del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
¿Quienes provocan esa catástrofe? Expeditiva e incompleta será la respuesta que cite al Gran Guardabosque. En principio, su arquetipo es el del "gran bárbaro". Hombre de guerra, reclutador de la peor canalla, todo le es válido con tal de arrasar y dar satisfacción a sus ambiciones. A las mientes nos vienen Atila, Gengis Khan, Almanzor, Hitler, Stalin... El Gran Guardabosque se va acercando al país dulce, de clima bondadoso, de refinada cultura clásica, de límpidas y gratas costumbres, La Marina. Cuanto se ve desde La Marina parece una síntesis geográfica e histórica. Como en los sueños, desde los Acantilados de Mármol se divisa una condensación de tiempos y paisajes. Se perciben valores y hábitos de tiempos medievales, la persistencia de códigos caballerescos, monacales, campesinos, etc. de aquellos siglos lejanos, en unión onírica con elementos propios de la contemporaneidad (automóviles, por ejemplo). La Marina recuerda la Europa mediterránea y templada, el entorno de países con fuerte cultura clásica, países de ricos viñedos y tradiciones hermosas. Por el contrario, el Gran Guardabosque representa la zafiedad de quien procede de brumosos y oscuros bosques, prototipo del bárbaro, al que unos climas y territorios poco amables no pueden afectarle de otro modo sino por embrutecimiento. Sin embargo, la figura del Gran Guardabosque es muy compleja en esta obra de Jünger. No es el "bruto", no carece de cierta grandeza, pese a que su acción sobre la Civilización será nefasta. Los personajes que de todo punto repugnan son los que les siguen, aquellos a quienes sus tropas reclutan y movilizan. La canalla, la hez, aquellos que conforman –en toda civilización o comunidad gastada- la Oclocracia. Tras Aristóteles, las descripciones spenglerianas de la Oclocracia nos parecen aquí fundamentales.
Pero nuestro libro muestra precisamente que las “condiciones ordinarias” ya no se darán más. El mundo que rodeaba La Marina no desconocía las guerras, la muerte, los códigos de honor, de heroismo y sangre. De hecho, en la Marina todo se experimenta: la paz, el amor, la ciencia y la guerra. Todo se vive de forma absoluta como si se presentara en oníricas condensaciones. Así vivimos en los sueños, mezclando pasado, presente y futuro, reuniendo a vivos y muertos. Edad antigua, edad media, renacimiento y el más puro siglo XX, todo coexiste en la novela. 
Las personas más civilizadas pueden tener por seguro que en su propio hogar, en su misma caverna, compartiendo la olla y el lecho, hay también una naturaleza salvaje, una semilla de la ancestral barbarie. Más aún, en esas selvas de cemento y hormigón, que se llaman ciudades, anidan las condiciones perfectas de un retroceso, como supieron ver otras grandes mentes de la generación de Jünger; así es el caso de Oswald Spengler. Justamente cuando envejece una civilización y el alma de los hombres se reseca, en la misma fase en que los grandes valores que la vivifican quedan angostados, entonces sucede que el fondo más primitivo y salvaje pase a un primer plano. Ese fondo es el de Lampusa, la caverna y la cocinera del héroe y del sabio. El salvajismo del hombre de la era técnica y de la gran urbe, nos tememos, es de una peor especie que del “primitivo natural”. No proviene de una ingenuidad y de una múltiple vía para recorrer posibilidades y actualizarlas, sino precisamente procede de la muerte y desecación de importantes regiones del alma humana, proviene de una degeneración. La cabaña de Köppelsbleek, con sus calaveras y manos clavadas absurdamente, y los instrumentos para desollar cuerpos humanos a la vista, representa el retroceso demasiado fácil en que la Civilización puede incurrir. Las hogueras en los bosques, las cabañas, granjas, graneros, en fin, la destrucción de los esfuerzos humanos por civilizar el mundo, por cultivar, son prueba irrefutable de cuán fácilmente la destrucción se adueña de todo, y el caos siempre está del lado de los elementos más retardatarios de la Civilización.
