top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

☯️



There is only revolution—revolution is all there can and ever will be. The right identifies with the revolution, the true revolution—nature. You know nature’s revolution very well indeed: spring, summer, autumn, winter—and the carbon cycle, the menstrual cycle, the Circadian rhythm (the revolutions of the generations, their “great awakenings” and years of consolidation).


Evolution herself is a revolution: as was observed when the process was first discovered, she is like a governor on a steam engine—it spins round and round (if you want to be in control, to be “the governor”, you better be a spinning top—a whirligig, a swastika).


The left is against revolution—and you can tell this is so because left-wing societies, from North Korea to Cuba, are among the most static in the world; and everywhere the left prevails in the West, such as in, for example, the US Postal Service, you find stasis and stagnation (a post office is a true museum, a real time-travel device—it turns out that to travel back in time is mundane and dull, who knew?).


It’s the paradoxical reversal of opposites: people who build up, tear down; people who support, undermine; people who advocate revolution, create stagnation. In politics, the people who claim to care for blacks create conditions that are worse for blacks—the primary victims of feminism are women, people who refuse to criticise the Jews create conditions for a new pogrom. It’s all done with mirrors, just like everything in life—the man who comes to save you is the man you will hate (we all know who I’m talking about, don’t we?).


The left is static because the left refuses to accept that death is real. When Karl Marx was asked by his daughter, little Jennychen, what would come after Communism he said, “More Communism”. Aside from the fact Communism is impossible, what an unimaginative and narrow-minded answer. In all the countless aeons of time that have passed and will come, Karl Marx (PhD) could only conceive that the theory he happened to have created in his scintilla of time would last “forever”. Even from a rational perspective, it seems unlikely—not to mention very dull.


The process is the purpose. You are on the right if you accept that the process is the purpose and submit to it. You accept that things—people, nations, races—are born, grow, and die. That is how it is. Within nature, there is always deviation and degeneration—to have these is part of the process itself. Self-consciousness is deviation, the left tries to be “aware” of revolutionary potential, to “raise awareness”; and that self-consciousness is deviation—just as when you know your toe is there because you dropped a hammer on it. The left is the degeneration of the social organism—naturally, being degenerate, it deludes itself into the belief that it leads to improvement. It is only a delusion that you can escape death because “Communism”, “the Republic”, “the Commonwealth”, or “the Constitution” will supposedly go on forever.


You don’t have any choice—the process will go where it will go, just as you don’t have any choice about whether the seasons change. Now, you can fight the process if you want—that is possible. You can wear shorts all winter and call it “a progressive development that equalises the climate inequality between summer and winter”—and you can play tennis barefoot or go mountain-climbing barefoot, if you like.


But I submit that you will get better results if you go with the flow, if you cut with the grain—but if you want to expend energy in a futile struggle against the process and call it “progress” that is your prerogative and it is the nature of the process that there are people like you (with low survival value).


You can see that in Ulysse Carrière, who today announced that he would like a sensitive man to choke him and slap him like a little slut. This is because at the moment Ulysee pretends to be a woman. Now, if I actually slapped Ulysee and choked him, he wouldn’t like it—not really (though he might pretend to); and, in fact, he might quite likely hit me. So what does “the right” say about the situation: why not go with the flow—why not slap and choke girls, not pretend that you want to be slapped and choked yourself? Has your life been so easy that you want to make it difficult on purpose (and is this decadence)?


The left refuses to go with the flow, because it cannot accept death—actually, if you accept death you will see that death is not the end but that requires humility and so many people fight it up to the last moment (insist that they are important up to their last breath). There is no final state, whether “Communism” or “the Constitution”, that will save you from death—and both are moribund, the worst thing about America is the thing Americans claim is the best thing about her, the Constitution.


The process is the point. Eternity is now—not in some future state; and that is the message found in all religions—but you only get there if you stop looking for “the world to come” and accept that your individual identity is an illusion that conceals a wider process that understands itself through you. You will never die—you were never alive to begin with, that was pride.


Liberalism, contra Land, is the worst deviation—it is the greatest hypocrisy, it is the ur-error that leads to communism; and it is dangerous for the reason America is more dangerous than the USSR was—because liberalism, like America, promotes luxury and ease; and these rot the soul—inhibit growth.


Liberalism is a deviation from the process because it denies that the aristocracy and clergy are necessary—it says, per Adam Smith, that only the merchant class offers any value (rational value, by which is meant economic value—which eventually means luxury and greed, as opposed to virtue and quality). Yet war and religion are part of the process as much as buying and selling—the more of the process you deny, as in when the Marxists cut out the merchants as well, the worse things become (you are mountaineering barefoot now).


Liberalism also deviates because it recuses religion from the public sphere—and this was done by men like Hobbes and Locke to solve the problem of the wars of religion caused by Christianity (itself a religion that denies nature, denies the nature gods, to quite a large extent). Liberals recused religion to stop people killing each other over “the one truth”, so religion became a private matter—but religion has to be public to work, so, in effect, liberalism killed religion and then replaced it with secular religions, progressivism and Marxism, in stead of real religion.


This was a problem because religion is attuned, in symbolic terms, with nature—with birth, growth and death; and so it integrates the mundane material process with the higher psychic process—if you take it away, the process is in deviation just as if you no longer celebrated your birthday and, in fact, came to believe that your “birthday” was just a myth that your parents made up to control you.


Hence liberals are the arch-hypocrites because they defy the process and then are surprised when the perversion introduced leads to radical Jacobinism or Marxism—as it must do, because, as Gracchus Babeuf pointed out in the French Revolution, true equality is only possible if there is equality of property; and so liberals who profess equality—create equivocations about “equality of opportunity”—are hypocrites; after all, if I can hand down property to my son, how am I different to the king or the aristocrat that the revolution displaced? I am not—and yet liberals will always pretend not to see that.


As for liberalism and rights—there are only the rights that free men can win and exercise. Those are the only rights that are real—all shopping lists of rights, demands for rights, appeals for rights are toilet roll. It’s like today: if the government can make everyone abide by Covid-19 regulations and no men can force their way through those, then those are the rights we really have (the right to be confined to your home indefinitely). And if the quality of your men is so low that those are the rights the government can force you to conform to then that is what your rights really are. It will only change when people accept that there are no men prepared to—or with the vigour to—change the “rights ecology”.


Written constitutions and bills of rights are a waste of time—they are irrelevant the moment they are published, moribund (dead trees < live trees). Laws should be made under an oak tree in the forest, made purely verbally so as to react in an organic way to the situation. It’s the same with Five-Year Plans—Do you think you can plan the economy? Do you think you can enumerate our rights? Do you think you can control death? Do you think you’re God? (all of the above).


I prefer live trees to dead paper; sure, Jefferson said “the tree of liberty must be watered with blood” and yet it has not been watered enough, for the Constitution itself was meant to stop “tyrant kings” from spilling “innocent” blood—the US Constitution was always “woke”, always designed to impede nature. If only George Washington had become King George I, as some proposed—yet the revolution was never carried out in good faith, in accordance with reality, and so that would never happen.


Hence there is only the process—you can fight against the process if you like, you can fight against the revolution. I say that it just makes no sense, it wastes your energy—it’s irrational. I say you’re going where you’re going and once you submit to the process, understand you are the process knowing itself, you have nothing to fear—not even death. If you are still and listen you will know how to go with the flow—to swim with the direction of the water (“But I don’t know where it’s going!” No, neither do I—but it’s going there whether you like it or not, so float). Yet the process requires people to fight it to work, that is why there is a left—composed from people who try to stop the revolution, while they themselves declare that they are in its vanguard.

128 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page