This idea of future shock - the overwhelming of time and territory by the advance of technology – is the law of the last man, the delimited man. In his hands technology becomes something more powerful than culture, its character resembles civil war, the toppling of monuments, and the burning of cities. Time marches on against positions of defense, and each city has an underworld which can erupt to the surface at any moment. Technology introduces this force into every space, and in every moment one expects a total, final assault.

The levelling of territory and culture can only coincide with a shift in their laws, their conception. That one can no longer anticipate limits is demonstrated in the first skyscrapers, which are not so much a symbol of hierarchical growth as the enormous eruption of underworld forces and delimited space. As with the abutment of a bridge the city centers must equal the forces of expansion – the neutralisation of every last space of the continents.

It is inevitable then that the loss of classical spaces will also change man's view of his borders, which at the very least represent a limit or boundary. As with the form of war which mobilises a total force to take the smallest lines of territory, the new law of space demands constant incursions – grinding away at territory, not so much against the enemy but the thin line which marks expansion. The borders are a type of sharpened knife, which requires the wearing away of crystalline material to keep its shape.

Endless expansion and neutralisation can only create permeable layers, not territories. And this is final, until the world comes down upon the last man, making a terror of his private life. Where there is nothing of law and character in a land man himself cannot be distinguished from its qualities. The titanic man is at home in any land; and any other man in his.

"No one can argue you out of being your father's son. If your foundational identity is something you can be argued into or out of, you are a civic nationalist."

There is a paradox in the idea that man is confined to his biological family, can never escape it, and so is duty-bound to it – no matter the consequences. What should be obvious is the meaning this has for dissidents confronting liberalism: that it too is the family which man must serve. Biology constrains us to thinking that our father is closest to us; only spiritual thinking could link a man today to a figure hundreds of generations past. Here too all sense of family conflict is lost, the great tragedies, the afflictions which point to things at once greater and lesser than the family.

The irony is lost on the late-stage nationalists, who cannot even see their own genealogy, despite its being limited to all-too-recent years. This limited thinking suggests that theories of primordial nationalism amount to little more than sending off blood samples for testing in some foreign country, as if an international map could link us to our true self, then be discarded, returned to national conceptions of race. What is revealed here is a race which does not know itself, not even its weaknesses.

Another paradox is that nationalism and historiography are themselves 'propositional' ways of seeing the world. In fact, there may be nothing more propositional than searching out the original error of man, that single moment in which it all went wrong for nationalists. A magic dirt theory of time. And of course, if the body really was superior to the mind, one would think that at some point during the 10,000 year decline it would have overcome this error of the mind – or at least sensed it.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/ImperiumPressOfficial/1499

Left and right are two sides of the same coin.
Just as the titanic races are the colours of a roulette wheel.

Applying friend-and-enemy to left and right is something like cutting off the arms of the Leviathan. First it has no arms, then they grow back as if nothing ever happened. It is like the prey-animal who sacrifices a limb to escape – yet the Leviathan wields its sacrificial limbs like a lure. In its mythic iteration it is a monstrous fish, an octopus-like creature with countless tentacles and an infinite number of valves to smother its foes. Thus the tentacles of the Leviathan are less significant than the limbs of the social body, and also infinitely more powerful.

The left and right have countless iterations in the history of democracy, they are like the tentacles of the Leviathan in that they shift positions, even form of previous physical constructions. Those who reduce friend-and-enemy to left and right are the Kabbalists who "eat the flesh of the beasts who mutually kill each other, remove the skin, and from the hide build themselves fine tents and celebrate a fine, millennial feast."

The basic problem is that to the extent AA may be correct - superficially, and regarding a limited problem - this is ruined by a rigid and lifeless view, not unlike the ideology he attacks. While there is certainly a tendency towards post-hoc rationalisation today this may represent something other than ideology. It is more correct to say that ideology perfects an efficient distance from power, the sovereign. This not only explains the contemporary situation, but the historical development of ideology as well.

Ideology has become the sole concern of the bourgeois, the private man, whereas in its origins it was a system for the perfection of governmental mechanisms and thought – it was aristocratic in nature. This process of European revolutions was justified - or at least it represented an inevitability or decision within a providential shift - in that the absolute monarchs had introduced the anti-aristocratic policies, acting both against the old concept of divine right and the general will. The monarchs began the levelling process and the will to equality that is central to democracy. If this process of legitimisation fails it does not imply a purification of the original worldview, or ideology, it only implies failure.

