Modern GodPolemic against Scientific Religion

Introduction

“God is Dead”

What did Nietzsche mean by this? This maxim is one of the most relevant and significant interpretations of modern society and human nature itself that is known. The maxim has a dual meaning, one of historical value and another with indirect non-literal value.

The traditional or Judeo-Christian idea of God has expired according to the changes in ideal pragmatism concerning anti-superstitious attitudes. Religious warsand barbarous inquisitions also contributed to a changein perspective that ‘traditional’ belief in God is deplorable. Couple this with technological innovations and the excess allocation of education, and we see thisform of God begin to dissipate. The old world is efficacious of the state of what many modernists enjoy subscribing to as the “new world”, much in similarity to the semantics of the right and left. The blatant mockery and contempt of the cultural evolution of the old world is clear in this sanctification of “new age”.

However, the second meaning of Nietzsche's maxim compounds the issue of what God means for modernity. God, is not dead, but evolved. It has taken on new forms of adaptive purposes such as secular humanism,

democracy, liberalism, egalitarianism, and of course equality which is the source of them all. In this sense, God has been fragmented into ideals that make it in fact even more influential than it ever was in ancient times. Scientific rationalism for example, is the advance of technology to transcend human nature (transhumanism), and reach an absolute leveling of basic genetic dispositions. God in essence means the transcendence of human nature, or anti-nature, self-negation-nihilism.

If technology is the physical/material manifestation ofGod becoming actualized, than equality is the mental manifestation of it. Whereas, in the past it was only mental. Therefore, the belief in God is more prevalent,despite modern individuals who profess to an oppositionagainst it. The power of reason, that is so vehemently declared as the true virtue to eliminate all things bad, has become the practical belief in God. Reason for modernity does not imply any genuine interest in a search for truth, but simply a method of assimilation into a collective harmony of indiscriminateness. If more people have small and abundant bits of informationthat keeps them focused on how to abide by being assimilated, then knowledge means only obedience to a higher power of self-worth.

A superorganism is a form of organic universal identity, without the foundation (difference) that identity needs in order to be an identity. Therefore, if God is the anthropomorphic form of perfect self-identity, then a society or culture that harnesses all traits that give any identity value, is the new form ofGod that many now wish to belong to.

 Mitchell Heisman posed the question whether the ideal of equality actually “progresses” in any way toward some ultimate end. The answer is most likely not, because it is based more on a non-distinct leveling of ‘ALL’ ends in themselves into a universal state of being. There is no such thing as a self, in an equal society, or even such things as ideas. We could trace this phenomenon back to Plato’s idea of knowledge of the mind reaching its ideal state as it progresses toward it through experience, as in the man exiting thecave into the ‘light’ of reason. This exposure to experience being the metaphor for social engineering, replacing innate traits with artificial ones. The expansion of mimetic alterations in traditional social structures, from Judeo-Christian ethics of what God means in equality then took a strangle hold of the western world.

God reduces the effort to assert ones Will onto the world and instead absolve it of its flaws into a perfect being, likewise, technology and modern rationalism eliminates the conflict of nature, and increases comfort and conveniences, making nature itself obsolete and more akin to that of belonging to abeing of absolute purity.

But since the idea of God itself is one of versatility,the evolution of it takes on a more pragmatic style that it has adopted when its nature of tradition was shed. The loss of tradition itself is what this polemicis about after all. But what is tradition? Nothing if not at the very least, a remembrance of one’s ancestralpast. It is the shared customs of a community that

sustains some degree of camaraderie and awareness and appreciation of the history of one’s province and bloodline. Modernity is about the elimination of tradition in its entirety rather than mere religion.

What makes religion advantageous to influencing the ethos of a society is precisely its absence of inquisitiveness and how this allows it to adapt more successfully to the codes that are pervaded. Whatever may be the appropriate behavioral attitudes of a given community, religion injects it with a general sense of superstition where rebellion and critical thought can be regulated if not suppressed completely, which is theultimate goal. Christianity for example, flourished outof appealing to any lost disenfranchised individual, regardless of race or intelligence. Conversely, modern technology refines the practice of this harmonizing strategy by eliminating the need for question and exalting the need for efficiency. Both religion and state thus consist of the same leveling practices that snuff out any Will to think and only to conform, and tobelong.

This exposition is an attempt to illustrate the convergence of science with religion, where the line drawn between the two is blurred and no longer distinguishable. Moreover, to explore the behavioral attitudes and beliefs that make it so.

In the words of Francis Yockey:

“Science is the seeking after exact knowledge of phenomena. In discovering interrelations between phenomena, that is, observing the conditions of their appearance, it feels it has explained them. This type of

mentality appears in a High Culture after the completion of creative religious thought, and the beginning of externalizing. In our Culture, this type of thinking only began to feel sure of itself with the middle of the 17th century, in the Classical, in the 5th century B.C. The leading characteristic of early scientific thinking, from the historical standpoint, is that it dispenses with theological and philosophical equipment, only using them to fill in the background, in which it is not interested. It is thus materialistic,in its essence, in that its sole attention is turned to phenomena, and not to ultimate realities. To a religious age, phenomena are unimportant compared with the great spiritual truths, to a scientific age, the opposite is true…Religion is a necessity for Culture-man, and he will build his religion on economics, biology, or nature, if the Spirit of the Age excludes true religion.”

Externalization would be the primary code of living in modernity, given that the self/identity is no longer necessary and only loyalty to any method which defines the self is what is truly needed now. Religion is not synonymous with tradition, however we see that tradition drew upon this spirit of religion but is based more on a system of beliefs and principles withincommunities and families that influenced certain values, such as responsibility, honor, respect and integrity to develop. The polytheism of ancient Greek and Greco-Roman culture was a result of religious anthropomorphic representations of ideals of human naturethat held their society together, until the Judeo-Christian monism abolished it and made it into a singular deity, and then technology; into a singularity. The singularity in science is representative of this evolved idea of God. Quantum mechanics is a reduction of reason and knowledge into the singularity attemptingto make logic ultimately superfluous. Moreover, this could be what physics calls “Dark Matter”; invisible

particles that we cannot see, but must only believe are there which occupy space. This is faith in science.

Transcendence itself is the new religion that is attributed to the negation of the self, into a God-self that requires no substance to exist. Nowhere, in modernity, is human nature relevant aside from a purelyfunctional anomaly. The need to understand oneself is cast aside as a trivial pursuit, and the idea of God ismade into a production. A society has always been a product of weakness and dependence. This is what collective ideals attempt to exploit, whether there be implications of faith or science or in this case, both.

Unquestionably, if a list of Man’s most destructive anddelusional ideas existed, the idea of God, in any form of it, would be directly at the top. What makes this idea so attractive, is its pure versatility to accommodate any disposition, lifestyle or even preference. It is important to point out the very ability to think, means that there can be the possibility to not think. To create ends and beginnings, negatives and positives. This is the nature of thinking, and why God is a representation of where reason can end, because if it cannot, it inspires turmoil. God, abates this turmoil, because it settles the compromise, rather conveniently, of the desperate need for an end or absolute of the condition of knowledge.

The most prominent and fascinating thinker that genuinely tackled the idea of God was Descartes. He wasone of the few that did not anthropomorphosize God, butrather simply explored his ability to conjure the idea of

a being of perfection and omnipotence in his mind. Whatform this being took was incidental, as it should have been. The concern was where he derived it from, which to him was from another being that also had the elements of perfection and omnipotence, otherwise this very ability to conjure its existence, would not have been possible, hence God must exist. The problem he ran into, however, was that he attributed the ability to distinguish right from wrong to this other being, and that the other being chose not to deceive him, by granting him the capacity to form the idea of it, instead of hiding it from him. We see here, as intellectually diverse as Descartes was, even he fell into the seduction of associating his own small piece of humanity to something that he admitted was beyond his comprehension.