El veterano “mauritano” y el príncipe, en su visita a la Ermita representan esa necesidad de conservar el honor, la identidad, la tradición. El príncipe, un joven viejo, lleva en su sangre azul el instinto de repeler al Caos, de plantar batalla a ese Poder entrópico. Ser digno de nuestros mayores, ponerse a la altura de las glorias pasadas... Esto puede ayudar, pero nunca será lo bastante para la nueva situación de emergencia. El príncipe representa un pasado, una aristocracia que se despide y cuya sangre está diluída, ejerciendo un papel en la historia que acabará en irrelevancia. Todavía puede concitar focos de resistencia, pues esa sangre es sabedora de las viejas luchas. El instinto dirá, en nuestro caso hispano, cuándo hay que resucitar el ardor de Covadonga o de Las Navas de Tolosa, el empuje de la Reconquista o de los Tercios, pero no nos será dable recuperar un pasado, aun cuando fuese éste de lo más glorioso. Pues los desafíos nuevos exigen algo más, mucho más que retomar modelos del pasado. El Enemigo de nuestra Civilización no es fácilmente visible tras de una frontera (“hay moros en la costa”) o una bandera. El Enemigo, en tanto que alteridad irreductible y conjunto de valores inasimilables en nuestra Civilización, ha tomado posiciones de índole estructural. La estrategia del caos de éste Gran Guardabosque ha consistido en contar con algo más que “invasiones” físicas y amenazas armadas. Es una estrategia de confusionismo ideológico. Todos los pilares axiológicos de Europa van siendo dinamitados uno a uno, ante una indiferencia general o un aplauso orquestado desde las “ideologías”. Hoy en día, liberales o marxistas, socialdemócratas o conservadores, hoy en día todos aplauden orquestadamente en medio de un silencio de corderos. Los ideólogos difunden ideologías y supersticiones, llámense “democracia” o “derechos humanos”, por encima de las pequeñas diferencias de detalle en cuanto a programas de gobierno o reformas económico-políticas, matices en el estilo o verborrea doctrinaria. El príncipe ya no puede mover a una clase caballeresca que enarbole la bandera de la buena “tradición”. Apenas un puñado frente al griterío de masas barbarizadas. Los programas aristocráticos de un Spengler o de un Jünger, su “socialismo” nacionalista, su conservadurismo no reaccionario nada tenían que ver con la movilización parda o roja de masas intoxicadas. La verdadera sangre azul que pudiera hacer frente a la muchedumbre parda y roja, eran cuatro gotas ya impotentes en la República de Weimar. Y otro tanto se diga del arquetipo del veterano militar “mauritano”. Los “mauritanos”, orden militar, podrán nutrir siempre a ese conjunto de fuerzas que son el brazo del nacionalista, de quien desea proteger a su patria de los enemigos externos o internos. Pero estos hombres duros, curtidos, gente de armas que llevan siempre afiladas para la ocasión bien pueden errar y pasarse a las filas del Caos, contribuir al Caos mismo. También se observa que aquellos que se presentan como protectores, y que han sido designados para tal función, se agazapan esperando el cambio de poder y su adaptación a los nuevos tiempos. Tal es el destino de las manzanas podridas: se convierten en el cobijo de toda clase de gusanos.
No se trata de una ciencia entendida como “fuerza productiva”. No se trata de esa tecnología que hoy impera, completamente desconectada de la admiración. La verdadera ciencia y la filosofía se identificaban en los clásicos griegos y en los escolásticos medievales. La curiosidad innata e insaciable del hombre entonces no debía quedar presa de afanes mezquinos, afanes de “tendero”. La curiosidad del sabio, al igual que el honor del guerrero, no “sirven para nada” salvo para justificar la Civilización misma. Nada menos. Las cosas más nobles –arte, ciencia, filosofía, - no sirven para nada porque su función consiste en dar fundamento a la existencia. Y una existencia dotada de fundamento es una existencia verdaderamente humana, civilizada, feliz.