That the defeat of liberalism returns to a concept of the bourgeois man (who is only a type of democratic man, limited to security and private concerns) and abandons the project of legitimacy positions him closer to the absolutist monarchs than the first liberals. It is in this sense that the economic neutralisation and sale of cities is closer to the practises of Louis XIV than Rousseau, who was for a theological austerity regarding economic relations. The monarch's practise of selling government offices and the right to vote, then immediately appropriating these properties for resale, did more to ensure a general will and a groundless democracy than anything liberals ever invoked. It ensured democratisation and mobilisation of the lowest will.

One can go further and compare state justification within the same governmental type. Does it matter how a state is justified, how it comes to power? From a Schmittean viewpoint there is a major difference in the moment of decision, the extent and degree of judgement can alter the entire course of the state. Whether Hitler took the knife into his hand, or it was pressed into his hand is an essential distinction, more significant than anything in the ideology. Schmitt's view was that Hindenburg had to invoke a state of exception, outlaw both the extremes of left and right, becoming dictator. That Hitler came to power through the incapacity of the government to invoke a decision was really a failure to invoke a state of exception, and rather than a dictatorship Hitler's reign was a continuation of the liberal state and its indecision. This does not imply an inevitability of failure, but it does act like something of a curse that Hitler would have to overcome, invoking dictatorship and severing the ties to the origin of the state in liberalism.

What does this mean? Not only that ideology matters but within a given ideology there can be conflicts which approach the destructive power of a civil war. In this case post-hoc rationalisation is nothing more than an incapacity to decide: ideology in principle, resignation in practise. Ideology takes on its formal appearance and increases this appearance where true power has already been defeated. This is the post-ideological world, a shift as distinct as the chasm which opened up in the sciences in the 18th century. It comes to prominence in the state which has retired, where the people have resigned themselves to an automatic power. What this also means is that there is something higher than ideology or action. Today what may be perceived as action may only the norm of the mechanics of government – here action and ideas are equally distant from decision.

World wars were fought over different ideologies, so it's ridiculous to say that ideology has no effect, no power to influence people or even determine their positions. Much of dissident conflict is based on ideology, as is the divide of Atlanticism and Eurasianism. For the East liberal ideology is seen as a power which threatens the integrity of entire spaces, even the whole. Such power is like that of radiation which can ruin regions, zones, then entire nations. Such a power is greater than the old nations, or at least impedes their possible return for the time being.

There is no real divide between ideas and action, and significantly it is ideology that combines ideas and action, forges it into a scientific system of political power. This is why it is so powerful, along with the economy and technology it forms a superstructure or synthetic construction of the nation-states and great spaces. From a modern war standpoint nine-tenths of war takes place in this region, and not on the battlefield. What this means is that ideology is not only the erosion after war - what the violent eruption can decide on the battlefield - but also the tremors beforehand.

We see this also in art and psychology. Who can say that the great movements had any less effect than the world wars? Much of the defeat of Germany occurred in the interwar period, in the occupation, through the shift of a national superstructure to that of a global superstructure. The ideological battles, and the clashes of intelligence agencies, were central to this defeat. There are spheres of influence and neutralisations, and ideology serves as something of a rearmament during the shifts of spatial power.

The news cycle itself is ideological, it is a scientific and egalitarian distribution of information. As communication of the general will the citizens remain in constant contact with world events, government procedures, and potential dangers. This type of organisation develops not out of hierarchical power, an elite method of control, but due to the specific type of man and his political means of communication. Decisions or actions resulting from the news may be small but they are constant. There may be no better image of erosion and progress, every day the old information with its events and dangers disappears and a new series of information takes place. The nomos makes constant and secure changes apart from any sole figure, and any group that might betray the law of equality.

If any group threatens this communication system it is militaristic, the criminal underground of the state. Elites are not opposed to the news cycle, nor do they exist outside it, if anything they are simply the greatest representatives of a humanitarian system. Their status derives from this quality, and not from power in the classical sense.

Latest posts are regarding the Woods, AA, and Imperium Press discussion on ideology. And also my own essay with Futurism Forever.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/actaeonjournal/89

https://news.1rj.ru/str/keith_woods/3152

Cujus regio ejus religio.
Cujus regio ejus natio.
Cujus regio ejus oeconomica.
Cujus regio ejus ideologica.
Cujus regio ejus praeco.

