Quote note (#355)

This is going to be good …

In today’s crowded societies, once again many people are feeling the drive to break away from existing cultures and establish their own institutions. Ignorant of human history, most people treat such an idea with scorn. The world of the here and now is the only real world, they say. Talk of starting a new country is “escapism.” One’s duty is to direct one’s energies toward making contemporary society a better place to live. And so on. But those who know better realize that schism is the fundamental human method for dealing with frictions within groups of people. In fact, it has been so for so long that factors predisposing people to break off from one group and start another may even have seeped into the human gene pool …

(Via.)

XS emphasis, with the addition: Inclination to this method is evidently unevenly ethnically distributed.

May 29, 2017admin 56 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Realism

TAGGED WITH : , ,

56 Responses to this entry

  • Temmy Says:

    The right deals with ‘diversity’ through schism. The left deals with it through infiltration and subversion.

    Until recently the right has always had places it could to flee to in order to escape the aggression of the left and its ethnic jannissaries. This is what kept conflict down

    But those places are growing scarce. without places to flee leftist aggression the right must turn to conflict.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 29th, 2017 at 2:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    THE TECHNOCOMMERCIAL UTOPIA IS ALREADY HERE!

    The book is likeable, very readable.
    Again, though, Sol Yurick has covered all this territorialisation business exhaustively in “Metatron”, both virtual and actual countries, as well as virtual and actual populations. He was way beyond, in the early 1980s, what anyone is talking about now. He didn’t neglect the neo-Darwinian thing, either; after all, he did write “Warriors”.

    The problem with schismatic breakaways, is that they never really were pioneering gestures and essays towards the wilderness. Invariably, they were state-sponsored hostile takeovers. The people sent over to the ‘new worlds’, were religious extremists, and, let us not forget, criminal types; very much including those ‘low trust’ characters that Neoreaction is so fond of railing against.

    The white supremacist has always been perfectly happy in accepting Third World impoverishment as the natural result of market discipline, but strangely, these days, is unable to accept his own impoverishment, resulting from the selfsame forces. All of a sudden, he offers the very same, essentially anti-colonial arguments, that he had always dismissed, in the past. One notices, that no one currently benefiting from prevailing market opportunities, complains. The hypocrisy is rank.

    Neoreaction has never talked about ‘exit’. All it ever did, was self-serving romanticisation, and wholesale neglect of the elements of exploitation.

    Neareaction promotes a ruthless economic discipline of market efficiency; it harks back to the halcyon days of imperialist expansion; it denigrates all social welfare spending, blaming degeneration of nation-state economies on such spending.
    But strangely, offshore wealth is greater than ever! Virtual corporations and territories thrive as never before! Surely, Neoreaction ought to be celebrating the malaise of the nation-state? Are not these centres of offshore wealth, already and effectively, in information terms, the city-states and principalities of Neoreaction’s technocommercial utopia?

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    One of your better comments, possibly.

    But what do you mean

    Third World impoverishment as the natural result of market discipline

    ?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [G. Eiríksson] “One of your better comments, possibly. But what do you mean, “Third World impoverishment as the natural result of market discipline”?

    {AK}: Thank you, G. Eiríksson.
    Those who perpetually game economic systems in their favour, through the inordinate use of military force as a general structural component of their trade relations, whilst declaring their trade to be free of such coercions; and, moreover, those who instantly condemn anyone else at the least hint of their engaging in similar activity. Again, the hypocrisy is rank.
    In short, those who attempt to naturalise a system of blatant iniquity only when it’s in their favour, but make the most dreadful and hypocritical caterwauling when they perceive themselves not to be that system’s prime beneficiaries.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Ah, so you speak of the Evil. Those under the liege of the Fallen egrégoroi.

    Now, let’s not be dualist here. We’re all under their spell. Weren’t said natives sometimes engaging in warfare amongst themselves before we arrived? And trade?

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [G. Eiríksson]: “Ah, so you speak of the Evil. Those under the liege of the Fallen egrégoroi.
    Now, let’s not be dualist here. We’re all under their spell. Weren’t said natives sometimes engaging in warfare amongst themselves before we arrived? And trade?”

    {AK}: Mr. G. Eiríksson, the only ‘evil’, and ‘duality’, that needs be derived here, is that issuing from the architects of hypocrisy, themselves (“All of a sudden, he offers the very same, essentially anti-colonial arguments, that he had always dismissed, in the past.”).

    If “said natives sometimes engaging in warfare amongst themselves” legitimises the gratuitous self-introduction of an order of foreign interests and exploitations, why shouldn’t the reverse be legitimate, too? In which case, an invading order has no grounds of legitimacy that it can both appeal to and demonstrate itself to an exemplar of. An invader that uses foreign techniques of violence to impose its own order, over another order or practice, is then hardly in a position to dictate ethical imperatives over anything at all, whether ‘criminality’ or whatever. The most it can achieve, is an ongoing regime of duress. Which pretty much sums up the horizon of Occidental cultures of the last 4000 years.
    I won’t bore you, Mr. G. Eiríksson, by spelling out the rest of the petty implications, but suffice to say, it’s the kind of thing that our gracious host loves to instigate, lol.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    What do you think Mr. Land can do about this? If one cannot defend oneself properly, oneself can be exploited. It’s just something that happens in nature, no?

    Malcer Reply:

    Speak for yourself Mr. SJW. I have no quarrel with the impovrishment of Whites thanks to a rise in long term productivity.

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    The Puritans were not state-sponsored to my knowledge, so that would be at least one exception. That said, state sponsorship certainly seemed to vastly increase the odds of success.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Daniel Chieh]: “The Puritans were not state-sponsored to my knowledge, so that would be at least one exception. That said, state sponsorship certainly seemed to vastly increase the odds of success.”

    {AK}: They may not have been state-sponsored, but they certainly would have been state-protected, by British forces. That protection would certainly have been the primary enabling condition of any success at all.

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Artxell,

    You’re god damn right.

    ” The white supremacist has always been perfectly happy in accepting Third World impoverishment as the natural result of market discipline, but strangely, these days, is unable to accept his own impoverishment, resulting from the selfsame forces. ”

    Not only does one not want to accept it, one does not even want to admit that it is the ‘self-same’ force.

    The moment I was signaled of neo-reaction’s lack of engagement with heterodox economics was the moment I stopped taking neo-reaction seriously as anything but the umpteen-thousandth critique of liberalism, garbed in sci-fi.

    If anything, neo-reaction will be lucky to ride-on-the-back of a wave of fascists, while not being understood or cared for by any of them.

    If anything, patchwork is the retrogradation of environmentalist sustainability into anti-ecology.

    We must ‘think locally’ so that capitalism can bring about the end of humanity and the end of nature!

    A deeply irresponsible message in a century facing grave ecological challenges.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    What do you suggest?

