Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Cyclic Lightform Development 3

At the conclusion of Cyclic Lightform Development, Part 2, this one wrote on the conundra of existence:
It's worth it because it gets more refinedly better for everyone who wants it to get better, and it gets more refinedly worse for everyone who wants it to get worse.

Throughout our discussion of evolution, we've often returned to the idea that mercantilist evolution--faith-based initiatives stemming from individuals' jealous, fearful hatred of their own existence--necessarily justifies a nihilistic weltanschauung. Any such specious theories of the nature of reality inevitably reveal themselves as justifications for "might making right," which is to say, an affirmation of materialism. Any condemnations thereto--e.g., characterizing Social Darwinism as the selfish whining of the cowlicked bullyboy who knocks others down and steals their cupcakes--are met with the response, "Such is the nature of reality." And if it is, they're correct. By all means, let the meanest boy have every cupcake, if he's willing to bash his way to them. There is no morality above one's own pleasures.

Investing in Our Future: an Atom by any Other Name

In theory, we universalists don't actually believe in might making right, because we serve higher moral principles, such as "progress." Yet the materialist philosophy, however softened it may be for black lives mattering, remains might make right, even when stretched into the future. In the absence of one or more gods, the best progress can offer us is an extended version of might makes right. Ergo our new philosophy is no longer an issue of, "He who has the highest net worth after an eighty-year lifespan is the superior individual," but instead, a much nobler one: "The society which has the highest net worth after ten generations is the superior society." The compassion of materialists remains fixed in material, naturally, only you're supposed to believe that reorganizing things for the contentment of future people is an intrinsically greater act than reorganizing things for the contentment of current people (let alone previous people, those useless eaters).

What a laughable distortion we have about the idea of lofty material progress being more noble and less selfish than the idea of mere material acquisition! Why should the rich man not revel in his selfishness? Because of "God" or because it's not "nice"? How tangibly or intangibly are we supposed to define our concepts? If my faction savagely hoards its resources in order to buy a Porsche wheeled car for each one of us, is that a vulgar act, compared to if we invest in our education fund so that our spoiled great-grandchildren can all own Porsche space rockets? Postponing the benefits of materialism doesn't make us any less material; it just makes us transcendental consumers, committed to the purchase and development of soulless products beyond even our own lifetimes. Now, that's consumerism, if anything is.

Honest Eugenics

Critiquing the pro-might faction of Stalinist evolution becomes a bit more hilarious in a situation like the one Terra has now, where the Neoreactionary nihilists are engaged in a grand ideological battle (however staged it may be, whether or not they know that) against a different set of nihilists, who employ the same justifications. Perhaps Moldbug will beat you up for your cupcake and eat it, but Hillary will do worse: she will send a team of goons to beat you up for your cupcake, then feed the cupcake to the eight mulatto babies next door, who live with their mother and know not their various fathers. An unpleasant image, certainly, but so too is Curtis Yarvin licking your frosting off his pustuled fingers. It becomes all the more loathsome, in either case, when considering that Moldbug's ancestors owned the ships that brought the mulatto babies' many fathers' great-great-etc. grandfathers to American shores, while Hillary's ancestors worked in London to repress workers' revolts against Moldbug's ancestors and their banks. Frankly, no matter how many times you attach "neo" to some concept, this one fails to be impressed with a sense of novelty. But let's move along.

Kalimere was kind enough to suggest Nick Land's Hell-Baked, which spells out a Terra 2015 version of this immemorial "grudging" admission about the survival of the fittest. Consider:
What NRx ["Neoreaction" et. al.] most definitely is...is Social Darwinist. When this term is hurled at NRx as a negative epithet, it is nor [sic] a cause for stoic resignation, stiffened by humor, but rather for grim delight. Of course, this term is culturally processed — thought through — no more competently than those previously noted. It is our task to do this.

If ‘Social Darwinism’ is in any way an unfortunate term, it is only because it is merely Darwinism, and more exactly consistent Darwinism. It is equivalent to the proposition that Darwinian processes have no limits relevant to us. Darwinism is something we are inside. No part of what it is to be human can ever judge its Darwinian inheritance from a position of transcendent leverage, as if accessing principles of moral estimation with some alternative genesis, or criterion...

