(3879 words.)
I am told that it is natural to want to live forever.
If you are now or have ever been raised in this historical epoch, it’s not obvious that the highest goal shouldn’t be to achieve eternal life. It’s also not obvious that this isn’t a modern phenomenon, especially when contrasted against ancient history. JD Unwin, in his comprehensive anthropological research on the relationship between sexual monogamy and the development of civilization, identified the baseline of human comprehension as a “dead level” where the deceased are not only immediately disregarded, but their spirits are sometimes chased away, despite their comprehension of spirits being wholly different from our own.
Their relationship with the world was practical and immediate, and nothing beyond their daily purview demanded serious inquiry.
“We must abandon also the idea that uncivilized men believe in gods. What is a god? In what manner does a god differ from a spirit? Sometimes it seems that there is no difference between them, for the same native word has often been translated both as ‘spirit’ and as ‘god’. Yet we are faced by the suggestion that ‘spirits’ have become ‘gods’. The word ‘god’ lacks precise meaning and cannot be used as a basis of classification. A god, I suggest, is a power which is manifest in a temple, and, according to the definitions which I should like to adopt, it is manifest only to deistic peoples; but I am aware that if this definition were adopted, most commentaries on historical religions would have to be rewritten. Moreover, the definition is based not on beliefs but on rites.” – JD Unwin, Sex and Culture.
As tribes begin to ascend the ladder of civilization by discovering the inner workings of their environment , they are granted not only geographic permanence in the form of temples but also mythical permanence in the forms of important spirits that can be appealed to.
In this light we could say that our current obsession with human longevity is new; it was never the case that our progenitors groped for immortality, and it was far more common for the dead to be hurled aside until the innovation of ancestor worship which was symptomatic of a fuller understanding of time and space. These patterns were not egalitarian, and one does not naturally follow the other. One can remain a zoistic society indefinitely, or degenerate from a society of temples and monogamy to magic stones and hypergamy.
This is all to say that our obsession with individual immortality is neither Christian nor the status quo in the ancient world. This tells us its genesis is attributed to technology.
The Cozy Compression of the Bottleneck
I can’t imagine life without death: the finality after a common duration giving shape to every aspect of our lives including marriage, employment, law, and valor. Indeed courage and morality are grounded with this inevitable terminus always in view.
Our ancestors knew how to make friends with death. We always knew what a glorious death was, and its lingering presence spurned our adventures onward. The best of us understood how to employ it as fuel. Furthermore, we understood that death was necessary. At present we believe death is an obstacle to be overcome, and many of our most ambitious minds view it as the ultimate affliction to cure.
The pursuit of all medical science is to solve the problem of pain, and ultimately death. Most of our most powerful citizens see it as the most worthwhile target in life: that is, to sustain life indefinitely.
While the zeitgeist no longer permits real discourse concerning eugenics, everyone has an opinion on who should not be allowed to procreate. Even a Catholic priest, so adamant about the sanctity of life and the divine pursuit of its multiplication, if confronted by a woman who had three children with Down Syndrome, would advise her politely yet firmly to stop.
Edward Dutton was one of many prominent scientists who take the opposing view, that death – even on a catastrophic scale – has positive benefits. The term “Harsh Darwinian Pressures” is used to describe the variety of diseases, wars, revolutions, and genetic afflictions that reduce populations, allowing the most suitable to survive. Harsh Darwinian Pressures create the genetic bottlenecks necessary to dispassionately filter dysgenics. Even the most Progressively Liberal minded reader, when parsing a story of a man who is allergic to “nearly everything,” will unquestionably at least think to himself “he should probably not be kept going.”
We have things to do.
Dysgenics not only refers to physical handicaps and birth defects but antisocial behavioral defects as well. Any characteristic that discombobulates the long-term biological survival of the group, up to and including mental illness, is eventually bred out either through death, exile, or the soft power of mate selection. One way or another, they are removed from the genetic stock.
In this framework we define adaptive genetics as those that lead us to cooperate and thrive in groups, whereas maladaptive genetics are correlated with antisocial or anti-group behavior. As Foucault pointed out, Europeans had perhaps the most advanced system of imprisonment and exile.
One popular theory is that Europeans executed more criminals of each generation and destroyed these behavioral mutations and mental illnesses most aggressively. These would include crimes beyond rape and murder, including fraud and theft of certain goods.
With this in mind, there are 4 essential types of selection to pass on genes: natural, sexual, kin, and group. When we think of passing on our genes we tend to think of sexual reproduction, but we often ignore how the caretaking of the genes occurs in concentric circles radiating out into the extended family and the tribe, meaning even childless relatives can have a crucial hand in strong propagation of the bloodline towards a more distant time horizon.