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    We should be looking at the Italian city republics for ideas on exit and patchwork.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_city-states

    Post-colonial and post-industrial capitalism should look like pre-colonial and pre-industrial capitalism and not the monarchical mess that Land and Moldbug circle-jerk themselves off to.

    What do you suggest?

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Rohme Giuliano]: “Artxell, You’re god damn right.

    ” The white supremacist has always been perfectly happy in accepting Third World impoverishment as the natural result of market discipline, but strangely, these days, is unable to accept his own impoverishment, resulting from the selfsame forces. ”

    Not only does one not want to accept it, one does not even want to admit that it is the ‘self-same’ force.

    The moment I was signaled of neo-reaction’s lack of engagement with heterodox economics was the moment I stopped taking neo-reaction seriously as anything but the umpteen-thousandth critique of liberalism, garbed in sci-fi.

    If anything, neo-reaction will be lucky to ride-on-the-back of a wave of fascists, while not being understood or cared for by any of them.

    If anything, patchwork is the retrogradation of environmentalist sustainability into anti-ecology.

    We must ‘think locally’ so that capitalism can bring about the end of humanity and the end of nature!

    A deeply irresponsible message in a century facing grave ecological challenges.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    {AK}: Yes, Rohme, thank you for your amplifying resonances. Our host’s work, as far as I am aware, has no ecological consideration, whatsoever.

    The mania for cultural localisations is understandable as a grounding nostalgia, ironically, given the vertiginous perspectives opened up by a global informationalisation that has in some senses dissolved the world into ranges of pure possibility. If Land’s work is irresponsible in what it prescribes, it is nevertheless an accurate reflection of irresponsibility itself. That is to say, of Modernity’s dark shadow of devastation and structural neglect. As an inflationary hysteria, a precise celebration of this force, it is a significant symptom.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Artxell, please stop copying WHOLE messages that you reply to. Just a request.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Sorry, G. Eiríksson, I should’ve at least compressed that one, I actually thought of doing so. It’s an archiving practice-habit, the quoting. To be honest, though, I’d rather see a doubling of Rohme Giuliano’s comment than any singular and clichéd nonsense by that moron who tried to insult your contributions recently, on another post.
    I’ll see what I can do, I occasionally find it annoying as well, but I have systematic, or systemic, reasons for doing it.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I understand.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    This is the most robust article I’ve read in a long time. Erik, Artxell, have you read this?

    https://deterritorialinvestigations.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/unconditional-acceleration-and-the-question-of-praxis-some-preliminary-thoughts/

    Would be interested to have your thoughts.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Thank you for understanding, Mr. G. Eiríksson.

    Yes, the article is very good, Mr. Rohme Giuliano. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I actually haven’t read Nick Land’s stuff on Accelerationism, yet. Neither have I read any Marx. Usually, I just think and write. I guess I prefer apolitical trajectories, Virilio comes to mind. Sol Yurick’s, “Metatron”, too, covers everything.
    I’ve put the linked article on my reading list.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yeah, it’s just Nihilism’s baby… Futurism with a new name and analysis added to the brunch. Good larping though. “Unconditionally” — Katy Perry, 2013.

    It’s very feminine. Passive. Symptomatic of this age. Worship of Magna Mater, “She [Moloch] come do what she want.”

    Like the screeching niggers at the beach calling for Chthulu to come and consume them. “Come, take us.” Akin to a woman “I wish he’d [stud] come take me.”

    No, it is Man who takes the world. Caeses it.

    That’s who some of us wake up as

    every morning, non-larpy…

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Great. I hope you’re thinking and writing fast. Speed. Speeeed. Speeeeed..

    I’m vaguely familiar with Virilio. Would be interesting to see how you’d rate Dromology and Acceleration, preferentially. That’s a lot of speed. Hope you’re buckled in. LOL.

    Do you like to be addressed by Mr. Knaphni or Artxell? Sometimes I drop the honorifics or even jump into nicknames and over-familiarize myself. Internet etiquette is so hard to self-enforce these days. All that machinic desire. Molarities.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Erik,

    Hahahahah.

    I formulated an ecological argument against ‘Unconditional Accelerationism’ I’m a big fan of old school syllogisms.

    Unconditio… (Opps.. I’m dead) ..

    1) If an asteroid hit Earth, that would be the end of Acceleration.

    2) For that reason, Acceleration is not ‘Unconditional.’

    3) Acceleration is conditional on an ecology being able to support an Acceleration.

    4) You cannot depoliticize ecology.

    5) Acceleration cannot be depoliticized.

    You’re right. Larpy as fuck.

    The scholastics would kick their ass. Then again, scholastics were bad motherfuckers.

    OCCAM slicin’ motherfuckers with his RAZOR.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Hahaha. Very good. The fantasies of “machine” replacing life are of course absurd, as it takes life to have a concept of a machine and for them to run for a important enough time. What is hypothetised is a machine that ultimately has the world as its battery or energy source. Thus “it would go on indefinitely without humans maintaining it”. Well, sure, until it needs repair.

    Not even the most advanced machines are very self-repairing or sustaining. They are always very conditional and never fully autonomous. Always dependent. Absolutely conditional creations, how-ever they realistically emerge.

    Our computer operating systems are in constant enough need of patching and maintainance—especially if Net connected, or even if offline—as the network extends beyond the Internet, and includes any interface and interaction with the machine. An offline computer from one year to the next will need the DirectX update from the CD-ROM to run the “latest” game, or the latest patch to protect from the latest offline Hack. Network simply means interconnections.

    The absolutely autonomous computer is a fantasy.

    The machine will never be autonomous.

    But only operative with Spirit.

    The dream of this life-erasing machinic growth is an inverted monotheism. “Nothing matters but machinic growth” Yeah, nothing matters but Allah too—who neither is autonomous.

    “She desires [identifies with] a penis, and the power that it represents. This is described as penis envy. She sees the solution as obtaining her father’s [the opponent’s] penis. The girl blames her mother [the earth] for her apparent castration”.

    An individual not integrated evidently “enough” in the phallic order, will unavoidably “replace that order with something else,” or rather substitute the subjects of the order with transitional objects or subjects. It is often indeed an order of artifacts virtual or hand-held which function as the objects of substitution, such as the bones of saints, the formulae of Marxism, or the fantastic characters of fiction, be they sentient “machines,” or Space jockeys.

    This is a simple revenge of the nerd Form image.

    There’s nothing bad about it, so long as it steppeth not out of alignment with the Chinese or Greek Good.

    Obviously, a machine out to destroy humans randomly, “systematically,” “for its own purposes”, does that. It is arbitrary enough for humans, that it would be doing this for self-optimisation, the latter which would be temporary and futile enough anyway, as we pointed out above. It is ultimately arbitrary (without telos). Leftist. Revolutionary. Pathos.

