“I’m socially conservative but fiscally liberal.”

There’s a new realignment taking place in American politics. Because of shit like this, this, this and this, being socially liberal is now the authoritarian and in-group socially policing position that being conservative once was.

The new conservative kids, if they think conservatism has any future at all, have to adopt a neutral stance toward social issues – live and let live. Trans people? Their choice. Free speech? Absolute. Abortion? Again, your choice.

Even if the conservatives aren’t here yet, this is clearly the only coherent social view remaining in America. The young right knows this. They are pouncing upon the opportunity. And here’s the problem: through the culture wars and anti-SJWism, conservatives have lied and pretended to be the ‘new punk’.

Now, being against SJWs will also involve being slipped a red pill that thinks authoritarian policing is great, universal healthcare is a joke, the flat tax is amazing, and the only function of the state is to police and wage war. This aspect of the conservative/libertarian soul is morally and spiritually corrupt.

It leads people like Ben Shapiro to make absurd arguments, like that corporations don’t influence government policy and subvert democracy through big money, that lobbying the government is no different from any private exchange of money, that socialized medicine is impossible and morally evil, and that, as I said before, the only function of the state is to wage war and beat black people with batons.

Conservatives have played a smart game. They’ve used the absurdity of the SJW and anti-individualist left to peddle supply-side economics and racist myths about crime, justifying mass incarceration and poverty as just a part of the natural dominance hierarchy.

The left is losing this culture war. Saying that the founding fathers were racist fascists, and thus individual rights are inherently racist and fascist, is like Fox News for the left. So, even though I’m screaming into the wind here, my advice for the left is simple:

Organize the working class on the basis of a better life. Don’t be anti free speech. Be culturally libertine, like the left used to be, when it was up against George W. Bush and conservatives were (and still are) the ones threatening free speech.

An enclosed and socially restrictive left will only allow conservatism to survive the generational gap and thrive 30 years from now.

But, I’m sure that will happen, and the 2020 election will be narrowed on one issue:

“We, noble Democrats, are not Nazis, and Trump is. So vote for us.”

The 2016 election will repeat, but far worse this time. Some insane illiberal tech baron who happens to be a Democrat could run against Trump, and by default, again, we’d have no choice.

“We’re not Nazis. Let’s censor these Nazis,” is the most limited and unimaginative political project possible. Destroying cultural freedom on the basis of fighting Nazis will only speed along decadence while far-right movements continue to grow, citing the left’s repressive attitudes toward speech and unwillingness to debate as their main superiority. And that message will have far more broad appeal than “White people should shut up and fuck themselves, you’re problematic, bend the knee to me.”

And then, they’ll sneak neoliberalism into the pudding, and the fake ‘center’ will continue to truck on, making money and locking people up, but at least we’ll feel good if a few Nazis feel bad…

(The death of political imagination is here)

August 13th, 2017: An Autopsy of America

It is no secret now that the United States is accelerating toward the dissolution of its founding principles. The contradictions, so blatantly obvious at the moment the foundation was set, have failed to resolve.

I, like, many others, dismissed the battle between Antifa and the alt-right as a kind of cosplay, a fake politics conducted outside of the traditional political sphere, in a new and illusory world of glory, righteous power, and the victory and spoils of war. This sphere of blood-in-the-streets activism is still Hell on Earth. It still moves us not one inch forward to a world worth living in.

I have responded initially to the murder of Heather Heyer in the way that was right in that moment. But now, I only want to understand what will follow. The act of writing, in the end, can only serve as a tool of the faithful witness to understand. Writing can change nothing. It can only clarify what is.

The left, in the wake of this, has been emboldened beyond belief. Many are the thousands who announce victory is now a necessity that a comrade has died at the hands of fascism. Consequently, the left will accelerate a crystallized version of its ideology that it has been approaching for the longest time now: the idea that freedom of speech is just covering up for fascism.

Already, the left has turned against the ACLU. Good people like Jordan Peterson will also no doubt be lumped in with the alt-right and Neo-Nazis, and shutting down his lectures will be a paramount duty of obligation to the revolution. Every syllable, word, thought and synapse snap not directed toward overthrowing racism and capitalism will be seen by the left as a betrayal. If you have any response to August 13th other than: “Smash them, comrades, the hour of victory is nigh, no blood and no glory is wasted”, then you are on the wrong side. You are on the side of the Neo-Nazis. I don’t believe this, but I am only trying to articulate what it is to come.

The debate over freedom of speech in the United States has come to a head here, in the destruction of all language, in the affirmation that politics can only take place as bloodied struggle against the oppressors. What would Angra Mainyu, the materialist, the prince of this world, do right now? Surely he would aggressively recruit cops and veterans to the revolution, he would be a Bolshevik, he would aim for the tipping point of that 10% revolutionary body to overthrow the American government, and he would be a he because this goal is the ultimate expression of masculine outrage and despair. He would build a private leftist militant body like the Oathkeepers, that would descend upon these real-life culture wars armed to the teeth and ready for war.

This contradiction will also eat leftists, who are simultaneously in favor of revolution but against the Second Amendment, against hyper-masculine military culture, and against cops. It wants to escalate, but it clearly lacks the mindset and tools to escalate.

And what would follow this kind of military escalation, if it were to take place? The death of bad people. In our lowest hell, the suppression and destruction of the bad people is considered equivalent to political victory.

The left, now, will support hate speech laws, because freedom of speech is just the freedom to commit hate speech, and hate speech is just the fuel of Nazi murder. The left, which has already abandoned economics and ran for the campus, will only become more a crystal of cultural issues and escape any systemic analysis of capitalism or authoritarianism. Hence, firing and censoring bad people will become a permanent replacement for legislative victory. The left will continue digging the grave of its own ambitions.

It is harder to predict what the alt-right will do now. The category is utterly meaningless. What do Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, and Richard Spencer have in common? The designation of alt-right. What do they share amongst them? At root, very little. Neo-Nazis and Spencer have been around far longer than November of 2016, and they will continue to be a scourge. Anyone opposing government control of speech will become utterly lumped in with these Neo-Nazis. The authoritarians and anti-authoritarians alike will be seen as obstacles to the left. The left will no longer seek to recruit – it will only seek to smash anyone not standing shoulder-to-shoulder with its worst ideas.

The right, born and persisting in tacit racism, is off-limits. There is no reaching out to anybody on the basis of common economic goals. So, then, like Twitter itself as a platform, the left caps its recruitment, closes rank, and goes to war with a body ill-fit for war.

The more public face of the alt-right will hopefully collapse. 4chan users present at the Unite the Right rally have been doxed. If someone as lukewarm as James Damore was fired, certainly these odious racists and actual Neo-Nazis will be fired. But it will not end there. The Nazis are the red tips of the fingers that end in the arm and root of capitalism.

Anyone living in this root, living within capitalism, who is standing for speech, debate and discussion over violent clashes will be seen as rejecting the pure materialist struggle, rejecting the necessity to bleed out Nazis in the streets, rejecting the hour of virtue. From Samuel Sinyangwe, and his useful idiot strand of neoliberals, all the way to myopic and evil Twitter communists who have hated freedom of speech for years now, the entire left will mobilize as a beast, a mass of tendon and meat lurching toward aimless war.

