#Fróði Midjord | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jgmail · 4 years

Text

Dugin Guideline No. 92: EL SECRETO DE TWIN PEAKS. ¿Qué hay más allá del surrealismo de las películas de David Lynch?

Por Alexander Dugin

Traduccion de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

Nos preguntamos sobre los principales secretos de las películas de David Lynch. Como director bien conocido, se desborda al hablarnos sobre la realidad de hoy. ¿Por qué la serie "Twin Peaks" se percibe actualmente como una utopía rural de Estados Unidos?

Hola, estás viendo el programa de Dugin Guideline.

Recientemente participé en un programa dedicado a David Lynch, donde fui invitado en el contexto del proyecto Decamerón. Las personas se comunican entre sí por Skype, en línea, y cuentan diferentes historias, discuten diferentes películas. Se llama Guide to Kulchur (proyecto en idioma inglés). Allí hablamos de David Lynch. Resultó una conversación muy interesante. Les diré algunos de sus elementos principales.

Aunque Lynch es considerado posmoderno, popular entre los hipsters y los liberales, el organizador del proyecto Guide to Kulchur, un conservador de derecha estadounidense (Fróði Midjord), dijo que le gustaba Lynch (lo que pone a la mayoría de sus seguidores en la oposición). Le respondí que era un conservador ruso, pero también me gusta Lynch.

Mi colega señaló que en Twin Peaks, todas las acciones se implementan en el interior de los Estados Unidos, en una pequeña ciudad donde no hay intercambios ni migración, donde viven los estadounidenses comunes y clásicos, y todo lo que les sucede tiene a los ojos de los estadounidenses modernos el encanto de la tradición, la antigüedad. Twin Peaks es una utopía conservadora. La gente camina lentamente, todos se conocen, conocen las rarezas del otro, aunque a veces exóticas y surrealistas, todos se conocen cara a cara. No son parte de la máquina urbana citadina. Esta es la utopía rural de Estados Unidos.

No pensé en esto al mirar Twin Peaks, pero apoyé esta idea con placer. Quizás, para los estadounidenses con su cultura específica, Twin Peaks es el Estados Unidos más profundo, defendido por aquellos que no están de acuerdo con la globalización, el liberalismo de izquierda, la sociedad civil, Soros, Obama, Clinton... En cierto sentido, el electorado de Trump, o simplemente la gente común.

Es interesante que cuando Lynch muestra a los residentes de Twin Peaks como personas extremadamente extrañas, viviendo al borde de la locura, involucradas en las perversiones más profundas y de pie en el umbral del otro mundo (que invade sus vidas de vez en cuando), esto sigue siendo un mundo ideal, pastoral y positivo en comparación con esa pesadilla, que son grandes ciudades estadounidenses: paisajes urbanos, modernidad estadounidense, lo opuesto al interior.

Si la esquizofrenia surrealista de un pequeño pueblo estadounidense es una antítesis positiva (a los ojos de algunos conservadores) de la América urbana, con Wall Street y las grandes corporaciones, entonces esto dice mucho sobre la sociedad estadounidense. Nunca se me ocurrió percibir a Twin Peaks como el Macondo de Márquez en "100 años de soledad"... Como un mundo ideal, la utopía. Y para los estadounidenses, tal vez esa es su lectura...

Continuemos diciendo que la verdadera América es una ciudad pequeña, Twin Peaks. Noté cómo Lynch restaura sutilmente la estructura de los tres niveles de la imagen tradicional del mundo. Con ironía, giros irónicos... Pero, de hecho, lo extraño de la narrativa de Twin Peaks es que la acción tiene lugar en tres niveles a la vez.

Por extraño que parezca, esta es una característica tradicional del teatro clásico, cuando junto con las acciones en el mundo medio, se implica la presencia de dos dimensiones adicionales. En Twin Peaks es Black Lodge y White Lodge. Están en contacto con el mundo de Twin Peaks: no escuchamos casi nada sobre White Lodge, sino mucho sobre Black. La invasión de Black de la vida normal de los habitantes de Twin Peaks da lugar a vórtices, distorsiones de la vida espacialmente existencial, que constituyen la esencia de la narrativa de Lynch.

De hecho, Lynch está restaurando una ontología tridimensional, que es una tradición clásica del cristianismo, de las mitologías indoeuropeas, de las tradiciones no cristianas, de lo griego...

De hecho, vivimos en una de las dimensiones, que está condicionalmente en el centro, y encima de nosotros y debajo de nosotros existen otros mundos. La población de Black Lodge de Lynch también corresponde a la mitología clásica: por ejemplo, a los enanos o los gigantes. Ambos son tipos pos-antropológicos limítrofes, entre los cuales se encuentra la persona. Los Gigantes y los enanos son las figuras limitantes necesarias que le recuerdan a la persona la relatividad de sus posiciones. Del mismo modo, la presencia de Black y White Lodge subraya los límites de la competencia humana. Donde comienza la esfera de influencia de Black Lodge, explota la frontera de la competencia humana. En particular, Twin Peaks se refiere a la invasión de BOB desde el mundo inferior, que invade a Leland, el asesino, y luego al propio Dale Cooper. Y luego la idea tridimensional de la estructura del mundo cambia por completo el énfasis: entonces el surrealismo de Lynch deja de tener sentido como puede parecer a primera vista.

El propio Lynch dijo que su forma de hacer una película no es la de un guion terminado, sino que el guion se crea durante el rodaje. Solo saben aproximadamente a dónde van: dibujan su narrativa en el curso del desarrollo. Y dado que son sensibles a la influencia de las dimensiones paralelas (especialmente la inferior), logran reproducir brillantemente la atmósfera de suspenso, de expectativa. No solo la audiencia espera que la trama cambie, sino que Lynch mismo no lo sabe. Da una oportunidad, y la película toma fotos de sí misma. Esta atención a la presencia de estas dimensiones adicionales (de las que Lynch habló a menudo) es el secreto de la credibilidad de su película. Pero el propio Lynch es modesto: dice que no hay una respuesta exacta. ¿Quién mató a Laura Palmer? En general, no quería que la audiencia discutiera quién la mató. Pero la conciencia banal estadounidense requería un final feliz, y los financiadores se vieron obligados a acusar al padre de Laura Palmer de un crimen irracional. Aunque en la tercera temporada, Lynch revivió nuevamente a Laura Palmer, como si dijera: ¿Crees que lo entendiste? No entiendes nada. No puedes entender nada en Twin Peaks. Para comprender Twin Peaks, debes vivir en Twin Peaks, debes ingresar a este mundo, moverte detrás de las vibraciones de estas intrusiones extrañas, que, según una lógica extraña, sin el algoritmo habitual, se encuentran en la vida de las personas de Twin Peaks, uno de los cuales habla con su propia pierna, el otro... con troncos...

