Linux: what it intended, and what it did

There’s been lots of talk about the recent development where the SJW cult apparently took over the Linux kernel development team, forcing Linus Torvalds to sign some LBGTASDFGHJKL manifesto, where meritocracy is decried as a great evil, equality of outcome is praised and white heterosexual men need to be removed in order for the world to be awesome.

To this, my answer is that communism, as usual, is eating its children, and this is nothing new. Linux was originally a communist project and a leftist cesspool, and since the SJW fraction already took over the modern communist movement elsewhere, it would not have been realistic to expect Linux to remain separate from this trend.

To this, I got a reply that Linux did some good things, and it’s not a failure: it powers the server-side, most of the mobile platform, and there are great companies making money with Linux and supporting its development. To this, I wrote an answer I’m quoting below:

Yes, there are companies that made a huge fortune using Linux – mostly those that just sell their services implemented on top of Linux, like Google with Android, but also some involved with Linux itself. If you look at it this way, Linux created both jobs and money. However, there’s an alternative perspective: Linux, by being good enough and free, destroyed the competition. SCO, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX went the way of the Dodo. All the people working on those were presumably fired, and because the competition is Linux, there were no alternative paying jobs waiting for them. Android destroyed the possibility of anyone developing a commercially sold OS for a mobile platform, other than Apple, whose position seems to be safe for now. If Android competed fairly and the cost of development was actually charged to the customer instead of being absorbed by Google and the open source community, with the goal of turning the devices into data-gathering and ad-delivery platform, competition could actually enter the marketplace and interesting things could happen, but this way, the only market pressure is on Apple, the only player who actually plays fairly, by charging money for things that cost money.
When Linux geekboys spout their hate fountains towards Microsoft and Bill Gates, and I’ve been watching that for actual decades, their complaint is that it costs money, and the users of Windows are stupid because Windows are easy to use. The argument against Apple today is the same recycled thing: the devices are expensive so the buyers are idiots and the company is greedy, and the devices are simple to use so the users must be idiots. This looks like all the bad shades of jealousy, hatred, spite and malice blended into a very nasty combination of mortal sins; essentially, they want to destroy companies that are financially successful by sacrificing their time and effort in order to provide a decent but completely free product in order to put the commercial products out of the market, because they hate that someone is rich, and something needs to be done about it.
Basically, Linux is a cancer that destroys the potentially profitable things by competing unfairly on the market, because it pays its developers in ego trip, hatred and envy instead of money, and its goal is essentially to make everything it touches inherently unprofitable. True, some managed to profit off of that, like Google who used the modified Linux to power its ad-delivery platform, as well as its server farms, but that was done by means of taking power away from the customer, because you’re not really the customer if you’re getting a heavily subsidised product, by turning the former customers into a product that is sold to the real customers: those that buy ads.
So, essentially, what Linux did was provide leverage that manages to pump wealth away from the software developers and into the pockets of ad sellers, making the customers less influential and less empowered in the process.
Also, what needs to be looked into is how much of the cloud computing boom is due to Linux, because it’s easy to have a supercluster if your OS is free; try paying Oracle per CPU for a Google or Facebook farm and you’ll get a head-spinning number that would probably make the entire thing financially unfeasible. This way, it’s another lever for centralising power over the Internet and over the end-users, essentially replacing the distributed nature of Internet itself with large corporations that, essentially, are the Internet for most people, and which, of course, are now starting to assert political and societal influence and controlling what people are allowed to think and say.
And in the meantime, the Linux crowd still hates Microsoft and dreams of a world where they’ll finally show it to Bill Gates who dared to charge money for Windows.

How to win

If we recapitulate things, it gets interesting.

During the Trump elections, the only significant sources who broke the CIA-imposed information blockade were the Russians (RT, Sputnik, Saker), Alex Jones’ Infowars, and Julian Assange’s Wikileaks.

After the elections, Trump has been systematically isolated and surrounded by people who are essentially his enemies, the Russians have been systematically attacked, sanctioned, slandered and demonized, Julian Assange is about to be arrested, and Infowars was simultaneously banned on all major IT platforms, except www and e-mail.