There is only one side. You are with us or against us. You are a Nazi or you will support the outlawing of hate speech, and the shutting down of hate wherever it is detected. Anyone who complains or dissents in the slightest will be purged. I will list plenty of interesting and great leftists who have already or will be purged: Freddie deBoer, Michael Tracey, Lee Fang, Zaid Jilani, Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU. The left will consume its own until only the ugly meme-spewing life-resenting bitter violent strand of Marxists will remain. On the left, publishers like Zero Books and The Intercept remain committed to balance and speech at their own peril.

Lastly, Heather Heyer was murdered by a fascist in an event that was an evil act of white supremacist violence. So many at the Unite the Right march were Nazis, and that will continue to bleed politics into the streets, a swirl of the politically impotent against the politically impotent with the only goal remaining to hold the bloody flag high.

The United States is becoming the kind of country it has spent a century building its decadence upon. All the terror we have stoked in the Middle East, in Latin America, all of this was the shadow of the country reaching out and ruining the world, and now the actions of the shadow are damaging and destroying the constitution of the body.

We reap what we sow, and we receive the outcomes that we ask for. Anybody who claims to know what to do right now is lying. The only thing we can do is continue to work and speak (I lied). The center, which is nothing more than the center of democracy itself, must hold, but I see no way it can hold. Surely, if you feel you are in danger, the Second Amendment exists for purposes of self-defense.

We will go down with the ship no matter what. Choose where you stand carefully, because someone will come for you. In the end, this is the spiritual task of being born upon this Earth. Just as God is crucified in the world, the ideals of democracy and human dignity are crucified inside the structures of capitalism. However, as Mark Fisher once wrote, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Thus, it is easier to imagine the apocalypse of Revelation than the slow work of pulling the splinters of a broken cross out of the wounded hand of God.

Marx vs. Melville

“The philosophers have interpreted the world. The point is to change it.” -Karl Marx

“This whole act’s immutably decreed. ’Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled.” -Captain Ahab

I really need to dissect and compare these quotes, because they’re the crux of so much seriously meaningful shit that needs to be dragged free from the vaults of darkness into the light of conscious apprehension.

Marx goes first.

“The philosophers have interpreted the world. The point is to change it.”

There are two useful ways to interpret this.

The first way is essentially the main spiritual proposition of all left politics, that a better world is possible, and all thoughts which do not challenge power are complicit in the injustices of current structures of power.

This is a wildly powerful but insanely dangerous argument. At best, it will inspire heroic change in the Earth. At worst, it will create ideological drones of bad conscience who hate the world and scream against all that it is, ignoring the possibility that the world is only a macrocosm of the disorder of the individual soul.

The second way of interpreting it is that Marx is compelling us not to merely think, but to live out what we think in the world. We all live out our beliefs unconsciously, so the goal of thinking and articulating what we believe is so that we can begin to implement our thinking in the world consciously and become responsible for our own lives, and eventually become the best possible version of our best thoughts.

I love this quote for those reasons. It’s so damn world-defining. It’s so important.

Melville is more dour. Melville, the stoic, the mystic, the Platonist, sperm whale and right whale in one, is a monolith through which all ambitions of change are crushed and swirled into the great Pacific Ocean.

“This whole act’s immutably decreed. ’Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled.”

Fatalism is the greatest danger of spiritual thinking. Infinite deference to the cosmic order, or God’s will, results in utter immobility. It is a serious problem and it is crippling to the intellect and soul alike. Any student of the Western canon seems to emerge either a kind of fatalist or a peculiar and ever-shifting motion blur, but a motion blur with a purpose.

All spiritual thinking, when truly honest with itself, ends in paradox, or contradiction. There are simply no concrete answers. The person who sees this and understands it often becomes burnt by the realization, and becomes a fatalist with no faith in human action or human hands.

The image of the world’s soul is a flat circle, a spiral, a karmic wheel, an oscillating motion that loops back into where it first started. All these images, from Nietzsche, Hegel, Buddha and Jung, are the same essential thing. The type of person you are is immortal. Your kind have existed before, and will exist again. You are complicit in the outcomes of history and can claim no ledge away from it all. You were not born today into this place that is so cruel. You, your soul, whatever you are, is the same damn place that the world has come from. This is why symbolic and mathematical order exists, for God’s sake! The self is a microcosm of the entire world. That metaphysical conceit I will always believe. I have believed it forever. I will believe it forever.

It is the premise of the redemptive, transcendent and heroic story, that the salvation of the individual, in a true sense, is the salvation of the entire world. The triumph of one person over the demons is the triumph of all. This is what I believe. This is what my book, The New Symphony, is about.

I have given you some things to consider. That is all, in the end, that writing can do. But I was born a writer. I can do nothing else. I wasn’t born a great fighter, or a charismatic activist. I am this, and I cannot change who I am.

It is the only work I can do on this Earth. And that’s that.

Is Jordan Peterson Wrong About Human Nature?

“It’s time to abandon this Jungian notion of a balanced, whole, natural humanity that we must return to.”

This is the concluding line of an excellent video by Zero Books, critiquing Jordan Peterson and Carl Jung from the left. Unfortunately, I think this line is also indicative of the spiritual immaturity of the left, which at its fundamental root, is why the left is losing its culture war. If the left seeks to dispose of the very notion of the Jungian hero’s journey, then what can possibly replace that journey? Nothing. Just bad conscience and spiritual malaise. And that’s the left’s most serious problem right now. I believe that the left is 90% right about everything when it comes to politics. But this spiritual malaise is killing its ability to speak to people on the most fundamental human level, and thus the left loses a root to the human soul. This is why figures like Jordan Peterson have attracted so much attention.

In the following essay, I am going to explain exactly why you cannot possibly abandon Jung, and why the hero’s journey and the work of perpetual synthesis will never be replaced by some social constructionist model, which unfortunately, in the left’s thinking, the social constructionist ideal of nurture taking total precedence over nature has become their trump card over reality itself.

It won’t work. And here’s why.

The Jungian notion of the hero’s journey, which is nothing more than the striving individual working to integrate their personality into the world, exists at the root of psychological wellbeing. If there is no notion of the whole person, the synthesized personality at work in the world, then there will only be pain, chaos and suffering, an inability for a person to understand who they are.

Any worldview that makes the world a place worth living in, without making that worth contingent upon uncontrollable outcomes, is no easy thing to dismiss. A person who can live in the world without seeking escape, despite all the terror that the world is, is, like Melville wrote, a whale who retains warm mammalian blood in arctic seas, a person on a hero’s journey. Or, in the simplest terms possible: it is a person with a genuine spiritual center that grounds them no matter what horror befalls them. That spiritual center is your only defense against the infinite chaos of the universe.

There are a million pitfalls. There is pretentious and self-important zen, over-acceptance of karma or fate, or the malaise and bad conscience of living in a world that you despise and cannot reconcile with what should be. Any worldview that lives in action, and yet resists these deceptions, is the golden core to which all personalities must strive.