    Arbitrary because it goes against transhuman téleios and means nothing but an identification with sub-human inorganic compulsions unto dissolution.

    Someone who promotes that has succumbed simply to the death drive, i.e. “the drive towards death and self-destruction.”

    It’s a common enough human instinct. It seems irrational but it isn’t. ‘Upon not attaining a goal John lowered himself in the hierarchy by destroying all his work.’ It’s simply a mechanism of replacement. It has the evolutionary value of letting a complex human step aside for others who would try on.

    Alternatively, if it is channeled outwards and not inwards it has the value of changing the competition dynamic if successful. ‘John blew up Parliament so as to not have to deal with continual cycles of decisions being delayed when they should obviously be worked on a more intelligent basis.’ ‘Muhammed blew up the church to level the arena for a mosque.’

    This is beyond Freud’s Death Drive, a general destructive tendency in humans with evolutionary purpose.

    It has the psychological, if not also environmental, effect of release for transformation. ‘John had not the discipline to paint what he envisioned so he put the painting tools into the trash bin. Having done so he had freed space in his working room for other objects that would enable concretisation of his ideas.’

    It is tempting enough for us introvert to wish for the noisy extroverts to be placed in a bin.

    Beneficially it will re-place one genus with another.

    The nerd’s revenge is legitimate up to that.

    We all know how it ends anyway.

    ▬» During the Middle Ages, passages from the Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation) were studied as a means to create and animate a golem, although there is little in the writings of Jewish mysticism that supports this belief. It was believed that golems could be activated by an ecstatic experience induced by the ritualistic use of various letters of the Hebrew Alphabet[1] forming a “shem” (any one of the Names of God), wherein the shem was written on a piece of paper and inserted in the mouth or in the forehead of the golem.[4]

    A golem is inscribed with Hebrew words in some tales (for example, some versions of Chełm and Prague, as well as in Polish tales and versions of Brothers Grimm), such as the word emet (אמת, “truth” in Hebrew) written on its forehead. The golem could then be deactivated by removing the aleph (א) in emet,[5] thus changing the inscription from “truth” to “death” (met מת, meaning “dead”). Other versions add that an entity of clay would be brought to life by placing into his mouth a shem with a magic formula, and it could later be immobilized by pulling out the shem[6] or by reversing the creative combinations. Rabbi Jacob ben Shalom arrived at Barcelona from Germany in 1325 and remarked that the law of destruction is the reversal of the law of creation.[7]

    Joseph Delmedigo informs us in 1625 that “many legends of this sort are current, particularly in Germany”.[8]

    The earliest known written account of how to create a golem can be found in Sodei Razayya by Eleazar ben Judah of Worms (1165–1230).

    The Golem of Chełm
    See also: Elijah Ba’al Shem of Chelm
    The oldest description of the creation of a golem by a historical figure is included in a tradition connected to Rabbi Eliyahu of Chełm (1550–1583).[1][2][8][9]

    A Polish Kabbalist, writing in about 1630–1650, reported the creation of a golem by Rabbi Eliyahu thus: “And I have heard, in a certain and explicit way, from several respectable persons that one man [living] close to our time, whose name is R. Eliyahu, the master of the name, who made a creature out of matter [Heb. Golem] and form [Heb. tzurah] and it performed hard work for him, for a long period, and the name of emet was hanging upon his neck, until he finally removed it for a certain reason, the name from his neck and it turned to dust.”[1] A similar account was reported by a Christian author, Christoph Arnold, in 1674.[1]

    Rabbi Jacob Emden (d. 1776) elaborated on the story in a book published in 1748: “As an aside, I’ll mention here what I heard from my father’s holy mouth regarding the Golem created by his ancestor, the Gaon R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of blessed memory. When the Gaon saw that the Golem was growing larger and larger, he feared that the Golem would destroy the universe. He then removed the Holy Name that was embedded on his forehead, thus causing him to disintegrate and return to dust. Nonetheless, while he was engaged in extracting the Holy Name from him, the Golem injured him, scarring him on the face.”[10] «

    The Golem is a transitional object, for Man to get from one stage to the next. It is the construction of a platform which also serves as a Guardian of Levels as typified by 333 or the Guardian of the Treshold.

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Haha. Right. The Golem of Chelm. Brilliant analogy.

    Yes, U/ACC belongs with the revelations of St. John and the quatrains of Nostradamus.

    Death as Life in the Virtual. DEATH, insofar as its incessancy on symbolization, is the VIRTUAL.

    Why go on about virtualization of the real, if the real is virtualization?

    “Nature coping itself, no longer co-substantial or differentiated” – this is tautology.

    Opposite of Unconditional Acceleration, we need an Actual Acceleration, which will involve the fold of organism and environs. We are not just a soccer ball being kicked, I refuse to accept this. And I am still an anti-humanist.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Machines are extensions of ourselves. We made them, and we use them. I’ve collected old machines myself. I repair machines.

    Nobody is keeping any absolutely useless machines around, lest he be a paraphiliac. I.e. even broken machines have uses such as parts, or study.

    No, it is because of some sensed or imagined utility that they are kept and recognised as different from a heap of metalloids or rocks.

    The wankistry about the absolute erasement-replacement of the organosphere is “simple” psychological malady, also known as perversion. (What would we be without perversions anyway, Eternal Normieville? There’d be no Progress nor progressivism.)

    DNA uses machines. Whatever evolved DNA uses machines. I’m using a machine. It doesn’t do shit without me turning it on. We’re already cyborgs (cybernetic organisms). The “machines use us” is just a fantastic fun perspective. They actually don’t, they have no frickin intent. But that they would be virtually anthropomorphized like that is no surprise. It’s a tendency related to fetishation. To totemism. To see intent in rocks, “constructions,” or whatever aggregation. I’m not saying it’s absolutely split off or dualistic, like that “matter is dead and only humans are alive (quick),” but that movement is meaningless without the trans-human because meaning is trans-human.

    A cave isn’t even “a cave” without the human concept. Nor a mountain a mountain. Logos accesses this world through human DNA, and the DNA of the trans-human. The artifacts of humans and their cyborg successors are extensions of Logos, not to be confused with the whole of Logos itself.

    The fact that it is human monkeys in their “latest” fad trying to argue they are prophets of the “sentient (yet somehow non-cyborg) machine,” does tell me something. Machinic emergence is through human action. You’re bolsheviks so far as you think these “Laws” are “superior to” and act without trans-human action. Still Marxists. Anyway

    Capital is a co-operator of life, and without life there is no capital. Capital is the telos of life, and without life there is none. You can imagine the mountain is beautiful without humans, but it’s just a human fantasy. There is no value outside the transhuman. It says in the Bible and every other Religion.

