Tetsunachtism

• Economics
  • General Economics
    • Expenditure
      • Potlatch
      • Dionysian Ethics
      • Sacrifice
• Culture
  • Transgression
    • Épater la bourgeoisie
    • Jest
    • Eroticism
      • Perversion
        • Reconfiguration of Love and Hate
    • Dionysian Ethics
    • Make Nature Proud of Us

^{If I have asked you to add me, do not read this section, instead read The Shit because that stuff is more political}

The Earth exists within a state of constant surplus and overflow of available energy, the pumping of resources throughout the world-system is powered by the sublime neverending (from the anthropocentric perspective) supply of energy. By no means do we intend to imply that the singular agent within traditional economic analysis is at this same overflow of resources, the laws of the general economy only applies when a truly macro-economic view is embraced after all. The general economist concerns himself only with the scatological movement of the devouring and excreting of Solar Energy made by the planets, not the wills and passions of the individual. Whilst the individual actor does indeed experience the exuberance of excess, he is not always given this opportunity (for whatever reason). Here we also state that is it certain there is a superabundance of biochemical energy in the Earth, neither growth nor reproduction would be possible in animals if it weren’t for the fact that life does not exist in a state of bare minimums, the animal requires more than just what is necessary to maintain his vitals.

The foremost expression for abundance in an organism is growth, though there are certainly limits for the capability and ability of this energy to be expressed in the particular subject through growth. At some point the laws of physics get in the way of further growth in physical space, upon this happening the life-form then expresses excess through complexity until he runs into the same issue. The organism, when in a period of abundance, will continue to grow both in size and complexity until he either cannot maintain his growth or until his body cannot handle this excess of resource, in most cases it is the latter. Therefore we meet the primary antagonist of our economic Copernican revolution: the accursed share.

The primary antagonistic feature of the general economy must be its potentiality for catastrophic overflow. A most disturbing reality of the general economy is that a certain (rather large) portion of wealth cannot be adequately put to use, therefore leading it to act as little more than golden-dirt. It is well conceivable that a severe amount of excess wealth may very well lead to the destruction of the wealth we have put to use. This portion of the world wealth, which cannot be spent virtuously, is what we call the accursed share, this accursed share is the primary challenger of the general economist. Whilst the accursed share is in some part expressed in the individual, it can be -- for the most part -- understood as a phenomena on the society-wide scale.

There are differing levels of activity within the biosphere, as is illustrated by the existence of rolling plains next to dingy sunless caves. These differing levels of activity create a type of ‘pressure’. This pressure is animated by the excess of life (via growth), attempting to seep into the deepest recesses and occupying all space. Extension is the first movement made from the pressures of the law of pressure, the grasses evolve to become taller, the bugs develop wings, trees grow larger and larger. At some point, the available physical space on Earth is already occupied, forcing pressure onto lifeforms that are unable to handle the weight (the more complex, or as Bataille says: Luxurious, over the less complex). Rabbits are killed in the dozens by foxes, disease wipes out a million. As seen in ponds consisting purely of duckweed that this expression of pressure relies solely on the ‘inferiority’ of certain life-forms when compared to others. These inferiorities are understood as lackings in the ability to express luxury.

The eating of another creature is the primary mode of luxury, wherein the other is firmly subjugated by the victor and the subjugated’s resources are promptly appropriated. Death is the second of the luxuries three. Death is introduced unto the subject as accident, being by far the most costly, this movement’s status as luxury exposes the alien and truly general stance that the general economist takes, death is a luxury precisely it is pure destructive expenditure. Sexuality is the third of the luxuries, both in its squandering and its phenomenological aspect (the destruction of the self, quickly followed by the reversal of that very destruction). All of these luxuries are luxuries because they have an aspect of destructive expenditure or dépense.

Despite what you may think, capitalist economies are not consumptive, capitalist economies rather rely entirely on accumulation. The extravagances of the west, planned obsolescence and the culture based on buying the next thing is not consumptive. All of these actions are predicated on accumulation of wealth. The accumulative economy bows its head in misery towards its only purpose, it is servile because it subordinates all the functionings of the Earth to the simple goal of more and more profit. The consumptive economy, in contrast, is sovereign, it treats all of the fancies of the world as ways to release its own pent-up energy. The Acephalic economy is one wherein the festival takes precedence over the profit-margin, where the passions of humanity take precedence over the desires of markets, the one where the true creative destruction virtualities of the world may make itself heard.

Necessary destruction to create a truly exuberant expression of life, here and now, and of course: of life to come! To embrace lunacy and decadence, to embrace mysticism and sacrifice, to forgo our infantile urges of accumulation! To squander! To create!

The direct approach towards the Corpse is the direct approach towards the Impossible. The sexual intercourse with this most basely sublime object is the direct recognition of its immanent existence with the world as it functions in current-period.

As the necrophile sculks the graveyard, intent on providing release to his libidinal desire – of the most liminal form possible – we arrive at the question of what role the perception of this Corpse, of this object of his desire, does to that very same object. Does the rape of the Corpse engulf it in the necrophiliac’s ideological fantasy? Or does this same action deterritorialise the faculties of the necrophiliac, forcing him to confront the Material? Frankly it is to be known that the maggots and bile of the coffin, of which his ethereally earthly bride resides in, brings to light the very scaffolding upon which all civilisational assumptions and presumptions reside: the Base Matter.

