Orgy of the Will | Read | Subscribe | Discuss | Ask me anything

Praise for Orgy of the Will

Check out Alex Kierkegaard's new site, Male Privilege, and his new book, Endgame: The End of PUA Theory

1051. Rape culture

1050. DEATH TO FAGGOTS

1049. The metrosexual era

1048. 100% pro-rape

1047. The ultimate orgy of the will

1046. How communism succeeded

1045. The most annoying language

1044. Boasting of their inferiority

1043. The ideology of bad manners

1042. Loathsomeness as destiny

1041. Camping is for low-energy morons

1040. Future war as videogame

1039. How I can condone mass murder

1038. "Therapy" and those who need it

1037. "Spirituality" zombies and their "cosmic forces"

1036. "Ragnar Redbeard" is Nietzsche fanfiction

1035. Fuck readers abusing my critique of specialization

1034. All websites except mine are shallow

1033. The real Wakanda

1032. "Hiking" and male emasculation

1031. Contempt for older people

1030. Shadowbanning and the supremacy of genetics

1029. The essential value of extermination

1028. Big tech bullying and the whip

1027. At the center of philosophy lies ontology...

1026. The history of religion and philosophy in the context of my IQ-testosterone matrix...

1025. Democracy as appeasement...

1024. A lot of people like to think they are "non-violent"...

1023. Vaxxers vs. anti-vaxxers and the ultimate vaccination theory...

1022. If most of mankind is waiting for a cataclysm—and if you pay attention to their religions, that's precisely what they are all waiting for—...

1021. Russian Orthodox leader Patriarch Kirill warns Antichrist could be "at the head of the worldwide web"...

1020. One of the many misunderstandings perpetuated by the red-pill/blue-pill dichotomy...

1019. Why can't the left "meme", i.e. why can't they joke?...

1018. The abstraction of finance. Even Baudrillard was stumped by that...

1017. About the only points of Locke's that Leibniz agrees with are those on which both of them are wrong...

1016. Learning to understand Baudrillard better than he understood himself—better than he could ever hope to understand himself...

1015. Almost all the ills that befall modern society can be traced back to the error of replacing nature with superior, upgraded technology while forgetting to also upgrade this cathartic vital function of extermination...

1014. I've always been astounded by Americans' conception of masculinity. For an American, the absolute peak of masculinity is being able to change your car's oil...

1013. As the structure of civilization soars higher and higher...

1012. Why does God allow children to get cancer? Worse: Why does God enjoy giving children cancer?...

1011. Was The Joker a right-wing or a leftist film?...

1010. Why do I charge more than any other writer on the internet for a subscription to my websites? It didn't use to be this way. I started off offering low-priced tiers at $5 or even $1 per month like everyone else. But then what happened was that some people would subscribe for a while, and then unsubscribe when the frequency of my posts would decrease, only to resubscribe at a later time when I would resume posting more frequently. This was easily 50%+ of the readers and it was infuriating. There I was, posting the greatest philosophical aphorisms and art theory essays in the history of mankind, and some retarded nameless schmucks were essentially telling me that they weren't worth five dollars! It's not about the money, fuck your fucking five dollars, it's that you're fucking forcing me to be exposed to your shitty mindset every fucking month! I know you think so basely and meanly of culture that you'd spend less on quality reading than fapping material, but I don't want to be fucking reminded of it every time I visit my fucking sites and receive my fucking income reports! (especially on the last couple of days of the month when those dipshits would suddenly forget that "you changed my life" and would remember how important to their financial health their shitty five dollars had suddenly become). Moreover this shitty behavior continuously incentivized me to lower the quality of my output by churning out many lower-effort essays as opposed to fewer higher-effort ones. I could literally see my earnings spike every time I posted a bunch of reviews of random games in quick succession! Didn't those Einsteins understand that that's precisely the kind of behavior that creates armies of pandering journalists who have nothing to say yet end up saying far more than those who do, and flooding society with their pointless, inane and ultimately even harmful chatter? Had they not understood a single thing that I or any other genius before me had explained to them? Did they not value any of it? And that was obviously the truth at the bottom of the matter. I am not saying that any of those wretches were deliberately trying to annoy me by treating my sites in the same inconsiderate way that I might perhaps treat say The Economist or Netflix, and I am sure this entire analysis will be news to them because they literally have not the faintest clue of the consequences of their shitty actions or the baseness of the psychology they betray, but the end result was the same nevertheless: to annoy and disgust me every month by repeatedly exposing their psychology to me right in my fucking face! "But icy, what if they simply couldn't afford the five dollars?" I have news for your buddy, if you can't afford five dollars per month you're SCUM. There's just no plainer, more honest way to put it. If you're living in an advanced society in the 21st century and you're genuinely interested in cutting-edge philosophy and videogames that cost hundreds of dollars per year and require thousand-dollar computers to run, you can certainly afford five dollars per month to spend on quality reading material, and merely the daily running commentary and discussion of current events that I post on my Discord is worth ten times as much, not to mention everything else I publish. So keep your stupid five dollars and stick it up your subhuman butt, and stay the fuck away from me and my sites. I know full well that you exist, and I understand your psychology perfectly, so I don't need to be reminded of it every time I log into my sites and access my statistics reports. I go to my sites to relax from a society that's flooded with your kind, not to be reminded that my ancestors stupidly decided to ban slavery and let you and your kind run loose, and by setting my minimum subscription rate, first at $10 per month and finally—when even that failed to get rid of most of the riff-raff—at $25, I am screening out the vast majority of you. By asking for more money, in short, I get HIGHER-QUALITY HUMAN BEINGS, plain and simple, and whether the rest can't afford me or think that I am not worth the expense is all the same in the end, and betrays precisely the type of subhuman capacities and subhuman mindsets that my entire philosophy is committed to combatting to the last word, and the last breath, amen.

1009. Scientists still swear up and down that there's a fundamental difference between the classical behavior of the universe at macro scales, and the quantum behavior observed at the micro level, but that's only because the type of scientist who understands the micro levels has not the faintest clue of how the macro levels operate, and vice versa. Take for example the double-slit experiment. Its philosophical significance is that the particle's behavior is ultimately dominated by the observer's will; the particle will simply go wherever the scientist consciously wants it to go, depending on how he sets up the experiment, and the only conclusion the scientist will arrive at, no matter how many times he runs the experiment, is his own will. And this is where the quantum mechanists throw their hands up in the air and despair, pathetically exclaiming that "THAT'S NOT AT ALL HOW REALITY FUNCTIONS AT THE MACRO LEVEL, THIS IS A BRAND-NEW, RADICALLY DIFFERENT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR!" And yet isn't that precisely how pyschologists observe that people function under examination, in interviews for example? Doesn't the way the interviewer poses the question radically alter the type of answer he gets? Don't people always end up getting the types of answers they are looking for, at the end of the day? Isn't the infinite way in which statistics can be interpreted "a type of wish-fulfillment" as Baudrillard has strikingly noted? So there is no fundamental difference between the macro and quantum scales, it just takes a genius who understands both to connect the dots and reconcile the apparent contradictions.

1008. Wanna talk slavery reparations? Let's talk reparations. How about reparations for your physically superior ancestors chasing our physically inferior ancestors out of Africa so that they were forced to go north, away from Africa's Garden of Eden and towards the freezing, barren steppes of Europe? Or you've never heard about that episode because you're too dumb to study anthropology and understand anything about it?

So shut the fuck up about reparations before I lose my patience and show you exactly what can be done with the superior intelligence that my ancestors were forced to develop in the cold, harsh north.

1007. Why are there no White Studies courses at universities?

The faggotcube will say "because racism", borrowing the inferior tactics of their inferior enemies.

But I say because the entire university is devoted to white studies, every single course in it, and if the faggotcube scribblers had had any decent amount of education they'd have figured this out by now.

It's not so much anti-racists being racists that's the problem, but that both groups are GIANT FLAMING FAGGOTS who are more concerned about the past than the future and who find petty tribal wars (and merely verbal wars moreover) easier to handle than relativity and quantum mechanics, not to mention eugenics and cyberenhancement surgeries that will power the wars of extermination against subhumans of all races that are coming.

But they are coming, and if you're still arguing about what happened in Africa or India 1000 years ago when they come, you'll be the very first ones to go down.

1006. What is the relationship of non-whites to the manosphere? You will note that, for reasons I've already explained, I normally refer to the "manosphere" as faggotcube, but in the context of the present analysis I'll use the name they chose because, compared to the dumb-as-fuck/effeminate shenanigans of the non-whites, the whites who run the manosphere are indeed men, if not giants.

So not to mince words, and get straight to the point, the manosphere is clearly a white creation, and non-whites' involvement is marginal and fragmentary at best, as in all higher areas of culture. If you manage to find a couple of counter-examples, all you'll be doing is proving my point, so why bother? All the theory has been written by whites, all the experiments and movements have been carried out and headed up by them, and all the on- and offline nodes of power are owned by them, with the biggest of them being the White House itself, currently occupied by Emperor Donald J. Trump, who is the ultimate incarnation and personification of the movement. (I have nothing at all to do with this movement, I am something much bigger and much older coming from an entirely different tradition and I am frankly appalled by a good half of what the movement champions, nota bene).

Now, a few years ago, the manosphere merely consisted of a bunch of loosely-connected PUA blogs, but today everything from Breitbart to Ann Coulter to Jordan Peterson and the generals who commanded the al-Baghdadi and Soleimani assassinations, including most of the nations of Hungary, Poland and Russia, are on the manosphere spectrum somewhere, so a detailed analysis of the movement would be sprawling, and to be frank not very interesting to me; but what one CAN deduce very quickly by surveying the entire movement—at least if one is a genius, like me—is the COMMON THREAD that runs through all these people. And that thread is, indeed, white supremacy, more specifically straight white male supremacy. Yes, even Coulter, and she admits her inferiority to men in countless places.