Pero gradualmente, en una conversación con una pierna, se encuentra una referencia a la filosofía del parlamento de los órganos en la posmodernidad, en una conversación entre una mujer y una registradora: una ontología orientada a los objetos, cuando la registradora es un tipo de sujeto, o incluso un objeto radical, que elimina la complejidad e intensidad de la presencia de una persona en el mundo. La visita periódica de Lynch a Black Logde (se dice menos sobre White Lodge; también está en algún lugar, pero la influencia es imperceptible, especialmente en el mundo moderno) es cada vez más brillante, y de alguna manera puedes percibir la creación de Lynch como una crónica de la invasión de lo infernal, cómo las entidades infracorporales entran en nuestro mundo y comienzan a influir activamente en él. Pero incluso si encuentran algo de resistencia, incluso la vida tradicional estadounidense de las personas no es capaz de construir una fortaleza real frente a Black Lodge, que se está volviendo más segura de sí misma, capturando varios autos y gradualmente nos traslada al área de las maravillas negras.

La tercera temporada, en mi opinión, es mucho más oscura que las anteriores: algo ha cambiado en la ontología del interior de Estados Unidos, y tal vez en todos nosotros. La resurrección de Laura Palmer y su último grito (cuando murió, pero resulta que no) se parece al milagro negro del Anticristo: se parece al milagro de la resurrección, pero no tiene continuación. La negrura de esta resurrección no es, de hecho, sino en la ausencia total de significado. Laura Palmer es una resurrección negra que ocurre sin la ayuda de las fuerzas de la luz, que es una parodia fundamental de los últimos tiempos.

Y en este sentido, Lynch construye una imagen de la invasión global de lo que está bajo el límite inferior de la realidad humana. En este sentido, su trabajo puede ser visto como una valiosa evidencia. Esto puede interpretarse como lo posmoderno, pero la falta de significado de Lynch no es clase de explotación. Este es un punto importante, en cualquier caso, la hipótesis que expresé durante esa conversación. Lynch está a una distancia de aquellos que no entienden nada de lo que está sucediendo en el mundo moderno (el laico), puede gustarles, inspirarlos o asustarlos, atraerlos al menos, pero no es uno de ellos.

Lo que lo distingue de los maestros de la falsificación y la codificación de Hollywood es que no explota la idiotez de las masas (no libera a las masas de la idiotez, pero no las explota). Está exactamente a medio camino entre los revolucionarios (la sala de arte, que se convertirá en una película de culto, que revelará toda la vida y la profundidad de la caída), y las masas (no explota los gustos de la multitud). En esto, me parece, que él es como Tarantino, ya que está justo en el límite. No da un paso ni en la dirección de las masas, ni en la dirección de retirarlas de este sueño.

Esta ambigüedad, la dualidad de la expresión cinematográfica de Lynch, crea ironía. En griego, "ironía" significa que al decir una cosa quieres decir otra. Este es el significado de la retórica construida sobre la curvatura de una declaración directa y lógica.

youtube

#Twin Peaks #Alexander Dugin #cine #televisión

0 notes

panicscare · 5 years

Text

0 notes

muunyayo-blog · 6 years

Video

The Shutdown Continues | w/ Fróði Midjord, #TPS #275″ on YouTube

#GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN #JF #Trump

0 notes

interregnum-intermarium · 6 years

Photo

Olena Semenyaka on the Ukrainian Crisis Part II for Guide to Kulchur podcast

Olena Semenyaka, international secretary of National Corps, researcher of Conservative Revolution, Ernst Jünger’s legacy and his dialogue with Martin Heidegger on the prospects of a new metaphysics of the West in particular, whose “academic and geopolitical activities coincide” (meaning the paneuropeanism of the Third Way, which is another title for Conservative Revolution), summarized in a written form the main points of her conversation with Fróði Midjord on the Ukrainian Crisis Part II, which followed the discussion of the same topics from a Russian perspective with Prof. Alexander Dugin, for the Guide to Kulchur podcast: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/01/understanding-the-ukrainian-crisis-part-ii/

Ukrainian history and identity in relation to Russia

- (proto-)Ukrainian ethnogenesis and the statist tradition: apart from the Slavic populus, it is worth mentioning Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians (the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European language tree), Gothic Kingdom (for the first time uniting the Ukrainian mainland with the Crimea), Kyivan Rus, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Polish Commonwealth, Cossack State and Hetmanate, Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ukrainian People's Republic, Soviet Union, independent Ukraine, Maidan Revolution and the rebirth of the third geopolitical way in the form of Intermarium (Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea Union);

- Kyivan Rus as the "cradle" of three modern peoples: Belarusian (the closest one to the Ukrainian linguistically), Ukrainian and Russian; the Moscow Kingdom (emerged much later than Kyivan Rus) as one of competing centers striving for power in Eastern Europe and Eurasia (several historical examples devoid of any specifically "anti-Russian" impulse: destruction of the Volga route by Kniaz Sviatoslav in favor of the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passing through Kyiv, defeat of the Moscow Kingdom's army by joint Lithuanian-Ruthenian forces at the battle of Orsha in 1514, destruction of Moscow in 1618 by Ukrainian Hetman Petro Sahaidachnyi, the creator of the Zaporozhian Host and the patron of Ukrainian culture well-known for his successful campaigns against Turks and Tatars), different ethnic influences / admixtures and geopolitical tendencies of Ukraine and Russia also due to purely geographic reasons;

- a decent status of the proto-Ukrainian (Ruthenian) elite within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the rebirth of Ukraine's statist ambitions during the Cossack uprisings against Poland in XVI-XVIII centuries (the first national liberation struggle of the Ukrainian nation (against the Polish Commonwealth) according to the Ukrainian nationalist historiography). Ukrainian tensions with Catholic Polish magnates, in turn, were exploited by the Orthodox Russian side in an attempt to gain control over the Cossack State;

- the blessing and the curse of any central continental state at the intersection of transit routes and the challenge to the Ukrainian Cossack State caught between the Polish Commonwealth, the Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate and the Russian Empire; the military alliance with the Russian tsar signed at the Pereyaslav Council in 1654 by the great Ukrainian statesman, Hetman and the leader of the anti-Polish uprising Bohdan Khmelnytsky which ended with the liquidation of the military center of the Cossack State, Zaporozhian Sich, and the autonomy of Hetmanate.

Although there has never been a mass uprising against the Russian Empire as it was the case with regard to Poland, already in 1709 Ukrainian Hetman Ivan Mazepa sided with the Swedish King Charles XII and was defeated at the Battle of Poltava by Tsar Peter the Great (who renamed Muscovy as the Russian Empire), thus becoming the symbol of Ukrainian anti-Russian "treason" for centuries.