In every moment of your life, your unconscious is creating context for your experiences. If you do not synthesize the million voices, species and attitudes of the soul, your life will be a play staged by the condensed and chaotic murmur of schizophrenic panic. Thus, you reap postmodernism, unconditional accelerationism, and other philosophies rooted in unreason or constant craving catharsis.

You will be a puppet of a thousand demons and a chorus of seraphim dimmed and hidden in the blind spots of the mind if you have no notion of an organized, synthesized personality. Let me briefly sketch out what such a worldview, and the personality that lives out that worldview in practice, would become:

1. A person who can make sacrifices. Every decision you make is a sacrifice, and if you choose nothing, if you sacrifice nothing, you will receive nothing. The entire Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bhagavad Gita, emphasis sacrifice as the hallmark of a worthy individual. If you are not willing to give up what you are currently holding, you will never be able to receive anything new. The link between human beings and the ultimate sublime, in a very real way, is mediated through sacrifice alone.

Giving up something in the present to receive something in the future is the hallmark of conscious thought, an awareness of time, and a way to understand, at root, the way the world works. Giving up the most valuable thing you own is something only a great person can do. This is why heroes so often sacrifice what they hold dear. They leave their hometown, they leave a relationship, they are away from their family and friends, they are not dependent upon instant pleasures. They are self-sufficient, because they renew the covenant between humankind and the divine through perpetual sacrifice.

Once the sacrifices stop, life loses its meaning. There will always be more to give, so there can be more to receive.

2. A person who understands the nature of work. In Christianity, as well as in the Bhagavad Gita, work is given a sacred position in the life of humankind. This is because work is sacrifice. No synthesized personality can exist without work, as a routine, and so every person must ensure that their work is worthwhile, that it is endlessly renewing as much as it is endlessly taxing. That is the ideal toward which work must strive. Work that is not renewing is corrupt. That is the crisis at the core of the Western world right now, the loss of dignified work and the subsequent loss of faith in God.

3. A person who does not expect finality or reward. This, at last, is key. If you work for a reward you will be eternally disappointed, because you are tethering the ritual act of sacrifice to an eventual escape from having to sacrifice. If you work to be finished, work will always be miserable, your sacrifices will suffer, and your personality will fall apart. The great evil of the world is that so many people do work that is not eternally renewing. How many faithful servants of religion have lived lives of endless physical toil, and passed those lives onto their children? How many seconds, hours, centuries of lived experience have been spent in such perpetual exhaustive suffering without hope or reprieve?

This world is not good. The evil of the world runs deeper than the good. Evil is easier to find, more powerful, and can easily tip you from your perch and into resentment and misery, no matter how balanced a person you are. You must understand, like Job, that a good outcome is not promised for good work. And this is the hardest and most evil pill to swallow. This is the true despair of life.

And nothing can change that. No ideology or worldview can erase that reality of the world. The only option is to live alongside it, to live and work and sacrifice without despising the ground beneath your feet and the tendons in your hands.

The hero’s journey, in my short life, is the only mode of existence I know that satisfies these conditions. It is a philosophy of endless renewal and synthesis of the human personality into something more and more each day.

Here is the shape of the Jungian hero’s journey: the world is a wheel, a circle, but each revolution upon its spokes makes you stronger, not weaker. This is the Buddhist doctrine of infinite reincarnation leading to the emergence of a Bodhisattva from the truest student of life, the most faithful witness to the truth.

Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita says that his work is never done. If the ultimate transcendent God ceased to work, the entire world would cease to work. Thus work is infinite and eternal. As above, so below, say the Hermeticists. The Gods too must sacrifice. They must sacrifice what they hold dear the most. They must sacrifice human beings to the fall.

Why is the world structured around work and sacrifice? We cannot possibly know. All religion exists as an attempt to be a faithful witness to this reality, and despite arriving at circularity or contradiction, maintaining that life is still worth living.

But this isn’t existentialism. This isn’t postmodernism. You can’t simply ‘pick your meaning’ in life and do whatever you choose. Certain sacrifices will ruin you. Choosing certain modes of meaning, such as drug abuse or ideological possession, will demolish your life and the lives of everyone around you.

Right now we are immersed in a world being demolished by these misguided, unsynthesized, fractured personalities, people who have not sorted out the thousand demons and faces that speak a thousand different thoughts and leave you, weak and tiny you, to deal with it all and live in a way that is satisfactory.

All my fiction is aimed at restoring faith in life through the evocation of the right sacrifices, the ‘right path’, the perennial religious wisdom that is more relevant than ever, because people yearn to understand their lives and their place in this world more than ever.

If you cast aside the notion of the synthesized personality, the heroic sacrifice in the world, then you will be spun by aeon and you will see only a dim glint of the sun. You will mistake ideology for truth and you will resent the world to such a degree that life itself seems a joke, a meaningless, fruitless hell, and no worldview that arrives at such a conclusion can ever be seriously entertained. Those who have made it their cynical core will reap the demons they answer to.

Please, think. Think honestly and truthfully and find work in the world that makes it worth living in. And if you can’t find that, then that is a problem, because the world is filled with Cains, those who have found nothing for all their sacrifices and been punished in the worst ways.

The world cannot be justified, or made right. But there is a way of thinking that will make it worth living in. That thin strand is what I seek. If that is not a worthy goal, then there are no worthy goals.

Mercy, Severity, and Race

At the risk of pissing off literally everybody, I’d like to make a few proclamations on the state of race in America, 2017.

Of course racism is an operative philosophy of the Trump administration. This exists at the level of aesthetics. There is a collective imagination of rustic hard-working white Americans who have been abandoned by the ruthless globalism of the 21st century, juxtaposed against the imagination of a black America engulfed in perpetual self-inflicted failings. The heroin epidemic in the Midwest is an example of vulnerable white voters who must be defended from their demons. The crack epidemic in the 1980s, and the crime and drug use that exists in black America today, is considered a failure to tug properly at the bootstraps and earn an honest living. These two Americas, bisected by race, exist in the Trump-Republican brand synthesis. This is nothing new, however. It was Bill Clinton who incarcerated an entire generation of black fathers, and of course Republican racialization, from gerrymandering, the fantasy of black ‘welfare queens’ bankrupting the government, the Southern strategy and the war on drugs, is as old and grand as Trump’s leathered speckled hide.

It is a bold-faced lie to claim that institutional racism is not real. There are more black Americans incarcerated because there is more crime, so say the conservatives. But why is there more crime? Are we to abandon black America on our certainty that black Americans are simply less lawful and less productive than white Americans? Of course not. Either institutional factors are driving these demographics of white and black toward different outcomes, or black people are simply inferior and self-destructive. At this juncture, there is a moral choice and a deplorable choice. Blame suffering people for their own suffering, or admit that globalized capital has failed black Americans in deep precision and longevity. Now that white America is fearing chronic unemployment, drug addiction and poverty, the clear answer is to unite together, not to continue expounding on your own suffering while blaming your neighbors for theirs. The global economy is a web that ensnares us all in its fortunes, its privatized gains and socialized losses. There is no time or patience for those who claim that black Americans have failed themselves, and need to have faith in the economy. Who in their right mind has faith in this economy?