And this is where non-whites come in. Because the common thread among non-whites in their reaction to the manosphere is that, unlike Coulter, the non-whites do NOT admit their inferiority (and why does Coulter admit it? Because as a straight white female she wants to be fucked by straight white males, but straight non-white males do not want that, get it?) The majority of them are simply AGAINST the movement tout court (after all, one of the main reasons the movement was born was to push back against non-whites in their flagrant invasion of our countries, so it makes perfect sense that non-whites would be against it), and the few of them that are with it simply ignore the issue of race and focus on whatever issues interest them. Some are interested in pushing back against sexual deviancy. Others are interested in pushing back against socialism. Others just want to learn PUA tactics to improve their sexual lives. So their attitude has traditionally been to grab whatever little things from the movement they could carry, and run away with them, while condemning the movement as a whole. Typical barbarian attitude in other words.

The best demonstration of this is indeed what happened in the PUA scene. The PUA scene is, again, completely dominated by whites. Black people barely read, let alone write anything (in the entire 15 years I've been a webmaster of several websites achieving countless millions of hits, I doubt I've reached a single serious reader from Africa, and I sure as hell have never encountered a serious writer from there), while Asians seem to utterly lack the kind of initiative and independence that is required to go out into the world and try bold new experiments, so though they do have high intelligence, they never actually get to use it on the cutting-edge of culture to create brand-new things, and are thus best relegated to reading about what whites have created and copying it as best they can, and perhaps refining it (the Japanese excel at this, which is why they modernized first, and the rest of Asia follows somewhere behind, each nation to a different degree depending on its ethnic makeup and particular set of capacities). Now the PUA scene is the least intellectual part of the manosphere for the simple reason that sex is the lowest human impulse. Maybe food blogs stand even lower, but you get my point. And since everyone likes sex, the whites' complete dominance of this field was bound to attract non-whites in the end, at least those of them who read. And this is exactly what happened, but with none of the non-white groups ever managing to integrate fully and harmoniously into the scene because the sexual marketplace is intrinsically massively racist for simple biological reasons that the white theorists analyzed with frank honesty that the non-whites were simply incapable of swallowing. How is the Asian guy to accept that he objectively stands at the bottom of the dating pole (we can measure this with surveys), due to his feminine physical and even mental features when it's so much easier to label everyone racist and move on? How is he to accept that white incels go to his country of ethnic origin and his own women prefer them to him? How is he to accept PUA terminology like "White God Factor (WGF)" when describing the objectively true phenomenon that white men clean up everywhere in Asia they go? Compounding the issue was the fact that the overwhelming majority of non-whites who reached the PUAsphere were and still are based in the West (almost no actual Asians in Asia or Indians in India or Africans in Africa ever leave their own parts of the internet long enough to reach foreign sites, let alone highly specialized intellectual ones), so not only are those people being told that they are biologically inferior, in some respects at least (because in say penis size or muscle tone blacks are superior, for example) but their sexual lives are even harder than those of their ethnic brethren who never emigrated for the simple reason that they live in countries where they are minorities, sometimes smaller minorities than even gays. The absolute best piece of advice one could give them to improve their sexual lives would therefore be to "Go back to your countries", but that's the epitome of racism, as far as they are concerned, and merely compounds the resentment problem, never mind that it's mathematically/statistically true. No one gives a shit about mathematics and statistics, when their pride has been wounded, and that's the entire history of non-whites' involvement in the PUAsphere in a nutshell, and by extension, in the manosphere as a whole.

Now you can go on all day about Candace Owens and how cool she is, but the bottom line is that she's just a cute black chick regurgitating white theorists' decades-old talking points, and moreover the MOST HARMLESS of their talking points, the least offensive and most easily digestible by the masses. That's the entire history of everything from the manosphere that broke through to popular appeal, including Breitbart and above all Donald Trump (a process, by the way, whose workings I've already explained in detail in §315). The manosphere is rife with disgruntled old-timers who resent Trump, Breitbart, Peterson and so on for "selling out" their ideas by watering them down for the masses, but that's the only way to achieve anything without starting all-out civil and ethnic wars, faggots! What the fuck do you want, in the end? If you want a war, start it—like Breivik and Tarrant did—and if you're too much of a bunch of faggots for that, let the politicians and academics and journalists water down your ideas to a level that's acceptable for mass consumption so we can see what can be accomplished via peaceful means so that perhaps all-out genocide can be avoided. And if this fails, you'll still have the genocide option in the end. And in any case, even if all non-whites left the West, and all feminists went back to the kitchen, and all gays back in the closet, and all socialists got a job, we would STILL have to genocide the low-IQ whites at some point (3.5 million truck drivers are about to be laid off in the US alone), so the genocide is coming no matter what, and all ethnicities, all races and all sexes will be swept up in it soon enough and judged, don't worry about that. Compared to that coming war, the manosphere is just an amusing little interlude (which essentially boils down to effeminate men revolting against feminism and liberalism, which they themselves created by freeing their slaves and women), so enjoy it while it lasts and make the most of it, whatever your ethnicity, race and sexual orientation. For, if you think things are tough now, buddy, you have no idea what's coming.

1005. Journey of an Idea, from the heights of Genius to the Gutter.

1. Friedrich Wilhelm NIETZSCHE: There are no facts, only interpretations.

2. Jean BAUDRILLARD: You mean that all viewpoints are equal? That the simulacrum is never what hides the truth, that it is truth that hides the fact that there is none? That the simulacrum is true? That there's no reality??? Damn, how depressing!

3. Laurence and Andrew WACHOWSKI: You mean that there is a clear distinction between reality and illusion? Awesome idea bro, we wrote a movie about it, wanna help film it?

4. Jean BAUDRILLARD: I said NOTHING OF THE KIND! I in fact said THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you're saying! You are complete and utter morons and I want nothing to do with your stupid movie!

5. Laurence and Andrew WACHOWSKI: Ummmm, whatever bro, the movie's already out and your book is in the first scene, sorry. We're already working on the sequels!

6. Mencius MOLDBUG: Hmmmm, The Matrix is such an insightful movie! I especially liked the metaphor of the red and blue pill! Who'da thunk that the distinction between truth and lies is clear-cut and all you need to see it is swallow down a pill! Those Wachowskis are such geniuses! Let me now take this earth-shattering insight and apply it to all our contemporary issues!

7. Alex "ICYCALM" Kierkegaard: Uhhh, guys, Baudrillard simply misunderstood Nietzsche's perspectivism. Nietzsche wasn't saying that all interpretations are equal, he was merely saying that nothing exists besides interpretations and that it was the Overman's job to impose his own intepretation on his environment just as mankind has been doing since the beginning, and the animals before that all the way back to the Big Bang. [This user has been banned for this post.]

8. MANOSPHERE: Moldbug is such a genius! It all makes sense now! It's all THE JEWS' fault! (((THEY))) warped reality with all their evil blue pills! They... write books and stuff and they... make movies! DEATH TO THE JEWWWWWWWWWWWS!!!!!!!

1004. Nationalism as an ultimate ideology, as opposed to a temporary expedient, is so stupid even a child with elementary history knowledge could refute it. For pray tell, which nation managed to start out at the level of cavemen and reach all the way to modernity? Which nation managed to stay at the cutting-edge of culture for more than a few hundred years, at the most? Which race, for that matter? If you're determined to stick to a single nation or race or whatever other tribal group you fancy, you are doomed. And that insight too is contained in Heraclitus' flux concept. You either ride the wave, or you're drowned by it. And no wave lasts forever. So you better get good at jumping on to the next one. The West has so far managed this admirably, it's even the reason we're number 1; but there are no guarantees we'll keep it up forever, so it helps to realize it is a skill, and a vital one, and work at it as hard as we can. So let's keep working at it.

1003. This is how tomorrow's supermen will one day cut the cord that ties them to subhumans, with no arguments, no anger, and no discussion (one doesn't talk to animals) but merely with the Spartan, clinical language of a mundane software update as in the game Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth:

All previous versions of humanity will no longer be supported as of this update.

—Registry Update 40000.b595135.omega

1002. On the unfathomably wide reach and influence of the philosophers. Did you know that the DC Comics character Superman, who essentially launched the entire superhero fiction genre, was inspired by Nietzsche? It's true, look it up. He is basically a crude debasement, a caricature really, of Nietzsche's ideas on the subject (but that's okay because all art is caricature; that's the whole point of it). Would Nietzsche have enjoyed the Marvel movies that derive from the comic Superman, and dominate the art of the cinema today (and will soon dominate videogames too)?

Of course he would enjoy them. I just told you he fucking made them didn't I.

1001. "A specialist is one who knows more and more about less and less, until at last he comes to know everything about nothing." —Anon

1000. For our analysis of civilization to be complete, and therefore correct, we must trace its development along all branches of knowledge: cultural and political as well as mechanical and biological. So let's start with the mechanical part, which I think is the easiest to grasp, especially for practical-minded people (what with most of you being from the Anglosphere, as I can tell by the site's statistics reports and membership of my inner circle...)

