Are we all just demons in hell?

So I have this theory that we are all just demons in hell. Literally, this is hell and humans are the demons, and demons don't know they're demons. In fact the task of a demon is to develop self knowledge of his or her own evil in order to escape hell. Christ forgives your sins because it is a foregone conclusion that you did something in a past life to deserve to be here. Not knowing what you did, and thinking you don't deserve it is part of the punishment.

The universe has multiple layers of heaven and hell. This is the true multiverse. It isn't really about living a good life in this life or performing good works or having faith in Christ. Faith is important but the true goal is to develop self knowledge of your own evil, and to learn to transcend it.

In this universe it isn't good versus evil, it's evil versus evil. Every demon thinks they are good and their ideological enemies evil. To overcome this you have to truly understand the viewpoint of your enemy, you have to see through their eyes, and this is a crucial task of getting out of hell. The task of everyone is to see through the enemies eyes, and to see that one is wrong, but not just that oneself is wrong but that everyone is wrong. Since we are all demons in hell none of us can be right. We are sinners who need forgiveness because it is our nature to lack self-knowledge. The cultivation of self-knowledge is the cultivation of salvation. Jesus is not here to weaken you, or to weaken Western Civilization but to strengthen you through the cultivation of a better self. 

This is more than saying "everyone is wrong." You have to actually understand why. You have to immerse yourself in the viewpoint of others and really understand how they think. You have to understand how you think and how you're lying to yourself. This means that therapy and spirituality are virtually identical practices when done correctly. It's not about blame and if you're immersing yourself in blame or self hate you're doing it wrong. It's not about hating others, because it's not about hate at all, and it's not about love either. This isn't an emotional exercise. The emotion comes later after the understanding. The emotion is the outcome of the work and not the work itself. Know thyself, and through the knowing thou art saved.

The worst demon is the one who thinks they're a victim of everything and that everyone else is to blame. The nicest demon thinks they are to blame and everyone else is innocent. The correct demon  transcends blame and understands their own error, and endeavors to see through everyone else's eyes, but also understands that others are not perfect. What is really happening is that everyone lies to themselves, everyone believes their own lies, everyone thinks they have good intentions but they simultaneously do bad things. The normal state of human affairs is self-deception. This is why demons don't know their demons. It's not good versus evil but one dumbass versus another. Hell is literally stupidity. 

What you CAN'T grow in Oklahoma

I have made Oklahoma my home and become a full-time gardener. Growing anything here is a Herculean task because everything you grow has to be able to survive four horrible seasons: 

1. Torrential rain in spring
2. Blistering hot summer 
3. Gale force winds (spring and fall)
4. 10° f winter

Torrential rain will flood your backyard. This causes potatoes to rot, along with brassicas (cabbage, kale, cauliflower, brussel sprouts) spinach and carrots. Even some of your onions will die. 

Gale force winds will break asparagus spears, snap fruit trees, and knock over everything tall and spindly. 

Blistering hot summer kills some species of onions, and some flowers.

10° f winter kills all citrus, avocados, olive trees, date palms, all herbicious plants except onions and garlic, and most herbs.

So what can you grow? Well most of these things.

You can grow brassicas, potatoes and root crops on hills to protect them from flooding. You use insect netting to protect them from being devoured alive by bugs.

You can trellis your asparagus and fruit trees. These should also be on hills. Your fruit trees will literally spend their entire lives strapped to a pole.

You can buy dwarf citrus, avocado, and olive trees and bring them indoors during the winter. Or you can build a greenhouse. If you build a greenhouse it better be strong so it can withstand the wind.

When in doubt trellis it, grow it on a hill, spray with copper fungicide, and cover with insect netting. Mix perlite, spagnum peat moss, and slow release fertilizer into the soil. Water only at the base of the plant. Cover unprotected soil with wood chips. Make hills or raised beds for everything.

Without this all you can grow are onions and garlic. There might be some political lesson here but I can't think of it.

Principles don't care about your facts

I have no love of Ben Shapiro nor of Ayn Rand. The first is a Zionist shill for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the second founded a literal Gospel of Greed. But each of them articulated a different version of the same idea. Shapiro likes to say "facts don't care about your feelings" while Rand once said "nature to be commanded must be obeyed." 

