Jacobite 2

My second Jacobite essay is online (on Atomization). Relatively confident that it will annoy everybody.

Too early to tell what company I’ll be keeping this time, but the precedents are good.

June 6, 2017admin 145 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Media

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

145 Responses to this entry

  • Edgy Troll Says:

    Based on the title I was looking forward to a more in depth treatment of cold collectivity, which otherwise as far as I know was only addressed in a Youtube riff (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yJMlaupGHTM) some years ago.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    What is worse than a historico-informed larp? A pseudo-historical larp.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬» Because Northern Europe was late in emerging from barbarism, it lacked a sophisticated understanding of the superior and inferior. Such a problem was only remedied in Russia by the comparative cruelty and uncompromising nature of Russian rulers once they got full control over what was essentially a frontier backwater. »

    Mr. Citadel reveals here his preference for utter top-down despotism, and the Orientality of his soul.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Edgy Troll, the video you link to has a rather conscient comment to it: ▬» When we worship the Future it reflects a present emptiness ».

    I think he capitalises it because he’s referring to a fantasied future, i.e. a futurity, obsessed over by those dulled by lies about the past.

    As has been said in comments at Xenosystems.net a ~trillion times, lying about the past is an essential feat. of leftism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 12:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Promising publication. The topic reminds me of Houellebecq, of course, and his nailing exactly why the West needs to be overthrown and replaced.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    It’s not the West which needs to be overthrown and replaced, but Leftism as Urban Decay Grand Effector in the Western Hemisphere and, preferably, elsewhere.

    Unless you want to change the name. It’ll for eons be there non-nominally anyway, as geography.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 1:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Well, so why it accelerate, there must be some amortisation, fuel supply problems, outshots negative feedbacks, plenty. Positive feedbacks ? no one real, just fabricated scams and it still accelerating. That is really scary question.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 1:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    How much of atomization is sorting triggered by advances in communication and transportation? We won’t know until after the next big war.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    I think what has changed is survival realities. Sophisticated economies mean that you don’t need strong social bonds to live and flourish. In fact, strong social bonds could mean losing the game of capital accumulation.

    For example, in third-world countries, people are expected to distribute any wealth they acquire to the extended family and community. So these strong, non-elective obligations actually lead to people being held back.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    You don’t need strong social bonds because daddy government is there for you. In absence of the conmprehensive welfare states that we have people would be much more reliant on their families, and local communities, like they used to be, before all them programz. Of course, there are cultural values also at play, not just economic conditions.
    The lower classes would be much nicer people if they didn’t have gibz being handed down to them just for existing. You won’t get far in life when you’re rude to people, if you have to rely on other people to survive.

    Research shows that everyone living under it resents third-world communalism. They are extremely low-trust communities riddled with envy and mutual suspicion where nobody wants to do anything, because everybody hates everybody. Check out Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour by Helmut Schoeck. I know that Reactionaries, (and the Left, from the likes of Diderot, Rousseau, and Polaniy to Chomsky and Pol Pot) like to idolize economic collectivism, especially in primitive forms, but it’s really, really crap. In reality it’s how anti-capitalists like to misrepresent capitalism, economic collectivism produces a dog-eat-dog society where one can gain only at other’s expense and there’s no future tense.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    Welfare is probably some kind of factor. but I am skeptical that it’s very big at all. Most people are reliant on government assistance. And the most atomized people are the wealthy cosmopolitans. It’s the poor people that still talk to their cousins.

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Well, which had more economic opportunities the infamous 50s US, or the US of today? Certainly 50s US, hands down. And which is more atomized? Well, what changed save for the culture and welfare state (in adition to the fact that economy took a nosedive)?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    For example, in third-world countries, people are expected to distribute any wealth they acquire to the extended family and community. So these strong, non-elective obligations actually lead to people being held back.

    Held back? These people are replacing us.

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    This might also be a really huge bubbling off. Like how the Amish allow people to quit and become more Amish over time. We’re living through a mass extinction event that looks funny from a view of less than 100 years.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 2:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    Not annoy, just depress a bit. Liking your less dense approach to writing in both pieces. It’s a great platform, interesting fellow writers.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 3:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anonymaus Says:

    “No one who glimpses what it is can delegate relevant conclusions to any higher authority.”

    This seems untrue. It is not unknown for people to refuse to have an opinion, or to largely assent to the opinion of a thought leader. While not providing unlimited freedom, I know that I’ve often surrendered specific judgment to tradition or individuals in my canon.

    I wanted not to feel lost and not alone. It mattered more than my limited judgment or thoughts.

    Is that a personal choice too? Perhaps. But if one made by many, then submission – especially given in a sense of contract without much reservation – would combat actual atomization greatly.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Right.

    o! A new angel has come to spread his wings
    A great swarm of plagues to collect our sins
    Even now shall they surrender…
    To the power of the dog
    Sin and sinner, death and dying
    The many waters must be judged
    Flesh as straw as soil and soul
    All chained to the great great whore
    For more love than seraphs know
    We will live seraphs burn
    Deep in bonds of miry clay
    The many waters must be judged
    He shall suck the poison of asps!
    The viper’s tongue shall slay him!
    He shall suck the poison of asps!
    The viper’s tongue shall slay him!
    …and yes he shall fall among them that fall!
    ANATHEMA MARANATHA!
    ANATHEMA MARANATHA!
    The Anathema is in the midst of thee
    Let him be had in execration Maranatha
    The Anathema is in the midst of thee
    Let him be Anathema Maranatha!
    Hell from beneath is moved to meet thee
    Moved to meet thee at thy coming
    It stirreth up the dead for thee
    Even all the chief ones of the earth
    Hell is naked, naked before him
    And destruction hath no covering
    And yes, he shall fall among them that fall
    For he hearest not the LORD!
    For more love than seraphs know
    We will like seraphs burn
    Deep in bonds of miry clay
    The many waters must be judged
    He shall suck the poison of asps!
    The viper’s tongue shall slay him!
    He shall suck the poison of asps!
    The viper’s tongue shall slay him!
    …and yes, he shall burn in the fires of rejection
    For he hath gone a whoring from the LORD our GOD!

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 4:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lord Oliver Cromwell Says:

    It seems to me that atomization is an inherently unstable meta-state between arborescent and rhizomatic conceptions of identity. Atomization appears once people uncouple themselves from a long chain of predecessors, becoming their own people. However, the fiction of individualism can only be sustained as long as the very real connections between entities are not made apparent–and those connections are largely non-hierarchical and messy.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Atomization appears once people uncouple themselves from a long chain of predecessors, becoming their own people.

    Atomisation unless you equate it with Exit or Secession, is not a becoming-their own.

    It is a becoming their down. Down in history as a non-people. Dead. Declined. Doomed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 4:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • pete Says:

    stimulating essay, thanks. i wouldn’t worry about how people react

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 9:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    I actually read it in earlier this afternoon, without knowing who the author was. Someone had posted a link to it on FB, to which I commented – ” It’s well-written, might be worth doing a response.”

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    This might arouse your notion of the oneiric: advertising has dissolved class consciousness more than all academic disputations on Marx’s theory of value.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Onericism is too pleasant a term for self-decline. ‘Unrealism’ fits better.

    Self-death is easy if one dreams meanwhile. However, I doubt the starving kulaks were dreaming much pleasantly. Perhaps they were dreaming too much pleasantly, to be surprised by a Revolutionary Militia.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 9:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Devastating.

    I’ve been turning this one over in my head since I started on it this afternoon. I’d already identified the essential problem with the Benedict Option (it’s optional) and also the problem of church shopping. (But I will never know how much of those insights were due to your prior writings precognitively infiltrating and dominating my own thoughts).

    But, as usual, you put it better and generalized it further than I ever have.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    obviously kwiz you have never been mesmerized by jesuit logic but I thought you would be immune sadly not.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 9:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    A frictionless social environment, atomization in it’s purest form, is ideal if relationships are worth nothing. GDP fetishists don’t quantify the value of relationships, but anyone who does business knows it’s monkey business where relationships are valuable and important. I’m convinced that elements within monkey business are at the very least heuristics for game theory in sussing out opportunities for mutual cooperation. Blockchains are great for eliminating third parties, but it still takes two to tango. So for now there’s a limit to how far atomization can go before suffering loss of fitness. Even if there was a means of perfect sorting to optimize the network, it wouldn’t be able to ignore the effects of relationships but rather have to account for them as part of the optimization.

    It actually makes an interesting thought experiment:
    Suppose there was a decentralized network with enough information that it could not only help you make friends, it could optimize exactly who you should be friends with and even how much time and energy you should devote to each friend. It’s so good at this that it accounts for your existing friendships so that it doesn’t feel like your abandoning your old network but introducing your old network to a new network. Man will have never been so thoroughly atomized; man will have never been so thoroughly satisfied in his social needs.

    In the case of the decentralized network there will of course acknowledge that some people are more valuable friends than others and tend towards networking people of similar value together. It doesn’t optimize at the individual level but on the group level so it can feed out consistent results. After all if it told someone you should pursue a friendship with someone it told to avoid you, individualized optimization wouldn’t work. Given the Pareto principle the upper percentiles will benefit far disproportionately while some will find their networks abandoning them. So that leaves the bottom of the barrel with each other (in a world filled entirely with wonderful people their lives would still be vastly improved, they would get exactly what they deserve, and if there are less than wonderful people, it would upset them greatly), which means they will support whatever power is building a coercive centralized network that socializes the benefits of the social networking. Something that the PTB would happily kill for since the level of control they’d have over society would make 1984 seem libertine.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Human relationships have a great deal of value, but much of the value cannot be directly converted into capital goods and it is not appropriately measured by our brains. The value of having a steady relationship is immeasureable, but people still cheat, for example. At present, we largely value capital accumulation even though it doesn’t actually optimize happiness.