Civilization is the cultural form of evolution, with the same goal as the biological kind: domination of the environment; power in a single word. Civilization accomplishes this in the same way as species do in the wild, by increasing the complexity of the organism, which in this case is not comprised of internal organs but of people, what is known as "human resources". Shorn of their independence as distinct and sovereign lifeforms, these civilized people (from Latin civilis meaning "civil", related to civis meaning "citizen" and civitas meaning "city", i.e. city-dwellers) leave behind the ways of the wild and of their animal and prehistoric tribal ancestors and begin to form groupings of increasing scale and complexity, with each member co-operating with the rest by specializing in an ever-increasing number of tasks of ever-narrowing scope, thereby achieving efficiencies and synergies that boost the group's power to such high levels that, to the uncivilized, their accomplishments seem nothing short of miraculous, which in a sense they are, as they bring forth artifacts and open up mindscapes that would most definitely have been impossible without this scheme of elaborate co-operation (a phenomenon which scientists call "emergence"). Very soon the civilized tower above the uncivilized to such an extent that they appear as gods to them worthy of worship, and in a real sense they are, since the gods of the uncivilized often appear, even in the latter's religious fantasies, as weaker and less capable than the civilized.

But there is a price to be paid for all this newfound power of the group, and this price is the increasing weakening of the individuals that comprise it, as the history of civilization is simultaneously a history of increasing feminization, and no metaphor is more helpful to understanding this than that of the tool and workshop. As every mechanic knows, the more specialized the tool, the more useful it is for the main task for which it was designed, but the more useless for every other task. A hammer or a knife are simple, primitive tools that can therefore be used for a multitude of basic tasks, and if need be they make for fairly decent weapons too; but by the time you get to the kind of space-qualified, low-torque screwdrivers astronauts use in space station repairs or micro ligature devices neurosurgeons use to "accommodate and manipulate ligatures with maximum efficiency" you're talking about a tool built for a single task that is absolutely fucking useless for any other conceivable task, and so fragile it will break if you look at it the wrong way in the bargain. The same exact fate awaits the hypercivilized and therefore hyperspecialized man, and is indeed already evident all around us, and has been evident to some degree or other for over 6,000 years. Our goal now is to understand the cultural, social and biological processes of how this happens; of how the strong and fearless barbarian who dominated all prehistoric cultures comes at last to be transformed to what in philosophical terminology is known as the subhuman of modern culture, a creature so weak, stupid and pathetic that even women can dominate it and become masters of it; even, in some cases, animals. Once we have understood the genealogy of this clearly no longer human creature, we will by the same token have understood what we must do to prevent it from destroying civilization (and there's still plenty of time for that, don't worry); what should have been done in earlier times but wasn't done due to lacking philosophy; due to lacking that is to say an understanding of precisely what civilization is and how it functions.

999. You're always in control, to some degree or other, of the ideas inside your head, and therefore you're always in control of your reality, since only ideas can exist in heads and "there are no facts, only interpretations" (Nietzsche). However, the greater the scope of your thoughts—i.e. the more of the world they comprehend—the greater your control of them. This can be seen by considering that, though your imagination always has to work when perceiving anything, it has to work more the further removed you are from the objects you are perceiving. If I am standing next to you, the image you have of me is still ultimately your own work, but if I am half-way across the world from you your imagination has to build me up pretty much from scratch. That's how we get to Leibniz's windowless monads. As your brain greedily reaches out to comprehend more and more of the world around it, it has to do more and more work to build up the corresponding mental structure, and thus retreats further and further back inside its machinery, until by the time it has built up its complete picture of the world... it is entirely inside you, fully under your control, and has no relation whatsoever to anything that may or may not exist outside you. The concept of "outside" itself has become meaningless by that point, which is how the great Lichtenberg once arrived at the conclusion that "I now really do believe that the question whether objects outside of us possess objective reality makes no rational sense. ... The question is almost as ridiculous as asking whether the color blue is really blue. ... On this, read the Theatetus."

998. "Culture advances", we say, and we like to think that everything in it advances too, and at the same rate. But is an ant that lives in a sci-fi city a "sci-fi ant"? Have ants changed in any significant way at all while we advanced from prehistoric times to contemporary modernity? And if ants can stay the same while their entire environment levels up, with them barely even registering any of the changes, may not the same thing be possible with lifeforms other than ants? Aren't ants, at the end of the day, living in their own world pretty much regardless of whatever the fuck we're doing around them, or even to them? Do you think it makes a difference to them if they were squashed by a falling tree or ran over by an SUV? Can they even tell the difference? In fact, all lifeforms behave in this way, and that's how we can explain the miracle that the majority of homo sapiens on the planet still believe that God has a dick. (And whom does he use it on, if there are not supposed to be any goddesses around? The subhumans don't care any more than the ants care about the difference between a tree and an SUV. The ancients cared, so in their world there were lots of goddesses around for their gods to use their dicks on; pretty ones too, and therefore worthy of being dicked down by gods.) We all ultimately inhabit our own personal universe, cobbled together from precisely those parts of the actual universe that we like, and Leibniz's metaphor for this, which I fell in love with and instantly understood when I heard its name before I'd even looked into his definition of it is "windowless monads", monad being the Greek work for "unity". We are all windowless, incommunicative unities, in the grand scheme of things, and the idea that any of us has any effect on each other is merely a useful intellectual error on our way to becoming... who we are, who we were destined to be long before we'd even met each other, who we indeed have already been an infinite number of times, and will be an infinite number of times again, amen.

997. "Absolute or Relative Motion? Both Copernicus and Kepler believed that the universe, with the solar system at its centre, was bounded by a huge and distant rigid shell on which the luminous stars were fixed. They did not speculate what lay beyond – perhaps it was simply nothing. They defined all motions relative to the shell, which thus constituted an unambiguous framework. Many factors, above all Galileo’s telescopic observations in 1609 and the revival of interest in the Greeks’ idea of atoms that move in the void, destroyed the old cosmology. New ideas crystallized in a book that Descartes wrote in 1632. He was the first person to put forward clearly an idea which, half a century later, Newton would make into the most basic law of nature: if nothing exerts a force on them, all bodies travel through space for ever in a straight line at a uniform speed. This is the law of inertia. Descartes never published his book because in 1633 the Inquisition condemned Galileo for teaching that the Earth moves. The Copernican system was central to Descartes’s ideas, and to avoid Galileo’s fate he suppressed his book.

He did publish his ideas in 1644, in his influential Principles of Philosophy, but with a very curious theory of relative motion as an insurance policy. He argued that a body can have motion only relative to some other body, chosen as a reference. Since any other body could play the role of reference, any one body could be regarded as having many different motions. However, he did allow a body to have one true ‘philosophical motion’, which was its motion relative to the matter immediately adjacent to it. (Descartes believed there was matter everywhere, so any body did always have matter adjacent to it.) This idea let him off the Inquisition’s hook, since he claimed that the Earth was carried around the Sun in a huge vortex, as in a whirlpool. Since the Earth did not move relative to the immediately adjacent matter of the vortex, he argued that it did not move!

However, he then formulated the law of inertia, just as in 1632. When, sometime around 1670, long after Descartes’s death in 1650, Newton came to study his work, he immediately saw the flaw. To say that a body moves in a straight line presupposes a fixed frame of reference, which Descartes had denied. Since Newton could see the great potential of the law of inertia, to exploit it he came up with the concept of an immovable space in which all motion takes place. He was very scornful of Descartes’s inconsistency, and when he published his own laws in 1687 he decided to make it a big issue, without, however, mentioning Descartes by name. He introduced the notion of absolute space and, with it, absolute time.

Newton granted that space and time are invisible and that one could directly observe only relative motions, not the absolute motions in invisible space. He claimed that the absolute motions could nevertheless be deduced from the relative motions. He never gave a full demonstration of this, only an argument designed to show that motion could not be relative. He was making a very serious point, but at the same time he wanted to make a fool of Descartes. This had strange and remarkable consequences.

Descartes had sought to show that all the phenomena of nature could be explained mechanically by the motion of innumerable, tiny, invisible particles. Vital to his scheme was the centrifugal force felt as tension in a string that retains a swung object. The object seems to be trying to escape, to flee from the centre of rotation. In Newtonian terms, it is actually trying to shoot off along the tangent to the circle, but that is still a motion that would take it away from the centre and create the tension. Descartes claimed that light was pressure transmitted from the Sun to the Earth by centrifugal tension set up in the vortex that he pictured swirling around the Sun. Because centrifugal force was so important to Descartes, Newton used it to show that motion cannot be relative. Newton’s intention was to hoist Descartes by his own petard.

Newton imagined a bucket filled with water and suspended by a rope from the ceiling. The bucket is turned round many times, twisting the rope, and is then held still until the water settles. When the bucket is released, the rope unwinds, twisting the bucket. Initially the surface of the water remains flat, but slowly the motion of the bucket is transmitted to the water, which starts to spin, feels a centrifugal force and starts to rise up the side of the bucket. After a while, the water and bucket spin together without relative motion, and the water surface reaches its greatest curvature.

Newton asked what it was that caused the water’s surface to curve. Was it the water’s motion relative to the side of the bucket (Descartes’s claimed true philosophical motion relative to the immediately adjacent matter) or motion relative to absolute space? Surely the latter, since when the relative motion is greatest, at the start, there is no curvature of the water’s surface, but when the relative motion has stopped (and the water and bucket spin together) the curvature is greatest. This was Newton’s main argument for absolute space. It was strong and it ridiculed Descartes. In Newton’s lifetime, his notion of absolute space, to which he gave such prominence, attracted strong criticism. If space were invisible, how could you say an object moves in a straight line through a space you cannot see? Newton never satisfactorily answered this question. Many people felt, as Descartes did, that motion must be relative to other matter, though not necessarily adjacent matter. Bishop Berkeley argued that, as in Copernican astronomy, motion must ultimately be relative to the distant stars, but he failed to get to grips with the problem that the stars too must be assumed to move in many different ways and thus could not define a single fixed framework, as Copernicus and Kepler had believed.

