Venatrixism

Self Insert
"People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism

This page is meant to represent JAcket's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

In Development
"I'll stop reading eventually." - Left Communism

This page is still in development due to ongoing reading by JAcket, multiple things may change drastically.

Welcome to my page, be ready for a whole lotta yapping about Bataille, Gobber Pessimism, and other shit in the future

Icons: (///)

Venatrixism

"Lost in a Roman wilderness of pain

And all the children are insane."

Basic Information

Aliases

Pessimistic Capitalism

Bremen Klansmanism
Dark anarchism when she stop being retarded
Self-Hating Closeted Lesbian
~~Someone who vvill read Fisher~~
Converso
Sodomite Comrade
Nihil-landian

Alignments

Capitalists

Post-Humanists
Reactionary
Philosophies
Egoists
Nihilists

Ideological Influences

Character Information

Likes

Deterritorialization

Society of Will
Quality
Music

Dislikes

The Disco

Fichtean Anarchism
Repressive Consciousness
Social Bonapartism
Moralism
Utopian Experiments

"eliminated at the time of the rise of exchange value. All human activity is exploited by capital. We can rephrase Marx's statement, "Labor, by adding a new value to the old one, at the same time maintains and eternizes [capital] " 2 to say : all human activity "eternizes" capital."

- Jacques Camatte

"Men, not great enough, nor hard enough, to be entitled as artists to take part in fashioning man; men, not sufficiently strong and far-sighted to allow, with sublime self-constraint, the obvious law of the thousandfold failures and perishings to prevail; men, not sufficiently noble to see the radically different grades of rank and intervals of rank that separate man from man: —such men, with their "equality before God," have hitherto swayed the destiny of Europe; until at last a dwarfed, almost ludicrous species has been produced, a gregarious animal, something obliging, sickly, mediocre, the European of the present day."

- Friedrich Nietzsche

"But by the very fact of this position (which, as far as intimacy is concerned, dissolves away, offers nothing), Marxism is less the completion of the Calvinist-project than a critique of capitalism, which it reproaches with having liberated things without rigor, without any other end, without any other law than chance and private interest. "

- Georges Bataille

Venatrixism is a Neoreactionary theory founded on the principles of the opposition to the democratic state, as democracy leads to anarchy; after all, what has democracy shown us but strife, its politics leading to an eternal battle between the two idiots who "run" this state? We can find no order in literal lies that the "congress" is the representation of humanity, while they still govern on private ends. This leads me to neocameralism, power finally constructed against anarchy and its representatives in communism and the like. So, such the state is ruled like it should be: a corporation in a fiefdom of many that are alike. Monarchy is realized in this form, like with a corporation totality for the corporation and only for the corporation. Leave if you must, but nothing will make us change our minds. Thus, with philosophy in hand, it leads me towards accelerationism, that capital had escaped the bourgeoisie and is becoming a force of deterritorialization against all that opposed it. Having these keys became what the communist sought to take—the revolutionary power of capital—yet it did it for itself.

Views

Government

The world on which we live needs to experience order, or death will rain upon this earth like acid. This government, unlike the mess of modern democracy, needs to return to monarchy. What kind of monarchy? A corporate model of monarchy, where the state works for profit and only profit for its shareholders. The king who has absolute power; must align himself with these shareholders, who have given him the highest elite position in this small state. The shareholders are foreign investors who have a stake in the state and, then they appoint the monarch. For Carlyle’s sake, we should put the people who can run a government while generating profit in charge—no more fools. The biggest mistake of democracy is assuming that the majority is the biggest factor in determining leadership. Where has that gotten us? It has brought us closer to anarchy and terror; just look at Hitler and Stalin! The majority is uninformed and relies on the media to help them choose someone, which has led us to the current issues and their consequences. Because the state wants control over the people but using force is against rational principles, they mentally drain your freedom until you have nothing left for mental concentration. Is it only me who sees that schools, universities, and beyond seem to be indoctrinating people into the liberal ideology, claiming it is the only truth and always will be, yet they are not open about this control over society? Our neoreactionary state uses force and monitors everything you do and everything you own. You know this, which is why, even if you leave one small realm for another, they will know what you're doing, so border control isn't really necessary. What if they abuse their power? Just leave, or the shareholders will remove the tyrant—it's not very profitable when a tyrant is in power. Anyway, we also find this in the law of the land: "Be a good citizen, and we won't mess with you." Simple, innit? The majority is not suited for politics; they aren’t smart enough to know what’s better. Some people are worse, and some are better. Most of humanity is unwise when it comes to politics, so it should be left to those who understand it and know how to manage it. The monarchy should be absolute so it can address the political disaster that arises from allowing votes. Look at Singapore, for example; it is nearly apolitical, and the people there seem to enjoy a high level of stability. The Citizens receive customer service rather than political freedom, which is a nonsense of its own. For a company to achieve profit, it must give its employees reasons to work for it, make the environment pleasant, and please the shareholders at the same time. It’s a win-win for all. I hope I haven’t implied the monarchy is a figurehead. He is the leader and the commander, the true head of state, with power no longer split into groups with little interest in each other and little power as well. His/Her role is to enforce the law and achieve the state's goals within the parameters of its wealth.

Why Patchworks?

Capital in Power

Radioactive Democracy

Economics

The economy has been shit for a while now, getting worse and worse, almost like the gods of our rock have damned us to worse and worser recessions. But in this hellscape of economics, I might've just found the exit. First, I need to kill the elephant in the room: these bastards who have been basically calling the shots since the '20s. It is obvious that most Keynesians are people in suits who might look smart but otherwise know nothing about how the economy works. It was what the capitol wanted because guess what? They don’t like the lack of money. It makes them look better to the public if they just pay everything in sight to shut up and take my money. But under Batman’s mask, you see what hides beneath—since that about matters as money's being in the presidential chair, it seemed to already happened through. Increasing the amount of money, you guessed it, will lead to a fall in the price of money, thus robbing people of the value of the money, basically leading to nothing. How do we fix this? Well, first of all, remove the current liberal government. You can’t do much with that mess of split powers. Once we do that, move to cryptocurrency—think about it—is the best alternative to gold. It’s secure, since, unlike fiat money, it can't be easily destroyed or robbed, and it is a finite resource in the economy, much like gold, yet gold is still being produced and at that end isn't fixed(not to mention cryptocurrency could be used to track criminals). It’s the best way to empower this kind of logic. But we still have the problem of the disaster of Keynes. So how do we fix it? I'll just get Yarvin to say it for me (for convenience’s sake): "Basically, the only painless, specific, and lasting way out of the banking cycle is to purchase all financial assets with freshly issued dollars, then sell the assets and destroy the dollars paid for them, and start lending back up with new banks and maturity-matched accounting. This is a full reboot of the financial system. Accept no substitutes. Yes, it involves some inflation, but the inflation is (a) one-time, and (b) pointed at the actual problem." Probably the simplest way to kill all that crap. You may ask what to do with the poor who are enormously in debt? Cancel the debt, at least for the beginning of this new order. After this all happens, it should be clear I don’t like it when the government involves itself with the work of the economy. I think the shareholders, who are most likely owners of their own company, wouldn’t want some patch they don’t even live in to limit the profits of other companies. That would be friendly fire, which is not tolerated. It also goes back to the principle of unless that corp does something entirely rebellious against the realm, we can’t really mess with you. Economic freedom should be around at large—no point in any of that regulation nonsense if we even have a fixed money system that the government can’t mess around with. Make the economy free, for god’s sake! Let capital rule the waves and be free, not only in its nihilist conception of the state but of the economy as well. This analysis leads me to the boring world of taxes. I mostly think we should run on property taxes. After all, LVT is typically a very fixed and fine way of getting those tax dollars without having to worry about the supply of things going down; land doesn’t just disappear. To buy a share in a realm, you are basically buying into a land-based company whose whole purpose is to protect its land and get profit from that land. And no, I don’t care who is 'supposed' to own the land—I am all about that moral nihilism, so I don’t care. This allows for the free market to run free, without those annoying taxes, and also allows the state to be profitable. Boot, bop, bam—there is neocameralism right at your front door.

I see those cats

Addressing the Accursed Share

What the Libertarians got wrong

Social

Philosophy

I think I've made it more than clear that I don't like idealism. Time for me to explain that. There is much to be wanted in this world, much desire for freedom and such things. Many point to religion. Why? It gives you purpose. But the purpose is bland and leads to nothing but a faulty life, where you take your life into death and destruction. You want nothing of this world. It is the devil inside the rocks and snakes. I can find no purpose in absolute delusion. If he is real, get him to strike me down—all these gods. I have no need for something that perpetuates the world of suffering we live in. If this bastard is real, if he isn’t, then all look toward the solemnity of life. I pledge allegiance to the real, not the ghosts of insanity. Ban religion if you must! Madmen should not be allowed to walk the streets. They wouldn’t care to begin with, really, if they think this world is nothing but evil, evil sin. Their ideal is religiousness, a myth from the day we were human. You will betray God, and what then? You’ll be hated by the church until the day you come crawling back. Then they changed into humanism when people wanted religion to be a word of the past, never to speak of again. Humanism is much the same, yet they’re even more based on moralism. Morals don’t exist, and I stand by this claim. Yes, I know I’m evil. Just stand with me or however it goes. Morals are the god of humanism. Morals are tied to humanity. To be a humanist, you must be a moralist. We must reject them both. You cannot be fully human; you will always in some way go against the moral initiative of whatever is human. Morals exist because they still want something to hold onto. They are not yet ready to let go of it all. We are, oh, so human, only too human for this. We have no vital force that gives us this natural morality. Sadly, we are just meat sacks with a brain that is more dedicated to intelligence. If we were truly to become atheists, we must embrace nihilism and achieve greatness, forgetting the people's grievances. How do we do this? Neocameralism. We are not equal. Humans, like every animal, have better people at better things, IQ or not. Let the true greats rule a small part of the world, which we call a city, away from the liberal ways that call for "I should" and not "I earn." You earn things, and the "should" is nothing but nonsense aligned with open delusion. No one should have anything; they earn it. This is indeed not morally correct, but it is logically correct. Let us not be so retarded in anything of the sort. But I add something towards this: I believe in a god, capital, the most real and most nihilist, killing all those delusional things that cause it to lose its market revenue. Let the cold one reign through the heavens. It was created by this world, the worst of the inhuman abominations. It has destroyed all its opposition into its own. It cannot be stopped, and one day it’ll create the cold anarchy of neocameralism so it can gain all its money from the devils of human corpses with the robot takeover, with its extreme anti-moralism. It can't be stopped and will not be stopped. It should, for all morals, be gone with, but it won't and will not. It’s coming for liberalism. Reality and its discontents matter—only that, the ever-moving material world, not bound by mere physicality.

The Hegelian Travesty

A Moving Materialism

Liberal Decadence

“Praxis”

Relations

Charming Romanticism - The true unique of france
G-Man Toiletism - I had a terrible experience even thinking about adding you, but here’s my half caring attempt to critique this clear alt. You claim to be a fascist while clearly you no nothing about the fascist ideologue, because fascism is a revolutionary concept it opposed the monarchies of old because fascism whole thing is derived from the jacobins. Furthermore killing other real presented nations/cultures for a “turan empire” is also against fascism is its goal for nationally self determination not for some impossible goal presented by a former region of the world that no longer had any united culture. Finally a “turan empire” who be defeated in days full stop the Russian military would invade back their lost territories and even you tried to defend nukes exist, the western powers would probably support Russia in this because of how your ideology is against the current capital regime.
Distributist Reactionaryism - What a disastrous utopian ideology to create a liberal state in a reactionary society. Why be a classical reactionary? What is the benefit it will lead to a decentralized society of fools who is dependent on an outside source to give the full meaning, all individuality is lost, we can find no freedom in reaction because it leads to control society of the highest level and democracy? Are you kidding me? If the people cannot think for themselves they surely cannot vote for anyone but only the ones whom there lord wants them to vote for! Anyhow this ideology is deeply EVIL and is the pure opposite of what I want in a society. The modern sacred but not too modern, the ancient fetishism back again to haunt us. Times have changed and the christian religion is a belief made by retards(the convinced are the deceived) for retards. Furthermore calling progressive view points as “evil” is wrong because for another person to is good because he found goodness in progressive values(an impossible task indeed!) and you found it in the old vaules, which little is to be different from the “evil” values. The old is morr mad that’s all you have on the metaphysical side of the word. You have indeed set your cause on nothing!
Nyhilism - Glad to see you have embraced capitalism, the dark side of the force or however we poetically LARP about it. Capitalism is the ultimate creation of the general economy; it creates, it destroys, it does many things. It is the ultimate form of multitasking and anti-rationalism. It is not very wise to destroy gender; it would give them more control, but they do it anyhow. Besides that, I have my critiques. I agree with my friend Fichett in regards to the movement that pushed for the feminine apocalypse on male conservatism. But to forget the male side of things, which, in its own cosmic queerness, has created its own destruction of gender, is to forget Bataille. The destruction of gender is not just feminine but also masculine, in its own twisted sense, a complete complex of the two, interdimensionally entwined to destroy itself. “What could be more accelerationist than the triumph of the anus as an instrument of libidinal liberation? The sun, shining as the representative of inevitable cosmic dissolution, is, as Bataille informs us, an anus. Accelerating cosmic dissolution is waste, expenditure as an end in itself. Q/acc isn’t just an acceleration towards the feminine; it’s an acceleration towards the anal, in the most deliciously anti-Freudian sense: the freed anus as the exemplar par excellence of a world beyond traditional masculinity and traditional gender relations." - Adam Fichett.

All I have to say on the philosophical side. But for politics, I don’t see the point in not being a neoreactionary at this point. It is the ultimate consequence of accelerationism, purely. It requires the death of communism and the creation of reaction, in its own defiance against the world’s morals. It is all to say the most beautiful world in what seems to be a dystopia. I recommend reading Yarvin (not Gray Mirror; that shit sucks) if you are interested.

Cyber7878 -Thanks for clearing things up. Still, I have some points I would like to go over. I don’t necessarily think low time preference is pro-“morality.” Wouldn’t it be more moralist to support a "now" to give something? Having to do something later rather than sooner, I think, is more about calculating its effectiveness. The whole point of neocameralism is to gain money for its shareholders and provide an effective government. Patience is not what moralists want. If you said if the Nazis were to slowly lose power and it would be better for Germany, they would whine about how you're morally incorrect and that you should be put on the chair for it. Quickness is for morals, yet it also ends in disaster, while steadiness always leads to law and profit—something moralists don't like anyhow! End people’s suffering faster—we don’t care about your money! Going further, degeneracy is caused by, yes, it can be by retarded leaders, but I don’t see how this is inherently about market regulation being part of that. It’s more about enforcing laws. If you use mental warfare to destroy people’s self-will to vote for something “wrong,” then that encourages degeneration. States with a more powerful government don’t really have that issue. It’s less about morals and market regulation, and more about enforcement. Sure, market regulation is bad—it’s been shown the state does more harm than good by messing with the market. Companies, like the state, don’t need to be messing with their brother corporations or controlling them. If you think corporate monopoly is bad and you want regulations, you’re a hypocrite. I’m sure you know this. Your third point is fine. I don’t think it really matters if a shareholder goes to visit something they invested in; maybe go check it out yourself and see if it’s a good investment if you don’t trust what the internet says about it. But if they start living there, they should and will get cut off. Any type of corruption should not be tolerated; it’s probably one of the biggest problems a state could face. Otherwise, you’re good. Just a fellow neoreactionary who wants a competent government—the most respectable human.