18
r ac h e l h ay w i r e
If you hear about a safe space, it is now your duty to run as far away from it as you can. The Great Hugbox has created too many shitlords for its own good. How many powerful white
liberal women must cry about death threats on Twitter for
people to realize this?
19
how hipsters become traditionalists
HIPSTERS ARE OFTEN PICTURED as skinny
kids wearing indie band shirts and thick glasses,
(without a vision correction) hanging out in
antique stores and collecting vinyl records in order
to impress their hipster friends. The famous hipster-phrase is
“I was into ______ before it was cool.” Let’s examine the roots of this. What is it that happens to something after it becomes
“cool” that makes it degrade? Why do hipsters flock away from something the moment it receives mainstream recognition?
How do hipsters become traditionalists?
Hipsters become traditionalists when the beat of progress
begins to tire on them. They engage in one “cool” thing after another, until there is nothing left but a vast wasteland of
references to concepts about references related to concepts.
This is the postmodern clearing house aka. the genocide
of meaning aka. it’s just not cool anymore. The hipster will
search for something that happened before the period of
mass acceptance, unless they were there during the initial
incarnation of the trend aka. The Warehouse Period.
The hipster fetishization of the past can be seen as a
reaction to the scapegoat of modernity; the so-cool-it’s-not
20
r ac h e l h ay w i r e
cool-anymore cycle that eventual y turns into dressing up like a cop and discussing the merits of religion. The traditionalist hipster is sick of living in a society in which Cultural Marxism is an ironic joke, and will go as far as to call oneself a Cultural Marxist in order to avoid discussing the phenomena without
laughing.
The traditionalist hipster has been burnt by the coals of
modern life, and now seeks an exit via watching old movies
and cosplaying old wars while sipping on a Starbucks latte in order to protest anti-capitalism. The traditionalist hipster is a collection of extremes, blunted not at the edges, but directly in the middle. The traditionalist hipster understands the customs of Victorian society while being unable to explain Taylor Swift, except through a 4chan meme referencing Donald Trump and/
or Hitler.
So essential y, there are people in this society (hipsters)
who realize that their quest to find the next edge is a futile one, which is precisely what causes them to turn toward a new obsession with the past. The only novel thing to do is become a mainstream Republican; otherwise they would become
helplessly uncool with all the previous level scenesters.
All in all this may seem like a meaningless phenomenon,
but the hipster is actual y open-minded enough to realize that all things decay after reaching a period of generic popularity.
The elitism is warranted by the effects of populism, bringing forth a designated response to the modern circus of politics and status. The post-scarcity environment allows the traditionalist hipster to forge oneself a hierarchy of their own design, scoffing at those who don’t understand their nods to ancient literature.
There is a genuine freedom in rejecting the status quo of
cool.
21
you would do your will
WHAT IF NATURAL LAW rendered it so you were
a woman? What if natural law rendered it so you
were Jewish? What would you do in this situation?
Probably your wil .
Picture yourself in this situation for a moment. You would
become a rabid feminist and use sex appeal to control all the men around you. You would become a hard-core Zionist and
fight for your nation because might equals right. Don’t try to deny it for a second. Code of honor amongst individualists and intellectuals.
You would do your wil .
The feminists are all trying to chop off your dicks. Israel is oppressing you. Poor little male existentialist victim. You sound like an oppressed moron and have become the PC culture that
you despise. Why are you hating people for abiding by the
rules of the jungle which you, dear enlightened male, are so
enamored with? You cry because you are being oppressed by
the iron fists of feminism and Zionism. This article is for you.
Survival of the fittest means that anybody, and yes that
means anybody, can rape, kil , destroy, or control anyone else 22
r ac h e l h ay w i r e
through human functions of power and opportunity. This
means that anyone can make you feel like a pathetic insect
despite your knowledge of esoteric nationalism. Even liberals and progressives who have not left the Left can control you with their predatory instincts. Why are you so butthurt about this?
I understand that your causes are very important and that
Europa is dead. We are all weeping with our trendy runes and
whatnot. You are preserving your culture by stopping the decay and filth of… wel , you get the point… but these feminists
are just too hardcore. Why do you sound like you are at a bad hipster protest? You would do your wil .
This is a reaction against your reaction. You have become
the oppressed. I am not saying that you are a weak subhuman
who is asking to be stomped on. I am simply stating that a
jungle is a jungle and that nationalism is nationalism. What is so hard to comprehend about this concept? Maybe you deserve
to be slapped like a bitch.