Appr. 30 years later Peter I invited Cossacks to resettle in the lands of Central and Southern Ukraine which thus officially belonged to the Lower Zaporozhian Cossack Host and were named "Novorossiya" by the Russian Tsardom just like the British Empire created New England or New Scotia in the newly colonized lands; already in 1775 Zaporozhian Sich was destroyed by the Russian Empress Catherine II "in response" to the Cossack contribution to the reconquer of Crimea by the Russian Empire during the Russo-Turkish wars and their centuries-long defense of the southern borders of Europe; parts of the Cossack Host resettled in the Kuban, currently, completely russified lands where previously dominated the Ukrainian ethnos, another part established the Trans-Danube Sich;

- differences of the Ukrainian and Russian statist and political traditions: in Russia, the political rule was far more autocratic and absolutist, the main role belonged to tsar, and both aristocracy (boyars) and peasantry mostly were completely satisfied with their positions, whereas in Ukraine the Hetmanate was a kind of electoral monarchy providing strong democratic rights to Cossacks who elected their military leaders; besides, the vertical mobility in the Ukrainian society has always been very high, and the main social lift for the natural aristocracy was the participation in constant wars;

- the second Ukrainian national liberation struggle took place in 1917-1921 after the collapse of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires, when the newly created Ukrainian People's Republic had to counter the Bolshevik invasion: presicely due to the failure of this struggle, Ukrainians have to face now the third national liberation struggle against the quasi-Soviet Russian Federation after the 25 years of fake "independence";

- the borders of the modern Ukrainian state (Bessarabia and Bukovyna were adjoined in 1940-s by Stalin, but aforementioned Bohdan Khmelnytsky conducted active geopolitical expansion in the directions of Moldova and Romania) in no way were "artificial": they were determined by the Ukrainian People's Republic due to the objective prevalence of the Ukrainian population in these territories and were accepted by the Bolsheviks; moreover, initially, the Kuban region and parts of modern Belarus were also included in the territory of Ukraine; Ukrainian colonel Petro Bolbochan liberated the Crimea from the Bolsheviks in 1918, and the Ukrainians (including my grandparents) completely rebuilt the infrastructure of Crimea after the Second World War, not mentioning the huge contribution of the Cossacks to the struggle against the Turks and Tatars, so, to say the very least, historically, this territory cannot be considered unequivocally "Russian."

Maidan Revolution: Nationalists vs. “Euromaidan” I can fully agree with the portrait of the overthrown president Victor Yanukovych as described by Alexander Dugin in the preceding Guide to Kulchur podcast: just like all the other presidents of "independent" Ukraine, he was not particularly pro-Russian, he simply served those who paid the most. It was him who initiated the EU association agreement. Under his rule was held the first secret gay pride parade, which was protected by the special riot police "Berkut" (disbanded after the revolution). However, he repressed Ukrainian nationalists (among others, Yanukovych imprisoned the leader of the future National Corps movement Andriy Biletsky, as well as fabricated the case against the members of his organization, The Patriot of Ukraine, who were detained for plotting the explosion of the monument to Lenin) and suppressed Ukrainian small and medium business. Yet, when Putin forced Yanukovych to freeze the EU association negotiations (after all, not so beneficial for Ukraine even purely economically) and start integration into the Eurasian Customs Union, we did not pay any attention to the protests of the middle class which considered the EU an economic paradise.

But, when the students were violently beaten by Berkut, Ukrainian patriots perceived it as a chance to transform the peaceful pro-EU protests into the anti-governmental national revolution, and succeeded in it. When the phase of violent clashes between the police and hired thugs, on the one side, and nationalists, on the other, began in the streets, the liberal pro-EU opposition played zero political role. One could say that it was a backup for the nationalists who were throwing molotovs at the police and were capturing administrative buildings, but, on the other hand, by "supporting" the protesters, the West tried to hijack the revolution and, in fact, has always disapproved of the national-revolutionary methods. So the rivalry between the "Euromaidan" and the national-revolutionary Maidan is obvious enough to understand what side is worthy of and requires your support, especially if you wish to weaken the other side.

As a result, the overthrow of the regime was successful, however, the national revolution is far from complete. Just like the socialist revolution, which failed in 1905 and succeeded only in 1917, the Ukrainian national revolution might take decades. Right Sector, as a broad national-revolutionary movement, failed to produce a new political class that would be ready to take power after the fall of Yanukovych's regime; consequently, the power vacuum was filled by liberals, oligarchs from the previous political era like Petro Poroshenko and even rebranded members of Yanukovych's Party of Regions.

This drawback is currently being corrected by the National Corps / Azov Movement as the fastest developing nationalist movement in Ukraine: it has a parliamentary wing, the National Corps party which is represented in every region of Ukraine and counts in its ranks over 10,000 activists, a paramilitary structure, National Militia, often described by the globalist media as the modern "SA," over 30 social and cultural projects as independent NGOs which allow National Corps to practice entryism in all social fields, and, last but not least, the military wing unseen since the times of WW2: the Azov Regiment of the National Guard of Ukraine (subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs), the only volunteer battalion that was expanded to the level of the regiment and the most combat-ready unit of the entire Ukrainian armed forces. A special attention is paid to the educational programs: military ones aimed at the modernization of the Ukrainian army, political ones preparing the future political leaders and metapolitical structures closely cooperating with the international department; the clash between the liberal and the nationalist flank will continue on a larger scale as we are striving for power and are ready to implement different scenarios.

The conflict in Eastern Ukraine

At the same time, the cultural difference between Eastern and Western Ukraine is much exaggerated. I say it as a bilingual person and a member of the Azov Movement which was born in the Eastern Ukrainian industrial city of Kharkiv and is dominated by mostly Russian speaking activists from Eastern Ukraine. Moreover, there are many ethnic Russians in the ranks of our movement. Furthermore, even my parents have a kind of cultural nostalgia for Soviet times and would never believe that the war with Russia is possible, but they would never enter the streets to oppose the Ukrainian government and soldiers either. As a matter of fact, the local residents have never played an active political role in Eastern Ukraine. People who were taking down the Ukrainian flags from the administrative buildings were the crew of saboteurs brought from Russia. One of such crews, which included the leader of the Kremlin-backed forces Givi, attacked the office of The Patriot of Ukraine at Rymarska Street in Kharkiv, but was repelled and retreated. The biggest Eastern Ukrainian cities (Kharkiv, Odessa, Mariupol) remained Ukrainian precisely thanks to the efforts of Ukrainian nationalists and ultras who expelled relatively small groups of "professional separatists." That's why we never use the expressions like "the civil war in Ukraine." Activists of our movement from Donetsk and Luhansk observed the developments since the very beginning and could tell the difference between the local newborn "separatists" who did not know how to handle weapons and single out the political enemies and silent Russian military who supervised them. It was the latter’s idea to place the firing points in the residential areas…

The so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, as well as the entire project of “Novorossiya,” as of now, is a complete failure. Above all, it has nothing to do with the defense of the Russian national identity and language. Just like the occupied Crimea, it is full of revanchist Soviet motives, ideas and rhetoric. The only difference is that LDPR are dominated by bandit clans who often kill each other without any interference of the Ukrainian secret services (it was the fate of the most famous “rebels” Givi and Motorola) or, when the leaders of these “republics” happen to know too much or their political ambitions grow, they are simply being eliminated by their Russian supervisors. You can find there Italian and Spanish leftists, crazy Latvian / Ugandan National Bolshevik Benes Ayo, commies from Texas, Chechen battalions and Buryats from remote Eurasian republics of the Russian Federation.

