Ending the End of History

Or, The Case For Buying Racist eBooks

The Secular Apocalypse

garfieldbotus montanus @cumlasagna1

>secular apocalypse

“Messianic thinking then leads to apocalyptic thinking, because to justify divinity, you always need an apocalypse.”

I've been meaning to get to the apocalypse for a while now. A throwaway line in a different article has caused people a lot of frustration, because it's unclear what I mean by "messianic thinking” and “apocalyptic thinking". I felt bad about it while I wrote it, because I knew it was jumping way too many moves ahead at once without explaining it. At the time it was beside the point and I was just trying to cross past as fast as possible without going into it, because going into it is really a whole essay in itself. 

I'd like to elaborate first on where we left off, as the idea builds on other concepts I've talked about, and don't really make any sense outside of that context. 

Inside that little sentence is a kind of conclusion to everything else I've been talking about this past year, about the limitations of the enlightenment worldview, the humanistic divorce from the Christian theologically. I think, ideally, it's probably possible to completely understand what I mean by that sentence if you have read all of my blog "and it afforded you pleasure”. But I also recognize that i was kind of being sloppy and lazy.

To put it in another way: an absolute morality necessitates an absolute justification. To have "value”, you need death. Scarcity is value itself. Simply on a conceptual level.

The Nietzschean quest for self directedness, the post-modern task of generation of your own values and purposes, necessitates the generation of an Apocalypse, as a matter of structure.

I call apocalyptic thinking all thinking associated with this double entendre of "end of history", as meaning both literal and abstract, finality and purpose, and I intend to keep wholly both meanings with no need for separation. An end is an end.

My concept of flat earth praxis, , that regardless of the shape of the earth, it is technically impossible to truly believe that it is round, except as an abstraction, is a theory of space. This “Anti apocalypse” argument is doing the same, but for time. Establishing the conceptual horizon and recognizing that we can't ever truly touch it: the “end of history” is beyond the horizon, as much as “the edge of the world”.

Hitler was a retard

It's very easy to look at world war 2 in hindsight and say, the soviet was a dysfunctional state, you could have just outlasted it, like the USA allegedly did in the cold war. It’s easy to say: declaring pre-emptive war on the USSR was a mistake, if Germany had fought a defensive war instead of an offensive one they would have won. Hindsight is current year minus one.

The explanation offered for this retrospective blunder is usually something like: they were a product of their time, they literally thought they were living in the end times. Bolshevism was an existential threat, that was threatening ever single human being to the point of existential horror: They literally thought they were living in the apocalypse: In all the occupied nations, who today pride themselves and mythologize their resistance movements, more people volunteered to go die on the Eastern front than were ever in the resistance movements, by an order of magnitude.

To the “end of the world” thing I say, that's very understandable and rationalizable and understandable on a humanistic level. But it remains retarded. Hitler remains retarded. He wasn't playing to win, he was playing to not-lose. He was a doomer.

He argues ultimately from a negative: concepts of scarcity and “daily bread”. The villain of Mein Kampf is not actually “the Jews”, but an idea of the inevitable scarcity of arable farmland, and nightmarish visions of overpopulation, which then necessarily must lead to war. Every “thinker” of the era were responding to the fact of the population explosion the industrial revolution had triggered, and Mein Kampf is chock-full of nightmarish visions of the future, where mankind runs out of food and space, breeding itself to death.

“Ara ara Hitler-kun, are you gonna plow me~”

Bolshevism and everything else are not the primary cause of evil in Hitler, they are a competitor who cannot be argued with, over limited resources. The necessity of offensive wars is ultimately thought of as a pre-emptive defensive war. His visions of the cramped humanity of the future without their “daily bread” reads like a nightmare, which I also think they literally were. The enlightenment project in all it’s forms, even the “revolutionary anti-revolutionary”, is nightmares pretending to be reason. Animal fears and irrational drives breaking through the controlled, rational ego and scratching at the surface consciousness.

The premise at bottom of Mein Kampf is preventing the end of the world. The aggressive wars was an attempt to fight a 21th century war in the 20th century. He was jumping far too many steps ahead, and trying to solve a problem at the end of history

The reactionary response to revolutionary thought, to apocalyptic thinking, can never be to offer merely an alternative "end" towards which we drive our means. It must be an utter rejection of ends as such. A rejection of consequentialism and utilitarianism and totalitarian, apocalyptic thought. Anything else is just substituting one apocalypse for another. If we are to do anything meaningful, it must be to completely reject the framework of apocalypsism.

