KT Answers, pt.2: Peoples, Nations, Wars and Turning of Other Cheek

Han Fei says:

I found your podcast to be a pleasure to listen to from the beginning to the end, and I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to both you and the commenter Ivan for taking the time and effort to answer my raised points in detail. I would also like to admit my own error in firing off so many questions at once, which upon reflection, I should have truncated by at least a half.

I think Eastern Europeans who come into contact with Westerners, particularly of the Anglo-Saxon variety, can’t help but feel repulsed by the glib sentimentality often prevalent in their culture. This sappy, holier than thou attitude tends to combine an arrogant sense of moral superiority with a complete and utter illogicality (or willful ignorance) of the stated positions from which this sense emerges, namely those of their political, scientific and technological establishment. This is not entirely a fair assessment. There was indeed a time, when this establishment exhibited such merits, at least in terms of material success, that such an attitude could very well be justified on moral grounds. Nowadays I think, this delusion can’t be maintained on any logical level considered to be remotely sane, since the Western establishment declared open war against the things that made it pre-eminent in the first place.

The omnipresence of disgusting lies and contradictory beliefs in Western society account for the tone of my earlier questions as well as the state of agitation I was at the time when I typed them. Therefore I didn’t stop to perhaps consider their wording in a less reckless manner. Now that I have calmed down a bit (and not under the influence of fancy Niagaran Riesling I should add), we can perhaps reflect upon these issues in a more productive manner.

This is not to say that the people themselves are bad – during my first years in Canada, I was amazed at how individual relations among Westerners are free from the miserable cynicism, presumption of malicious intent or vicious bigotry that I frequently came across in my country of origin. Whenever someone fell down he was always extended a hand of assistance, and nobody judged you, at least openly, by who you were (on a class level) or where you came from. Indeed, shortly after we arrived to settle in my new hometown, my family, being piss poor at the time, were immediately treated to a stately dinner by a member of the local elites, who I should add was a prominent freemason. I was also incredibly impressed at how socially responsible and law-obedient Canadians were, which I see as exemplary of sound ethnocultural norms and political principles. All of this suggests the presence of a certain reality altogether beyond the graspable realm of concepts and substances, but one that is nonetheless is intensely relevant to determining the nature of a person or a people.

That in the nearest stretch of time, the question of identity and belonging once again come to the forefront of the issues that grip the upcoming generation, can be seen as either a very bad, or a very good thing depending on how you look at it. Indeed 15 years ago or so, I was only dimly aware of this matter and saw those preoccupied with where they came from as being somewhat kookoo in the head. Yet now, media, academic and the “polite society” opinion, has established that the source of all social ills can be found in the ethnic background of the majority demographic, an ideagram which it incessantly seeks to drill into the public’s consciousness. Thus, although we are supposed to extirpate all thoughts pertaining to our origins from our minds, all of a sudden we are presented with a very clear recognition of its existence with regards to privileges owed to others, holocaust and slavery reparations, destruction of cultural monuments and so on so on. This process has become voraciously intensified in recent years, even months as the regime has suddenly realized it has the power in its hands to shut down any opinion and marginalize any voice not concurrent with the established norm. Political differences are becoming increasingly delineated in racial terms and conversely, the question of race will become an increasingly relevant factor in politics, as Branco has noted in this podcast.

I understand that this is not a particular matter of concern to people in European, particularly East European societies, who didn’t have to deal with the media driven lunacy of the American electoral season. Rather, it has everything to do with how the academia, the press and the government in the Anglosphere society is actively trying to destroy any sense of commonality between people on a basis of shared cultural and ethnic origin. Unless of course this origin can be employed by means of subversive politics, as a weapon of terror and intimidation against the established demographic majority of a nation. This is why there emerges an intensifying sense of enmity and oppression among those who either admire and identify with the predominating culture on a personal level, or happen to be a part of it on a hereditary level, which tends to lead such persons towards the far right side of the spectrum. When ordinary Americans are being branded “white supremacists” for doing nothing but exercising their right to protest and when a nasal voice on the news shrieks that whites can’t be trusted with the vote, it is almost pitifully predictable against whom public anger will be directed. So, dismissing the growth of internet based right as being somehow tied in with some kind of fleeting homosexual fad stands as unsatisfactory. I also have, with some amusement, earlier commented on the prevalence of narcissistic, self absorbed attitudes among the right characteristic of a sodomite frame of mind, although I do not claim that such a thing accounts for this phenomenon. The tiny, but growing dissident and nationalist right in the West, I assure you, is not filled with frivolously minded degenerates, but people with wills, intellects and principles pertaining to a political movement which I believe will leave a mark on history, whether for good or ill, in the coming century.

Putting that matter aside, I would like to clarify what I meant by the “moral” assessment of political or historical events. I used the words “value judgement” or “morals” in a peculiar way to describe a feeling of personal attachment or involvement with a particular symbol or idea embodied in the specific instances of its political manifestation.

The best way to elucidate what I mean by this is to resort to the oft discussed example of geopolitics as a very fruitful discipline for shedding light on the decision making processes of global power brokers. However, such an approach would require an absolutely value-free judgement (I don’t care how this term is defined, you know what I mean) as in total personal detachment from the moral validity of the events or decisions being made. This was a point heavily laboured upon by F.P. Yockey in his Imperium who saw deep hypocrisy in the Allied conduct of the War being justified as a moral crusade against evil, whereas he saw it as nothing but an amoral struggle delineated in terms of pure political interests. However, I should note that geopolitics can thus be somewhat likened to say, the reading of a set of instruments, in that it can provide us with very specific but also very limited information. My point of digression from Yockey and his ilk (though I still consider him a brilliant theorist) is that he made the exact same error of personally identifying with absolute power politics as some sort of aesthetic and ethical ideal, which is quite horrifying.

Likewise in Alexander Dugin’s works, one can find a recurrent theme that the emphatic sense or intense irrational feeling evoked by an unfolding historic process can be associated with its origin in geopolitics, in his case the geopolitics of Russia. This of course, serves to remind us of the distinction between origin as an unconscious given determinant and identity as one’s willful belonging to a political ideology (or national interest), which Branco has spoken about at length.

Anyway in conclusion I greatly appreciate the fact that Kali Tribune always teaches its readers to look at things from the vantage point. I may not always agree let alone comprehend less than half the time what you’re talking about, but nevertheless I find this blog to be one of the very, very few places on the internet to which I could relegate genuine intellectual respect.