    The issue is that man pretends himself a god, but in truth, has become a slave to an alien process he has invited into his universe.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Capital includes human values and relationships. Most of the Marxists nor other myopo-Economicists just don’t include it in “the” calculations so far. It’s very “complex”. AI will help us calculate human relationships, and heart math. They are already increasingly being calculated. Google human capital, social capital, information capital, knowledge capital, as well as new medical theories. Capital 2.0

    Over-atomization is a loss of fitness for our social body. The latter which is actually dying and being replaced. Over-atomization is anti-capital.

    Capital loss. Valuable genes passed on means increased likelihood of increased capitalisation. Death of the British, e.g., means inflated GDP for some time perhaps, but then abruptly at reaching a plateau a death of British particular genealogies of technologies and civilization; i.e. it’ll become an India, a Brazil, on the previously English landmass.

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    You are the one treading on the opacity of gift economies para market economies.

    If all human values and relationships get quantified for exchangeability on the market, then it will make it into their anal-yses.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Huh? I’m just saying that calculations will increasingly compute more complexities. It’s not gonna stop at Marx or GDP.

    As for gift, what is it other than a transaction?

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    I get your point.

    The difference is the ease and the equanimity a market facilitates for the transactors.

    Observe bride wealth in practice. That’s all the behavioral economics one needs.

    In such communities as it is practiced, acquiring a wife is nothing like buying a pepsi.

    But the average annual salary of a U.S. prostitute is estimated at $200,000.

    Selling something like consanguinity is not foremost a computational problem as a logical one.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    We will learn a lot by comparing our conceptual worlds. I will have to return to this later today. I have some production planning to do

    acquiring a wife is nothing like buying a pepsi.

    I wouldn’t go so far. 🙂

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    So far as an over-view is concerned, a gift is a sentimentality: what takes place is a market transaction. John felt bad about having broken Jane’s statue, so he gifted her a new one.

    Jane felt happy over her new statue and it led to sex and a baby.

    These are all monetary transactions. The medium just hasn’t been formalised.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    An easy type of transfer from social capital to monetary capital is being popular on social media, it can get you $$$, even without any “professional” effort.

    Now question is if that’s social capital or just personal popularity wealth (capital). You can be relatively worthless or damaging socially and still be extremely popular, as some “Liberals”, so-called, are; and the French Revolutionaries were. Journo & neo-Commie (“SJW”) mobbers, e.g., have, some of them quite high popularity on national average, that’s including many feminists. Long-term that’s anti-social capital, or pseudo capital.

    E.g. it might have been high capital to be a Brown-slave screwing Roman degenerate in the decline of the Empire, but within a longer time-frame it was totally anti-capital. Longer time frames render meaning in all these things. It was fun while it lasted = death of a capital and the loss of its capital to barbarians (as is happening in Europe and America now).

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    and you think AI directed capital will abandon the propensity for human capitalists to favor short human scale time frames? In the market that would be an edge to know AI favors long terms. AI capitalist would (if we were stupid enough to turn our destiny over to machines in the hope they would do better than we could but never being able to verify this) – would end up acting like human capitalist profit by any means. Ai is currently not able to beat the market index averages despite its speed and information advantages.

    But your example of the mudshark roman is an example of how selflessness might return the better profit to a civilization but not the individual.A conservative calls this duty a liberal calls it what social justice. Both are attempting to trigger the same ape trigger (S) more or less for the same ape purpose.and both are up against another ape trigger (S) . Capitalism isnt the tool for the job -or socialism for that matter. Wisdom is the first move, followed by a cultural patch. Until we can just edit our instincts we must work within the bio cultural feedbackloop.Todays romans are bedding niggers too for the same reasons, theyre cheap, whats the capitalist solution lower the cost of ethnonations?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    and you think AI directed capital will abandon the propensity for human capitalists to favor short human scale time frames?

    Length is relative. AI directed capital will lengthen as I want

    Malcer Reply:

    Are you saying the singularity with AI Monarchy is inevitable?

    Posted on June 6th, 2017 at 9:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • rogue planet Says:

    Atomism scarcely seems the trouble, what with Hegel and Marx refusing to stop haunting the blogosphere.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 12:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Friedrich von Uxküll Says:

    The environs we exist in necessitate a certain amount of atomization, or rather leaves no choice for the individuals in question to choose otherwise. The Hegelian ‘absolute recoil’, that the loss of the holistic community creates the concept of it as such, all pastoral/arcadian fantasies generated by urbanization, etc.. An inexorable process, inspiring dread and malaise in nearly every milieu of society save those few who are daring enough to affirm its seemingly indefatigable unfolding. Affirmative responses to such a monstrous process is perhaps the most difficult and counter intuitive path, but ultimately the correct one (insofar as such preferential considerations are worthwhile in the least).

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Agreed.

    Affirmative responses can be thought of as transitions and as such are also practical, are they not?

    This was very clearly formalized to me by Trump in his speech on leaving the Paris Climate agreement.

    As far I can make an incision, the problem is that:

    the transition of only a considerable region to wind and solar is enough to destabilize the energy sector, already heavily subsidized, which would lead to a fall in profits in said sector and then a loss of jobs and GDP.

    This is not ideology. This is, very formally, ‘the challenge’, outside any specific time-actor window.

    What is ideology is that this problem can best be addressed at a later date. I’ll do my homework on the bus tomorrow!

    This is where Land places his problematics of intentionality in the introductory paragraphs of his first Jacobite essay:

    Affirmative responses – political re-actions – always lag behind the active, accelerating techonomics, teleoplexic blah blah blah… humanity is a soccer ball being kicked into a transhuman soccer net…

    The way I see it, and then I would like to know your idea of affirmative responses, is that a transition authentically requires only three things:

    1) it is thoroughly destructive
    2) as such is unstable
    3) it then engenders its own ‘positive feedback loop’

    Energy is just one example. Whether this is at all acceleration is an interesting question.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    What are you saying here?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 12:20 am Reply | Quote
  • AbelardLindsey Says:

    I read the essay and fail to see the problem. People are always free to network and form associations with those who share common interests and goals. I fail to see how this is a problem.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Its the same effective issue that prevents telework from being effective, but essentially: humans make pretty poor decisions on “associations and common interests,” especially when given as much information and freedom as provided. As a result, we become the authors of our own misery.

    A comparable analogy can be made for obesity; we’re biologically wired to want certain things, as much as possible. Unfortunately, as a consequence, we can kill ourselves. When societies practice this on a similar level, it kills cultures and societies.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    While it is hard to disagree with first part, second part ‘biologically wired’ can explain a lot of other things too, not only obesity.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I’d say geo-biologically tuned, as the “wiring” for types of food is attuned to their availability within a long (space)time frame. I.e. because such foodstuffs were scarce for a long time.

    The tuning changes at different speeds, according to artificial environmental input (since we’re post-Industrial Revolution). There are already drugs to retard adipostrophy, but they aren’t first-world legal or popular. That might change very soon, but I ephemerally wonder why it hasn’t already considering the prevalence of the “problem.”

    However, the death of a race is more final, lest the Chinese, e.g., will revive the White race in future Biotechnology Labs. That’s too dorky (fantasy) solution for me, so I’ll put my fist down now.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    식료품groceries – 슈퍼마켓Yes! We’re Open

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    but I ephemerally wonder why it hasn’t already considering the prevalence of the “problem.”

    A pseudo-problem if any. It certainly does not at all matter, comparatively, if a percentage of a nation is fat if a nation is from an over-view dying (i.e. its relative homogenous 2.000 year DNA category is disappearing within decades). How this pseudo-problem is paraded in the media as a very serious one or a large one, is food for realism about Directed societies by Parasite-paramarxoid “Social” Engineers backed by Financial Powers.

    Abelard lindsey Reply:

    My friends and i make perfectly good decisions, both personally and financially. We also have the greatest enthusiasm and commitment to our long term future. Perhaps it would make a more meaningful conversation for you alt-right/traditionalist types to specify what private or financial life choices that competent individuals such as my friends and myself ought to give up for your ideal society.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    I’m not traditionalist or alt right, and I do not have any kind of enthusiasm, but let me share some insights: meanings and rationalisation is a trap. Long term future is lost, no point to comit to something what does not exist. My long time directional paradigm was ‘do something today, so in future you can have better choises. As only bad choices remains currently , this paradigm is dead. Private life does not exist anymore, even your brain content is not private. Biggest financial gains can be made by betting on rare things: bitcoins , gold, even better if it is undervalued at the moment like tantalum for example.

    Those who keep considering food as valuable source of nutrition suffering from different forms of malnutrition. Keep your food very simple and take all nutrition you need from supplements.

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    It must be nice to be so blind.

    Well, at least one example could be Sister Y’s example of how long-term decisions are impossible to make – for example, the seemingly humanistic choice of suicide. If someone rationally believed that his remaining life would not bring any happiness, then suicide should be a logical or valid choice. You seem to be the libertarian type, so I’m sure you agree.

    Beautiful – then let’s take it to her natural next conclusion. Why wouldn’t people be allowed to give up their choices otherwise for the future? Why not permanent marriage? Why not servitude? Shouldn’t a competent individual be allowed to give up his freedom from future choices?

    And that is, essentially the issue. You effectively are short-term and fall exactly in that trap of biological wiring that you wouldn’t know or care if your immediate choices(and desire to continually be able to pick short-term choices) would kill a culture that might require long-term, permanent choices. It might even lead to worse outcomes, akin to my analogy of obesity, but you wouldn’t quite see it as such, because maximization of personal freedom is your goal. But still ends up being toxic to society, and perhaps even to yourself.

    So, to answer your question, its pretty simple: the right to actually live in a society that prioritized stability, which involves even the right to give up rights.