What can be done about institutional racism? End the drug war. Socialize medicine. Incarceration and poverty are the twin demons that haunt oppressed life in America. Each feeds the other – the need for money and meaning make desperate people who do not respect the rule of law. If society frays and exposes people to harm, those people will no longer trust in society. But what is society? Right now, it is nothing but economics. All factors in cultural and societal life are driven by economics. This has led to profit incentives for jailing more people, as more prisoners means more free prison labor, and like the military-industrial economy, we need to pile up bodies to grow these repulsive industries. What is growth for prisons and armies? Only the destruction of individual lives. That is the only phenomenon that can grow industries built in sickness. Generating profit by imprisoning people for the drugs they sell and use to try to create better lives outside of the broken social contract is an insanely cruel ‘remedy’ for crime. It is a failed method.

And as for socialized medicine? As long as you can go bankrupt over emergency medical bills, you are never truly free. You are always dangling over a pit of massive debt, suspended only by eternal prayers for good health. This will engender a fearful and repressive society. Socialize medicine.

Now, let’s address the subject of identity politics. Given that institutional racism is real, doesn’t it make sense to go as hard on identity politics as possible?

Yes, and no, depending on what you mean by identity politics. It seems to me that intersectionality redefines and ruins words and terms constantly. In modern discourse, identity politics is used by the left as a shorthand for civil rights. If you’re against identity politics, you’re against blackness, simple as that.

This is obviously foolish! The category of identity politics has included so many cancerous and cynical political projects that organizing on the basis of identity should be seen as inherently broken. Identity evokes identity. The rise of ‘SJWism’ since 2015, from cultural appropriation by sushi chefs to ‘men are trash’ and other group-think and group-dependent ideologies have evoked a clear counter-SJWism from the right, which is known as the alt-right or alt-lite or whatever.

How do you tell poor and frightened white people about their privilege? You don’t. You emphasize universal solidarity, not the Tumblr-Twitter fantasy that white Americans get handouts and are essentially members of an upper-class. That is not the reality. The reality is that we could all be cut loose from the surface of the Earth at any moment, and that constant presence of mortality is felt strongest in marginalized communities, such as black and trans people.

The mission of the left, broadly speaking, is the mission of mercy. Consider the path of life to be flanked on either side by the sword of severity and the soothing hand of mercy. The right, and conservatism, is the path of severity. If you have failed, it is your fault. There is a kernel of truth in this. How are we to live if we do not take responsibility for ourselves? Severity cannot be dismissed, because it is intensely real. But when civilizations fail, and people give their voices to demagogues, the world is running too thin of mercy. The mission of the left is to balance the severity of the world by providing people with social safety nets, outside help to rescue individuals when they cannot succeed, literally the grace of socialized surgery or a college education without debt.

Along the lines of mercy and severity, it is obvious to anyone with an ounce of memory that the proponents of identity politics are not merciful. At all. They represent, at best, a hive of moral busy-bodies obsessed with the most minute and trivial personal subjects that can be made intensely political, and then those same people who rail against incarceration and the misuse of power seek to ban controversial speakers, create kangaroo courts without due process run by administrative hacks, fire people for jokes, and otherwise clamp down upon society and seek to reshape it at the most superficial levels through shaming and group tactics.

I disavow that crap! Forget the phrase ‘identity politics’. It is not useful. It was made by idiots for the usage of idiots. The only writing that should be done on identity politics is a call for its evaporation in discourse, and its replacement with a far stronger message of universal mercy and grace.

Infinite Fragmentation: The End of Identity Politics

The nihilism and incompleteness of modern life will never be healed through an infinite fracturing of humankind through the lens of identity politics. Fracturing can only lead to the annihilation of universal concepts, and with that, the end of the universal ability to speak and reason freely.

Identity politics, nested in postmodern thought, seeks to escape from the all-consuming reach of capitalist Western society. However, it makes crucial errors when assigning the virtues of the West to its very real faults. The concept of reason itself is maligned as a colonial outpost. Reason, to the identitarian, is a fantasy. It is nothing more than the imaginary idea that a white person, through distance and objectivity, can understand blackness or black life in America. This is why so many publishers and magazines desire writing by people of color – they are under the impression that they can break reason’s constricting spell, and the illusion of objectivity, by allowing unheard voices to fill the world. Through diversity, the multitude, the infinite fragmentation, difference and subjectivity of the world, new ideas and new modes of thinking can come into being.

Men should let women speak. Women should let trans people speak. Trans people should let black trans people speak. And so on and so on, until physiology alone is expected to speak for the revolution. A universal faculty of speech and reason has no place here. That ‘universality’ would be seen as a ploy to extend a default whiteness over all politics. Hence, speech itself becomes just another tool of whiteness, or maleness, ‘mansplaining’ or ‘whitesplaining’ away the nuances of subversive identities.

Freedom of speech, universal rights, and equality under the law are concepts opposed to identity politics. The attempts to redefine identity politics as ‘just not being racist’ are propaganda designed to undermine the very notion of universal ideas. In infinite difference, and infinite subjectivity, there exists also infinite chaos and an inability for speech to unite people. That is so clear, yet the left insists upon fragmentation as a worthwhile political project in the 21st century. It is not.

Everyone feels fragmented. Everyone aches in their bones for a different world, a profound anxiety and discontent has settled in the digital era in a way more palpable and visible than ever before. Hope in the human project itself is fading. Will hope be renewed by accepting fragmentation? Of course not. That leads only to the infinite regression of reason, the slow collapse of a universal movement into a Dada display of madness. The anxiety of infinite subjectivity is already a flaming pit capable of consuming us all. How can a political movement succeed by evoking it?

I am reminded of one of the greatest passages in Moby Dick: “The great God absolute! The center and circumference of all democracy! His omnipresence, our divine equality!”

The universal spark of divinity in every individual is the essence of democracy, of human rights, of the liberal ethos. Perhaps I have framed this question in the wrong way. But to my mind, identity politics is a doomed project precisely because it rejects the notions of objectivity, universality, and the reasonable speech capable of bringing together a multitude into a coherent whole.

Kek! Or, A Spirited Tour of Online Nihilism

Nietzsche said ‘God is dead’ in the 19th century, and ever since, only fascism, nihilism, relativism and existentialism have stepped in to fill the void. Holy shit.

Fascism is obvious. Stalin, Hitler. And I’m not going to be an idiot and say that Trump is like Hitler, because he’s obviously not. It’s just that the tendency to support Trump stems from the need to become a part of a mass consciousness, to smite your own individuality to cover up for a lying, murdering, rapist celebrity piece of garbage who has rubbed shoulders with Jeffrey Epstein and all the people who Julian Assange and his muppet bandwagoneers think killed Seth Rich and kidnapped kids for John Podesta to molest in a pizza store.

Added bonus: What if Carroll Dunham painted all the creepy child portraits in Ping Pong pizza? That would be a perfect mandala.

Exemplary bonus: Julian Assange was killed in 2014 and replaced with a Russian agent who coordinated with Trump Jr. and leaked the Podesta emails.

Nihilism! Obviously nihilism bleeds the fuck into every system of thought. Whether it’s cynical pasty Warhammer players spouting ‘praise Kek’! As Sargon of Akkad, the most cringeworthy bucket of reactionary toadstool in Britain, so joyfully declares on his livestreams of retarded libertarians turned 9/11 liberal crypto-fascists. All these nihilists call themselves ‘classical liberals’, and they cynically wield identity politics to grow an audience of Patreon stooges who worship their every idiotic hot take pasted onto the internet. Let’s take a tour of nihilists, shall we?