Newton’s most famous critic was the great German mathematician and philosopher Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz, who had been involved in a very unpleasant dispute with Newton about which of them had first discovered the calculus, the revolutionary new form of mathematics that made so many things in science much easier, including the development of mechanics. In 1715, Leibniz began a famous correspondence on Newton’s ideas with Samuel Clarke, who was advised by Newton. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence has become a classic philosophy text. Many undergraduates study it, and philosophers of science often discuss it.

The exchange had an inconclusive outcome. It is generally agreed that Leibniz advanced effective philosophical arguments, but he never addressed the detailed issues in mechanics. Typically, he argued like this. Suppose that absolute space does exist and is like Newton claimed, with every point of space identical to every other. Now consider the dilemma God would have faced when he created the world. Since all places in absolute space are identical, God would face an impossible choice. Where would he put the matter? God, being supremely good and rational, must always have a genuine reason for doing something – Leibniz called this the ‘principle of sufficient reason’ (I have already appealed to this when I discussed brain function and consciousness, by requiring an observable effect to have an observable cause) – and because absolute space offered no distinguished locations, God would never be able to decide where to put the matter. Absolute time, on the assumption that it existed, presented the same difficulty. Newton had said that all its instants were identical. But then what reason could God have for deciding to create the world at some instant rather than another? Again, he would lack a sufficient reason. For reasons like these, not all of them so theological, Leibniz argued that absolute space and time could not exist.

A century and a half passed before the issue became a hot topic again. This raises an important issue: how could mechanics have dubious foundations and yet flourish? That it flourished nevertheless was due to fortunate circumstances that are very relevant to the theme of this book. First, although the stars do move, they are so far away that they provide an effectively rigid framework for defining motions as observed from the Earth. It was found that in this framework Newton’s laws do hold. It is hard to overestimate the importance of this fortunate effective fixity of the distant stars. It presented Newton with a wonderful backdrop and convenient framework. Had the astronomers been able to observe only the Sun, Moon and planets but not the stars (had they been obscured by interstellar dust), Newton could never have established his laws. Thus, scientists were able to accept Newton’s absolute space as the true foundation of mechanics, using the stars as a substitute for the real thing – that is, a true absolute frame of reference. They also found that Newton’s uniformly flowing time must march in step with the Earth’s rotation, since when that was used to measure time (in astronomical observations spanning centuries, and even millennia) Newton’s laws were found to hold. Once again, a substitute for the ‘real thing’ was at hand. One did not have to worry about the foundations. Fortunate circumstances like these are undoubtedly the reason why it is only recently that physicists have been forced to address the issue of the true nature of time.

The person who above all brought the issue of foundations back to the fore was the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach, whose brilliant studies in the nineteenth century of supersonic projectiles and their sonic boom are the reason why the Mach numbers are named after him. Mach was interested in many subjects, especially the nature and methods of science. His philosophical standpoint had points in common with Bishop Berkeley, but even more with the ideas of the great eighteenth-century Scottish empiricist David Hume. Mach insisted that science must deal with genuinely observable things, and this made him deeply suspicious of the concepts of invisible absolute space and time. In 1883 he published a famous history of mechanics containing a trenchant and celebrated critique of these concepts. One suggestion he made was particularly influential.

It arose as a curious consequence of the covert way Newton had attacked Descartes. Considering Newton’s bucket argument, Mach concluded that, if motion is relative, it was ridiculous to suppose that the thin wall of the bucket was of any relevance. Mach had no idea that Newton was attacking Descartes’s notion of the one true philosophical motion, just as Newton had not seen that Descartes had invented it only to avoid the wrath of the Inquisition. Newton had used the bucket argument to show that relative motion could not generate centrifugal force, but Mach argued that the relative motions that count are the ones relative to the bulk of the matter in the universe, not the puny bucket. And where is the bulk of the matter in the universe? In the stars.

This led Mach to the revolutionary suggestion that it is not space but all the matter in the universe, exerting a genuine physical effect, that creates centrifugal force. Since this is just a manifestation of inertial motion, which Newton claimed took place in absolute space, Mach’s proposal boiled down to the idea that the law of inertia is indeed, as Bishop Berkeley believed, a motion relative to the stars, not space. Mach’s important novelty was that there must be proper physical laws that govern the way distant matter controls the motions around us. Each body in the universe must be exerting an effect that depends on its mass and distance. The law of inertia will turn out to be a motion relative to some average of all the masses in the universe. For this basic idea, Einstein coined the expression Mach’s principle, by which it is now universally known (though attempts at precise definition vary quite widely).

Mach’s idea suggests that the Newtonian way of thinking about the workings of the universe, which is still deep-rooted, is fundamentally wrong. The Newtonian scheme describes an ‘atomized’ universe. The most fundamental thing is the containing framework of space and time: that exists before anything else. Matter exists as atoms, tiny unchanging masses that move in space and time, which govern their motion. Except when close enough to interact, the atoms move with complete indifference to one another, each following a straight and lonely path through the infinite reaches of absolute space. The Machian idea takes the power from space and time and gives it to the actual contents of the universe, which all dance in their motions relative to one another. It is an organic, holistic view that knits the universe together. Very characteristic is this remark of Mach in his Science of Mechanics (pp.287-8):

"Nature does not begin with elements, as we are obliged to begin with them. It is certainly fortunate for us that we can, from time to time, turn aside our eyes from the overpowering unity of the All and allow them to rest on individual details. But we should not omit ultimately to complete and correct our views by a thorough consideration of the things which for the time being we have left out of consideration."

Mach himself made only tentative suggestions for a new relative mechanics, but his remarks caught the imagination of many people, above all Einstein, who said that Hume and Mach were the philosophers who had influenced him most deeply. Einstein spent many years trying to create a theory that would embody Mach’s principle, and initially believed that he had succeeded in his general theory of relativity. That is why he gave it that name. However, after a few years he came to have doubts. Eventually he concluded that Mach’s idea had been made obsolete by developments in physics, especially the theory of electro-magnetism developed by Faraday and Maxwell, which had introduced new concepts not present in Newton’s scheme.

Throughout the twentieth century, physicists and philosophers discussed Mach’s principle at great length, without coming to any conclusion. It is my belief that the problem lies in Einstein’s highly original but indirect approach. Mach had not made a really clear proposal, and Einstein never really stopped and asked himself just what should be achieved by Mach’s principle. I shall consider this in Part 3, but I need to anticipate a small part of the story in order to justify Part 2. Einstein’s theory is rather complicated and achieves several things at once. It is not easy to separate the parts and see the ‘Machian’ structure. In my opinion, general relativity is actually as Machian as it could be. What is more, it is the Machian structure that has such dramatic consequences when one tries to reconcile the theory with quantum mechanics. If, as I believe, the quantum universe is timeless, it is so because of the Machian structure of general relativity. To explain the core issues, I need a simplified model that captures the essentials. This Part 2 will provide. It will also provide a direct link between the great early debate about the foundations of mechanics and the present crisis of quantum cosmology. Two key issues are still the same: what is motion, and what is time? It will also enable me to explain the main work in physics with which I have been involved, and make it easier for you to see why I have come to doubt the existence of time.

Science advances in curious ways, and scientists are often curiously unconcerned with foundations. Descartes was one of the greatest philosophers, yet in that first book in 1632 he never gave a moment’s thought to the definition of motion. We are so used to living on the solid Earth that it seems unproblematic to say that a body moves in a straight line. If the Inquisition had not condemned Galileo, Descartes would never have argued for the relativity of motion. But for the inconsistency of his system, Newton would not have made an issue out of absolute space and time. He would not have devised the bucket argument, Mach might never have had his novel idea, and Einstein would not have been inspired to his greatest creation.

Had the Inquisition condemned Galileo a few months later, Descartes would have published his ideas in their original form – and general relativity might never have been found." —From Julian Barbour, The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics 2001

If the above story, and similar ones to it, doesn't seem to you as one of the most interesting things you've ever read—so much more interesting than any novel or movie or artwork of any kind let alone politics or current events stories it's not even funny—and you don't immediately vow to yourself on encountering it to learn all that exists about it and understand it inside and out better than even the people who took part in it, correcting all their mistakes on the way and completing all the parts they left uncompleted to such a degree that there'll be nothing left for future generations to add to it after you're gone... you understand nothing of the insane level of curiosity and greed and ambition and thirst for sheer complexity that powers men like me; you're nothing like me, and you're not the kind of reader that I seek and hope to reach with this book.

996. Low-IQ people want the world simple, they fight against complexification of life and the world in all its forms, while high-IQ people do the opposite: they complexify life and the world until it mirrors their brains' complexity, and fight against simplification. Who will win? Well, since culture and civilization are synonymous with complexification, we all take sides according to our IQs, and the result of the ensuing struggle is the fate of culture and civilization. Simple, no?

Not so fast, young Padawan. Because the piece of complexification known as quantum mechanics has the power to shape, not only the future, but even the past... You won't walk away from this without coming up against advanced physics, I am afraid, so prepare yourself as best you can.

995. The golden age of the British Empire was one of the great heights of the history of mankind—indeed, the only one that compares, in its energies, accomplishment, confidence, and forward propulsion, with the American golden age that peaked in the 1980s.

There are few images of the past that have greater potency than that of the impeccably dressed colonial Englishman, wandering about some unspeakably humid or unbearably dry 100-degree hellhole in utter command of his mind and powers, in complete confidence of his ability to exercise control over things on the ground and solve the problems at hand. A couple of handfuls of these characters could run massive countries and keep the trains running on time like no one before or since. And they did it with a dismissive shrug that denoted a complete lack of understanding of how anyone could do any less.