Both phrases are overplayed, both use facts to conceal the principles of their advocates (barbaric principles), and both also articulate a truth. 

Buy something terrible has happened in western civilization: ought became is. Let me explain. 

First there was tradition, it said "things are certain way therefore they ought to be that way." Usually the phrasing for this logic went something like "but that's the way it has always been!" 

Then both Hume's guillotine and the Industrial Revolution came along and said "just because things are a certain way does not mean they ought to be that way." 

For those who don't know the Scottish philosopher David Hume came up with a principal known as Hume's guillotine, a principle which says that the fact that things are a certain way does not establish that they ought to be that way. Hence the break with tradition. It is called a guillotine because it slices a traditional premise in half. Tradition says is therefore ought, Hume's principle separates the is from the ought. 

If you ask any liberal educated in philosophy they will tell you that they believe in Hume's principle, but they do not, and they don't know it. Because what they actually believe in is ought therefore is. For example; 

• It ought to be possible to create a democracy in Afghanistan, therefore it is 
• Trans women ought to be women, therefore they are
• Biological women should have the same capabilities as men, therefore they do
• Biological women should be able to keep up with trans women in sports, therefore they can
• Any society ought to be able to win a mathematics Fields medal, therefore they can 
• Putting black kids in white schools should raise their achievement, therefore it will 
• Homeless people ought to have high levels of agency just like us, therefore we should be able to make them functional addicts by giving them needles
• NASA should not need white male engineers, therefore it doesn't 
• Chinese should not be better at capitalism, therefore we can compete with them in manufacturing 
• Because global warming is a problem you should be able to live with less energy 
• Degrowth ought to be a successful electoral platform, therefore it is 
• We ought to be able to when elections while hating men, therefore we can

The basic leftist principle could be principles don't care about your facts.

Somehow Western Civilization went from tradition to Hume's guillotine to delusion. Why?

Because people got so used to technology overthrowing society's values they just adopted revolution in values as a value itself. Now they think they can just make the revolution happen without a corresponding previous revolution in technology. And because the human mind is bad at understanding the fundamental principles behind what is going on this takes the most crass form of ideological rationalization. In essence, the demand for change gets well ahead of the technological facilitation of that change. This is a sort of wishing makes it so way of thinking. These people write vast ideological tracts to cast a spell and turn a wish into a reality. Progressive spell casting is basically most PhD thesis in non-STEM subjects. Change became the tradition, so change must occur regardless of whether it is possible or founded on a material basis. 

People don't believe me when I say that science has mostly exhausted itself. All the low-hanging fruit has been picked, meaning that if there is technology to develop it is typically already been developed. It is far easier to build an engine in your garage than a self-driving car. Technologies progress thru a simple to synthetic process.

First simple technologies are developed. Then those technologies are synthesized (combined) into more complex technologies. The computer for example is a synthesis of integrated circuits, LED lights, battery technology, plastic technology, and many others I'm not thinking of. 

The automobile is a synthetic technology composed of machined parts, rubber tires, alloy wheels, windshield glass technology, motors that raise and lower the windows, battery technology, computer technology.

First all the simple technologies get developed, then they get combined into more and more complex configurations. 

Physics has mostly stalled and this is because technological and scientific revolution is a curve and as you go up that curve for the cost of discovery becomes more and more expensive. Or to put in another way, the cost of cracking particles requires a bigger and bigger accelerator. Without increase in fundamental scientific knowledge there is no corresponding increase in technology. A lot of racism is directed towards minorities for "compromising"  the sciences but science hit the beginning of the hockey stick curve before minorities were welcomed into the universities. Basically, they ran out of new science so they hired and recruited brown people to keep the institutions growing.

To circle back to the previous discussion on how ought becomes is, liberalism is destined to die because the very nature of science and the increase in cost of new science means technological revolutions will occur farther and farther apart. It will take more time in between revolutions, and that means it will take more time for new values to be realized and become permanent. In the meantime the left will get way ahead of the process, it's revolutions will fail, and it will be continuously discredited by jumping the gun. It will also attack the very science necessary for its own values revolution, and attack the white males who have been the most valuable players in that revolution. 

It's going to slow down if not stop entirely, it's going to alienate the core group necessary for technological revolution. It's going to slow or stall new values revolution, and it's old values revolutions are going to continue to fail since they were never substantiated by technological change. They never actually made everyone the same. The technology allowed some surface level changes but vast differences still remained. The gulf between this anticipation and reality is the failure of the left.

