Neo-Radicalism

ETHICAL SOLIPSISM

PREFACE

We live in a time of great anguish. We entail more than enough food to go around yet we consume too much and waste too much where some feast like kings while others starve lower than paupers. We have information at our fingertips but cannot or will not apply it, or are unable, so to say, make use of it. Technology is useful and useless at the same time. Other times, we are unsure of what to do with it or whether it is in the hands of itself. The steering wheel is turning but nobody’s driving. We lose touch with our roots, in mother earth while reaching for unspeakable heights in the sky. Women are told “you do what makes you happy” while men are told “do the right thing”. Aristotle and Schopenhauer would scoff at such a world but for different albeit somewhat similar reasons.

But who am I kidding? “Live for today” was the motto of the Hippies in the grand 1960‟s when everything was possible. The Baby Boomers took the bull by the horns but dismembered it with their bare hands. And thus, we must pick the pieces up. A wise man once said: a friend to all is a friend to none. But in the age of Trump and a Democratic party that doesn‟t know its ass from a hole in the ground, does reality even exist? What is today? What is anything? Do friends even exist? Does your family even exist? Or are we not only condemned to die alone, but live alone as well?

This is not a self-help book and neither is this a solution. This is a means to an end, as Machiavelli saw the Government, you should see it, as an individual. Stirner would see opportunity. Marx would see community. I see nothing, and everything, at once. When you were a child, the world was full of possibilities. Now it‟s drudgery, pain, and suffering. But is this what we live for? To fill a child‟s mind damaging brainwaves would condemn him or her to sit in a corner, clutching their pearls as a dark shadow of the inevitable glooms over them.

Individualists have claimed, as Ayn Rand, that objectivity is important. Stirner was against such things but ultimately felt that if altruism was involved, but no harm no foul. But we are none of either. Everything is a matter of opinion and we, deep down, only care for ourselves. Women in particular are victims of this mindset. What they fear is seeing this through their looking glass; the same glass they use to appeal to vanity, though twisted as in the funhouse at your local amusement park on bright summer days, thrown back to them as if Alice fell down the well into a primitive state of being; the huntress becoming the hunted. Our roots reborn.

THE PROTOTYPE PRODIGY

As a young man, I was always a seeker of knowledge; particularly in history. I loved playing the Devil‟s Advocate for any sort of reason: science, language, all interesting subjects et al (though I wasn‟t much of a math person). As a student, I was a slacker and felt everything was limiting. Politically, I was pretty humanist and liberal until the early 1990‟s when my

father handed me Rush Limbaugh‟s The Way Things Ought To Be and The Art Of The Deal (though not as well received in the 90‟s). After all, this is the 1990‟s. Social Justice in the form of identity issues started to rear its ugly head rather than rocky old economics. Also, there was Waco. I went through a weird and quite off-putting phase which coincided with my burgeoning conservatism, a love for religious cults, and the ultimate red-pilling: feminism. Doomed to be a social outcast, I hid it from my peers.

So let‟s fast-forward to the present. Socialism has become part of my vernacular of political thought, a love for simultaneous accelerationism and deep ecology, but with a social conservative outlook that hasn’t changed since then. If individualism backed itself into a corner, its become in and of itself, a tool for radicals. No longer is anyone bound by ethnicity, class (although the latter is somewhat quite precedent), but an overwhelming urge to rise above reality and escape to a world that suits our own minds, out of mental and spiritual hell, into a spiritual utopia.

With Silicon valley feeding us dopamine via electronic codes where can we escape, we’re no longer social in the traditional manner (i.e. bustling cafes, schoolhouses, workplaces) but locked into the prison of technology. We don’t have to believe in anything that doesn’t suit how we feel. In fact it‟s the opposite. We must take advantage of this and use it to our own ends; even if that means people disappear, for better nature takes over and leaves the survivors behind to rebuild what should have been. To kill the useless…to creates chaos…disruption…and advance the already crumbling…so that maybe, just maybe, our world can reduce the number of consumers and providers to a small minority so that humans can actually “live life” instead of merely existing.