We have accepted that the head of the KKK has more in
common with the head of the Black Panthers than all those
college students holding hands on Martin Luther King
Jr. Avenue. Can we not, by extension of this uber-divine
awareness, accept that the intellectual subgroups of the White Nationalist community would do their will if they were Jewish women?
As people who have left the Left we should know better than
to condemn fellow travelers who wish to assert themselves in
this land of blood and honor.
Originally published at Attack the System
23
part 1i:
decline
&
decadence
anarchy is not the death of the west
ANARCHY IS NOT THE bottom of the totem pole.
It is not degradation. Anarchy is when both the
totem pole and degradation are overthrown. There
seems to be a common misconception that anarchy
equates anarchism and this idea gets more and more popular
as the definition of anarchy turns more and more into the
definition of anarchism—in other words, socialized anarchy, or the Karl Marx collective next door. Anarchy lite.
Anarchy is not a liberal jungle or a child commune. Anarchy
is not a punk militia. Anarchy rejects these governments.
Anarchy is the natural state without the modernized cultural
spin. It is what we truly are and how we actual y behave. Some people will say that anarchy is not practical but anarchy is the only practical form of interaction around us because anarchy is human nature.
Anarchy is the visceral expression of our rotten core. This
is explained by Max Stirner in The Ego and His Own in which he points out that being ruled by the people is no different
from being ruled by the State. Control is control and a society ruled by a popular maj
ority is simply not anarchy. Anarcho-collectivism is bunk.
27
t h e n ew a rt r i g h t
People seek to hide this from us, as if we were children, by
creating governments and imposing concepts like democracy
and tyranny and socialism. Scholars and academics have tried
to turn anarchy into anarchism in order to give it a friendlier, more PC meaning. They refer to “a cooperative anarchist
society in which people mutual y work together,” which sounds a lot nicer than “utter and complete freedom . ”
It’s not like anarcho-collectivism sounds like the worst
thing in the world, (wel , actual y it does sound pretty bad) but it would be nice if people would stop mistaking it for anarchy.
Bob Black explains this pretty well in Anarchy After Leftism: a Farewell to the Anarchy that Was! He cal s out Murray Bookchin’s social-ecology-anarchy as being a system in itself.
He deconstructs the modern Left as being a governing social
order. Anarcho-Leftism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-
communism, and anarchism are all misleading terms. They do
not describe anarchy but mini-governments. Emma Goldman
was not an anarchist. Anarchy is not anarchism.
Saying anarchy is “even lower than socialism” is like saying
hacking is “even lower than Windows OS.” There is a massive
logical fal acy here. Anarchy is not liberal decay because
anarchy is not liberal. Anarchy is not the death of the West.
Anarchy is our nature and therefore obliterates all forms of
governments and social paradigms. Even if we are tyrants
inside (and I am inclined to believe that we are) we are still anarchists at our very root. Anarchist or tyrant, we are still making our own decisions. The anarchist is a tyrant without
a throne. It is through our anarchist nature that we are able to create whatever sense of order or disorder we desire. There are no rules.
Anarchy came first.
28
r ac h e l h ay w i r e
Original y made available at www.attackthesystem.com and published in National-Anarchism: Theory and Practice
29
john galt is homeless
SELFISHNESS USED TO BE a virtue, as any good
capitalist knows. It was a way to advance ourselves
in a society of altruistic gesture. We were supposed
to put ourselves before other people, and this was
supposed to be the gateway to success. Yet this was not the way of the future, and many of us were in for quite a surprise. We saw more and more poor conservatives who were too selfish
to make it in Corporate America. We saw brilliant people
struggle for survival simply because they were disinterested in the will of the group. For the first time in history, it appeared that kindness was winning, with world leaders condemning
acts of a selfish nature.
We need to face the fact that Randian capitalism is no longer a way to advance oneself but a way to make oneself poor, in
that even mentioning Ayn Rand can get you ostracized from
any university. The roles have now been reversed and it is no longer survival-of-the-fittest but survival-of-the-most-willing-to-please. As unique and individualistic as we are, we must
accept that the real way to prosper in this society is to make other people happy. It is to do what they want and to flaunt our kindness like our latest outfit. Thinking only for ourselves will 30
r ac h e l h ay w i r e
not elevate us to the highest tier but leave us social y ostracized and starving.
It is time to accept that John Galt is homeless. When I talk
to people living on the streets, they do not possess a Marxist view of the world but a view based on scarcity and survival. It is everybody against everybody in the urban jungle. There is
no unity when people are struggling simply to put the food on the table. Being poor and conservative is not a contradiction but a natural reaction. It is usual y people who are well off that can afford to think about saving the world.