"He who rules decides..."
These few axioms give an idea of the extent of decision in various states. In spatial terms the power of decision is much greater in the ordering of religion than in ideology; the ground of the nation has a destructive capacity and range of conflict that is not possible with the news. At the same time, the news relates to the nation in a way that myth, theology, literature, and art cannot. "Only a newspaper can deposit the same thought in a thousand minds at once." And only a myth can impose an absolute moment of mystery in a thousand minds, make a thousand ideas pregnant with meaning at once.

In war the strength of decision and capacity for mobilisation is raised to the highest. All of the violence, on and off the battlefield, erupts to face the immediate, the incursion into sovereignty by an enemy and a third, neutralising territory. War is a national reversal in life just as tragedy is in death. Only myth, with its onrushing meaning and metamorphoses can explain this – the danger of a third territory and death of a nation.

The news can only refer defeat, as in the world wars when the newspapers became overwhelmed with obituaries. Such frequency of death, a war that can never end, can never have anything like the recitation of a Catalogue of Ships. The Unknown Soldier is an Achilles in the underworld, and cannot be visited by an Odysseus.

Here one may begin to see why nationalists, just like the post-nationalists, cannot think the myth of war – only news or professional wrestling are capable of communicating his relation to war. Xenophon describes a dance of soldiers, the carpaea, with one side playing the part of farmers and the other the barbarians. "A man is sowing and driving a yoke of oxen, his arms laid at one side, and he turns about frequently as one in fear; a robber approaches; as soon as the sower sees him coming, he snatches up his arms, goes to meet him, and fights with him to save his oxen." The readiness of the farmer for war is mixed up in the aesthetics of the dance in a dionysian, or empedoclean, way. With his weapons ready-to-hand the farmer can immediately become a warrior, just as the warriors performing the dance use it as a secondary type of training and drilling. Or perhaps it is the primary training. The noscripted and fake fighting of professional wrestlers is ideal because they represent figures for whom true struggle is never possible, for whom war is little more than entertainment, the relaying of events in the backyards of Turkey. It is something even less than the news, a dance of death for those who think they will never have to face it.

Irrationalists! Stop dreaming!

Pure force is essential to the great man, yet where he fails, where he presses on to a less than tragic defeat, there is an incapacity for introspection. This is what divides the great man from the hero, the inability to turn away. What separates Achilles from all the other heroes is the total force with which he turns away, his meditation on life and fate is equal to all the other battles. Combined with the immediacy of decision, it is greater.

The British can’t even carry locking or fixed blade knives without “good reason”. Their legal code has no understanding that a weapon can be defensive. Totally a conquered people. Of course non-white violence seems to be sky rocketing.

Hoplophobia, the fear of weapons, is widespread now. But this is not only due to the weakening of man, the American sense of the right to bear arms requires something like an anarchic state, a willingness of every man to kill. Without this the will becomes merely a private concern. The number of weapons is less significant than the will to wield them decisively and with force.
There is also a sense that today, after the will to law ends, much more powerful weapons have taken the place of the old weapons of self-defense and a violent upholding of justice – which are also more concealed. No one sees hydrogen bombs, but they are an ever-present and infinitely more destructive threat.

According to FG Jünger the centaur originally had the body of a bull rather than a horse. This would make the centaur and minotaur counterparts; the titanic and olympian reversal of man is seen in them. Otherwise their metamorphosis may be seen as the agony of primordial and animal creation, the metamorphosis, or figure-shift of man. This preceded the Love and Strife of Empedocles.
Where the animal forces take over the head of man he becomes a hidden figure, waiting to appear in the labyrinth – a destroyer of fate. His hide and brutal features replace the nobility of the centaurs head, but he does not take on a human body, he is the offspring of woman and beast – he is mechanical, beyond creative life just like them. In this sense the Minotaur only stands upright like the giants, with whom he shares a genealogy. It is remarkable that he defends the architecture of Daedalus and Icarus, who construct the very center of the technological world, Minos. It is the modern world that attempts to give this figure a sense of refinement, or simple ease within infinite movement. He appears gazing over his city, at peace – the forces become self-destroying.