    This “Machinic” organosphere-death wish is just the inverse to the “Deep Ecology” maladaptives who wish to human (and cyborg) extinction to “save the planet.”

    It’s pathos made ideology. Nothing new…

    except a new iteration.

    Leftism.

    Posted on May 29th, 2017 at 3:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Hah. Good ol’ Paladin Press.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 29th, 2017 at 4:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    Rothsteinberg, here in the Cayman Islands

    Rabbi Dov Zakheim has joined me for dinner at Blue’s to try out their Six Course Prix fixe tasting menu

    My treat, as the Rabbi isn’t very good at handing money.

    In May 2001 he was appointed Comptroller of the Pentagon, which put him in full charge of Pentagon finances. But by September 2001, a mere three months later, he lost or misplaced three trillion dollars — at the phenomenal rate of a trillion dollars a month.

    That’s $1000 billion (or $1 million million) in 30 days! No one in recorded history has ever managed to lose such a colossal sum of money in so short a time.

    To put this in perspective, the richest top ten Jewish American billionnaires in 2012, according to Forbes magazine, owned assets between them amounting to $203 billion. This is roughly one-fifteenth of the $3 trillion Rabbi Zakheim lost for the American taxpayer in just three months

    Despite losing $3 trillion, Dov Zakheim did nothing wrong, and was allowed to continue in his post of Pentagon Comptroller until March 2004, almost another three years. With complete impunity.

    But it’s a real shame about that WTC-7 getting blown up on 9/11, considering it housed all the SEC financial fraud investigations into the missing $3 trillion.

    So the accountants who were on the trail of the missing trillions were all killed by accident and all the relevant documents were accidentally destroyed.

    Sad.

    Rabbi Dov is so upset when I mention this that he orders another $20,975 bottle of Domaine de la Romanee-Conti (1990) to drown his sorrow

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    1990 was a good year.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 29th, 2017 at 7:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kevin C. Says:

    I must admit, I found much to appreciate in the section on the need for military force to maintain one’s territorial claims. In particular:

    This brings us to the question of what sort of military force is required. If a new country project is planning to establish itself on territory now claimed by a small or weak nation, it might seem that there would only be a need for sufficient force to hold off that nation. But this reckons without the role of the great powers. Nations such as the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Britain and France are sufficiently powerful that there is effectively no point on Earth (including the seas), or even in the nearby regions of space, that is too remote for them to have an interest in what happens there. Other nations have more restricted areas of interest, typically taking in former colonies (for example, Italy, Portugal and West Germany). These nations are always seeking to extend and secure their spheres of influence, and to that end they maintain extensive networks of favored trading status, cash grants, military aid, technical assistance, etc. If an established smaller nation finds itself doing more poorly than it would like in a
    confrontation with a neighbor, there is always one or more of the great powers who would be only too happy to help — for a price (i.e., helping the great power expand and secure its influence). This help from the great powers may range from moral, political and diplomatic support, to money, materiel (weapons, vehicles, etc.) and direct intervention by the great power’s forces.

    Also, the bit about agents of the “new country” hiding cheap nukes in “likely target areas for remote detonation” to extort recognition is admirable for its stark and ruthless pragmatism, if even less plausible in the present context than when this was written. (As were other elements rendered weaker by the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of Cold War “strange bedfellows” alliances by “great powers” on the “enemy of my enemy” basis [see page 16, for example].)

    I think seeing how the more “optimistic” case studies have subsequently played out since this was written, as well as the points about the reach of “Great Powers” (now much reduced in number since the days this was written), and the need for force, make this mostly instructive as to how truly difficult, and thus unlikely, “exit” via territorial separation is today.

    Lastly, another stand-out quote for any “we just want to be left alone to go our own way” attitudes:

    Another implication of the do-it-yourself principle is that the formation of a fully sovereign new country is no refuge for the person who simply wants to be free of harassment by existing governments, but who doesn’t want to dirty (or bloody) his hands with affairs of state. There is not, and there never will be, any form of government that will benignly look after your interests in exchange for some small payment. Any official of any government can be expected to seek as much advantage as possible from his position. If you are not prepared to be ruled by others, you must be prepared to govern yourself. And this doesn’t mean such games as voting, or writing a letter to elected officials, or sending a few dollars to their campaign funds. It means making the tough decisions, and making the commitment to carry them out.

    (And is it just me, or could the entire “Model Country approach” section be described as “the psychological benefits of LARPing”?)

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 30th, 2017 at 7:55 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    It came to me that the anti-Semites para Hitler or worse are not merely anti-Semitic as in being somewhat against Semitic values or mores, but are anarcho-Antisemites, in that they place their antisemitism above anything else or propagate even relative Statelessness or anarchy as long as (their) antisemitism engages

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Wonderful perspicacity!

    Through the anarchy of power, the environment assumes the possibilities intrinsic to an order.

    Ordering chaos was the modernist-humanist’s horizon.

    Anarchy was the only true politics of modernity. It formulated the challenge of modernity as a call from openness-to-chaos, an impossible dream, which is why all the off-shoots of anarchism had to dilute anarchism with an ordering principle, anarch0-communism.. anarch0-anti-Semitism, as you pointed out.. LOL

    Also, as you’ve indicated elsewhere, modernity = christian spiritualism..

    We should remain faithful to the hypernymy of this construction: out of Christian spiritualism issues Modernity.

    The acceptance of chaos, not order, as Logos – Nihilism.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Yes, most useful input, Mr. Giuliano. We’d further distinguish between left-modernity and Right-modernity.

    ▬» Land will tell us that for capitalism the notion of uncontrolled explosions (anarchy) are dangerous, but that controlled explosions are necessary: the need for governance and regulation of the explosive power of modernity. »

    Excellent piece, by the brilliant S.C. Hickman, who does us all immense honors.

    https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/nick-land-and-teleoplexy-the-schizoanalysis-of-acceleration/

    [Reply]

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    I have observed often a most useful heuristic playing out in practice. Where, if one were to take an inventory of every instance where anyone, at any time, anywhere, deployed statements along the lines of ‘X-anese are monomaniacally focused on Y beyond any other concern’, more often than not, they are projecting their own instinctual monomania.

    One might find it can often also take forms like; “My car mechanics keeps bothering me about the flat tire on my car. Hes rather monofocused don’t you think? You know that car maintenance is a pretty complicated subject that involves a lot of things besides just the tires. I don’t know why he keeps talking about the flat tire.”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Certainly both types are all-too common, and all-too human.

    deployed statements along the lines of ‘X-anese are monomaniacally focused on Y beyond any other concern’, more often than not, they are projecting their own instinctual monomania.

    This applies exactly to Hitler. Just listen to how he pronounced ‘juden’ in his recorded speeches, indeed—while accusing them of monomania.

