Terrorism: A Political Weapon (Part II – The Reactionary Attitude to Violence)

It is unquestionable that we live in an unstable world. Beheadings and throat cuttings now seem commonplace in Britain. Countries are constantly falling into chaos or outright international conflict, from Ukraine to Syria, and while terrorism is indeed rare comparatively in our society, it does seem to be flowing rather than ebbing.

For more evidence of this state of conflict in the modern world, see Michael Anissimov’s article ‘On the Absence of War’.

http://www.moreright.net/on-the-absence-of-war/

Terrorism itself is a relatively modern concept, emerging with the advent of modern politics, in which there is far greater polarization in the political realm within states themselves, as well as ideological conflicts across cultures that are far more political in nature than their predecessors. Examples similar to the modern incarnation of terrorism, in the Traditional World, are few and far between.

 

Aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing (1995)
 
But what is the reactionary to make of this political tactic. This may be the proverbial ‘third rail’ of online discussion topics, but we may probe around it without touching it, and remain unmolested by its voltage.
 
The reactionary necessarily exists outside the modern political system. He does not vote for ‘conservative’ or ‘socialist’ political parties for any desire on his part to see their policies implemented. In fact, if he votes at all, at any level, it is merely to further the larger goal of reaction that is separate from anything represented in the intra-party sphere. In the recent vote for Scottish independence, a reactionary may have voted or encouraged a ‘Yes’ vote, but not because he was excited to see Scotland get home rule and enact the left wing policies its people desire. He may have supported independence simply because it would sow chaos in a liberal democracy, and chaos in its politically neutral form is ALWAYS positive for those who are ‘on the out’. The further a liberal, modern democracy is weakened, the more vulnerable it will inevitably be should the opportunity for a seizure of power present itself in the event of societal catastrophe.
 
It is for this same reason the reactionary is legitimate in looking upon some terrorism without an immediately negative response, should it either be applied to the correct target, or by design/accident, serve a greater reactionary goal. Terrorism is a threat to any established order, whether it be democratic or autocratic, religious or secular. On a purely metapolitical level, should a terrorist act forward the destruction of Modernity in favor of the Traditional World, it can find itself in a category as legitimate as intellectual pursuits or networking. This is however limited by higher principles, such as the Moral Law, and in some cases Tradition itself, and these things must be taken into account when analyzing any incident of such magnitude.
Julius Evola recognized different approaches to Reaction
 
By the 1960s, Italian reactionary philosopher, Baron Julius Evola, had already consigned his dreams of a post-fascist reactionary takeover of his nation to mere fantasy. He advocated in his final great work ‘Ride the Tiger’, for a more internal and spiritual struggle against Modernity by which one might find solace and a way of coping with our degenerate age. However, it is suspected in many circles that Evola gave his tacit approval to the actions of reactionary Italians during the first few ‘Years of Lead’ which occured before his death. While the baron was wheelchair bound and losing interest in political machinations in favor of fundamental principles, Evola recognized that the struggle continued in his absence.
 
We who type these compact dissertations on the reactionary right are largely a benign sort. Many of us are willing to meet and discuss the current climate, speculate on governmental models, perhaps even engage in discussions surrounding the inevitable moment that this tiger that the baron spoke of collapses and dies, however there are those who read our work, both online and in print, who due to their nature will be compelled to act. This is strangely unavoidable, and something we have little control over.
 
Anders Behring Breivik, Norwegian terrorist who
bombed Oslo and assaulted an island youth camp
 
In the aftermath of the mass shooting in Norway conducted by self-described ‘Knight Templar’, Ander Breivik, there was a vaguely amusing and largely feigned shock expressed by those in the online circle known collectively as the ‘counter-Jihad’, who have composed lengthy writings on the Islamization of Europe. No writing is more notable than Fjordman’s ‘Defeating Eurabia’, which paints a terrifying vision of a Quisling-style plot within the European Union to flood Europe’s shores with Muslim immigrants who will subject everyone to Sharia Law.
 
After writing these things, after compiling evidence, outrageous quotes, police reports of rape incidents, international documentation of this immigrant conspiracy, it is unbelievable that the counter-Jihad movement was surprised that one of their reader’s snapped and decided that his path went beyond writing essays and marching with flags.
 
What exactly Breivik did in Norway is irrelevant to the larger issue. The fact is that allowing a grain of truth to drop into the brain of a man who was environmentally primed for violence was enough to trigger terrorism. This is not an excuse to fail in exposing the evils of the modern world, for it represents its own form of cultural terrorism, a declared war on the Traditional World.
 
Be cautious and mature when you step into the light, and run your fingers across a keyboard exposing this facade, this matrix, this vile structure that surrounds us. The truth is necessarily inspirational and should it inspire a violent form of political activism, do not be so surprised as to beclown yourself. If you do not know what you are doing, then you are not qualified to be doing it.

(Side note: this post has proved controversial to some, and yet this is, I must stress, a metapolitical analysis of terrorism. It is not a call to specific or vague actions, but rather an intellectual and academic study of the subject as it relates to Reactionary theory, no different to countless online essays tackling the same subject)
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s