What this tells me is several things.

First, it confirms that all social media platforms and major IT companies are controlled from a central point. Whether that is CIA or NSA is behind the point, but they all work like a single entity when political action is concerned. We should add financial institutions to the methods of pressure: Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, the banks, SWIFT. Major data centers, where everyone keeps their servers. It’s all CIA controlled.

Second, it tells you whom they see as a real enemy. You attack those who can actually harm you.

Third, it tells us how things really stand. It’s a war that cannot be won by sitting in a chair and posting things on YouTube and Twitter. It can also not be won by violence, because the enemy controls that. It cannot even be won with the help of a benevolent superpower like Russia, because if it attempts to break CIA’s information blockade, it is demonized and threatened with war.

It can be won by passive aggression. It can be won if you understand who is the enemy, what they are trying to do, and you silently subvert them, in your private life. Don’t believe in the leftist bullshit. Don’t believe in socialism, feminism and all the implicit bullshit the media is selling you. Don’t consume the media, and if you do, block their adds. Starve the enemy of money. Starve them of your support. If they force you to do something, formally comply and then don’t do it, or do it so poorly they don’t benefit from it. Don’t give them the excuse to attack you frontally, but force them to spend more resources than they get out of you. If you bankrupt the government, then it can’t afford to spy on everyone and run things from the shadows.

Don’t buy useless bullshit. Buy only the things that are actually useful to you. Protect your interests first, and extend this to the people you care about. Ignore pleas for compassion for people you don’t personally know or care about, because that’s one of the main instruments of manipulation. Do things directly – if you want to do good, help concrete individuals that you know and care about, don’t donate money to some organization. Support the things you love, and resource-starve the things you hate. Don’t feel guilty because you’re indifferent about things you don’t give a fuck about.

If you need something, pay for it yourself. Don’t ask or expect the government to do it. It’s not free. It’s the same amount you’ll pay, plus ten times overhead, and it’s all stolen money.

Don’t use social media. They control what you see. For instance, I have good reason to believe I’m being shadow-banned on everything Google-controlled. It means that I write a comment on a YouTube video and I get no votes or comments. When I do the same on RT, I get lots of votes and comments. It’s not unreasonable to assume that this disparity is due to silent censorship.

Pray to God to deliver us from evil. This life is temporary. This place is not the actual reality. God is. Always have that in mind.

