Left and Right

You Would Do Your Will

Haywire shoots off some sparks…


By Rachel Haywire

What if natural law rendered it so you were a woman? What if natural law rendered it so you were Jewish? What would you do in this situation? Probably your will.

Picture yourself in this situation for a moment. You would become a rabid feminist and use sex appeal to control all the men around you. You would become a hardcore Zionist and fight for your nation because might equals right. Don’t try to deny it for a second. Code of honor amongst individualists and intellectuals. You would do your will.

The feminists are all trying to chop off your dicks. Israel is oppressing you. Poor little male existentialist victim. You sound like an oppressed moron and have become the PC culture that you despise. Why are you hating people for abiding by the rules of the jungle which you, dear enlightened male, are so enamored with? You cry because you are being oppressed by the iron fists of feminism and Zionism.

This article is for you.

Survival of the fittest means that anybody, and yes that means anybody, can rape/kill/destroy/control anyone else through human functions of power and opportunity. This means that anyone can make you feel like a pathetic insect despite your knowledge of esoteric nationalism. Even liberals and progressives who have not left-the-left can control you with their predatory instincts. Why are you so butthurt about this?

I understand that your causes are very important and that Europa is dead. We are all weeping with our trendy runes and whatnot. You are preserving your culture by stopping the decay and filth of [well you get the point] and these feminists are just too hardcore. Why do you sound like you are at a bad hipster protest?

You would do your will. This is a reaction against your reaction. You have become the oppressed. I am not saying that you are a weak subhuman who is asking to be stomped on. I am simply stating that a jungle is a jungle and that nationalism is nationalism. What is so hard to comprehend about this concept? Maybe you deserve to be slapped like a bitch.

We have accepted that the head of the KKK has more in common with the head of the Black Panthers than all those college students holding hands on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. Can we not, by extension of this uber-divine awareness, accept that the intellectual subgroups of the white nationalist community would do their will if they were Jewish women?

As people who have left-the-left we should know better than to condemn fellow travellers who wish to assert themselves in this land of blood and honor.

40 replies »

  1. David Powell, wrong I know such a rabid feminist who brags of such exploits in the name of reclaiming her power.
    I have grown up around feminist and some were very rabbit and were very entitled little winches that instead of seeking real independence by personal accomplishments they instead acted as if any man they had sex with owed them the sun the moon the stars and all of his wealth.

  2. This is…..word salad, pretty much. Lots of buzzwords, but I can’t actually see a meaning anywhere. I’m sure it’s very provocative and thought-provoking to anyone who’s able to dig through the self-congratulatory rhetoric, but frankly, I’m not interested enough.

  3. Rachel – Political types like linear narratives. Any but the most obvious political and cultural satire and, of course, surreal viewpoints are generally beyond them. This is in large part why politics is so boring. The place for this post is on your own blog, not here. Constructive discussion stopped working on unmoderated forums back when Usenet was on its way out.

    All you have in common with this crowd is disgust with the bi-partisan consensus built into the two-party system. Lots of people feel that way.

    Your old following that enjoys the kind of essays and music you created to shake people out of their old reality tunnels is scattered to the four winds. It is obviously not here. To get an audience for your work outside the box that’s safe and comfortable for your current one, you are going to rebuild that audience from scratch, and point them at your new work.

    Your old followers who used to look for this kind of interesting work from you are still out there somewhere, and the potential market for your creative work as writer and musician is much larger than it used to be because the Internet is far larger than it used to be.

    You’re good at self-promotion, do some someplace else. I believe that you will find rebuilding your market both personally and financially rewarding.

  4. Actually the comments on ATS are generally thought provoking and worthy of debate.

    Some people just like to troll.

    Would love some real critique here which I what I visit ATS for.

    • I assume that “your will” as you are using the phrase here is the unexamined human will which is not the same as True Will in an esoteric context. In that sense, everybody does their will. Or more accurately, as much of that will as they think they can get away with.

      Examine the psychological dynamics of the people who choose the esoteric nationalist reality tunnel as you attempt to turn those dynamics inside out by suggesting they use the lens of their own stereotype of a Jewish intellectual woman to analyze their own behavior.

      Why did they choose this tunnel to help them cope with a world in which makes them a voluntary member of a minority among the shrinking minority population they have no choice about belonging to? There are many possible voluntarily chosen group identities, why pick this? Why use the mental tool kit that goes with that belief system to cope with a reality it increasingly doesn’t fit? Why not choose the appearance of power by adopting the public ideologies of those they believe have power over them?