A côté de « roués » ruinés, aux moyens d’existence douteux, et d’origine également douteuse, d’aventuriers et de déchets corrompus de la bourgeoisie, des forçats sortis du bagne, des galériens en rupture de ban, des filous, des charlatans, des lazzaroni, des pickpockets, des escamoteurs, des joueurs, des souteneurs, des tenanciers de maisons publiques, des porte-faix, des écrivassiers, des joueurs d’orgues, des chiffonniers, des rémouleurs, des rétameurs, des mendiants, bref, toute cette masse confuse, décomposée, flottante, que les Français appellent la « bohème ». C’est avec ces éléments qui lui étaient proches que Bonaparte constitua le corps de la société du 10 Décembre.
There is something off about them. Those people who seem to never vote their actual ethnic interests when offered the chance, who tend to be extremely bourgeois while advocating for socialism, Islamophile in the face of jihad, and found in all sizable cities while being too transitory to have strong roots in any. They don’t see color but it is all they think about, and how they can bring other tribes up to their own standard of consumption (i.e. equality).
If you pressed them on their “whiteness,” they would laugh uncomfortably or become righteously angry. If you explained that their virtue signaling and clinging to tolerance were largely the value set of post-industrial urban white (and Jewish) middle classes looking to socially distance themselves from those “other,” bad white people in order to appear morally superior, they’d deny it.
In an ethnographic sense it is almost unfair and inaccurate to call this millions-strong, trans-national group of people “white.” They don’t really believe in their “whiteness” are unless engaging in self-deprecation or deflection. The Western liberal is really not “white” beyond her biology. She escapes it to posit a status of global citizenship and working towards the eternally shifting goal of social justice.
Though interestingly, in Chinese language circles there is a now a slur, baizuo, for these kinds of liberals which translates to “white left.” Chenchen Zhang, a liberal Chinese professor in the European university system writes:
“The stigmatization of the ‘white left’ is driven first and foremost by Chinese netizens’ understanding of ‘western’ problems. It is a symptom and weakness of the Other. The term first became influential amidst the European refugee crisis, and Angela Merkel was the first western politician to be labelled as a baizuo for her open-door refugee policy. Hungary, on the other hand, was praised by Chinese netizens for its hard line on refugees, if not for its authoritarian leader.”
So to China’s politically-active circles on the Internet, “white left” is a slur for someone as de-nationalized as a European, that is to say someone whose liberalism will end the society they live in as they know it. It is considered a clever insult to call someone a white liberal in China. Perhaps it is their form of the Alt Right’s “cuck” meme.
The same liberal Chinese professor also condemns the author of what sounds like an extremely NRx take on Western civilization, except that it was coming out of China:
“In an academic-style essay that was retweeted more than 7000 times on Weibo, a user named ‘fantasy lover Mr. Liu’ ‘reviewed’ European philosophy from Voltaire and Marx to Adorno and Foucault, concluding that the ‘white left’ as a ‘spiritual epidemic’ is on its way to self-destruction. He then stated that Trump’s win was only ‘a small victory over this spiritual epidemic of humankind,’ but ‘western civilization is still far from its self-redemption.’ However ridiculous it may appear, the post is illustrative of how a demonized Other is projected onto seemingly objective or academic criticisms of the ‘white left’… The grassroots campaign against the ‘white left’ thus echoes the officially-sanctioned campaign against ‘universal values’, providing a negative evidence for the superiority of the Chinese self.”
Let us move on from the powerful Chinese sense of ethnos that liberal Chinese living abroad are so eager to deconstruct and which motivates nationalistic Chinese people to scoff at Europeans and Eurocolonials, and return to our focus on the progenitor of that self-destructive behavior, the Western liberal.