Egalitarianism, and why nobody really believes in it

I’m thinking about the implicit assumptions of egalitarianism, and it seems that those people who advocate for it: the feminists, communists, egalitarians; they all assume a weird kind of power dynamics where those who are superior exploit and abuse those who are inferior. However, things don’t seem to work that way. In patriarchal societies power is always a two-way street. Yes, you are in charge of your wife and children. However, being in charge means you are responsible for their well-being. It is your duty to see that everybody is in the best possible state. Power and duty are well balanced, and it’s actually a male biological instinct, which fails only in very fucked up and psychotic specimens. The problem is, when you give women power, they don’t have those instincts and they treat power as something that doesn’t come with conditions and duties, and as a rule, a woman in power is a monster who doesn’t understand the limits. The Hindus mythologized this very nicely in the story about Kali, the embodiment of female power, which on its own behaves like a blind force of chaos and destruction, and can only be stopped and controlled by Shiva, the embodiment of male power. Essentially, when women are left without men or when they are put in charge, they go crazy, often in very dangerous ways, and I would say the reason for that is they don’t have instinctual genetic guidance for those circumstances, because all functional human societies were always patriarchal, and women always functioned in those circumstances, so that’s all their genetics knows how to handle. You can now say that reason overrides genetics, and I say good luck with this theory, because for most humans reason is what they use to do what their instinctual genetic drives tell them is worth attaining. If you put a woman in power, she behaves like a power-drunk crazy person, on one hand, and on the other hand she feels resentful because she feels there ought to be a superior man in charge of her, and if there isn’t, it’s wrong, she feels like she is forced to do someone else’s work.
So, egalitarianism. Let’s ignore the physical part – even the men who work in construction do it using machines, where you basically pull levers and push buttons, and that’s all the strength you need to operate a crane or a tractor. Women can do it as well, so that’s not the central issue. The central issue is, what happens if it turns out that female hypergamy is a healthy genetic instinct which assumes that a woman must find a partner one step above her own status? What if it proves that men and women are not equal, but in a normal society, for the smartest and most capable woman in the world there will always be one man who is just that much smarter and more capable than her, that she is meant to fall in love with because her place is with him. However, it is also natural that the worst men are expendable. The lowest 10%, or whatever actual percentage it is, are such idiots that it is better to use them as cannon fodder than let them reproduce. That’s why women normally avoid useless men as a plague, and feel offended if they address them at all. That’s because women naturally aim above, they look for a worthy boss, not someone “equal”, and certainly not someone inferior. As a woman, if you are not cared for by someone who is in charge of things, traditionally you end up very badly. So, essentially, egalitarianism is something that is desired only by those on the bottom of the barrel, because it would improve their chances, but it’s exactly for this reason why it should not be allowed. Everybody but the worst human refuse will do better in a patriarchal meritocracy.
It’s interesting how women will say they like egalitarianism, until you point them towards an inferior man and ask them if they would have sex with him, and watch the disgusted expression on their faces. Also, they are all for the distribution of wealth, until you tell them that their sexuality is also a form of wealth and they should share it with those men who are too fucked up, ugly and poor to be able to find a woman, and again, watch the expression on their faces. For the most part, egalitarianism is just a posture, and internally people behave as if they are in a set of hierarchies; women have a hierarchy of beauty, men have a hierarchy of power, scientists have a hierarchy, pilots have a hierarchy, and a meta-hierarchy is called civilisation.

The full circle

I’m going to write down a few thoughts on the present socio-political situation.

The problem is multi-layered.

The Western civilization is essentially conducting an experiment which started somewhere around the French revolution and American independence. The basic assumptions of this experiment are as follows:

  1. This life is all there is. If God exists, He left us to create our own destiny and laws according to which we will govern ourselves, so, for all intents and purposes, God is dead. It is up to the ones who are awakened to this fact to create a new future, one that will part with the gods and traditions of old. The past can no longer guide the future.
  2. All humans are essentially equal, and given the same opportunities, will have the same or very similar outcomes. Education and empowerment of the masses will have the result of reducing social inequality and essentially remove the social pyramid, by placing everybody on top.
  3. Since humans are basically the same, social hierarchy is not the result of superior nature of those in power, or the mandate of heaven, but of Machiavellian scheming and power grabs. Hierarchies are not to be trusted and instruments are to be put in place to limit the extent and duration of any individual’s hold on power. Also, all social inequalities are the result of the old obsolete system, and need to be removed.
  4. Science and technology are the means of human and societal emancipation and, since all problems are material in nature, if they are at all solvable, their solution is to be attempted through science and technology.
  5. The old system of government, that was based on tradition, religion, superstition and unjust initial distribution of wealth through robbery, violence and other forms of power, is to be completely removed and all its consequences reversed. All evil in the world can be explained as a consequence of the relics of the old system. Since this system creates and perpetuates all evil, all means are permissible in the war against it.

So, this was the blueprint for the slaughterhouse that was the French revolution, as well as the two world wars. However, this was not all; other parameters existed, which created the framework in which such a theoretical model was plausible:

  1. Religion was widely discredited. Due to the internecine wars between the Catholics and the Protestants, as well as the corruption within the Catholic Church which originally caused the problem, the moral authority of religion was largely destroyed, opening the door to other possible ways of interpreting and organizing existence.
  2. Sophisticated thinking within the Catholic Church gave birth to science, as well as leaving the greatest minds dissatisfied with the answers provided by religion. Also, the obvious corollary of renaissance was that the Bible obviously didn’t have all the answers and things can be improved if we introduce other factors, such as ancient Greek and Roman literature. Also, since it can be improved by Greeks and Romans, including reformulation of Christian philosophy using Plato and Aristotle, why not simply conclude that the Bible is only one source of information among many, and not necessarily the best one at that. Furthermore, if scientific experimentation can produce theories that are more valid than the biblical ones, why not simply dispense with the Bible altogether and just stick to what we can figure out and prove?
  3. Based on scientific experimentation, technological advancements were at first hinted, and then actually made. The level of technological advancement since the widespread adoption of the scientific method was unprecedented. This apparently confirmed the assumptions from the enlightenment era, weakened all possible criticisms, and created societal readiness for radical implementations of those modernist theories, as in the communist revolutions in Russia, China and elsewhere, and the ascent of fascism across Europe in the first third of the 20th Essentially, we can observe the communists and the fascists as minor variations of the same phenomenon: the fascists simply decided to dispense with the assumption of universalism, and decided to advance only their own race/nationality at the expense of others, deciding it’s not just the old system holding them back, but other races/nations as well, and were ready to dispense with them using brutality typical for modernist systems, as witnessed in the French revolution and since. Here I completely disagree with Slavoj Žižek, who claims that communism and fascism are two inherently different phenomena, where fascists were evil people who promised to do evil things, and, having come to power, delivered on the promise, while the communists were good people with noble ideas which somehow went wrong for some unknown reason – assuming, perhaps, that if someone else were in charge of implementation of those ideas and if the circumstances were different, those ideas could legitimately be tried out again, expecting more success. I completely and fundamentally disagree with that. Both communists and fascists in fact start from the same modernist assumptions, that God is dead and it’s up to us to dispense with the old system and create a better future based on science and technology. The difference is that the communists applied this idea to the working class, which needed to be liberated from the results of the unjust initial distribution of capital, the means of production need to be returned to the wide masses, and bright future will ensue. All who oppose this plan are evil, and need to be dispensed with mercilessly. Since humans are all equal, and some have more, this is necessarily the result of injustice, so the rich need to be robbed of their unjustly obtained wealth and it is to be returned to the impoverished masses. The fascists essentially replaced the working class with nation – in case of Germany, their nation is assumed to be superior, morally just and biologically more evolved, other races obtained societal superiority by deception and theft, the results of that need to be reversed and those who oppose such distribution should be mercilessly dispensed with. Since the essence of the problem is seen as biological, instead of class warfare and the purge of “kulaks” they practiced racial warfare and the purge of the “inferior races”. So, essentially, both fascism and communism are narcissistic modernist systems of belief who had no scepticism regarding their theories, who used demagoguery to appeal to the wide masses, and had absolutely no moral restraints on the use of violence and cruelty, including genocide.
  4. During most of this, the feudal system and therefore “old money” was still in place; essentially, a class of people no longer had the level of power necessary to keep the level of control of resources and the influence in society that they inherited. The vast transfer of power from nobility to capital was in place. Since it was obviously just that the captains of industry control what they created, and questionably just that the noblemen keep the vast property that they inherited based on the feudal divisions of power, the modernist ideas in the old world were hard to dispute from a moral standpoint. In America, there were no remnants of feudalism to speak of, and the entire country was based on the modernist enlightenment principles to begin with, which explains why both world wars started in Europe. One can perceive them as a process of societal thermodynamics, where the hold over resources was redistributed violently according to the new realities of power.
  5. Widespread education created problems that previously didn’t exist, such as abundance of educated people with essentially no jobs and no place in society for them. This created discontent in the intelligentsia, which tended to form and join revolutionary movements. The states tried to control this by trying to create workplaces for those people in the administration, but this had the unwanted effect of creating the huge state apparatus which created more problems than it solved, for instance contributing greatly to the dissolution of the Austria-Hungary empire. The revolutionary movements also used the ineffectiveness of the state administration as an argument in their favour, claiming that things would improve once they were in power. However, since both sides were working with the modernist assumptions about education, they were both contributing to the problem. Also, it turned out that education didn’t change much in the divisions of power in society, and the modernist assumption about education as the solution to all problems was disproved. Essentially, you can force-educate everybody, but most people simply don’t know what to do with the acquired knowledge, which indicates that lack of education initially wasn’t caused by external but internal limitations, which then disproves the assumption of equality of all people, and, also, the assumption of injustice of societal and economic inequalities.