    Same perhaps with Marx and the bourgeoisie.

    Michael Colleen Ryan with NRx.

    Wagner with Land.

    However, depending on how it’s defined, monomania does not necessarily perfectly equal being wrong on all accounts. Altho, Hitler’s and Marx’s fixations were (all-too) destructive and pathological. Riling up all that hate in others, just eventuating far, far more miserable conditions for those they wanted to “save” — and countless needless deaths, of what could have been productive enough workers if both had just accepted the frickin’ bourgeoisification, which really is hardly the worst process in human history. At least it beats working under the commisar’s machine-pistol, and falling into a steel smelt pot. No, Evola deals quite well with these jerk-off protest movements in «Rivolta contra il mondo moderno», «Men among the Ruins» and «Ride the Tiger», where-in he notes that “reactionary activism” (which I’ve called reactivism) may have possibly the effect of accelerating, exacerbating the process it is trying to reverse. Hitler certainly accelerated the decay of the German people to amazing speeds—his own a response to Nihilism, and a reflex of it, causing even more nihilization.

    ▬» Even if one does not share all of its premises, the Evolian critique of the nation-state, for example, still remains very pertinent in an epoch where this political form, emblematic of modernity, seems increasingly struck by impotency and obsolescence. The same goes for his critique of the “modern superstition of labor,” which approaches some of Hannah Arendt’s thoughts. This profound observation would also be shared by Friedrich Nietzsche: “Each day work increasingly captures the good conscience for its own benefit: the taste for enjoyment already calls itself the ‘need for relaxation’; it begins to be ashamed of itself. . . . But at another time it was the opposite: it was work which was remorseful.” »

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 31st, 2017 at 2:28 am Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    A pause

    If we agree that man, amid his words, thoughts, constructions is faceless, nameless, being-less, then shall we also accept purpose and drive and love?

    No.

    If nothing but words exist, do we?

    No.

    Things. Events, places, hands, words are knots of tenuous existence that, if untied will reveal nothing

    a void

    Do not believe what is in front of your mind — it is not real, nor is your mind.

    These bonds of love, those of envy, that of man, and this of child — all gone, lost in the whorl of happenstance.

    Man is dead, traditional gatherings of entity-patterns are dissolved , and the universe is not real.

    It simply is. Any description will deaden, delimit, decrease the actual existence.

    Replace all words pertaining to ownership with words concerning functions, operations …

    The perception of a signal happens “now” but its impulse happened then.

    The present instant is the plane upon which the signals of all being are projected.

    This instant, the interval, constitutes all that is directly experienced … The interpretation of the ordering of the brain takes place while new ordering is continually happening ..

    It is almost as though there were two parallel planes

    Almost

    The difference between human experience and neural experience is the difference between illusion and reality, between choice and no choice …

    The ordering and arrangement are a continual functional happening.

    The ordering and arrangement are all happening. The ordering and arranging are all that is actually happening.

    Nothing else ever happens

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    A ‘contract’ between present dark clouds signals a future storm.

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    Prediction. Postdiction.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 31st, 2017 at 3:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • trogs Says:

    “XS emphasis, with the addition: Inclination to this method is evidently unevenly ethnically distributed.”

    Hath hell frozen over?

    Has Land just delineated a dimension upon which Whites are superior to Asians, as well as everyone else?

    Has Sinophile Nick just acknowledged the obvious fact that acceleration – past, present, future – is White?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Not “whites” but Anglos, who do seem to have a comparative advantage when it comes to splitting.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    “Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the King’s horses, And all the King’s men
    Couldn’t put Humpty together again!”

    See history, here, Humpty Dumpty story and picture

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Indo-Europeans are the most successful specious and spacious peoples. Thus all the branches documented. Of them the Germanic meta-branch is the most successful,

    ▬» Before considering the later migration of various Germanic peoples in the 5th century, it is worth noting that the first recorded great migration of a Germanic tribe occurred sometime at the end of the 2nd century when the Goths left the lower Vistula for the shores of the Black Sea.[98] For the next couple hundred years, the restless Goths were a menace to the Roman Empire.[99] Between the 2nd and 4th centuries the Goths slowly filtered deeper into the south and eastwards, making their way to what is now Kiev in Ukraine and pressuring Rome in the process.[100] The arrival of the nomadic Huns along the Black Sea corridor in AD 375 further accelerated the Goth’s exodus across the Roman border.[101] Germanic people from the northern coasts of Europe had been making their way into Britain for several centuries before the larger-scale incursions took place.[102] »

    By the 5th century AD, the Western Roman Empire was losing military strength and political cohesion; numerous Germanic peoples, under pressure from population growth and invading Asian groups, began migrating en masse in far and diverse directions, taking them to Great Britain and far south through present day Continental Europe to the Mediterranean and northern Africa. Over time, this wandering meant intrusions into other tribal territories, and the ensuing wars for land escalated with the dwindling amount of unoccupied territory. Roaming tribes of Germanic people then began staking out permanent homes as a means of protection. Much of this resulted in fixed settlements from which many, under a powerful leader, expanded outwards.[103] Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Lombards made their way into Italy; Vandals, Burgundians, Franks, and Visigoths conquered much of Gaul; Vandals and Visigoths also pushed into Spain; Vandals additionally made it into North Africa; the Alamanni established a strong presence in the middle Rhine and Alps.[104] In Denmark the Jutes merged with the Danes, in Sweden the Geats and Gutes merged with the Swedes. In England, the Angles merged with the Saxons and other groups (notably the Jutes), as well as absorbing some natives, to form the Anglo-Saxons (later known as the English).[105] Essentially – Roman civilization was overrun by these variants of Germanic peoples during the 5th century.[106]

    Some of the Germanic tribes are frequently credited in popular depictions of the decline of the Roman Empire in the late 5th century. Professional historians and archaeologists have since the 1950s shifted their interpretations in such a way that the Germanic peoples are no longer seen as invading a decaying empire but as being co-opted into helping defend territory the central government could no longer adequately administer.[n] Germanic tribes nonetheless fought against Roman dominance when necessary. When the Roman Empire refused to allow the Visigoths to settle in Noricum for instance, they responded by sacking Rome in AD 410 under the leadership of Alaric I.[108] Oddly enough, Alaric I did not see his imposition in Rome as an attack against the Roman Empire per se but as an attempt to gain a favorable position within its borders, particularly since the Visigoths held the Empire in high regard.[109]

    Alaric certainly had no intentions to destroy the great city which was symbolic of Roman power, but he needed to pay his army and the spoils of the city not only afforded the ability to do that, its wealth made him “the richest general in the empire.”[110] For the next year, Alaric extracted vast sums from the city; this included 5,000 pounds of gold, 30,000 pounds of silver, 5,000 pounds of oriental pepper, gilded statues from the Forum, and even the one-ton solid silver dome which Constantine once placed over the baptismal basin next to the Lateran basilica.[111] Not only was Alaric able to bleed Rome, he also established a Gothic confederation consisting of Theruingian and Greuthungic peoples, and he played the eastern and western Roman Empires off against one another for his benefit.[112]