There was only one reportedly right-wing battalion “Rusich” which withdrew itself from the territory of Donbas due to a loss of understanding “what they were fighting for.” Another conservative icon of “Novorossiya,” colonel of FSB and the former “Defense Minister” of DPR Igor “Strelkov” Girkin, could be recently seen on a solitary picket line against the intent of the Russian authorities to return the Kuril Islands to Japan. Devoid of any popular support, he called it a state treason. This and many other facts prove that the project of “Novorossiya,” supposedly driven by the “civil war” in Ukraine, since the very beginning has been orchestrated “from above” by Putin. When the Russian authorities decide to stop the artificial conflict in the Donbas region, Girkin will be probably protesting alone, too;

Not that there was no Ukrainian contribution to the collapse of “Novorossiya.” MPs of the Russian Duma admitted that regaining control over Mariupol by the Ukrainian side put an end to the military expansion of the Russian Federation in Southern Ukraine. Mariupol, the biggest after occupied Donetsk (half a million) city in the Donetsk region, was liberated in 2014 by the Azov battalion, which prevented Russia from paving a continental corridor from the Rostov region to the Russia-controlled grey zone in Moldova, Transnistria. Actually, the Azov battalion reached the suburbs of Donetsk and was ready to storm the city (by the way, the first fallen volunteer at that point was Russian). Likewise, the only successful counter-offensive of the Ukrainian armed forces, which ended with the Shyrokyne operation, was conducted by the Azov regiment. Since the initiation of the peace Minsk agreements in September of 2014 as a result of the first open attack of the Russian army during the Ilovaisk trap, which required the ceasefire, the Azov regiment got the chance to launch this counter-attack only in 2015 when the forces of DPR shelled the residential area in Mariupol, which took lives of 30 civilians.

The role of the West in the Maidan Revolution and War with Russia

One can often hear the idea that the West started the revolution in Ukraine to separate Ukraine from Russia by integrating Ukraine into the euroatlantic structures (the EU, NATO) and unleash the war on Russia. Although it is hard to deny that the West exercises geopolitical soft power in Eastern Europe and Ukraine willing to keep this area in its zone of influence, the latter is still limited as compared to the Russian factor both in the Ukrainian and Belarusian political systems which have never been truly “independent.” Moreover, those who believe that the EU and NATO membership is the worst that could happen to Ukraine in this turbulent period of its history, can relax and go home: according to the well-known statement by Jean Claude Juncker that was made in 2016 and was confirmed on many occasions by the EU and NATO leaderships, Ukraine will not become a member state neither of the EU, nor NATO in the next 20-25 years, to say the least. And it goes without saying that within this period of time both international structures may cease to exist. Indeed, given the crisis tendencies in the EU (economic problems in Greece, inability to sustain even small Central European EU member states, terror attacks, migrant crisis, Brexit and now mass protests in France), Ukraine, the biggest European country, is hardly welcome in the collapsing EU. Also, everyone remembers the words of Donald Trump about the possible withdrawal of the United States from NATO.

In other words, if the US wanted to “unleash the war on Russia,” Ukraine would be accepted in NATO as a member state which the US would thus be obliged to defend. But the reality is opposite: Barack Obama turned the blind eye to the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Donbas by Russia, and Donald Trump avoids open confrontation with Russia outside of Syria and especially in Ukraine. Unwillingness to “irritate” Russia is the main strategy of the West in this conflict. Actually, the West gave the green light to the neo-Soviet ambitions of Russia back in 2008 when Georgia, which was denied a NATO membership, was invaded by Russia. The creation of “independent republics” of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia has become a rehearsal for the creation of the “Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics” in Ukraine.

Furthermore, if the US wanted to clash with Russia on the front lines, there was no need to welcome Ukraine in NATO; it would be enough to fulfill its obligations according to the Budapest memorandum signed by the US, UK and Russian Federation (later also supported by China and France) in 1994. Under the Budapest memorandum, Ukraine renounced its third largest in the world nuclear potential in exchange for the “security assurances” and the recognition of its political sovereignty and territorial integrity by the signatory countries. However, when one of the main signatory countries, the Russian Federation, invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea, the West did nothing. And Russian officials did threaten Ukraine with nuclear strikes.

Likewise, Kremlin media spread fantasies about the massive military and financial aid of the US to the Ukrainian army, which is completely false. Only Lithuania, as a NATO member state, provided Ukraine with the lethal aid. As for the rest, due to the pressure of the pro-Russian and simply leftist lobbies, even American “hawks” were very hesitant to “fund” the war in Ukraine. Financial aid that does not reach the ruined post-Soviet Ukrainian army and a modest number of the Javelin anti-tank systems, which Ukraine will not be able even to repair due to the absence of the required technologies and facilities, are the only “military assistance” to Ukraine, in fact, left to its own devices in the confrontation with Russia.

As a result, most regional countries, in spite of being the NATO member states, are highly interested in the Intermarium defense union, especially the Baltics. Lithuanian allies, who shared with us their experience in the development of the territorial defense forces, told us many eloquent stories about pro-Russian lobbies proving in the 90-s that Lithuania “did not need the armed forces anymore.” After Georgia and Ukraine, Latvia, which has provinces and separate cities where the Russian minority already comprises the majority of voters (and in the Latvian case, as opposed to Ukraine, the conflict of the Latvian and Russian languages is really sharp as the Russian minority there is completely artificial), has all reasons to believe that NATO will not interfere if Russia starts another undeclared hybrid warfare in the Baltic States.

Also, we often hear that if Ukraine remained on friendly terms with Russia, we would preserve Crimea and would not suffer any economic problems. However, take a look at the recent developments in Belarus which is 80 % dependent economically on the mercy of Russian “Gazprom.” In December 2018, Russian Prime Minster Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia is ready to “deepen integration” with Belarus, including the establishment of a single emission center, a single customs service, a court and a chamber in accordance with the agreement on the creation of the Union State of December 8, 1999. This announcement, as always, emerged right after Russia has outlined a new tax system which will make Belarus lose billions of money.

Similarly, Kremlin media often write about Ukrainian “neo-Nazis” being backed and funded by “Americans and Jewish oligarchs,” including the Azov regiment. However, it is enough to visit the site of the US State Department to find out that the Azov regiment of the National Guard of Ukraine is the only Ukrainian unit which cannot get any form of the US aid for ideological reasons. In times of the Maidan revolution, pro-Putin media associated Ukrainian volunteer battalions with the Jewish oligarch Igor Kolomoisky who supposedly funded them. In reality, he was a governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region, which was the last Ukraine-controlled central region bordering on the so-called zone of ATO (anti-terror operation), which means that the city administration provided transportation to units on their way to the front and nothing else. Although Kolomoisky is currently a protégé of a technical presidential candidate Zelensky, he is no longer a governor of the Dnipro region, and the biggest bank service of Ukraine, Privat Bank, which previously belonged to Kolomoisky, has been nationalized by Poroshenko. Not so long ago, pro-Kremlin platforms started spreading rumors about Israeli weapons of the Azov regiment soldiers. Again, the reality is different: way before the Maidan revolution, Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs acquired an Israeli license on Tavor Assault Rifle-21, which has been produced in Ukraine since 2009 as a modified Ukrainian assault rifle Fort-221.