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Ultimately, its valuable to remember that every cancer cell also just wanted to maximize its own gain. Its not evil. It just happens to kill the body along the way of its own self-maximization.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Mr. Chief nailed it. You’re essentially teenage-brain’d jerk-offs who want to proliferate everything but life. The death-drive mechanized.

    Nothing new. Nothing at all.

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 12:34 am Reply | Quote
  • nishiki Says:

    loved both of the jacobite essays

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 1:46 am Reply | Quote
  • Christian Talour (@ChristianTalour) Says:

    #BlackPill. I think your piece expresses some things I’ve felt subconsciously.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 1:52 am Reply | Quote
  • Zardoz Says:

    If I understand the essay, it’s exactly this kind of position that puts Admin at odds with “true reactionaries”, in the original sense of that term, the monarchists and royalists who wanted to hold onto a ‘great chain of being’ from god and sovereign to serf and slave. Or like the confucians, who defined everything in terms of relationships and the duty expected in each type of relationship. But you can’t put the cat back in the bag. There is no retreat into collective, only schism,

    Baudrillard wrote in Transparency of Evil that in the future you will be able to have your astrological sign reassigned, surgically, just like one changes gender.

    Perhaps the most difficult part of Patchwork for the right to accept will be difference. Your neighbors might invent a 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th gender, but it won’t be economically sensible to kill them over that. Maybe the Libertarians get this, but the ethno-nationalists sure don’t.

    The most difficult part for the left to accept will be that sometimes when the difference is big enough, then you do shoot. Perhaps the antifa and anarchists already understand this.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Nigga, the Great Chain of Being, being the great chain of being, can not ever go.

    To quote an olden Xenosystems.net goodie ▬»

    You just don’t see it ‘cos you’re not aristocrats. You’re publics who want to be smarter than the rest of the public. Fledgling intelligence seeks a differentiated form for itself to secure the growth of its character. Greater intelligence plays a game of image and invisibility. It can communicate itself through many images, buildling itself into a ladder of interpretations where nobody ends up in the wrong affiliation by accident, because intelligence and stupidity are never on different sides. Each and all are on the side of manifest stratification. » N-uh-uggah!

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Putin: ‘I am not a woman, so I don’t have bad days’
    Ester Bloom 13 Hours Ago

    [Reply]

    Zardoz Reply:

    That’s the great part of Atomization. You can still believe that an aristocracy extending from a monarch exists, but in the end it’s just a lifestyle choice, cosplay and LARPing. I always get a chuckle out of websites trying to debunk “fake” princes and lords, as if being able to trace a title back to a long dead feudal order made a title of nobility “real”. Trying to out the fakes just reinforces the problem, it shows everyone that they can get away with “pretending” to be a royal, or rather: They’re royal if they want it.

    https://faketitlesandorders.wordpress.com/

    No, the ability to delude oneself into a “return” to the old order just reinforces atomization. Just like Nick writes in his article:

    “There is no withdrawal from the course of modernity, ‘back’ into community, that does not reinforce the pattern of dissent, schism, and exit from which atomization continually replenishes its momentum. As private conscience directs itself towards escape from the privatization of conscience, it regenerates that which it flees, ever more deeply within itself. Individuation, considered impersonally, likes it when you run.”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This is most welcome.

    That’s the great part of Atomization. You can still believe that an aristocracy extending from a monarch exists

    You’re literally replying to my quote from a post about Kety Perry as aristocracy, as “you can believe that an aristocracy extending from a monarch exists.”

    This is most enjoyable. Firstly, the monarch exists as Aristoteles’ unmoved mover, or the Emperor of Chinese myth. I’m not cosplaying with Moldbug in pseudo-medieval clothing, or making any claims to Old Order titles (so far).

    Christians believed for 2.000 years in the Monarch. Millions still do.

    Nick Land’s monarch is autoproducing intelligence. Which is mine too, and whose fields I mine.

    ability to delude oneself into a “return” to the old order just reinforces atomization.

    This is absolutely true. However, I think you’re deluding yourself about me deluding myself about a “return” “to” “the” “old” “order”.

    I eagerly await your admittal of agreement or your thinking of “disagreement,” or your forfeiture in silence. In a word, resolution. Scoffing, I would enjoy

    as well as the delivery of quest-ion-ing

    Can’t thwart the larp

    *fart*

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    Europe was surrounded by heathens without feeling a need to attack each and every one of them. All most reactionaries want is to be able to be left alone. Separation would be great. Not wanting to be shot by leftists would be great, too.

    And the leftists really do like shooting people for being different from their religion of universalism.

    [Reply]

    Zardoz Reply:

    “Europe was surrounded by heathens without feeling a need to attack each and every one of them.”

    A brief overview of history will show you the opposite. From Charlemagne to the Colonial Order, Europe conquered the entire globe, save a few tribes in deep jungles and remote islands that managed to stay hidden.

    “All most reactionaries want is to be able to be left alone.”

    If that’s true, then today’s reactionaries are in a sad state. At one point they wanted to preserve the King. When that failed, they wanted to restore him. Now they just want to be left alone? LARPing works best without interference from the rest of the world I guess.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    There were reasons besides religion for the expansion – usually material. My specific point was that religion or ideology by itself isn’t a reason for violence.

    And yes, most reactionaries want to be left alone. Societies need their own boundaries, mores and control to continue to exist just like animals require their habitat; the ultimate result of atomization is extinction. Less dramatically, its a more unpleasant existence and frankly, all I want is a more pleasant existence with people I like.

    Its not “LARPing “if it is functional. Beyond that, you are mostly projecting your own thoughts. G. Eiríksson’s posts sufficiently emphasize this.

    At any rate, both you and Land require an assumption of reality of free will, which is debatable.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    If that’s true, then today’s reactionaries are in a sad state. At one point they wanted to preserve the King. When that failed, they wanted to restore him. Now they just want to be left alone? LARPing works best without interference from the rest of the world I guess.

    This nails it. But haven’t Reactionaries always been in a sad state? Isn’t that the state of mere reaction—pure sadness? Sorrowful vain jerkoff. ‘Let the dead bury the dead’ — says the Lord of Crucifiction.

    Hitler’s was exactly a reaction. Not a noble reaction but a reaction still. Nihilism’s reaction and reflex. “Mobilize!” He’d better have started drawing Gundams.

    I’d rather be a conservative than a reactionary.

    A fixionary than a reactionary.

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 4:47 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    I felt very atomized, reading this.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 5:05 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Those interested in the living of Protestantism, as mentioned in Land’s «The Atomization Trap» might appreciate this (April 27, 2017) piece by one Mark Citadel.

    https://citadelfoundations.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/schuon-luther-and-the-eternal-calvinist/

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 5:56 am Reply | Quote
  • woods Says:

    Good stuff, not annoying in the least.
    Reminds me of Moldbug: “The rotor spins up”, “Cthulhu swims left”, etc.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 6:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Anon Says:

    Pretty good return to form for you here, probably some of your most focused writing as of late. I see a lot of throwbacks to Thirst For Annihilation, and always interesting to see you frame the nitty griity of “Exit (TM)” as “True Horror (TM)”.

    As an aside, since analysis of trash media can always accompany discussion of the far-reaching tentacles of capitalism, what did you think of Alien Covenant? Furthermore, what do you actually think of True Detective and Ligotti? Would be interesting to pick your brain.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Still waiting to see Alien Covenant.
    Thought first season of True Detective might have been the greatest TV show ever produced.
    Enjoy Ligotti, even though he’s a freaking communist.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 7:26 am Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    The only reason for hope in such an excruciating situation is that we are not called to rely on the king’s horses and men.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Oh, but we are.

    [Reply]

    Alex Reply:

    “Sine me NIHIL potestis facere.”
    >u avin a giggle m8?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 8:43 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    OT advert –
    The Psychedelic Society of Birmingham will be meeting to discuss Psychedelics and Virtual Reality on Tuesday (13th), with the opportunity to try out some VR for yourself.
    Venue – Cherry Reds, John Bright Street, City Centre.
    Time – 13/06, 1830 hrs
    Cost – £5
    Friendly unatomized people. All welcome.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 9:29 am Reply | Quote
  • Anon Says:

    public larping exoteric position: “social, moral, and psychological unglueing is natural, necessary, and a good outcome”

    skin-in-the-game that reveals your non-larping esoteric position: “please don’t talk about my immediate social glue (family) on this blog, especially the weird anomalies that juxtapoz my exoteric and esoteric positions with my private life”

    note that given we aren’t allowed to mention things here that would make a stasi counterintelligence officer put nick on a watch list for being something he isn’t, this quoted “position” has to be a highly generalist second-order claim, since specifics get you banned.

    also, almost like this article is another hyperstition that will capture the nerd minds on /lit/ and twitter to get them all to scream in unison to another umpteenth round of, “f-ck you dad!”

    btw this is also much like your old ccru essay about that secret society that splits over and over. pure coincidence, i’m sure.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    I took it as a pamphlet in favor of a breaking of protestantism from out of itself into a secular neo-catholicism. But none alive, especially someone born in the 60s, is able to break out of the process without in reality contributing to the process. So Land is only guilty of postulating the good of breaking *unwittingly* – he’s a crypto-protestant to his very self. It’s like how Heidegger said that Nietzsche’s attempt to overcome nihilism is just the latest stage of nihilism and then went on to advocate a wu-wei-esque releasement which he believed to be itself not merely the next latest stage of nihilism, when in fact it was.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Let’s hope the postmodern age doesn’t last as long as the ancient, middle, or modern ages lol

    And yes I acknowledge that I too have a “great stupidity deep down” that obliges me to carry out my physio-theological orders as a finite historical actor, one order of which being to enunciate these very things.