      As you said, people use the resources and tools available to them (e.g. feminist ideology… sex appeal… or missile-carrying drones… or marketing budget) to empower their ideologies and goals regardless of what the ideology is and that who one is and what one’s goals are is really is immaterial to this, except as these ideologies and goals constrain their use of these resources and tools.

      Symbolism as a substitute for thinking is as prevalent in right-wing movements as it is among trendy hipsters, why should it be otherwise? Both groups contain domesticated primates. The symbolism can be looked at as a set of buttons to push to trigger sequences of essentially robotic behavior. PR / marketing / political consulting is essentially figuring out where the buttons are and how to push them in one’s target demographics.

      The buttons are going to be very different when one deals with hipsters and nationalists, though the drives that underlie the individuals in these groups won’t be all that different. People look to create situations which they believe will provide maximum advantage for them and the groups they identify with. Definitions of “maximum advantage” differ between individuals and groups, some include “enlightened self-interest”, most don’t.

      Hatred is not a particularly useful tool in analyzing the behavior of those whose goals do not match yours. At least if one intends to win and not merely to entertain oneself and one’s peer group.

      Heads of authoritarian hierarchies have more in common with each other than they have with people who aren’t even within their organizations, and this is regardless of the public purposes of the organizations they control. They usually have even less in common with people who don’t happen to be in their organizations, and far less in common with those who prefer not to be within organizations with authoritarian hierarchies.

      • These are very good questions:

        “Why did they choose this tunnel to help them cope with a world in which makes them a voluntary member of a minority among the shrinking minority population they have no choice about belonging to? There are many possible voluntarily chosen group identities, why pick this? Why use the mental tool kit that goes with that belief system to cope with a reality it increasingly doesn’t fit? Why not choose the appearance of power by adopting the public ideologies of those they believe have power over them?”

        My response would be related cultural esoterica and possessing a greater interest in fringe/extreme thought than traditional political ideologies. Much of the intelligentsia has become cookie-cutter PC which also serves to explain the esoteric nationalist subculture having an identity.

        The reaction to PC culture will always be more interesting than PC culture itself. Unfortunately, as you seem to have alluded to, it is not interesting enough.

  5. makes me think of Doctor No’s conference of international bad guys. Imagine a secret lair someplace where the representatives of the KKK, Christian Identity, Black Panthers, La Raza, ETA, Nazi Party, NOW, ACT UP and Zionists all meet and are bitching because all the normal people have interbred with each other so everybody looks similar and has sex and makes babies with whoever they want……

    • Well except for the last part… it would make sense that these people would have more in common intellectually than anyone else… simply because they have radical ideas that are not accepted by the mainstream.

  6. All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.
    Jiddu Krishnamurti
    …thats all i wanna say about it…

  7. To the extent this is about translating will to power into action, I would agree; to the extent we are talking about how others respond to assertive behavior, I think Rachel has it right. It is the discomfiture with a set of circumstances one is unfamiliar with that ought to be the enlightening part of the exchange: I don’t learn as much if I am kept in my own, undisturbed sinecure in my hierarchy, but the image of suffering under the impact of the tools that have traditionally been used on my behalf should be an eye-opening experience.

    I don’t particularly care that it’s a feminist or a jew, and frankly neither did Nietzsche (he mostly detested contemporary Germans). How do we rise above the hierarchies, and how else other than to show the hierarchies render themselves impotent when they all wind up using the same mechanisms of command and control? Aren’t they all ‘subhuman’, and (referring to the last ‘Anonymous’ point) the shared perspective of the heads of hierarchies just establishes it is THEIR system that ultimately needs to be smashed to make way for the new humanity?

  8. I wrote a book once, and spent many hours editing it. As I was reading this piece, I didn’t find one typo or example of bad grammar, as David Powell suggests. Maybe that’s why the Disinformation company, which publishes books that are huge in the radical underground community (as opposed to the “liberal” community), published Rachel’s essay “Eris is my Biatch” in their book “Generation Hex” about personal experiences with magic.

    Maybe when you get published in some place other than some blog you write in your mother’s basement, you can play the grammar Nazi, but until then, shut the fuck up.

  9. I wrote a book once, and spent many hours editing it. As I was reading this piece, I didn’t find one typo or example of bad grammar, as David Powell suggests. Maybe that’s why the Disinformation company, which publishes books that are huge in the radical underground community (as opposed to the “liberal” community), published Rachel’s essay “Eris is my Biatch” in their book “Generation Hex” about personal experiences with magic.

    Maybe when you get published in some place other than some blog you write in your mother’s basement, you can play the grammar Nazi, but until then, shut the fuck up.