Gavin McInnis, cofounder of Vice, who has literally argued that sexual harassment is just a Darwinist way of pushing sensitive women out of the workplace.

Milo Yiannopolous, who was a dopey liberal journalist with no notoriety until he took up GamerGate as the clarion call of the left. This all started with gamers, you know. Seriously. Follow the map. SJWism rising on tumblr in 2012, 2013, then GamerGate giving rise to this bullshit ‘skeptic anti-SJW’ community in 2014, all the while coining the terms ‘regressive left’ and moving toward Thomas fucking Sowell and Milton Friedman over their anger at videogame feminists. Do you realize that most of these people came into political consciousness to oppose the tyranny not of a politician, but Anita Sarkeesian, a sociologist who made shit feminist videos about gaming? Then, 2015 rolls around, and wouldn’t you know it – all these ‘classical liberals’ either like Trump or believe that Trump is less of a threat to the West than feminism in gaming. It’s too stupid to be true. But it is.

Then there’s SomeBlackGuy, a black guy who runs an anti-SJW YouTube channel, and has hosted a civil and cordial conversation with Nathan Damigo, a self-described white nationalist who became famous for punching the fuck out of an Antifa woman at a real-life political LARPing event at Berkeley, live-action Twitter fighting, the kind of thing pencil-necked incel George Ciccariello-Maher wants to ignite all over the country.

Let’s not forget Lauren Southern, who argues that there is a real distinction between being a white supremacist and being a white nationalist. “Just because I want a white Western country DOES NOT mean I think anything less of black people!” –The Geist of YouTube and /pol, 2017

And last but most obnoxious, Dave fucking Rubin, who again came to political consciousness out of an opposition to YouTube leftism, in the form of The Young Turks, and interviews Ayn Rand devotees and praises supply-side economics as the new center while claiming to be non-partisan.

Oh, and Blaire White, a transgender woman who has built an anti-identity politics channel on the cynical basis of identity politics, like Milo, like Dave Rubin, wielding the LGBTQ banner as a defense against criticism. “How can I be a reactionary? I’m gay/trans!”

Twitter has simply broken the political brain. Nihilism and cynicism are the pervading norm. Kek-praising shitposters who got into politics during GamerGate rode the Trump wave into becoming the new counterculture. You know why, right? 2008 through 2016. The Obama Presidency killed the left. It fragmented it into neoliberal and socialist, two categories that mix like oil and water, and confronted with Hillary Clinton, the weak alliance broke on the rocks.

Meanwhile, on the right, you can reject everything you once believed about economics or foreign policy as long as you agree that SJWs are bad. Alt-right, alt-light, reactionary, Republican, conservative, doesn’t matter! It’s a wide tent, and since American politics is so corporate-fucked, it doesn’t matter what any of these people believe – Trump’s personality is meaningless. The memes are just nihilism. Economics is what matters, and the economics goes unchallenged in this culture war bullshit. We’re the flat tax counterculture, kids!

Cuck yourself to daddy Trump and worship his cellulite fat ass and his banker masters! Alex Jones is doing it, why not you? Every idiot or madman who ever lived can just melt themselves into the sublime marketing mischief of Trump and his goofy world-exploiting Kek!

And of course, under nihilism, we have to talk about these accelerationist weirdos. These WordPresses, these Twitter accounts, CaveTwitter, RhettTwitter, whatever, all these Marxists who hate every other Marxist and wish to grovel before Skynet and the machine God. ‘Unconditional accelerationism’ means that wherever the machine leads us is the way to go. Great! No more thinking, no more individuals. Why not just shoot yourself? No, really, if you’re an accelerationist, why not just shoot yourself? Assimilate into the mass information complex of the sea of all dead or unconscious souls. Attain the aleph, the mandala, the zero at the pinnacle of collapsing history!

Everywhere, the will deflated, the will absorbed into a moronic project!

Let’s talk about relativism, then, shall we? The foibles and idiocies of the left? The left as it currently exists will never become a serious political movement. A white female journalist tweeted out that she thought Beyonce was arrogant. A million sociology-professor/journalist/indistinguishable race-studies professor blobs swarmed her and said she is certainly a racist for thinking that. Excellent! Now Salon writers are too reactionary to join the left? Excellent! Let’s all die out too!

Purity spiraling is just a consequence of the idiotic and resentful attempts to flatten any and all hierarchy in human interaction. The SJW is an impotent wimp with no power, who believes that media companies and the academy will liberate the working class. How embarrassing. How utterly, trivially, embarrassing.

Not to mention the idiotic gender issue. Obviously, trans and non-binary people exist! But dumb fucks like this who are professors literally say that biological sex is not even real! Holy shit, man. Everyone has lost their minds.

So what of the center, then? Oh, God, don’t ask. You really want to run back to David Brooks, David Frum, Nancy Pelosi, the Nancys and Davids of a dying world, their cannibalism come home to roost in the visage and sword of Donald fucking Trump? Eugh.

And the Marxists, oh the Marxists, who say that state communism always fails and is not their goal, and never seem to elaborate how the dissolving of all private property ultimately results in equity and ownership for all. Spoiler alert: it never fucking will.

So do I just hate everybody? No. I like Bernie Sanders, I like Jeremy Corbyn. But they will never fill the spiritual void that leads young gamers to worship daddy Trump. They will never provide the abandoned God and mute spiritual life that humankind so desperately needs. Politics will never create that. It is incapable.

Yes, we are all existentialists for the time being. Since the 19th century. Forever more. God, what a boring universe (That’s why I like Hermeticism, but it’s cyclical and obnoxious too roflmao kek kek kek).

“Democracy Dies in Darkness” Declared the Pro-War Proponents of the Surveillance State

CNN is a creepy and pathetic company attempting to make a profit off the caustic personality of the President while they turn heel and praise him every time he bombs foreigners. They are the perfect incarnation of the sedate, soulless liberal class and the media empires which provided such a sterile portrait of the future that Donald Trump continues to look better than them by virtue of vitality alone. After all, there is nothing more repugnant than despising a man’s style while praising him for vanquishing innocent lives.

“Democracy dies in darkness,” declares the newspaper that fought tooth and nail for the Iraq War, which simultaneously destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives and sowed the seeds for the blood-and-soil Islamism of ISIS. Ironically, Trump was able to pose as anti-establishment in the Republican primary solely by condemning the Iraq War. He also rose to popularity by pledging to destroy ISIS. Could the Washington Post’s fevered editorials of the early 2000s have paved the path for right-wing populism to look good just by opposing the stances of the nation’s milkweed neocons?

Of course, it would be absurd to think that the same media companies who covered the Iraq War, the 2008 recession, and the 2016 election could properly cover a Trump presidency. The press embarrasses itself over and over again, despite facing a unified front of austerity from America’s unpopular ruling party. This should be shooting fish in a barrel. Instead, a majority (roughly 60%) of the electorate says that the press is full of fake news.