What I am for

On a hierarchy of priorities basis race doesn't even register as the most important thing for me. We non liberals can get so wrapped up in refuting liberal and left-wing talking points that what we stand for gets drowned out by the never ending task of refuting the torrential rain of liberal bullshit. 

Non leftists / non liberals are handicapped by being stuck in refutation land, unable to articulate a positive vision. Learn how to say no to madness but never to say yes, they learn what they are against but never what they are for. Liberalism keeps them from realizing what they are for by keeping them preoccupied by a torrent of bullshit.

Race matters, and I am firmly against anyone who hates the white race but this is about what really interests me, what I really stand for, what I really want, and how I want the world to move beyond it's existing neurotic paradigm, so let me talk about that 

I want a multiplicity of games. Capitalism is a game, democracy is a game.  I don't believe in stretching the definition to include dictatorship as a form of game even though there are game elements to it.  I don't care at all about equality and I don't believe it's possible anyway. Equality as "virtue" represents a never-ending war on human nature and tendencies. Besides, people got equality in the Soviet Union and they still voted for blue jeans. Nobody actually likes equality when they permit themselves to think. Real equality means you have to run a race only to have your legs kicked out from under you before reaching the finish line. Only a sadist would think that was the basis for a good society.

A multiplicity of games accomplishes a lot more for furthering human happiness than equality ever would. A person can be bad at one game but will rarely be bad at all of them. Having only two games: capitalism and democracy boxes people in to either succeeding at one or the other. A multiplicity of political and economic systems operating in parallel with each other encourages human flourishing by giving every person the opportunity to (possibly) succeed at at least one. 

And unlike the pursuit of equality, which destroys any incentive for mastery and success, a multiplicity of games fosters a high level of human agency and "empowerment" for lack of a better term. It also encourages the species to speciate, separate, to occupy all possible niches of mastery and competence. It encourages evolution of both the cultural and genetic nature. It creates an evolutionary arms race that improves the flourishing of sentient life.

Everything else tends to fall in line as a sub principal of the overarching principle of increasing the variety of games. This is the essence of Republican reactionary thought: that it is not really reactionary and not strictly committed to republics as a political form. The goal is something so weird, and so different from what everyone else is trying to do that it looks like so many other things that it isn't. It looks like Nazism but it isn't, it looks like hyper-progressiveism but it isn't, it looks like reactionary thought or neoreaction but it isn't. It looks like conservatism but it definitely isn't. Republican reaction is actually constitutional game design in the disguise of everything else.

And I really do mean game design. It is my intention to eventually develop board games that simulate different political systems, to test political systems with an extremely analog method using real human beings. None of this nonsense academic theorizing or Marxist critique that knows nothing because it never experiments to verify its theories. Game design must naturally involve real players playing the game, and this is especially true when you're designing political systems. Is a crime to subject everyone to an experiment when you haven't even worked out the details of gameplay. 

Other than that I stand for certain things and against others but these are just personal preferences. I like the Chinese Communist Party  because they have unified political and economic power at the top instead of letting economic power dominate the political. Their politicians are not required to sell out as soon as they get elected, and China actually has a demonstrated capability for subjugating globalists interest. As far as I know the Chinese are not importing millions of foreigners in order to enrich the business community, nor tolerating deranged academics and gender theorists. There's definitely something to be said for making your whole society one big hierarchy, and I especially admire the CCP for using communism to suppress communism.

But I find that this approach would probably be brittle and definitely inappropriate for the American / European soul. Americans are not cut out for the kind of oppressive conformity required of such a system. Academia should probably have some sort of Pope appointed by the President or maybe a conservative foundation. The universities should be stripped of their power to appoint their own professors or determine who gets in. We need to recognize that the mentally ill are attracted to higher education the same way bullies are attracted to the police and take steps to exclude the insane from academia. Leftism should definitely be classified as a religion and barred from all participation in government. Millions of lefty lunatics need to go to internment camps for compulsory reeducation. America needs its burning of the books and burying of the scholars moment. A heavy hand is required to unfuck this whole situation but going forward the proper format for flourishing Western Civilization is a multiplicity of games. Humans are a Paleolithic species operating with medieval institutions and 21st century technology. A multiplicity of games / political / economic systems creates a test bench for finally upgrading those medieval institutions without succumbing to communism, and the heavy hand necessary to suppress leftism runs the risk of creating a brain drain in the West. Without societal experiments that brain drain might become irreversible.