  10. “Generation Hex”

    I thought that was a terrible book and most of the essays were Neo-New Age raver influenced pseudo-occultist drivel. He would’ve published almost any young person that wrote about drugs and masturbation just to fill it’s pages. They don’t even produce the thing anymore…

    This essay is ‘better’ than the one in Generation Hex which contained the following literary gem:

    “Fascism! Smash the state of mind! Vagina police? Raping the good of mankind? Stop trying to be so tryingless. Womankind hates you, sweet horror of pain. Blink 182 will never understand hatred. George W. Bush is Hitler. All the shit you listen to is influenced by George W. Bush. Fuck your ideology! Fuck your Hitler! Fuck your supremacy! Time raped space.” [That is an actual paragraph.]

    Perhaps I’m just bitter because no one would buy the fucking thing from me on Ebay…or maybe I’m just doing my will.

        • Not yet but now that you mention it…. let’s have a few on standby.

          It is a metaphor to describe PC culture/law/morality appearing more important than it actual is. I followed up to say that Blink 182 would never understand hatred.

          Nobody wants to know that all their music is influenced by Hitler. It’s reactionary in the face of postmodernism and not apologetic for this.

          You may like the rest of my book more.

  11. I would have to second (Or third, or fourth?) that Rachel has indeed got it right with this article. It is dog eats cat world and naturally the cats will adapt and take it into their own hands.

    • Unfortunately, I had to delete some comments from one particular troll because he was posting personal information about one of our participants without her consent and in an harassing way.

  12. There are plenty of commas in the essay. And the Disinformation Company is it’s own entity. *I* published my book on Lulu. I never said I was a “Published Author.” I simply said I wrote a book. I proof-read things for my fellow students in my psychology program occasionally.

    The real reason I worded my response the way I worded it is because Everyone knows that “David Powell” stalks Rachel and attacks anything and everything she does because of some fucked-up delusion he has. He is completely obsessed with Rachel for reasons only “David Powell” understands. Personally I think it’s just sad and pathetic,

    I wonder if it has occurred to him to maybe get a life?

    As for the essay itself, it reminded me a lot of the work of Jim Goad. And considering Jim Goad is one of my favorite authors, that’s a compliment.

  13. You expected that nobody here would be familiar with the mindlessly stupid personal attacks against her that you’ve been spamming the Internet with for at least a decade.

    You’ve posted so much of that crap in so many places that it’s going to be increasingly difficult for you to find places where nobody has heard of you and therefore might be inclined to take seriously anything you say.

    I was bored with your screeching “she’s crazy” and “she’s dangerous” and “She Has Committed Evil Deeds!!!” (trivial by the standards of a sane person) all over chunks of cyberspace I happened to be in for several years before I ever ran across her creative work as musician and writer.

    I have reason enough to despise you, I’m sure if I knew you personally, I’d have many others.

    Your creative work? [crickets chirping]

    Hers? Anyone into industrial music knows Experiment Haywire. The NYT “Bits & Bytes” blog has pointed people at her writing. She has respect because she has earned it.

    You don’t get respect for your work, your opinions, and as a person because you deserve none.

    The Internet and the world would be a better place if you weren’t in either.

      • I most certainly am talking about “David Powell”. Would have mentioned him by name if I had realized that where my comment was going to be placed would make it not obvious. New online environment for me and things don’t work quite as I expect them to.

  14. Rachel, it’s great to hear a voice talking about perspective and human nature. This is something I try to consider in my own (amateur) fiction writing. These seemingly incidental things in our lives do a lot to shape us.

    Your argument harkins to writing by Audre Lorde.

  15. If I was a Jewish woman I would have the same humanitarian perspective I do now, my race, religion, and class are not factors when it comes to my sense of right, wrong, and general justice. I don’t fit into a stereotype because of my gender or do what my nationality would be expected to do for I am not a slave to cultural norms or sociological expectations. If a cultural norm differs from my morality, it may not apply to me. I would continue to be a humanitarian which would not include feminism but female empowerment. Being Jewish has nothing to do with being a Zionist specifically, Zionism is a political movement and most Jews are not Zionists. I think you’re making excuses for extremes but they are not all the same and they are not all to be tolerated equally if at all by those with common sense. As a Jewish woman, like many other Jewish women, I would be against Zionism and political oppression in the name of religion, and I would believe in female empowerment (something the Jews do not believe in). A Zionist Feminist would indeed be a paradox anyway because Zionism includes Chauvinism. I really love the creativity of your writing, I feel offended at the excuse you try to make for extremists. We are individuals, and our will should be individual or it was never really our will but one presented to us through propaganda and populace. I never saw you as a follower of the pack, Rachel, so indeed you may need to question “what is my will as myself, and not as a label I put on myself like Jew or Woman, am I indeed more than these mere labels? What is my personal will?” and I will find your purpose is less political and more personal and emotive. To undo the labels set for you, and become yourself, as if you already have not. You always recreate yourself religiously like the constantly cycling words of your writing circling to conclusions of life’s many paradoxes. Only the wittiest and most clever can read through your passages, and they are indeed always always thought provoking. Especially when they break our many comfort zones. Cheers!

