Nihilism, Racism, Whatever
In cyberspace, churning eddies born where the bit streams Manosphere, Dark Enlightenment, and Neo-reaction collide are the blooms of ideas that are feeding grounds for truth peddlers and seekers, and potentially, nascent storms of change. The latest topic du jour to come from that virtual firmament is ‘nihilism’:
- “Finding Virtue on the Razor’s Edge” by Aurini, 08 April 2014.
- “Aurini and Nihilism: A reaction” by The Millennial King, 11 April 2014.
- “Enjoy the Decline” by Aurini, 12 April 2014.
The term nihilism is being used sensationally. To understand why is to understand the basis of psychological subversion, religious cohesion, but the societal cohesive force as old as prehistoric times. Superstition has had its ups and downs with usage for social order as filler for any proverbial hole.
Just one thing.
There is no hole.
There is only an alien moral authority hosted by your mind.
That is how psychological subversion works. Sure, complete inferiors require ‘faith’ and are better off with it, what elevated pagan isn’t?, but let’s first define our terms in the spirit of intellectual honesty:
faith – Belief in a knowable, specific, perfect, exogenous moral agency that validates the existence and identity of the believer with absolute guarantee.
nihilism – The absence of the exogenous 100% guarantee by faith.
Sheeple are sheeple precisely because of their faith in the 100% guarantee, not to protect their freedom to try nor to personally reap as they personally sow, but to protect their personal privilege to reap regardless of personal sowing. This is the Natural Sin. It is the hubris of the follower. It is co-dependency with others drafted illusionists and domestication of productive betters. I don’t wish to be chained to illusions. I don’t take the betterment of sheeple as a moral cause or evolutionarily sound.
More importantly, we all don’t wish to be chained to these illusions in terms of the actual mean results. Economic progress tends to happen because we all want more as demonstrated by taking when the taking is good, and economic progress works best without centralized control and superstitious limitations. Ingenuity and productivity require a free hand.
The two great Western Civilizations happened in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine was a substitution of voluntary cooperation for coerced submission. The armies and the people in general could not be relied upon as the government run tax farm took away their earthly rewards. Institutional solutions are solutions to how to start corruption and to keep it going despite itself.
There is no morality without jeopardy, particularly the jeopardy of retaliation. If cattle could retaliate for the injustices at the slaughterhouse, they would require moral treatment. Not incidentally, they would also be able to feed and shelter and protect themselves. The same holds true with people. Might makes right. Dinosaurs once ruled the earth, without a program of morality of course.
morality – Cooperation among the interdependent by peerage.
religion – Cooperation among the dependent by caste.
Morality is not subservience, though your masters want you to believe that. That so-called ‘morality’ is laziness, corruption, cowardice, something along those lines. It is natural but passé. Evolution won’t wait. That’s how progress happens. That’s how you came to be an intellectual reading this Web page. Go back in time enough, and you, sir, are a fucking genius.
But you and I live here, with the power of material technology at the dawn of the 21st century. We must know more just to not be our own worst enemy with all that power, like a child playing with a gun or matches.
Evolution requires tiny steps. For you to move your eyes to read this requires physical steps of Quantum Mechanics scale. Any change, which is the hallmark of life like you, must go through discreet steps.
Think back in time and imagine the evolution of human rationalism. Imagine the transition from raw instincts (bugs and lizards) to intelligent adaptation (apes). First, rational perspective must have been chained to instincts, serving them with direct primitiveness. Men have evolved to sublimate their instincts to rational awareness, to apply undisguised physical violence, and to engineer ‘the man’s world’. Women are less mentally advanced but highly refined in a primeval way, like sharks. Women evolved to cheat, steal, and whore their way to the top of the pack, except for The One man she happily services. Before men became cultural beings per territorial agriculture, humans likely roved in packs, I believe rather loose packs per individual expedience and opportunism. I think women are still perfectly evolved for this environment.
As animals, humans enjoyed resources based on relative social status, a pecking order, like fowl or a pride of lions at dinner. Women are unconscious masters of psychological subversion. If they did not cast themselves as prima donna victims, if they knew what they were doing as rational agents, they would have debilitative self-loathing, the essence of which would have reproductively failed out of the gene(-meme?) pool if it ever existed in the wild.