There is very little in the history of the world in terms of practical accomplishment for an American to look up to; the American stands at the summit. But if one reads something like the great memoir about the voyage of Shackleton's Endurance one is brought up against a strength that is different in quality than the American strength; and—in some ways—superior. One looks back across time and across the Atlantic, and sees a human height that was in its own manner more extraordinary than any other.

The complaints about "colonialism" are a wretched species of the ahistorical whining that has infested the thinking of the past century and was never more prevalent than now. What could be more useless than to prattle about the men of the past with a mincing pajama boy's appeal to "ethics", as if that chatter category exists outside of historical contingencies and needs to be measured according to the latest bien pensant standards—which will themselves crumble at the least contact with reality. Suffice it to say that the British more than any other colonial power left their subjects better off than they found them; and they displayed before the civilizations they conquered a spectacle of competence, diligence and civic virtue so extravagant that some of it could not help but rub off.

I'd like to speak in particular to the young and proud Indian guys of today. The truth is that the encounter between England and India was one of the great fortuities of human history; it allowed a great civilization that was in its absolute prime to spark life into a much older and much different civilization, that also had greatness in its spirit but had been dormant for too long. Without that spark, and all that India learned at the hands of the English, it would never be on the promising course that it is on now, a course that may well make it one of the great vital powers of the future. India was jolted to life by the British—and given further life by the now intimate relation of its exiles to America in particular. Young Indians, and young Americans of Indian origin, should never succumb to futile and draining grievance-mongering about the past; they should feel confident in their current place and trajectory, enjoy the twinned energies of their native and adopted countries, and understand how the defeats of the past are mere fodder for the victories of the future.

As far as England itself goes, it is of course in a state of abeyance and is far from its great golden age—though there are qualities in some young Englishmen of today that make one see that the really superb stock is not exhausted quite yet. I take mystical hope from the genius of Led Zeppelin—as great an eruption of English verve as any that has existed—and this line from their masterpiece "Achilles' Last Stand". Let Page and Plant have the last word:

Oh Albion remains, sleeping now to rise again

994. On the origins of rape and manhood in general. Imagine the Viking. Comes home covered in blood, someone's brain fragments still lodged in his mace. You think a woman would nag at him? You think he would tolerate anyone's nagging at all? He's just returned from hell, from a battlefield where half his friends were butchered, where he butchered half a dozen men in cold blood, his face up against theirs as the light faded from their eyes and the color drained from their cheeks. He faced certain death, and though presently victorious, he still has no idea if he'll die tomorrow in the next battle, and you think he'll bother asking anyone for permission to fuck his wife tonight? You think that wife would dare say no to him even if she wanted to? You think ANYONE on God's green earth would dare say no to such a character? (and btw, to PUAs reading this, this guy is beta, the alpha is his king and gammas don't exist at all because they died in childbirth). That's how masculinity works. Everything else is faggotry. "I do what I want up to the limits of my strength and no one can stop me" is masculinity 101, and white knighting is the exact opposite of that. If you think that anyone should, let alone COULD, ever have rights over and above this type of character—let alone such a pathetic midwit creature as a female—you are a faggot, and you do well to believe in such rights because they are the only things standing between you and annihilation or slavery; convincing half the warriors to protect you from the other half (cops vs. robbers) is the only way a non-warrior has of surviving in this world, after all.

Now imagine such a character—this fearless Viking warrior—returning from the dead and taking a look at our society today, at men abandoned by their women, their families destroyed; at women running courtrooms and entire countries, passing judgement on men and telling them how to live their lives. How would he react to such a sight? I think he'd shake his head in disbelief and say, "What happened to men? Why are there no men today? Where did they all go?" He wouldn't blame feminism, or society, or some religion or philosophy; he wouldn't know any of that stuff, he'd be immune to such ridiculous phantasms. He would look purely at the REALITY in front of his eyes not at the stupid counter-factual ideas of contemporary midwits ABOUT this reality, and this reality would simply be that "There are no men left alive today". And of course, everything that's not men deserves slavery, whether to a state, a corporation or a nagging female is immaterial: most likely to all of them at the same time. If you don't have it in you to beat the shit out of a woman until she's blue in the face and cowering in a corner like an animal and then fuck her brains out without the slightest hint of guilt you are an ABORTION of a male, and not a man, dear reader; possibly a child who has yet to grow and understand the nature of life and the universe (but, statistically, most probably a faggot). As if I'd seek the consent of random people before I fucked someone! As if the only thing keeping me back from fucking anything I want in the street were not the threat of death or incarceration by an entire army of policemen who spend their whole lives training to stop precisely men like me from doing whatever the hell we want on this earth! (which we were doing with impunity pretty much up to the invention of civilization). Y'all are FAGGOTS, you hear me? You "disapprove" of what I have to say? I want you DEAD, you hear? With your entire line extinguished for good measure, to lessen the chance of the spread of faggotry on the planet. It used to be that creatures like you would not even dare LOOK at people like me, and this state of things will return, or the species will be annihilated. We'll join the aliens AGAINST YOU if need be. That's how much masculinity despises faggotry and weakness.

P.S. Women evolved to deal with guys like HIM, and you wonder how they managed to turn YOU into their little bitch?

993. If the future is cerebral, as I have said it will be, it therefore probably follows that the future is Asian. So we can divide the history of mankind into three eras. In the first era, of physical struggle against the elements and animals, the black man dominates. In the middle era, we start to move away from pure physical struggle to the mental arena, where independence of thought and inventiveness are needed above all, which is where the white man becomes prominent. Finally, we arrive at the near-pure mental era where the Asian man with his larger brain takes over. However, cyberpunk comes into this and says you no longer have to choose, you can have the best of all worlds, the black man's athleticism, the Asian man's intelligence, and the white man's inventiveness and independence. Ecce Superman.

"And what about native Americans?", asked the eager shop assistant.

We like their viciousness, it's awesome, put some of that in our child too, said the happy smiling couple in the year of our lord icycalm, 2077.

992. As the scale and scope of warfare increase—in concert with advancing civilization—the contest becomes increasingly cerebral, and as a consequence the leaders naturally remove themselves further and further from the front. Let's understand exactly how this works.

In the context of a tribal dispute, in prehistoric times, the leader need be no more than a strong brute, ideally the strongest brute in the tribe. Since there's not much scope for tactics in say a 5v5 brawl with rocks and clubs, intelligence is unnecessary while brute strength leading the charge can be a powerful inspiration to weaker warriors. By the time you get to entire armies clashing, however, even if it's just with swords and spears, there is considerable tactical depth to each engagement, not to mention the diverse strategies employed in the ongoing wars between the states, all of which were unknown to primitive tribes, so it no longer makes any sense to endanger your tacticians and strategists by throwing them at the front. One warrior more or less won't make any difference there, when the clashes entail tens of thousands, whereas one tactician or strategist less (or less smart) can mean the difference between victory and defeat. After all, it's well known that entire armies can disperse—even if they have the upper hand—just because a leader fell, or was merely incapacitated. When the brain coordinating everything dies, the organism follows suit, whether at the scale of individual organisms, or social ones. Think of it in another way too: what are the chances that the strongest man in the state will also be the smartest? Even ignoring for a moment that mental gifts are far rarer in the homo sapiens species than physical ones, it's simply highly statistically unlikely that the strongest man—who would have been the leader in prehistoric times—will also be the smartest, who SHOULD be the leader in more advanced times. So almost by definition the best tacticians and strategists will be weaker physically than the typical soldier on the front. Now, we are told that Alexander always led the charge, and was reportedly not only tactically brilliant, but also a maniac on the front, chasing down fleeing enemies with wild abandon, and that of course inspired his troops and earned him the kind of loyalty most leaders can only dream of; but he also died at 30, most likely from exhaustion due to his endless campaigns, and what happened to his empire then? Alexander may have been "Dionysus incarnate", as Nietzsche called him, but as a strategist he wasn't much, from where I am standing. Dionysus, it seems, still needs Apollo to handle strategy for him, and doesn't seem to make for a good king, let alone leader of a sprawling empire of the kind Alexander was building one giant bloodsoaked battle after another.

And all this in ancient times, when battles and wars were immeasurably simpler than they are today, and the idea that any random grunt could do the job of a five-star general is pure comedy worthy of an SNL skit. The commoners who demand that generals fight on the frontlines have not the faintest clue of the type of complexity that modern warfare entails, and the kind of intellect, lengthy study and experience that are required to not get all your subordinates killed in it, let alone emerge victorious from it. And this without even mentioning the geopolitical game that politicians are supposed to be trained at (though of course they never are) and of which the generals know nothing.

Now it is natural for the common soldier bleeding out in the front to resent his superiors sitting "safe" back at headquarters, but one must set aside resentment at some point and calmly ask what would be attained if we brought those superiors to the front to bleed out with you? Hitler made ONE grave strategy error, by attacking the Soviet Union with whom up to then he was allied, and almost every building in Germany was demolished as a result, and the country was split in two for generations. AND he ended up blowing his brains out in the end. So judgement comes for the leaders too, eventually (Caesar murdered, Napoleon dying out in prison, and so on); does it really matter if it comes somewhat later than for the frontline grunts? We're all gonna die eventually, buddy, but if we have a smart leader and protect him properly, we might achieve more than if we behave like barbarians who refuse orders and mindlessly charge straight ahead in every battle—and end up slaves as a result, with all our traditions and freedoms destroyed.

