I have recently argued that we suffer from the hypocritical, victimistic, and deceitful propaganda of the powerful, children of Globalization, who are true Pariahs.
https://noreporter.org/the-poison-of-the-servants/
I have also stated – and documented – on several occasions that the “quarrels” between Russians and Americans, between NATO and Moscow, are to some extent a farce.
The ties between the two sides are very close, starting with armaments, continuing with space programs, and especially in the sharing of quotas for managing the global geo-energy economy. It is no small detail that in Syria, actions are coordinated by phone between the two armies. This was not revealed by a “conspiracy theorist,” but by Lavrov himself.
This does not mean that there are no proper rivalries within their complicity, as in any enterprise.
It is unlikely that the rivalries will prevail and even degenerate, but it is not impossible that they will produce various side effects (armaments, resurgence of patriotic themes, cultural changes) that, as such, and certainly not in the hysterical illusion that they will revolutionize the world, should interest us greatly.
I have continually called attention to the need to be present to ourselves and leave behind the categories of antagonism, which only serves to always and invariably consolidate power; I have urged to overcome dualism, not to confuse ideal visions with fanfare, and to escape daily hypnosis.
Does this mean that I preach neutrality and not taking sides?
Not at all. It means something entirely different.+
As I tried to explain in my “1984 sei tu”, everything disgusting that we suffer or believe we suffer today is partly the work of those in power, but it is mainly the expression of the chaotic and formless belly of those plebs who are the product of the disintegration of social bodies, ideologically and spiritually desired by some but also determined by circumstances.
Therefore, blaming the current Soros is somewhat pointless.
We are talking about atomized plebs who are uneducated, lacking in style, distant from metaphysics (even of a materialistic kind, as, paradoxically, there is one), from discipline, from hierarchy. In other words, plebs distant from Verticality.
Has Verticality been defeated, at least for the moment, by Horizontality? Not exactly, because this horizontality, which translates into the law of numbers, where everything is qualitatively relative and everything is worth everything else, has resulted in an inevitable nosedive, a Counterverticality.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and it was inevitable that it would end this way. So much so that today, the woke madness and gender delirium are imposing a reversed scale of values and even principles, and it could not be otherwise when, in the face of the unleashing of matter, energy, and technology, there is no spiritual, cultural, and existential center that serves as an axis around which the wheel turns.
Avoiding getting caught up in hysterical fanfare by choosing a supposed “lesser evil” that is supposed to revolutionize the system (assuming anyone can define what they mean by system) does not mean acting like a Swiss banker, but rather consolidating oneself, nourishing oneself culturally, conceptually, existentially, and even spiritually, in order to become a SUBJECT in an era where, by its nature, all verbs are conjugated in the passive and only involve AGENT complements.
Just thinking and living actively rather than passively will be a revolution, and this is what we must strive for above all.
Focusing on oneself, one’s people, one’s civilization, to regenerate one’s living environment and to regenerate Europe together: this alone should interest us.
Inserting Verticality.
How is it done?
It starts by no longer yielding to one’s own resentments and frustrations, but rather making room for happy creative will. With style, discipline, respect, education, and the rediscovery of hierarchy, the real kind, not the gang kind.
Horizontality, after debasing quality and form, has given rise to a vortex of corrosion, in which people, no longer united, cohesive, or represented, have been reduced to a collection of mad atoms and hypnotized brains, ultimately providing further energy to the corrosive force that reigns. In our “web social” attitudes and obtuse, acidic fandom, we are all agents of corrosion.
What is fundamentally lacking is an elite that takes on a task of civilization and reintroduces a popular representation that allows people to no longer be merely objects of the decisions of a few.
But this is what it must be about, not the ravings of the terminal right that spends its time defining the bad and the evil (moreover, often getting it wrong) to oppose possible good or virtuous people (always getting it wrong and having to lie regularly to avoid admitting that the latter are not only no better but are often even worse than the former).
In doing so, it is dishonest and petty. Everything is horrible if done by the “enemies” and everything is right if done by the “friends.” Worse: any “friendly” crime that comes to light must necessarily be a lie of the “enemy.”
This is unacceptable because one cannot fight in defense of ignominy, one cannot claim that the end justifies the means, but must always remember the legionary precept that one must always walk the path of honor and refuse to walk, or endorse, others for a success intoxication.
Only the vulgarity of the plebs, which is the substratum of tyranny, aversion to form, quality, order, and light, can lead one to do otherwise.
There was a slogan from Marine Le Pen and Salvini that encapsulated all the possible disabling value and contributed to fostering this mediocrity.
Starting from the rather crude, but not entirely inaccurate, premise that the elites are against the people, they launched the motto “The people against the elites.”
Without even realizing that, against what they define as the system, they have inadvertently opposed precisely the logic, the essence, the lack of form, the laments, and the discharges of the intestines that are the foundation of this servile era, devoid of lucidity and dignity.
Instead of proposing a revolution of the elites to bring about the advent of a new Verticality and a new organicity, they have managed to conceive an aberrant exacerbation of Horizontality, in which nothing is elevated anymore.
As if it were possible to imagine a human assembly without elites or, worse, to want to create one to cater to the envy of those who could never be part of it due to a lack of quality and, being unable to rise, want to drag everyone down.
It was probably just an electoral slogan, but the problem is that this logic so democratic – in the deleterious sense of the term – and this hatred of form and superiority are predominant today in the terminal right-wing groups that prefer to resemble worms rather than eagles.
The re-volution – which cannot start from a ghetto nor be limited to a ghetto – must go in a completely different direction, with a completely different mentality, with a completely different style and preparing a new PROTAGONISM.
It must not be a bad copy of the social envy and unhappy hatred of communist memory.
It must be a protagonism of the people, a protagonism of the community, a protagonism of individuals, not an exhibitionism, an ambition, or an opportunism on our part.
On the contrary, we should express examples that, through contamination, impact those around us.
Even those who engage in politics in the classical sense should behave this way rather than promoting themselves.
We must aim not to advance ourselves but to advance our peoples.
Do I have an idea how? I clarified it in more detail in my “Challenge to the Future” and in the life philosophy of the Landsknechte of Europe.
Understanding at least this will also allow us to reason better, and above all with greater dignity, regarding the ongoing conflict scenarios and will spare us from expressing disordered, stupid, and vulgar “antagonisms,” acting as a catalyst for the dominant psychological and narrative framework, as has been done for a long time while deluding ourselves, lying to ourselves, that we are “irreducibles.“
A mortifying fall compared to decades of avant-garde, a bad habit that must be stopped as soon as possible.
