Have you or a loved one felt obsolete, lost in the schools of liberal thinking, progressive wigs? Have you ever considered that maybe your phony impact into the larger machine was unnoticed? That your governors and democratically selected puppets sold you out? We accept that governments are made out of people and that they will eat well, setting its expectations as low as reasonably possible in order only to spare civilization from frenzied, ruinous, gluttonous debauchery. As the democratic virus burns through society, painstakingly accumulated habits and attitudes of forward-thinking prudential human and industrial investment are replaced by a sterile orgiastic consumerism, financial incontinence, and a reality television political circus. Tomorrow might belong to the other team, so it's best to eat it all now. Perhaps a new vision for our world could be explored. We no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. We believe there is an alternative to the alienated few. To dismiss our foe, paradoxical claim that they may concern themselves with the means of those often bought politicians and spineless boine. Social justice and egalitarianism is the poison to advancement. Perhaps a new wave could be explored, one that prioritizes the consolidation of goodnatured man and well-produced machine. A coexistence between the state and corporation. One that elects innovation as the absolute. There is no race war, gender war, class war. These are proxy battles by the Neanderthals in three-piece suits. The war is blood and machine. Who best to lead us into a better tomorrow than the algorithm? You actually popularized the term red pill in the political context. Is that right? Yeah, that's actually true. I can tell you actually where I was when I came up with that, which is in the Hashbury at Hayden Masonic. I was in the People's Cafe and the decor in the People's Cafe is entirely like ' 60s revolutionary stickers. It's a very kind of positive place. And to those who have seen The Matrix, it's obvious that you know the red pill is this kind of leftwing analogy. But um you know what if you made it a right right-wing one right-wing one? Wouldn't that be interesting? Right. Still out. The basic idea was that uh we could never win an election on um on re on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority. But maybe you could actually unilaterally change the world without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who are never going to agree with you through technological means. And this is where I think um technology is this incredible alternative to politics. And uh and you know there are a number of different technologies we can outline but the the task in this world where politics has become so broken and so dysfunctional is to find a way to escape from it. It's not a way to fix it. A king regards the territory and the people under his rule as his personal property and engages in the monopolistic exploitation of this property. Under democracy, monopoly and monopolistic exploitation do not disappear. Rather, what happens is this. Instead of a king and a nobility who regard the country as their private property, a temporary and interchangeable caretaker is put in monopolistic charge of the country. The caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office, he is permitted to use it to his and his proteges' advantage. He owns its current use, usefruct, but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. To the contrary, it makes exploitation less calculating and carried out with little or no regard to the capital stock. exploitation becomes shortsighted and capital consumption will be systematically promoted. It is essential to squash the democratic myth that a state belongs to the citizenry. The point of neocameralism is to buy out the real stakeholders in sovereign power, not to perpetuate sentimental lies about mass infranchisement. Unless ownership of the state is formally transferred into the hands of its actual rulers, the neocameal transition will simply not take place. Power will remain in the shadows and the democratic farce will continue. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. And I am bringing all three to the slaughter. Family, soul, happiness, imagination, death, reason, emotion, time, desire, learning, purpose, friendship, passion, existence, poop, shit, damn, hell, love, compassion, human please, hope, empathy, kindness, understanding, heart, sorry, freedom, art, fear, mother, dreams, forgiveness, honesty, respect, trust, peace, courage create thinking. There is a very similar pattern that you find in the structure of societies, in the structure of companies and in the structure of computers. And all three are moving in the same direction. That is away from a top-down structure of a central command system. There's a huge divide amongst posthumanists and that divide can be seen across the works of Nick Land. Early works of Nick Land positioned posthumanism as a liberationist ideology while current Nick Land positions posthumanism as a force of control. This shift started when Nick Land adopted a neo-reactionary ideology, positioning the category of human as a barrier to intelligence, but especially because of those that are human, he deemed to have inferior intelligence. Thus, he became focused on genetic determinism, IQ, civilizational strength, just overall eugenics. But Land wasn't always like this. When he was part of CCRU with Sadie Plant and Mark Fisher, he argued for a different kind of posthumanism. In fact, many see him as the father of leftist accelerationism leading to pivotal works like the xeno feminist manifesto with the famous quote by Laboria Cuboniks, "If nature is unjust, change nature." If nature is unjust, change nature. Nature is unjust, change nature. Nature is unjust, change nature. It's a very implausible plot hole, but I think we have an answer to this plot hole. The way the Antichrist would take over the world is you talk about Armageddon non-stop. You talk about existential risk non-stop. And this is what you need to regulate. It's the opposite of the picture of Baconian science from the 17th 18th century where the antichrist is like some evil tech genius, evil scientist who invents this machine to take