Bottom line is that as the scale and scope of warfare increase, the opponents' center of gravity moves further and further back from the front for purely practical, logical reasons, and no amount of grunt resentment or mothers crying and demanding that the leaders' children be sacrificed too can or should change this simple law of physics. Grunts and mothers, however, have not the faintest idea of physics, because they lack the intelligence for it, and hence we get the crying and resentment that we get. Which is why we should ignore it, and even punish it when we encounter it in especially acute form, as the military still does to the insubordinate, thank god, and as the men of the household should be doing to the crying, incoherent and illogical women, if they were still men, which alas they are not, unless, as aforesaid, in a military context, or to a lesser extent in a law enforcement one, where some measure of masculinity still survives, however small, amen.

991. Have you heard of the theory that science and technology "are slowing down", and perhaps even regressing? It's the latest subhuman brain fart, with never any facts let alone numbers to back up any of it, always pushed by some unscientific buffoon who thinks "We should have had flying cars by now!" It's always about those damn flying cars, because they saw them in some movie. But what is a "flying car", dear unscientific buffoons? "It is a car that flies!", they reply, "and it will be amazing!" Okay, I get you want a car that flies, but how about a plane that drives? Would that satisfy you? Because I don't know if you've noticed, but ALL planes "drive": they all have wheels: that's how they land on airstrips! And with the smaller of them you could drive them in the street if you want, so we already have "flying cars" and have had them since the beginning of aviation! "But no, I want MY CAR to fly! That's what a flying car is!" Do you get how retarded these people are? They are not even worth talking to; when you hear such rubbish you know you're talking to a buffoon who shouldn't be opining on anything, let alone on science and technology. More broadly, there is no known way to track and compare the rate of science and technology advance because real life is not like Sid Meier's Civilization where every discovery has a set number of "science beakers" that must be accummulated before it is "unlocked". That's how those people view reality, like a videogame from the '90s! Real science and technology, however, work NOTHING LIKE THAT! Discoveries and advances are essentially incomparable, certainly across disciplines but often even within them (what's more valuable, high-speed internet or wireless internet?), and progress is utterly non-linear and unpredictable. Moore's Law is or was an exception to this, and that's why everyone's heard of it, because it's so unusual for such a law to exist! And, apparently, it's over now, but just over the horizon we have quantum computing that promises to blow it out of the water. So what difference does it make if this type of computing takes a year to arrive, or ten, or even a hundred? It took TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS to develop WRITING! And many cultures on earth NEVER EVEN MANAGED IT! What the fuck difference do a few years more or less matter when we're talking about stuff like quantum computing? Are y'all for real retarded? There is not and probably never will be ANY WAY TO MEASURE AND COMPARE THIS STUFF and it's BEYOND RETARDED to prophesy THE END OF CIVILIZATION because your fucking broadband hasn't got faster in the last six months! Get a life you fucking losers! Crack open some textbooks and get inside a lab to see how this stuff works, it DOESN'T work like ordering takeout! It DOESN'T work to order at all, it's creativity and it comes, or fails to arrive, at its own schedule, which even God in his infinite wisdom doesn't know.

990. Jews are the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ whites just as whites are the scapegoats for all the deficiencies of low-IQ non-whites. Let me explain how that works.

Why do we observe Jews at the forefront of many cutting-edge industries? (for example the media/arts and financial industries are indeed rife with them). The low-IQ answer is, of course, a simplistic conspiracy theory: Jews form an evil cabal that created all these industries from scratch to "destroy culture" (or at least what low-IQ people think is culture, i.e. some previous, obsolete state of culture, i.e. older, lower culture, i.e. non-culture). And, to be sure, there is a lot of decadence in these industries. But, in an advanced civilization, there is a lot of decadence everywhere anyway! It's an essential prerequisite even! So it makes perfect sense that the most capable people in such a civilization will also be the most decadent! The stereotype of the degenerate cocaine-sniffing whoremonging or homosexual Hollywood or Wall Street operative belongs here. Well, buddy, if YOU were subjected to the stresses and temptations of the Hollywood or Wall Street lifestyles, maybe you'd be a "degenerate" too! But you lack the IQ for that, so of course you'll reduce the whole enterprise to a simplistic resentful fairy tale that seems laughable even to children: a bunch of old bearded Jews gathered round a large table planning the destruction of civilization! Well I say enough with this childish nonsense! The Jews are simply some of the smartest and most industrious people around, ergo it makes sense that they'll be encountered at or near all the peaks of the dominant culture, being overrepresented everywhere in it, including therefore in its failings and excesses! This is what it means to be the best! It doesn't mean that you are faultless little angels who can do no wrong, you brainless corn-fed nitwits! There's a moving passage somewhere in Nietzsche where he relates that Europe owes the Jews for the highest sage (Spinoza), and the highest saint (Jesus), and he'd never even heard of Freud or Einstein! In view of all the immeasurable gifts the Jewish spirit has lavished on humanity, anti-semitism in the coming world order will be a capital offense, if I have anything to say on the matter. The slightest word against the Jews, and you're a marked man: I would have not only you, but your entire extended family wiped out, just to be sure. You think you know what the Devil is, but he's just the lackey taking my orders. Entire cities razed to the ground (including the entire Middle East), simply because one person there said something bad about "the Jews", that's how I would have the future! Enough with this stupid meme! To hell with all of you brainless subhumans! You've wasted enough of our nervous energy on this stupid shit! And the same goes to low-IQ non-whites who blame all their troubles on whites! And it's all true: Jews and whites upped the stakes for everybody by bringing into the world a whole torrent of new possibilities which your IQ is too low to handle! So whatcha gonna do about it? Are you all bark, or are you prepared to bite? Come on, let's see what you can do! Any of you fucking pricks bark, and we'll execute every motherfucking last one of you!

989. I think there's three gutters but whatever, I added a fourth for dramatic effect. First Baudrillard struggles to understand Nietzsche, and becomes depressed by it, then the Wachowskis misunderstand Baudrillard and debase his ideas to The Matrix's simplistic plot, and finally Moldbug applies The Matrix's simplistic plot to contemporary society in order "to understand" it.

988. Moldbug and the red pill via Baudrillard and The Matrix. The Wachowskis thought that Baudrillard was talking about a fundamental difference between reality and virtuality while his whole point was that in an advanced state of culture they blend together as to become indistinguishable (more real than the real was his metaphor for this). This insight was debased by the artists to the simplistic real-fake opposition and the red-blue pill metaphor. Easier to understand like all binary oppositions, like black and white, 1s and 0s, good and evil. The real "red pill" meanwhile—i.e. the real genius-level insight, which Baudrillard grappled with (mostly unsuccessfully) his whole life long—is that the left is ultimately correct on everything they say and that everything they say makes perfect sense from their own point of view. To grasp their point of view, however, requires genius of interpretation, if you are not one of them (and if you're one of them it's impossible because they are idiots and hence utterly lack the capacity for self-reflection, just like animals do), so it's much easier to label them as "blue pill" and "fake", and it's no wonder why the Anglo child-intellectuals chose this option, and to this day ignore any higher view that smacks the slightest of European genius! The Anglos take the discarded broken toys from the continental Europeans, clean them up as best they can, and set them up on altars and worship them as their supreme ideologies; they assemble their bric-à-brac of petty ideas from the rubbish of continental European thought! Moldbug took his chief idea from A MOVIE, which was already a DEBASEMENT of continental European thought (Baudrillard's simulacra) by a NIHILISTIC continental European philosopher (i.e., ultimately, by a failure) who was himself merely struggling with the ideas of a genius continental philosopher (Nietzsche's perspectivism). And the entire pseudo-intellectual "alt-right" proudly traces its ideology from that! From the gutter of a gutter of a gutter of a gutter!

And people wonder why I view them as subhuman and call for their extermination.

987. Want yet another demonstration of how brainless subhumans are? Observe them analyzing the future and trying to make predictions of it. Watch how they unfailingly ignore scientific and technological progress, and even denigrate people like me as "unrealistic fantasists" for... trying to take the future into account when accounting for the future. If your 21st-century theory is not rife with science fiction it is horseshit, and you're a subhuman moron who deserves to be exterminated for so much as fancying that you're entitled to an opinion. You're entitled to death for having a low IQ, and that's exactly what our sci-fi killer drones will be sure to give you when the time comes. And the best part is you won't even see it coming because that's how fucken sssssstupid y'all are.

986. Anglo versus Latin America. Why the massive disparity? First off, Hispanics are the lowest Europeans, they have all the worst aspects of the Greeks and Romans, with very little of the best. Second off, and this is I believe a consequence of the first, Hispanics mixed with the locals, the Anglos didn't. If this doesn't explain everything I don't know what would. And there's a LOT to be explained here! The North went to the moon while the South can still barely feed itself! You CAN'T paper over such cosmic disparity with platitudes and waffling! You need a cosmic difference to account for the cosmically disparate outcomes, and I believe it's what I said.

985. Sometimes there are jobs, and sometimes not. But there is ALWAYS work to be done on earth! It is the uncreative unproductive low-IQ person and midwit who looks for a job, the human looks for work, and never ever fails to find it, because he quite literally always creates it!

984. Who besides an enemy of society would use the phrase "social construct" as a slur?

983. RVF complaining that cities destroy men. And they do. Cities means close co-existence, means we need laws and order because otherwise bloodbaths every day in the streets and the city comes to a standstill, meaning police, meaning you are no longer allowed to defend yourself let alone to take revenge, and are obliged to run crying to the police station like a whiny child every time you meet trouble, means over time the population is emasculated to a bunch of faggot rats and snitches. But I have no such problem because I am a superman. This is what it takes to still be a man in an advanced civilization: you must be a superman. It's regular men, who must play by the rules, that are emasculated, so they have a right to whine. After all, that's the only way the police will help them with their troubles! (Whereas I don't need the police, it's the others who need the police to defend themselves from me. At the same time, I am not a pure criminal who creates nothing either: in fact, as a philosopher who creates the mindsets with which lesser creators create their works, I create practically everything; and that, once again, is what it means to be a superman).