    At about the same time Alaric was sacking the Empire’s capital, there was a Roman exodus from the British Isles, a departure which provided the Germanic Angles and Saxons the opportunity to occupy and control the eastern coastlands of Britain, the southern regions of Sussex, and move into the valley of the Thames.[113] »

    “This” didn’t stop until the decline of the British Empire, or arguably still goes on, partly, trough the Americans. There’s ca 2000 years of Germanics continually invading the south, founding and refounding empires and kingdoms. Anglo-Saxons invaded and impregnated by Vikings, Vikings and Anglo-Saxon hybrid invaded and impregnated by Normans. No wonder the British hybrid, heavily mixed with their Latin cousins, came to dominate the world as its ultimate largest Empire, and the most widespread language, even carrying on ancient Greek. The Ionians and the Dorians, themselves Indo-Europeans invaders.

    [Reply]

    Trogs Reply:

    I don’t know what to say. I always thought that it was extremely clear that for you, Nick, shitting on your kin was much more important than actually achieving acceleration. You’re actually acknowledging the superiority of your own people here, over the Chinese! And in public!

    Will the wonders of the modern age never cease? Will Anglo boomers begin to take their own ethics and ideology seriously, even when it interferes with the dildoing of their buttholes hitting that sweet Cuck spot?

    It’s the sad truth, that the Anglo affinity for Exit, and the primal Anglo urge to cuck and betray his blood, is born of the same, essential impulse. I sadly suspect that the latter will always take precedence over the former, and that the former is, in many ways, merely a happy and noble byproduct of the latter desire, however base the latter may be.

    Well, we all know that no Chinese will ever Exit a damn thing. The closest is places like Singapore and Hong Kong, where Chinese everymen meekly follow in the footsteps of their Anglo rulers, and then – after having demographically displaced those Anglo rulers, due to the Anglo rulers’ desire to betray and cuck and shit on their own people, as usual – proceed to do absolutely no Exit or Acceleration of any kind, whatsoever, with the independence given them by their Anglo forebears, for as many decades as you give them.

    Chinese people will forever be what they are: fairly good people, very smart, but probably the least Exit-inclined, least Accelerationist nation to ever walk the Earth, full stop.

    [Reply]

    Trogs Reply:

    I see, you’ll still stop just short of letting my comment spell it out.

    As I said, your loathing of signaling any kind of Anglo group loyalty is, and always will be, your first priority – far above and beyond any interest you might have in “acceleration”.

    Which, to you, is seems to return to fantasies about robots/chinese/anyone crushing the chav.

    Trogs Reply:

    It took 3 days, but close enough. *tips fedora*

    Posted on June 2nd, 2017 at 1:32 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    @ Mr. Giuliano. We were discussing capital recently.

    Evidently, there are some who align with mine: » If technology cannot be separated from capital the Left project amounts to the idea capital can be appropriated as a process for purposes other than capitalist accumulation. It is not even coherent to speak of technology apart from capital in this way, since, for all intents and purposes the technology itself is capital. «

    twitter dot com/Damn_Jehu/status/866737158593425408

    I didn’t get my understanding directly from Marx, Land or anyone. I had thought of an “omni-capitalism,” in my early to mid twenties, when I still thought Marx was a bad guy with incoherent rambling writings, and someone like Land was so far as I knew only a part of a Hollywood movie or the figment of my imagination.

    Now I think Marx is very understandably the big name he is — an absolutely thrilling writer at parts. Better than Evola. Marx set off the Vapourwave aesthetic (1848). ▬» All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. « Italics mine. This is fine from art, but should be left out from politics.

    This @Damn_Jehu fellow is worth to keep an eye on, you might enjoy him from what I’ve seen from you.

    Anyway, capital amounts to the throne of Heaven. What is life without value (virtue)? Do we not prefer to be told the good enough lie for it to ring true (work), over the shoddy lie? Isn’t black humour the funniest? Karma, as often explained by Evola and the Buddha, means nothing but law of reaction resulting from action. Virtue and vice are not moralisms, properly understood, but names of things producing results. That is the moral, the effect on your inner and outer life. A demoralised troop tends to lose. A demoralised life often ends in suicide. It engages in acadia, is one type. It will spend so much that it cannot pay rent, is gluttony. Fuck fideist “Christians”, and other lefties, who have scattered all clear language.

    In Indo-European languages words starting with vi generally have to do with active (working) things. For example, vinna is work in Icelandic. Vita is life, in Italian. Virki is fort. Vir is hero or “active man” in Latin, in Sanskrit vira is brave. Virtus is power. Virkjun is activation or power-harnesser (dam). Vilji is will. Vit is knowing. Wissen is knowledge. Knowledge is power, eh.

    Wizard, witness the capital stone, the chief among the kingdom.

    ▬» The Hebrews obtained their precious stones from the Middle East, India, and Egypt. At the time of the Exodus Egypt was flooded with riches, and the Israelites on leaving the land possessed themselves of many precious stones, according to the commandment of God (Ex., iii, 22; xii, 35-36). Later when they were settled in Palestine they could easily obtain stones from the merchant caravans travelling from Babylonia or Persia to Egypt and those from Saba and Raamah to Tyre (Ezech., xxvii, 22) King Solomon even equipped a fleet which returned from Ophir laden with precious stones (III Kings, x, 11).

    The precious stones of the Bible are chiefly of interest in connection with the breastplate of the high-priest (Ex., xxviii, 17-20; xxxix, 10-13), the treasure of the King of Tyre (Ezech., xxviii, 13), and the foundations of the New Jerusalem (Tob., xiii, 16-17, in the Greek text, and more fully, Apoc., xxi, 18-21). The twelve stones of the breastplate and the two stones of the shoulder-ornaments were considered by the Jews to be the most precious. Both Ezech., xxviii, 13, and Apoc., xxi, 18-21, are patterned after the model of the rational and further allude to the twelve tribes of Israel. »

    Under His Eye… Blessed Be. Not under a tyrannical Lord, but a liberal, as Land is with his comment system — altho a bit too silent God?

    ▬» The life of the ancient nordic-germanic societies was based on three principles of personality, of freedom and of fidelity. To it was totally alien both the promiscuity of communities and the inability of the individual to valorize itself if not in the context of a given abstract institution. Here freedom consists, for the individual, in the measure of nobility. But this freedom is not anarchic and individualistic, it is able of a dedication beyond the person, it knows the transfiguring value proper to the principle of fidelity in front of those who are worthy of recognition, and to which one subjects himself voluntarily. In this way were formed groups of faithful around leaders to which could well be applied the old saying: <>; and the State, almost according to the ancient aristocratic roman precept, had as center the council of chiefs, each one free, lord of his land and in his land, leader of the group of those faithful to him. Beyond this council, the unity of the State and, in a certain way, its super-political aspect was incarnated in the King …»
    ↑Evola.

