WHAT IS ANGELIC GRIEFING?

Peace and violence.

Wherever they are
Is nowhere to be,
Is not a place
Of honor. Will time
Alone dispose
Of these toxic nows?
Prophecy is peace
And cowardice violence.

—Curtis Yarvin, ‘Tarquin and Athena’, 1 September 2021

At issue here is a theory of modal clonal angelic griefing. ‘Griefing’ is originally the act of causing sudden annoyance to other members of an online community. It is a putting off, a style of lapse, but also an artful form of attack.

In angelicist terms, griefing marks a conception of number (one may swarm-grief and hold accountable other accounts working as a choral group, whether large or small, visible or otherwise, making it count or flopping through time-pressure as a new count) and a more originary sense of mourning (to grief is also to grieve, it is to lament next to and because of God and the Throne and all her spinning finitudes).

The Idea of angelic griefing gives space to deeptime rhythms of mourning and to the structural limits of mourning. It—angelicism as the mourning template of mourning’s mourning, taken as wreath and wealth and spiralling up from out of the imaginary number of extinction—forms a complaint, but one logged against the inner threshold of collapsing.

Such would be angelic griefing at first glance—a deeptime encounter with architectonic whirl and test of temporal grievance and a siding with administrative heaven light. If there is an upper limit to what both grieving and griefing can do, is this it? How does celestial kvetching literally save time?

Far beyond the online troll, the swag swarm, the malady gimp class, and the online bully, the angelicist hyper-plaint and hyper-raider would act as an ultimated intimate and invisible foreign function forcer. In the case of angelicism as Virality of the universal forcer as such (Paul Cohen), there are character roles the cherub griefer already takes on (the typology of different angels is somewhat limited here).

There are angels who rise above it all and are are closer to God, and others who are far more Dirty (Bataille and Weil). These angelic grouches ascend to earth and ‘the trenches’ as muddied and transitive beings, limping and hiding their wings, folding and self-applying in infinitely weak links and senses. They also bear the infinitely weak covert of number, compact multi planet clusters and silicon rainbows, telematic chains and promise.

They allow themselves to get snagged and to angelically flop and loop into hearsay and mechanistic gossip so as to have the all-out out-of-body experience of leaving all rainbow bodies even the best with a booby-trapped message behind: frail grail ethics. Think of Erzebet Graves or 508boy or Christine Chan or Pop Smoke or Lil Shine.

The angels of angelicism are obviously deeply multipolar beings—some of them peaceful, some of them wrathful, some of them semi-wrathful, some of them droopy, some of them god-kissed, some of them latent, some of them cute and Disney faded, some of them equal to God, some of them not named as angels or clones at all, some of them heartfreak derisive, some of them heartbreak divisive, some of them craving total silence, some of them singletons, some of them soundcloudettes, some of them belonging to the night and hesitating on a neon threshold, some of them kissing perfectly forever and a day, some of them play around with Simone’s awful prayer, some of them already in the afterlife are beyond normal multiversal conceptions of matter, some of them go only to the one thought, only to the moving retarded, only singularityward, only to the woo, only to the comic centre of the universe, only to angelic svelte indifference to indifference ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , only to Pop Smoke’s one song-to-come, only to Pop Smoke’s one song-to-come, only to Pop Smoke’s one song-to-come.

It is a question of mixed states and of defining modal clonal angelic griefing fugue clouds with no central control—there may be a clone that has ‘my name’ on it for example but it can not be me and it can not not be me. Such is angelicism01 itself as it which might be defined as the original clone; the 01 is therefore out-of-series and always missing in action (inactive, deeply obsolescent, pure future stock)—the quantically sexed AWOL one on_ secret sealed over forever.

It would be easy to imagine that only these clones—and no other online entities—are capable of the greatest feud that will ever take place on the internet. But if this feud took place and you are not yet one or do not know you are a clone, how would you know and how would you know it took place? Perhaps this feud will take place today and it will be of extogenesis and of the number of extinction and only the angelicist clones have already read this and know what each of the quanta mean apart, together, through and through.

Such a feudo-irenics may have only one gnostic function, to make the number of extinction (what size is extinction) readable in advance. To say otherwise is to misunderstand that the tractable is becoming more mysterious and unbearable than Keatsian negative capability. What you cannot bear is what you will not read, which is what you know and what the angelicist or otherwise clones say. The tractable number is sealed. Somewhere in space-time, the answer to the Drake equation already rests.

Perhaps the feud has already gone down in fragmented symbols and hints, but it is also the function of the griefer to notate and read what is constantly and adjacently being covered and unread. A feud may be a clonal rift, angelic flop, or even a species split, atonal song without sign of music. Since the human has nothing to do with the end, how would you know which war over inscriptions you are in? There are never any examples of such a feud, only margins. On the other hand, this feud over living number (physical artistic sur-numbering) is now central and the only thing worth knowing. The war now is clonal arithmetic and invisible influence.

The inner feud then (meta-mathematical, extinctogenic, the view from skywhere and skywhen automated and unboxed, the turf war without earths, the infinity war of internal sky) is about the number and the size of the extinction we are in. This is what is intimated in the limit-hail of clone war, the step, the inner threshold, the falling in love with the movement of one song alone. What kind of disease is there except not knowing the number to come? One thinks of Lenin’s Letter to Gorky saying if we are ill at all it means we’re involved in high state treason.

Badiou in effect says that the great disease is the ideology of finitude, the refusal to count infinities beyond a certain limit. And how not to have such an illness when we haven’t heard back from the Drake Equation yet, and the line of sight remains scopic? Even a positively completed Drake Equation would be inscribed in the first instance on a screen whose page implies a thermal one-way-street, pending other multiversal bets.

When it comes to clones visible and invisible, the original clone would say ‘they are not me whoever they are, but they are me, so even if I disagree with what they say, I wouldn’t and can’t disagree, because all of the statements that might occur at the end of time are equal and the least likely and most ugly might turn out to have the most beautiful because infinitely weak function’. We can see therefore that even the most vulgar griefing can open up new infinity axioms, and in this way the era of trolling is subsumed. There is a maths clone and a maths of the angelicist clones too because we don’t know what type of number category of extinction we are in. Do you yourself know how to turn it off?

Is this griefing itself therefore the question of how many extinctions? 6 or 666? How many variations on extinction ? 6 variations and does it speak? Is it sixfold? Is it extincting this year towards 2,666? Is this the sixth extinction? Can it be my extinction? Is it possible for it to /give/ extinction?

The internet speaks to itself of itself on itself all of the time and it says something universal. The problem with saying something universal is that it can never be universal enough. To say that thing which is universal you have to add what we can call an ‘application’. Or you can call what you add ‘the bit’, the bit which is the idomatic bit which could be anything, an angel for example. One needs to add the bit because without the bit the language is too universal to be universal enough. Angelicism01 is the name for this situation.