The international meatgrinder wars of the 20th century represent a counterpoint where perhaps the best of our genetic lines were obliterated in the conflagration of runaway technology, and it is such conflicts that could reproductively select for the cowardly or infirm. Despite this, the concept of a genetic bottleneck exerting extreme pressures to filter for survivors is sound insofar as those pressures remain.
Despite the best and brightest of us likely swept up in such purges, over along enough timeline it created a eugenic mean filtering for qualitative attributes such as intelligence, cooperation, ambition, courage, and a multitude of ideal physical attributes. In the present day, there are fewer filters than ever before.
When you hear mention of the “Great Reset,” it represents the most comprehensive War on Suffering that has ever been conceived and at the heart of it sits the abolition of death itself.
While the now-memoryholed Great Reset is often handwaved away as an inertly populist conspiracy theory, it’s simply undeniable that there exists a vast network of international private and public organizations, hooked in with serious investment and dominated by some of the most influential minds on Earth, seeking to make humans an eternal intergalactic civilization. This requires the scientific mastery of resource scarcity and an end to conflicts both ideological and identitarian by whatever means necessary.
“The fourth industrial revolution, however, is not only about smart and connected machines and systems. Its scope is much wider. Occurring simultaneously are waves of further breakthroughs in areas ranging from gene sequencing to nanotechnology, from renewables to quantum computing. It is the fusion of these technologies and their interaction across the physical, digital and biological domains that make the fourth industrial revolution fundamentally different from previous revolutions.” – Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Great Reset was but one iteration of centuries-long scientific mission to preserve human life and wellness at whatever cost, another branch of this tree being the e/acc movement and its sad meth dad transhumanism. The latter being the relentless pursuit through whatever technology possible to protect human life from the forces of entropy and maximize its civilizational footprint upon the universe.
It is also the cessation of all eugenic forces and of reproductive selection pressures.
While these and other social phenomenon have been covered elsewhere, both the aforementioned movements share the Kurzweilean faith that technological singularity is inevitable and therefore any effort dedicated to anything other than heedless technological accelerationism is not only a waste of time but a direct threat to mankind’s destiny. The capitalistic doppelganger of Roko’s Basilisk, where the first one to open AGI’s Ark of the Covenant will be rewarded by God with an infinite money cheat code.
The Great Reset has become a stumbling block in the larger discourse and most people don’t even want to speak on it, so exhausted they are by even broaching the topic. Perhaps the term has been poisoned, in all likelihood revealing why the perpetrators have abandoned it. The reason we discuss it still is as follows: the richest and most influential people on the planet, working in concert with NGOs and government institutions, are leveraging hundreds of billions of dollars in capital directed at private and public scientific projects for the sole purpose of making (certain) people live forever.
Clichés aside, if you do not think this ought to inspire urgent conversation, you are not a serious person.
If you meditate upon this zone of inquiry it becomes clear that to mount a coherent defense against transhumanism and the longevity movement, one must stand on the side of death. You must ally yourself with suffering and what many perceive as the ultimate foe of all people everywhere. The endorsement of this position is not grounded in the glorification of war or the love of social collapse that drives many heterodox dissidents, rather it is a first principle that simply recognizes that dysgenic forces exist and are just as much a threat to human prosperity as natural, villainous entropy.
It’s no easy task to mount a case for death. It will not be cajoled into a Trojan Horse, it can only be made nakedly, boldly.
A Solitary Hand Grabs the Bottle
The Western mind refuses to surrender agency directing this eugenic momentum. We are cursed with the knowledge of natural law alongside our dominance within that very system, and within the broader context of creation.
The metaphysical innovation of linear time so integral to the European mind, codified by the non-recurrence and historically singular manifestation of the death and resurrection of Christ, grants an essential conceptualization of the divine manifested in the physical realm, and conversely the physical world able to interface with the supernatural realm. This proved to be the divine soil from which to grow individualism.
Charles Cochrane is one of the most prominent voices that lays out the shift from the Classical way of thinking to the Christian way of thinking, a process that took centuries and was guided by innumerable political, social, and economic arcs. Perhaps the most intriguing pillar of his work is how Christianity helped construct the foundation of what would one day take the shape of individual interest, bringing the Classical fascination with the hero’s journey down to the level of the citizenry.