I trace this to be following necessarily from the enlightenment weltanschauung. The revolutionary mindset or drive, which I think is a more fitting category. The revolutionary spirit others trace back to a messianic impulse, the idea that you are the messiah, that you are christ. Here I reference Father Seraphim Rose’s tracing the lineage of the revolution back to an Italian monk in the renaissance, who claimed to be the second coming of Christ (in, i think, “orthodoxy and the religion of the future”). I think you can probably trace it back further, and assume it basically as a category of human drives, something everyone can be tempted to feel. And I conceptualise history after the French revolution as essentially that drive run amok, in a socially self-perpetuating cycle.

When Hitler calls himself a revolutionary anti-revolutionary I think he is right, but being so does not cancel itself out, but rather, it’s just being an idiot twice.

I think in a nutshell, it’s a kind of evolutionary feedback loop that happens to “monkey in captivity”. And I think the industrial revolution crammed people into tight spaces, and activated evolutionary biological systems that tells the nervous system “oh fuck im trapped, im in prison”, which all leads to hyperactivity, anxiety, inflammation. I think the revolutionary spirit is physically, inflammation in the body, that leads to a hyperactive nervous system, and a subconscious/brain that turns hyperactive and tries to problem solve its way out of captivity, which then leads to, for lack of a better term, utter and complete madness. Insanity. Waking nightmares. Schizophrenia. Because it’s trying to jump too many moves ahead and solve the end of the world.

How do you save the world? Counter intuitively, by lifting weights and eating healthy. Then you cure your obsessive compulsive mania and all of a sudden the world isn’t ending any more, and you think about it more in the other end of the double entendre, as purpose.

All of modernity and enlightenment thought is the philosophical equivalent of the breakup emails that you send your ex girfriend about what a bitch she is and how unfair it is and how sad you are, but for humanity and the middle ages/"god" /"middle ages Christendom". And the solution to that is Sam Hyde’s advice about Emma Watson. Look at yourself in the mirror and recognize how pathetic you are being, and get a hold of yourself. Rome didn't pan out. You didn't have the mandate of heaven and Fortuna got the ick. Stop being a pussy. Buy a weight belt.

The Case for Buying Racist eBooks

In a completely unrelated subject, a while back I saw some conversation about the futility of writing eBooks nobody reads, and the futility of shilling your friends eBooks regardless of quality, in an argument that went something like: “if we are attempting to create a real creative culture based on real competency and real beauty, as opposed to the current corrupt mainstream politically motivated publishing industry, then it’s counter productive to not simply enforce a true meritocracy”. “If we just do that then we are no better than them”, kind of thinking. To this general idea, I would like to make a response.

You should not write shitty eBooks in an attempt to destroy the mainstream industry. You should write shitty eBooks, because it is good in-and-of-itself to do so. You should not read them, or sell them, or shill them, “to destroy the mainstream industry”. You should do it because it is a good thing to do.

https://www.amazon.com/Ending-Bigly-Eh-Justin-Trudeau/dp/1951897692

An excellent example that I am a huge fan of, is the “Ending Bigly” book series produced by Bill Merchant. A collaborative effort, a call for papers around a certain subject, that is then published as a collection. What’s so brilliant about it is that it’s taking something that’s genuinely bad news, a real historical event that is cause for a lot of pain for a lot of people, both literally/practically and in the culture war/propaganda sense, and taking that energy and turning it into something generative and productive. It is taking something like, in the case of “ending bigly 2: the many fates of Justin Trudeau”, at the very point of a very frustrating government tyranny and overreach, and turning all that pent up human suffering into something good.

The Ending Bigly books are not “good, because they will lead to the destruction of the publishing houses”, they are just good. Full stop. They are not “good, because they lead to the destruction of X”, they are good exactly because they are constructive, generative, productive. There is no further, down the line, end. They are they own ends. They are good in and of themselves.

Both in the creative aspect of writing them, and in the act of reading them, but primarily the act of writing them. Other than writing eBooks, another way of turning your industrial inflammation into something generative could be something like, building a church, building communal infrastructure, buying a ranch and learning how to farm. Not things that are “good towards some external end”, but things that are quite simply good.

If you don’t, then you don’t worship goodness and truth and beauty, but rather, you are utilizing them, instrumentalizing them, towards some another aim.

The reactionary response to revolutionary thought, to apocalyptic thinking, can never be to offer merely an alternative "end" towards which we drive our means. It must be an utter rejection of ends as such. Why do anything at all?