Reflections
This is a collection of some of the texts I've written. These are heavily inspired by the writings of Nick Land.

****ON ART****

Ancient artisanal iconography, an arduous process, dies by the hand of automated lobotomizing spectacular consummerist lightshows.

Time and space die yesterday as the spectre of modern subjectivity revolts on the classical harmonic orders, Doryphoric proportion, and fugue.

At least the rebellious Artist enjoys a brief moment of freedom at the center of history.

Pop, siren of the masses, etches code into psyche and collective unconscious, reversing the paradigm of anthropogenic robotics in a vibrational-spiritual exorcism of natural human behaviour.

Apocalyptic lullaby for Neo-Babel.

Our crumbling vestiges stand eternally in dendrochronological historiography, artificial petroplastic chemical combinations forever lost in Dagon’s domain. LGM listen to our final words: skits on air and adverts, echoing through the ether.

The New Lascaux.

Immaterially-manifested Chardinian noumatic energy from the civillizational Christ lives forever, immortal information marking the cosmos.

***General Theses on Evolian Anarchism***
  1. The responsibility of the individual is ultimately towards himself, this is his direction.
  2. This responsibility does not exist in a purely mindless, unguided, dionysian manner.
  3. The process with which the individual (gains the capacity to) fulfill(s) this responsibility is an arduous and disciplined one.
  4. It begins with a deep reflection into the core of one’s being to identify one’s central tendencies. (first degree)
  5. To ignore such a step is to fail the individual’s task before it is even confronted, because the emancipation of the individual requires the existence of the individual insofar as the mental is concerned (an in-dividual, consistent whole rather than the platonic “fractured psyche” of oligarchic/statist society)
  6. One must organize his central tendencies to create his own law (second degree)
  7. Every individual has a free will, and an absolute freedom
  8. This freedom appears a fetter when the individual has no direction
  9. This contradiction in freedom leads to oedipalization, fascism, the spook
  10. In order to actualize this freedom, the individual must liberate his mind from these harmful ideas
  11. He must also liberate himself from the material constraints (economic, political, legal, medical) which impose themselves on him
  12. His actions are an expression of his manifested will-to-power, emanating from the core of his being.
  13. In this sense all moralistic attempts at a pacifistic (submitting) mutual-in-nature golden rule are rejected. No individual has the responsibility to submit to a contract of “mutual respect of each other's rights”, whatever “rights” could ever mean if they could even be consistently defined and identified. This sort of agreement, supposedly a “social contract” (assuming the possibility of the creation and application of democracy) must be voluntary, that is to say, it must be refusable; if it is not to my pleasure that I agree to secure your rights while you secure mine, I should be able to revoke my consent and live with an added risk of this lack of security. In addition, no individual has the responsibility to enforce (directly via conscription/”duty to act” or through taxation/theft) the respect of such rights.
  14. An anarchist soul, in reaching for liberation of all individuals, let alone liberation of himself, must accept these truths, or his quest will be doomed.
  15. The anarchist praxis of the abolition of the state must necessarily boil down to an extreme decentralization; if the state is the monopoly on the means of violence, anarchism is its smoothening out into an even plateau rather than a mountain. It denies this monopoly in the name of allowing arms to be borne by as many as possible!
  16. Arms are the means of destruction, thus of coercion, thus of control (of all), and for them to be distributed means that the individual can defend and complete his autonomy. Coercion precedes even economy, so the marxist sociological notion of class preceding state is complete myth. Thus, the abolition of state through the communistic abolition of class is fallacy.
  17. Anarchism is a democratic state par excellence. Social organization, to the extent that it exists in an anarchistic (liberated) society, is voluntary, cooperative, since each has access to arms.
  18. It is also aristocratic. Those with the strongest wills, those who apply them with the most vigour, naturally come to succeed over those with weaker wills, and to whose fault is owed such an individual failure?
  19. The golden rule must be rejected, but so too must be rejected a sort of utopianism which concerns itself with faustian ascension to unending eternal states (“state” as in a Malatestan sense). The universe has a cyclical and determined nature.
  20. Fascism’s darwinistic theory of history is thus correct, but the conclusions it draws from it are false. Does a blind submission to the current ruling class (supposed “aristocracy”) present itself as an evolutionarily progressive force? Certainly not, the contrary is true. The freedom of thought and action of individuals allows them to climb to new heights and continually replace an otherwise dilapidated, calcified, and atrophied upper class (circulation of the elites) in a continuation of the evolutionary process. Submission, fascism, is its complete opposite, and it is certainly that of which the lower end of cyclical history consists.
  21. Subjectivism must also be rejected. Subjective truth is a contradiction in terms because truth refers to that which accurately describes some reality. The description of an individual subjective reality can only be a description of the lens through which the individual sees the objective reality. This contradiction is even mirrored within the liberal subjectivist notion that one’s subjective reality must be “respected for its validity”, ultimately applying it universally, even towards realities it does not accurately represent. This perspective confuses contextuality with individual lens.To the individual, to the true believer, there is no distinction between belief and knowledge, each describes reality accurately. What does the individual care for your “subjective experience”? To him, his reality is objective truth, but transcendent truth cares not for the petty view (manifested in subjectivism) that recognition/perception consists truth, which is a circular argument.
  22. Each individual essence (human, animal, technological, or even simply material) has a certain role to play within the dynamic that is the greater whole, and each acts as a part of the work of art that is the universe. Each individual’s role (responsability), from a transcendent point of view, is to contribute to a process of art, manifested within his life, his community, history, and the universe, in such a way that goes past morality.