    Land’s notion of destiny is an inversion of progressivist “ascentism” but it nonetheless presupposes linearity rather than cyclicism. After individualism comes the merging of individuals. This is part of the meaning of “dark enlightenment”. We strive toward individualism now because of our recognition of the stupidity of groups, because of the dumbing-down inevitably involved in being-in-a-group. Groups allow philosophy to the extent that the basest member is able to alchemize theory into praxis; thereby, philosophy is cheapened into religion. (This subordination to the public will is seen in the very essay under discussion – Land is taking after socialmatter scholasticism). The darkness of the dark enlightenment is the recognition that individualism is on the wane and we are returning to the lobotomized tranquility of social animality. This is our destiny. It is also our destiny, after inhaling, to exhale, back to individualism–but that’s a long way off, so forget about it. Very horrifying realities (if they could be called realities) are approaching indeed. This *consolidation into a single atom* will serve as an accumulation of resources to be discharged into future individual artistic and scientific achievements. Only a Christianity 2.0 will yield such fruit. Individualism uses, group-stupidity stores up. This is what Nietzsche and Heidegger were preparing us for, the return to poetry-grounded appearances, the return to the cave of the church. The church will be understood (if it could be called understanding) as the Platonic Sun itself, so to speak.

    “Once you know that the people have unruly souls it becomes irrelevant how much skill the people have, or can learn. Knowledge doesn’t make bad people better; it makes them dangerous… As Rosen says, “Politics is oriented toward the body; but philosophy, or the genuine art of statesmanship, is oriented toward the soul.” Perhaps philosophy cares for the citizens’ bodies because they have no souls? This would go a long way in explaining why modern philosophy, with a clear conscience, turns humans into artifacts. Humans are things anyway. Or, as Nietzsche said, “We are entering the phase of the modesty of consciousness.” It amazes us that to this day one can meet people who read those words as liberatory! The coming practitioners of human husbandry will know how to evaluate those words far better than we do.” (Joseph Martin)

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Let’s hope the postmodern age doesn’t last as long as

    No, it is already ending. It is at its nadir.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Brilliant posts, both of ye. Especially, Wagner, your best post so far. You’re accelerating.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 2:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rohme Giuliano Says:

    Land is the only game in town. But as Land continues to write, he only proves his work exceeds the grasp of even himself.

    Atomization was adumbrated when Bentham, with ‘utils’ and Panopticon, conjured up the whole of our future society.

    Negative reactions are delimited to the exigencies of the model.

    Atomization persists in the acceptance you will be living the rest of your days in a prison.

    There will always be prison riots. But no prison breaks.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This reminds me of THX 1138.

    ▬» Atomization persists in the acceptance you will be living the rest of your days in a prison. » is a great point. True. But worse than prison: death of your historical organism. Thus becoming a stranger in a strange world, and not one that is fascinating lest you adapt to it like a woman taken by a strange tribe, probably raped and mutilated though. There’s nothing fascinating about a dead West. A dead East Asia will follow in its wake.

    If atomisation is a breaking-down into down to the elementary, it is not a breaking-off, nor a breaking-through up levels (such as increased intelligence is). A breaking-down is a dissolution, fragmentation without a reverse. If atomisation is not a breaking-off (meaning here self-proliferation), or a breaking-through (meaning here self-improvement) it is not capitalism.

    There are two modernities conceived. A Left-modernity and a capitalistic modernity. The former is miscalculation of living standards, and the proliferation of anything but healthy living. The latter is an increasing of the useful, the sane, the rational. The former is a chemical cancer causing bath, while the latter is the health spa that improves your health.

    Capitalistic Modernity is only making provisional (providential) use of destructive tendencies, per case: from an over-view :  ad-hocfor a building-up. Leftism is making use of destructive tendencies for a tear-down. Capitalism proper increases wealth and social health. Capitalism subservient to leftism, is a non-factum

    Primarily Identifying capitalism with the dissolutory—rather than the constructive, generative aspect—is simply falsifying capitalism as Yin over yang.

    There’s nothing that equates capitalism with a death-spiral downwards to the sub-human elementary (inorganic strata) — except a tendency for over-individualisation.

    A well-run business is a business with a healthy balance betwixt innovation and fortification.

    BTW someone was asking for this some time ago: https://wpbtips.wordpress.com/2010/05/23/html-allowed-in-comments-2/

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 8:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mariani Says:

    I’m wondering if a “bootstrapping” would be feasible. People get together and say, “ok, we are going to elect to make a situation where things are non-elective.”

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    That’s just Hoppean covenant communities. The founding is voluntary, but children are born into it, and all dissenters are physically removed.

    [Reply]

    Mariani Reply:

    Doesn’t answer the question about feasibility

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Well, it’s obviously not feasible. Such a thing might have been feasible in the Old West, but no state today would allow creation of such communities.

    However, seeing the way things are working out in Europe, maybe Mohammedans get autonomy one of these days. There are already Sharia no-go zones. Covenant communities are just a couple of steps away.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    no state today would allow creation of such communities.

    The (“nation-“)”State” has lost its legality in the direction of such matters, since it has forfeited its base.

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 10:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Zardoz Says:

    So long as it is “elective”, it implies the consent of individuals and reversibility should opinion change. Unless maybe some kind of neutral arbiter, a computer protocol, could ensure irreversibility, but that’s a huge fucking gamble.

    Global climate crisis should act as an irreversible protocol that puts everyone into a non-elective position, but it’s too easy to deny. If it weren’t so abstract and distant, maybe it’d be the center of the new community.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Community out of crisis, eh?

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 7th, 2017 at 11:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Unconditional Autism Says:

    Hi

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2017 at 9:21 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    The Big Mac is universal. The price is not.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 8th, 2017 at 10:58 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Things can only come apart after things have come together, therefore atomization is only half the story. A more comprehensive story would be one such as Whitehead tells of how “the many become one, and are increased by one” as novelty emerges – a story in which nature is not so much geared toward producing the “fittest” as it is toward creating anything it can get away with.
    Just look at this place.
    So much. There could be nothing at all, and there is so much.
    Hands up everyone who likes novelty.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    atomization is only half the story.

    This is absolutely right.

    Atomisation implies childlessness on average. Childlessness doesn’t merely imply but actually is the same thing as no continued generation of the childless group.

    No new generation of White or Intelligent people just means that the atomization-resistant or atomization-delayed are the new generations of the Western Hemisphere. Brown people won’t hesitate in replacing East Asians either, eventually enough, given the proliferation of similar trends (atomisation) in China and Japan.

    I saw a report recently about a Turkish rapist in Japan. Anecdotally, heh. Yeah.

    [Reply]

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    You’re innovating yourself right out of existence.

    [Reply]

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    > You’re innovating yourself right out of existence.

    You make that sound like there’s any other option.

    > a story in which nature is not so much geared toward producing the “fittest” as it is toward creating anything it can get away with.
    > So much. There could be nothing at all, and there is so much.
    > Hands up everyone who likes novelty.

    Hands up. Nature never ceases to to amaze with her devious creativity. Patterns grow, at all scales, just because they can. And the next moment they collide and disintegrate, to make place for something new again. It is beautiful. So tempting to just enjoy the show and “let go”.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    There are endless pattern details in flushing turds down a toilet. Doesn’t mean it’s for anyone but the aestheticist or scientist to devote time to. (Everyone thinks, as it were, that he’s a scientist or aestheticist/artist today. And most people are wankers.) I say this as a lover of the productive diversity of modernity. I’m a listener of dozens of genres of music, and prefer a varied spicy diet of food and drink.

    But if it leads to life abnegation eventually (already is) it’s gone over the intellectual-healthy line. “Wow, patterns, happenings.” Not fruitful, not masculine. Wanky. Spilled seed. Doom. For adult males, mostly, that is. Valorisation of death and morbidity is that of a delinquent or depressed teenager. We’ve lost all normality. This is wanker culture, the pseudo-Culture of the abandoned & dying West. Die to be reborn though, is the cliché or truth.

    This valorisation of the fantastic, is a slave’s religion, who fantasies because he is not a master of the actual world. It’s passed down to Germania (including Britain) and the previously Roman Empire through Christianity and other religions of sentimentality and otherworldliness.

    There’s a Left-modernity and a Right modernity.

    Any feminism or hedonism is leftist.

    Purely by historical fact.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    You almost sound like Charles Murray.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I may sound like a lot of people — I am a radio. Murray seems like apt auctoritas, so far as his dot. Can’t say I’ve read his’, beyond excerpts I vaguely recall.

    I’ve been a great “hedonist” myself, altho the word has varied contexts of use (e.g. with even a 1990 Hedonist Manifesto). I referred to, above, it as the pursuit of pleasure over e.g. taking care of your young child. Abnegating life for pursuit of jerkoffy pleasure. Slackness, not fluidity. A broken-off, not a breaking-thru. Doom.

    By “most people are wankers” I mean those that adhere to their death & dissolution from an over-view. Those that choose generational suicide. Chose or are determined, doesn’t matter, their death drive is too glaring like Hitler’s in a rage. It drives to expend itself. Through an ersatz conversion. Hitler may seem like fluid but he’s rigid. He may seem like disciplined but he’s slack. He has no Tao. He’s swept up in swollenness, not growth. Bonapartism. Exploding like a pus-sack on the world. Increased putrefaction is the result.

    I’ve less and less been that kind of hedonist. I’m a K-strategist, preferably.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    By “most people are wankers” I mean those that adhere to their death & dissolution from an over-view. Those that choose generational suicide.

    I.e. so-called “Liberals,” who defend Islamists. Nihilism has many forms. Choosing your nothingness from Landian death-from-the-machine, to “Liberal” death-from-the-slack, or death-from-the sentimentality of neo-Christianism or post-Christian protestantism.

    Physicum Nihilum, the Great Deceiver from the Warp who wills your dissolution.

    It may sound “cool” until you’re the one being stabbed.