Women completely lack moral agency because it was to their evolutionary advantage to ply psychology rather than physical force, whether helpful or hurtful, for amoral advantage. Undoubtedly, men were and are able to use psychological subversion as well. Men have moved away from it because cooperative societal (large scale) relationships are more powerful and competitive than oneupmanship, a misnomer that snubs female excellence.
Societal behaviors may be advantageous in general; however, per Game Theory, in the rank and file of the West with female norms foisted upon us by the actual sovereigns in the shadows, it pays to ply psychological expedience with most ‘people’ rather than to follow functional societal standards. Societal standards require reciprocity, and the more civilized a society becomes, the more balanced that reciprocity must be because of the laws of nature, particularly natural selection vis-a-vis the law of conservation.
I thought ‘Nathan Metric’ made an astute commentary just today, April 12, on “Razor’s Edge.” It helped me clarify my perspective, which is the content of this post. This is the part that inspired this section, though I squarely blame myself for its execution:
As for your article I completely disagree with your treatment of nihilism. Right wingers like to extend the word “nihilism” to encompass just about every destructive thing they hate when the reality is there is no nihilist community. Where are the nihilist governments? Where are the nihilist nations? Where are the atheist/nihilist politicians? Where are the nihilist lobby groups? Where are the nihilist corporations? Where are the nihilistic culture figures that are held in high regard? On what possible grounds could anyone make the case that nihilism is some sort of widespread problem?
Psychological subversion works by implanting an idea anchored to emotional goodness as moral sanction. Your mind is isolated, a private cognitive universe, so you model external authority in there. What happens if that external authority no longer governs you, but your modeling of that authority remains? Maybe only emotionally?
I call it neurosis, and it’s all too normal. How else do you explain The Decline?
No god, no government, no power that can provide you a 100% validation guarantee needs your support. You are philosophically superfluous in such an arrangement. Do you want the moral freedom of being superfluous, like leftist parasites do? No god needs you to build a cathedral. It is already built by definition.
Our existence already exists. We do not need to invent the god of existentialism. We already have the cathedral of existentialism. The are absolutes or else existence would be impossible. Instead of building your cathedral with the limited power of a mortal, wouldn’t it make more sense to discover the cathedral of nature?
If you exist, you are 100% valid.
When you cease to exist, you are 100% invalid. This is boolean truth. You are if you were meant to be, human opinions notwithstanding. The Cathedral, the real one, is How you are here. You depend on The Cathedral, and The Cathedral is pleased to have you, though that pleasure is seen to be fickle.
You don’t need to construct faith. The more mentally advanced we become with the technology of ourselves socially, with our values and our culture, the less faith in the external we need. The feral alpha and the sovereign have intrinsic agency. So do you. Here you are, by your natural choice per supernatural determinism, a.k.a. causality. The Cathedral is more impressive than anything you could construct per your Pleasure Principle to fill in a hole. Practitioners of psychological subversion plant holes.
confidence – Faith in yourself.
Holes are a psychological kind of fiat currency. Are you a psycho-financial junior engineer for the NWO? A friend who could never be your dangerous enemy is no friend. 100% control of potential rivals → 0 << 100% control over yourself.*
*Major caveats. Productive people are more productive when they control themselves, but unproductive people survive and thrive by controlling productive people. Parasites are so. To control yourself constructively, you will need to be constructive by nature, to suppress inveterate inferiors and otherwise alien rivals for they would abuse your capacity for production, and to be cooperative with other natural producers of compatible affinity. I mention the art of husbandry, which is what PUA seduction is. Conquer, domesticate, and befriend with appropriateness, ye landless farmer of civilization.
Right about now, Escher’s “Drawing Hands” comes to mind.
It is my contention that most people, even most people of the Manosphere, of the Dark Enlightenment, of Neo-Reaction are not fully civilized, which from my perspective in this evolutionary contest means not fully human by 21st century standards. Most humans are stubbornly blue-pill. There has never been ‘a crowd of philosophers’, a phrase I picked up from Frost of Thumotic.