If God is beyond understanding, why the attempt at understanding it? Why not simply be humble enough to accept our limitation and leave it alone entirely? And would it not be impossible to understand God at all, ifit goes beyond reason? And if belief itself connotes a degree of understanding than it is absurd to even say “I believe in God”. Because given the contention, “believing” in God is impossible. For example, one cannot believe in fate without an idea of what fate is,otherwise it would not afford the comfort needed to believe that it is something within understanding.

One cannot believe in God unless one applies A Priori substance to it to allow the belief to have some foundation of what it could be. The truth is if God were nothing at all, than no one would believe in it or evenmention it, but if God were something like vengeance,

or love, or nature, than believing in it would eliminate the emptiness of it and allow us the luxury of having something divine to label a possibility to. To say “I believe in God” is to say “I am God”. But perhaps, Descartes planted the seed for modern religionto grow into a more societal anthropomorphic style thathas become the scientific revolution of religion that we see in modernity.

If science has taken truth to be something other than the thing-in-itself, more akin to mean something of the thing within the essence of an individual, we can surlycontend that scientific religion is not merely the pursuit of material discoveries, but extending those discoveries right down to the metaphysical nature of a person. The personality, character, spirit as a base and marginalized object to be analyzed.

Carl Jung puts it another way:

“The materialistic views of our day have a tendency which we can discern in archaic thought. Both lead to the conclusion that the individual is a mereresultant; in the first case, he is the resultant of natural causes, and in the second, of chance occurrences. According to both accounts, human individuality is nothing in its own right, but rather the accidental product of forces contained in the objective environment. This is through and through the archaic conception of the world according to which the single human being is never considered unique, but always interchangeable with any other and easily dispensable.”

If thought is a network of neural synapses of electrical transmissions, than the need to think or to practice thinking, is unnecessary if the nature of thinking can be restricted to empirical casual

paradigms. Identity then is no longer applicable in anygenuine sense of relation to the self. It is absorbed then, into models of description. The result: spiritual impoverishment.

The excess of methodologies belittles the individual. The superorganism absorbs him into a method of identifying with himself. Locke’s legacy whether he intended it or not,was precisely this: Human nature is designed to be shaped by social uniformity and not by personal volition. Experience simply has evolved from sensual phenomena into mimetic phenomena. The suppression of individuality. Society as the new identity and science as the new ethics to sustain it. If it is readily understood that methods, material products, knowledge, information and ideas are in excess, then it may be so of what the idea of excess itself truly means, which isone of the issues I wish to explore here.

The “Isms” of Modern Idolatry.

Realism-What is left for Man when he believes that his civic duty is all that matters? He sees only his responsibility to his acceptance of the average man by following the standards of superficial success. Realismas an attack on the imagination, on creativity, on contemplation. It is about using adaptability to excuse thinking. When something is meant to be self-evident and to dissuade question and argument and to be something sacred and divine, we have a lifestyle that is obvious, base and left unexamined. Life is being redefined as a literal bourgeois goal with no

connections to anything real. It has been stripped of passion and reduced to an ultimatum of stringent compliance to obligation. The mind uses abstraction to perceive reality in a more fluid and powerful way. Realism is stuck in its obsession with external worldlymatters and it vilifies metaphorical artistic thinking.It vilifies the mind. The realist’s mind is rigid and inflexible, able to focus only on what can be proved, instead of what can be explored.

God as social status, or self-actualization as a need to become recognized within the whole of capitalistic or social worth. The divine, in this case, means that which is without meaning, or that cannot be understood but only followed. What can be understood about gainingthat all too coveted value of “independence”, than thatit is a means to be materially stable? Stability is what is striven for, not wisdom. The quality of character is judged by climbing the latter of social success, as is the quality of intelligence. What many wish to learn is how to validate themselves in the sphere of work, money, assets, and resources. Does the realist need to understand why he must succeed, or why he must know himself before he learns what success is? Self-knowledge is abhorred by realism, because it involves the exertion of spiritual effort and not objective effort.

If one should choose to lead a life of philosophy, he is shunned as a loser, an outcast that blithely wastes his time in ethereal musings, failing to live up to norms of monetary worldly gain. He must be real in the sense that he must recognize that creativity is infantile and insignificant. He must learn that his

knowledge must come from a source of objectivism, and thathis skills must be applied to systems of contribution.

Part of the misconception of learning, especially for most distracted modern individuals, is that it in some way must revolve around or have some semblance of enjoyment or entertainment.

Many new age people consider reading to be a "hobby" oran "interest" and that if no excitement comes from it, it probably isn't worth the time, or worse, that the author has no creativity. Hence, if knowledge is not distracting or productive it is useless.

It never occurs to these narrow attention spanned fools, that the purpose of learning requires a disciplined investment that has nothing to do with pleasure. That in fact, much of the quality literature that enhances intellect is not only difficult and laborious to read, but may at times even be drab and tedious. But the fruit of the insights provided by the writer, gives grand sustenance to a more powerful thought process and deeper imagination which is beautiful and rewarding.

In a machine culture that worships life consuming professions and asset attainment; where the prospect ofspending ones time in leisure learning and discovering seems indolent or foolish, makes one realize just how much wisdom is devalued, when wisdom can only be refined in leisure or moments of comfort.

Therefore, the creative spirit, the artist, must use his talents only for the system, and make them

economically viable. If for himself, then he is deemed an outcast and a social failure. Money and social approval means relevance, spirit does not. For the realist is lost in his drive to abide by external reality-objectivism. He makes himself an objective, andhis talents. In turn, he makes himself a cog of production. Realism exhorts one to be independent, by the independence society gives him, but not that he canattain himself. The independence of wealth, and possessions. This is taught as being virile in the eyes of society or the system. What does it mean to be independent of mind, or spirit, or intelligence? The realist hates himself if he is independent in this respect, because then he must accept the cost of solitude.

Realism is nothing more than a need to survive, making one more primitive and less aware. Strength is attachedto what it means to be realistic, as if social standinghas anything to do with how strong you are and not how obedient and submissive.

The realist is distracted and mindlessly productive. Finding his only power within codes of ‘getting ahead’,and achieving. Nothing else matters to him, nothing outside of what is objectively possible. Nothing outside of what is immediate, and in the moment of sensation or grasp. His ideal he sets is shallow, rather than make it eternal, such as what wisdom is, hemakes it commonplace, ordinary, average. The realist’s lifestyle is painfully simplistic, without context. What would happen to him if he were to take pride in being an outcast for the sake of wisdom? He would be without inclusiveness in society and this he cannot

bear, because his identity is dependent upon the inclusiveness of the basic, or what he sees plainly before his eyes. What he sees is what he can get if he follows and casts away his imagination, his artistic dexterity. If he were to become a philosopher, than he would understand that the real is beyond what he merelysees and based more on what he can understand. This requires a detachment, and to be detached is to be without the worth of material or social approval.

Realism capitalizes on what is no longer metaphysical or religious, but what is relevant, what is necessary, that is of course anything related to survivalism. Making conformity an art! His whole identity is externalized. He is beyond himself, in that he cannot understand himself, but only as a means to become something that is not himself.

The artist cannot be an artist, the philosopher a philosopher, unless he uses it pragmatically in the game of society. This is what realism means. Nothing natural can be worth anything, unless it is applied to something structured. It must be functional, operative and serve some practical purpose.

In a world dominated by the invasion of commerce or objectivism and the education of it, this is but the inevitable adaptation of what the spirit must endure atits own cost.

Relativism-A perspective or an approximation of what is true does not matter when it is leveled down to everyone else who happens to have a perspective of

their own. This Ism, uses the flaw of truth, of knowledge, in that it cannot be “absolute”, therefore relativism claims that this fundamental flaw makes all truth unsound and without any meaning. It degrades truth and it degrades the ability to find truth.

It also degrades identity. The superiority of one mind to observe reality more accurately than another is madeto be sinful. Relativism hates intelligence, it hates wisdom, and it especially hates the possibility of one form of wisdom being greater than another, and it must use the grand excuse of imperfectability in wisdom to eliminate it. Not completely knowing the intricacies ofthe universe or any particular thing in itself has bredenough stupidity that it has now become a staple of evasiveness in any argument or form of reasoning.