982. The most humane genome-cleansing policy: give low-IQ people money in exchange for sterilization. They can have fun the remainder of their lives, and in one generation you are rid of them with no bloodshed.

981. Philosophers have done away with causality for centuries now, but commoners still believe in it. They see us and our writings as "absurd", or at the most "magical", but it's their causality that is magic. So let me try to explain one last time to you low-IQ buffoons why your Richard Dawkins Anglo Cabbage Head logic is dumb as fuck and you are dumb as doorknobs for still believing it in the 21st century. This is the last chance you'll get to grasp this, and if you fail to give this explanation to the roving gangs of murder-drones we'll soon be sending out, you're toast! So pay attention!

What is the cause of something?

It's something else.

But we've already agreed that everything in the universe is connected to and affects everything else, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the same universe.

So the cause of anything... is everything.

But "everything" is precisely the definition of universe.

So the cause of anything is the universe.

But the universe cannot be pointed to as cause, because... it can't be pointed to.

The universe is not in your room, or outside your door, or even in the sky.

So it is magical thinking to believe that some thing caused something else, and that all the other things in the universe had nothing to do with it.

So causality is magical thinking, which is fantasy, which is a desire, which is will.

You WANT that thing's cause to be that other thing, and that is all.

I can "prove" that Muslims created Western civilization if I want.

But I don't want to.

So I won't.

Think also of chaos theory and the butterfly flapping its wings creating a cyclone and so on.

Think also of the epistemological scepticism of Hume and Kant.

All these things say the same thing.

We are not logically entitled to draw inferences from circumstances. Just because something happened doesn't mean it will happen again. Indeed, it's proof positive that it won't happen again before the next Recurrence! How can there be "laws" of "nature" in a universe in which repetition is impossible!

Moreover, causality would make the universe deterministic.

If you could find the true cause of one thing you could calculate all other things from that and win the game.

That's why we are reduced to chances and quantum theory and ultimately Zarathustra's dice-throwers.

It's not an accident that the ultimate philosopher likes gambling! It's also not an accident that the subhuman hates gambling and regards it as the devil. The subhuman wants to calculate! The subhuman wants the "sure thing"!

And of course whoever insists on the sure thing doesn't deserve anything. He deserves slavery, and that's why he gets precisely that.

980. "Best debater" AI. Will just push programmers' viewpoints. But helpful in being more interesting than high-IQ peoples' friends. Can be well-read etc. Will make subhumans look like animals. Just as it will make real females. Wouldn't it be cool to have a girlfriend who cares about something other than herself—or at least pretends to really well? (that's all that a man can ask for, after all no one wants a girlfriend who is smarter than them, other than faggots). Will render females obsolete, together with axolotl tanks. That's 95% of "mankind" rendered obsolete. All the drone army will do is take out the trash.

979. At this point you might say, "If you side with the underdog by definition, why are you championing Western culture, and so on, which is a juggernaut on earth compared to other cultures?" You answered your own question when you said "on earth". Western culture may be a juggernaut right here, but is most likely an underdog in the galaxy, let alone in the universe, and therefore needs all the help it can get from us unless you intend to have African bushmen or Indian spearmen fight the aliens when the time comes. We need to strip mine the planet and lay down nanomachine factories from pole to pole, or else the earth is done. If you don't understand how this works, play the videogame Planetary Annihilation. That is mankind's future, not the left's low-IQ subhumans holding hands while singing kumbaya, nor the right's return to some past era that has already occurred and ended because we had enough of it thankyouverymuch. The future is STAR WARS. The future is PLANETS BEING ANNIHILATED because, as movies, novels and videogames show us, that is IMMENSE AMOUNTS OF FUN, and that's why science fiction is mankind's perennial favorite fiction genre (eight of the top ten highest grossing movies of all time are sci-fi). When the top ten grossing movies are about faggots holding hands while crying I will concede that mankind's done, but for the time being all signs still look extremely positive, so I'll keep fighting.

978. Why consensus necessarily leads to error, regardless of the field and subject. Because the world is "a war of all against all" (Hobbes). Therefore, all alliances are by definition temporary and will eventually be broken by the ultimate winner (God). Morevoer, the bigger the alliance the more "wrong" it will be since "wrongness" is defined subjectively by everyone as whatever stands against them. The winner cannot be an alliance, it must be an individual (all the way down to the subatomic level, since the Big Bang = God is the smallest thing that can exist), hence a massive alliance standing against this individual will be "more wrong" (i.e. a bigger threat) than a smaller one. This makes sense even from a dramatic standpoint, otherwise the universe would be a boring place where the biggest alliance would steamroll everyone and conflict (and therefore life, flux, etc.) would ultimately cease. Instead we have a miraculous and miraculously interesting universe where underdogs are destined to win by definition (with God being the biggest underdog of all, believe it or not, which is why he'll end up the biggest winner: he does manage to turn himself from a hydrogen atom to an Overman and finally a Big Bang, after all).

977. Difference between IQ and intelligence. IQ is not intelligence any more than a strong engine is a fast car. You can put the strongest engine in the world inside a fridge and it won't go anywhere. A high IQ is like a good tool; no matter how good it may be, it can only be put to the use that its owner desires. Weak men or women will use their IQ in petty stupid shit no matter how high it may be. They'll spend all its horsepower on inventing rationalizations for their fears and failures and neuroses than on actually inventing anything. That's why balls are inextricable from intelligence. That's why the history of philosophy is a history of the thoughts of straight white males (with a brief East Asian interlude back when East Asians still had a decent amount of balls).

976. It is precisely the most powerful things that are abused the most. Live streaming, social media, the internet: these are very powerful things. You either figure out how to use them, or they end up using you. Most people can't figure them out. And even abstaining entirely from using them is a form of failure to figure out how to use them, otherwise a hermit in a cabin in the woods would be the coolest human being ever. If you set up your social accounts right, there are no negative aspects to them at all. They are harmless little apps that facilitate communication on whatever terms you choose to impose on this communication. That is all. All that running around like a headless chicken screaming that Facebook is abusing you does is show to everyone... that you're a headless little chicken who can't figure out how to use a harmless little app for fuck's sake. Jesus Christ grow up.

975. "But IQ has nothing to do with the opinions and worldviews someone chooses to adopt! I am sure we can get even low-IQ people to convert to atheism and science-worship at some point!"

Sure buddy. And after you've done that maybe you can convert monkeys too.

974. Thales was the first person in the world to discard divine anthropomorphization (the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, such as loves and hatreds, a beard or a penis), and was therefore the father of advanced abstraction, which is to say of modern thought. Instead of saying, "Zeus moved the clouds", he said "The wind moved the clouds!", and thereby launched a brand-new field of human endeavor called "science"! So next time some practically illiterate subhuman asks "What has philosophy ever accomplished?", a good reply would be "Uhhh, I don't know, maybe created science?", and seen aright all of the greatest scientific breakthroughs were either made by philosophers themselves or at least predicted and foreshadowed by them far in advance of the actual discoveries. In either case, the philosophers have been the only ones to properly grapple with the issue of the interpretation of these discoveries, i.e. how they fit in the context of all the rest of them, as a complete system of thought, as a philosophy; while scientists' attempts in this endeavor (which is essentially the pinnacle of thought) have always been at best mediocre, mostly pathetic, most recently seen with their decades-long complete failure to make heads or tails of quantum theory (with their most dominant interpretation, the Copenhagen one, being little more than a cope and dodging of the issue).

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that the vast majority of world population still identifies as believing in some anthropomorphized god, i.e. they have still not caught up with Thales and his revolution in thinking from 2,500 years ago, and this is what it means to be retarded. Declared atheists remain a tiny percentage of world population, and what a surprise, they are overwhelmingly clustered in high-IQ countries in Europe (mostly the north) and East Asia (the US doesn't even figure in the top 20). When Europe was at its weakest, meanwhile, during the Dark Ages produced by the Christian disease, science came to a standstill, and a little later the Muslims arrived at the gates of Vienna and threatened to wipe civilization off the face of the earth. Only the mightiest expenditure of European blood prevented that eventuality, and that's why you can read these words now on your digital computer screen in the comfort of your heated or air-conditioned home instead of living in a cave or a tent as a cowering slave to an inbred low-IQ Arab. Afterwards science thankfully recovered, with technology following suit, and that's why civilization is no longer in danger of being destroyed from low-IQ subhumanity no matter how many hours a day they spend praying that it will be. And seen aright, all religious people are praying that civilization be destroyed, and in low-IQ countries their neverending stream of invective against civilization rises up from their wretched temples and fills the air like a thick smog, choking the breath out of any thinking people that happen to pass by, and chasing them out of the area, creating entire regions of the planet that are essentially uninhabited and uninhabitable by human beings!

And this is where genocide comes in.