I regard Dark Enlightenment as secular, specifically rational, and Neo-reaction as predominantly Christian. I identify with Dark Enlightenment as far as it is understood the be rationalism based on the axiom All Men Are NOT Created Equal. The problem with Neo-reaction is the incompatibility of Christian superstition (not to mention obsequious collectivism) with rationalism.
Superstition has its uses with the irrational ilk, for what humanity first arose? Being ancient, superstition is culturally weak compared to rational cooperation among potentially dangerous allies and friends. Domesticated humans are lousy producers who get worse over time concomitantly with the governing class that rules them. We always see institutional rot in history. Stable institutions are a byproduct of cultural rot. (Institutional instability would be a byproduct of stable culture.) Law by culture and ecology weeds out corruption because it’s everybody’s job, not the monopoly of government bureaucrats who would never put themselves out of business.
Christianity became orthodox as the Roman Empire was collapsing. It’s long-lived eastern side, misleadingly called the Byzantine Empire as if it were fundamentally distinct, lasted an additional millennium, but what glories did their people achieve besides stagnant stability? (They are Slavs, after all.) The fall of Rome was followed by an external Muslim onslaught and an internal Judeo-Christian onslaught. To wit, Christendom handed over control of European economics to Jews as the legal banking monopoly.
Those poor Jews in residential isolation from goyem were running a debt-slavery tax farm until they were kicked out, country by country. What glories did the people of the Dark Ages achieve besides stagnant stability? If whites were able to embody the Age of Discover, the Renaissance, and Enlightenment with domestic debt slavery less nefarious, imagine what could be done with no debt slavery at all.
Abrahamic religion was crafted with debt slavery in mind. It seems obvious to me that Judaism was engineered to garner popular support for tax farming by an elite knowledgeable with debt slavery and its requirement for government support. Judaism is naturally existential like anything else we know about. It is subject to the laws of evolution. It works on earth, which is why it has remained so popular. As a guess, Jews have the most political power per capita. Now, what does it mean for a religion ‘to work’ here on earth?
I’ve been rambling to provide a framework for my analysis, my take on the recent discussion about nihilism, and I appreciate your patience, so without further ado…
When I read Aurini’s post “Finding Virtue on the Razor’s Edge,” I was unsure at some of the intellectual points he was making. I agreed with his textual conclusion, with his scorched earth assessment, but what was his philosophical or spiritual bottom line? I was not sure I knew.
Elaboration and perhaps clarification came with his “Enjoy the Decline.” Again, the conclusion of the prose structure is philosophically the same, and quite elegant as we are accustomed: “Wear them [Hope, Faith, and Charity] with the humbleness of an Economist.”
The following passage is what intellectually struck me, for its expression of moral code:
“Enjoy the Decline” is not a screed of pessimism – but of Hope. Hope in the satisfactory, hope in the self, hope in the overcoming – the pragmatism to recognize the limitations of the self, and the age in which one lives, seeking the eternal in all that we do upon this Earth.
If I were to recognizably edit it to best fit my sentiments:
“Enjoy the Decline” is not a screed of pessimism – but of Hope. Hope in the satisfactory, hope in the self, hope in the overcoming – the pragmatism to recognize the limitations of the
selfinferior and incompatible, and the age in which one lives, seeking the eternalrealization of our potentials in all that we do upon this Earth.
In short, I don’t see that ‘seeking the eternal’ is a good idea. I’m taking ‘the eternal’ to mean some ubiquitous Eternal that defines us all. If the Eternal wants you to find him or it, it’s guaranteed by definition, if that’s your faith. As I tried to explain in “Causality Chose You, Stupid,” referring absolutely to no one in particular, the Eternal did not merely find you but made you. You are fucking valid already, and you are endowed with all the eternal essence you can manage or ever need, for what you are to be. Your ass is subject to the race condition of life like everyone else. Sorry.
The Millennial King, in response to the first aforementioned Aurini post, describes himself as a ‘burnt out churchian’. I am not surprised. That is how psychological subversion supported by bullshit language of illusory narrative works. That is how commoditized draft livestock on a tax farm should feel: burnt out. At least if you were used for meat, you could live a comfortable life unto the end, but your labor and mind are what others want to harness at your expense. As I said in my post “Stop Caring and Start Caring:”
Be in it but not of it. And they made your leading religious choices too. That nagging feeling, the endless struggle to get things right, it means you have made a mistake on your function in this world.