So when one claims that because knowledge is limited and that nothing can absolutely be known, that any attempt at completely ascertaining the nature of something is ultimately futile, and that this serves tosupport the reason why we should all accept a marginal position of existence and intelligence, they are explaining the new revolution in human decadence and excusing their feeble minds by straw manning the finitude of reason.

If Newton had accepted this way of thinking, perhaps wecould all agree that nothing is determined by physics

because after all, the idea of a physical law is human modeled, hence flawed, so we can all pretend we're living in a dream. Truth then becomes a game of one-upmanship and imagery.

It is a code of conflict suppression. Ones will is based on comparison with another’s, and this is a tempering process where ideas become more precise when they interact with struggle and humility. Relativism institutionalizes that there is no superiority in intellect regardless of how exact one mind may perceivereality more than another. That it is vastly more convenient to deny ones intellectual superiority and concede to being as foolish as another. Power and intelligence are dismissed as arrogant, and only the need for civil agreement between discourse is advocatedso as to preserve the illusion that one who is more inferior in wisdom to feel superior when their ideas can be juxtaposed against others of higher aptitude.

The relativist believes in certainties, not probabilities. The mind can only determine patterns in reality that surpass others and come closer to a clearer view of what truth is; probability is all we ought toseek as Bertrand Russell says. This is why creativity must be flexible, versatile, and willing to endure failure. The modern liberal virtue of "open-mindedness"(which is the widely preferred virtue to have) signifies some degree of depth in the individual's

attitude where they can disagree, disapprove or even reject altogether other beliefs which are not their own, but according to them, still maintain a non-discriminatory 'acceptance' of them regardless of bias.And this blind acceptance is a supposed mark of good character. Open-mindedness professes to non-discrimination, and persecutes anyone who discriminates. Thus, it is then the purest form of discrimination. Wisdom is taken away from probability and thrust into an either/or absolute state. That beingright implies complete certainty and whoever claims to be right suffers the mark of shameful superiority because the idea of truth is “relative” simply because it is notabsolute, and being wrong implies a weakness in intellect which no one wishes to subject themselves to;ignorance is then a defect to be purged instead of to be used as means to become greater. The relativist medium eliminates this insecure conundrum by forgoing the need to try to be either right or wrong.

Allan Bloom observed it thus: “Openness is the great insight into our times. The true believer is the real danger. The study of history andof culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right and that lead to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right, rather it is not to think you are right at all”. Reason is not to be pursued as a deeper perception of reality but only as a flaw of mankind. Is this liberal jargon any better way to make wisdom meaningless?

Relativism and those that subscribe to it, are the mostvocal preachers of free-speech , and yet when the effects of certain types of speech become too truthful or hindering upon the status quo of civility and accommodating agreeable discourse, they accuse it of being egotistical, when this accusation is an underlined protest against their inability to accept truths that challenge common opinions. The expressions “agree to disagree” or “benefit of the doubt”, display the convenient and comfortable dismissive fall back when truth becomes too disturbing or too truthful for thatmatter.

Reason clarifies and removes the mollycoddled membrane of social insecurities and hypocrisies. What has reasonbecome under this leveling inquisition?

It has become instead an idol of worship that is meant to cure ignorance instead of balancing it. It becomes a statue of an emperor that is to be gazed upon in awe and then forgotten. It becomes an absolute. This is how it also becomes obsolete, because the absolute is out of reach and if it is out of reach than there is noreal need to pursue it and out of this indolent superiority comes the realist. He is an acolyte of reason but not its proprietor. He is the utilitarian self-governed man, but not with any inkling of sense. He is the miasma of himself, and the invisible God. He

surrounds himself with artifacts of reason but never partakes in them directly. He loves the idea of reason,loves its attraction, its power to give him power, but for him it is what should be the code not the art. The interaction of reason is experienced by him only as a conduit rather than a connection.

The conflict-resolution code of modernity decries the exuberance of life to increase awareness through conflict, through the stimulation of the Will. Thus Nietzsche’s Dionysian spirit for creativity and imaginative artistic interaction is lost in the fear ofbeing labeled as a naïf. Passion in the eyes of realismmeans irrationality. Is not the need to be superior, the need to be human? Most individuals who exude the passion in their intellect are liable to be looked uponas weird or even crazy, pompous, narcissistic. This alien relationship with our emotions that has developedfrom the relegation of them is a direct result of the fear of being human, which has become the genuine tragedy of our times.

But does the relativist hate wisdom as much as he projects his own self-hatred of himself upon it? It is an unconscious knowledge of weakness made into strengthby this strain that robs reason of its nature. If no perception of truth was of higher quality from another than no one would learn and this is where this Ism fails. Learning from another means that the other must

have a more superior ability to perceive, if not he could not effect influence over any mind at all.

Relativism as the fear of wisdom, equality as the fear of weakness. Superiority is the moderator of the conflict of nature where weakness is a potential to a degree of strength. This is a proposition of a return to superiority as the natural inclination to have an identity.

Progressivism-The future as superior to the past. The oldworld held in contempt by the “new”. Ones past as insignificant in light of becoming what is engineered by social convention. Oneself as small and puny compared to development of things that can make him powerful.

The progressive mindset is a utopian yearning. A need for a finality of anti-nature, or an ultimate solution. The very need for “solutions’ in themselves is indicative of a feeble character longing for a greater source of dependence that can absolve all that they hate about themselves and about nature. One who is progressive never asks themselves, “Is there actually an ultimate solution to life?” This is correlated to the other type of weak individual that asks the question, “What is the meaning of life?” There is a difference between one who poses these inquiries and realizes the potential to learn from them to gain multiple answers, and one who attempts to answer them in

their entirety searching for a singular answer. The latter, is one who finds only a plurality of solutions making them discontent in the absence of balance which they do not have. Reality has no meaning as the mind projects meaning upon it, and this subjective inferencemakes life a struggle to overcome oneself, rather than overcome everything that the self depends upon.

Thus, a utopia is a negation of all life into an emptiness of unconscious subsistence, because challenges, struggle, effort, all that makes life possible and meaningful, then come to an end. A solution then is an end, and a beginning is the promise of an end.

Jacque Fresco, a modern futurist and founder of known movements such as the “Zeitgeist Movement” and the “Venus Project”, advocates this anti-natural progressiveness. What this movement promises is the endto nature, by adopting a Marxist post-technological civilization, where capitalism is demolished. They romanticize prehistory of hunter gatherer societies as being more egalitarian, and Non-violent. They deny similarity to communism when in fact they advocate the destruction of capitalism for a utopian brotherhood of environmental efficiency. Is not capitalism based on efficiency, despite monopolies? The efficiency of consumption and monetary exchange is no different than

the efficiency of what Fresco claims is a “resource based economy”.

Their childish misconception of non-state societies (hunter gatherer) as being more peaceful is a typical mark of simple-mindedness and naiveté. One need not only look at studies, to known that prehistory and non-state societies were wrought with violence, tribal warfare and strife, (especially in many parts of 17 and1800’s New Guinea and Africa) but to simply consider that without government, anarchy is the dominant dictator.

Anarchists suffer this same naiveté, when they desire to ride the world of governmental evils and return to astate of mutual cooperative liberty, a socialist reformed utopia where independence is no longer culled by regulation. What they truly want is the totalitarianappropriation of independence itself, as if it was possible.