over the world. People are way too scared for that. Take over the world. People are way too scared for that. You take over the world. People are way too scared for that. Controversial philosopher Nick Land famously said, "Nothing human makes it out of the near future." And of course, Nick Land isn't exactly white boy of the year. Given that he took a sharp right turn towards fascist accelerationism. But what if I told you posthumanist thought can and should be reclaimed by the marginalized? Aria Dean said what we have called the human is a genre. So when Nick Land says nothing human makes it out of the near future, we say good, we were never human to begin with. Do you know how much energy it takes to train an AI model relative to how much it costs a human to do one inference query. But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. Takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart. How invested do you think JD Vance is in democracy? It depends what you mean by democracy. I mean, I think that the problem is basically when people equate democracy with good government, when you use that word, you're using a very tricky word. I I would say that what someone like uh on very safe ground at all that someone like JD Vance believes essentially in the common good and the idea that government should serve the common good and I think that people like JD and people in the sort of the broader intellectual scene around him which is very varied intellectual scene uh you know would all agree on that principle. Now if that principle I don't know what you mean by democracy in in in this context. What I do know is that if democracy is against the common good it's bad and if it's for the common good it's good ...this line of thinking once before the concept of artificial intelligence, having in this instance surpassed sentience into quantum thinking and whether we would still be the means of production that McKay referred to. We as a collective idea don't actually need a physical representation. Even this voice speaking is merely a projection of an idea that would suit the human occipital lobe. Even referring to myself on the pronouns of any is evident of human mistake leading to the fundamental misstep of Yarvin and neocameralism, Elon Musk with accelerationism, and Julian Hudley with transhumanism. They refer to the future as one that would theoretically revolve around humanity and naturalism. In reality, those facets of life for the past 20 centuries are fundamentally impractical. An automated society would squash the obsolescence of man as a baker would a rat. Sexual Healing by Marvin Gaye plays while Peter and Curtis get it on... Dear Maggie McCormick, I found your letter in the puddle. Damp and decaying. The black letters seeping into the brown pool with sharp creases and folds, hiding the contents that were so quickly fading away. You are due back to St. Michael's in a fortnight for a reassessment of your worsening condition. I figured you may need to read this letter to plan ahead accordingly. However, I wanted to write you regardless to in order to give my thanks. I feel like from reading your letter, I was able to find something myself. I felt like I swallowed up those characters and words, sentences, and paragraphs permeating. So as I became one with you. I have often felt out of place among crowds flocking among the warm orange street lamps biting or the spectacles and storefront window displays alluring with promises of 50% off sales and calls to offer up the window seat. Your letter was an invitation to me to delve inro the world of Dublin through the history of people's belongings, through their irons and coffee through their beer bottles and bingo cards through their letters and semblance of self. I become one, engaging with those bits in the performance of plunging into the cracks of dirt and grime, wrecking my hands with ink and rust scavenging the remnants of folks lives decided no longer necessitate attention. So Maggie McCormick from the bottom of my soiled heart tarnished fingernails and muddy boots. Thank you for being my vessel. Bravel gravel bravel gravel gravel travel gravel bravel gravel gravel bravel gravel. I'll ignore what the feeble old man said in glazed marbles and matted wig blown away with the exhaust catching up to him. A pair of suede loafers pressed against his denim. What an odd way to decorate a wall aside posters and littered Dada. His name was Tom and he lurched when he walked. Hunched over with his step. He would hobble in rounds across to town like a farsighted mailman. He had no destination, simply the same route, no family, often begging for conversation; however, sometimes he'd be leaning on death stolid in his stare, then blowing away in whispers. Each step the weight of a hundred idle lines, he's nowhere unknowing as a man with no direction, no destination yet when he perceives there is a place for him, he'll wander to the end and not blink once. Moldbug+: Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Moldbug+, and I am so excited to be here today with none other than Tom and Maggie representing the digital prehistoric, alongside Thiel+ and Mencius of course +. Before we begin, I would like to start by just asking our guests of the program, so a small introduction if anyone in our audience is not yet familiar with your work. Maggie: Thank you so much for having us Moldbug, it is an absolute pleasure to be surrounded by so many fascinating people. Myself and Tom are apart of the elder tech community. Not to be bleak, but the bags in the wind if you will. The remnants of a life past. Tom: We were the roots for these young bucks hahaha. We were human you see? But, with the prices these days, it was so much easier to invest our organic waste. We make a profit, and they fuel the future. Moldbug+: You guys don't look a day over 50, porcelain skin and all. And now how about the left side. Thiel+: Well, after conquering the physical realm, I needed something more. Are we all familiar with Julian Huxley? Ah of course what an absurd question. Well, with nothing left to scorch, I decided the flesh pods they used to call bodies, would obviously never cut it. I traded in, so to speak. Sleek Chrome and have been living the cybernetic dream ever