For many Europeans and Eurocolonials, liberalism is the common mental archetype. What we’ll call “liberalism” for short-hand is a rejection of one’s own nation and ethnos in lieu of a vast, global orientation towards humanity as a whole rather than its subdivisions. It’s an impossible vision, but that does not make it any less appealing. To exist without roots or without belonging to an ethnic tribe or community is a state contrary to the history of the human condition, but that creates part of its mystique. It is a kind of transcendence. Feeling enlightened by their own sense of cosmopolitanism and moral correctness, they spurn the human norm of tribal feeling that has existed for millennia.
As such, the Fifth Political Theory (5PT) sees fit to acknowledge that these people do not wish to be identified with “whiteness” or as part of the Western heritage in any traditional sense. They have opted out of the Western diaspora that we hope to achieve. We have no problem with “letting go” of the baizuo, but since they will be part of the same societies we are for a long time to come, we would do well to understand how they function (or malfunction) as a group, and what their implicit identity is even if they do not provide one for themselves.
The de-nationalized Western liberal who believes in the integration of all communities, the absence of inherited (or acquired) meaningful human differences, and that she exists as a generic human being animated only by the ideological pursuit of material equality and cosmopolitanism for cosmopolitanism’s sake, is the prototype of the transhuman. This new kind of human has shed all of its organic identity in place of the ability to consume at will, whenever and wherever without any sort of communitarian barriers, except against the more “retrograde” identity-conscious people who must be vigorously excluded from participation. In that sense the liberal or “progressive” state of being is a conflict between what we might call Man 1.0 and Man 2.0, in which the “newer” iteration sets itself upon eradicating those living fossils of the older model through pure impulse.
Let us turn to Dugin here who puts liberalism’s relation to ethnic identities quite well:
“Liberalism as an ideology, calling for the liberation from all forms of collective identity in general, is entirely incompatible with the ethnos and ethnocentrism, and is an expression of a systemic theoretical and technological ethnocide” (47).
Those who’ve completely integrated liberalism into themselves and supplanted their own ethnos now turn on the ethnos of other peoples. The meme of liberalism behaves more like a parasite than an ordinary organism, by infecting the host and then using it to attack non-carriers. That’s not a bug of Man 2.0, but a feature it has over Man 1.0.
As such, our prototype transhuman has moribund fertility and relies heavily on conversion to reproduce, making the liberal project into a constant battle with human nature, though one it has hitherto managed to precariously succeed in. “Religious conservatives” meanwhile have no trouble breeding; just ask the mostly-Eurocolonial Mormons, or the Arab Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa.
Just as neo-liberalism adopts mass immigration to ensure permanent “national” growth, our de-nationalized transhumans rely on converting what are in essence nationalized humans to their paradigms rather than indigenous or internal reproduction. The immigration that they support after all brings in foreign ethnocentric peoples as raw material for their ideology, not people who are automatically ready to be upgraded. One wonders how liberal Western Europe will remain as its Arab population increases—and if the managerial states there fail to atheize these migrants and convince them of the wonders of materialism. This is the heart of the baizuo meme mentioned earlier—Mohammed is not Merkel.
Liberals are actually quite good at converting Europeans and Eurocolonials, though success with non-Europeans may prove to be superficial. As the European and Eurocolonial population dwindles as a share of the Western whole, politically liberalism will primarily become a coalition of non-European ethnic blocs which supplement European liberals. And those non-European ethnic blocs are as such, ethnic rather than truly “liberal” in most cases. They are not as deracinated as the baizuo by any stretch, and the deracination of the latter could be said to embolden the former.