973. Do you understand now how lifeforms and groups of lifeforms create disorders and diseases? First, they define a direction, the direction they want to head towards as a group. Then, they judge everything around them, and above all inside them, according to whether it aids or hinders them towards the attainment of this goal. And finally, they brand anything that hinders them as simply "bad" or "evil" at first, and later—once they become scientific—as "diseases" and "disorders", erecting entire fields of study and schools of research to combat them. However, since the universe is a zero-sum game, and all lifeforms and groups of lifeforms are ultimately moving head-on towards each other in a bellum omnium contra omnes that can only end in a Big Crunch, their values of what is good and bad, helpful and harmful, healthful and sick, will ultimately be diametrically opposed and you can be sure that the trash you throw out of your house, and which would otherwise cause you to grow sick and die, are for some other lifeform and group of lifeforms somewhere life-giving nectar and ambrosia from the gods. So while for you, cancer is a tragic disease that must be combatted at all costs, for cancer itself its propagation is procreation and the miracle of life, and we all know that flies know no greater delicacy than human feces. Do you get the value of relativity theory now, and the gross imbecility in fancying that your personal values and whims, and those of whatever little group you belong to, are or should be universal? You must fight to MAKE them universal, to be sure, and in the course of doing that smash anything that stands in your way—or at least attempt to smash it—since that is the whole point of the game, which you are playing constantly even if you don't realize it! But realizing all these things helps you become a better player, and though you'll never win this game because "no player can be greater than the game itself" (Rollerball), you do want to play the game as much as possible, right? You do want to become the best player that you can be?

Then understand relativity theory, moron. Because that's the only way to understand your enemies, and you do understand that understanding your enemies can be quite helpful in a little thing an old wise man once called the Art of War? "But there are no enemies, we're all friends", meanwhile, is precisely what your worst enemy wants you to believe, the enemy who's trying to pass off as your friend. And that too, relativity theory can help you understand.

972. Embrace relativity fully. You can swim in the flux. You don't need anything solid to stand on. If you abandon the ground, you can fly, and at last leave the earth, and reach for the stars.

971. You think you know that you'd feel bad if you got shot in the face, and that is an indisputable fact to you, and you'd expect at the very least all other humans to feel the same way too, under the same circumstances. But remember back to not so long ago during ancient sacrifices where people would consider it an honor to die for the sake of the tribe. Or commit seppuku. Or throw their lives away at a duel over a mere insult. All because in those times those behaviors and feelings were considered "right".

We don't even need to bring in the aliens to prove that it's possible to desire to be shot in the face lol, and to even consider it a distinction and rare honor, and to derive pleasure from it the likes of which no joyless contemporary bugman could ever fathom. But the exaggeration helps as it magnifies the issues and makes them easier to see even for those who "suffer" from poor eyesight, or who perhaps prefer their vision to be poor so they won't have to face hard realities they'd rather not see, and be forced to deal with. Philosophy forces those people to deal with those hard realities, or else fails them and ejects them from the class for good.

970. As for physical injuries and disease, I am sure you'd feel bad if you got shot in the face, but how would an alien feel? Depends on the alien, no? So in his society, a gunshot to the face might be called "tickling", and be considered quite a fun, pleasant thing, and certainly far from a grievous wound that would require emergency visits to the hospital and surgeons and doctors that have devoted their entire lives to studying how to treat this stuff. Every condition is ultimately a highly personal, highly relative thing, and it's absurdly narrow-minded to insist that your personal experience and interpretation of it is an "objective fact" that "every lifeform in the universe" should have to approach and treat the exact same way you or your favorite society approach it and treat it.

But that's precisely what subhumans do, and what they demand that all the rest of us do too.

Don't do it.

You are better than them. You can do better than that.

969. So let's explain, in some detail, why mental illness is indeed a social construct, just like all types of injury and disease (which yes, includes cancer and gunshots to the face too). For I hear you think that I am right-wing, so I would like to make an effort to explain to you that this assertion couldn't be further from the truth and that, from the towering heights of the next stage in superhuman evolution on which I stand, both conservatives and liberals seem like merely different types of subhumans when all is said and done.

So let's talk about mental disorder and disease. I have an IQ of 139, and anyone with double-digit IQ is mentally retarded as far as I am concerned. Or where do you place the line for mental retardation on the IQ scale? Makes no difference in the end; the mere fact that we place the line at different levels proves that the line is an arbitrary convention entirely depended on the subjective views of the person, or the society, that determines it, no different to the "poverty line" that can be, and often is, conveniently moved to "prove" any narrative that someone wants to prove. Want to make everyone with less money than Jeff Bezos poor? Just place the line right under Bezos's personal wealth, and voila: suddenly everyone else has become "poor". And it's the same with every imaginable condition in the universe, believe it or not—and all of them are merely imaginable and thus imaginary, at the end of the day, if you look into them and analyze them deeply enough. Everything is relative indeed, and no one understood relativity like Nietzsche did any more than they understood quantum theory (and he understood both decades before the scientists ran up to them in the lab; before they had even invented the words to express these ideas and flailingly, hopelessly discuss them among theselves).

"But mental illness is an entirely separate thing from low IQ!!!", the pedants will now protest. But is it really? When Socrates and Kant go off on barely coherent endless rants about their "inner demons" or "categorical imperatives" that command them to "be good", what difference is there between them and the schizophrenic who makes up a voice in his head and then insists that its commands are coming from someone other than himself? Even worse, these philosophical schizophrenics do not remain merely content with playing this charade with themselves but demand that ALL the rest of us obey the voices in their heads too, or worse still that WE TOO have these voices in our own heads, MUST all have these voices in us, simply because we are all "human" and that's "how humans are" lol. And that's what I call subhuman, and deem that it's a mental disorder and disease. So we arrive at relativity once again, with each side screaming invenctive at the other and threatening to lock them up in mental institutions, or worse.

Bottom line is that if everyone was schizophrenic we wouldn't even have heard of the word. Schizophrenia simply cannot exist in a society of schizophrenics, and I have no doubt whatsoever that according to aliens that we'll eventually meet we suffer from all sorts of disorders and diseases it would never have even occurred to us that they exist. Hell, many of the qualities we downright pride ourselves on will doubtless seem like illnesses to a race of stronger beings. And isn't this already the case between e.g. philosophers and the average man, who thinks that morality is something other than a mere collection of personal whims? Doesn't that person, and all his equally average doctors who proclaim him 100% mentally sound, seem like mentally retarded to philosophers and philosophical students like us?

Nor do the right-wing fanatics fare much better under this light. You think there's any difference to me between the libtard screaming in my face about his "equality" or the libertardian endlessly scribbling screeds about "natural laws" and "true justice" and "unclaimed resources", and other such pitiful, pathetic contradictions in terms? It's the same sort of mental disease, from where I am standing, and they'll all end up in the same camps and chambers by the time my descendants and I are in charge. Maybe a zoo, if we're feeling especially charitable that day, in separate cages with engraved plaques explaining in detail their particular version of their common mental disease (which, in our superhuman society, will be called "weakness of the will" plain and simple, and be considered incurable).

Want to be treated like a human being instead, in the coming order of things? Stop making shit up like a schizophrenic then (and especially shit that clouds your neighbor's judgement and tricks him into treating you far more leniently than you deserve). Be honest. Be brave. Be strong.

Be a man.

968. In the end, if it came to a choice between allying with religious nuts and Jew-bashers, or letting civilization go up in flames, I'd add wood to the fire and burn the whole thing down myself. Let civilization die if the only alternative is going back to the unthinking past. The alt-retards are entirely consumed by religious psychosis and anti-Jewish hysteria, and though I love their civil war plans—since I love war of all kinds, and I'd fight it even for no reason—I'd rather fight them first before turning my attention to their enemies. Hopefully that's where the Iron Man suits will come in. With a few of those, Thiel, Musk and a few of their friends and me could probably turn a few billion subhumans to ashes in a few days. It's either that or the drone army. Or we might have to use both if the subhuman apocalypse turns out to have been too big. Drones or a squad of Iron Men? Or perhaps the Matrix "fry their brains" plan I proposed before? Or more old-school methods like poison in the water supply? How will we solve the Subhuman Question [[[SQ]]], my dear human and superhuman friends? This is the issue that neither the left nor the right are discussing, naturally enough since [[[they]]] are its subject. But that's precisely the issue that will dominate the present century once this book is done and philosophy has ended. As usual, the left and the right are discussing everything except the only thing that ultimately matters: how we'll get rid of them so we can usher in the new era of superhuman supremacy.

967. Yes birth rates are collapsing because manginas made the culture pozzed and can't control their women long enough to put babies in them, but that's not the only reason, and it may not even be the biggest one. The biggest one, I believe, is that in an advanced civilization like ours there's simply TOO MUCH SHIT GOING ON. You can get lost in any given science or art or sport for decades without seeing the end of it, and there are countless of those pursuits everywhere around you, as far as the eye can see. But what do they have in some third-world village? Beyond the daily rote work of carrying water from the well or whatever the fuck, there's nothing. They have no science, no art, not even any sports and games really—certainly nothing anywhere near as complex as ours. Nothing to look forward to as they grow older beyond the same old base survival shit; no future. In such an environment, churning out kids endlessly makes sense, and we'd be doing it too if we were in their shoes. What could be better than a bunch of children if you're living in the dirt and have no means? They can help around with the daily mind-numbing menial tasks, they can take care of you as you age, they are even the sole means you have of expanding your property and influence and, when push comes to shove, they are ready-made allies in a fight—which is especially useful where law and order are lacking. And they cost nothing in the bargain, since there is no education to give them or fine food and clothes and expensive experiences like foreign travel to provide them. Under these circumstances, it makes perfect sense to churn out as many children as you can, as there are literally no downsides to it and an endless array of advantages.

Now compare all this with Western circumstances, and especially with the realities of high-flying overachieving Westerners like me, who have the lowest birth rates (double-digit IQ rednecks are way more fecund). What part of my daily work could a child help with? Do you see me going to a well to carry water? Do you see me digging ditches? And can a child help me with my 