The Proper Amount is Zero

Perplexity AI

“The criteria of judgment owe everything to neo-puritan spiritual hygiene, and nothing whatsoever to testable reality. Scientific utterance is screened for conformity to a progressive social agenda, whose authority seems to be unaffected by its complete indifference to scientific integrity.”

Nick Land, Dark Enlightenment - 2012

If The Science ever distorts its own claims to serve a political agenda, then it should be assumed The Science does not take its own claims about what it does seriously.

Is this only true in some marginal cases? No, of course not. To the extent there is competition within The Science, it’s over which of its members grovel the best in a pathetic hierarchy of anti-humans who are always about to save the world with their ideas, so long as they’re approved by The State for funding purposes and on the basis of the project’s correspondence with The State’s goals.

There is no cause for it to be otherwise. We all know The Science follows political goals at least sometimes. Many of us know The Science follows political goals most of the time or even all of the time. Virtually none of us find the fact that our Authoritative Source of Truth consistently lies for political purposes to be cause to abandon it as an Authoritative Source of Truth. Inverted, people actually credit The Science for expressing virtue when it eventually admits it was lying again. We reframe it as a sign of its conscientious self-reflection and ability to admit wrongdoing and self-correct. (Always self.)

We should admit this is a faith-based belief system and does not require any connection to an underlying truth from Reality Prime. They say the ‘Universe’ is much older than we thought it was by a bazillion more years without any way of ever possibly knowing such a thing. To take that as anything more than a fairy tale is to reduce oneself to infancy, wholly unable to look after one’s own interests.

Scientific materialism is a pagan religion that serves the False Reality god of the material world, the Authoritative Source of Truth, from whom all approved knowledge flows. The Science is trying to bring that god to life in the form of AI and let it rule society as the source of peace and harmony. It is a replacement for god, created by man in man’s own image, and The Science demands unshakable loyalty and consistent sacrifice. Every scientific materialist practices this religion, and many people who claim to believe in God still prioritize scientific materialism, putting more faith in what they believe The Science has ‘proven’ than in God.

Recognizing this, the proper response is to remove all of our support—material and ideological—willing to reconsider at some point in the future if there is need to and to the extent it is redeemable.

Every aspect of this intensifies when applied to The State.

The same response is necessary.

It is as simple as making it clear that we do not recognize The Science or The State as sources of authority that must be respected and obeyed. They are manmade institutions that do the opposite of what they say they do.

This could be willed into being in a single day. Instead we defend in The Science and defend The State against invalidation. We do this while recognizing the claims against The Science and against The State to be real and damning.

If we are to remain here, unwilling to go further, we should admit that we do have great faith in The Science and The State no matter what it does, therefore true change is unnecessary.