“The period following Theodosius may be characterized in general as one of twilight government by twilight men, whose puny and distracted efforts proved utterly inadequate to forfend the approaching doom. That doom was signalized in the destruction of cities, the devastation of the country-side, and the disruption of communications. […] It should, however, be observed that, while Christianity contained elements which might be employed to reinforce the established order, at the same time it embodied ingredients of a highly explosive character, sufficient indeed to shatter the already weakened faith in classical ideals and thus to empty the system of whatever meaning it still possessed.” – Charles Cochrane, Christianity & Classical Culture
In this model the transition from one belief system to another was largely caused by dissatisfaction with the existing system, or more accurately: a way of thinking that was unable to present a coherent solution for more complex problems. These problems were materialistic: declining quality of life, attacks on the polis through imperial multiculturalism, and an unstable government unable to command the pride which resonated throughout the Roman world. When so much of one’s identity is chained to the state, any fluctuations in the state will reverberate cataclysmically downward.
There are those perched upon their mountain of grievances gathered in these early decades of the 21st century who would see this radical traditionalism – the philosophy of heroism – as a welcome substitute for the Christianity they condemn as impractical, soulless. However, we must appreciate that there was a time where the patriarchal family cult buttressed by Greco-Roman glory-through-citizenship was apparently deemed obsolete technology, correlated so strongly with the degradation of the state and exposure to competing ideas.
From “we worship heroism” to “you can be a hero,” the baseline thinking over the course of centuries irrevocably changed. This is not to posit that an Eastern worldview infected the West through the nervous system of the Roman empire. In most cases, the existing European folkishness steadfastly transacted right back into the church.
James C. Russell explored this process of proselytization with the Germanic peoples, specifically how while many attempts at conversion were attempted by the Catholic church across the world – Jews, Japanese, Indians – but it seemed as if Europe took to it much more readily. The causes exhaustively explored were that as these monotheistic concepts extend into new realms there is a transaction wherein the more successfully it is adopted the more the core religion itself changes. It is similar to how as English swept the globe it became indigenized, with the Anglophone natives losing ownership by soft imperialism.
Concessions must be made to historic folkways and while large swathes may be willing to adopt a new set of core tenants, they will not abandon their history to a dawning global hegemony.
“Similarly, the Anglo-Saxon missionaries did not emphasize the central soteriological and eschatological aspects of Christianity. Instead, seeking to appeal to the Germanic regard for power, they tended to emphasize the omnipotence of the Christian God and the temporal rewards he would bestow upon those who accepted him through baptism and through conformity to the discipline of his Church. The most significant factors in determining an appropriate missiological approach and in predicting missionary success appear to be the prevailing world-view of the target society, the degree of popular satisfaction with the indigenous religion, the level of the target society’s sociocultural cohesion, and the target society’s levels of scientific and economic development compared to those which exist in the society from which the proselytizing party originates.” – James C. Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity
The success of the conversion process, at some level, is answering “what’s in it for me?” and in the case of the Germanics the answer required continued stewardship over several immovable folkways which eventually cycled back into the Church to forevermore possess it with an unmistakable Europeanness. To sketch out some of the influences: it made the religion more community-oriented, which was essential to non-urban converts. They made the religion more temporally locked, fixating on the power of Christ and God as the spiritual world becoming real.
Perhaps most importantly, Christianity was made to reckon with the warlike heroism of its new converts, which it would harness to great success in the proceeding centuries. It stamped down one of several Western source codes into an otherwise Eastern incursion, one of many that gave the Catholic Church a distinct European character without contradicting the core faith.
Christianity can be broadly summarized as “World-Rejecting” whereas folk religions and pagan cults tend to be “World-Accepting;” conversion succeeded insofar as the former showed flexibility to the latter.
The singular focus upon the hereafter prohibited Christianity to be deployed as a template, thus forcing it to negotiate in the interest of growth. The universalization of eternity realized through the aggrieved individual would not install properly on the Germanic psychology and it needed to be made more rea; more vitalistic and communal. This would lead to a diverting of the power of the individual standing apart from their socii towards the power of the individual as part of their kin network.
These groups we speak of had a desire to conquer and thrive, to rebel against the forces of nature, but it is not accurate to say they sought to cheat death. Rather they glorified it, and perhaps this is why the glory of the resurrection resonated so profoundly to the Western mind.
When we discuss eugenics and the cold realities of population numbers, we do not approach it from the vantage of religion, or even politics. It must stand apart, because the former phenomena lack the tools to address it fully. Both Western politics and religion have brought us to a point where each one of us feels a deep and consuming duty to participate in this genetic bottlenecking, even going so far as to see it as essential to long term survival.
It is not beyond our station to have an opinion on gargantuan concerns such as these. You can apprehend this mission both tribally and monotheistically. This alchemical capability for synthesis intertwines with our DNA strands, and by asking the question you are seizing the bottleneck with your cold pale hands.