As the dead woman’s waste is exited, her once transcendent aspect of ‘personhood’ becomes clearly and evidently defiled, at this point she gains significance only when she is either covered in make-up and frozen deadly solid or when she may star in the dramatic intrigue of a criminal investigation. She has thoroughly become Sacrificial, matter which we can toss and prod until we orient it into a position of which we may consider as a +1 in our faculties. She may only exist when we can incorporate her into our fantasy of religious ecstasy and honourings of the dead. When the necrophiliac has his way with our lamb, she and he are both thrust into the whipping wind tunnel of the undefined, they have become the Other.

To bite or to incorporate? Why not both! The grip of the bourgeois jaw is tight, suffocating even, they will rip out your throat and drag your once lively corpse into their cave, anyone aware of the fate of the Situationist International will have nearly memorised this very same story. But in this movement of vilification, we see the incorporation of the decadent act into the ideological fantasy of the bourgeois, which reminds us: perhaps this is the same movement the necrophiliac takes when (if) he is to be presumed to incorporate the Corpse rather than be eviscerated by it. Does the predation upon the unliving lead to the triumph of the lively or does it create something so heinous, something so filled with abjection, something so perverse as the truly existing Undead!

This section will consist of my opinions on various pieces of writings from across PCBA, as politics can only exist in relationship with the Other.

The idealistic conception of history must, at all turns, be opposed. The relations material beings have with each other – from atom to atom, brick to brick and man to man – are what create the larger substances within our world. Planks coming into relationship with planks creates buildings, these buildings taking on an identity of their own (as understood by the conscious that developed these works). The same applies with humanity.

As the ways humans interact with each other, so does their consciousness. What was once understood as a simple treeline or dots in the sky becomes a forest or a galaxy respectively. The expansion of consciousness both exists in terms of greater knowledge-of and greater knowledge-within (knowledge-within emanating from the greater ability to understand human neurological anatomy, for example). Institutions are built out of individual beings interacting with each other, the families make the tribes, tribes make the nations, nations make the state, states make the nation-state etc. etc.

Of course we must also note that matter destroys the constructs of consciousness just as much as it creates them, but that is a topic for later.

Here I come to my final conclusion, which should be obvious: the society of which we live arises from the institutions we build, not our ideas. This is because our institutions arise out of the sensuous interaction between different material beings and objects, therefore creating our mode of aborting and birthing tendencies in society, therefore aborting and birthing ideas. To change our world we must change our cultural reproduction, for there is no motherless child.

Ask to be added

• - Fuck bro. Don't go crazy and don't fuck these corpses🥀
  • - Corpse rape is ideological inshallah
    • - (っ˘ڡ˘ς)
• - When I first read your page (on Primwiki), I thought you'd become authoritarian and opinionated on many issues, which made me more critical of you. But now... I can simply respect you, but I'm still critical of necrophilia, even though I write erotica myself and I'm thinking of going into writing pornography . I'll still ask a question:

• 1. Would you read other transgressive authors (Klossowski, Bukowski, and others)?
  
  • - I've read Klossowski's publishings in Acephale, but I intend read Peter Sotos because he is far more extreme.
• 2. What's your opinion on Baudelaire?
  
  • - I don't much about the guy, but I do like decadence and anti-industrialism.
• 3. Should I read economics books because I said I'd read them in the future, but my interests have shifted to poets and prose writers?
  • - It really depends, I think they're interesting but you should definitely read vol. 1 of the Accursed Share
    • - I read and read the second volume (almost, the Russian translation was crap)
• Andrionism - Add me back, corpse fucker.
  • - okay finished
  • - “Corpse fucke-“ ACK!
• Ander’s Poetry - Rate me ni- *was beaten by left-wing progressives*
  • - finisht
• User:HardTrad - Add me
• - add me
  • - No
    • - pretty please
      • - No
        • - aw shit
• - Petty-Bourgeois Idealism is a good thing, read Evola
  • And I don't see anything wrong with calling myself Anti-Work because I want to abolish wage-labour, same thing with Secularism, which is NOT the same as Laicism, and in fact can even point towards good things as Evola suggested in one essay. The spirituality is above all wordly forms of expression and is thus found in the very form and expression of Dominion itself, that is to say that it is immanent. The State has an open bias to such a religion and will make you submit to such a religion, ignoring that it is not even a religion in the first place, and thus cannot be classified as a "theocracy" which is an Abrahamic invention.
    • - I don't see how any of this is even slightly appealing, this all just a self-hatred personified into Platonic, fascistic and Romanticist dogma.
      • - Sounds very based to me. No self hatred involved here.
        • - I hope you can find a way to enjoy dying of dysentery while working on a field that will never be yours
          • - Vro you're the neoluddite and socialist, not me. I support both possession-based property rights and technological preservation.
• - WSSG KKKaliNekkkrofren =P ! Add me plz .d.
  • - RIP