The overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of technology is what maintains the death of the Christian God. Cars running everywhere from point a to point b like clockwork, you flip the switch and the light turns on in your house nearly without ever failing, and you’re probably reading this right now on some fancy gizmo no one could have imagined 100 years ago. Science is “proven” by the effectiveness of technology. The scientific worldview is proven by that effectiveness. The problem is that the scientific attitude which is necessary to create that technology is transferred to every other domain of life, namely the ontological, or onto-theological if you prefer. Technology is effective because objects are being manipulated correctly. This theoretical attitude isn’t effective in the world of humans because humans aren’t objects (well there are degrees of object-unlikeness as you know if you’ve been reading this blog a while). So it’s abundantly clear that technology is effective, just look around. What isn’t clear is that the scientific worldview is effective for making humans flourish. With rampant nihilism, atomized loneliness, and hedonism it would seem that humans are often proof of the ineffectiveness of the scientific worldview. It works perfectly for creating technology. For creating lives with high ideals and strong virtues though? It would seem not. That is what has been lost with the death of the Christian God. Christianity could be seen as an—at least historically—effective technology. That’s what we reactionaries have been working on- trying to think up an effective political technology, a technology of the collective spirit, a government as reliable as electricity.

This seems to be the essential historical epoch we find ourselves living in

Remember yesterday, the post about about how the Republic takes place in the cosmology of the Timaeus? This is the cosmology our political discussions take place in, this in-between world, it’s moreso somewhat of an anti-cosmology. Science is the court of approval, which means Christianity has ceased to be, yet we still retain many of our Christian morals, probably through instinct and habit. Is there any going back to Christianity? In my experience at least, the “esoteric Christians”, who I happen to agree with on many things, don’t go to church, and there seems to be something off there, it’s a symptom of an overly-individualistic age from which we all suffer. In this liminal time “between cosmologies” we need to figure out what we got right with Christian morals, and what the objective science is on the matter as it pertains to physics and psychology (world and soul). One of the reasons our political parties hold knives at each other’s throats for lack of a better expression is because we’re both operating within this horizon of a disordered cosmology. We have to get that right before we can hope to get politics right. First, with this idea of “Christian morals”, in a secular age such as ours one would expect that to fall into the purview of philosophy proper–that is questionable to the point of tautology. There’s a sense in which Christianity might have died through the doubt that science brought about. It didn’t manage to kill theology or divinity however, as they are higher than any historically-situated mythology such as Christianity, and from that Anselmian claim, higher than any science either. Ask some old Taoist what he thinks of western science, prepare to be bamboozled- same plane. So there’s this “cosmology under fire” that precedes all our politics here in the west, we have one foot in Christianity and one foot in Science, and we haven’t yet figured out how to either synthesize the two or discard one altogether. Meanwhile most are stuck in this lower realm of politics that presupposes this war in heaven. The West needs both a new Timaeus and a new Republic if you ask me. We need to get working on a new cosmology (outside of state influence) and from there the new politics will follow. Most on the left deny scientific findings, while many on the right deny that mere christianity isn’t still possible. Neither of these attitudes are going to lead to the flourishing of our nations, we need reconciliation.

Think about that 20:1 ratio thought-experiment in this context

Right off the bat I’m wondering how many of those Russians’ 1s were Siberia’d by Stalin. And how many of the 1s were lost during the world wars? Bringing an inverted Marxism in again- women, half the population of whites, was rarely encouraged to use their leisure for refinement until recently. So what’s that leave us of the alleged 850M+? You might say, that’s meaningless, are you trying to tell me my boss is in any way “refined”! That’s a laugh. No, they are in a better place to have their kids educated to refinement though. Even if one of them only turns out to be a worker-bee attorney that’s closer most proles get. You could say that intrinsic to white evolution to civilization beyond the other races was in part due to a quasi-Marxism before Marxism existed. The 1s using their surplus wealth to refine the 20s. How else could you explain it? And there are a few races whose 1s aren’t worth our 20s – how else do you explain their level of civilization? “We don’t like to think about that.”

We today have more leisure than most times and places in history (probably all) and most people squander it through hedonism. There’s leisure+refinement, that’s what I keep trying to tell you!

If it were to be discovered that Epstein & Pals were Crowleyans I would not be shocked at all. The teaching that the Will is everything and can do anything… where else can you find that? “Wait a second, wait a second!” Neech’s system isn’t unanchored from ethics- the eternal return is an individualized version of the categorical imperative. Without that, pure unhindered Will-ism (Thelema) can turn deranged and I can easily see that leading to Epsteinian debauchery and essentially child-sacrifice. Crowley is similar to Freud and many others who seem like neech-knock-offs with a few nuances here and there- no one could replicate him (though many French galaxybrains did try). One can learn a proto-hyperstition from Crowley that can be used against our “elites”, just try not to get lost. Anyway, I’m pretty sure he’s /theirguy/ if I had to choose one person from the 20th century.