What gives?

In December 2016, The New York Times released a story claiming that 17 US intelligence agencies had confirmed Russian interference in the election. In June 2017, they renounced that claim in print, citing that there were only four confirming agencies.

The undercurrent of this retraction is the unending liberal faith in America’s intelligence agencies, despite their complicity in white supremacy by assassinating and blackmailing civil rights figures in 1968 and 1969, including murdering Fred Hampton and threatening Martin Luther King with his infidelity, hoping to compel him to suicide. These very same liberals constantly decry the left for distrusting the deep state, particularly the CIA and the FBI, upholding the facade of institutional dignity to protect the powerful and whitewash crimes that would force West Wing liberals to face uncomfortable realities about America’s compromised institutions.

Perhaps the media class, and their liberal bedfellows, love the status quo. Perhaps liberals actually despise the left more than they despise the right. It would seem that way from listening to Nancy Pelosi, who holds that single-payer healthcare is an impossibility, and that abortion is a negotiable issue for the Democrats. Maybe if you call yourself a centrist, you can throw every progressive cause under the bus and still be considered a leading progressive legislator, because image is valued more than policy. As long as Nancy Pelosi is considered a moonbat far-leftist to people like Ben Shapiro, we can all straw-man the left and pretend that these inchoate moderates represent socialism in any form.

In the end, it is pretense that drives both Donald Trump and the mainstream press. False, craven images of courageous pensioned rebels and rockstar Presidents are cancerous, and place cosplay before politics.

But American liberals believe in cosplay. They believe in James Comey standing up and saving the republic with a few good words, in one fell swoop. Liberals, like the press, believe that institutional power can stop Trump and save America. In their fantasies, the dignity of the American system will bring the rogue and uncouth pirate lord to justice. It’s the madman, not his myriad powers and system of economic destruction being pushed forth at the behest of autocrats, that is the problem – no, Trump is a unique blight on an otherwise excellent system. Likewise, elements of the PC campus left believe that institutional coercion is the best way to enforce social justice, even at the expense of free speech. In most sectors of American political life, massive amounts of power are being unconsciously lent to corporate structures and their increasing control over individual freedoms. To the business world, and the political world that bends to business’ demands, human freedom is contingent upon the ability to afford legal defenses, medical expenses, and that is all supposedly consensual – the wealthiest people gain access to the best legal maneuvering and healthcare, because they are better by virtue of industriousness and deserve better services. This is the curse of meritocracy gone mad, where survival, not comfort, is the reward for thriving in the marketplace. The punishment? Medical bankruptcy. I wonder how many households have $50,000 saved up for surgery, should they need it. The answer is virtually none.

Yet these materialistic standards, which place a minimum threshold on the ability of a person or family to survive in the world, go largely uncontested by a media class obsessed with conspiracies surrounding foreign powers and an obsession with image and pretense over substance, an obsession that the election of Trump should have clearly called into doubt. On the subject of consistently foot-shooting liberal hubris displayed in Real Time with Bill Maher, Bush speechwriter David Frum and outspoken liberal Maher agreed that patriotic people should come together to not only impeach Donald Trump, but to welcome Mike Pence, as some kind of return to political normalcy.

Finally, the social safety net for the chronically poor can be cut with bipartisan approval in the name of respectability. The truth is that there is no normalcy in American politics as long as the rules of business subjugate the rules of politics. The concentration of wealth into the hands of the few, when coupled with the power of the wealthy over democratic outcomes, should tip the scales toward acknowledging that capitalism and democracy are moving the disbursement of political power in opposite directions. Namely, the concentration of wealth gives undue political influence to extraordinarily small segments of the population. But this is negligible to both the US media and most liberals – the radical nature of democracy, and popular opinion, has always been questioned as a social force, when elite rule is so much more convenient. This ‘Crisis of Democracy’ was cited in liberal circles throughout the 70s as the problem of having ‘too much democracy’, and not enough leadership by elites. The wealthy and industrious should have more political power, so goes the argument, the common people should have to become rich to have any influence over the world, so that by the standards of wealth, the tech barons and comfortable modern intellectuals in journalism and on cable TV can direct the course of history, because they have proven themselves to be the most worthy and talented. This is what liberals wish would happen – they dream of a world driven by Bill Nye, Nate Silver and Rachel Maddow. They take spiritual counsel from Neil DeGrasse Tyson and wish that Ezra Klein could write a healthcare bill. But these wonks and uninspiring technocrats failed at the ballot in 2016. Instead, Donald Trump managed to bring the agenda of the rich into the White House beneath the mask of being a rogue actor, a change in governing ideology. Trump is neoliberal to his core, but liberals think him an aberration, and conservatives take offense at bluster and personality over the reality that his policies are as old as conservatism itself.

If advocating for the closed austere society is in principle acceptable, and only the excess of aesthetic viscera makes Trump problematic, then liberals have already conceded the ‘center’ to conservatives.

Sadly, this is what much of the media and the liberal class believe. If only Trump was respectable, like Barack Obama! This is all they yearn for – respectability.

If only, whines Brian Stelter and Jake Tapper and Chris Cuomo, if only the President wasn’t into memes, we could respect him!

There will be no ‘new center’, and there will be no conception of the media as a disinterested purveyor of rationality and objectivity. They never have been, when they cheered on the Iraq War, when they apologized for mass surveillance and clandestine intelligence agencies, when they refused for years to cover Wall Street’s structural problems and refused to hold the stockbroking hustlers and gamblers at the heights of Columbia’s sword responsible for their malfeasance in 2008.

The media does not care about you, and it does not care about the truth. This makes them unfit to cover the Trump presidency and places the burden, as usual, on outlets that don’t churn up heavy profits, but are more consumer advocates than narcissistic dice rollers in the worldwide casino of global capitalism, a casino falsely attributed to Trump, but that has persisted for decades and will see no master more fit for it than the senile old rentier we have now.

Memory, Resurrection, and the Indeterminate Past

The world can be split into two fundamental impulses – that of the serpent and that of Christ. Yes, this is highly symbolic, but let’s go with it. The serpent is materially successful, conniving, wise, and willing and able to hurt other people. Serpentine knowledge is the only thing that allows you to get a job, to have a place and function in this world, to climb the hierarchy of dominance and become somebody you can respect.

The Christ impulse is the exact opposite of the serpent.

The Christ seeks to reverse all hierarchy, to put the lame and the broken first and the wealthy and powerful last. The message of the Gospels is of the distinction between life and Life. It may be a good life, for an imperial Roman soldier, to achieve for yourself and your family to the detriment of others. But it is not Life. Life is divine in origin, and it transcends death. Without a concept of divine Life as superior to Earthly, fallen life, the concept of resurrection is incoherent. Hence, the sublime beauty and madness of self-sacrifice upon the cross is an appeal to Life, which is utterly transcendent.

Resurrection is the superiority of Life over life. Resurrection of the body, particularly, is the resurrection of that which is consumed in the serpent’s mouth. But there are immaterial serpents as well. Forgetting and sleeping are tendrils of the central concept of death. When you forget a beautiful idea, it is akin to a minor death. When you sleep, you forget what it is to be. This is also a minor death.
The principle of resurrection is to view every death as minor. To hold that the universal essence of being is more powerful than death. Resurrection, then, is the principle mode of divine Life operant in the material serpentine world.

