94 / XCIV
129 / CXXIX

169 / CLXVIIII

Depending on how you write your numerals you get the first two or the second one.

Good finds, in any case!

What your describing would be as much a shock to my system as when I became an apostate from Christianity (I ended up crying on top of a roof, though alcohol was involved but imbibed before the change, I’m not sure what I would do in this case). At first it sounds like complete inescapable nihilism, but really it’s just nihilism about the world while meaning from personal aspirations remain fair game. Making self improvement and playing the game better ends rather than means for something greater. I’m not sure if I would end up pro or anti natalist. Similar to how I don’t go around encouraging Christians to become apostate, I don’t see myself spreading these ideas to outsiders. I’d probably become even more narcissistic than I already am (and probably learn to hide it better too). There are the people and things I love and I’d throw myself at them harder than before, though something would be lost along the way. I’d gladly give up myself and more reluctantly the people I love to help realize something that transcends humans, the idea of that, I love that more than anything. Without it, it would be like living in black and white without color. I’m sure as hell not giving up on that idea without a fight.

The solutions I found were these:

63 / LXIII

Depending on which form of roman numerals you use one of:

69 / LXIX
140 / CXXXXVIII

69 if you’re using representing IX for 9 rather than XVIIII – 140 if you’re not.

nowhere else have i seen this as common than in topics of race, but its a theme that runs through academic leftism all over the place, post-modernists presuming they repudiate the enlightenment, while retaining enlightenment standards, ethics and conceits as givens.

a spot dedicated to a reactionary epistemology would be nice if for no other reason than to provide a single reference point to look for whenever the same old canards get trotted out.

Your comment are absolutely correct, and I think the starting position I advocate *is* darker — much, much darker. When admin talks about “horror,” I think we all realize that “horror” isn’t exactly the right word for it, at least according to conventional semantics.

I think my problem with doom porn is that it’s frequently a way of rationalizing one’s personal dissatisfaction with the system.

When you think about what we do here on the outer-right, we complain about a society that most people are basically OK with all things considered, and we try to entertain the possibility of replacing it with a highly experimental one with an unreliable (or nonexistent) history. Our self-appointed job is partly to convince people that their happy lives are actually terrible or dissatisfying or whatever, so that they can think more critically about power structures or the media or political theory or aesthetics. At some point, the whole thing feels like an exercise in needless cynicism or even sadism, especially when one’s concerns aren’t guided by a higher principle. So we’re bound to find a bunch of people in these circles who make up rationalizing lies or half-truths about how their problems with the system are actually of paramount importance due to existential reasons. I’m not completely against the people who do these things, since I’m guilty of having done it myself, even somewhat recently. And, furthermore, such arguments about the end of society-as-we-know-it could be totally justified or rooted in an honest attempt at rational calculation. But for me, the possibility of phoniness and excuse-making is becoming too bothersome. At least, cataclysm prophecy should be a secondary position, not a primary one.

As a thought experiment, let’s just assume that everything is completely stable. Sure China could overpower The West, but they’d slowly start to resemble The West, and The West would collectively say, “We want to go back to how things were in the year 2014, when marriage rates were slowly declining, the White race was slowly declining, and everyone was staring at a computer screen all day long!” — the only question for most people being “how does one go back and arrest gradual decline” rather than “how does one fight for something new.” The structures themselves are fine — the only struggles are over political fine-tuning within a given structural framework of sufficient utility. Regardless of who wins or loses in the grim struggle for power, nothing “new” is really needed, and nothing is very urgent. So, what now? What’s the reason for not just being a bland conservative (and make no mistake: I would never become one)? What happens when all of the zany outside-the-box solutions cease to be necessary? Sure, they could create welcome improvements, but unnecessary ones.

We can find a similar problem in a lot of American eschatology-driven protestants like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or 7th Day Adventists. It’s impossible to tell those who love Christ because of Christ’s splendor and innate Good versus those who love Christ because they’re petrified about the end of times. (This is one of those problems that rebellious teenagers think about a lot before they grow up and decide that the question is too cliched or immature to discuss any further)

My guess is that by starting out with the assumption of radical stability and cutting out all thoughts of possible earth-shattering events, you’d quickly start to see lines drawn between people who actually have a serious vision for which they’d fight tooth and nail and those who have petty, self-interested hobby horses to which they always needed to assign some weight. And that’s valuable in itself.

When we … speak of a belief in God, by God we do not understand, as do naive Christians and their clerical beneficiaries, a manlike being who is sitting around in some corner of the sphere… the force which moves all these bodies in the universe, in accordance with natural law, is what we call the Almighty or God… The more thoroughly we know and attend to the laws of nature and life, the more we adhere to them, the more do we correspond to the will of the Almighty. The deeper our insight into the will of the Almighty, the greater will be our success.

Gnon?

(^: