I went to Communism as one goes to a spring of fresh water.”
Arthur Koestler: “I went to Communism as one goes to a spring of fresh water, and I left Communism as one clambers out of a poisoned river strewn with the wreckage of flooded cities and the corpses of the drowned.”
Take out the words “Communism” and put it “political correctness,” “multiculturalism,” “Cultural Marxism,” or something similar, and you’ll have the sentiments a lot of reformed leftoids will be expressing decades from now.
Of course, just as there were Commies who held on to their illusions until the very end, there will be some people on the totalitarian humanist Left who will do the same. They will have their own Malcolm Caldwells in the future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Caldwell
Luke,
“I’ve explained the reasons I look down on anti-fascists, and they generally agree (with possibly one or two exceptions) that the violence and thuggery perpetrated by the anti-fascists is counter-productive and unnecessary, but they still can’t let go of the idealism of the cause.”
That was the case with many of the old true believers in Communism as well. They knew in their hearts it was a fucked up mess, but they just couldn’t let go of the ideal.
“Once this irrational fear of the Nazis under the bed can be dealt with, and the realities of the 21st-century break apart the consensus-hallucination that it’s still 1968, then I guess the more morally consistent and intellectually advanced sectors of the Left *might* start to cautiously edge towards us as an alternative.”
We’ve also seen a hint of that with the conversion of TELOS to DeBenoistism. We”ll see more of that in the future. Right now, the West is in a similar place to where America was with its anti-communist hysteria from the 50s and early 60s. Serious thinkers from that time, ranging from Lawrence Dennis to Ludwig von Mises, realized Communism was more a threat to the Communists than to the West, or certainly the US. Likewise, as you say, the present Nazi threat held out by these people is simply irrational phantom-chasing. It has infinitely less credibility than the supposed Communist threat of that time. After all, Communism did rule much of the world at the time. There are no Nazi nations at present. The present day “anti-fascist” hysteria will start to thaw eventually, and some real rebellion will begin, just like the thaw in anti-Communist hysteria coincided with the rebellions of the 60s.
“On the one hand, I knew the empire, police state, corporate system and such were the main enemy, but I also knew something was seriously wrong with the cultural analysis offered by the academic left, particularly in its authoritarian forms.”
That was my experience as well. I was actively involved with the radical Left from roughly 1986 to 1992, and remained a fellow traveler for a few years after that. I started moving towards the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist camp in ’94 and ’95 and then towards the patriot movement. When I discovered N-A, 3-P, ENR, N-B, etc. in the late 90s/early 2000s, I had already developed a similar outlook in all but name.
“I hope we can be the next great dissident movement in this country.”
Well, my theory of revolution is a kind of “trickle down/trickle up” outlook. Revolutions are made by intellectual counter-elites who replace old elites in the intellectual realm. The new ideas then “trickle down” to activists, radicals, students, political dissidents, educated people who are followers but not true intellectuals, bohemians, counterculturalists, rebellious youth, the lumpenproles, etc., i.e., all of the marginal elements or declasse’ elements in society. Then it moves into the respectable poor, the working class, the middle class, and finally becoming a new establishment. At that point, the revolutionary cycle is complete. Then new problems arise, and the cycle repeats itself.
Right now, we are in the process of gathering the “counter-elite.” As I see it, that’s what projects like ARV/ATS, N-A, ENR, AltRight, RPN, neo-secessionism, paleo-anarchism, some of the more radical an-caps, some of the more radical patriots, a revived and more sophisticated militia movement, etc. are all about. Eventually, it will start trickling down. It already is, with the growth of the youth movement influenced by Ron Paul, the continuing spread of N-As ideas, and so forth. And it will keep building.
There will likely be another wave of rebellions in the US, perhaps similar to what happened in the 60s, but from the revolutionary Right, rather than the revolutionary Left. The more genuinely enlightened sectors of the Left will eventually come over to our side. I envision the revolutionary Right fighting the pigs in the streets eventually, just like the hippies, yippies, Black Panthers, Weathermen, and SDSers did in the 60s, only we’ll be a lot better at it. The reactionary Left (e.g. antifa, anarcho-leftoids, Commies) will play the role of the hardhats of the 60s, i.e., self-appointed vigilantes on behalf of the establishment.
Some interesting things seem to be happening in the US, but the state of politics here in the UK is fucking dire. Despite the usual blather about ‘voter apathy’, I have seen more pious evangelism about voting (but not for any right-wing parties, naturally) this election than ever before. The educated sectors are completely taken in by liberal humanism, and the only visible opposition to PC comes from unsavoury populists with all the charisma of an overripe banana. I guess since 1945 the US has pretty much been at the forefront of this civilisation (for good and ill), so things may get more interesting in years to come.
“The educated sectors are completely taken in by liberal humanism, and the only visible opposition to PC comes from unsavoury populists with all the charisma of an overripe banana.”
Speaking of which, what is your assessment of the BNP? Some of my associates admire them or are sympathetic to them, while I tend to view them as reactionaries who are really aren’t worth thinking about.
Btw, I’m also wondering about your assessment of the UK Independence Party. I think I’d be much more inclined in their direction than I would the BNP. What’s your take on the UKIP?
