Accelerationism and Immigration

Although I’ve wanted to drop all talk related to the immigration debate for about a year now, I’ve persisted because my idiosyncratic interpretation of accelerationism demands that certain cultural problems be solved so that future generations don’t have to deal with them. There’s a dense layer of subtexts and pretexts surrounding the debate that I and other Realpolitikers attempt to dig beneath to reveal the actual processes that are in place. Everyone has their reason, mine has been to spare the yet-to-be-born the tedium of sorting through this political issue. I’ve several times alluded to the fact that if I weren’t preoccupied with this I’d probably be reading poetry, probably Dante’s Divine Comedy as I haven’t studied that too closely yet, though there are a few other classic poets with writings that basically have the status of scripture that I (and likely lots of others) intentionally neglect because we worry that future generations won’t even care to study poetry if there is too drastic of a demographic shift.

Although you never know what data can be trusted, a traipse through google yields the general prediction that around the year 2050 whites will be the new minority of the country. There are a couple disconcerting implications to this that arise immediately in my mind- first of all, the new majority will doubtlessly only vote for policies that lead to them being an even more robust majority, in other words, soon after 2050 I expect that the border between North and South America will be erased entirely and there will be a freeflow of movement from South to North, increasing that majority from 55% to 60% to 70%, etc. and based on the anthropologically observed habits of the people of the South I don’t see much reason to expect that they will be interested in studying Ovid, calculus, or rocket science. Secondly, I think back to the advice of Timothy Leary on how to increase intelligence, which is incredibly taboo to say in our time, which was that one must surround oneself with ethnogroups that are equally, or preferably more, intelligent than one’s own. This demographic shift will be a benefit in this regard for the South, not so much for the North. All this to say that even if they remained magically as a 55% majority, even being in their proximity will not exactly be advantageous for those unborn ones who in an alternate future would have studied poetry and perhaps become poets themselves. I only can find reasons to deduce that if current trends continue, by 2050 the US will be completely saturated in low-culture, which is of course the opposite of poetry rightly perceived.

Women have their way of playing dirty, men have theirs (as you might understand now). We could both be bad to each other – I saw a tweet the other day about how one couple keeps a coffin in their living room for one to sleep in on the night the other has an affair – or imagine this, we could both be good to each other…

Just trying to live a quiet life of study amidst the hostilely-upheld illusions of the all too worldly. They seek to maintain tranquility (tranquilization) by keeping people rooted to their vague doctrines on earth regarding human-sameness, and away from the realm of the forms where distinct human types can be delineated.

The only ousia permitted is “humanity”, a strictly indivisible Unity.

This is the ideological lobotomy that precedes the physical lobotomy.

All one and dumb together- they’ll make humanity the sole ousia even if it means sacrificing the beings of humanity that most exemplify humanity. Nope, it’s not supposed to make sense, that’s why I call it a pre-lobotomy to prepare for the actual lobotomy. Most are already too lobotomized to care when presented with these facts.

The way I think of the problem, violence is necessary against people who are too self-centered for their own good.

Most of the Bioleninist causes are from people who want to preserve the kind that they are, at the cost of degenerating the total population.

We have lots of controversial types that fall into this category, I might name some.

Trying to be objective here, the top of the hierarchy is Jews who want to make a patch conducive to their particular way of life. However it may be that this isn’t often conducive to the particular way of life of others, they still persist nonetheless and advocate subconsciously or not for a place that will cater to their (greedy) needs.

Next up is what I’ve referred to as “free prostitutes”- this is what the modern woman appears to as me typically (still waiting to find very many exceptions). They think they can do whatever they want without any consequences, until they turn 30 or so and realize they’re only looking uglier and uglier by the day so now it’s time to turn over a new leaf–problem with that is it’s too late. This is what we could call the prevailing female demographic of the Bioleninist squadron. They don’t care that we’d rather date 20 year olds than used-up skanks, that millennial women are doomed, and so they up the ante on bringing about non-judgmental policies, only to perpetuate their same careless lifestyles among the younger generation.

And last we have white males who either let it all happen while doing nothing or actively contribute to the process. Notice how both the above topics are never really spoken about. They’re all too scared to speak of them. Jews, women, POC, and leftists are all out for themselves at the expense of civilization. All of you have self-centered motives, you don’t care about the future of the West, only your own selves.

I miss Caligula-mode, I keep my violent impulses in check now cuz I don’t know what I can get away with here.

Does Being itself not like Caligula-mode or do we return to the question of the need for an urbit, a neo-internet.

Only a matter of time before someone tries it IRL. Can’t get “banned” if you control the armed forces and civilian militias…

Just in case it hasn’t clicked for you yet what the mechanism of this neologism “Bioleninism” is… If you were to stand on a busy sidewalk with a megaphone chanting “Diversity is our weakness” or a similar message, what would happen? You would infuriate all those who fall under the category of what makes our country diverse. That’s a lot of different types of people. And even many of the ones who don’t fall under that category would be infuriated as well.

Bioleninism is the idea that the diverse-weakness demographic and their sympathizers outvote the rest.

So imagine me saying into a megaphone on the sidewalk that for this reason the US will gradually shift into a country that sane people will want to move away from. Said demographic and their sympathizers evidently don’t care the US will be a place sane people will want to move away from, or are in denial that that will happen (because of the previously discussed unfounded blank slate universalism axiom). They just want more and more diversity regardless of the consequences. They will “Boo!” anyone who makes such a statement until the time the US is that place no sane person will want to live, and even then they will probably continue to boo anyone who says, See, told ya so. This is the kind of person we’re dealing with here.