I’m going to try to lay out the seed of a thought here, the seed of a scientific way of understanding resurrection.

I believe that resurrection is analogous to memory. When you remember something, you are resurrecting a dead part of yourself, or an abandoned part of your mind. When you are at work, busy, and are not remembering that specific image, scene or phrase, it is dead. It dwells somewhere that you are not. But when you remember that image, it returns to the living mind, it becomes a part of you once more.
The very fact that we sleep means that we forget being every single day. We forget what it is to live, and dwell in the dream-state, the place between the potential and the actual, where the stuff of life and the stuff of all potential remembrance intermingle. In a dream, you may see a family picnic from 25 years ago. You may see a face from your childhood. Dreams are the mandala of the actual and the potential in interaction, so no wonder they’re so difficult to understand, or why they are so potentially rewarding.

Between concentration, which kills all ideas we are not concentrating on, and the dream life, which tangles all our ideas together, all the stuff of memory, when it is not actively being remembered, exists somewhere that is potential in nature. It is neither dead nor alive, it is simply a potential. Human beings alone can remember, because human beings alone are aware of potential, of the ability to make sacrifices in the present in order to gain in the future, or to treasure a young writer and help them grow because their potential exceeds their current output.

This dimension of potential leads us to an oft-cited but poorly conceived topic – the famous double-slit experiment. I won’t bore you with summary, but I’ll simply state that the conclusion of this experiment is that the world is more potential than actual, that any given phenomena does not solidify until it has interacted with a conscious observer. At the very least, a phenomenon can change when it is being perceived, as the double-split experiment, an utter anomaly in the materialist world, seems to indicate.

Now, this has led to a lot of fuzzy claims, such as the idea that all the potential of the world can be negotiated into actuality if you ‘just want it bad enough’. This is the worldview of Deepak Chopra and Oprah’s ‘The Secret’. The infinite potential of being is turned into the serpent’s wisdom – the ability to get what you want.

But I think the real consequence of this experiment is related to memory. If an act of memory is an act of resurrection, pulling the actual out of the sea of potential, of bringing an image to mind that has in some sense died, then memory is the main faculty with which human beings negotiate with time. By remembering something, we bring it back from the dead, or from chaos, or undifferentiated potential, all these designations seem to fit.

Moreso, by remembering something, we change our perception of that image. The family picnic 25 years ago may have been held at a park, but if you dream of it beside a cathedral, or remember it beside a cathedral, then you change your own perception of the past. The past, to your perception, is changing in real time. But if our perception actually has material influence on the manifestation of possibility, if things pan out differently in the physical world based on whether or not we perceive them, then remembering is actually changing the past. By resurrecting the dead, you can change the fact and circumstance of their death. You can resurrect the body – the central claim of Christianity.

Now, so much of this hinges on the pre-eminence of consciousness over the world of brute, material indifference. So much of this will not be proven or grounded for centuries. That is why I write fiction, because I prefer speculation and the growth of ideas within the matrix of symbols rather than endless experimentation and incremental logical building. The difference between a poet and a scientist may be that of patience. Fiction wants to dabble in the unproven, and so analysis is no longer enough. The trade-off is that the author/poet has far less stability in both thought and vision than the scientist.

I intend for this only to be the seed of an idea – a grand synthesis of memory and resurrection, or the scientific study of mind and the psychology of the Christ and his (alleged) resurrection. Since resurrection is one of the least-understood concepts in existence, sowing these seeds may give way to profound and fertile future development. Perhaps the final form of this theory will re-write its articulation in the present, if it is possible to change the past in the future, if time is folded upon itself, and can be unpeeled, and seeds of unknown dimensions may be found folded upon the most primitive and basic of things.

I like this idea about memory-resurrection because it synthesizes Christianity with the study of mind and the mind’s faculties, and because I so often lose myself in both memory and theological longing. There’s my biases, presented plainly.

But I mentioned the serpent at the start of this piece for a reason. The serpent is the world of determinism, without free will, of crude mechanistic science without hope of human will being able to change the world we are trapped in. The symbol of the serpent swallowing its own tail, the psychedelic basis of the image of the biological cell, is what we must strive to overcome. The fact that existentialism, materialism and post-modernism have replaced religion is reason enough to seek transcendent ideas. In the 21st century, the notion of transcendence is needed more than ever.

We have come to great terms with machines, power and suffering. When will we come to great terms with transcendence, morality, and resurrection?

Perhaps the path is through the study of consciousness, if, as Hermes Trismegistus once stated, “man is the measure of all things”. The hypothesis that conscious perception in the present can actually change the past seems to be the testing of this ancient wisdom. A new science beyond materialism may be able to get to the root of it.

Giant Serpents Wriggling Through Thunderstorms in the Sky

Materialist reductionist science is the bottom layer upon which our civilization is built. The outcome of materialism in philosophy will be the outcome of materialism in society. This is because all technology is embedded in the reductionist principle, and all the wisdom that has granted us phones, neural nets embedded in hard drives, skyscrapers and space travel are thanks to the bisecting of the Earth into mechanical parts. We can’t have 21st century capitalism without a society built on reductionism.

The modes of science pull apart phenomena and freeze them in time – after all, it is only by freezing a system in time that it can be properly understood. At the macro level, we can see this principle in the study of life. It is incoherent to study life as a force, as an element of reality, without disintegrating it into specific species, nervous systems, organs and limbs. And yet, conceived of as a whole, life is a transformation of all these material parts along the axis of time. We are, as apes who have followed the world of dinosaurs, the children of serpents. We are the inheritors of the evolutionary potential that once culminated in massive reptiles with tiny brains, and who were usurped by rodents, who in time became apes capable of grasping the sea of psyche and articulating it into language and the arts. The way of fang and claw on Earth has utterly given way to techne – that much is uncontroversial. But is that process not continuous? In the trajectory of all life on Earth, haven’t we clearly observed since the primordial ooze a decisive move toward larger brains, more complex brains, and more complex thoughts? At the dawn of life, the warm seas spread protoplasm all across the Earth. Today, thoughts encircle the Earth via techne, digital transmission of thought. The answer to any alien watching four billion years unfold would be obvious – we are the latest stage in a great process of becoming.

Perhaps there is poetic looseness in what I say. The entire enterprise of science has been committed to expunging this poetry from reality. Evolution, as Neo-Darwinists say, refers only to the process of natural selection, conducted through genetic heredity without purpose or final aims. It is erroneous to speak of the evolution of life as a whole – this whole, to science, simply does not exist, because there is no physical mechanism by which thought evolves out of unthinking matter. That is perfectly fair, and perfectly limited. But unexplained is the central claim of Neo-Darwinism – that a single species of ape should fold in upon itself to the point of discovering its own DNA, its own evolutionary tree, its own material origins. And as long as this remarkable knowledge goes unexplained, human beings are an incoherent object in the world of science. The existence of subjective consciousness, the world eternally in motion, made of events and not objects, is also a fatal anomaly. Materialist reductionism has mapped the entire world save for the mind of the being doing the mapping. I am certain, that in the future, this self-reflective faculty of human beings will be the key to understanding both techne and poetry.