I could go on endlessly refuting similar examples of anti-Ukrainian propaganda, but the main point is that the Maidan Revolution did not bring to power new oligarchs of non-Ukrainian origin, and the situation in this respect is the same as in Russia. The second main point is that the West tries to hijack the results of the Ukrainian Revolution in the media sphere but is afraid to confront Russia and has never orchestrated anything in the Ukrainian streets. The West can be hardly called even a diplomatic ally of Ukraine, as the EU continues trading with Russia in spite of the economic sanctions, and only the Intermarium countries supported new sanctions against Russia after the attack on the Ukrainian military ships in the Sea of Azov. As opposed to Intermarium countries, Germany supports the Russian project of Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline which will bypass the territory of Ukraine. Peace Minsk agreements, pushed forward by the EU, are extremely harmful to the Ukrainian statehood, and only interference of National Corps in 2016 prevented the Ukrainian authorities from adopting the so-called Morel’s Plan which was advocated by Victoria Nuland. This plan allowed holding elections in the occupied zones of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions without the restoration of the Ukrainian-Russian border, which meant the continuation of the Crimean scenario as the illusion of a democratic referendum on joining Russia. Luckily, in contrast with Girkin’s solitary protests against the state treason, National Corps could afford gathering 10,000 activists who came to the Ukrainian Parliament and threatened the MPs to take them out of the building by force if they dare to vote in favor of Morel’s plan (which, of course, was not accepted).

Intermarium as the Third Geopolitical Way on Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard. Assessment of Putin’s Russia

This naturally leads us to the geopolitical program of National Corps as a vanguard of the Ukrainian nationalism of the new generation which offers the alternative both to the West and Putin’s Russian Federation, basically, two forms of globalism which relate to each other as the late Roman Empire would have related to Carthage unless the latter had been ruined by that time.

While many understand why non-critical Westernization is not good to Ukraine, our rejection of Putin’s Russia requires additional explanations. Practically, it is hard for Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans in general to idealize Russia simply because the Intermarium region is comprised of monoethnic countries each of which has preserved its national identities and has a titular nation, whereas the Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic state with huge migration tendencies from the non-Russian parts of the Russian Federation and neighboring Eurasian countries. As opposed to Intermarium countries, including Ukraine, the Russian Federation signed the UN global migration pact, having underlined a positive role of migration for its state building.

Late Soviet Union was much wiser than the modern Russian Federation which ruined the Slavic unity: it has managed to control the Muslim population and the Caucasus in particular, and it is impossible to imagine that the Russians would become the main victim of the modern Russian anti-extremist legislation, Article #282 of the Criminal Code punishing hate speech and incitement of the interracial, interethnic and religious hatred. At the moment, all Russian nationalist organizations and individual nationalists are repressed under this article, as well as for their stance against the war with Ukraine. Most of them fled to Ukraine, and, just like for Belarusian volunteers, it was a one-way ticket for them. The last Russian nationalist organization, “Russians” led by Dmitry Diomushkin, was banned in 2015. Currently, only pro-Putin bikers, Night Wolves, crazy Orthodox fundamentalists and ultras helping to disperse rallies of liberal opposition remained in Russia “on the Right.” There are no opportunities for the organized nationalist movements in Russia. If Western nationalists do not believe it, they may come to Russia and try promoting Russian ethnonationalist or simply ethnonationalist ideas. Also, they should not feel offended by the fact that Putin organizes meetings of the communist youth from all over the world as it was the case in Sochi.

Likewise, it is important to understand that the notion “rossiyskiy” means all-inclusive civic nationalism. Again, if the Soviet Union tried to be friendly with Ukraine and transferred Crimea to Ukraine on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Council (1654-1954), when Bohdan Khmelnytsky accepted the Russian protectorate, Putin made his biggest friend Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov who, quite probably, may be the next Russian president. Purely statist might is the only thing that matters to Putin and, unfortunately, many Russians blinded by Russian “gas dollars.” Besides, historically, Russia has one of the biggest, if not the biggest, Muslim minority in Europe, and the biggest in Europe mosque was opened precisely in Moscow. The opening ceremony was attended by Turkish president Erdogan.

Quite often Western European nationalists argue that Putin banned LGBT marches, whereas Ukraine embraces all kinds of Cultural Marxism after the revolution. It is not true: as I said above, the first gay parade was held by Yanukovych, and the authorities still need 6 rows of police officers to make such parades happen. “Trans-persons” admit that after the revolution their status in Ukraine worsened, that they receive proper medical treatment but face complete hostility in a social life. A month ago, the head of the Council on National Security and Defense Olexandr Turchynov, who was an acting president of Ukraine in times of Maidan and was labeled by Russian media as a Bloody Pastor (he is a Protestant), issued a statement in which he criticized “Neo-Marxism,” claimed that the position of a person in charge of gender policies in Ukraine should be liquidated, that we should respect the decisions of regional administrations that reject such changes in the Ukrainian educational system, expressed his support for Trump and underlined that Ukrainian natural conservative mentality has nothing to do with “Putinism.” In other words, under conditions of the right-populist turn in the world, such sentiments become normal all over the world. At the same time, Russians who hate “Gayropa” are mostly simply “domestic misanthropes” who need an external enemy but envy Ukraine’s visa-free regime with Western Europe and, of course, would be happy to spend holidays in Western European countries.

As opposed to Ukraine, which undergoes the de-communization process, the victory of the Soviet Union over the Third Reich (which is merged in the media and popular consciousness with modern “Merkelreich” and the EU) in WW2 is the basis of the modern Russian collective identity. While the veterans of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, who had been fighting against the Soviets and the NKVD till 1955, are equalized with the veterans of Red Army in Ukraine, and Stepan Bandera, who at first supported the Third Reich, but soon enough was imprisoned in a German concentration camp due to his untimely demands to establish the independent Ukrainian state, is currently considered a hero of Ukraine, Russia puts a ban on the “revisionism of the outcomes of the WW2 and glorification of Nazism and the collaborationists with the Third Reich,” as well as officially calls Ukraine a “Neo-Nazi” country. The way Russian Federal TV sees the international activities of National Corps is shown below.

youtube

Therefore, at the moment, the Russian Federation in no way may be seen a hope for Europe, and even Alexander Dugin admitted in the latest issues of his TV program “Expertise of Dugin” (Экспертиза Дугина) that the foreign political triumph of Russia in Ukraine and Syria is useless, for the liberals only strengthened their positions in Russia, and the best thing Russians can do now to preserve themselves in the history is to retreat into the inner emigration and develop the narrative for the future, when the conditions for the patriotic activities will be more favorable.

In contrast with his verdict, there are unique conditions since the times of WW2 in the post-revolutionary Ukraine. The Ukrainian national-revolutionary movement can be compared to the Freikorps movement after WW1 that had to counter the Bolshevik threat in the Baltics and inside Germany and at the same time oppose the treacherous Weimar government. However, we do not complain, for the war gave us the opportunities unseen before, both on the Ukrainian and all-European level. While the West and Russia are too busy fighting each other and dividing Ukraine into their zones of influence, we strive to restore the geopolitical sovereignty of Europe starting with the modernization of Ukrainian army and the creation of the Intermarium defense union, which demands the rearmament of Europe and the rebirth of its security system instead of the search for the dubious Russian protectorate. The collapse of the euroatlantic solidarity and abandonment of Ukraine by the “world community” are very helpful in this respect.