Why is John Galt homeless? Did people lose their jobs for
being too involved in themselves? Was arrogance shunned?
Was self-importance viewed as petty and infantile? Were
people awarded status for being disinterested in themselves?
When did the atlas reverse? It is hard to come up with an exact point in time, but it is obvious that being selfish will no longer get you to the top.
Some of us feel conflicted. We are nice people who do not
want to lose ourselves in the process of doing what we must
to survive, but we are afraid that employers will not like us for who we truly are. We feel the need to put on an act in order
to be accepted. We adapt to the will of the group in order to advance ourselves. It is not that we must step on other people to advance, but that we must be careful not to step on anyone.
This reversal of capitalism is simply a new extreme.
Conforming to groupthink in order to survive in Corporate
America has replaced selfishness. You may no longer need to
hurt people around you to survive, but must it be necessary for you to act like a customer service representative around the
clock? Is this real y any better?
If kindness has truly won, what about people who are not
social y able to make the group happy? Maybe it isn’t that
31
t h e n ew a rt r i g h t
someone cares only about themselves, but that someone has
concerns that lie outside of the group. Many people who don’t think about “the group” are artists and philosophers. Why
should these people exist, starving, until they learn how to
please the common whole?
John Galt is homeless and nobody cares. We feel no pity for
people who only think about themselves. We show resentment
toward anyone who is unable to make the people around them
feel good. We reject those who are self-important because
we are afraid they will make us look bad. We live in a culture where being nice to others is a marketable skil . Social media is about making people feel good.
Can we survive without understanding the modern social
manual? Will the quality of our work outshine our lack of
people skil s? Can we create our own path without upsetting
others? Now is the time for us to consider these questions as we face the future of the atlas being reversed. Can we be ourselves without becoming homeless, or are we doomed to become
ideological martyrs because we are too selfish to survive?
Original y published at www.hplusmagazine.com
32
night of the silver spoons
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE what it was like to be a
working class Jew in pre-WW2 Germany who
fancied themselves to be a fallen aristocrat. I assume
I may have be chilling at a cabaret I was working at
with a young Ernst Jünger or Otto Strasser. I may have taken
a break from dancing and started talking about economy with
some of the local folk. Someone may have stated that the Jews were to blame, and I may have asked “What about people like
me? We don’t support globalism and we’re Jewish sooooo.”
With the turbulent economy going the way that it did, it
seems obvious to me that conversations like this would have
occurred. Many people will boldly argue that they did not, but these people are basic so who cares about them anyway? There
is always a national working class against the global economy of the era, regardless of individual race or ethnicity. This is mere civilization rotation/economics, and not a crass revisionism
as many would suggest. Inside each working class there will
always be a group of fallen aristocrats who have been kicked
out of the towers of the elites they once belonged to. You wake up one day and this class is out for revenge, as this class has been displaced from their original position.
33
t h e n ew a rt r i g h t
I have dubbed this time in history the Night of the
Silver Spoons, which is what happens when the hardcore
philosophers, mystics, and romantics get thrown out of the
ivory towers by the oligarchs and guardians who can no longer contain the dragon energy of their most fringe intellectuals.
Thrown to the barbarian hordes to be eaten alive, the Night of the Silver Spoons leads to the Night of the Long Knives and
precedes it in every national fairytale. While Germany is the most obvious example, the Night of the Silver Spoons took
place in both Fascist Italy and Communist Russia. It took place in America during the Obama administration, and the Trump
Generation is here to reap its rewards and consequences.
The fallen ariostocrats (I like the term “aristopunk,”
personal y) transcend the Marxist narrative of class, which is why they (we?) are usual y written out of history. Why would
you want to be killed by the hordes of barbarians when you
could simply suck it up, buttercup? Herein lies the key to the gates that the barbarians have already stormed.
One can be an aristocratic barbarian or a barbarian
aristocrat, but what about the aristocrats who never encounter a single barbarian or the barbarians who never encounter a
single aristocrat? Why aren’t these people fighting each other instead? Isn’t that the real conspiracy? When will they leave the fallen aristocrats alone?
So check it out. You’re an intellectual, and you think it’s
wrong to call people who don’t support globalism Anti-Semitic.
Suddenly you end up in a bar with some working class cabaret
dancers and you all talk about forming their own national party with blackjack and hookers. Just some pipe dream, for now, but the patrons take note. The guardians threw them off the plastic cliffs of civilized society too, and now the entire cabaret must align with the folk who have zero interest in the arts or culture.
The New Art Right- a New Reaction for 2018 Page 2