Our prototype transhumans of the “white” variety are thus lacking in what Julius Evola describes as the “demon” element in their individual. This is not the same as the evil entity that Christianity conceives of but instead “the deep force that originally produced consciousness in the finite form that is the body in which it lives during its residence in the visible world” (47). Without any spiritual depth beyond a crude materialism that focuses purely on achieving comfortable consumption levels for all races, the prototype transhuman has nothing it belongs to or emanates from, and so naturally cannot reproduce itself effectively. Evola adds that:
“In many traditions the demon corresponds to the so-called double, which is perhaps a reference to the soul of the soul or the body itself; this ‘double’ has also often been closely associated with the primordial ancestor or with the totem conceived as the soul and the unitary life that generated a stock, a family, a gens, or a tribe, and therefore it has a broader sense than the one given to it by some schools of contemporary ethnology. The single individuals of a group appear as various incarnations or emanations of this demon or totem, which is the “spirit” pulsating in their blood; they live it and it lives in them, through transcending them, just as the matrix transcends the particular forms it produces out of its own substance” (48).
Our prototype transhumans are people without history and ancestry, or rather they reject their history and ancestry as evil. From a presentist point of view, the very act of being born to European or Eurocolonial heritage is an original sin within the context of achieving Progress. The response is as we have seen to become nothing in terms of having an organic identity; they identify as an ideologue and not as a member of a tribe, saying “I am a liberal,” or “I am a progressive,” or something of that nature. Rather than being expressions of a “demon” element in the flesh, they are corruptions from a traditionalist point of view. We must wonder if this subconsciously dissuades them from having higher fertility, believing that they spreading an evil ancestral line into the world which they will spend the rest of their lives attempting to corral into becoming a fellow transhuman.
Incidentally, our prototype transhumans are sub-national and trans-national in a similar sense to the Western diaspora. Just as there is a Western diaspora in Germany and Canada, one could also speak of liberals in Germany and Canada. In both cases we feel more affinity with these networked groups than with our neighbors. The key difference is that the liberal breaks with her heritage in order to form her identity.
The purpose of this esoteric discourse is to highlight an important truth about the concept of the Western diaspora—it does not include the totality of all Europeans and Eurocolonials. Prototype transhumans reject us as an ethnos that must be done away with, and we reject them as an outgroup who we share some lineage with but no values. We who comprise the Western diaspora are in possession of this second part of the self—the generative “demon” element that allows us to carry forth our ancestral stock without guilt. We want to perpetuate ourselves and to honor our heritage and traditions as our anchor in the world, not to decouple ourselves from the foundations of the human experience so that we might leap towards an impossible future of total equality at the expense of subsuming all identities to the scale of pecuniary measurement and perverse moral self-satisfaction. The maladaptive meme of Progress before perpetuity may have taken root among most Europeans and Eurocolonials, but in doing so it has also forged them into a not-tribe, the tribe that doesn’t think of itself as a tribe. And a tribe which does not think of itself as a tribe will not persist.
What separates the Western diaspora from the prototype transhumans of the Western liberal majority is that we do conceive of ourselves as a coherent tribe with a past, present, and future. 5PT is about the formation of that tribe within our contemporary diasporic context and embracing that generative element. Among the societies created by our prototype transhumans, the only people with a sense of ethnos will ultimately be ourselves and the other immigrant communities, which possess that element as well. It’s a peculiar future, but the liberal ideology that shaped it may not survive to enjoy its results.
Titus Quintus
Works Cited:
Dugin, Alexander. The Fourth Political Theory. 2009. Translated by Mark Sleboda & Michael Millerman, 2012. London: Arktos.
Evola, Julius. Revolt Against the Modern World. 1969. Translated by Guido Stucco, 1995. Vermont: Inner Traditions International.
Author’s note: I should very much like to return to these works more in depth at a later date, but for this topic it shall suffice to quote them briefly.
Auch der vielfach in der Geschichtsschreibung aufgenommene Terminus vom „deutschen Sonderweg“, der mit dieser Problematik eng verknüpft ist, lasse sich allein mit dem Hinweis darauf relativieren, dass er die Annahme eines „Normalweges“ voraussetze. Dieser wiederum sei abhängig vom Definierenden und damit ebenso hypothetisch wie an Zeit und persönlichen Standort gebunden. 