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    >Hands up. Nature never ceases to to amaze with her devious creativity. Patterns grow, at all scales, just
    >because they can. And the next moment they collide and disintegrate, to make place for something new
    > again. It is beautiful. So tempting to just enjoy the show and “let go”.

    This “devious creativity” exists in complexity only through bounds; every cancer cell is somewhat unique, but ultimately kills the body as well. And almost all times when a pair of species compete for the same resources in the area, it frequently results in the extinction of one.

    Removing all controlling forces on natural evolution doesn’t give us beauty – it gives us untempered ugliness. For someone who seeks transcendent beauty or any pattern, it is a tragedy. For someone who’s existence is justified by the next sugar or drug high, perhaps its much better.

    Posted on June 8th, 2017 at 3:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    http://www.barnhardt.biz/2017/05/27/manchester-the-brutal-truth/

    Someone is reactionary against Grande.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 9th, 2017 at 1:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hegemonizing Swarm Says:

    In an ironic twist, that site doesn’t let me read it:

    > http://jacobitemag.com/.well-known/captcha/
    > “Robot Challenge Screen”
    > Our system thinks you might be a robot!
    > We’re really sorry about this, but it’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between humans and bots these days.

    I… I confess, I’m a species-traitor. Just don’t complain when the robots want meatsack-free spaces as well.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I may be hedonic, but I’m not a hedonist.

    Shitty parents are often hedonists.

    Neglective, abusive, rotten

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    An interesting new BBC 4 documentary about those incorrigible hedonists, the hippies, “How Hippies Changed The World,” traces one of their influences back to the 19th century Lebensreform movement, a strand of which also influenced the Nazis –

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensreform

    What the Nazis and the hippies had in common was a desire to get back to the land. Only in the Nazi’s case it was the Sudetenland.

    Part 2 of the documentary is showing next Friday.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I suppose ‘hedonist’ has become/is too positive or ambiguous a word, for many, to delineate what I was referring to. Altho I would probably prefer eudaimonism to describe what some use the former to refer to.

    One might argue it was “hedonism” that led me to spirituality (including many of the typical extramundane experiences), in fact I didn’t have a concept of aretes, virtue or eudaimonism at that time. Asceticism came later. I used to be a bit of a Satanist, so I even had transcendental or rupturous/rapturous experiences from such things as eating KFC or snortin stimulants. I have a very “sensitive” neuronal sistem. Kundalini I had from MDMA + music videos, altho I had “inadvertently” been preparing for quite some time. I admittedly went a very hedonistic path to the virtuous living I am closer to now. I was always open to many sides of life though, so I was never exclusively or only just one thing like that. I always epitomized contradictions in my living. Going from limited obscure releases to Britney Spears within the same hour. I presaged shit like Anime Nazism, Witch House and other contra-dictionary cultures.

    I am by now extremely well adapted to a variety of things going on in the world. There’s not a person I cannot have an informed discussion with, so to speak. It’s rare for people to tell me anything new, or as Kayne West says: ‘You can’t tell me nothing.’ I experience autoproducing intelligence. Exponential. Xp Christi, eh. Hooking the world, one cross(over) a time. Hakenkreuz. ‚Glücksbringer’. Correlating the world’s contents, sciosis/skyosys at a time. Krishnaic all-consumer.

    As for the documentary: appreciated. I remember reading about German proto-hippies. I even bought a photography book of German Aryanist nudists from the ’30s. Mostly for the shining health. There’s the Wandervogel too; proto- youth culture.

    There’s relatively analogous trends in America. Such as John Kellog’s ‘biologic living’.

    ☻▬» Purveyors of spiritualized medicine have been legion in American religious history, but few have achieved the superstar status of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and his Battle Creek Sanitarium. In its heyday, the “San” was a combination spa and Mayo Clinic. Founded in 1866 under the auspices of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and presided over by the charismatic Dr. Kellogg, it catered to many well-heeled health seekers including Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, and Presidents Taft and Harding. It also supported a hospital, research facilities, a medical school, a nursing school, several health food companies, and a publishing house dedicated to producing materials on health and wellness. Rather than focusing on Kellogg as the eccentric creator of corn flakes or a megalomaniacal quack, Brian C. Wilson takes his role as a physician and a theological innovator seriously and places his religion of “Biologic Living” in an on-going tradition of sacred health and wellness. With the fascinating and unlikely story of the “San” as a backdrop, Wilson traces the development of this theology of physiology from its roots in antebellum health reform and Seventh-day Adventism to its ultimate accommodation of genetics and eugenics in the Progressive Era. »

    After WW2 “health [including medical] culture” became snobby, and Big Pharma corrupted. Human snob is easy to make use of for well-adapted Satanists.

    ▬» The Popular Health Movement of the 1830s–1850s was an aspect of Jacksonian-era politics and society in the United States. The movement promoted a rational skepticism toward claims of medical expertise that were based on personal authority, and encouraged ordinary people to understand the pragmatics of health care.[1] Arising in the spirit of Andrew Jackson’s anti-elitist views,[2] the movement succeeded in ending almost all government regulation of health care. »

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Erik!

    Those three opening paragraphs would be a killer introduction for a fiction novel. You definitely show a great talent for writing.

    John Hannon Reply:

    Last word on hedonism – one of the most iconic hedonists of modern times, Anita Pallenberg, died on Tuesday –

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/arts/music/anita-pallenberg-dead-actress-rolling-stones-figure.html

    I sort of met her once at a retrospective celebration of the dark psychedelic classic “Performance” at the ICA. She was sitting directly in front of me during the film, while right next to me was the actor Stanley Meadows who played the gangster Rosebloom, breathing heavily and reeking of booze. Johnny Shannon, who played his boss Harry Flowers was sitting behind me, and behind him was the novelist Iain Sinclair, who later made me into a character in his novel “Landor’s Tower.” It was all quite surreal.
    In the bar afterwards, where she was drinking vodka & 7-Up, and reminiscing with James Fox – who she helped send completely crazy during the making of the film – she caught me looking over at her and stared directly back into my eyes with an unblinking gaze of total self-assurance. Unforgettable. Whatever “presence” is, she most definitely had it.
    Or as Keef said of her in his memoir “Life” – “Anita, sexy fucking bitch. One of the prime women in the world.”

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    ” In those days on Courtfield Road I had nothing to do with Anita, strictly speaking. I was fascinated by her from what I thought was a safe distance. I thought certainly that Brian had got very lucky. I could never figure out how he got his hands on her. My first impression was of a woman who was very strong. I was right about that. Also an extremely bright woman, that’s one of the reasons she sparked me. Let alone that she was so entertaining and such a great beauty to look at. Very funny. Cosmopolitan beyond anyone I’d come across. She spoke three languages. She’d been here, she’d been there. It was very exotic, to me. I loved her spirit, even though she would instigate and turn the screw and manipulate. She wouldn’t let you off the hook for a minute. If I said, “That’s nice… ,” she would say, “Nice? I hate that word. Oh, stop being so fucking bourgeois.” We’re going to fight about the word “nice”? How would you know? Her English was still a bit patchy, so she would break out in German occasionally when she really meant something. “Excuse me. I’ll have that translated.”

    John Hannon Reply:

    “One of the prime women in the world” in her prime –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV9MWkxCby8

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    In her prime? SC Hickmann just posted this ▬▬» Arran James: Dogen will talk about nondual experience as intimacy. There is an undoubted erotics to this intimacy. An erotic relationship with the Real. It is a kind of perversion being totally indifferent at the same time.
    Steven Craig Hickman: Well not sure it would be perversion in our Western sense, but think of the highest form of Yoga in Tibetan Buddhism – speaking of the (Bon inspired) Tantric yoga in which young girls were used to awaken kundalini and the chakras, etc. One can follow this into Jainism, Shivaism, and many other Indic religious praxis… even in all these various religious systems there is an acknowledgement of sex, energia, and ecstasy that converge, and are not seen as perversion or degrading (shame or guilt) in the Western sense of our monotheistic systems. And, yet, as one studies Western mysticisms from Sabbatianism (Lurian kabbalah), Sufi, Catholic mystics, etc. on down to the resurgence in such sexual magick in 19th and 20th century Occulture one sees sex and ecstasy were and still are part of the higher forms of praxis. The moralism comes only from outsiders, not insiders in such systems. »

    I recall also my post about archeo-aryans and youngg girls

    Posted on June 10th, 2017 at 8:55 am Reply | Quote
  • Punished Snake Says:

    http://www.daughtersofshiningharmony.com/

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 11th, 2017 at 9:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    Closing lines of Houellebecq’s Les Particules élémentaires (also known as “Atomised”)

    “It has been surprising to note the meekness, resignation, perhaps even secret relief with which humans have consented to their own passing.

    Having broken the filial chain that linked us to humanity, we live on. Men consider us to be happy;

    it is certainly true that we have succeeded in overcoming the forces of egotism, cruelty and anger which they could not.

    We live very different lives.

    Science and art are still a part of our society; but without the stimulus of personal vanity, the pursuit of Truth and Beauty has taken on a less urgent aspect. To humans of the old species, our world seems a paradise. We have even been known to refer to ourselves — with a certain humor — by the name they so long dreamed of
    gods.

    History exists; it is elemental, it dominates, its rule is inexorable.

    Yet outside the strict confines of history, the ultimate ambition of this book is to salute the brave and unfortunate species which created us.

    This vile, unhappy race, barely different from the apes, which nevertheless carried within it such noble aspirations.

    Tortured, contradictory, individualistic, quarrelsome and infinitely selfish, it was sometimes capable of extraordinary explosions of violence, but never quite abandoned its belief in love.

    This species which, for the first time in history, was able to envision the possibility of its succession and, some years later, proved capable of bringing it about.

