Given my persistent and often strident criticism of the Left, and the fact that many people are aware that I was a ultra-left activist for years, I am often asked why I became so critical of the Left, and what I would prefer that the Left was actually doing. This single paragraph from Batu Caliskans article at Radix summarizes my own perspective perfectly. There, at one critical point in history, existed a genuine Left, a Left that was unequivocally committed to the ideals of self-determination and national sovereignty. For all intents and purposes, the Old Left, and with it the promise of a revolutionary class to challenge the entrenching pattern of globalism, New Class managerialism, entrenching statism, and atomistic individualism, is gone. The New “Left” betrays every noble intention and ideal the Old Left was renowned for. Gone are the substantive demands for local governance (communitarian municipalism), for free-market anti-capitalism (anarcho-mutualism), for ethnopluralism (as opposed to “multiculturalism”), and for immediacy of action, however violent it may be. What exists now, in modern society, is not the Left, in any meaningful sense, but rather, a flimsy simulacrum that vaunts the rhetoric of the Old Left without understanding or committing to it. The irony lies in the fact that the recreational Leftists who cling to this lifestylism, and who putatively champion for the underprivileged, oppressed, etc., are the bitterly-hated class enemies of the downtrodden, including revolutionaries of the criminal (and non-criminal) working class, the racial underclasses, the lumpenproletariats, and other supposed dregs of society. The political narrative of the New Left, derisively referred to as “Cultural Marxism” by the Right, must be deconstructed completely in order to enable the emergence of alternative, subversive political thought. radixjournal/blog/2014/11/3/towards-a-redefinition-of-nationalism
Posted on: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 17:45:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015