Thus our program is Intermarium (the Adriatic-Baltic-Black Sea union) as a platform, or a springboard, for the alternative (with regard to the EU) paneuropean integration, or simply Paneuropa, which should be disassociated with the infamous Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan. The National Corps movement has already held three Intermarium and two Paneuropa conferences, among others, attended by high-ranking officials of the Croatian Armed Forces and representatives of the Polish Ministry of National Defense. Currently, we plan the further international meetings in Croatia and Poland.

youtube

It is true that the West, just like the Entente in the former century, would like to see Intermarium as a buffer zone or a sanitary border separating it from Russia; however, our goal is clear: it is the creation of the sovereign military and political Paneuropean bloc (confederation) which continues the classic tradition of the European third geopolitical way. That’s why Prof. Dugin is wrong by pretending by means of his Fourth Political Theory that the third geopolitical way is no longer possible and that all attempts to restore the European superpower, geopolitical subjectivity and the leading positions in the “unipolar” world are “anti-Russian” encroachments in the service of American imperialism, as he labeled the Intermarium union. Russia, which sided with sea powers (the Entente and the Allies) in both world wars, has never been a proper continental state, and the very division between Atlanticism and Neo-Eurasianism, thalassocracy and tellurocracy under conditions of described by Ernst Jünger technical planetary state is extremely outdated. Intermarium, etymologically, “the land between seas,” will help to transcend old oppositions towards newer heuristic definitions.

In the recent history of Europe, both world wars were not only harbingers of harder times and tragedies of European "civil war" in terms of Ernst Nolte. Assuming the perspective of Ernst Jünger who sympathetically yet firmly rejected the prospects for the monarchist revival in modern times in "Rivarol," we are also recipients of the grandiose energy released out of the social and national collisions that gained momentum since the age of Romanticism. Just like for the German war generation of the former century, the ongoing struggle of Ukrainian patriots for the restoration of the territorial integrity of their country is not only another national liberation war in the Ukrainian history. It is also a chance to make a revolutionary breakthrough which will not only prevent the re-emergence of conditions posing threat to the Ukrainian state's very existence. To be honest, the conflict with Russia is a logical outcome of 25 years of Ukraine's spineless "independence" and century-long attempts to eliminate Ukrainian national elite in lasting wars with neighbors. So the deterioration in the East of Ukraine heralded by the Maidan revolution, in fact, awakened and reinforced the Ukrainian national spirit and the Ukrainian true elite's will to resistance and creation.

The rebirth of the Third Way in the revolutionary Maidan, the third geopolitical way in particular, and undertaking by Ukrainian nationalists of such ambitious projects as Intermarium and Paneuropa, accordingly, was not only a result of understanding that only global changes might provide a satisfactory for us solution of the Ukrainian national question. This is the evidence of all-consuming flame of the awakened national-revolutionary spirit which, having born out of the patriotic needs of a particular nation, can never remain in narrow national limits and always strives for the alternative world order. Whether this is also a sign of metaphysical shifts that promise a better future for the West, is a question to us. But it is important to keep in mind that every time when you hear the patriotic national-liberation rhetoric on the part of Ukrainian nationalists, it is both sincere and incomplete since the planetary and metahistorical changes they crave for remain unspoken.

#Ukraine #Russia #National Corps #Third Way #Guide to Kulchur #Olena Semenyaka #Intermarium #Fróði Midjord #Alexander Dugin

2 notes · View notes

interregnum-intermarium · 6 years

Photo

Pact of Steel III | Сталевий Пакт ІІІ | Стальной Пакт III (FULL VIDEO)

Dec. 14, 2018, for the third time in a row, pre-ASGARDSREI festival PACT OF STEEL conference, which is annually held under the auspices of the paneuropean Reconquista Movement, Plomin Club and Militant Zone, took place in Kyiv. Symbolically, this time it happened at the well-known Reconquista Club.

Regular attendees of the conference remember that this cycle of events encompasses two main thematic blocs: Metapolitics | Counter-Culture and European Reconquista.

Within the 3rd edition of PACT OF STEEL conference, "Metapolitics and Counter-Culture" and "European Reconquista" blocs were disclosed by Fróði Midjord (The Faroe Islands) and Hendrik Möbus (Germany) respectively.

A welcoming speech by Olena Semenyaka (coordinator of the paneuropean Reconquista Movement, Ukraine) 0:00 - 7:49 Fróði Midjord (founder of the Scandza Forum, host of the "Guide to Kulchur" podcast, The Faroe Islands) "Nordic Paganism as Metaphysics" 7:50 - 53:35

Hendrik Möbus (frontman of ABSURD Band, publicist, Germany) "The White God of War: Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg" 59:29 - 2:15:15

youtube

2 notes · View notes

interregnum-intermarium · 5 years

Photo

Growing a Forest in a World State: Ernst Jünger on Anarcho-Tyranny

Speech by Olena Semenyaka, international secretary of National Corps, at the Scandza Forum in Stockholm on March 30, 2019.

I am very grateful to Froði Midjord for inviting me to the annual Scandza Forum, which has become a true epicenter of the Scandinavian revival.

Addressing this year’s topic of the Forum, which is “Anarcho-Tyranny,” today, especially after an unbelievable detainment of Jared Taylor and barbaric campaign launched by Facebook in order to exclude even critical examination of nationalism from a public sphere, the decrease of freedom in Western societies is the main problem which is faced by everyone wishing to initiate some changes and even simply a discussion of the latter.

Those on the Right, or Alt-Right taken broadly, often fairly consider an option of building their own networking community similar to the concept of a state within a state. In the context of new Facebook limitations, it would mean not only the creation of their own social networks (the path which has already been well-trodden by American Alt-Right) but also regular socializing, providing all kinds of assistance to each other, basically, building a paradoxical international tribe.

Such an approach, again, is natural and fair. But, to find the remedy in a long-term perspective, it’s important to determine the origins of the problem. To understand why operating within the global Western political system can be only temporary, it would be helpful to address the thought of the Third Way, the German interwar movement which has given the world names like Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Armin Mohler and others. Having done that, we will realize that a much safer, or at least a parallel way, should consist in nothing but shaping the alternative world order. Which, again, does not cancel the entryist strategy of subverting the system from within.

Normies got used to the idea that horrors of total control are the legacy of totalitarian regimes only, whereas the brave new world born after WW2 is bad only in Huxley's and Orwell's books. The point of Ernst Jünger, who offered one of the earliest and most insightful descriptions of the coming totalitarian orders in his interwar classic treatise "The Worker. Domination and Gestalt" (1932), is that the difference between the two regimes which rivalled for the planetary domination in the 20th century and the post-war neo-liberal order, in fact, is not so striking.