    As the last members of this race are extinguished, we think it just to render this last tribute to humanity, an homage which itself will one day disappear, buried beneath the sands of time.

    It is necessary that this tribute be made, if only once.

    This book is dedicated to mankind”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Well put.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 11th, 2017 at 10:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Punished Snake Says:

    A few things.

    Misc #1
    ▬» By Michael Lipkin June 15, 2016 ON HISTORY
    Why did an intelligent Jewish scholar write an appreciation of a German tyrant [sic]?

    In 1992, a medievalist named Norman Cantor published Inventing the Middle Ages, a series of light, biographical sketches intended to show readers how a few historians from the twentieth century had brought the Middle Ages alive to the general public, with, as the flap copy put it, “vivid images of wars, tournaments, plagues, saints and kings, knights and ladies.” One chapter, “The Nazi Twins,” was devoted partly to Ernst Kantorowicz, a Princeton scholar who’d written a magisterial study of sovereignty in medieval law, philosophy, and art. Cantor alleged that Kantorowicz—who was not only Jewish, but had spoken up against Hitler at great peril to his academic career, and whose mother has perished in a concentration camp—had “impeccable Nazi credentials”: an outrageous slander, in the eyes of his former students and colleagues. When The New York Review of Books ran a largely favorable essay on Inventing the Middle Ages, the magazine received a flood of angry letters. “Where is this Cantor [a] professor? Disney World?” demanded one reader. »

    LOL

    Misc #2
    ▬ Competition is good, etymologically and thus actually.

    Misc #3
    ▬ Concept: Rurban omniplexy.

    Misc #4
    ▬» Minor Note: Exoteric Calvinism

    “[Moldbug’s] understanding of Church history has many lacunae”. In fact, let us word this a little more strongly: as intellectual history, the great merit of Moldbug’s Puritan Hypothesis is that it serves as a coordination point for philosemites who would rather not talk about some (((other))) unitarian sect and papists who would rather not talk about heretics in … albs.

    [Posted on May 5, 2017 by quaslacrimas] »

    Misc #5
    ▬» https://quaslacrimas.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/building-dwelling-populism/ »
    After reading convolutions like this, I say: Thank God! For Patchwork.

    I propose a Tao-Confucian synthesis with the best of the Romano-British Empire. The latter being a synthesis of the Roman, the Hebrew, the European, and especially the non-Socialist Germanic (Land would say ‘Anglo’). Catholicism-Anglicism 2.0 if you will, or Christianity of God the Father over Jesus the Revolutionary (i.e. omission of the Filioque), altho those who would believe in the latter may have their churches.
    It is trans-Christian; patriarcho-propertarian (this means whatever concepts to secure normal Western property rights and propagation of filiality, i.e. breeding as opposed to extinction of the unique DNA. Simply this stability in both legality and homogeneity was the norm in Iceland before the 1990s. Also, for instance, in many parts of North-America, Britain, and Europe).

    This might seem awfully eclectic, but I believe it is already the standard of the best on the globe. It’s somewhat kind of like Japan if they hadn’t stopped breeding. Courteous and productive hi-IQ people. Who continue to exist actually through reproducing. Best of post-WW2 Japan.

    Anglicism is a post-Catholicism, as it were, but Catholicism-Anglicism 2.0 would be a synthesis of the best of both. I.e. a “theory-fiction” conceptual cosmos akin (analogous) to the unity and depth of Hindooism, praxis and profound depths. This will aspectually be known to some as Vedantic or neo-Vedic Christianity. What is meant is the most encompassing Traditionality including a sea of particularities (a mate of mine said the Holy Roman Empire was this, i.e. he places the HRE as the Western peak while I include the British Empire also). The State-Church complex cares not as long as normal Western European legality-homogeneity-generationality is met. I.e. that people act like normal White people, start businesses, schools and have families, and treat each other not very irrationally as we’ve seen with folks South of Rome and other sentimentalists such as leftists. Simply the best of the Global North.

    See a relative prefigurement or analogy in Frederick II’s Imperium.

    ▬» Frederick rejected the idea of a capricious God, intervening miraculously into human affairs. Obviously, this is unlike the pagans, for whom the gods and goddesses were always interfering arbitrarily [sic] in world events. For Frederick, God’s Providence was itself the Law, or the Logos as we would prefer to state it. That means that the natural order was itself the reflection of the Divine Order, and so Providence was Rational. The Scholastics has a similar definition:

    “Providence is the Reason of a purposeful order of things.”
    Moreover, it was the Emperor who was the mediator and interpreter of the Divine Plan.

    Marriage Laws
    As an example of a specific application of Frederick’s notion of Justice, we will consider the marriage laws that he implemented in Sicily. While not denying its sacramental value, Frederick regarded marriage as a necessity of nature for the preservation of the human race. Hence, the intention of those laws was improving the breed. Specifically, a Sicilian was forbidden to marry a non-Sicilian. This is his justification:

    “It has often grieved us to see how the righteousness of our kingdom has suffered corruption from foreign manners by the mixture of different peoples. When the men of Sicily ally themselves with the daughters of foreigners, the purity of the race becomes besmirched, while evil and sensual weakness increase, the purity of the people is contaminated by the speech and by the habits of the others, and the seed of the stranger defiles the hearth of our faithful subjects.”
    The Church was only concerned about the spiritual makeup of the marriage partners. That is, she follows a “moral logic” (in Valentin Tomberg’s terms), while the State follows an “organic logic”. This logic, moreover, is justified by the very nature of things. »

    Ultimately, I guess the West without feminism and multiculturalism. Also without Socialism.

    In other word kind of just Land’s, without death-thru-the-machine. Or shall we say cyborg Tolkien on the occasional/regular entheogen and capitalistic venture.

    Best of the West.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    As for Moldbug’s Puritan Hypothesis, this is perhaps its more significant fault rather than an overdone philosemitism:

    » In particular, the hypothesis ignores:

    ▬ that American Unitarianism was imported into Boston from Britain and was only very indirectly linked to indigenous New England Calvinism;
    ▬ that Anglican Unitarianism itself grew out of Arminianism, which was rejected by the Dutch Calvinists at Dort in 1619 and was rejected with great violence by the English Calvinists shortly thereafter;
    ▬ that the stereotype of “Puritan missionary fervor” which Moldbug triumphantly links to America’s fervor for imposing its principles on its satellites is, in any case, grounded in the missionary activities of conservative Calvinists who rejected Parker and Channing;
    that the PA Quakers, not the MA Congregationalists, are to blame for most of the progressive themes in early US history, including universal suffrage, democracy, (hypocritical) pacifism, disestablishment of state churches, and abolitionism;
    ▬ that the disestablishment of state churches did not undermine a de facto policy of Protestantism, and general cultural unity, until the establishment of urban immigrant enclaves;
    ▬ and that the ethnic composition of Harvard in the last fifty years has had some intriguing religious dimensions, but not with respect to infiltration by the Eternal Calvinist. »

    Whatever, it can be solved by renaming an hypothesis as post-Moldbug protestant Hypothesis. Further we note protest has become to mean vacuous motions, so why not call the whole thing protestantism with a lowercase p. Protest is a type of Voice. When Christianity blossomed from its inherent seed of feminism, it became morally vacuous enough to be a type of Nihilism. Placing hopes in sentiment and faith without works.

    Protest used to mean to put forth before witnesses (pro-testify) but it has no meaning really outside of a legal framework known to legible White people (including honorable Asians and Africans).

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Protest has been baked into the cake since before Plato:

    “Zeus did not respect the old gods… Socrates who does not respect the old gods, imitates Zeus.” (Strauss)

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Just to be a meta-shitlord I will say, Progress has been baked into the cake since before Plato.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    That’s a mega-interesting point Strauss makes. But yeah, it’s been in the cake since the recipe was invented before the Big Bang.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Altho I do wonder about its correctness.

    ▬» The classical Greek myths of the Titanomachy fall into a class of similar myths throughout Europe and the Near East concerning a war in heaven, where one generation or group of gods largely opposes the dominant one. Sometimes the elders are supplanted, and sometimes the rebels lose and are either cast out of power entirely or incorporated into the pantheon. Other examples might include the wars of the Æsir with the Vanir in Scandinavian mythology, the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, the Hittite “Kingship in Heaven” narrative, the obscure generational conflict in Ugaritic fragments, Virabhadra’s conquest of the early Vedic Gods, and the rebellion of Lucifer in Christianity. The Titanomachy lasted for ten years.[2] The Titans were imprisoned in Tartarus after the war had ended. »

    It’s not about respecting the idols or not. It’s about cognising (gnoseating) what the idols have developed historicoculturally to presence. I.e. psychosomatic or trans-bodily states of being.

    There are experiences of those typical gods that are far beyond what Jung et al reads out of them. Jung was ultimately bourgeoise-proletarian, i.e. modern.

    The overthrow of the titans represents an inner independence. It represents the rulership of the non-needy.

    ▬» In Neoplatonism, Zeus’s relation to the gods familiar from mythology is taught as the Demiurge or Divine Mind. Specifically within Plotinus’s work the Enneads[71] and the Platonic Theology of Proclus. »

    Posted on June 11th, 2017 at 10:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    I really really don’t mean to be difficult, so first let me say i prefer the new blog to this one at least you have to say what you mean.And its clever.

    But here’s the thing Land, youde make a good catholic theologian { I always assumed you were a prot was i wrong?} Like the jesuits who began catholic pilling me at age five, you begin in the middle with a forgone conclusion, and of course, like the Church, you also base it on the jew pill already installed in your brain, (though in your case its Yarvins yarn. ( really you should have given him credit) Though it is kind of protestant in its catch 22 theme of modernity has a perfect plan, you cant exit from exit. Isnt there a phrase for that kind of thinking in philosphy?