Essentially, the modernist idea was that everything will be perfect once we disempower and kill those who try to hold the mankind back; with the Nazis, they recycled the Theosophical concepts of fourth and fifth race, stating that they are the pure fifth race and in order for mankind to go forth into a bright future, the remnants of the fourth race that hold it back need to be killed off. As for the communists, they drew a conclusion consistent with the thesis that all men are equal, and concluded that all societal and economic differences are the result of injustice perpetrated by those with power and possession, who need to be disempowered and killed off in order for mankind to go forth into a bright future. Essentially, those narcissists had no problem with the assumption that they got it all right and had no problem killing tens and hundreds of millions of people, especially since the population doubled since the ascent of the industrial revolution, so killing of a significant percentage of the population wasn’t seen as a big deal.

The problem with those theories is that they all work within the essentially identical moral and intellectual framework, starting with the similar assumptions, from which it is easy to come to very similar conclusions, which are basically that whenever something is wrong in society, it can be solved by finding and killing those who are to blame. When that doesn’t work, corrections are made by revising the concept of the oppressor-group and the victim-group, and finding more people to kill. When this worsens the situation immensely, the original assumptions about the world, man and society that created the worsening are never questioned; only the methods of implementation are. That’s why people like Slavoj Žižek are dangerous: he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with communism/socialism, he just thinks it was not implemented properly.

I, however, think that not only communism is wrong – both intellectually and morally – but it is also wrong in a way in which every single modernist system is wrong. They all assume that people are equal, and they explain the differences by the bad old system. They assume that if you lift the societal limitations, you will get some kind of a dreamlike utopia. When this was attempted, and the results were not as expected, instead of acting like scientists and admitting that the initial assumptions were disproved by evidence, they acted like ideologues and just found more people who are to be killed in order to produce their ideal utopia. The French revolution, as the first attempt at modernist reform of society, was the least refined in its brutality and hypocrisy, killing scientists in the name of a new system based on science and not superstition, all the while never actually applying the scientific method on their own societal experiments. One would think that they learned to be more subtle with time, but that never happened – the solution to all problems seems to be to forcefully introduce equality, and kill everyone who gets in the way, and they always assume to be right and morally justified, because narcissism is the fundamental implicit property of all modernist systems – God is dead, and they now decide who God is, what law is, what right and wrong is. They decide who lives and who dies, because they just took the power to do so, and they aren’t afraid of killing every single person who disputes them the right to do so, until only those in perfect agreement with them are left standing. No discussion about the fundamental assumptions of modernism and its corollary belief systems is allowed, because the very idea makes you a member of the enemy-group that is to be dispensed with mercilessly. So, obviously, the matter is never brought up.

And, of course, that’s what I do.

The problem with modernism isn’t that it wasn’t implemented properly. The problem is that all of its basic assumptions were faulty from the start, and when they were tried in practice, they resulted in disaster.

First of all, there is a God. Not only that, but God is the fundamental reality, the deepest and most profound level of reality, compared to which everything else is an illusion. Ignorance of God is akin to suppressing the physical reality with virtual reality goggles and immersion in simulations, only several levels more profound. This means you can’t just make shit up: you can’t invent your own morality, you need to discover the pre-existing one and adjust your actions accordingly. Consequences of not doing so are in essence reality-defying. If the reason behind resorting to science is to discover the pre-existing laws of the material Universe, the reason to use the same principle to discover the pre-existing laws of the underlying, deeper realities of existence is even more valid. If you can’t just invent your own laws of gravity, but instead you need to discover and understand the pre-existing ones, you also can’t just invent your own morality; you need to discover and understand the pre-existing relevant principles. Existence of soul that outlives physical incarnation and has purposes within and beyond it, changes things so dramatically that all genocidal attempts at “improvement” of the world, that we had to endure in the last few centuries, would have been avoided, had the fact of soul been acknowledged by the theoreticians of society.