I know of a few in the public sphere now who I can imagine moving when that day does arrive when it would be insane not to move, saying “Heh yeah I was one of those people who boo’d at the idea that this was going to happen and that it would be bad for it to happen, and hey, I was wrong, I’m moving now.” What a waste of a country, and it’s all a result of their deliberate words and actions.

Departing utopian lalaland for a second, maybe the one who should decide is the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts. Who better?

If culture determines both the way of life of the citizenry as well as the government, in a manner unforeseen by the founders of the country, should we not create an organization within the government that oversees cultural production?

If our cultural institutions control the people and thus control who the people elect, and are steering our country toward a quality of life that any sane person will want to move away from, wouldn’t it follow that the government, which is supposed to look after the country, should step in as “judge” of these cultural institutions and begin a process of weeding-out?

Could we make this a case for the Supreme Court? That the state religion is a threat to national security and therefore needs to be reformed? What kind of cases are they working on now? Certainly ones that would appear profoundly petty in light of this one. We’re talking about the axioms that shape the people’s worldview. Who should be the Judge who determines whether those axioms are rooted in reality? We don’t know who it should be, all we know is that there should be one.

Glancing at the justices of the Supreme Court, I’m not sure if the Supreme Court itself has managed to evade the requirements of the state religion. “Diversity is our strength” is very much apparent with them, and just as apparent, to us ostracized ones anyway, is that the axiom “diversity is our strength” is a weakness that is only going to lead to the eventual triumph of other world-superpowers over us, and to the dispersal of the sane citizens to locations on the earth outside of the 3rd-worldward USA.

In the same way that the US invaded the Middle East to attempt to install democracy, we need a group to invade the US to attempt to install aristocracy.

Democracy was incompatible with the people over there, would aristocracy be incompatible with the people here?

Doesn’t it sound crazy and impossible to take away most people’s vote? Yet to me this seems like the best course of action “until we figure out what’s going on”. The problem with a revolution is that if we put the people on the throne of the king as it were, we’d only be putting the same type in power again.

There’s a nearly perpetual forgetfulness about the ambiguity of the type of regime we inhabit. Specifically, it seems we live in an oligarchy that masks itself as a democracy. So do you know the sinister truth that follows from that? The people are the oligarchs. They’ve been so much influenced by them there’s no difference. So putting them in charge would just be subtly maintaining the current order.

This is the crazy idea I propose to get us out of this mess: we will have three castes, the vulgar, brainwashed majority of ‘the people’ who don’t get a vote, and the spiritually mature, properly educated minority of ‘the people’ who vote for aristocrats, Scientists, living √úbermenschen, whatever you want to call them, exemplary types of human beings.

Sounds impossible to determine who should be in each caste, right? Well I don’t see another way of getting out of the oligarch-brainwash problem, we need a radical break with the existing order. “Who, Nick, who decides things?” Whoa you actually used my name for the first time in 100 million references to me, that’s nice. I don’t know who! This is just a general utopian formula- is there much to disagree with besides its practical impossibility?

Option 2: The oligarchs that secretly despise their fellows – the Larrys – should fund movies that carry messages that counter the establishment, that’s the only thing airheads understand these days, movies, so cynically speaking, they’re so swayable that their “cherished personal opinion” about the world is determined by what media you put in front of their faces. Next, for the second and third castes, the Larrys should start a new type of academy, one whose partial goal is critiquing the existing academy.

Option 3: You, dear reader, join me and my friends in the autodidactic life and gradually become one of those citizens that actually deserves a vote. Right now I’m studying Arendt’s On Revolution, it’s pretty inspiring, talks a lot about the stuff Schmitt does and never mentions his name (lol). From a secondary text on it–is this so much to ask?!:

Feeling fuzzy around the edges since Land gave me a nice bludgeon. Eh that’s how it is in this business. There’s hive, outer-hive, and an unknown horizon, if you start to venture off into that you’ll be restrained and carried back to the legal council.

No one wants to talk about those limit-experiences.

As I posted previously, there’s a subterranean aversion to permanent revolution, which explains the typical unwavering faith in democracy and constitutionalism. The US and West in general seems to be at present mired in the flip side of the coin of permanent revolution:

A certain amnesia has its benefits. Without it, a year after drafting a new constitution what will stop people from wanting to draft an even newer one? So there’s an intrinsic forgetfulness involved in a post-foundation setting. Our countries are too forgetful of this, our political origins’ origination in a somewhat arbitrary act of founding that is in no sense permanent, and that prevents us from beginning a new order, a more balanced order that takes into account ideas that run counter to the enlightenment which our founding was based on.

This probably strikes many as fantastical, “the insanity option” I called it, well a few years ago most thought the idea of Brexit was insane too, and if Brexit does go through it will likely have a cascading effect on the rest of the currently ideologically-confined, postwar West. Imagine that Brexit takes place and the US emerges from its revolutionary-amnesia and wonders what to do next. The things I’ve been posting about are my idea of a provisional blueprint if that happens. Just good to prepare. We might not want to go full Schmittian extremism, i.e. the “rip it all to shreds” route, so here’s a look at a middle-road option:

Ah how to get back into that centuries-dead “founding experience”…

Might be prudent to keep this middle-road option in mind if we were to create a neo-patch elsewhere as well. Excuse my pun- we wouldn’t scrap the constitution entirely, we’d merely make “liberal” use of it. Just to be safe at first ya know, because of that permanent revolution state of mind which seems just as threatening to a society’s stability as revolutionary amnesia.