The Minotaur is a figure born of woman and a metal-ribbed bull, much like the mechanical giant Talos. Another related figure is Perdix, who surpasses Daedalus in technical mastery, is pushed off a tower by him and saved by Athena – turned into a partridge, the simplest of ground birds. It is significant that in the technological myth there are extremes of brutality and open spaces, the labyrinth and the void. In this we see that the rational and irrational may be wrapped up in a single form, that the dionysian can give rise to the apollonian, the titanic the olympian. Oftentimes a mythic figure achieves its true form only through the agony of struggle with its opponent – one overwhelms the other and even surpasses its dominion. Zeus becomes the god of time and metaphophosis through his contests, just as the giants are enslaved to the creation of mechanised monsters and automatons. The mechanical world is revealed as the master of the irrational, as seen in Talos, the Minotaur, and the great Briareus Archimedes, who horrified the Romans with his gigantic war machines.
The portal can be a gate to the heavens or the underworld. It appears fantastically at times, or is constructed through the gift of the intellect. In Pasiphaë, who mates with the Cretan Bull, creation and technical force are united in the utmost devastation. An irrational will and a rational intellect form the whole shape of the portal – the will is simply hidden, less known. The Cretan Bull is snow-white, related to the Trick of Mecone and also the ancient practise of covering faces in gypsum as a symbol of the titans; the labyrinth is an underworld of such meetings. Those who renounce their oath to sacrifice will find only the reversal of laws.

This project is intended for political philosophy, history, and attempts to improve my writing. In a sense, to make my writing more 'accessible' without descending into memes. My background is in mythology, and my natural style is irrational, incomprehensible, or schizo. Occasionally I will make posts in this style which may not make sense, but ultimately I hope to find people to discuss these ideas with so I will post them occasionally.

Currently my focus is on irrationalism and nationalist studies.

Speculative Nationalism

An absolute loss of identity can only result in reformation through faith or an attempt to correlate identity with a series of symbols, reasons, and instincts. Although it is rare that we see even this much from the national conservatives. They accumulate data of events, historicise the nations on liberal grounds, beg to have their rights back, demand irrationalist credentials for the Neo-Cathedral, and regurgitate the news. They will "Clear them out" on twitter just like the twitter moderates they hate, and be defeated at their own game by moderation. "At least we aren't speaking leftist" is their motto, and they develop impeccable systems as to how they are not and can never be leftists, all while on the systems developed and ruled by leftists. "There is a nation, and we can think about it." This is the limit of their thinking – like a dog that returns to its vomit.

"To divide the flesh from the spirit is blasphemy against God."

The distinction between idea and action disappears when we consider language. For language is both idea and action – in its highest expression it harmonizes with the absolute, unbound by a god. In the same way, beauty forms both perfection and freedom; the spirit governs mind and body; sacrifice unites festival and ritual, without which there is a fracturing into art.

Absolute physicalism can only be read as an anti-myth. As a system completely liberated of paradox and contradiction it is closer to ideology and the technical sciences – it does away with the struggles of life, infinity, and replaces them with a supreme tribunal, a blasphemous certainty. This is the parliament of biology, what is really the spatial revolution of the mind which takes over the body like a cancer. In its singular focus, it appears as Euripides' Cyclops, "Where's nobody?"

Today we no longer have abstract reason but an abstract and cyclopic information. This is clear in the complete trampling of the real world by the digital. No doubt this will create for some a condition like that of Nietzsche's will to return to the poets, to great action! But our world is different, we already have a world of monstrous action, it is the neurosis of the democratic man. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities."

This will appear to many as proof of an elitism, of a great power that contradicts sentiments of the general will. But this is precisely the democratic man, a new species with a taxonomy of action – technology is his language. As Tocqueville so brilliantly reveals, it is the democratic man who must increase action, organisation, and communication to an absolute, this is precisely for conditions of equality and the will of a new man. By contrast, the aristocratic man is able to generate great force effortlessly, without an excess of communication or action. this is not simply because of an austerity of words, but the martial-like repetition which gives ideas wealth and power. Such language is action in its essence. Movement erupts like a storm, and returns with equal force to calm.

The neurosis of action is the sickness of democracy, just as philosophy is the hospital of poets. It is not at all removed from abstract reason, from technical and telluric language – just as the Cretan Bull and Pasiphäe are the parents of the Minotaur. Our question should be of an absolute rather than monstrous language. There is no escaping reason or ideas, the attempt to subsume the metaphysical realm through elimination is the same process as revaluing theology through economic systems.

One might say the same for imposing upon nations foreign gods, and especially god-concepts. "Silete theologi in munere alieno!" (Theologians should remain silent within foreign walls!) A lesson that should be dogma for nationalists. If there is a national language then the gods are its absolute law, wholly unique, forming the nation into a world all its own.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/ImperiumPressOfficial/1581