Nick Land is schizophrenic and not to be trusted

The man thinks he wants autonomous capital. He also acts like a conservative, criticizing everything from a conservative point of view, but also loves the Chinese Communist party. 

Autonomous capital is basically what liberalism is all about, or to put it another way, the left has made a whole business out of slavishly converting every technological development into a values system. Birth control comes along and the left becomes feminist. Transgendered surgical techniques arrive and the left tries to transition everyone's children.

Remember that in the past the Founding Fathers were also liberals and they converted the material force of guns, a relatively new force at the time, into the ideology of a republic. Leftists have depended pornography as free speech. The exception to this technology ---> liberal ideology pipeline is guns, which have been co-opted and reinterpreted as conservative technology, and since conservatives love it liberals now hate it. 

Unstructured slavery to technological forces is what liberalism is all about, it is what defines their mythic "right side of history" narrative. Anyone who believes that humans should be in charge is basically a communist, anyone who believes that humans should resist technological cultural change is a conservative, and anyone who thinks humans should control the direction of cultural change by controlling the technology is a Silicon Valley fascist.

Liberalism's defining feature is demand for unstructured "progress", for belief in destiny, like history will just magically unfold in a progressive direction. It's incoherent because they can't even say the direction they are going, they can just feel it, they just know it, somehow they can tell. It's a vibe thing, but guess what it's capitalism that controls that vibe. 

Because behind most of these liberal revolutions in values is a technological change, though challenging racism stands out as a possible exception since no technology has actually made anyone equal. I suppose the end of racism as a culturally valid phenomenon is also traceable to birth control, and perhaps also the atomic bomb, since the result is that societies no longer have to compete in a death struggle over resources. Birth control removes the constant pressure for growth while the bomb makes direct violence with other superpowers politically untenable. Once you have these technologies you no longer have the material force that sustains hatred of differences, and society seeks its lowest energy state, which means racism becomes stigmatized, because white only drinking fountains are a higher energy state to maintain than everyone being terrorized by black crime.

Humans are lazy and they seek the less effortful path.

My thesis here is that technology drives our values and when technology changes our values change. Humans are tool using apes with religion, and we make religion out of our tools. The whole process exists in a kind of recursive feedback loop where we interpret the cultural effects of our tools as a material force we must obey. As an example the Aztecs always had a problem with surplus population, and they solved this problem with massive quantities of human sacrifice. This is a very obvious example of the material force ---> values system pipeline. Technology plugs into this psychological process and creates a technological force ---> values systems pipeline. This pipeline IS THE LEFT, and you can predict wherever the left will go by looking at the direction the technology is taking, and anticipating how that technology will change people's values.

I don't want to get off track from the main point but I feel another example is an order, because we have talked about the past but we should also talk about the future to make this process as salient as possible in the reader's mind, so let's make a slight detour. 

Elon musk is developing neuralink. He believes that creating a hive mind for humanity will counterbalance against the rise of AI. More than likely AI will simply wind up running the hive mind, but whatever. Useful idiots abound in the human species. 

Let us imagine that it becomes possible to upload memories to social media and to then share them with others. Everyone begins uploading and downloading memories and people even begin editing them to create a more "polished" look. There are even sexual memories being uploaded and downloaded on PornHub. Fake glamorous memories dominate Instagram, hateful memories on X (of course), a mixture of Boomer slop and disturbing stuff on Facebook (as usual), and sexual memories on porn sites. It's the sex memories that really drive the adoption of neuralink. Most men would be hesitant to get their heads drilled for a brain computer interface, but dangle an endless supply of sex memories with smoking hot women in front of them and they change their mind. Of course some of these memories might not be completely consensual, and some might be of the revenge porn variety.