“Speaking of which, what is your assessment of the BNP? Some of my associates admire them or are sympathetic to them, while I tend to view them as reactionaries who are really aren’t worth thinking about.”
That’s pretty much my opinion of them. Certain N-As have stated that, from having known him in the past, Nick Griffin would not hesitate to adopt an openly fascist/Nazi line if he thought he could get away with it. I would not be surprised if the same applied for most of the upper ranks of the party. In any case, the party is largely made up of social rejects, thugs, and reactionary morons. This is largely why they are such a joke on the political scene, despite desperate attempts to reinvent themselves as a respectable populist party after several decades of neo-Nazi lunacy.
“Btw, I’m also wondering about your assessment of the UK Independence Party. I think I’d be much more inclined in their direction than I would the BNP. What’s your take on the UKIP?”
UKIP are definitely preferable to the BNP, and promote some policies which make them interesting. However, they suffer from opportunism like the BNP; they have supported a ban on burkas, as part of their Sarkozyesque brand of assimilationist nationalism. They are basically a bunch of shitheads who’ve defected from the increasingly centrist Conservative Party, so any worthwhile elements within them will be lost soon enough.
Interestingly, Aidan Rankin has links to UKIP as well as Third Way (now renamed the National Liberal Party), who are probably one of the least objectionable (and naturally one of the least successful) parties in British politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_%28UK%29
He’s also written articles for Alternative Green, if I’m not mistaken.
I am similarly unimpressed by most Euro-nationalist parties, and I see the neccessity of the New Right in contering the damage they inflict to the cause.
“However, they suffer from opportunism like the BNP; they have supported a ban on burkas, as part of their Sarkozyesque brand of assimilationist nationalism. ”
That reminded me of a statement in this old article on the ENR.
“Communism’s goal of world-wide revolution was always explicit, but liberalism’s projects for uplift are just as universalist. Muslims must be made into feminists; Japanese must become anti-racists; Africans must be taught democracy; Chinese must eat hamburgers. Despite its constant preachments about “tolerance,” liberalism is therefore as harshly intolerant as any religious inquisition and would gladly remake the entire world in the image of a leftist American university.”
http://foster.20megsfree.com/406.htm
“Interestingly, Aidan Rankin has links to UKIP as well as Third Way…”
I’ve seen a lot of good articles from him:
http://foster.20megsfree.com/551.htm
http://foster.20megsfree.com/545.htm
Btw, Rankin also has a really negative critique of the UKIP:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200406140013
LOL, his description of the UKIP sounds a lot like the right-wing in America.
“more pious evangelism about voting”
I endured a fucking browbeating from a democratard friend of mine who, despite acknowledging the mendacity of those in the political sphere, believed that voting was a means to fight/resist the system and abstention constituted submission. I had to laugh at that one. Some people like rolling their Sisyphean boulders as if it makes a difference.
I simply did the same thing I did last time there was an election and defaced my ballots.
Also, I’m glad those BNP fucks lost their Barking seats.
“democratard”
That’s a great term. I’ll have to start to using it (I hope you haven’t copyrighted it-LOL!)
Barking: sounds like a suitable stronghold for a party that seems to have the brains of canine.
We’ve got the Tea Partiers on our side of the pond, you’ve got the BNP over there.
MRDA: Having experienced a number of similar morally outraged liberals trying to emotionally blackmail me into agreeing with them, I can fully sympathise. ‘Democratard’ – I think I might have to pick up that word too!
Keith: That’s an apt comparison. The BNP adopt a pose of redundant, Union-flag waving patriotism that has more in common with an international football match than a serious political stance, in the same way the Tea Partiers defend modern neoconservatism under the guise of geriatric American jingoism.
Have you guys ever read any of these: Hans Hermann Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God That Failed,” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s “Liberty or Equality,” or Carl Schmitt’s “The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy”?
Those three works utterly destroy “democratard” ideology and presumptions.
Alas, I have not. Hoppe’s book has been on my to-buy list for some time now. The other two have been added.
Carl Schmitt has been somewhat tainted by his association with Nazism, has he not?
Yes, in terms of his reputation in the academic world. That’s a whole different issue that is extremely complicated. The work of Schmitt I cited was done during the Weimar period, before Schmitt’s association with the Hitler regime in its very early period. If you want to get into that, a very good work on Schmitt that covers these issues is Joseph Bendersky’s “Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich.” Bendersky was one of my professors in graduate school. He’s an expert on Nazi history, the Holocaust, WW2, European intellectual history, and so forth, and he knew Schmitt personally when Schmitt was still alive in Germany in the 70s. He argues strongly against the “proto-Nazi” interpretation of Schmitt, and his politics are those of a liberal in the vein of “The Nation.” He’s also Jewish. So he’s not someone who would have even a slight bit of Nazi sympathy, obviously.
Schmitt’s works critique the inherently contradictory theoretical foundation of the liberal democratic state, and the sham of parliamentary democracy. I wrote a bit about Schmitt here:
http://attackthesystem.com/2009/05/the-political-theory-of-carl-schmitt/
This essay was originally a grad school paper I did on Schmitt.
This makes for a good democratard-repellent, too:
http://promethea.org/Misc_Compositions/TextVersions/text_CritiquesofDemocracy.html
In fact, the whole sight is well worth delving into.
*That should be ‘site’, in the last sentence.