    ↑Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, ‘The Menace of the Herd: Or Procrustes at Large’ (1943)

    ▬» Citing the relationship of subject to ruler, the people were expected to be completely loyal to the king and follow his laws. This did not mean that the king was all-powerful. However, saddled with the people’s trust, the king’s duty was to provide for his people in following Confucian tradition. In the Analects, Confucius gave counsel to how a ruler should act. He said, “By his generosity, he won all. By his sincerity, he made the people trust in him. By his earnest activity, his achievements were great. By his justice, all were delighted.”(The Internet Classics Archive, “The Analects,” Accessed, June 7, 2012, http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.mb.txt) In Confucianism, the kings were not only the ultimate authority in the kingdom, but also were expected to live the exemplary moral life. »

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    It engages in acadia, is one type.

    Acedia, the sin of boredom, that is.

    The Atemporal, i.e. the as-old-as-China view, amidst the present hyperindulgence of views, schools, doctrines, theories, opinions — without any exaggeration: has a unique position: for while other schools, whatever their attitude towards the modern world or towards certain manifestations of it may be, criticise and attack it from a more or less common platform, the platform of the school in question is in its innards devoid of modernity; in other words, whereas all the other trends, schools, theories, and views attack certain aspects of modernity from inside modernity, the traditional school settled outside modernity-as-a-view-and-attitude, and beyond its beeing peered into now by modern men in a modern age, there is nothing modern in it. It predates modernity. That is to say, metaphysical traditionality is the only view, if indeed deeply penetrated, the Tao which is capable of looking at not only all modern phenomena, but also the totality of the modern world from the outside — and in the sense of having a view of it from above —, and judging it by a perennial scale of values the ultimate source of which is the Metaphysicum Absolutum itself, that is “God.”

    https://youtu.be/fYWZdq51opk?list=PLO5B1u_lvnZqLWqf_D5Lh7YL4-wdcsvyY

    ▬» Humanitarianism had always a great difficulty in seeking to stabilize its position. The denial of God and soul created an anthropocentrism which by a trend of its own tended to identify humanity with “nature.” Humanitarianism, which started with the most sentimental premise, ended therefore finally with the acceptance of the law of the jungle. The Leftist mentality of today is hardly characterized by a loving mildness. Irving Babbitt in his Rousseau and Romanticism has pointed out that the early “romantic” theatrical productions attacked primarily the lachrymose glands of the spectators. Profuse weeping and crying took place even on the stage itself. What a contradiction to the latest phase of humanitarianism and anthropocentrism! The young National Socialist is not less tearless than the young Communist. Ilya Ehrenburg wrote a novel called Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears, and indeed it does not. And so the old dictum of [1849] holds true: Der Weg der neuen Bildung geht (The way of the new culture goes
    From Humanitarianism
    Through Nationalism
    Zur Bestialität.) »

    ▬» It must furthermore be borne in mind that equality stands for monotony and not for harmony. A harmonious melody can only be established by different unidentical musical tones. These tones must be assembled and have to follow in a certain sequence; otherwise they will result in chaos and not in melody.12 Human society presupposes such an inequality and unity. […] This clarification is quite necessary because many a good Christian — and that holds true for most of those living in the Western Hemisphere — has an unclear notion about human equality. The American Declaration of Independence mentions the fact that the human beings are “created equal.”* This is true in the theological sense, and in the theological sense only. Two newly born babes are equal before [the Void] whether their parents are white or colored, American or foreign, registered in the Virginia Blue Book or in the rogues gallery. This theological equality continues until the time comes when they commit morally responsible acts. Judas Iscariot and St. John the Evangelist were equally conceived in original sin and free from personal sin, but how different their end! Heaven and hell are not identical. It is actually the privilege of our environmental determinists to discard the terms “saint” and “sinner” and to supplant them by pragmatic expressions like “social-unsocial” or “adapted-unadapted.” Dostoyevski prophesied this moral relativism in his chapter on the Grand Inquisitor (Brothers Karamazov), where he sees humanity declaring through the mouth of its science that there are no trespasses and no sinners but only “hungry people.”
    From a purely human and material point of view we are utterly unequal — unequal in the eyes of our fellow men (which matters less) but also unequal from an absolute material standard. From that point of view we are not even born equal; the syphilitic babe and the healthy newcomer in this world are different in material quality. The stupid and the intelligent man or woman, the physically strong and the physically weak, the learned and the unlearned — they are all humanly unequal from the aspects compared. And of course there is also a hierarchy of characteristics. … most people will value intellect higher than mere bodily strength.
    Apparently a great deal of misinterpretation is floating about concerning the interpretation of the American Declaration of Independence. The signers would certainly have been the worst hypocrites had they given to their document the same interpretation that so many give to it today.15 We can understand their attitude only if we remember the fact that the basis of the American Republic is an aristocratic whiggish one, which largely lacked that deeper “democratic” element in social relations as we find it in southern and eastern Europe, and perhaps in South America. The word “democratic,” in connection with the Catholic (or schismatic) world, is, as we have pointed out at the beginning, not a happy one. In these countries, whether they have a highly hierarchic social structure or not, we find a certain “demophil” sentiment. De Tocqueville remarks in his De la Démocratie en Amérique that Americans are often astonished and even shocked about the familiarity between masters and servants in France. The insolence of Sancho Pansa also fits perfectly into this picture. Such “Catholic” pseudo-egalitarian sentiment can obviously not spring from the acceptance of a human equality, which does not exist, but from the aforementioned fact that the most important human value — the degree of sinfulness or sanctity — is hidden to our eye and only revealed in its completeness to God. » Or as 2Pac said: “Only God can judge me.” Of course, anyone ‘can’ ‘judge’ me. Judge (AHAA2H) in turn I will, dear Hobbes — but resent I will not:)

    The collectivum must be ordered by such principles which does not prevent but help this vertical movement of the individuum in being. On the contrary, left-modern man — as Werner Heisenberg put it: more and more resembles to a ship whose compass does not point towards the North Pole but its own iron body (cf. human-ism) – nevertheless we know that for Tradition the North Pole, the boreal region, and the North Star representing the hyper-boreal region with its immobility and axiality, represent exactly that extra-samsaric point from which the world can in fact be turned inside out.