Imagine that your ex-boyfriend uploads a memory to a porn site in revenge for you cheating on him, or leaving him, or whatever. It is seen by tens of millions of men and every time you walk down the street anonymous men you have never met look at you like they have had sex with you, BECAUSE THEY HAVE. There's not much difference between reality and memory is there?  Viewing something on a two-dimensional screen at least gives you some separation between you and the event in question, but memory is far more personal and you become the things you remember. If 10 million men remember having sex with a woman without her consent then effectively she has been raped by 10 million men. 

So in the beginning of neural interfaces the laws are very strict, we hope, to protect the privacy of others. But people begin to put more and more of their memories online, so much so that it begins to reshape the values of society. In the beginning privacy is considered  extremely important but at the end of the process privacy is an outdated concept for old fuddy-duddies. What, you want privacy? You don't want to be included in other people's memories? You don't want your intimate partner to put her memories online? So that her female friends can judge and criticize? That's a red flag! The pipeline of material force ---> new values works fast and in a single generation the right to privacy becomes a concept only conservatives believe in. In fact, this is how conservatism happens, it happens when people simply refuse to update their values. All those conservatives you disdain? Maybe you should have some sympathy for them, since they are simply people who refuse to update their values for a previous change in material forces. This process has been going on a lot longer than you have been alive, you are just here for the latest iteration, and the system will pass you by and if you don't change your values you will become conservative too.

Live long enough and you will become a conservative. 

So this then circles back to my point about Nick Land and autonomous capital. The man thinks he wants autonomous capital but that's like saying you want the victory of liberalism. He says that liberalism is the only thing that has any future, but then he also wines endlessly about white replacement. Does the man think capitalism considers whites special? The fascist paradox is to believe wholeheartedly in capitalism while capitalism destroys all your values. Zizek is not an idiot all the time, and he mentions this.

The most prescient comment on this issue came from none other than Grimes who said,

"What they don't tell you is that capitalism itself is the most obvious vehicle for intelligence and evolution, That the only thing saving you from governance by "autonomous capital" is the selfishness and laziness of women, who are refusing en masse to feed the machine.

The real danger is the eternal sentient economy. 

Once the market can think for itself, it will eradicate women and create factories to grow babies in order to obtain infinite consumers. 

Not to terrorize everyone with another conspiracy theory"

 

Because of the religious nature of the human brain the psychological process of material force ---> cultural values becomes a technological force ---> cultural values pipeline and the humans become the tools of their own technology.

And to piggyback on what Grimes said this process will be horribly misogynistic, because it is a continuation of a technological process of manufacturing substitutes for the female body. This process of substitutes began with things like pornography and transgenderism, and we have already seen the cultural rationalizations of men in women's sports, rationalizations which are misogynistic in nature. The rationalizations have to be misogynistic because they flow from the technology of transgendered hormones and surgeries, a technological process whose purpose is to make the female body more consumable. Consumption of women is the very essence of misogyny and technologies that further it will lead to the reinforcement of misogynistic values. 

But this isn't about misogyny. This isn't really even about Nick Land. This is about the need for communism, or to put it another way, the need for alignment of AI with human values. Or to put it yet another way, the need for real conservatism. Because if you want real conservatism you want to enslave capital. The Amish are the only real conservatives and they're also the only people who pick and choose which material forces they obey, by picking and choosing which technologies to embrace. For a society to overcome slavery to technological material forces it's going to require a pretty heavy government hand. This idea that everything can be fixed the lack of regulation is a fool's errand and gets you only the relentless destruction of all your precious values at the hands of autonomous capital. If you as a conservative value your race, (regardless of what your race is), value your community, value family, value nation, you ultimately need to oppress capitalism. There is no gentler way of putting it: capitalism, and the technological forces it unleashes must be controlled and since you are dealing with an awesome force of atomic proportions only the heaviest hand will work. OPPRESS is the correct term. 

The reason the West is the source of the industrial revolution and also the radical upheavals in social values is because of an analytical process getting ahead of the human Id. Normally the mind does what the heart wants, or to put it another way, the ego obeys the Id. In the "rational"  Western tradition this process gets reversed and the Id is enslaved to the ego. Slavery to the ego, slavery to technology, liberalism, the right side of history, and autonomous capital are all just different ways of saying the same thing: eventual AI supremacy.

And people are beginning to realize that pure unstructured liberalism does not lead to freedom but to the triumph of the machine over the biological. Nick Land is schizophrenic because he thirsts for annihilation, he even says this. Why does anyone listen to him?