Also, it is true that humans are very similar biologically; biodiversity within the human species is very low, despite all the racist narcissisms of small differences. However, human souls are vastly different, and they exist in the range between simplistic astral structures and God-aspects. Those vast differences do not necessarily determine the entirety of outcomes in human lives on Earth, and they also don’t mean that the better souls have better outcomes, but those differences contribute to the complexity of human existence and make it impossible to attribute inequalities of outcome to a singular causal principle. Also, there are evolutionary differences between races and sexes which contribute greatly to the differences in outcome. Some modernist systems accept that, while others do not, but the fact remains that differences in outcomes cannot be wholly attributed to extrinsic causes. Also, considering how “ancien régime” seems to acknowledge all of that, and the modernist revolutionaries deny it, and no amount of violent social experimentation of the modern times managed to solve the main problems it professed to solve, it seems that we can split the modern times into two parts: that of disastrously bloody and genocidal social experiments, and that of science and technology whose enormous successes in improving the quality of life of vast numbers of people masked the failures of political philosophy to a great extent. It is only due to science and technology that we can see the last few centuries as an improvement over the past. Unfortunately, when theoreticians of evil want to show success of their wicked ideas, the successes of science and technology are exactly what they point to, as if they had anything to do with it. Science and technology works in capitalist, communist and feudal societies. It works perfectly well in democratic America and Europe, and in dictatorial Singapore. If you pump enough oil money into a feudal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, you get wealth and wellbeing.

Also, some things that are widely acclaimed as results of progress are possibly very dangerous experiments that might result in total civilizational collapse within a century from their introduction. If anything, the Western civilization is in a state of serious flux since the industrial revolution, and it’s all an experiment that might end very badly, and there are in fact signs that something of that kind might be imminent. The problem with societal experimentation is that you can’t just reset the experiment if things go wrong. You only have one civilization to experiment on, and if you kill the patient, it’s game over. There’s an assumption that equality is the ultimate goal, and that democracy is good since it promotes that goal; furthermore, universal suffrage is widely lauded as an achievement, and it might turn out that it was a fatal mistake that managed to wreck both economic and societal structure of the West, in only a few decades that it had been exercised. What if equality is irrelevant, and the true goal is allowing the worthiest individuals to achieve greatest success? What if a Confucian meritocratic monarchy is a better system than democracy? What if a republic with only the most powerful stakeholders having a say, and not the wide underachieving masses, is a superior solution? Why do I keep hearing that democracy is a better solution than all others, when I constantly see the disastrous results of egalitarianism whenever it is attempted?

We hear the arguments about all the empires that fell, and hear them compared with our democracy, always in a self-congratulatory manner, but those making the arguments forget that those empires lasted for millennia, during which time they had their ups and downs, and our democratic experiment, in its full suffrage version, started around the first world war, so it’s only a century old, and this century has been the century of slaughter and economic disasters in its first half, and of moral emptiness, virtue signalling and vacuous political correctness and the resulting purges of the “intolerant ones” in the second half, with the entire civilization showing signs of being unable to procreate, inability to exist without incurring debt, and inability to define itself as worthy of existence and defence, compared to the unwashed masses of Muslim invaders. Egalitarianism, eventually, produced its logical consequence of individuals being unable to explain why they are worthy of success, or even life, or why they should not be replaced with another generic individual. If you can’t say why you are better than others, and why you deserve to live at the expense of others, lest you be called a Nazi for thinking you are better than anyone else, you have a civilization of meaningless, not really individual existences, who define their own value only in terms of equality with others, and for both a civilization and a human being this is the end. At the very instant this civilization is faced with outsiders who have no problem stating they are better than you, you will yield and be either enslaved or killed to make space for those who don’t apologize for existing, and for thinking they are superior. By rejecting Christianity, the West also renounced its “mandate of heaven” – it renounced it claim to superiority that was derived from being the people who listened and accepted to God’s message, and accepted the duty to live according to God’s laws on this Earth, in order to become worthy of the eternal life. By renouncing this, it became vulnerable to any cult of idiots, such as Islam, which was on the verge of extinction a century ago, where even Ataturk renounced it as perfectly useless and counterproductive for a modern Turkey, and yet, as the West renounced Christianity, it created a vacuum that will be filled by all kinds of alternatives, mostly worthless and villainous.

