Alchemy and Eschatology, Part 2: Politics

The occult practices behind political movement

If you are here for no other reason than to learn what a “political alchemist” is, welcome. For those of you who have been following this series since the beginning, welcome back, but be warned: this is going to be a considerably darker instalment.

When people hear the term “alchemy,” the word “transmutation” typically comes to mind. The word was much more widely used in the past than today, but within alchemy, it has a very specific definition. It is the process of deconstruction and reconstruction, i.e. the complete dissolution of a substance into its constituent components and their re-assembly into a new substance. This is why the second most important substance in alchemy after the philosopher’s stone is the alkahest, or universal solvent. This posed an ancient, albeit still interesting question: if you were able to make a substance that could dissolve anything, what would you keep it in?

Setting aside the fact that water is as close as you’re ever going to get to a universal solvent, what does any of this have to do with politics? Simple: the two hands of the one-party system that has so many nations in its grasp. The left hand de-constructs, and the right hand re-constructs. This sounds backwards to anyone whose knowledge of alchemy comes from Fullmetal Alchemist (which is remarkably faithful to the source material), so I will explain. As many Substackers have opined, e.g.

John Carter

and the

Librarian of Celaeno

, all great art is right wing. In the modern day, we think of artists as all having leftist politics, but this is no longer true, if it ever was. As I left off in part one of this series, creation is the rightist method. Great artists who had leaned left were all centre-left, not far-left. Anyone too far to the left can, at best, only imitate, never create, hence Hollywood turning into a cargo cult industrial complex. Since she has a much more intimate experience with this arena than I, perhaps

Rachel Haywire

can elaborate if she cares to. The creative process always drags a person to the political right, and one need look no further than leftist philosophy to understand why.

Leftist philosophy is about “un-learning” the old ways. James Lindsay, whatever his faults, is fundamentally correct when he points out that “what can be, unburdened by what has been” is not just Kamala-brand word salad, but a Marxist mantra.¹ It is one of a million different ways to say “let the past die.” To the leftist philosopher, everything is prescriptive, never descriptive, i.e. there is no idea in society that is merely an observation or an explanation, rather all ideas are social constructs. In order to change the idea (reality), it must be de-constructed and then re-constructed. This is done by taking concretes, a.k.a. particulars (keep those two words in mind, because they will be coming up a lot in discussions on this topic), making them abstract or vague, and then turning this abstraction into a new concrete. But enough about why leftists don’t know what a woman is and believe in eleventy-one genders. Or is it a million and seventy? Depends on which school of shapeshifting you’ve attended. Meanwhile, this particular daemon bird has mastered only three forms. One of them I use exclusively for clubbing, this way no-one will recognise me if a video appears online of me being completely off my tits.

That was a joke, I don’t go clubbing. My rarely-seen third form is for my OnlyFans. No, I will not share the link. If you’re into that sort of thing, you’ve probably already seen it, but I’ll never tell!

Look, this is a morbidly fascinating topic, and if I don’t lighten the mood with my sarchotic sense of humour, I would go insane writing these articles… maybe I already have. Anyway, as I explained in The Amazing Dialectical Circus, the process of political transmutation is not a one-and-done thing, or even until society is fixed, because there is no end goal; the process itself is the end goal. This is why leftists value the process of democracy (illusory though it may be) over the type of society it is supposed to create or maintain. Nothing can ever be settled, because leftists hate concretes, and would prefer to keep things abstract. Thus, anyone who actually understands dialectics is a third positionist at least, and therefore denounced by the left as a rightist. Third and fourth positionists are not rightists, but neither are they centrists. Third positionists are synthetics; leftist and rightist at the same time, and fourth positionists are neither.² Third positionists use leftist thinking to destroy old ideas, and rightist thinking to replace them. Contrary to the stereotype of being purely selfish, cynical politicians, third positionists are true ideologues, perhaps even mystics, hence: political alchemists. Political alchemists use leftists to undermine or outright overthrow a society, and then once the old order has been overthrown… well, I’ll let Yuri Bezmenov say it:

Your leftists… …they are instrumental in the process of this subversion, only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed anymore… They will be lined up against the wall and shot.

The left, the true left, the pure left, is the political alkahest, a reagent to be created, used, and discarded. Whether it was Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or any other revolutionary entrenched in Hegelian thought, every one of them has been called rightist by puritanical leftist ideologues who actually knows their history, and not without good reason. All of them were dialectical thinkers, all of them either took advantage of or directly used people to destroy elements of their old society, and then purged those who were incapable of fulfilling the purpose of re-building it in the image of The Idea. Remember, the left hates concretes, so when the transmutation is complete, another concrete exists, so it must be transmuted endlessly. The powers that be (the State) own the means of production (capital), the Workers’ Revolution seizes the means of production, then the revolutionaries becomes the new State, so any socialist regime is, by definition, state capitalism. Every successive generation of leftist thought is more radical, more puritanical, as the alkahest is further refined every time the process of its synthesis is re-visited. This is why so many leftist ideologues will never accept any socialist system as being “real,” because for them, socialism means revolution, nothing more. The instant the revolution ends, it’s back to the grind, which feels like capitalism to them, and so every successive generation gets crazier and crazier as the left keeps de-constructing more and more things in the hopes of ultimately destroying capitalism. Socialism is a process, and while Communism is the logical conclusion, which is why those two words were synonyms prior to 1917, it is impossible to achieve, but that doesn’t stop its adherents from trying.

Bearing this in mind, because rightist thought is realist thought, the vast majority of dialectical movement is leftward. Rightists can have ideals, and may even embrace idealistic thought in some sectors of their lives, but for the most part, it is the left that is idealistic. This is the reason for the saying (originating with

Curtis Yarvin

, I believe) “Cthulhu swims slowly, but he always swims left,” a saying that a lot of people like, but it isn’t entirely accurate. Occasionally, there is a dialectical movement in the rightist direction, which is considered heresy.

The reason is quite simple:

Disrupting this loop is not allowed!

Ensuring that the progress of history is an eternal march leftward is not just the goal, but also the justification that dialectics use for re-writing history such that the farther back you go, the more “rightist” it was. If ever you wondered where this notion that mediaeval people were all illiterate except for the clergy, wonder no more! In reality, the average mediaeval peasant received a better education than the average liberal arts university student today, and we can prove that:

The Medieval Peasant was Smarter Than You

Now then, because it is an undeniable fact that there was a great deal of technological regression following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the dialectical distorians have had to portray the Roman people as far more socially regressive than they really were. Take, for example, the word “vomitorium.” There is a popular notion that Romans would gorge themselves on food and then intentionally vomit so they could eat more, and they did so in a special room - the vomitorium. In reality, the vomitorium wasn’t a room at all, it was an entryway, from which people would “spew forth” into a large area such a theatre. This is but one example of things getting lost in translation when it comes to Ancient Roman history, but ideologues will happily sink their claws into a flawed narrative and refuse to let go because they like its moral implications. You see this a lot with the United States, such as the 1619 Project, or the even more bizarre attempt to synthesise it with the 1776 Report so that everyone is right and the culture war can be “reconciled.” This is how you know that the “rightists” which the political establishment likes to draw attention to are usually controlled opposition, incidentally. True opposition, meanwhile, is covered up to the point where almost no-one even knows it exists. Political alchemists will make sure that what they really want is an ingredient, albeit maybe in different amounts, in both the “left” and “right” wings of the establishment. Barring that, getting a genuine opposition party to capitulate is done via compromise. Remember what that word means in the dialectical circus? Political alchemists do not care about getting people to believe that 2+2=5, as long as 2+2>4. Compromise (2+2=4.5) may set them back, and will certainly piss off the 2+2=5 hard-liners, but still ultimately works in their favour. Mind you, we are not in the 2+2=4 vs. 2+2=5 stage of history right now, we are in the 2+2=9,975.77019 vs. 2+2=19,951.54038 stage. No, I didn’t pull those numbers out of my shapely arse, that’s what 2+2 would equal in one of the generations of dialectical mathematics. If you can tell me which generation would yield those numbers, I’ll give you a shoutout.

In many a polemic I have written against political progressives, I have compared them to religious zealots and also drawn attention to their shared origin. There is an interesting core to both the creationist and statist way of thinking, and it is the rejection of the idea that complex systems could emerge organically or spontaneously, and therefore, only God (the State) could have possibly devised them. My favourite example is the self-refuting essay titled I, Pencil by Leonard E Read. Over the course of the essay, he describes the entire process of making a pencil while repeatedly asserting that not a single person knows how to make one. This annoys me because, as a manufacturing engineer, figuring out how to make things is my area of expertise. I’ve even done some design engineering and prototyping, taking into consideration how certain objects must be designed in order to facilitate mass production. I’ve also run various types of machines, and while pencil-making is not something I’ve done, I can say with complete certainty that it is quite feasible for one person to learn how to operate all of the machines necessary to make a pencil. In other words, Read is talking bollocks. However, his argument serves a rather simple purpose: get people to believe that they cannot possibly understand something, and so they must defer to a higher authority. “Do not seek to better yourself, do not attempt to understand, just do as you are told by those who possess the gnosis.” I have personally seen similar arguments when it comes to the single most common argument that libertarians deal with: “muh roads.” Seriously, “who will build the roads” is such a ridiculously common statist argument that it has become a meme, and statists, when confronted on this subject, insist that “modern roads are too complicated to be built by anyone but the government.” In their minds, nothing can emerge organically, everything must be centrally planned. People are primed to think this way in church, incidentally.

People from my parents’ generation will blame the Roman Catholic Church for the rise of atheism; after all, in their day, every militant atheist was a former Catholic. This is no longer the case, and among my own generation, every militant atheist was, at one point, one of the following: Southern Baptist, Mormon, or Jehovah’s Witness. Despite these apostates rejecting the dogma, they retain their dogmatic thinking in many regards. In other words, highly rigid, dogmatic, downright cultish churches serve the purpose of mentally conditioning people to think in certain ways, such that when they break free, they will run straight into the arms of another cult. Cult leaders know this, which is why they very frequently target former members of other cults. I could go on, but considering the sheer number of books having already been written on the subject, it’s best not to waste time on that tangent here. Instead, I will explain how political alchemists use cults for their own ends.

Because cults habitually indulge in false dichotomies, as it suits the “us versus them” mentality, it is easy to find two cults that can be used form a synthetic triad. One cult’s ideology represents the thesis, the other’s the antithesis. These are then combined into the system that the political alchemists actually want. One currently forming in the United States is a progressive Christian theocracy, whose right wing is represented by Ken Ham, and whose left wing is represented by

John Pavlovitz

, who made the mistake of attempting to gaslight me when I shared this excerpt in a Note two weeks ago:

Every line of that response is a lie

If there is one thing you should take away from anything I’ve ever written about “fundamentalists,” it is that they want to create a theocracy by using the power of the State to tell Christians what to believe, which is why I elected to publish my article on Answers in Genesis first, and Pavlov’s Itch wants to create a theocracy by preaching politics from the pulpit (for which he was de-frocked… twice) so that Christians will vote the way he tells them. Jacob Tothe, the Anarchist Librarian (though who knows how much longer he will hold on to that title), as well as many Christian Substackers, in particular,

Alexander Semenyuk

…

Can we take a moment to appreciate the irony of someone had his brain operated on calling his detractors delusional?

…and

Koltin Scott

, could elaborate on why such individuals are Statist, rather than Christian, as if it weren’t already self-evident. In fact, here is one such response article, which I may bring up again in case I ever devote an entire article to Pavlov’s Itch:

I Debunk A "Christian's" Article: John Pavlovitz #1

If the power of one faction wanes, the other will take its place to achieve the same goal. This is why I told my readers to beware Christian Nationalism (i.e. heretical theocracy) coming from the left, not just the right.

You will never find a more wretched example of a political alchemist

“Muh Star Wars cringe” aside (I am not a Star Wars fan and haven’t been for over a decade), Darth Sidious, a.k.a. Sheev Palpatine, is a reductive example of a political alchemist, perfect for illustrating a point, but utterly unrealistic (that being said, I should probably point out that “Sith Alchemy” is a thing in SW lore, and Sidious was said to use it quite a lot). The reality is more in line with the “there is no conspiracy” conspiracy theory, i.e. is that no-one is truly in control of the two opposing sides, much less the entire system. The secret societies manipulating things behind the scenes would certainly like to have the power that the black-pilled bed-wetters think they do…

…but not only are these people constantly losing to ever-defiant human nature, they are constantly losing to each other. I have been told that this notion persists because there is a degree of comfort in thinking that the world is in the stranglehold of a single giant serpent, that we can free ourselves just by finding the head and severing it. Another way to put it is that we live in the shadow of a Dark Tower, which is a far better metaphor because the tower has many floors, and whatever entity occupies its top floor is nigh untouchable. The twist that I’ve been alluding to is that the top floor of the Dark Tower is empty. The tower’s architect is long gone, and so the tower’s denizens are simply carrying on aimlessly. The world is not in the grip of a single giant ouroboros, but a thousand tiny vipers happy to eat each other along with us rats and birds.

Also, The Communist Manifesto was published on the first of April. I don’t know about you, but I like to think that Communism was an April Fool’s prank taken way too far.

Returning to the subject of cults, it is not just classical or even new-age religions that form them. Historically, the decline of the classical religions caused people to flock to the cult of Nationalism, and the reason I’ve capitalised the word is because Nationalist ideologies do not see the nation as a concrete, i.e. a particular land, people, and culture, but as an abstract idea. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel flat-out stated this in his own work, saying that a “mere nation” lacks ideals, that to become a State is to become an ideal nation. The State is not merely the highest form of the nation, it transcends the very concept of the nation in the concrete sense. The reason that the Hegelian State has failed every time it has been attempted is because the conditions required to implement it have never been met; there is always something missing, and so, like a chemist trying to make explosives without the proper catalyst, the whole thing blows up in the faces of the political alchemists.

Alexander Dugin

elaborates here:

The Russian People and State in the Future: A Hegelian Perspective

“Aufheben,” a word that appears quite a lot in the writings of Hegel, Marx, and Hitler, is frequently translated as “abolition,” but is better translated as “transmutation.” Hegel’s work informed not only the cult of Nationalism, but the cult of academia, which I could explain, but not as well as the likes of

Nathalie Martinek PhD

or

Peter Boghossian

. Nonetheless, it is fairly obvious that Hegel is deified by professional pompous postmodernist pontificators, or as I like to call them, forsaken princesses. If you get that reference, you get a shoutout.

The Starfire Codes

knows what it’s from, so don’t spoil it for everyone else, Demi.

In the interest of providing my readers with a good bit of variety, I chose to publish my article on the military reformist movement first because it is a deep dive into yet another cult, one that I almost got sucked into. The reason I didn’t is because that would have been like an evolutionary biologist getting sucked into a creationist cult (which is not as far-fetched as you may have inferred, just look at Georgia Purdom or Andrew Snelling). I was in the cult of

Bracing Views

for a time, and I hope to exact my retribution on it before year’s end, but that is a story for another day. With all I’ve said so far, and with so much more left to say, I think there will need to be third part to this series after all: Mass Depopulation Psychosis.

1. Since I’m going to get crucified if I don’t mention this, Kamala Harris is a puppet of the neoliberal establishment. Whether or not she actually subscribes to Marxism is irrelevant.

2. Meanwhile, fifth positionist Bohemians are something else entirely, and sixth positionist Moravians exist purely to keep them in check.