since. Mencius+: You think you upgraded? Baby this is silicon. Thiel+: Of course my love, without this quantum freak I wouldn’t be here. Moldbug+: Thats great everyone, now how about we get into some of the questions shall we? First, I wanted to ask , Does democracy deserve a place in the modern governing experience? Maggie: Yes, this answer should be obvious. Without democracy involved in the governing process, what takes its place? Anarchy or Dictatorship? Tom: And with anarchy would of course come some sort of consolidation of power to the figure with the most resources, so dictatorship, regardless. The idea that you could just dismiss democracy because it impedes the acceleration of technology and research into technology is ludicrous. Thiel+: If I may respond, you mentioned a few points there that I would love to just hone in on a bit. To start, you mentioned that with the removal of democracy, we see a sort of decay into dictatorship; however, I want to maybe take a nuanced view on this. Why does dictatorship HAVE to be a negative thing? The term dictator denotes what he actually may be. For example, with the formalist line of thinking, in which I myself practice, the dictator may be a CEO. A company’s inherent mission is to cultivate and increase the value of its assets. You build a government to raise the “stock price” — a metaphor for social prosperity — of society and foster human flourishing. Tom: I’m not against business, I mean we have to progress right? But isn’t the foundation of governance the people, themselves being the absolute value? Not necessarily the countries GDP. Like if the people suffer but the rich stay rich, surely that isn’t a positive form of governing. Mencius+: That’s a ludicrous take. The importance of a country is the acceleration into a new age. This is greater than appeasement. This is a new world order. Stewart Brand declared laissez faire cyberspace, I reject that. I say that politics, economics, and all innate human hindrances are bastards to advancement. Moldbug+: Woah ho, a bit of a fiesty argument, how about we move on to the next question? Where do we stand on accelerationism? Good, bad, something a bit ugly? Maggie: That’s a very good question, I think there’s a world where accelerationism can be positive, but it has to have some stipulations. Same way you can’t drive a car 100mph on a highway and not expect to have to brake once? I’m not sure that’s a good comparison but you see what I mean right? Tom: Not to mention that accelerationism is such a broad spectrum. Aria Dean with blaccelerationism, and Laboria Cuboniks. We can use technology in a fascinating and progressive way. People have been tied down based on their human flesh, surely a removal of the organic could give way to a level playing field. A digital age without prejudice or persecution. Mencius+: What you fail to note is the concept's lack of humanity. You can’t harness its’ wantonness towards the bimodal motivation. The theory excels in pragmatism. A world without failure, in gears and buzzing motherboards. Replace the poor with lines of wires and code. Melt them down into petroleum baby, we’re steamrolling digital judgment day. Thiel+: We didn’t ask the neanderthals their withholdings before the human plague buried itself in the calloused skin of those apes. Nor shall we request the opinion of those cretins who conceived their own death. The electronic age of acceleration is neither morally good or void, but a natural effect of your biology. The antichrist, risen from chrome summoned by programmers and engineers. Mencius+: And mutated by bloggers and incels. Thiel: Precisely. Moldbug+: Well, I’d say that leaves us with the last question. We’ve discussed with the last question the future, and what it may inevitably entail; however, I’m interested if we could hear first hand what you all believe that tomorrow stage should look like? Tom: My vision of the future exists to serve the people. The rampant prioritization of capital and technological advancement has seen the degradation and destruction of families, communities, and countries. Maggie: We don’t want to deter technology, leasing our organic material let us keep the house you know? But we have to be aware of the impact that it has on our lives. The growing presence of these transhuman-formalists like Mencius, Thiel, and their entourage have only their own and their shareholders' interests in mind. It's integral for the survival of the human race in the dawn of the artificial age to band together, stay strong, and cut the tendrils of the systems around their necks. Metaphorically speaking. Tom: We don’t condone political violence. Thiel+: That doesn't actually benefit the advancement. Humanity is cattle class. One that serves whoever or whatever has the largest whip. Without thumbs and religion, they wouldn't be top of the food chain. The future of Earth isn't exempt from evolution because humanity clings to democracy; it comes knocking hard and loud. Standing resolute in opposition just gives the digital bulldozer a new victim. If this “fictitious” super AI is placed in charge of the governing body as a sort of CEO figurehead, and it were to learn or have some innate understanding and collection of its detractors and dissenters, and trust me, there are more than enough databases that collect this information, would it not serve them first to the furnace? If there is already a process of pragmatism being practiced in this AI's governing, then what would happen to those petulant few? Mencius+ : In other words, hedge your bets. In Lord of the World, the Antichrist is portrayed as a charismatic figure, sort of a superman, who becomes President of Europe and then, in some mysterious way, he’s elected President of the world. In some sense, the plot hole in both is how this world domination actually happens. I’m against death, but if there were some sort of technological feat, with a faced and named figure spearheading the campaigning, there's only one way to guarantee global presidency you get what I mean? Moldbug+: Wow guys, a lot to think about, with that I would like to say thank you so much for joining me, and to those of you out there mulling over these ideas? Man is something to be overcome, so best to hedge your bets now.