It is only due to a predominance of influences that are not only entirely morally indifferent, but indeed — from a human perspective — indescribably cruel, that nature has been capable of constructive action. Specifically, it is solely by way of the relentless, brutal culling of populations that any complex or adaptive traits have been sieved — with torturous inefficiency — from the chaos of natural existence. All health, beauty, intelligence, and social grace has been teased from a vast butcher’s yard of unbounded carnage, requiring incalculable eons of massacre to draw forth even the subtlest of advantages. This is not only a matter of the bloody grinding mills of selection, either, but also of the innumerable mutational abominations thrown up by the madness of chance, as it pursues its directionless path to some negligible preservable trait, and then — still further — of the unavowable horrors that ‘fitness’ (or sheer survival) itself predominantly entails. We are a minuscule sample of agonized matter, comprising genetic survival monsters, fished from a cosmic ocean of vile mutants, by a pitiless killing machine of infinite appetite...

What is it that Neoreaction — perhaps I should say The Dark Enlightenment — has to offer the world, if all goes optimally (which, of course, it won’t)? Really, the honest answer to this question is: Eternal Hell.
This is a refreshingly honest perspective, though it feigns at being Darwinist only inasmuch as Darwin is sometimes currently popular when insulting people who worship a god without a government-accredited doctorate. What has been done with Darwin has less to do with Darwin's observations from the Beagle than it does with regurgitating the philosophy of Hobbes, Samael, Yahweh, and thousands of nameless prehistoric deities who believed in getting what you can while the getting is good: blanket the Earth with your own spawn, destroy the genes of outsiders, and somehow, this is a victory. Or at least, as much of a victory as anyone can hope for in a meaningless world, in which hope is an illusion confined to you only for as long as your randomized brain chemistry allows you to maintain "it."

Various Osiril and Krishnic events and stories (including the currently most obvious Terran one), even heavily redacted and Judaized into forms of conformity with Jenomic ideals, threatened to upset this philosophy in a few minds here and there, but the cruel genetic imperative of the ancient ash god(s) has maintained its preeminence for thousands of Earthly years. No recurrence of "might makes right, just accept it" is novel in anything more than its details. (Actual, lightform-)Evolution disproves such nonsense, but faith being what it is, good luck explaining to the Neoreactionaries that their movement is mere Recursive Talmudism, laced with as much masochism, hypocrisy, magical thinking and synagogual manipulation as the Gates Foundation's latest shipment of vaccines and wireless routers to the DRC. You'd have better luck getting a Christian to accept that the rabbinical warlords who plagiarized Gilgamesh into Noah didn't stop there.

The Broken Reaction

Like the fading racial and sexual pluralisms of the twentieth century, the "Neoreactionary" philosophy is itself pregnant with a vast number of crippling bastards whose faces, if acknowledged, threaten to destroy their hideous parents. Most of the neoreactionaries are witless Madame Danglars, enveloped in the opulence of a fresh crusade in hopes that no one shall force them to confront the resurrected Benedetto of their materialist hypocrisies. Yes, Europe is dying, but if Sub-Saharan Africans are lusty and violent, and Europeans are ethnomasochistic, then Europeans deserve to die off. Per neoreactionary philosophy, horny Muslims should indeed be gang-raping Swedish blondes in the streets, while collecting monthly Euro payments marshaled from Germany, while a barren shabbos goy hag squeals insults at the whining slaves of the Fourth Reich who, for some unfathomable reason, continue to tolerate her existence.

Why? Because of evolution. The "grim delight" of "Darwinism" beloved of the neo-reaction champions success--and so, it should be doing just what the bankers want, and encouraging the ashen-banker-directed gang rape of the last remaining Caucasian strongholds. Neoreactionaries who attempt to rally the white herd in defense against the latest Muslim hordes are making a poor strategic choice--bartering with the weaker side--when they should be studying their Qur'an and finding out how to marry a poor Israeli bride, in hopes that some trace of their genetics might one day meld with the master race in Earth's future: a United Earth Government of cousin-marrying warzones governed by Mexi-Shariah Law, while mining firms based on New Zion (formerly "the moon") slowly digest Earth's remaining raw materials for use in constructing additional pleasure palaces for the immortal "white" and "blond" clones living there.