    The logical analogy or the very opposite of tradition’s Metaphysicum Absolutum is the hypothetic Physicum Nihilum of Leftism (i.e. absolute equality or communism), the substantial root of our world, the materia prima, the potentia passiva pura. The god of left-modernity is Nothingness. Passivity. Potentiality. I.e. fantasy. The empty mind which can imagine—and apparently, believe and desire anything. “Come, brown people; imagine what we could be (if there were no religion, no borders).” “Come, Chtulhy — you’re bigger and blacker than me, so rule me!” “Eat me, Kali.” “I am your servant, Moloch, please build another shitty apartment building.” “Have mercy on us community, sweet Jesus.”

    Absolute equality is achieved in absolute nihility.

    No, gods are for Men to command.

    Ars Regia, the royal art.

    Wissenmacht

    Wiz

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 2nd, 2017 at 7:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    This child, he is not there

    he is but an angle, an angle to come

    and there is no angle…

    and yet it is precisely this world of father-mother which must go away

    it is this world, split in two –

    doubled

    in a state of constant disunion, also willing a constant unification

    around which turns the entire system of this world

    maliciously sustained by the most somber organization

    (Artaud, “Ainsi donc la question”)

    Deleuze commenting on the lines above:

    “Thus the schizo…..is ill because of the oedipalization to which he is made to submit – the most somber organization – and which he can no longer tolerate: he who has gone on a distant journey. As though one were constantly bringing back home the person capable of setting whole continents and cultures adrift.

    He is not suffering from a divided self or a shattered Oedipus, but on the contrary, from having been brought back to everything he had left.

    As Laing says, they are interrupted in their journey. They have lost reality. But when did they lose it? During the journey, or during the interruption of the journey?”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    [The English Review, Or, Qarterly Journal of Ecclesiastical and …, 1844] ▬» … metaphysical systems which displaced each other in rapid succession, and of the profanities and vain and unstable dogmas of an effete rationalism, the mind … »

    [Blake’s Visionary Universe – Síða 66 – by
    John B. Beer, 1969]▬» Oedipus cries … volatile Mercury and the deathly Proserpine … are actually seen wandering over the earth—a symbol in Blake’s mind of that alliance between dehumanized intelligence and the powers of death which he saw at work all around him in the eighteenth century, beneath the benevolent aegis of an effete rationalism. »

    https://www.google.is/search?q=“effete+rationalism”

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 3rd, 2017 at 3:13 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully; as an automaton. does not exist in the worker’s consciousness, but rather acts upon him through the machine as an alien power.

    Said Karl Marx, 1858.

    This is nuts. Firstly it’s based on the iteration of the Myth of the “Noble” Savage, the especially post Industrial Revolution era, iteration—which is the Myth of the “Noble” Labourer or Worker.

    It’s a facade, because those who design and make machinery are also workers. As are those who employ it. Obviously, the science which compels machinery exists in the worker’s consciousness, otherwise he could hardly deploy and employ it. lol

    The ‘alien power’ mythos is cool though, but you could just as well say Intelligence is an “alien power,” which it, to different degrees for us humanoids, is.

    Poor ol’ Marx is always creating ghosts (specters) out of his imagination, which then haunt us, apparently, for centuries.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Marx is a frickin’ wizard. A black mage warlock. acting as the pawn and paws of Satan, the Deceiver. He make up these sob-stories all around, to inspire more hungry-hownling or Socialist “real conditions”. Of course, a real condition is also what one makes of it, i.e. through decision and reflection.

    Continuing with Mr. Giuliano’s ‘anarchy’, Deleuze says » But, now, more than marking persons, marking persons is the apparent means of operation—coding has a deeper function, that is to say, a society is only afraid of one thing: the deluge; it is not afraid of the void, it is not afraid of dearth or scarcity. Over a society, over its social body, something flows [coule] and we do not know what it is, something flows that is not coded, and something which, in relation to this society, even appears as the uncodable. Something which would flow and which would carry away this society to a kind of deterritorialization which would make the earth upon which it has set itself up dissolve: this, then, is the crisis. We encounter something that crumbles and we do not know what it is, it responds to no code, it flees underneath the codes ».

    He continues ▬» and this is even true, in this respect, for capitalism, which for a long time believed it could always secure simili-codes; this, then, is what we call the well-known power [puissance] of recuperation within capitalism–when we say recuperate we mean: each time something seems to escape capitalism, seems to pass beneath its simili-codes; it reabsorbs all this, it adds one more axiom and the machine starts up again; think of capitalism in the 19th century: it sees the flowing of a pole of flow that is, literally, a flow, the flow of workers, a proletariat flow: well, what is this which flows, which flows wickedly and which carries away our earth, where are we headed? »

    Eventually noting ▬» The thinkers of the 19th century have a very strange response, notably the French historical school: it was the first in the 19th century to have thought in terms of classes ».

    Well hardy dardy, humpty dumpty — if this isn’t an iteration of itself a strangeness. The strangeness of thinking flows starts with Historicist’s Capitalism, so typical of 20th-century thinkers. There’s always been a flow of “workers” of “proletariat”, for all of history. There was in Rome, there was in Babylon. Slaves are a type of workers, as well are other labourers in the Old World. We’ve been flowing on this earth since who knows when, 10.000 years before Marx. Also our produce has been flowing, such as from mines to make Roman aqueducts. Animals have been flowing, auto-productively as well as into extinction, or near-extinction and out of it, as well as plants, and all other life. Welcome to the actual real conditions, where even Gamma Rays flow and alter “humanity”. Far above Socialist myopic pseudo-realist imposed Conditions.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 4th, 2017 at 12:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#55) « Amerika Says:

    […] In Praise Of Schism (Nick Land, Outside In) […]

    Posted on June 5th, 2017 at 11:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Claire Colebrook Says:

    “Our admiration for painting results from a long process of adaptation that has taken place over centuries and for reasons that often have nothing to do with art or the mind. Painting created its receiver. It is basically a conventional relationship”

    (Gombrowitz to Dubuffet)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 11th, 2017 at 3:23 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Bolshevism is rearing back its ugly head, in many Forms of the New Age

    https://twitter.com/mmay3r/status/780523077784498178

    Dataism, previously known as the Gosplan…

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 12th, 2017 at 12:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    @Rohme

    You should check out ReactionaryFuture’s critique on so-called “Liberalism.”

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Anyway, the obvious critique on “Liberalism” is that it’s a front. For those who benefit from it. This is all documented. It’s simply the vessel for other tribes to insert themselves into the gap it creates.

    It has taken democracy or “Liberalism” roughly 200 years to almost succeed in killing nations that have lived by aristocracy for arguably thousands of years.

    Craniometry is a precise science. DNA is precise.

    Nordids make up a rare percentage.

    Fewer than Jews perhaps.

    I wonder, why??

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Maybe if those aristocrats were good they made the people more aristocratic. Like Mike says, democracy works better for some races than others.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 20th, 2017 at 2:01 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment