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
Accursed Authoritarianism
Self-Hating Closeted Lesbian
~~Someone who vvill read Fisher~~
Converso
Another Victim of the Quarkist Virus
Sodomite Comrade
Nihil-landian
Niggatrixism
Young Landian

Alignments

Capitalists

Post-Humanists
Reactionary
Philosophies
Egoists
Nihilists

Ideological Influences

Ideological Information

Notable Theorists

Lucy Hood (20??-)

Character Information

Likes

Deterritorialization

Society of Will
Dionysian Pessimism
Quality
Music

Dislikes

The Disco

Fichtean Anarchism
Negative Protestantism
Orwellian Informalism
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

"So the myth might go: Capitalism leads to a grand mal seizure or a traumatized catastrophism set in motion by an accelerating engine of temporal regimes registered on differing nodes at invariant rates of speed: some fast, some slow; some forward, some backward; all colliding in the instantaneous moment of – hyper- (Lipovetsky), liquid- (Bauman), global- (Giddens), rationalized- (Weber and Habermas), functional (Durkheim to Luhmann), and/or identitarian- (Simmel to Beck) modernity."

- Steven Craig Hickman

Venatrixism is a Neoreactionary theory founded on the opposition to any system based on ethics and/or morals, as it creates more problems than it solves, and also is heavily reliant on an idealist conception of the world, which is inherently based on religious systemic philosophy. Instead it should be based on ownership. This lleads me to the most important problem of the modern world relates to one giant issue, as everything else is either unsolvable, utopian, or not very important to the quest at hand and the basis of what governance is trying to prevent: violence. This leads me to the question: How do we effectively do this? Well, if the state is a security service, and its main goal is inherently to give good customer service to end this violence, then run the state like a formalized company. In such a system, there is a sovereign who can be held accountable for not granting that good service that the state so runs for, and it is also very much formal, as all the power is given to that sovereign only and completes the formalist problem of who owns what. Both mediate each other nicely into a coherent rule system where, if you don't break the playbook, you have pretty much nothing to worry about. It is a libertarian system within a reactionary government, as the government is nothing more than what has been said above and shall bring back freedom to the commoners, as democracy has failed to do such things with its Orwellian and awfully run system of biopolitical control.

Philosophically, I am an open nihilist who believes that reality is inherently irrational and is ever shifting, and with that is also chaotic. Quantum physics further proves this point of a system of constant will to chance. This leads to the belief that the world is made of base matter that fulfills the ground for the high matter that idealized matter stands itself upon but will eventually collapse into itself as everything in the universe does. Furthermore, humans don't have a unique essence—we're not even a Darwinian miracle—just the animals the world sets ourselves out to be. We have no magical rights, and the universe has no morals; all that came from our own escapist minds, who did not know the terms of what reality is, and many are still stuck with such a desire. On top of that, humans have been diverted into tools by their own system, which we call capitalism, which is constantly developing itself in a closed-loop economic system. My system will allow this nihilistic presence on the face of our world, free, as we call this virulent freedom, for such a cybernetic catastrophe: the free market.

Views

Government

The world needs to experience the grip of a responsible government once again. A joint-stock company is the prime example of responsible government; it is a non-sovereign monarchy in itself as the CEO appoints employees, has almost absolute control of decisions, and can be held accountable for colossal miscarriages in the company. That's just something democracy can't allow to happen. As I consider the United States to be more or less a company, the whole system is destined not to work responsibly.

See, democracy is an oligarchy. This oligarchy is commonly referred to as the cathedral. The cathedral is a decentralized network of the Media, Academia, and Governmental Bureaucrats. In its essence, it is a bio-political form of power. The power of the mind is a very powerful ability, and the only thing keeping democracy from falling apart into disorder. They convert the people's minds into what they want them to be, and since the general populace has to take their word for it or do an awful thing called "self-research," they get to twist their narrative into what they want, which then generally will be taken as fact. But you have a choice indeed! Which mental worm do you want? Fox News or CNN?

With the growth of bio-political power, the military form of power has become obsolete, as the military doesn't really enforce anything, and when they do, they fail. The government just can't use the military to take down rebellion. They've bought into the cathedral and can't live.

"So long as it has strong internal public support and the support of the state security forces, it will—secede. Nothing at all will happen. The state will simply become an independent country. Washington simply does not have anything like the political energy to coerce a seceding state. It barely has the political energy to coerce a seceding city. Americans simply are not going to shoot at other Americans for this reason. If this assertion is true, as I believe it is, state police with shotguns can easily thwart the entire US military in a secession situation. The latter simply won’t attack. They will not be ordered to. The hate just isn’t there." - Curtis Yarvin

This whole analysis shows democracy can't give you freedom. Its whole goal is not even what it brings. You've been indoctrinated into politics, and you can't live it without doubting democracy. Furthermore, the government itself is heavily inefficient. The president is the head of government. He can't do anything; he's kind of a mystical figurehead of what type of cathedral is in control, and that's it. So we'd have to find the head of state then, but that's impossible because there is no head of state. There is no one who actually makes the majority of decisions and can be blamed for them. Nobody can be blamed for the Keynesian disaster.

We can't blame the constitution as it never existed in the first place. Think about it for a second: the constitution from the original US is not the same as the one we have now. We're more working on an unwritten constitution, like Britain does. We can't blame it on the Supreme Court—they can't make laws; they can only stop them. And Congress? Well, that's just another part that can't be blamed without blaming people who don't need to be blamed for anything. It has basically no power compared to the Supreme Court, which at the same time can't do anything because of Congress.

You see, this is entirely an empire built on nothing but failure. It fails to do what it stands for. It fails to stop violence and asks all the wrong questions while trying to solve that problem, and just about no one in the government can be blamed for anything. The government can barely pass anything, adding to that.

So this leads me back to the company system. If the government is truly a company, then it should be modeled after a company. So how would that work? Independent anonymous shareholders from foreign city-states, to stop any issue with corruption, will appoint a board of directors. Their purpose is to appoint the sovereign and also check his position, not his power. The sovereign, well, is sovereign. He/she has the power to do whatever he/she wants to do. Of course, the sovereign, who is picked for the glorious employment of sovereignty, must be a highly intelligent and capable person to govern.

This is why I'm not a traditional monarchist, a hereditary one. We just can't have someone who is not smart at their job; it will lead again to the degeneration of his/her kingdom into the Whiggish dystopias of the modern day. It happened in Tsarist Russia, and it happened in the United Kingdom.

The government is a security service, and it should be a good one. We are customers, and we give money to the service, so it should have good service, or nobody is going to buy in. So the government has no business entering into the private world of the customers. The government will be openly apolitical to necessitate that, and the basic lawbook of the sovcorps is, "Don't do evil, and we won't do evils to you."

Going back to the city-states that I gave no explanation behind, there should be millions of security services—all exit and no voice. You can leave on free terms, and we have the security cameras to ensure it will be easier to exit all around the place. If one sovcorp is doing a terrible job, exit into another sovcorp, which is way better. This would lead to a competition system, which I see as beneficial, as it would make the sovcorp that is declining fix their issues since they have to pay the shareholders somehow.

This all answers the first principle of neoreaction, set out in Unqualified Reservations: Who owns what? Under democracy, as shown above, that is impossible to determine. Frankly, limited government is idealistic. However, under this neocameralist system, it is different. Who is the head of state of the government? The Sovereign, with the power to back it up.

War

A Very Cold Anarchy

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." - Curtis Yarvin

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. Alongside that, whoever owns something in a legal document is the owner of it, and the state will uphold that. Too bad, but we're not giving the natives back "their" land. This allows 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

Capitalism as a Cybernetic System

Social

Philosophy

WIP(redoing this as well)

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.