So what I’ve noticed is that I’ve been running an orphanage within an orphanage of sorts, and if I exit stage right for a matter of hours most of the kids are overwhelmed with amnesia of what has been said and return back to hive-consciousness. My presence shouldn’t be the thing that keeps you away from being a retard. If you need to be reminded several times a day not to be a retard, maybe that is just your destiny. I know this is no way to speak to children, well, what else is new. Even this will not snap the retards of the spirit out of their, likely ancestral, fate, to continue having mental deficiencies, and I really don’t care anymore, I have other things to do than snap my fingers in front of people’s faces to jar them out of the cultural hypnotism. Call it providential retardation.

If nihilism = the death of god and nihilism is bad (yes there are still people that need to hear this latter part) it’s somewhat mind-boggling that we are so strict in the separation of church and state. Shouldn’t non-nihilism be enforced? The pre-reflective folk altruism, that I’ve been trying for months to demonstrate is its own form of nihilism disguised as the form of non-nihilism par excellence, is enforced after all, so why not enforce an actual, robust form of non-nihilism, which is the belief in severe transcendental ideals?

The christian god is doubted into non-existence by the forces of science, art, and promethean human technicity in general, and then this vulgar state religion takes its place, and all heretics who seek to refine it or uproot it are burned at the stake. Rather than severe transcendental ideals, ones which ideally in my opinion would lead to our escape from the monkeymind, we have this paltry vision of pseudo-divinity commanding us to run a planetary orphanage for all these walking stains of soot that should probably best be left to die off in their natural habitats anyway if taking them in only leads to us being brought down to their instinctive level of non-consciousness. What kind of religion is that! The state should enforce something a bit more ambitious, I don’t think that’s too much to request.

So begins Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, a book he worked on for twenty years.

The epiphany that immediately strikes me when I read this is- The US must have gotten the nature of nature wrong in the beginning. Can’t blame the citizens for being loyal.

Or could it be that we’ve evolved since the 18th century and are consequently new beings that require new laws? This seems to be the implicit message in Moldbug’s initiative to uninstall the USG.

Let’s be reasonable though- say we did start a new country in the former territory known as Indonesia, and we rigorously selected a certain demographic to inhabit it. Would we truly even have a democracy problem in that scenario? So maybe it’s not that we as a country have changed since the founding stock, and more that only a specific type has (unless they existed back then too and were similarly marginalized who knows) and they are attuned to the antithesis of demos-equalism, Rangordnung, on a spiritual level and in various respects (my pet favorite is the SMILE-program as is known, there are also many other offshoots of this general tendency).

So when we extrapolate from the initial formalist enterprise of isolating various institutions, we move next to isolating the laws they work within, and from there to “nature” or the “creator”. What this type of Western person disagrees about is the nature of nature, or for tradcaths and the like, the nature of divinity. When we talk about government we’re always having a discussion about the most fundamental questions as well. Whenever someone casually inquires “Is democracy good?” they are implicitly inquiring “Is the nature of nature such that democracy is good?”

Well, one telling symptom of our times is that I can’t imagine a few of our congresspeople getting into an intense debate over any of this. It seems most government operates on the surface and like most people takes a lot for granted.

All this to say that if we’re serious about creating a new patch someday, these are some of the fundamental questions to ponder and discuss in order to create a regime that won’t devolve into the third-world within 300 years like the US seems destined for.

Imagine in 2020- “What’s the nature of nature, Bernie?” “…” “Donald? What do you think?”

Gnon forbid they let a chaostroll ask the questions.

Going to innocently leave these two images here out of context

It’s not “evil” to want Indonesia, is it?

If the worst case scenario does materialize in 2050, it’s not unrealistic to expect people to be driven to extreme, previously unimaginable options.

In the meantime, Montesquieu is another one of those pertinent mountains to climb, to prepare for the worst, and ultimately to prepare for the best. Trying to think on the bright side here, demographic collapse might be just the catalyst we need to segue toward a futurist neo-state.

It need not be bloody, for instance we could promise them that if they all move North, we’ll improve their half of the country roughly as much as we improve ours.

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.