  16. I like this essay a lot. Indeed, it is the first step of empathy to step out of your own worldview and try to see things through others’ eyes. It’s the only hope of communication: what would make sense to me if I were him or her?

    I agree that everybody “does his or her will” but this doesn’t go very deep for me. The hard part isn’t doing your will but figuring out that it is your will — that you are *actually choosing it*. So if you’re addicted to crack or avoiding people because you have low self esteem, there is a level at which you are constantly recreating the identity that makes that choice rational and reasonable.

    However, that’s the kicker with how this essay is framed: it takes an individual’s identity as static, and then what their will is becomes a simple exercise. But you can also *change* your identity, and with it your worldview, the spectrum of choices available, the character of the situations you’re in, etc.

    Sure, will is the pursuit of one’s interests, but what one thinks one is constitutes the secret sauce that *defines* those interests, that provides the foundation of the narrative one then pursues as an act of will. Who you think you are determines what you think your interests are, and how you will engage the driveshaft or will and act to see it done.

    I guess part of the philosophy of ARV is that we accept people’s chosen identities as a given, because we would not dictate to them. But it seems to me that it would be useful if there were some way we could encourage people to scrutinize the identities they’ve adopted, because our political program depends so much on how people frame their interests and act on them in concert with others’.

    • That is a very good point. One of the problems with “identity politics” (can someone please come up with a better term?) is the whole “this person is gay so they have to be a social activist” or “this person is poor so they have to be liberal” thing. We have complete freedom of action despite what we are born into and are capable of making our own choices despite our circumstances. Not everyone who is A has to do B.

      I would still say there is a sense of pride we have as human beings that makes us honor ourselves and our circumstances. While we don’t have to do “the cool thing” in our identity group we still must acknowledge who we are. Without identity we would lose our individuality and become assimilated into a massive groupmind.

      • People generally make their choices, electoral and otherwise based on their perception of their own best interests.

        “Best interests” is defined here for most people as whatever will enhance the probability that one’s personal environment will be safe, secure, comfortable, and fun. One is free to have other priorities than those and to exercise one’s will in accordance with those priorities.

        The viewpoint that shapes this perception of “best interests”, however one defines them, is a combination of their individual interests and the interests of what groups they perceive themselves as belonging to; a group might be a family, a gender, gender preference, ethnic / tribal identity, subculture, nation, etc.

        What group identities are most important to an individual?

        If one is identifiable via hard-to-change external cues as a group member, that group identification will usually be a high priority in making one’s political choices. If for no other reason than that xenophobic calls for government action against one defined group or another is so frequently a part of political marketing, and if the candidate attached to those calls win, the members of that group are in deep shit if they are visibly members.

        One is perfectly free to act against one’s best interests and people usually do when they make political choices.

        Marketing, including political marketing, is largely for the purpose of persuading individuals to act against any reasonable perception of their own best interests, and it frequently manipulates people using symbols related to the groups their demographic analyses and polling tell them are most accessible to this form of manipulation.

        All one can realistically do is to learn as many of the relevant and verifiable facts as possible relevant to a choice, try to dump the marketing spin surrounding them, figure out what one’s best interests truly are, and determine how to exercise one’s own will in response to them.

        What people usually do instead is to believe what they has been sold through political marketing in a media disinformation environment.

      • Well, not everybody who is A is even A, or only A… they could be A(1) or A(2) or even Z or some other thing or (my preference) all of them in some sense and none of them in some other sense. We impose these categories on ourselves because this is Francis Bacon’s world; we’re just living in it (ok, so Descartes and Montiesque and others contributed too). The enlightenment brought us its share of intellectual detritus, but that’s no reason we have to internalize the madness of mass politics.

        I totally agree that identity is crucial, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t arbitrary, that it isn’t in some senses an utter accident. We need vibrant cultures that give us fixed meaning and sometimes silly constraints — if for no other reason than for the individual to have something to liberate himself or herself from. I don’t think collectives will ever conquer the individual anymore than they do now, but they can make the world mighty fucking boring if they are absolutely empowered.

      • I could shorten my reply to say “identity in the sense of commitments to a folkway or sense of tribal purpose is totally different than identity as a demographic definition”. I think both are equal in their absolute artificiality; what makes them different is the way that people think about themselves in one vs. the other.

Leave a Reply