The neoreactionary philosophy is broken, since the tiny Ashkenazi bloodlines have proven themselves adapt at controlling world governments for over a century, and Caucasoid ones have proven themselves too weak to stop them. 250 expulsions since the Christian Era, and still, the Nazis of the Ashen River just keep coming back, keep setting up central banks, and keep fostering bigger and bigger wars and massacres. If you believe in Darwinism, then it's time for the inferior species--the "white race" that so many neoreactionaries claim to love so much--to give up. All that's left is death throes. Give up, and let the Zionists achieve their timeless vision of ruling over a displaced, deracinated, nationless mass of slaves.

Given the outcome of applying mercantilist/Talmudist evolution to "modern issues" around here, it's no surprise that the "pro white" movements Terra sees now were initially created, encouraged, and given widespread dissemination by Zionist narrators. By coaxing people into becoming "ethnically conscious," Zionists have gotten white people to support the project that took the mass murders of the twentieth century--and another several million dollars each day--to create:



Yes, hypocrisy. The neoreactionaries tend to understand that the Zionists are hypocrites, but then, through a subtle nudging of formative policy, they find themselves admiring Israel, the bane of their grandparents' and great-grandparents' existences, and the very thing that has brought them to where they are today. That's where the neoreactionary road was designed to lead. The murdering and terrorizing of Jews who had been living peacefully in Arab and European countries; the extermination of Russian and Palestinian peasants; the trench warfare and the atomic bombs; the rewriting of Middle Eastern boundaries, the installation of Saddam Hussein and the Shah, the Iran-Iraq War: all done for Israel, and all paid for, to the tune of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dead white people, and countless trillions of dollars in white-derived wealth and white human productivity.

By the early 2000s, even liberal white people were starting to see the logical extension between the ceaseless, cruel butchery of the Palestinians, and the horrors of the twentieth century (the former link is one of Silber's best). When you're a non-racist progressive person in Europe or America, and you see Zionists taking over (again) the American military and using it to smash millions of Arab children to death, it looks a little, well...racist. But when you massage those other races into invading Europe and/or America, the whites have a defensive reaction, and forget all about the manipulative bully who caused the fight in the first place. What a delight Israel is having, as it prepares to collect ticket proceeds while Django fights Martel for another thousand years!

Shifting the Blame Onto Europe

In Culture of Transcendence, we hypothetically discussed a hypothetical situation where hypothetical Zionists might potentially consider maybe using prima facie ridiculous "diversity" scams in order to harm Goy societies, and then lead the opposition to the diversity movement they themselves created, by using media corporations to make it acceptable for Goys to become ultra-nationalistic again (after 50 years of making White-Goy nationalism one of the biggest crimes ever). In that vein, consider the latest racist screed from "Daniel Greenfield." Writing, as ever, about the genetic inferiority of Arab-Goys, Greenfield blames the refugee/invasion "situation" in Europe on not only the archetypal "Mohammed," but the white European idiots who let the swarthy savage in. Quoting from one of thousands of angry new posts entitled The Death of Europe:
Why should 23-year-old Mohammed work for four decades so that Hans or Fritz across the way can retire at 61 and lie on a beach in Mallorca? The idea that Mohammed would ever want to do such a thing out of love for Europe was a silly fantasy that European governments fed their worried citizens...Mohammed is Fritz’s retirement plan. But Mohammed has a very different type of plan. Fritz is counting on Mohammed to work while he relaxes. Mohammed relaxes and expects Fritz to work. Fritz is not related to him and therefore Mohammed sees no reason why he should work to support him.
This is racist, and of course, it's one of those kinds of racism that is acceptable. Deriding "Hans" and "Fritz" as lazy or stupid is 100% acceptable; deriding "Mohammed" as manipulative or evil is partly acceptable, and growing more so; but, as always, deriding Abramovitch (or "Daniel Greenfield" or "Prince Bandar" or "al-Baghdadi") remains as fiscally irresponsible as it has been since the first pound of flesh was was assessed.