Science, in its commitment against poetry, has achieved the Neo-Darwinian synthesis and the hyper-technological society that is currently usurping and molding all the world in its warpath. Indeed, the world is being encircled by thought, and at the moment, in its primordial phase, the great encircling of the world in digital consciousness has failed to generate a new mode of being. Twitter and viral marketing have given us Trump, not a revolution. Instead of a technological Eden of free information, we live in perpetual streams of reaction, prose spit-balled on Twitter and social media in the spirit of cynicism, resentment, irony and satire that ferments profound distance between digital posturing and living, breathing people. And yet, the social media timeline, the ultimate invention of reductionist techne, is more addictive than any book, it is the omnipresent eternally-mobile blur of a world we do not understand and can no longer differentiate with any hermeneutic other than conservatism or Marxism. We are polarized in these times because two great dragons are at war who each seek to consume the other and have nothing in common save for the will to power. Their essential war is waged over hierarchy.

Marxism is the principle of horizontal power, collectivism and equality, opposed to the principle of vertical hierarchy. And yet, Marx himself is more a mystic than the most Christian capitalist, who favors the ball-and-chain of the Old Testament’s eternal toil instead of the grace and salvation of the radical Gospels. The Gospels do not flatten hierarchy, but reverse it. The first shall be last, the last shall be first. The poorest and filthiest among us shall have their feet washed by the resurrected body of Christ. In seeking to free humankind from the nightmarish future of industrial growth without spiritual benefit to the life of humankind, Marx was a profound believer in grace. The good news of the Gospels is that the path of toil and sin is only half the story. There is transcendence, there is an escape from the cycles of eternal recurrence, eternal life in the below. It is this ‘eternal recurrence’ that Marx saw as the life of a factory worker, a perpetual sentence to powerlessness and fruitless toil. Marx saw that the Old Testament described the sorry condition of man, but decrying Christ as an opiate, offered politics as the source of grace. Of course, the 20th century was one long tale of how this failed.

Perhaps Stalinism can be considered a disfigured attempt to create the kingdom of God on Earth. The vortex of souls toward revelation was redirected toward the image of the vulgar state. A false idol stood at the apex of transcendent yearning, and so an alchemical transmutation of Earth into Hell was achieved, the reversal of grace. The lesson of Stalinism is this: attempts to flatten hierarchy at the macro-level always fail. It must be built up from the local domain if it is to work, I am convinced. This equality, defined as the irreducible worth of each individual, must be fought for, lest we accept Facebook, Amazon, Uber and Exxon as the striving spirit of the human race, and accept the corporatized internet as the ‘natural’ path of encircling the globe with human thought. I think such a proposal, to worship the techne of corporations who each will own a thousand sub-corporations, and provide products and services for every domain of our lives, will lead only to a gulag of a different order.

We must first come to terms with time, the reality of a world and truth in an unfolding process, not static Newtonian blocks, but a perpetual evolution in motion. In the final analysis, time will lay bare the fate of techne. If eternal development of the matter-energy of the Earth, which is the project of Amazon and Facebook and Uber and Exxon, is a pathway toward self-consumption, or the snake swallowing its own tail, then all the structures of science will also come into question.

How could they not?

When Marxism led to Stalinism, it was considered disproven by the West. Likewise, if a corporate neo-feudalism, or major climate disaster, or both, come to pass by the end of the 21st century, then the mode of reductionist science and its practical application, technological development, will be revealed as insufficient for the completeness of the human soul. We forgot something. We advanced with only one principle, we crystallized into technical beings to the point where technology swallowed us, and we became our own Tower of Babel, our own misguided attempt to realize the Kingdom of God through banking, surveillance and Silicon Valley. A gulag of a different order.

The chain of fault, if techne leads to a dystopia, would strike back to the core of the Enlightenment. Follow the chain: there is no Silicon Valley without industrialization, there is no industrialization without technology, there is no modern technology without modern science, and there is no modern science without the empiricism and rationalism of the Enlightenment.

Techne has the power to strip humankind of all its freedom and individuality. The Internet, if corporatized and censored, would no longer be free. Artificial intelligence could easily fail to come close to its legendary promises, casting doubt on the current axioms of neuroscience and reductionist philosophy. The struggle of objective science to understand subjective consciousness, if it continues to fail, would only highlight the incompleteness of the scientific worldview. The fallout of climate change by 2100, especially, will rock industrial man to his core. It will strike us at our foundations, in the same way that the collapse of the USSR struck at the core of Marx’s notions of hierarchy. It beats us down at every level of our techne: the scientific, the technological, and the industrial.

We have forgotten grace. Or rather, we have forgotten our own experience, we have forgotten the notion of divinity in each and every human being which is the foundation of law and the last bulwark against self-interested barbarism running rampant over man. Without intuition, without love, with only techne, we are as giant serpents wriggling through thunderstorms in the sky, aiming for the face of God. We will meet only a tyrant, not a source of radiant love and hope for all mankind, but a reflection of our own tyranny. And that realization, that meeting with the tyrant, will plunge the Tower of Babel back to dust, and with it all our notions of science, technology, and the industrial economy that these forces have created.

Of course, we can never abandon hierarchy. We can never abandon technology. To suggest so is spiritual darkness, a denial of the will. But it is not wholly sufficient for a complete life on Earth. The flood of climate change would be direct feedback from reality that this is the case. The inability of reductionist science to understand consciousness would also be direct feedback that our current mode of thinking is insufficient.

The true work of humankind is synthesis, not domination. The alchemical marriage of techne and grace is the goal of all fertile thought. What is grace? The hope of something new, the hope of a greater structure for the world than the cycles of depression and existentialism that grip all thinking people who cannot leap into ideology as their salvation. Now it becomes clear why we must synthesize techne with grace – because techne without grace creates a world without individual meaning. It creates an externalized psyche in the form of online phenomena without the corresponding growth and achievement that should follow from a genuine community of psyches in global interaction.

The world is not what it should be. Knowing this, and striving to redeem it anyway, is the impulse of grace. And grace must aim for the root – the threefold foundation called reductionist science, capitalism and technology. The technocratic end of history, the salvation of man at the hand of machine, and the myth of boundless material expansion are all tied together as the core of hubris, man without inspiration, left solely to the dominion of machine.

If we believe that dominion is inevitable, then we must merely wait for the singularity, and acknowledge that our individual wills are impotent and pointless. Try to live this way without falling into nihilism. It is surely impossible.

No, the human will is essential. Your will is essential. The synthesis you make of your own life and its practical value for the whole of humankind – that source of grace cannot be infringed upon. Your mind is more important than the hive mind. No accelerationist fantasy can deny that without declaring individual life a redundant enterprise.

Where do we begin? Each will have their own field. But it will certainly involve the synthesis of ideas across fields, and lived example. Without lived examples, like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Carl Jung, Henri Bergson, and Alfred North Whitehead, the ideals of synthesis lack practical value. Do not move backward. The immensity of techne daunts us all. But it will not be the final synthesis at the end of history, and thus it should not cow us into silence.

Strive against all membranes until one gives way to novelty.