Another problem is that this technological civilization is so complex, it is completely beyond intellectual comprehension of the majority of the population, and in their desire to have at least some degree of control over their existence, those people will resort to all kinds of weird conspiracy theories and religious cults, which will perform their eternal purpose of feeding the narcissism of fools. This problem is not a minor one, because a civilization always rests upon the foundation of acceptance of common goals, by the common people. If the common people no longer see themselves as participating in a greater common goal, the civilization is in free fall.

And the biggest problem is that people are starting to recycle old ideas, because everything has already been tried, and proved to be a dead end, so now they are recycling the dead-ends of socialism, of fascism, of nation-state borders, as if most of today’s failures aren’t the result of someone trying to remedy the failures of those past ideas and concepts. They are trying to go to Mars, as if it’s the 19th century when such an idea made sense, because we didn’t know that Mars is a lifeless wasteland without a magnetic field, bathed in cosmic and solar radiation, that makes no sense to colonize and terraform, and there are no Martians there for us to encounter, and nothing in our solar system is really appealing to a rational person. The 19th and 20th century Universe was a different place, mostly unknown, where many things could possibly be. However, we now know more, and all the possibly appealing worlds are lightyears, or even thousands of lightyears away, completely beyond the reach of our technology. In the 20th century, even the good, scientifically educated science fiction writers toyed with the ideas about intelligent life on Mars and Venus, and I mean people like Asimov and Clarke, not authors of Marvel and DC comic books. Nobody can write such things now, at least not with a straight face. As we learned more, we pruned the Universe of the 19th century, rejecting things that seemed plausible, and discovering things they wouldn’t have thought of in their wildest imagination, and yet the philosophers of that 19th century, who lived under the influence of ideas that had since been proven false, are still appealing to so many. Considering how Chaldean astrology is still considered plausible and authoritative by some people, I can only conclude that bad ideas never completely die; they just continue living in their niche parallel psychosis of a reality. For instance, materialism stopped being a viable interpretation of reality somewhere in the 1980s, when due to massive advances in reanimation of the clinically dead patients we managed to gather a large number of completely convincing evidence about soul’s survival of physical death and its independent existence. This evidence isn’t accepted by the so-called scientists not because there’s something wrong with the evidence, but because it negates their fundamental worldview, represented by the assumptions that I enumerated at the beginning of this article. Also, materialism was disproved by physics, which first found evidence for the existence of atoms, the indivisible fundamental particles of matter, apparently proving the basic precepts of materialism; and then almost immediately progressed to break those atoms into yet smaller particles, until it was left with mere symbols and entities which decay into energy within infinitesimally small fractions of a second. As far as today’s physics is concerned, multiverse and virtual reality theories are perfectly plausible, and nothing is really proven, except that it is completely implausible for our current Universe to exist as a singular reality. Its basic constants are so finely tuned, that the only plausible explanations are that it was created as such by an act of an intelligent being, or that there simply happen to be infinite Universes in existence, and anthropic principle mandates that the one in which we exists happens to be the one within which our existence is possible. And yet in the 1980s we had to endure that insufferable fool Carl Sagan who told us that Universe is all that is, was and ever will be. But yes, bad ideas never really die after they are disproved. However, some bad ideas result in individual lives, and lives of entire civilizations, that are so unsustainable that the entire thing ends.

I don’t se how it would be possible for this civilization to accept that everything it is based on was proven to be false. I think it will simply continue to reiterate on its errors until it is put out of its misery by another force. However, I have another theory. Mankind in general is out of ideas. It’s at an impasse. Everything that was supposed to produce a revolution proved to be a dead end. It’s extinction time.