    Why dont we check some premises?
    Are we a social animal? It seems to me with the evolution of the human brain we transcended that, Oh sure there are vestiges all the way back to stardust, but we realized the we are, I use the collective but it was a very individual realization, consciousness is nothing if not atomization. Its true and yarvin is correct that our pre conscious brains can be triggered still. But it is when we act in congress consciously that we capitalize on the evolutionary leap.And capitalism it was. Capitalism begins when the first conscious ape trades his violent abilities with another conscious ape in return for the same. Not in some instinctual way but in a calculated move to build a better violence organization.The safe space these decisions make is called civilization.The trade and tradecraft that develops within that space again can be mistaken for instinctual but is of another conscious variety light years more advanced, Kubrick I think caught it perfectly in the opening of 2001.

    Atomization always wins because we only unite to win.Its true there is a conundrum, atomization though is the default state since consciousness. as I have been saying for years it may not be possible to design this sustainable civilization given our genetic state at this time, we may need a reboot first; and thats a scary proposition.Atomization is pre civilization and post civilization its our natural state our default position is self interest. This is good. We co operate consciously but for our own separate interests.simultaneously calculating the prisoners.

    while we are struggling to build a civilization we cooperate more faithfully, we will die we few we happy few standing our ground faithful to the bargain, Later if we succeed we will tell tales that will reinforce later generations to stand their ground against seemingly hopeless odds, we will develop religions traditions customs sagas all in an effort to nurture that receding instinctual brain and also to appeal to the ascending rational self interest brain.The fact the we must develop these cultures to institute civilization (co operation) is evidence we are fighting an uphill battle against individual consciousness now. As you point out we can only muster this co operation if we dont think too hard about the future conflicts of interest.

    Obviously this ebbs and flows with the stages of civilization we find ourselves in. We co operate best when struggling to survive at all and least as we find ourselves enjoying the fruits of previous generations sacrifice of autonomy. But also since this has until recently been so successful for europeans particularly we are also fighting a steeper grade as evoluton has been rewarding atomization. We may find ourselves at trhe laffer curve of evolutionary consciousness. HBD chick and suicidal altruism and all that. Its pretty clear europeans have been most selected for this individual consciousness if not exclusively selected for it. You are wrong a muslim can not elect modernity autonomously he can only be invited to it by westerners. without the west the atomized muslim hindu or chicom or nigger is but roadkill under a tank or what remains after a stoning or burning.

    So the question is are we simply at the fin d siecle or at an evolutionary cul de sac.War swims right; if we are only at the end of a wave then we will not really choose to fight, we will have to fight to live to survive. The choice will be to choose to die rather than fight. either way its not exit that will win exit will surely die either way if only to rise again. Exit will die with us as the niggers overrun us and kill of individual consciousness. Or we will instinctively choose to survive.

    The really big question is what of sustainability of this european trait this post instinctual atomization as you call it/ The lower races are like animals they act like the ants or monkey troops, they can do nothing more, when they attempt to ape us they make a botch of it. We have tried all sorts of ways to live with them none have worked and they fail increasingly badly as we spread our technology around the planet. Its clear at the very least they must be reduced to the status of large fauna in game parks or simply culled we havnt the time to exit the planet and why would we want to exit this excellent planet, and genetically modifying them into whites is a long way off and again why bother when we are perfectly capable of making our own whites.But even with the problem of what happens when atomized euroman comes into contact with pre conscious ape men, solved; what of the problem of euro atomizations exhausting and wasteful but beautiful and bountiful process of rise and fall.Apart from the other or perhaps in our case we have so exceeded transcended the other as a threat that for our intents and purposes we are even now already apart from the other in as much as the others very real threat seems to us unreal, and triggers not our reversion to instinct. In any case at some point we will find ourself without our jesses what then reforms us. Can there be a post civilization humanity? well it seems there is one but surely not even you think this will last long, though you do seem to think something close to it will.And this is where you part ways with much of the right,This blade runner elysium world you imagine seems pretty far fetched, sure there are pockets of bobo culture now but how long does that last post collapse, already they are infected, they cant fight they cant conceive of fighting,But even if tech does their fighting and protects them they are dying of modernism, feminism, jesslessness.

    What seems the main ingredient whats missing is identity, an identity that transcends atomony. This has always and appropriately been genetic proximity. being a people is a reality, and it predates all the stories we tell to reinforce the biological reality. Its very hard for us post hitler to think about this without the baggage. If anything is likely to bring us back to reality it will be that we are not like the others and we must defend against them. This may seem crude but what it will more importantly be doing is bringing us back from ourself absorbtion to the point of extinction.we are not quite capable of perpetual atomization yet, and its a big yet. It may in fact be what was selected for that does not mean its going to be a success it might be the big sieve, why we cant find other life forms.

    somewhere in the post martial portion of the cycle but before the decadence lies the sweet spot that has given us the advantage over all the nigger races. At that point we are free enough to innovate but still focussed enough further our culture rather than deconstruct it.We ought to have enough examples of the process to convince even the most progressively minded rational persons to break the cycle and cooperate on a compromise cultural project but it seems not. Is there a genetic modification we could make to make this compromise possible?

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Mike, moar darkpoasts. You’re an inadvertent horror writer. Whodathunk sickening truths would be so delightful? Certainly not our braindead prog human husbandrists.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    michael said

    Capitalism begins when the first conscious ape trades his violent abilities with another conscious ape in return for the same.

    Absolutely brilliant.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 13th, 2017 at 4:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Out of style: high trust, low crime homogeneous civilization.

    Hip and happening: low trust, high crime, ultra-violent melting pots.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 13th, 2017 at 10:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    Rothsteinberg here

    Some of my good friends have joined me on our Cruise:

    Schulman, (Paypal), Zuckerberg (Facebook) Google (Brin/Page) CBS (Murray Rothstein), NBC (Brian Roberts), ABC (Robert Iger), CNN (Vivi Nevo)

    Wall Street (Goldman Sachs), Brewing Companies (Ken Grossman), Real Estate (Stephen L Green) (Automotive (Norman Braman), Hedge Funds (Paul Singer), Casinos (Sheldon Adelson), Tech Giants (Larry Ellison)

    What don’t we own in America? Perhaps a few bars and grills. That’s about it.

    Speaking of a house of horrors, wait until you see what we have planned for the stupid American Goyim

    It’s not going to be pretty.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 15th, 2017 at 9:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    Rothsteinberg here.

    We’ve captured a goy! Delivered to our Cruise Ship by Helicopter. Blind-folded, gagged and hand-cuffed.

    Now we can take our time, interrogating and torturing him, until we get some answers.

    Some old deaf servant who worked for the billionaire Blattstein in his Country Chateau.

    For the last time, answer yes or no, old man.

    This servant may have seen Blattstein do something, or at least that’s what Fineberg told us. Something to do with Murder, pedophilia, necrophilia, tax scams, or some kind of satanic death cult. Blattstein is no saint, so maybe it’s ALL of the above, we’re not sure.

    We’ll interrogate this servant about what he knows (if he actually does know anything) about “misdoings” centered around Blattstein’s chateau or any children who may have disappeared from the surrounding area

    Once we’ve finished interrogating him, he’ll go on a Helicopter ride.

    And never bother anyone again.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2017 at 10:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    The hour of bad conscience draws nigh; it will also be the hour of the greatest cynicism, “that repressed cruelty of the animal-man made inward and scared back into himself, the creature imprisoned in the “state”, so as to be tamed…..”

    Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, II, 22

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 18th, 2017 at 4:20 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Zardoz says

    Perhaps the antifa and anarchists already understand this.

    They “understand” like a dog fighting for territory. Dogs pack up in gangs in Mumbai

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 18th, 2017 at 3:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    “If you must write, you must do it in the face of all opposition. […] Do not spend too much more time on culture & reading, these are traps. When everything conspires to make the thing impossible, when you are tired, worried, with no time, or money, it is then that things get done.”

    – Samuel Beckett to Claude Raimbourg, 3 May 1954.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    St. Beckett

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 18th, 2017 at 4:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    I recall also my post about archeo-aryans and youngg girls

    The modern world is characterised by the worship of the older woman and death-as-death

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Butt especially the infertile woman or woman who would not bare (children)

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    It all stems from the death-worship of pure Christianity

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Christ’s message is abnegation

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Negativa

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    0

    Posted on June 18th, 2017 at 5:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    G. Eiríksson: “It all stems from the death-worship of pure Christianity”

    +1

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 18th, 2017 at 9:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @Aeroguy
    unless there is only one ai capitalist i think they will like humans act, most will go for alpha and short term gains a few will try contrarian strategies. But all will be motivated by profits or paper clips not human happiness.or whatever you prefer to call the goal of human organization.I would drop the capitalist Idea and see if you can argue for Ai being programmed to govern for maximizing human -whatever. It might work if we actually had the AI of our dreams. It would be like the ability to edit our DNA, of course if we could build that AI we could instead edit our DNA or have AI edit our DNA. at least if we programmed AI for our benefit we would know if it was working.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2017 at 1:47 am Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    0

    Via negativa?

    “At the moment everything was being destroyed she had created that which was most difficult: she had not drawn something out of nothing (a meaningless act), but given to nothing, in its form of nothing, the form of something.”

    “I think: there at the point where thought joins with me I am able to subtract myself from being, without diminishing, without changing, by means of a metamorphosis which saves me from myself, beyond any point of reference from which I might be seized. It is the property of my thought, not to assure me of existence (as all things do, as a stone does), but to assure me of being in nothingness itself, and to invite me not to be, in order to make me feel my marvelous absence. I think, said Thomas, and this visible, inexpressible, nonexistent Thomas I became meant that henceforth I was never there where I was, and there was not even anything mysterious about it. My existence became entirely that of an absent person who, in every act I performed, produced the same act and did not perform it.”