What Greenfield has done here is far more interesting than demonstrate how acceptable it is for people who claim certain ancestry to be hideously, publicly racist. Besides that, he's done what the other ✡leaders of the mainstream #HBD acceptance have been so busy doing for the past several years on the internet: imply that Europe's "problems with immigrants/invaders" (and/or America's) are the result of some kind of bad decision-making on the part of Hans and/or Fritz. Like the descendants of "Sephardic" slave-traders encouraging the descendants of slaves to follow their lead in blaming someone else for slavery, Greenfield uses the anger of Europeans to refocus blame for the situation (whether it be bad or good) on (1) the refugees/invaders for immigrating, and (2) the Europeans themselves for permitting it.

Amidst the immigration/refugee/etc. mess, what the pro-invasion people seem to forget is that the Muslim hordes are actually raping their way across Europe again, as they've spent the past 1,500 years doing. All of the liberal stuff, from women's rights to homosexual acceptance to the welfare state to religious freedom, will be gone once Europe turns to Shariah. Greenfield has that dead-on, as so many others do. That accuracy is the spoonful of sugar that the Jenomics are using to make the rest of their lies go down easy.

But: why are the invaders coming in the first place? As the anti-invasion people seem to forget, the Muslim hordes have spent the past 1,500 years trying to escape Africa, or being driven out of Africa, by the powerful financiers and mysterious crypto-bloodlines of paler-than-usual Middle Eastern "Arab royalty" who either (1) directly sponsor invasions of Africa and the Middle East via Euro proxies, or (2) establishes western-friendly corporate dictatorships in Africa and the Middle East.

The genetic ranks of the Khazaran land pirates, the grand viziers of the various Persian/Arabian/Ottoman Empires, the bankers for the Dutch East India Companies and the British Protectorates, and the NATO/UN banking "democracies," are roughly identical. It is legitimate for the darker, colonized peoples to want to get out of where they are now: hellholes of the Zionic Empire, as expressed, alternately, through Rome, the U.K., the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., and the E.U.

(Africa and its environs have been various forms of the Gaza Strip for more than a thousand years. With European complicity. Just as Europe has been assaulted repeatedly by Mongol-derived hordes funded by the Khazar ancestors, losing entire nations and countless millions of people to rape, murder, and slavery--with Asian and African complicity. Europe, Asia, and Africa are all guilty of doing what the bankers wanted.)

Hans and Fritz, despite what the bankers say, did not want to be invaded, anymore than they or Mohammed initially wanted to be invaded. The claim that Europe needs young workers to fund its welfare states, and that its population somehow supported the idea of the invasion, is one of those famous Big Lies that Baruch and Wilson used so well to massacre a generation of Western Europeans. It's semi-plausible, but even after billion-dollar ad and lobbying campaigns from certain influential sources, Europe still didn't want to absorb refugees like it's doing. Hostile banking tyrants (occupation governments) were the ones who fostered the invasion over the majorities' vociferous objections--even the majority as reported by the bankers' own news corporations, using biased yes/no questions about "should we be helping the victims of war." Even with extensive and powerful indoctrination of the adult (marketing) and child (education) variety of human livestock, and even with cheating on the questions and creating an imaginary media narrative, the people of Europe didn't want it all to happen. But, like Shylock once said, "A new Halachic study ruled that seducing an enemy for the sake of national security is an important mitzvah."

To add injury and insult to injury and insult, commentators--even well-meaning ones--are falling for the ✡bankers' prepared line that this was an act of "ethno-suicide" by Europeans foolishly devoted to their welfare states. Accordingly, the historical stage has been set to blame "the death of Europe" on the Europeans themselves, rather than on the ex-Ottoman imperial wizards who bought the governments and fabricated the television programs.