And I have an even better theory. Jesus was right, and this world was originally created with a fixed, albeit secret, termination date, known only to God. This world was given to Satan to prove his wicked theories, and I can see no better time for it to end than now, when nobody really has a clear idea what else to try, when everything was already tried, all alternatives to God have been tried and produced nothing but hell, and now their best ideas are to recycle the past failures. No, I don’t think so. We seem to be at an end, and I come to the same conclusion regardless of the approach I take in the interpretation of what I observe. It’s harvest time, and it is up to God to separate the wheat from the chaff, which is where the idea of egalitarianism will face its final demise.

The era of a super-desktop PC

I read something interesting in a computer magazine, I don’t know exactly when, late 1980s, early 1990s perhaps, that the concept of a “home computer” is going to become obsolete, not because there won’t be any home computers, but because there will be too many for the term to make any sense – like, which one, the one in the microwave, in the TV, in the HVAC thermostat, in the networking router… and it actually went farther, so now we have not only the computerized appliances, but also computers in many shapes and user-interface paradigms; voice-controlled watches, phones, tablets, tablet-laptop hybrids, laptops, all-in-one desktops and conventional desktops, gaming consoles, and also the super-desktops, also known as either workstations or gaming PCs.

The super-desktop is an interesting category, because it’s usually called just the “PC”, the same as an ordinary unit found in businesses, the word/excel machine, but it’s a wholly different beast, of the kind that was known in the past as either a supercomputer, or a desktop minicomputer, also called graphical workstation. You see, when something can drive several TV-sized 4K displays, run multiple virtual machines at once with no lag, render movies, or process terabytes of other kinds of data, it’s no longer in the same category of things as a machine that is of nominally the same shape, running the same OS, but is weaker than one of its virtual machines.

So, what is a super-desktop, or a “gaming PC”, as they are euphemistically called? What is a machine that can drive an Oculus Rift VR system? The most honest description is that it is an alternative reality creation device. It creates simulated universes you can interact with and join. If you run a car racing simulation and you wear Oculus VR goggles, and especially if you have one of those seats that re-create mechanical shocks, you are essentially joining an alternate reality where you participate in a very convincing and physical activity, much more so than a dream, for instance.

So, what is the main difference between this and an ordinary computer that can play immersive games? Only quantity, but the thing is, if you increase quantity far enough, it becomes a quality of its own. If you increase the mass of an asteroid enough, it becomes a planet. If you increase the mass of a planet enough, it becomes a star. If you increase the mass of a star enough, it becomes a black hole. It’s the same thing as with human brain – add more neurons and suddenly completely new phenomena start taking place. Have only a few, you have a worm. Add more, you have a fish. Add more, you have a frog. Add more, you have a lizard. Add more, you have a rat. Add more, you have a monkey. Add more, and you get a man, and suddenly it’s no longer just the mass-equivalent of many worm ganglia together, it’s the phenomenon that can launch robots on Mars, fly cameras near Pluto, observe the beginnings of the Universe, break matter in ways in which only supernovae do, and even know God.
A super-desktop computer is not just a PC, and a PC is not just a glorified Commodore 64. It’s a machine of such power, it can add another dimension to human experience. It can immerse you in a realistic alternate reality where you drive supercars on race tracks, fly fighter jets, or fight dragons. It can literally provide you with a dynamically generated, interactive sensory input, which is a definition of an alternative reality. But there is a danger to that. Alternative reality is another name for illusion, and having such powerful illusion-creating devices at your disposal can allow you to add another layer of indirection between your consciousness and reality.

If it allows you to escape from issues that you are supposed to face and solve, it can also allow you to waste your life. There’s only one tool at our disposal that can do that, and it’s called drugs. Drugs can allow you to escape real issues and bury yourself in a world where there is reward without necessity for achievement. Powerful computers can become a drug-equivalent, a wish fulfillment tool which removes the necessity of achievement from the equation. As all powerful tools, they can really fuck your life up. Also, as all powerful tools, they can allow you to do more and better things.