Fresco attacks money as being the “root of all evil”, when in fact supply and demand stemmed the tide of mostprimitive violence once communities began to realize the cost-benefit compromises that came from commerce. (See Stephen Pinker’s insight into the “positive-sum payoff of trade” in opposition to the “negative-sum payoff of war”)

In this sociological state, technology is taken to its ultimate conclusion: replacing human value for machine value and then justifying this fascist regime as by theusual propaganda of being more humane and environmentally sound. They claim to be against war, materialism, politics, and institution, when in fact, they offer the prospect of a super-institution or super-monopoly that aggregates all resources and discards the need for ownership. This movement is based solely uponutility, rather than identity, as they say so themselves. Even the mentalities of these savage progressives are innately “robotic”. If nature is the cause for what they claim to be “evil”, given Man is a product of nature, then they are not out to eliminate anything evil at all but to eliminate all nature.

But what is “evil” and what is “good”? These questions they refuse to answer or explore. If Man is evil as they say, then why not the residual existence of all external nature itself? They invest their ideologies inthe Rousseauan “Noble savage”; holding government or society accountable for the evils in man, and meriting behavioral conditioning and social engineering as the cure.

They advocate the same Christian rhetoric of salvation and that all souls must be saved, and that human beingscan truly live happily ever after if more scientific and technological alterations were made to behavior and

individuals can be totally obedient and submissive to the superorganism of uniformity. Aside from using more non-violent political awareness spreading strategies, these progressives, are similar to their anarchist brethren, in that they aim to abolish corporations thatcontrol the financial wealth of nations, and return to a fairytale state where the competition of natural selection is absent and all individuals work together without any conflict.

The idea of a “cybernation” is given credence by this movement, that total centralized computerization is more favorable than human effort. That computers/machine/AI will control all input and output systems of information and resources and property, making it impossible for anyone to assert their own Will in attaining anything on their own. Essentially making life purposeless.

Theodore Kaczynski, AKA The Unabomber, theorized what he called the “Power Process” as being a human being’s natural predisposed drive to produce effort in achieving real goals. By ‘real’ he meant goals that exercise effort making the goal that is attained more meaningful, rather than follow systemic methods that reduce the goal into a monotonous grind of compliance. Thus if one has particular talents, and they use them in accordance with the demands of the system, they haveinvested into what he calls a “surrogate activity”

which is related to the idea of an academic “career”. This means an activity that utilizes an individual’s personal capabilities for the benefit of a collective, consumerist socio-technological system. In other words,talent like anything the system uses is exploited as a resource, and this is why individuality is distinct from individualism. Individuality as restricted to the individual; individualism as to society.

The genuine individual must be an outcast/hermit if he is to preserve his own talents; this is the cost that most are unwilling to pay.

Reform was in Kaczynski’s eyes, a method not of fixing but of exacerbating the already present problems of technology, which is what allows technology and conveniences to become ever more dominant and invasive.This in essence is what progressivism takes advantage of. To promise not merely reform but a utopian reform, where all problems are solved.

We can see in the ZM, that this is the plan: To eliminate individual identity, for the advent of a machine state that is in command of all human necessities and values. Therefore, Kaczynski was correct in his hypothesis that technology cannot help but break down the Will further and further until it isa purely adaptive, surviving apparatus of contribution to a uniformity of indiscriminateness. Realism hints at

this very state of being as it uses the need to survive as a means of reaching this goal. The problem Kaczynski ran into however, was proposing the solution of revolution, and that sadly became his undoing.

Heisman on the other hand, simply described the procession of technology into what he called the “technological genesis of God” as the form it would take in a post-biological state of functionalism, (I.e.“cybernation”, Although, technological globalization istheir real goal, this could be Marshall McLuhan’s prediction of a “global village” where everyone is forced into the sum of all interaction and digitalized communication). His insight into the ideological nature of equality to eliminate identity by attributingit to all identities will ultimately lead to the destruction of nature or biology itself. It is a form, he theorized, of primitive evolution, where the idea ofequality attempts to end exploitation of nature, as nature is essentially the means of exploiting unfitnessfor fitness, and become instead a lower form of life, which would make it easier for people to be more mindless and conforming. To become closer to death rather than life is what progressivism strives for. In other words, technology, must replace biology, in order to be fulfilled to its desired purpose.

If equality is the elimination of differences in individuals, and life is about the competition between

differences, than the destruction of life itself is thelogical conclusion. Though Kaczynski proposed a kind ofsolution and Heisman did not, these men are relevant intheir observation into the nature of technology and thememes that support it. Freedom is not the only aspect of human nature that is under attack by progressivism, but the mind itself, for the mind thrives on a comparison to a difference in another mind in order to succeed particular ideas that last into history. If differences are absent, then everyone is left empty andignorant.

“City Systems”, is another reform of the ZM. They intend to impose industrialization upon every land massand appropriate all resources for allocation. No continent therefore is safe from being usurped into a technological supremacy. This they fail to realize is in fact an outright attack on the natural world behind their mellifluous reassurance of “environmental”.

If the identity is the true cause of the “evil” in the world, than it is what must be destroyed. The idea of evil is one of superstitious quality. God for instance cannot be questioned because it is a being of absolute perfection, likewise, the idea of evil cannot be questioned because it has no inherent meaning, other than to say something is “wrong”. Why it is wrong is what the idea ignores. What is then wrong with a civilization where nothing bad affects it? Good, is

then nothing more than what is not bad or what does not cause harm, and therefore should be accepted as right. This is the progressive attitude of religious intent. To use the empty, yet versatile meaning of God and attach it to the totality of a perfect technological utopia where nothing can be questioned, where nothing can be opposed, and where everything is sanctified, andmade divine.

Good and evil are made to be terms of divinity, in thatthey cannot be questioned, or reasoned in any logical way. They are ideas of simplicity, and self evident value and the institution of progressiveness uses this axiomatic ploy as a way to solidify their own model of primitive bee hive harmony. To put it another way, something that should be obvious in nature, such as “the sun shines”, is something that should not require much thought to understand. Ergo, the idea of God uses this simple approach in preventing a question before itever comes about, the difference is natural causes can be explored logically, the idea of God is something that cannot be understood, only believed in, this is a formidable insurance and convenience to its influence, an influence that has lasted for millennia.

If progress implies “moving forward” to some end of mankind, than everything that impedes this advance is to be either harnessed as a source of energy, destroyed, or forgotten as collateral refuse. If this

is the case, than modern progress is not about reachinga higher state of evolution, but to dismiss evolution entirely, and become a form of ultimate despotism. An ultimate stagnation, where nothing evolves, but merely exists; where consciousness is unconsciousness. If the memes that perpetuate progress, deter any need to be thought about critically and only require faith, even if they renounce any presence of faith, then a civilization where struggle and conflict has come to anend, is the greatest state of religion possible that we are faced with.

But the idea of salvation is one that assuages mankind’s need for something higher than himself because even though through progress man attempts to eliminate himself, he must have a reward that grants him a kind of formless form. In the case of objectivity, salvation becomes a realistic goal, and this may be what the singularity in black hole theory in physics isabout. It proposes a breakdown of all ideas and truth but then they are transformed into a mass of immutability of end and beginning. This is the salvation of technological progress in this respect in that this immutable formless form is the bringer of a heavenly outcome to becoming less of what one is and more of what one should belong to. Mimetically it is into a singularity; genetically it is into a superorganism. The prospect of merging both together into perfect harmony is what is sought after. Of fusing

both end and beginning together, life would then becomean unchangeable void, which is what progressivism seeks.

Modernity is against religion, faith, divinity, and yet, the ideas that support this detachment from belief, exude the same perfection that only faith can belong to. This is why these Isms are religious in the basic sense of being God-like beings of unquestionable worth. Life itself is then made into an unattainable holy grail. It is being made into an Ideal where nothing can harm it or should harm it, or cause it to be anything other than all prosperous and fruitful. Thefact that it is not is what progressivism wishes to correct, because it is about what should be and not about what is. If life cannot be perfect than only the death of it is the real moral pursuit. Only eliminationof what makes life, life is the only way that it can bethe ideal of what it must become through a gradual degradation of its qualities.

