- Registrado
- 8 de Mar, 2020
BOOK BONFIRE OF THE BRAIN
Even from the Nazi’s own perspective the Holocaust was ineffective and a mistake. The fundamental motivation, one you will find in every text, of not just the Holocaust but the entire war was to destroy this idea of “Judeo-Bolshevism”, and yet many of the core tenets they would assign to it thrived immediately after the war. Why? The mistake of the Nazi’s (among many obviously) was to create a literal bonfire. They burned books and they burned people. They committed the greatest physical and moral crimes we can now conceive of in pursuit of an objective they yet failed at. Had the Nazi’s really wanted to kill “Judeo-Bolshevism” or any idea, they should have committed to a psychic Holocaust, instead of the very real physical one.
Someday knowledge will be more scarce than it is now. When this happens certain curators, prepared for this scarcity, will be in a unique position to choose what is saved and what is not. I dream of the modern monastery, hoarding up the knowledge of Christian western civilization to survive no matter what happens to the material and political totems of that civilization. But there are only so many shelves, and ultimately any collective project like this hypothetical one in order to survive will have to be founded on distinct principles. Principles which ultimately may conflict with much of the cultural products of the most recent western civilization. Does this monastery have a responsibility to save these cultural products? Followers of William of Occam would say yes, they would say all ideas have some inherent value, and because truth is subjective, we should try to save some amount of everything. But this is an indirect contradiction to the idea of a collective founded on distinct principles, something necessary for such a community to survive, even in good times much less in bad. By declaring principles, we inherently propose some principles are better than others, we strive to an objective truth, and if there is an objective truth then there are bad, even evil ideas. Of what benefit, what good, does saving these ideas serve?
To some what I am saying here may seem obvious, but to be clear, what we are talking about here is book burning, without reservation. That image of brownshirts marching in Last Crusade around a bonfire, that’s you if you agree with this line of thinking. I was always taught to have the utmost respect for the written word. I hated even taking annotations in novels when assigned because it felt like defacement. I have kept broken and battered books from my childhood because the alternative, to throw away a book, fills me with such natural revulsion I can’t bring myself to do it, books are sacrosanct. But if one believes some ideas are better than others, any circumstance where resources or time are limited will require some degree of book burning. Don’t worry, you aren’t alone, even the outlets and cathedral sycophants who hem and haw about the return of book burning whether it be Non-Christian “Evangelicals” burning Harry Potter, or Florida banning gay pornography in elementary school libraries are still fundamentally book burners. They do it every time they moderate a chat room, they do it every time they take a book off an increasingly singular marketplace, and they do it every time they constrict basic internet infrastructure to kill a single thread (collection of writing) on some webzone. They are book burners with better marketing, and so are you if you believe some ideas are better than others, and so am I.
But ultimately physical book burning does not work, hence the Nazi example earlier. Physical censorship in an interconnected and complex society does not work, furthermore it is immoral because to create and own (property) is the last remaining metaphysical right. If you want to impact and shape the culture of the future, the culture after this one has its last date with entropy, one must kindle a bonfire in the brain. This hypothetical monastery I mentioned, might only curate those ideas which follow its fundamental principles, but that wont matter unless it develops a pedagogy and culture to foster this cultural brain bonfire. An example of this is the Classical Education system. You will never destroy every last copy of Foucault, every last printed pile of “How to be an Anti-Racist” or every last scrap of pornography, but you can cultivate a mind which has already burned them psychically so that their physical survival is meaningless. This is why childrearing and pedagogy are so important. Simply by purging these ideas from your own personal civilizational monastery’s library, by not just explicating a different world from the recliner but enforcing it as a lifestyle, communities might create this new incumbent culture. You will not enforce a new culture by revolution overnight by force, and even if you did, burning all the bad books you would fail just as the Nazi’s did, or the Soviet Union which had decades to exterminate what it thought were bad ideas. STATE LEVEL PHYSICAL CENSORSHIP DOES NOT WORK.
The pagan classical literature of all qualities lived on long after the Roman empire became Christian. This is not to say my fellow Christians did not burn books or attempt to suppress texts, because they did, but my point is even after hundreds of years they were not successful. Ironically it was many of the monasteries which preserved these texts, texts which inspired the renaissance and everything that came with it. The point is any dreams of physically erasing any idea or burning every last book is folly and helps speak to why physical censorship is so pointless. This was sort of my point with Puppycoin, psychic entities like ideas are hard to kill. The reason why random medieval peasants and clergy did not randomly become pagans again despite the fact these works technically lived on is because this period grew a culture fundamentally inaccessible to its message. Some may have seen that Spengler quote I often post. There is the most obvious blackpilled reading, but there is also a whitepilled reading.
“One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes will remain—because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message will have gone.” -Oswald Spengler
Assuming you believe that some ideas are better than others, and you teach your children this, and you cultivate an actual culture around these ideas, one borne out in lifestyle, then no matter how many copies of Foucault or “How to be an Anti Racist” survive, then you will have contributed to making a culture inaccessible to their message. This is an actual individual achievable goal that groups like AF discount for radical political revolution.
Ideas can’t really die, so evil ones will always come again under the form of a new psychic image and name eventually as the civilizational wheel turns. But at this particular moment in the cycle the next culture of righteous usurpation against evil ideas is still being formed. This is why I speak of monasteries because the way you teach your children, assuming you are outside the mainstream, will form this new culture of usurpation. They once called it the Armor of Contempt. A culture that will never have to physically burn a bad book or take the debate stand. A culture which will not be enslaved by the anxiety of fake elections. A culture immune to the Modernism it eventually replaces. A culture of confidence rather than a culture of critique. One which burned the books in the mind long before it was ever necessary to burn them in the library. A Psychic Holocaust.
Última edición:
