Ontological Horrorcore, Nature As Regeneration: There Is No Sociopathy.

 "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in her own eyes"
~ Judges 21:25 

Whatever subsists is greater in might than whatever merely exists.  Existence as socially conditioned subjectivity is to the subsistence of all things actual and potential, what the body is to the substance of bodiliness, what matter is to the substance of materiality, what decaying foods are to shit and vomit processes and what language is to an active-infinite/N chain of nonsense. If "your" body sufficiently decomposes or self-destructs to reach the climax understood by those alive as "death," "your" body will continue to subsist in one way or another, as blood still flows and drains into livor mortis, and as blood no longer circulates, the brain no longer produces a subject (and with it, its social code,) and organs are no longer functioning "the way they should" (all of which are medically-humanist prejudices) a plethora of micro-activities of parasitical gluttony, bacterial and microbial war, sex and cannibalism, worms hermaphroditic migratory flows transforming the decomposed body mixed with earth into its own new path... Death is merely a social codification, for the regenerative power of earthly life belongs to Nature. This regenerative power is emblematic precisely of this ever-destructive force of subsistence. A force regulating all potential and actual reality, for it contains and destroys all that is potential and actual. There is no "nothing," to which "your" body disappears into. "Your" body, or better yet, a body subsists broken and extended into the belly of parasites, into a mixture with the earth, or a mixture of ashes and air. Subjectivity was merely an extension of subsistence, a mode attributed to material substance through the vital powers of material substance itself. Even the subjectivity of religiously monomaniacal self-starvation is here driven, not necessarily by "death" but by the vibrational forces of Nature's active subsistence. A physiologically determined socio-subjectivity was produced for a bodily reality to destructively subsist and extend itself into the regenerative infinitude of Nature. The destruction of what is actual and potential belongs to Nature. Society therefore subsists much like fragile bodies are capable of limited subsistence. Fragility and virility are all in all, but a twisted and hidden hierarchy comes about as Nature regulates all in all. If cockroaches are, unlike humans, capable of surviving a nuclear destruction of ecosystems, then what does that say about humans' relative fragility? All life-forms are relatively fragile and virile, but some are relative to others more fragile, less virile, and more virile and less fragile. This also applies to society as a social organism, a life-form of its own. It is the arrogance of society as a living organism to think of itself as ultimate in terms of it being an extension of Nature. The sheer blind arrogance in presupposing its codes of internal maintenance (morality, religion, ideology, political commitments) as fundamental to the "reality of things" is what keeps society going, yet society is not the final extension of Nature. As Marquis de Sade understood, the only law that breaks the gap between "descriptive and prescriptive" is Nature as perpetually regenerative. All insurrectionary, revolutionistic, narcissistic, self-divinifying, and "sociopathic" ought-systems machinically set up by Nature as conflictual bodies, were set up precisely to destroy whatever potentiality and actuality Nature wanted to destroy for its own necessary regulatory function. There is no "ethics" or "morality," only ought-systems, de-codified and codified by Nature and its mechanisms. As a vacuum cleaner's ought-system is to vacuum and potentially explode, it may very well be that society as a conflictual organism may contain its own ought-system: self-destruction and explosion being one of its potential functions. More importantly, it may very well be that society constitutes as an organism, an aggregation of various imperceptible bodies of conflict, each functioning according to its own ought-system, and depending purely on any set of determined variables, society could be de-perpetuated and set on fire literally and figuratively by a forceful chaosmatic decentralization of power and violence, leading to a slow undoing of both society and humanity (as one depends on the other) through a natural rewilding of beasts both humanoid and non-humanoid, a depopulation without needing any longer any conspiracy. Individual gluttony through brutality, new-tribal/gang warfare, rape, murder, sex slavery of both females and boys, lone wolf serial murders and cannibals, animal attacks, rat infestations, epidemic and pandemic deaths... Perhaps new animals or new monsters would emerge, new ecological destructions... Destruction in perpetuity, yes! This is Nature's law of regeneration. It may very well be, that Nature will destructively extend itself beyond society through this great chaos of brutality and depravity into a world no longer hosting human and other non-human social organisms. A world with a new conflict of new organisms... Or new conflicts between inorganic life-form and new organisms? Nature shall decide. The desire-machinery of Nature perpetuates conflict, it problematizes and never solves anything, and ironically, it is in the middle of this conflict that we find a subjectivity of weakness produced by Nature as a prey to it (Nature) as the greatest of the regenerative predators. The weakness of the cross... That is, the cross as the "end to the cause of all violence, all power, all vital energy..." The cross as the supposed thing beyond libidinal exhaustion, "the eschatological finality to all moving desire," "Being," the god of weakness, the tortured god. It begs for an end but it is precisely this begging that excites the terror of Nature's libidinal power. May the cross be either reconfigured, paganized or forgotten. For something like the "Children of the Corn" reconfiguration of God and the Cross would enhance the multiplication of destructive activities that are necessary for Nature to regeneratively extend itself. Yes, spiritual maoism, a vitalist, and criminalist satanism is what Nature produces for its own regeneratively-regulatory functioning. A cultish and murderous extremism that undoes the bonds of society. A cross that truly functions as a sword dividing, fragmenting, and finally destroying the familial, the social, the collective, the domesticated. Not a "final cross," but in the maoist-dialectical (affirmatively ever-negating) spirit of the Children of the Corn, a multiplication of crosses as to satisfy a decentralizing libidinal will.

There is no sociopathy. A "predatory subjectivity," whether it is deemed to have attempted to abolish the cross or to reconfigure its meaning, is only negatively judged as predatory in a system of values governed by the prey. Its attempted abolition or corruption of the cross hinges upon opportunities to undo what characterizes not necessarily the masses, but society. The proletariat masses contain the vulgarity and senselessness of a predatory force, for it is a mass without belonging, acting purely on the basis of needs and necessity. Society is instantiated by an unconsciously moving over-ruling economic class dictatorship ontologically outside the masses, developing through its means material conditions of socio-psychological subjugation and through its various structures of education, imprisonment, and labor: domestication. The masses are subjugated, exploited, and domesticated into this internally maintaining form we call society, or rather it could be said that society is this very process of domestication and internal maintenance of this power-divide. Domestication takes place everywhere, but interestingly enough, the elites constituting this capitalist arrangement are typically less domesticated than the masses at the bottom (and this must be said, to the praise of the elites) This socio-psychological system of domestication functions to maintain the over-rule of the capitalist class.  All historical events, whether transformed into mythos or fabricated from the very start (such as the cross) may serve as configurations/valuations profitable for the maintenance of society as an apparatus of internal control. This requires no conscious conspiracy, for it is the manner in whereby society operates to enhance its own capabilities and survival. The distinction is here not between capitalism and society as the current left understands it, for society is in capitalism and capitalism is in society. All subjects of unconscious capital are socialized to one degree or another. The distinction is also not between the masses and the individual, as the proletariat masses in its bastard (without belonging) and revolutionistic operation contains within itself a world of wild individuality that it seeks to unleash. The proper distinction, the proper alienation, is between capitalism and the proletariat masses, and the revolutionistic task of the masses is to indeed destroy society, for society is the great mold of this unconsciously molding force we call capitalism. The regenerative-operation of Nature is found, at the very least in potential, in the revolutionistic spirit of the Republic, which seeks to destroy all of which is familial, all of which is socialized. An individual or small-group act against society can be a proletariat-massified act. A destructively regenerative act of Nature through bodies of dissatisfaction and conflict. The proletariat mass acts without regard for a socialized system of optics, doing in accordance to its own decentralized will, polyvocally and univocally, pollyvisually and univisually moving as to re-arrange bodies, re-arranging Life. Everyone doing what is right in their own eyes, through their own voices, through the power of the affects driving their own bodies. Even what is their "own" can be relativized by affective power. For there is no king, no monarch, no family to be loyal to, only affective powers driving bodies regeneratively... And, if there are no kings, queens, monarchs, and no familial organizations, there is thus nothing that can sublimate those things. No society, and therefore no longer the psychopolitics of society with its judgments as to what constitutes a pathological threat to it.

It is true, the neo-reactionary prophets are correct in this very particular question. Which is the question that shall define the future. Either we will have technocapitalist corporate monarchism (the culmination of the previously mentioned social sublimation of monarchic familialism) wherein the larger unconscious social organism sustains itself through a decentralized network of corporate patchworks or we will have General Butt-Naked anti-society communism, wherein the proletariat masses sustains themselves as an unconsciously communal organism through a decentralization of wild individuals and small groups, gangs and warlords. It is communal for it hosts a multiplicity of bodies as a community does, but it does so without an operative principle of socialization. It is indeed either the socialism of a post-capitalist market monarchist world or the barbarist communism of the proletariat masses. The masochistic contractualism of ideological monarchists or the sadistic radical-institutionalism of revolutionistic republicanists and communists. Of course, within this dialectic, masochism and sadism is found in either ideological urges, but both urge to put into effect a different perpetuity, the perpetual masochism of reaction or perpetual sadism of revolution. As in Mao's dialectic, an all-negating perpetual affirmation. I have, however, given up hope on any teleology, and have done away with its fairy-tales as I have developed my intellect philosophically. But two things seem quite clear to me, the first being that the proletariat as it remains what is is, and as it is set up to do what it does, still has the potential to destroy society and that Nature seems to signal the regenerative destruction of society (and with it another extension) as it continues to affectively produce the virtual destruction of society through proletariat bodies of conflict, through their bodily need for flesh, blood, explosive orgasms, cum, more blood, more destructions... The perpetually dissatisfied need for destructive satisfaction in a proletariat body that belongs to nowhere and no one. The proletariat would have to be destroyed for this to stop once and for all, but it cannot possibly be destroyed for the proletariat dictatorship waiting to be unleashed is a mode of operation that needs no humanity, and to the degree that it now contains a human form, it will continue to be subjugated even beyond the end of capitalism in whatever neomonarchist corporate future, for such a future cannot come about without the continual exploitation of the proletariat masses. The potential for destruction is always there, circulating, hoping to achieve itself sooner rather than later. A constant threat to all of that which is familial and social. The second thing that seems clear to me is paradoxical, in that, knowing with a certain precision and confidence that these are the two options, I can't help but operate as a proletarian, and ironically enough, even if it be to my own detriment (in other words, even if this may be masochistic on my part) I desire nothing but the destruction of society. I desire nothing but a perpetual clash of sadistic powers, the perpetual conflict of instituted wills, one cannibalizing the other, one fucking the other, one dominating the other, one destroying the other, A desire for a potential that can never be actualized given the cowardice that comes with what seems to be an eternal stasis of socialization and domestication. All revolutionistic action depends on a weakening of this mechanism of socialization, this mechanism that colors our prejudices, our taken-for-granted moral "conscious," our ideals or our very belief in consciousness. 

There is simply no sociopathy.