We've seen this all before. The fall of the old dynasties of Egypt was blamed on the "Egyptian" reliance on (and importation of) sub-Saharan immigrant labor, while the fall of Rome was blamed on "Roman" reliance on Middle Eastern and African immigrant labor. The end result is, two sets of genes keep getting blamed for imperialism followed by self-destruction, while this one other tiny subset of genes, which demands both imperialism in one direction and immigration in another, manages to continue destroying advanced civilizations while smothering young ones in the cradle.

Why murder all those Syrian men? Why rape all those German girls?

Why destroy Syria, and why destroy Germany?

Unsurprisingly, we'll find that all of those horrible acts are paid for, promoted, and later disavowed by the same group. The World Zionist Congress spent the 1800s openly calling for the genocide of Africa, and it seems like fair turnabout when their 21st century operatives openly call for the genocide of Europe--but only a couple centuries before the 1800s, that very same organization was sending armies into Vienna to destroy Europe, as it is doing now. Blaming the Syrians, and the fake-Syrians, is only marginally productive, because of course they want to escape the ✡NATO warzones in their homes, which have spent the better part of a thousand years being destroyed by Yahweh's various missives, paid for with European money, under the guise of colonizing to benefit the crowns' wealthy, omnipresent silent partners.

8 comments:

  1. Damn Arka, you sure do paint a grim picture of the past, present, and future, you post-gnostic pessimist, you.

    So let me get this straight. Most people have been, are and will be unknowing tools to elitist slavemasters. Zionists are just the current, most successful expressions of a tightly-nit control-freak club that artificially arranges conflicts, genocides entire populations at will, and brainwashes dull peeps into serving as cogs to their war-mongering machine. I will grant you all of that, you honestly make a decent case.

    What I'm worried about is the implications for someone who has become 'aware', who has achieved said 'gnosis' of the actuality of things; the puppet which has noticed its strings. What would this entail, action-wise? In times gone-by, searching for inner salvation was considered as the only genuine exit after such a realization. Yet if we are to oppose selfishness, the only 'moral' thing to do seems to be to heroically risk your life resisting these fuckers in whatever way you can (thus completely ostracizing yourself from society and abandoning all conventions of 'civilized' livelihood) while trying to persuade the unenlightened masses to not procreate, as such giving the rabid Zionists more members to their much needed workforce (needed for, of course, until the bastards can perfect their AI monstrosities).

    Or maybe create an underground gnostic tech-club hellbent on forging a cosmic destructo-ray-gun that will blow this whole tormented world into smithereens, with hopes that some better foundations can emerge with time.

    Well, jeez. That's just depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You might say, don't worry; they can't win, ultimately. It's just a matter of time, as per lightform-evolution. But what guarantee can you provide that next step, or perhaps the end, of this 'evolution' isn't these Frankensteinian AI bots, forces of destruction and eternal tools of domination for World Controllers? The earth seems to be on a downward spiral into eternal damnation. Technology, through the prevailing capitalo-masochist ideology that Land identifies as the prime principle of existence, is making us humans obsolete. What time do we have, ultimately?

    Also, something else that I would appreciate an elaboration upon: If we are to believe, as per lightform-evolution, that things such as rape, infanticide, and coercion are human mishaps that come with the straying away from a progressive evolutionary process, then why do all of thee 3 things consistently show up in non-human species all the time as well? Doesn't the mere scientific fact that all the domination shit that we've grown accustomed to in sentient life seemingly pervades the *whole* of nature point to the fact that the world is *indeed*, as Land would have it, a Cosmic Butcher's Yard?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The whole 'Frankensteinian AI bot' thing can be appreciated both optimistically and pessimistically mind you. David Pearce for example would say that this necessary end-point of sentient evolution, the age of the post-human, is to be celebrated as the culmination of the enterprise of morality as such.

    He would think that only in this phase can we conceive of the realization of this most logical and consistent of moral imperatives, the Hedonistic Imperative, where thorough technological manipulation would allow for the end of suffering in sentient beings.

    Scary, huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Repulsive," rather than "scary." They can't win, or we'd never have been here.

      Delete
    2. I wish I could share that sentiment, Arka. Maybe, (hopefully) with time...

      Delete