How to roam the streets of social media

You’re worried about the wrong plague. Carefree obliviousness about who set this lifeworld in motion is the real plague. It wasn’t us. (Wasn’t “us” unless you’re reading this, Larry?) Most have been created by them. It’s possible to gain awareness and begin creating reality for yourself, on your own terms. This oblivion is highly contagious and without a plague mask you will continue to dwell and “think” in a world you didn’t choose for yourself. In many cases, the person reading this right now is the plague, and what would be the point of them putting on a mask? Never too late to try I guess.

Was woken up from a dream. Maybe I do have sex dreams after all, and just forget them? It was with.. it reflects the fact that I “play the field”. I regret I have to do that, I just don’t see anyone who seems very trustworthy. This probably makes me seem untrustworthy, and thus this cycle reinforces itself. Dunno, throw yourself at me and see what happens? Easy for me to say I know.

If you think of dialectics like a video game, the left uses a cheat-code to skip the level represented by people like me. They have no way to respond directly so they create a system of psyops to pretend it doesn’t exist. If you can’t respond you already lost the game. That is because we are right that a portion of your brain is missing and you are born slaves HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Ok I won’t make you type the imgur link by yourself. Academics are supposed to be the brains of the operation and yet when you look at them you see that they are their own kind of prole that has no leisure to speak of through which to cultivate refinement. Journalists are similar- ideally they would be learning from the (free-)academics, and their writings would reflect that. This is because most of our “upper-class” consists of serfs. The university has to bow down before the ideoplex in place, and same goes with all forms of media. What we need is for the university and medias to challenge that ideoplex. That is what their duty is, to be the self-consciousness of culture. Instead they’re its servants.

My Chinese friend posted a ratio without a citation a while back and without any historical context but I find it interesting just for thought-experiment reasons. In the old days it took 20 farmers to feed one person who didn’t work, so 20:1. The problem of exploitation–I tend to think of it as a so-called problem in many moods–the problem of exploitation is bound up with a twin concept of leisure and refinement, this latter always symptomatically missing from almost all discourse regarding exploitation. Today we have the evil 1%, so we could also think of it as a 100:1 ratio if we want to go with popular imagination. What seems to be missing with them is that their twin concept is of exploitation and leisure without the refinement. It isn’t so easy to demonize exploitation, thus to even think of it using the pejorative idea of “exploitation” when you add refinement into the equation. Many of the exploited ones won’t understand, in part because they lack the leisure to have the refinement to understand, but it seems clear to me at least that if 20 farmers was what it took back in the day to yield a “crop” of one real human being, then their labor was worth it. Would you prefer 21 1/8th human beings instead? Many laborers would say yes, whatever gets me a half hour less work a day. I’d argue that they’re simply confused, and I sense that this is how the Habsburgs used to think as well. Remember that saying of Adorno that worker-consciousness continues even into the weekend. That means that when they do get leisure they dedicate it to refinement suited to the domain of their specific caste. Which raises the question of how “refined” that refinement actually is. Looking at our democrats of today, I can tell you how refined that refinement is, and in fact I have, much to their disdain. Not to say that true disdain or true contempt are moods that they’d even understand, the feral beasts that they are. Notice how you won’t really find people who talk like me among the upper-class? Even though you may suspect that that’s what they’re thinking? I have a hunch that that is an evolutionary adaptation of theirs, to be silent about the distance between castes because that only incites revenge. I’m sure among their personal families they laugh about some of the things I do. Once again, I’m just a worker like many of you, I just happen to have some peculiarly candid book-friends who have managed to persuade me about various things over time. I only wish I was “larping”- if anything I larp as a peasant so people hate me less. So, this 20:1 ratio. The left can be seen as the desire to eliminate all of those 1s regardless of whether they’ve exploited for reasons of leisure+hedonism or leisure+refinement, the fact that they exploit is their problem- and from a certain perspective (I know many will never understand) it isn’t accurate to think of it as “exploitation”. Does it make sense to say that you exploit your shoes by wearing them? Regarding my previous post about “Middle Class Morality”: I believe this has also leeched into our upper-class of the present. Many of them are where they are because they appealed to the middle and lower peoples. So basically a majority of them are proles or bourgeoisie with lots of money, and lack the kind of consciousness that I’ve been talking about, so it’s misguided to even think of them as the upper-class. Middling individuals in places they have no right to. And there is a feedback-loop between them and the proles&bourgeoisie through which they sustain this lowbrow culture of ours.