Project 20XX
To accomplish anything significant upon this planet, an ridiculous amount of people need to die.
From the pyramids to the industrial revolution, our greatness appears our achievements are haunted by our sacrifices. Eternal life is a dysgenic parody of life that functions as a nihilistic rebellion against this sacrifice.
You are not living through a total collapse scenario, you are living through a genetic bottleneck that will pitilessly filter those who have the intellectual focus and genetic fervor to survive. As we have just seen, you are not a passive actor in this experience. Not only can you take precautions to survive, but you can also strategize on how you want the other side to blossom.
As genetics are at least partially kept alive through group dynamics and the tribal form, any explicit attack upon this system can be interpreted as an attack on the genetic line of the people. With the Christian revolution there was a careful strategy to adhere to pre-existing social fault lines and synthesize each extension thus creating a collective European superstructure. Most revolutions encountered currently seek not to synthesize or negotiate but to tear down the columns of a target society and replace it with something entirely new. The Bolsheviks immediately come to mind, but a more recent example would be the globalist machinations of USAID recently uncovered by DOGE which were largely interested in projecting American Progressive cultural sensibilities into the international community.
Revolution is traumatic, and no revolution never truly ends. The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution; all of these, regardless of their success or failure, imprinted on the surviving societies and in the case of France much of it remains stamped on the institutions. In attempting to overturn the status quo, most of them settle for a protracted negotiation where it is eventually subsumed into the civilization. This was the fate of every radical Syndicalist movement as described by Georges Sorel, but it also impacted the revolutionary sentiments of Far Right in the words of Guillaume Faye.
Where revolutions seek victory through violence, it becomes clear that their true effectiveness lies in their ability to change the way people think on a fundamental level even as the martyrs multiply. From this perspective most revolutions are successful insofar as the reaction rarely manages to excise their influence generations hence. For this reason, above all others we must be cautious about which revolutions we support with the knowledge that they never fail, and we will be forced to carry their stamp upon us forever.
Just as the church synthesized with the tribes, so too will you synthesize with the ideological weapons you play with.
We may opine that Marxists are stuck out of time and employ tired strategies for a reductive class war, but we will never be rid of Marxism the same way we will never be rid of Fascism. We will never be rid of the globalist alt-tech revolution to make humans an eternal intergalactic species, even if practical obstacles hobble it indefinitely. Your children and grandchildren will be subject to this culture, and even in total failure they may cargo cult for it.
Your ideologies will live on insofar as they can punish the zeitgeist and imprint trauma as long as a cultural memory exists. However, you can never change hearts and minds with immediacy, and there will be no mass awakening once people are exposed to arguments no matter how profound they are. A system is what it does, a person is what they repeat, and a society becomes what opposition it tolerates. The only appropriate reaction is prompt and total liquidation of the offenders and erasure from the collective memory permanently.
The only immediate result can be achieved with the mass employment of new harsh Darwinian pressures that sweep away antitheses manifest in the populace. Both the Communists and Fascists understood this. Everyone intuits this.
With this in mind, it only makes sense to approach revolutions from a eugenic perspective, in fact it would be reasonable to say revolution is politics by eugenic means activated through individuality despite its appeals to collectivist mass movements. This is what Project 2025 gets right, as does Jonathan Bowden with his popular refrain of “clear them out.” The intellectual foundation, once laid, will live on longer than you could ever have imagined. But the only thing you can control is identifying who out to survive the natural or unnatural conflagrations that coalesce as the interaction of innumerable collapse phenomena.
Bloodlines are terminating all around us and the birthrate decline is a concurrent global emergency. Robotics are advancing at a rate fast enough to bewilder but slow enough to be acceptable. The free-floating globalist elite class wants to make some people live forever and strip you of your sovereignty. The decline is gradual, imperceptible to most, primarily the ones that will not make it through. It’s going to happen because it’s necessary and wisdom tells us that viewed from 10,000 feet: in the end, everybody gets precisely what they deserve. But it’s only at the end, and there’s a lot of hiking yet to scale that summit.
Project 2025 endeavors to remove human biomass with the volume turned down, because as Westerners it is impossible at this inflection point to surrender the eugenic filters to nature as our ancestors did. We are not slaves to entropic forces; we can calculate to circumnavigate them and accelerate demise where necessary. This is a dimension aside from religion and beyond politics, and while both will remain in our orbit, we are in search of solutions to address the failures of these dimensions to address our survival. We do not need to tear them apart or fuse them into a heinous chimera, we need only fashion a new system designed to address these acute problems in the short term.
It may be true that this is not what Christ would have done, but historically he showed the grace of flexibility when it came to matters of survival through growth.