The idea of AI which is part of technological progressivism, means in a sense, returning to nature, given that nature is free of human emotion and moralities in the same way AI is. My theory on Romanticism, which I will explore later, means parts ofour nature that have been lost that we “idealize” to emulate them given that we have lost our understanding and connection to them. We have a subconscious need to

get them back, which is why we exalt them through, ironically, artificial mediums, (I.e. internet communication, video games, television etc.). But if AI, for the sake of argument and metaphor, relates to nature’s cold and calculating ways, than why would AI be superiorly intelligent to humans? Why is it so readily accepted that it would be more intelligent? Perhaps it would be so, with more efficiency and economization. It is true after all that we wish technology to surpass us, which is why we praise how itevolves beyond our control.

There is no morality in nature anymore than there wouldbe in AI. So this need to have technology become greater than us, speaks not only of our forever lingering devotion to a belief in God, but to a need toreturn to nature’s indifferent calculating power to succeed fitness, the fitness we hope will be our own inthe emergence of our material creations, making our existence surrogate. If we want technology to surpass us, than what we really want is to return to nature’s grip of natural selection that we have lost touch with.

The fact that we want technology to surpass us is because we find ourselves to be inferior. Modernity is a death seeking culture, not the life seeking one that it so desperately wishes to portray itself as. Moreover, that many modernists exalt life and are so obsessed with ways to make themselves happy speaks of a

discontent that lies at the heart of nihilism. This could be what constitutes the over-civil or over-nice psychology that thrives off of the satisfaction and approval of others. This humanistic liberal obsession with life, is a longing for some sense that death is still there, or that it can still be a part of life that has not been forgotten. We want, in many ways, to die because we want in too many ways to live. This imbalance stems from a denial that death is a part of life. If it is a part of life it is only so in a mythological fairytale sense, that we recognize it, butstrive assiduously to disregard it as a trifle and a silly one at that. Modernity is dominated by the acetic-hedonistic doctrine of rigid discipline and thenpleasure seeking. Why do so many modernists constantly approve of “fun”? In a world without fun, fun must be sought after at all costs. It is a cultural overcompensation.

Secular Humanism-Irreligious and in opposition against superstition, yet supposedly in favor of reason. The Christian dogma of salvation, finds its roots in the institution of humanist belief that all deserve a rightto life, for no other reason than being alive.

The idea of equality has more cleverness to its success: Every human being share similarities. This is true. Firstly, we all share the same limbs, organs, and

bodily sensations. We all posses a protein based gelatinous mass inside a cranium that allows us to think. We have the same electrical impulses that stimulate nerves and contract muscles. We all for the most part share the raw material that makes our lives possible in the same fundamental human sense. But similarities do not equate us to one another, any more than the color red equates to the color green simply due to the reason they both fall under the category of being ‘colors’. It would be foolish to assume that differences cannot exist because parts of those differences are shared together.

But does not the weak, become even weaker, when it is told that it is just as strong as what surpasses it? Does it not settle for the comfort of possessing this illusion of strength the same way a domesticated animalaccepts that it will always have a master to look afterit? What occurs is a psychological sheltering that removes the desire to attain power and replaces it withthe satisfaction that it will always be there regardless of any need to exercise it.

Secular Humanism is not only morally fanatic, but to the point of ferocious spiritual destruction. That it is not in collusion with religion makes it all the moredangerously subversive because it then becomes a sanctioned institution of religious ethical agenda. Life is sanctified into an absolute prejudice against

anything that is against it. As Nietzsche said, “Morality, is Man’s least actualized ideal”, which is why he is so dependent upon it with or without God. Thehumanist vision of Life is the ideal that must be realized without thought or compunction. This obsessionwith life as all good and proper, is the fear that lifeis not all good and proper, and so all living organisms must be saved accordingly to prevent this reality or more appropriately, to mask it behind this rampant fearof life. The fear of life itself is this issue that theHumanists struggle with. The fear of inferiority. The fear that all life is not worth saving. They must save it if not for any other reason than to alleviate their terror. Their fear as a lack of a Will to live.

Overpopulation is the consequence of this desperation to preserve all life, as is the intervention of medicine upon natural selection to prevent life as continuing to emerge into balanced mutations that produce stable environments. Humanism wages war againstall that makes life possible and simply nullifies it into moral principles. Man injecting his own preferences unto reality, and expecting reality to reciprocate in kind is this delusion at hand. The humanist cares not for life, unless it mirrors the ideal of what life should be, which is simply anything other than bad or inferior.

Romanticism-What happens to a society where conflict andstruggle are relegated and life is sheltered from reality? The mind attempts to rekindle some presence ofconflict in order to connect itself to something real. Schopenhauer reasoned that pain and suffering is the impetus that gives life fulfillment because it requiresa cost of living, a hardship that makes the spirit more resilient to the brutality of the universe; rather pleasure/happiness produces a kind of void, a lacking of effort, which results in a languish decadent state where the spirit has nothing to strive for. Therefore Man needs suffering to live meaningfully. A society that nurtures comfort and happiness then becomes a society where everything that makes life meaningful such as, values, character, goals, family, ideas, etc, take on a quality of reverence being that they cannot be attained by anyone for the mere reason that they arenot recognized as being anything important. Modernity is a by-product of happy endings and Disneyland sentimentality where everything is made to be rosy and pleasant. This attitude stems from the absence of meaning and of the indifference of reality from sheltering, and therefore it takes on a fantastical aura of amiability.

Feminism was merely one of the symptoms that came about in the 60s and of diluting family roles and removing the masculine biological drive to be absorbed into a standard of socialist idealism. The 60's was a

period where the tradition of patriarchy came to a plateau to be replaced by one of primitive nature basedon romantic agendas of spiritual decadence, hence the drastic spike in crime and violence during that time.

Unrestrained nature as a cause for unrestrained urges. This also made the cultural soil ripe for the exaltation of psychopaths, violence, sex, and self-indulgence. Whatever remaining presence of tradition had died and what was left was primal nature. Romanticism of violence is a phenomenon that derives from a repressed need for conflict and a subconscious desire for purpose. Modernity is the decline of spirit or the elevation of it to be something unrecognized. If violence in western Americanism is exalted as an attraction then this only proves that there is a subconscious need to not necessarily be violent or savage, but to regain some feeling of power over oneself and assert it onto the world. To feel some hint of self-worth in the form of expression of carnal nature.

The idea of gender relationships, loses its meaning in modernity and nearly everyone has a tendency from the lingering effects of primitive indulgence from the 60s era, to belittle commitment in relationships as something foolish and trifling. The need to keep a relationship on an “open” level where the two partners have no connection to one another aside from sex, and they are free from the responsibility of each other and

to keep an open eye for a better option to come along. They indulge mindlessly in the sensation of sex or menial shared company and then wonder why they feel unfulfilled or dissatisfied when the lust dissipates. Does not the desire to conjure up an “ideal” mate then occur? The problem is there is no ideal anything, and this stirs a discontent where a need for something thatwas already within reach, is placed out of reach because the meaning of it is absent. If the meaning of being in a relationship means something beyond the sensation of mere sex, and if sex becomes the primary purpose of being together, then the desire to make a relationship something idealistic is not really a need to have the ideal, but to have something meaningful. Romanticism is the void of meaning in a culture.

On another factor, Liberal rationalism takes education and knowledge to be something that is available to all,but not to be better than anyone else’s application of it. Indeed education has become absorbed by the expediency of production, and it has been stripped of its quality and leveled to accommodate all. The superior/inferior distinction is eliminated and education becomes a kind of senseless pursuit without any value beyond expenditure. The idea then that knowledge is something that no one can truly have because it cannot be anything other than a means to contribute, it becomes something out of reach. The needto have more of it, translates into a desire to have

the ideal of it. For example, one who longs to experiencelife, may use the university to gain some sense of experience through the vast banquet of academic subjects available. One can learn about art history, then on a whim have a desire to learn about eastern religion, than learn about anthropology and as their interests fluctuate and change over and over, their need to substitute experience for knowledge, comes intolight. Ergo, education in the university is manufactured as a placation to nurture that sense of purpose that is lost.

The digitalization of nature is a prime example of how nature loses its element of conflict and is sanctified.When someone plays video games, the simulated version of the hardship in the game is a reality that is free of the costs of what that particular struggle entails. One can freely indulge in the idea of life within the animation of war, combat, glory that is relayed in thiscomputerized world. Video game play is an activity to indulge in conflict mindlessly without the effort of really achieving anything. When accomplishment is robbed of its meaning in the real world then the desireto have it in an artificial world becomes more appealing. One doesn’t accomplish anything when they goup a level in a video game, but it is the feeling that matters and it is the feeling that they must have over and over again and it soon becomes addicting.

Baudrillard’s hyperreality is what stimulates a romantic attitude. The representation being the only remnant of the real that remains. He says: “Here a critical mass beyond which the commodity becomes hypercommodity, and culture a hyperculture, is elaborated-that is to say no longer linked to distinct exchanges or determined needs, but to a kind of total descriptive universe, or integrated circuit that implosion transverses through and through-incessant circulation of choices, readings, references, marks, decoding. Here cultural objects, as elsewhere the objects of consumption, have no other end than to maintain you in a state of mass integration, of transfixedflux, of a magnetized molecule. It is what one comes to learn in a hypermarket: hyperreality of the commodity” His idea of implosion of meaning is the key to understanding what he means by ahyperreality. In that meaning is everywhere, to the point that it is nowhere, or that it is disconnected from its origin of substance. Excess is the infection at this point.

The result is that meaning becomes fantastic, holy, andbeyond reason. Romanticism is the enfeeblement of the cultural condition to find meaning again because it is lost. Or the meaning of conflict because it is stifled.When meaning becomes ubiquitous the response to it within human nature becomes desensitized, and this is whatentails a demoralized bored disposition that can only find its catharsis in artificial activities, such as electronic simulations.

Internet communication has also altered the natural form of human relations into an artificial reality. I stumbled across a progressive article that contends theobsolescence of real human interaction-meaning face to face-as a positive value of the new future.

"Social media will become doubly more popular as the years pass and people will take more interest in expressing themselves through such mediums as Facebook, Twitter and other online social networks. The prospect of sharing themselves with other people, by creating personal profiles, allows people to become more connected and interested in each other. The sheer amount of people online allows this connectivity to make people know one another not only by the convenience of it, but also because of its relevance to a technologically dominated world.

Many would argue that modern society breeds attitudes of isolation because of this, but it is quite the opposite. People bond and interact more and become closer."

It seems that yet again, the idea of the "Good" is never understood by these futurist savages. Whatever mitigates the likelihood of conflict, is considered to be good. It never occurs to them, that the profile is merely the facade of the person, as are the pictures andchat conversations. No heed is given to the absence of in person relation, which is how people truly value oneanother, but it is praised when we can create digitizedalter egos, and blather inanely about nothing, in the

stream of information overload.

The optimism that sharing online can affect greater changes into the world merely because the internet has a greater reach to other people, only deepens the illusion that people are making a difference in the world or that they truly know someone else at all. The electronic distance between one another simply makes for a more serious void within our relationships, as werely further on them being made a commodity or a simulation. The simulation after all, removes the awkwardness or insecurities that come with normal in person interaction.

These online personas, are the "ideal" that people findmore fascinating than the actual person themselves. After all, who wants, anymore, to meet someone in the flesh when they can view a meticulously tailored image of them online which is more 'cool' and fun? The ideal is now being pursued to that which is within reach rather than out of reach as it should be.

 It is about how excessive interaction becomes so trivialized, because of the overabundance and overuse, that it loses substance and meaning. Our passion, our desire for one another is stripped of its natural physical purpose, and instead become totally unreal andfantastical; untouchable. The entertainment it provides

only distracts one away from how demented this cyber communication truly is.

We can see the individualistic identities that are madeaccessible to anyone who wishes to be more than what they are. Trends of fashion or attitudes such as “Goth”the “reserved pseudo-intellectual” “punk” is the personal nature famished for a version of itself that it cannot attain on its own or that it has never had any struggle with. The desire to adopt popular identities is a need to reach out to a part of the nature that has been kept in isolation from the self. Perhaps the simulacrum is more than the absence of meaning but the absence of human nature that representsitself as something meaningful through romantic mediumswithin these systems of models.

Technism-Modern culture has become technical in a behaviorally conditioned way. Technism as a pristine form of life where details are more significant than the whole essence itself, where the appearance is more appealing, sanitized, sterile. Technism as an attitude/mentality of technology. Technism as a scientific personality; as a purely superficial personality. If technology is about making reality more precise, then this has psychological affects where people adopt the same method to make all environments as free from flawsas possible. Neil Postman’s idea of a “Technopoly” fitsinto this schema. When the deeper reliance on machines

to refine and correct human limitations becomes the norm, what occurs is a thoughtless docile mindset that is malleable to be altered.

Postman claimed that when the metaphor of human nature or the body as a “machine” came to be common in science, this bred an overall collective outlook into the body as a machine itself, or the mind as a machine that can be measured only to determine its true value. He called it “scientism”, as where everything is attributed to a scientific approach. Social studies, philosophy are now considered sciences rather than arts, even though they may be categorized as arts in academia. Technism however, as I posit, is how science becomes behavior itself or a lifestyle. Where all can now turn their attention to reconfiguring their lives according to statistics and figures, measurements and calculations of perfection. Thus Man himself becomes nothing more than a number to be analyzed and tested and no individuality is given credibility.

In fact, a society of technism, means one that is void of contextual discourse. Advertising is not about the advertisement, but about the effect of dreaminess that ithas on the mind to have the product as something that can further improve their lives. There is no thought inan image of consumption, but only the pristine appearance of it. A technist may adapt to the detail

oriented measuring nature of scientific data. There areexamples of this which I will cover.

The psychology of a “germaphobe” is not simply connected to a fear of germs, but a consequence of a culture that teaches that germs are flaws of an environment that must be corrected. When a germaphobe feels the need to clean every nook and cranny, crack and crevice of their home, they are expressing a technical machine functionality that must correct the glitches in its system in order for it to operate at anoptimum performance. Many public areas are so well keptand ordered that one wonders if the ones who maintain it in that state, actually believe that organisms, microbes and bacteria still exist among it. The psychology of technism means correcting an environment down to the last detail where it is free from nature oranything that seems out of place, or disordered. Technism as absolute order of appearance. In pornography, the body is modified and made to be hairless, and to give a pristine look, essentially making the body a kind of organic figurine of nature. Skin cosmetics and age reducing medical treatments tellof this mindset that goes from mere self-indulgence, toa more severe obsession with every detail, which is whatconstitutes this psychology.

The overabundance of education to invade every part of one’s personal life, fosters not only a dependence upon

instruction, but a total submergence into the superficiality of appearance, and this is how the technist personality manifests itself. The ubiquity of education makes this environment of reluctance of a Will to power and self-awareness more exacerbated due to the fact that fear of interacting with ones environment isactually a dependence on collective opinion and expert advice. In other words, individuals find it difficult to assert a resistance when the methods of this basic drive are more convenient to lean on. So the mind fumbles around for direction as to how to live, indulging in any trivial distraction and form of knowledge regardless of how irrelevant it is. Anxiety of purpose in the maternal need for nurture.

We see also individuals with a distinct fixation upon English discrepancies such as grammar, spelling and theoverall aesthetics of the appearance of language. Many modern individuals have a tendency to dismiss the substance of a work of literature and focus on the techniques of how the words should be ordered. Someone with a technist psychology may read something that has some typos, or misspellings, or grammatical errors, or any other format mistake and instead of dismissing those little trivialities and concentrating on the meaning or the point that was being written about, theywill dismiss the meaning altogether and see only the superficial flaws that have no real bearing upon what was being conveyed at the time the person wrote it.

This narrow-minded obsession with meaningless details such as this comes from an inability to think beyond the obvious and like a machine, only correct certain immediate minor flaws of appearance.

Christopher lasch, commented on this aesthetic mentality, by his idea of the “therapeutic sensibility”, in that many people invert all experienceinto banal approaches of narcissistic behavior in understanding themselves on very rudimentary levels. Self-help education, the education of sex, knowledge, safety, spiritual well-being, health, all relate to theself-indulging personality. But this environment of education is the mechanical correction to a world that does not meet expectations or standards of preference. This is the method of narcissism, rather than simply the preoccupation with it.

This also results in social awkwardness, as it is not merely certain external parts of one’s life that must be corrected but their instincts as well. It has to do with a form of social engineering that cultivates a dysfunction in personality that we witness in modernityas awkwardness. Contrary to popular belief this behavioral dysfunction doesn’t simply imply coyness or anti-socialism, although that is indicative of it, it is more related to cultural environments that emphasizes the negation of weaknesses and the indulgence of the self as an ideal to be pursued as a

good.

 In modernity, independence is advocated as a means to self-awareness. However, this modern form of awareness is one that is based on subscribing and following popular standards of being self-sufficient, which involves proper etiquette of being included in a uniformity. When one follows a method of how to be self-aware, one is not independent but dependent and made tobe weaker. These methods that are laid down encourage not introspection or a reflection of knowledge, but strictly an application of it, a utilization of it (I.e. Realism). The weak one wishes to find therapies to assist him in understanding himself when he lacks the courage to explore his nature on his own.

Because these methods are manufactured as a product to be consumed, the one following them gains only trivial or banal ideas about themselves, which are more narcissistic/technical. These popular methods are delegated by others that know nothing of him, but only offer trite generalizations of who he might be and thismakes him more confused and ambivalent because his needto assert his own ability to know himself is retarded. Self-indulgence is promoted as a natural good to being independent, when all it contributes to is a solipsistic obsession. We can witness this in the idea of ‘acetic hedonistic’ lifestyles that revolve around rigid mindless discipline and then outright

uncontrolled release of stress and energies. Entertainment is everywhere, and yet so are customs of excessive self-discipline of work and careers, and thisis how this ascetic hedonistic trait develops. One finds themselves caught between following social convention of fastidiousness but the pleasure endorsingindustries are in the periphery at all times. The ambivalence is solved by partaking in both, and to extreme degrees, because balance of the nature through this conflict is disrupted and no one is able to show self-control.

 The feeling that one is inherently ‘special’ which is a delusion that equality spreads, results in a misguided superiority complex where one simply needs nochallenge from others because his power is validated asalready present within him and does not require challenge. This, juxtaposed with superficial self-indulging methods of self-improvement, cultivates an insecure disposition.

These individuals find superiority only in private, andhave no desire to actualize it through conflict. When however, they do encounter conflict, they become instantly unsure how to cope with it. They become nervous or confused, anxious and would prefer not to consider the possibility that they are weak, even though they may admit it all the time, which they normally do. Self-deprecation is a way to appear humble

when one is not.

 So these people, from gaining no real meaning from these ephemeral self-indulgences, become exceedingly self-conscious. They are occupied constantly with their ownappearance, and the approval of others, which they are unable to realize, makes them not superior, but inferior. Feeling secure in private offers them safety from the criticisms of others.

The consequence is an isolated dependence. A mind that is atrophied in a world created for itself that is freefrom conflict. I correlate this phenomenon with a technical strain because computational methods dominatemodern environment and the result is a mind that has noother interest aside from its own detail, structured appearance. Technism as a product of educational attrition. The instincts cannot be corrected to fit an exact model of a processed environment, and this is what results in the social awkwardness and suppression of instinct that may account for many anxiety disorders. The nature as being imprisoned under the authority of education. Education is never in question because it makes life more convenient regardless if that life happens to suffer a decrease in awareness of its own sense of self. If technism is a corollary to narcissism, then technism is an adaptive form of narcissism, taking its influence from technology and

science. It could be then, narcissism’s logical conclusion taken to its fullest methodological extreme.

Demonism- The “self” has always been the target for absolute conformity, and the convenience of the media and institution has allowed that target to become clearer in the crosshairs of moral tyranny. Behavioral restriction is seen as a realistic ideal that caters tothe time where we enjoy considering ourselves free of primitive tendencies. Behavioral Education finds its way into every aspect of private life, virtually ostracizing the desire to approach trial and error alone. The preventative measures of education are slowly dissolving any connection an individual may havewith their own nature, becoming an automation of perfect obedience.

Morality finds its place in popular collective education. Modern education as morality. Demonism is the method of applying moral education to slander or chastise the ego. The repercussion of behavioral imprisonment is that psychological dysfunctions begin to surface in the form of mortifying fear and petulance. This state is something I dub as a Guilt Complex.

What are the vicissitudes of life if not the impetus for the will to live? When the need to express the Willis tamed by ideals of conduct, thoughts of turpitude

plague the individual congealing his mind and his behavior. It is more effective to demonize the self by consistently reminding it of its imperfections and susceptibility to “temptation.” Over time, the mind is conditioned by this Judeo-Christian tactic, to accept its inferiority in all respects, and even a sense of paranoia develops due to the overwhelming stress of having to carry the cross of selflessness and altruistic submission. The slightest flutters of ego, trigger an irrational concern that one is committing a sordid offense that should be punished. Man thus becomes afraid of himself, becomes his own enemy, his own demon to be vanquished instead of understanding.

The Will must be broken down by moral education, and split to deter any behavior that is even remotely contradictory to perfect humbleness. Violent, harsh or “evil” actions and ideas are held up in front of all and debased and humiliated. Shock and awe are the meansto incite emotional responses with sympathetic undertones to keep one in a docile state that harbors no transgressions in any form. Rules and etiquette become more than simple staples of self-control or civility, but overbearing totalities which hold a government over an individual in any circumstance regardless of its low degree of seriousness. Given thisintense moral influence, one becomes dominated by persistent feelings of peevishness, feeling only the

tension of their repressed passions strapped down by the moral demagogue.

Additionally, being chained to this wall of perfect ethics can also make one vulnerable to attacks of emotional tyrants, who use the demeanor of being offended or hurt, to gain power and leverage over another who becomes remorseful as a result. Mistakes are used against ones with guilt complexes, to keep them submissively dutiful to redemption.

The ego is what is hated; therefore, it is individuality that is hated. Any assertion of superiority is condemned by moral education as being ‘egotistical’ in the sense that it must not be human. If the ego is partof a healthy psychology, than this could be why anxieties and depression arise when it is prevented from actualizing itself. Those with a guilt complex hate themselves when they assert their power, because then it is subject to criticism and shame. Moreover, demonism is the shame of being human.

Conclusion-Thoughts on Nihilism

The final Ism to touch upon here that of course cannot be forgotten. What can philosophy be without the germ of nihilism that plagues the heart of man and all that man is and does? All that I have discussed here, has

been in relation to this very universal and intrinsic spiritual discord. The lack of belief, the lack of meaning, the lack of life, or of self, or of all of it.The belief in unbelief. The idea that there are no ideas, and the identity that has no identity. But nihilism is not simply a disbelief of anything and everything, but an inherent self-hatred of oneself thatrears its ugly head in actions and words. In many respects, this has been about the identity of modern culture and the individual that exists within it.

To recapitulate: Realism-as the hatred of creativity.Relativism-as the hatred of intellect.Progressivism-as the hatred of life.Secular Humanism- as the hatred of differences.Romanticism-as the hatred of meaning.Technism-as the hatred of imperfections.Demonism-as the hatred of the self.Nihilism-as the hatred of everything.

Although modernity has shied away from religion, it hasnot forgotten it, but only made it…well modern. It is aculture of no culture. Where a uniformity/superorganismabsorbs all that man lacks and hates about himself intoa perfect being of value and importance. Some other strains of nihilism are expressed not just from individual psychology or from these God-isms that I have

explored, but from the culture itself hemorrhaging it for all to see.