Back in the 30-s, Jünger had been observing the same developments not only in the Soviet Union and Germany but also in democratic France and Great Britain. He called this process "total mobilization" which is carried out by means of technology. And, Jünger went on to say, since the information component was growingly significant in modern wars, the states not only secretly engaged in race of arms but also had been enhancing the spheres which helped to make a society more homogeneous and uniform: sports, cinematograph, press, as a means of propaganda in particular.

Jünger traced the origins of this process back to the Napoleonic wars, which for the first time dissoluted the borderline between the lacking military and the civilians. The declining warrior estate, the last bastion of aristocracy, eventually collapsed during the WW1 due to its groundbreakingly industrial character. The soldier behind the artillery battery no longer needs to be honorable, strong or clever. He needs to be professional, that's all. The very basis for heroism breaks down. Warriors turn into workers who often don't even have an experience of direct contact with the enemy. Jünger makes it clear that heroic realism is the only attitude which is worthy of cultivating under altered conditions, and precisely stoical acceptance of the latter is what makes such an attitude "heroic."

Jünger, who occupies a very special place among the theorists of philosophy of technology, heuristically associated the latter with the mythological forces of titanism. He and his brother Friedrich Georg described in detail what it means, and their mythological and poetic metaphors, in my opinion, have a huge descriptive and explanatory value.

In terms of Ernst Jünger's philosophy of culture, the titans, chthonic creatures, rebel against the gods, Olympians, by destroying the established borders between their creations, including Oswald Spengler's creatures (beings) of the higher type: cultural-civilizational types, let alone nations, nation states and races. The only difference between the interwar and the post-war spiritual-historical situation is that the advent of industrial orders bore the mark of titan Prometheus, homo faber, basically, the principle of productivity and a merciless rational warfare, whereas the post-industrial society loses heroic voluntarism of Prometheus (who, after all, remained on the side of the gods), because now the titans have a more powerful ally: Gaia, Mother Earth herself revolting against Heaven-Uranus.

The invention of the lightening rod defending earth from heavenly fire in 1752, according to Jünger, was one of the starting points of this process. Today, Gaia covers herself with an ever denser network of cables, the true kingdom of titans producing their own fire and energies, which replaced earlier industrial gigantism. Along with the erosion of godly archetypes, species of animals and plants, flourishes genetic engineering challenging natural divine designs, as well as artificial insemination as the most obvious manifestation of the matriarchal orders’ expansion. All kinds of borders, limitations and inequality are treated with extreme irritation. Everything becomes fluid like early shape-changing sea-god Proteus, one of the enemies of Hercules, who sided with the gods against the chthonic creatures.

Actually, we have already heard similar ideas in this or that form, for example, Julius Evola’s take on the “gynecocratic” society, but the important difference is that Jünger describes these tendencies in neutral objective terms, firstly, because the titans also have their legitimate place in the mythological structure of the universe and resonate with some aspects of a human psyche, secondly, these tendencies are not eternal. In this respect, Jünger, like Nietzsche, was a true visionary.

For the shipwreck of Titanic, in Jünger's interpretation, was another powerful sign sent by Cassandra indicating that the reign of the titans would also soon come to an end. At the same time, it is not a matter of sequential cycles of the divine and titanic rules. According to Jünger's forecast, the titans will reign throughout the entire 21th century, but then the gods will return, casting the titans in the Tartarus again, but also completing the eventual decline of the anthropocentric history which began with WW1 as the gates through which the titans entered the historical scene. Anti-individualistic, anti-human, misanthropic totalitarian orders, in Jünger's words, are a natural outcome of a much more global metaphysical dynamics: man's giving way to the titans on the historical arena.

However, early Jünger welcomed this process as the active-nihilistical phase of Friedrich Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values which must end with the birth of new values. Superman is the conqueror of God and nothing, says Nietzsche meaning that it is about creative ruination, but also giving a hint that Nothing may be an enemy much more terrific than the old order and values.

That's why early Jünger neutralized Marxist economical reductionism by reinterpreting the Worker not as a worker estate or a proletarian class but as a new human type which is as if engraved, as if imprinted in the human material by the metaphysical and, should be added, titanical Gestalt of the Worker. The new human type assumes the features of technology: activity, dynamism, impersonality and a passion for uniform ways of behaviour. Jünger calls it the principle of work carefully distinguishing it from the moral Biblical merits of hard labours. And he welcomes the new human type replacing the "touching child of the bourgeois sentimentality," the individual. In this context, Jünger also attacks the freedom of speech and fake artistic expression.

Simultaneously, the new human type is not so much totalitarian as “superhuman”: according to Jünger, this is the new aristocracy born in the trenches of WW1. Anyway, we easily recognize the polemic with “I accuse,” Emil Zola's letter to the president of French Republic in defense of Alfred Dreyfus, Jewish officer who was charged with state treason and was also condemned by the patriotic public. Since then, criticism of the state, bureaucracy and official media from a civic point of view has been associated exclusively with the Left.

However, having received a ban on publishing in the British occupation zone right after the end of WW2 and, overall, experiencing total control in the post-war FRG, Jünger, soon enough, developed his own extremely influential third positionist criticism of the police state. Following his friend Carl Schmitt, he labeled the neo-totalitarian political system “Leviathan” and started summoning gods back. Shortly afterwards, Jünger was reintegrated into the post-war German society as a writer, participated in the German-French reconciliation ceremony in 1984 alongside German chancellor Helmut Kohl and French president Francois Mitterand and, eventually, has become a true cultural icon in Germany and beyond, but his criticism has remained unchanged.

As opposed to the interwar emphasis on the new human type, Jünger started stressing individual strategies of resisting Leviathan. Jünger documents this change of perspective in works like "Across the Line" (1950), "The Forest Passage" (1951), as well as later collection of aphorisms named "Author and Authorship" (1984). As opposed to his early attack on fake political and artistic freedom, this time, Jünger places poets and artists among other figures hated by the tyrants: the followers of religious and metaphysical teachings who don't fear death but whom the tyrants fear, friends and lovers who do not let Leviathan dissolute the personal in the public. Almost liberal ideas, as far as we see, but they are well-familiar to us in the context of discussing the model of a state within a state, the oasis in the desert of post-war nihilism, as Jünger defines this space of personal freedom. For the elephant skin of the titans still suffers from artistic stings of the muses, Jünger adds.

To sum up, Jünger suggests the models of a sovereign individual, first Waldgänger (the Forest Fleer), then the Anarch as the advanced version of the latter. The metaphor of the Forest and hidden forest paths leading to freedom becomes crucial for the post-war Third Way, especially in Jünger’s and Heidegger’s work. Many recognize here a reference to Tacitus’ “Germania,” and Jünger himself referred to the old Icelandic right to retreat into the forest for those who were proclaimed outlaws. In many respects, these models are as polemical with regard to the liberal (bourgeois) concept of freedom as the new human type exemplified in the Warrior and the Worker. But, as opposed to the latter, the Forest Fleer and the Anarch target not the old discredited order but Nothing itself, Nothing that not so much replaced it in all its outright omnipresence as found its way into the very heart of the new post-war order, seemingly humanist and freedom-loving.