I think Millennial King (MK) makes an observation that confirms my observation on Aurini’s faith in the eternal if not Eternal:
Aurini’s words are heady, but he isn’t no prophet. He’s just another bohemian sitting in a cafe, smoking and preaching to the nomads about the thoughts he’s plundered from civilization. It’s cool, but once you realize he’s just like all the rest, just a bit smarter, it loses the awesome of the black clothes, cigarettes and nods to references I know. That intense, charismatic gaze that captivates as more high-minded words flow out. Good for your generation, perhaps. You’ve given up. Not for mine it’s too early to give up for us.
MK does not understand that the restaurant manager must be a capable cook, waiter, and accountant. The foundation of being a manager is not the essence of being a manager. Construction without conquest is to build as a slave. MK is postmodern because he wants the steak without the blood. He wants upper masculinity without the lower masculinity that evolved first. He wants to preserve his faith as deposited in him by human others. That was the concluding point I made in my poem “The Fairer Sex.” Hint: Men are fairer once they respectively believe it I-N-T-R-I-N-S-I-C-A-L-L-Y.
However, I see shades of truth in the quote as well. MK, from his frame, suggests Aurini’s words are elegance lacking substance. I charge MK’s frame for the better part of it in a sense, Aurini does not indoctrinate for cultist appointment, and yet MK has boiled down the flowery elegance of the Razor’s Edge post into a rational and generally accurate summary of where’s the beef? What MK wants to find, what Aurini is not providing, is concrete definition and dogma of The Eternal. Humans are not a cause of Eternal but rather a byproduct. That may change if humans develop the technology to transcend the confines of the universe, but that won’t be for several lifetimes if ever.
MK want’s a convincing priest, but he is too damn rational to find one. That is the dilemma and the nonsense of Neo-reaction. He will have to choose one master or the other, or live in mental pieces, or find an alternative master of an entirely different philosophy. I hypothesis that MK, along with many other stunted hosts of psychological subversion, is mentally fractured because he does not want to take full ownership of his mental faculties. Unlike leftists of no redeeming human value, he does not want to fully loose ownership of his mental faculties either.
He does not know who he is given what appears to be. Been there, finally got the t-shirt. This is the dilemma of immature masculinity. Whereas women are subconscious actresses jumping from social role to social role for monotonically optimized relative status gain, men mature later because the Reality Principle is more complex to master than the Pleasure Principle. Whereas a woman his age would be breaking from a decline of status based on reproductive depreciation wedded to the liberation of the open market, MK is poised to be his own man, if only he can solve the riddle of who’s lying and why.
Becoming mentally masculine despite the unsparing and financially limitless efforts of intellectual enemies from afar roughly inaugurates the burden and the privilege of self-definition. The frontal lobes must be calibrated so. If that self-definition conjures up a faith to be served to fill in a hole, that nasty vapid receptacle port, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
It is one thing to be limited by personal human nature, but it’s quite another to be limited by subjugation to the nature of other humans. Only the latter condition is bona fide slavery because it can be met with retribution. If we run from our natures, we run into the coils of illusory chains.
The natural slave who picks his master has done his best for himself as an intelligent domesticated animal, but for a man of civilized value, for the conqueror-builder sovereign, for the modern man not made a postmodern man, one postmodern size to fit all does not fit him. As Goethe tells us—but I dare qualify to exclude degenerates, misfits, and evolutionary relics of no civilized scruples or utility, meaning those who can’t do better—none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely think themselves to be free.
Whose genes will you reproduce? Whose memes do you think and feel and spread? What are the working assumptions of your thoughts and behaviors? What are your de facto premises?
The only blasphemy in your capacity is to betray your agency to be the adaptive best of what you naturally are in the context you are in, to overlook the little transitory eternal that is wholly yours for a permanent collectivist Eternal fashioned from credit and lies by needy bloodsucking humans who presume to know better for you. Are they right?
—‘Reality’ Doug, 12 April 2014