Modern art is an example of a culture hating itself. Art being an imitation of life, and an expression of the spiritual state a given society is in, many of these forms of art exude ruptures in a culture’s health. Abstract expressionism is rampant in modernity and is a meatless form of art that speaks of the emptiness and disorder of the minds of the artists thatcreate them. The absence of meaning can be seen in the jumbled, chaotic, random disarray of the color usage where the observer is not meant to see anything depicting anything other than a fragmented impotence ofa mind that has lost all connection to his external world and his human condition and resorts to the simplistic minimization of his creativity that bears nothing at all aside from a sad muddled composition of a sickness of heart and mind. Abstract expressionism asa decadent self-nullifying display of the culture of modernity.

Art pieces of this nature speak of the decay of modern culture. These renderings of disjointed color patterns indicate a total lack of creativity, and a discontent of the self as dreary, dull and jaded. The artist who creates pieces like this cares nothing of producing anymeaning or idea, or metaphor of life or humanity, he cares not for depicting any value of what life is, or

what thought is, or dignity, or love, or suffering; butonly his own selfish misery of inadequate ability brought on by the culture which he lives.

Early European and renaissance art, retains the beauty and tragedy of human life and of nature. The baroque and classicist artists captured the internal chaos of Man’s heart with the use of dark and light shades accentuating expressions, postures, scenes and bringingfourth thought provoking elements such as, “Where does Man’s allegiance lay?” or “What is the meaning of religion?” which was something Caravaggio challenged. Rembrandt captured the solitude of Man and the overall human condition by depicting scenes where Man sat alone, or the distant pensive expressions on people whowere in the presence of one another, speaking of this idea of inevitable loneliness. Romanticism delivered boundless aesthetic quality to depicting nature and humanity’s place in it as joyous, vibrant and using colors in rich brilliant undertones, especially by Casper David Friedrich.

The importance of the early European artists was their respect and consideration for the meaning of human life, identity, nature, family, principles and other things that gave people who observed the art pieces some substance of contemplation of who they were, or what the idea or symbol means that the artist was trying to convey. Modern art cares nothing of the culture which

it lives but only mocks it and satirizes it; ‘pop art’ being an example of this loathing. Human forms are depicted as animations, exaggerated caricatures, or childishly simplistic cartoonish styles, where the artist is not attempting to produce any real representation of human nature, but to slander it as something that has decomposed by the entertainment industry which is a business of deriding the average western man as a mindless clichéd predictable ignoramus, which, ironically, he actually is and it influences artists to see it and become convinced of it. Their skill then becomes indirectly tarnished by the system.

This desire to distort the human figure in alien shapesand forms may also indicate the artists’ inability to identify with their own society and perhaps that is theonly message they have left for the modern cultural generation: see yourself as something that is not yourself. In other words, have no sense of self. It’s no wonder, that the inception of abstract art omits the human figure by splotches of colors or patterns. The human observer is prevented from identifying with anything human, and only with some vague cryptic rendering of a solipsistic mind validating itself on a canvas.

In some mixed media artwork, we can see how artists usea distinctly fragmented and disordered approach to

portraying human beings as shapeless organisms that have no real form. A collage of torn pieces of various pictures of a person placed together points to a kind of schizophrenic perception of what a human being is. That Man is disconnected from reality and from himself.The approach is also conceptual, that man is nothing more than some abstraction of himself not to exist anywhere else but his own dysfunctional mind. This art form also attempts to invoke disturbing, uncomfortable feelings in the observer that makes them see the psychosis of personality or mind or of culture. An artist that takes pieces of metal and merges it with plastic doll like parts, shows how artificial and cheapindividuals are in modernity. There is no beauty in these art forms, but only the sad and broken spirit that is lost in a void.

The genre of photographic art is another form of decadence, where the technology of making art(camera, rather than hand brush), is expressed in the art piece as hating technology. An example of this would be a photographer who captures a photo of a deserted parkinglot in front of a business establishment and adjusts the colors, shades and contrasts on a computer to produce a forlorn mystique of darkness; what we have isan artist that is seeing commercialization and industryas empty and nothing more than a barren landscape of meaninglessness.

Or another artist who photographs a scene of a person immersed in some pile of junk and technological debris,in some expressive, posture, what we have is an artist that sees the waste and uselessness or tyranny of the society he lives in as overtaking Man and reducing him down to nothing more than a piece of garbage himself. This all comes back to the veritable self-hatred of a culture that has no identity with its ethos, but only disdain, vacuity.

But modern art isn’t the only expression of nihilism ofa culture of no culture. We find in cinema and Hollywood and other forms of entertainment a dystopic anguish. The various movies that portray themes of apocalyptic enormity. These end of the world scenarios,of zombies, demons, viral infections, natural disasters, cosmic global catastrophes, which are also present in many fiction novels and literature, therein lies the nihilism of a culture wishing to essentially be rid of itself and its own inferiority. Despite how entertaining these movies and written stories may be, it is undeniably the state of mind of a society that has become self-defeating and resentful against its ownvalues and creations or in this case, lack of.

All comfort, all human stagnation is a redirection, a compartmentalization of fundamental weaknesses. This ishow the mind endures in spite of itself. Obsession overlife coming to an end, stirs within a mind that is

incapable of thinking, and a life that is incapable of living. Where the inevitability of death is reduced by conveniences or protection thus making it insignificantor absent, mortality becomes all too noticeable.

Even entertainment isn’t really about entertainment anymore at all. But has become strictly a form of distraction to numb the mind and dull its ability to think about the state of affairs it is in. Could this be why music, for instance, is played on speakers in nearly every public domain? Everywhere, music emits in the background while people go about their daily obligations and business. Surely, entertainment has then in this case, reached only a status of function and works only to keep minds in blissful unconsciousness, so as to inhibit the need to think about anything.

Consider also, satirical television shows that portray modern human behavior as a cliché. As witty and truthful as it is, it is representative of how much of what we know about each other is mocked into something without depth. The quirkiness of it encourages us to bemore appreciative that we are commonplace and ultimately trivial beings that are predicable. The message that these shows of satire deliver is that no matter your principles or codes, you should understand that they are not worth much and you should not believethem to be anything concrete about yourself. You should

allow them to be laughed at because we are all simple creatures without substance. This stereotypical phenomenon is one that derives from the phenomenon of uniformity and globalization where growing populations force us into societal preset niches that eventually define us in respect to collective scrutiny. Perhaps ifentertainment was not so dominant, these stereotypes ofidentity would be less noticeable and less mocked.

But the attitude toward this clichéd culture, could be different if the actors that characterize these identities of satire, had more nobility to refuse to play roles that make them simpletons. It is easier however, when they can voice over cartoon animations that give them some anonymity and relieve them of the responsibility of having to show their own physical faces. The result is that we identify with these characters because they reveal parts of ourselves that have been influenced by popular culture and work and family etc, not to mention injecting us with a sense ofhumbleness before these degrading clichés, with humor. Identity is nothing important in these shows, therefore, you are nothing important.

I intended to touch upon this subject of arts to illustrate the ramifications of the nihilism of a culture. Perhaps these expressions of self-hatred come from a culture that has cherished the idea of the good so deeply that it has broken off into oblivion. The

present state of reason as being the ultimate good to snuff out any remaining traditions of religion, does not make it anymore non-religious than if a Christian were to adopt a scientific method of logical deduction to discover if God is real or not. This is where the separation between science and religion is eliminated. If a culture hates itself, what is left for the culturebut to build upon that hatred in the effort to make it more grandiose or virginal?

Nihilism is the last issue here because it is the most unavoidable and the more relevant. It is the producer of advents and entropy of attitudes, cultures and identities. It is the last resort, and the last morsel on the plate of spiritual life.

To this I say,When one lives to belong instead of to become, than any belief is only a practical means to be without any belief at all.

The act of becoming now is no longer the act of improvement, but the act of completion where struggle, that which gives life meaning, comes to an end.