Actually, already in 1949 futuristic dystopian novel “Heliopolis” Jünger showed that technological development wouldn't bring liberation and equality. He illustrates it in the episode about the device named phonophor, an analogue of modern smartphones with an access to the Internet, which unveiled the old deception of indirect democracy. Although all residents of Heliopolis could participate daily in internet plebiscites and questionnaires, answer “yes,” “no,” “abstain,” the right to pose questions for voting, as always, belonged to the few. Today, in the epoch of audio-visual technologies, the dystopian aspect of technology in the service of a particular political agenda consists in the filtered informational, especially online, exchange with a society: anytime, a political opponent can be announced an “extremist” and deprived of such access.

The Orwellian genre of the futuristic dystopian novel has become very symptomatic for late Jünger. 1977 novel “Eumeswil,” which is a sequel to “Heliopolis,” is a key parody of the modern society in which Jünger, conceptually, continues developing the main theme of “The Forest Passage”: liberalism has nothing to do with freedom. The main difference between the two models of a sovereign individual described in these works is that the society expelled the Forest Fleer, whereas the Anarch expelled the society from himself; as famous Jünger’s formula says, the Anarch is to the anarchist, what the monarch is to the monarchist.

A protagonist of the Anarch in the novel, historian Martin “Manuel” Venator, is also employed as a night steward at the Casbah, a fortress of Condor, the tyrant ruling over the futuristic city state Eumeswil somewhere in North Africa. As a sovereign individual, he is no enthusiastic supporter of Condor and, theoretically, could even assassinate him, but the self-stylized Anarch is even more distanced from the “opposition” in the person of advocates of what he believes to be fake freedom: anarchists “raging until they are thrust into a more rigorous straitjacket,” liberals, demagogic socialists imagining themselves the followers of Brutus. As opposed to them, the Anarch rejects not the state and power structures as such; he rejects the very foundations of the contemporary society, because, as a historian, he knows “what can be offered” (“I am an anarch – not because I despise authority, but because I need it”).

Interestingly enough, in tune with late Jünger’s frequent motif of “The Great Transition,” “Eumeswil” ends with the Great Hunt in the jungle in which participate both the narrator, Martin Venator (meaning “hunter”), and tyrant Condor. Nobody returns from this highly metaphorical “Forest Passage,” and this final conjunction of the Anarch and the tyrant, just like Jünger’s conscious collision of freedom vs. “freedom,” functions as a positive counterpart of today’s anarcho-tyranny.

In other words, the Anarch rejects only the regime of anarcho-tyranny comprised of delusional freedom and no less fake and illegitimate authorities. And we, third positionists, in no way attack freedom while attacking neo-liberalism: we attack neo-totalitarian despotism of quasi-Eastern type which currently reigns in the old West maniacally hunting thought crimes of the dissidents.

Actually, it was Oswald Spengler who for the first time clarified that the late phase of the European cultural and civilizational type, the Faustian phase, is indifferent to arts, poetry and, overall, culture. It cares about science, technology, industry, construction (not architecture as such), spatial expansion and quantitative growth in general. Spengler called it the late civilizational phase when the culture's creativity is already exhausted. Jünger reinterpreted it as the contrast between the divine and titanic reigns. Similar ideas may be found in the creativity of Rene Guenon, the founder of integral traditionalism, “The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times” (1945) in particular. When the cannons sing, muses are silent, reiterated back in the days Nietzsche.

That's why, on a global scale, as pompous and surreal as it may sound, we will feel a relief only when we hasten the coming of a new metahistorical aeon. When the gods return, culture, intelligence and argumentation become important again. Yet, the very idea of expansion and voluntaristic hastening of higher cycles is titanic, Promethean, and that is also why I refer to Jünger's principled belief that man should be friends both with the gods and the titans, for he has elements of both of them.

The main lesson drawn by Jünger from WW2 was that the new orders did not bring new values and can easily coexist with nihilism. However, the reverse is also true: the Forest can grow bigger from any point of the existing titanic infrastructure, for, as Jünger persuasively shown, it is not “evil,” it’s neutral. Technology, as a mythical power, of course, is neutral not in a sense of being a mere instrument of progress and equal distribution of material goods. Experience of two world wars says that technology, above all, is a destructive, levelling power. Still, it can work both ways, for Leviathan and for the Forest, for the global state and for the rebel who does not need the mediation of the latter while addressing the society. That’s why the global political system fears popular metapolitical video bloggers so much: they defeat the modern world with its own weapons.

As Carl Schmitt observed, modern Partisan, thanks to new technological means, becomes mobile and rootless, which makes him especially dangerous for the system. Schmitt provided probably the deepest philosophical-political account of anarcho-tyranny: the global police state which denies the normal notion of the enemy, and, having demonized all opponents as enemies of humanity as such (not some contingent and particular regime like the modern Western political system), legitimizes its neo-totalitarian oppression through repeated counter-terror operations against all disagreeing. Today it happens, above all, by importing representatives of incompatible cultural values into Western societies and criminalizing the popular frustration. But certain geopolitical alternative, inspired by the modernity itself, will make the system armless.

Not incidentally, Jünger, during his stay in Paris as part of the German occupation administration, wrote a secret treatise “Peace” in which he suggested a model of the United States of Europe. Learning from Trotskyist internationals, Jünger called to develop universalism from the Right instead of reactionary, and futile, resistance to this world-historical tendency. Today, when I say that the model of a state in a state is insufficient or, more precisely, intermediate, and refer to paneuropean geopolitical doctrines and a planetary geostrategy, I mean creation of the infrastructure for the universalism from the Right within which we will be able to expand (“titanically”) without compromising our values (the “divine”).

Fear of the system when it saw that networking of Alt-Right brought Donald Trump to power was enormous, although he’s a part of it. However, shutting down the public space for too many dissidents will cost too much for the system. We have to strongly "inject freedom" in the information space, in the artistic sphere as well, instead of letting it associate us with real terror acts, which, also after the 11th of September and Iraq, are used only for imposing more control on the individual, even apolitical. It does not mean that we cannot show teeth: there is enough crime, violence and injustice in the world entitling us, especially in Eastern Europe, to self-organize and claim first civic, then political, and, finally, geopolitical power to ourselves.

But the main battle lies in the individual’s relation to technology as both an alienating and a bonding power, both an instrument of dystopian totalitarian control or propaganda and an emancipating energy that does not recognize any limitations, intimately reaching people’s minds and souls like modern music and cinematograph.

In this respect, the situations in Western and Eastern European parts of the world are equal. We have to make a careful mapping of the public space to mark the territories in which the Forest can sprout out as the mythical vines of Dionysus. Illuminating social interaction, true art, liberating metaphysical teachings and practices, combined with our own geoeconomical projects, will bring down the regime of anarcho-tyranny in the blink of an eye.

#Scandza Forum #Fróði Midjord #Sweden #Olena Semenyaka #National Corps #Ukraine #Scandinavia #Anarcho-Tyranny #Ernst Jünger

0 notes