MARTYRDOM

As be Jesus Christ who saved the world from sin, we must be ourselves from ourselves. The sin of today is that of commerce, vanity, validation; not to dissimilar from Jesus‟ time. But with technology being such a large factor, (the professionalism of prisons albeit being corrupt as a twine, a never ending nervous system that is succeeding yet failing, barbed wire communications) it tangles every inch of our daily lives we don‟t even give it much notice. We don‟t notice that we are slaves. In the United States alone, you can‟t have a house without money but you can‟t work if you don‟t have a house; college is expensive but even the lowest paying jobs requires degrees. The Baby Boomers will tell us “if we try, we will succeed”. But this system is complex. The physicists can‟t operate the physics. How to be free is another task. We have prisons for those that break the code only to transfer to the jail of life, an open air conundrum.

Many men strive to be great only because we assess ourselves to be the fairer sex so we can further our lives and carry on our genes. Few can support themselves, fewer yet a relationship and only a small percentage can manage family and marriage. Women, in contrast, want it all. But they soon will find themselves grasping at the specter of the invisible man; a man who does not exist. Erich Fromm was correct in assessing a lot of the issues of romance but got it wrong; neither either nor a substitute for either. How do we suppress the „tyranny of women‟? By acting in our own self-interest, and not for anything “objectively correct” (or so it has been called), and certainly not for altruism! And why

shouldn‟t it be as such? Women certainly don‟t think about the “moral” or even real-life repercussions of their choices, so why do men have to be decried if they follow in the same line of thinking: in other words, choosing their own self-interest first?

The problem lies in our essentialized nature to be violent. But this is not a bad thing. Violence is progress, says Hegel. The ever-changing landscape is due to violence; violence due to protect our families, our women or to gain the compliance of conquered women. But women are just beings, we are “doings”. We make history, they reap the rewards. But, what if we do us to reap our own rewards instead of handing it over to women which only enables the never-ending cycle of targeted violence because women are “bearers of life”. We must take some away. Overpopulation and stress (constant and systematic application of it) kill humanity. Let‟s deduce the numbers, shall we?

To begin with, we see technology as the head of Medusa which in Greek mythology was beheaded by Perseus. Freud incorrectly saw his act as an act of castration. Women may be life-givers, but they can take away life just as easy. Thus this isn‟t an apt metaphor for modern society. If anything, technology and cosmopolitanism is inherently feminine (Diogenes aside who took no disrespect from anyone and consumed little of its poison as possible). What we need to do is sever the chords, the snakes of her hair; the wires that binds us to a life of servitude. Any sort of cyber-attack into the nerves and barbed wires of snakes of the every-reaching technological serpents must be done to send it into a shock. Every little bit counts: to sap the power of the head before we can claim the head as our trophy for destroying the society that has been wrought upon us; the demon temptress.

Nowadays, organizing publicly is no longer feasible. The attack is within this assumed reality we now live in that consumes our lives and jobs and lays down our determined path of existence. We alone must deem what is truthful for men on an individual (and not group) basis, and act unilaterally, behind anonymity, whenever possible, each passing of man into another dimension births another to nip at the snakes like ants on a dying corpse of feminine, cosmopolitan, energy.

Many will lament the apologetics of “cops are comrades”, “military servicemen are comrades”, amongst similar drivel. But they too suffer from being sucked into a vaginal cavity of being assimilated into the machine. We must keep our wits about us. But lest it not be said: nothing is true. And to that, I reply: I, and I alone, dictate what is true. This can be taken in several ways, though I couldn‟t care less which one it is. Causalities are a means to an end, to eat the disease of technology from within and without; unilaterally, but in consonance and not dissonance; changing tactics so to keep the system second guessing the motives (or lack thereof) of Hegel‟s “war is progress” motto.

I always irked Nick Land‟s idea of the godhead being A. I. and preferred more natural methods. Who‟s to say that an A. I. can‟t become self-aware and devour its servants? Machines are imperfect, being the handiwork of imperfect beings themselves. As such, they are not God or your idea of God/Gods. If one must command it to be a natural god, of earth and soil, sky and space, a merger if you will. God is a man. God is immutably omnipotent. We did not create him, as some say. He is in and of himself. To reach his level, we must start at the lowest level of act of Ethical Solipsism to reach higher planes of existence; but we must de-tangle ourselves from Medusa‟s head and deal with the material