    ― Blanchot, Thomas the Obscure

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yes, I was sort of hinting at that. Christianity pure is an asceticism of Yeshua analogous to that of prince Gautama Buddha. It’s all about denying the world.

    Denying race, denying nation, denying family. This is simply in Jesus’ (Yeshua’s) words. This is what makes people like Mark Citadel laughable.

    “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    It’s not that Jesus is wrong. It’s that this is a creed for monks.

    The one of the few groups who took it seriously enough were the Cathars and they were slain by the neo-“Roman” Catholic church. To be a first order Cathar you had to do fasting, like Jesus, for 40 days (the endura). They were known as the bon hommes, the good men. Cathar means ‘pure one’.

    It’s not like Protestantism came out of no one. Western Christianity under the rulership of the Papacy had somewhat turned into a death-cult. Protestantism came out of the Pope’s arse.

    This is heard e.g. in the great overview under the title Paradise and Utopia: The Rise of Anthropological Pessimism III ▬»
    Fr. John addresses the foundations in the West of a growing pessimism about man’s condition, paying particular attention to Augustine
    [&]
    Paradise and Utopia: The Rise of Anthropological Pessimism in the West II
    Fr. John contends that to understand the coming of the Renaissance and its humanism, one really needs to understand how in the West the doctrines about man became increasingly pessimistic. »

    It was all around the same ages that Popes struggled with emperors, set off crusades the 4th one which ended in the sacking of the Roman city of Constantinople, and excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

    ▬» In this segment of the episode, I would like now to turn to the West and to the foundation in the West of an alternative anthropology, one which led, with time, to a growing pessimism about man’s condition, a pessimism which would have a profound impact upon the Middle Ages and lead in a very direct way to the abandonment of traditional Christianity during the Renaissance. And the foundation for this anthropological pessimism can be found within the thought of St. Augustine. Augustine lived from 354 to 430 in North Africa [and had previously been a Manichean]. …
    Augustine’s place in the Fathers of the early Church is a controversial one, especially in the East. In the East, Orthodox Christians have long regarded Augustine with suspicion. It is interesting to note that in the immediate aftermath of Augustine’s life work, very little, if any, of Augustine’s thought and writings reached the East. It was not until the ninth century, the 800s, when Augustine was directly discussed by St. Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, when he, Photios, raised the question of the Latin practice of the filioque. Photios, one will remember, was attacked by Pope Nicholas in the ninth century in the controversy that involved the Nicolaitan schism that I discussed in the opening anecdote to Part II of this podcast. Well, Photios was challenging the use, made by Frankish Western theologians, of Augustine during that time in their effort to advance the filioque, the clause in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son—filioque: “and the Son”. … Protestantism, especially Calvin, will make much use also of Augustine’s thought. »

    Firstly, the filioque is masturbatory trash. It’s sons that father. When sons father they become fathers. Thus it’s pater familia, and patriots. No son fathers without becoming a father, essentially. And you come from your father, do you not? Weren’t you fathered? So why claim the Holy Spirit comes also from the son? That’s like a proto-feminism. A proto masturbatory youth culture or the infertile seed of one.

    ▬» The Most Hellish Father, St. Paul III, in his supposed capacity as the bishop of the Roman church, has written two briefs to Charles V, our lord emperor, wherein he appears almost furious, growling and boasting, according to the example of his predecessors, that neither an emperor nor anyone else has the right to convoke a council, even a national one, except solely the pope …

    If [the popes] have not been able to kill the emperors with treachery and every diabolical wickedness, it is nevertheless their definite intention, and their regret has always been that their bloodthirsty, murderous, evil intentions have been foiled and prevented. The descendants of the emperor Phocas, their founder and regicide, are, as was said, desperate, thorough arch rascals, murderers, traitors, liars, the very scum of all the most evil men on earth as is said in Rome itself. They embellish themselves with the names of Christ, St. Peter, and the church, even though they are full of all the worst devils in hell-full, full, and so full that they can do nothing but vomit, throw, and blow out devils! You will say that this is true when you read the histories of how they have treated the emperors. …
    Until now we had to believe that the pope was the head of the church, the most holy, the savior of all Christendom. Now we see that he, with his Roman cardinals, is nothing but a desperate scoundrel, the enemy of God and man, the destroyer of Christendom, and Satan’s bodily dwelling, who, through him, only harms both church and state, like a werewolf, and mocks and laughs up his sleeve when he hears that such hurts God or man more of this later. …
    And even if they would be reformed in a council which really is not possible and the pope and cardinals should promise in blood to observe it, it would still be wasted trouble and labor; they would only grow worse afterward than they were before, as happened after the Council of Constance. For since they believe that there is no God, no hell, no life after this life, and live and die like a cow, sow, or other animal, II Peter 2 [:12], it is to them ridiculous to keep seals and letters, and reform. That is why it would be best for the emperor and estates of the empire to let the blasphemous, abominable rascals and damned scum of Satan in Rome just go to the devil. …
    Thus this pope of Sodomists, this founder and master of all sins, here wants to push sin and damnation off onto Emperor Charles, although he knows quite well that his rascally tongue lies abominably. And such accursed villains want to convince the world that they are head of the church, the mother of all churches, and masters of the faith. Why even if we were stones and wooden blocks, we could see by their works throughout all the world that they are lost, desperate children of the devil and also mad, crude asses in Scripture. Someone probably would like to curse them so that they might be struck down by lightning and thunder, burned by hellish fire, have the plague, syphilis, epilepsy, the plague of St. Anthony, leprosy, carbuncles, and all the plagues but these are all caresses, and God has long ago punished them with greater plagues, just like God’s despisers and blasphemers should be punished, Romans 1 [:26, 27], namely, that in sanity they have become so obviously mad and raving that they do not know whether they are or want to be male or female; they are not ashamed in the presence of women, and their mothers, sisters, and grandmothers are among those forced to see and hear such things of them, to their great distress. Shame on you, popes, cardinals, and whatever you are at the curia, that you are not afraid of the cobblestones upon which you ride, which would like to swallow you! …
    The imperial laws have much to say about how to handle furious, insane, mad people. How much greater the need is here to put into stocks, chains, and prisons the pope, cardinals, and the whole Roman See, who have not become raving mad in the usual way, but who rage so horribly that at one time they want to be men, at another women, and never know at any one time when their mood will strike them. We Christians should nevertheless believe that such raving and lunatic Roman hermaphrodites have the Holy Spirit and are the heads, masters, and teachers of Christendom! But I must stop here, or save what I could write further against the papal briefs and bulls, for my head is weak, and I feel that I might not get everything said, and yet I still have not gotten to the points I had intended to make in this book. … »

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    It’s sons that father. When sons father they become fathers.

    Rather said, it’s the function of fathering in a son that fathers. Every son, given that he’s healthy, is potentially, we may say essentially, a father.

    “Where did you come from?” From my father.

    And from his father. And his.

    Thus ancestral cult

    thus a race

    alive

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2017 at 2:35 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    This “devious creativity” exists in complexity only through bounds; every cancer cell is somewhat unique

    +1 This perhaps why uniqueness is hardly a value in itself.

    There are e.g. uniquely bad situations.

    Uniquely poor quality.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    This was a unique post in that its time o posting ends with 0. Almost unique for me

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2017 at 7:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    G. Eiríksson: “The one of the few groups who took it seriously enough were the Cathars and they were slain by the neo-“Roman” Catholic church…. They were known as the bon hommes, the good men. Cathar means ‘pure one’.

    The Cathars, who, while recognizing the singular power of evil and its total hold over creation, called themselves perfect: the “Perfecti” (as in “perfect heretics”)

    One of their main roles was to administer the Consolamentum (Consolation) to the dying….

    Perfects often took great personal risks to visit the dying and faced certain death if caught.

    During the time of the Cathar suppression when the Church sent a Crusade to destroy them, many Perfects led a hidden and itinerant existence –

    moving from village to village under cover of darkness, spending the days in barns or woods. Many were burned alive at the stake by the Catholic Church.

    The last recorded Cathar Perfect was Guillaume Bélibaste who was betrayed by a Credente (Croyant in French or believer in English) in the pay of the Church and burned to death in the 14th century. (from Wikipedia)

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    It’s amusing that the Jesuits had to go through ▬» moving from village to village under cover of darkness, spending the days in barns or woods. » in Japan, later.

    It’s something the Early Christians had to go through also.

    The neo-Roman “Catholic” church was recognised by the Cathars as the anti-Christ instance it was.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2017 at 2:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    1930. Moving south from Jaghbub into the desert among the preserve of Zwaya and Majabra tribes. A seven day journey to El Taj

    We traveled through three desert sand storms during nine days. We missed small desert towns where we expected to locate more supplies. The horse vanished. Three of the camels died. For the last two days there was no food, only tea.

    The last link with any other world was the clink of the fire-black tea urn and the long spoon and the glass which came towards us in the darkness of the mornings.

    After the third night we gave up talking. All that mattered was the fire and the minimal brown liquid.

    Only by luck did we stumble on the desert town of El Taj. I walked through the souk, the alley of clocks chiming, into the street of barometers, past the rifle-cartridge stalls, stands of Italian tomato sauce and other tinned food from Benghazi, calico from Egypt, ostrich-tail decorations, street dentists, book merchants.

    We were still mute, each of us dispersing along our own paths. We received this new world slowly, as if coming out of a drowning.

    In the central square of El Taj, we sat and ate lamb, rice, badawi cakes, and drank milk with almond pulp beaten into it.
    All this after the long wait for three ceremonial glasses of tea flavored with amber and mint.

    László Ede Almásy de Zsadány et Törökszentmiklós

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 22nd, 2017 at 9:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    I chose the revival of the West, not because it’s “likely” but because it’s such a grand challenge.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 25th, 2017 at 12:44 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment