Leo's Blog: Infinite Insights — Page 16

This channel has some intelligent and thought-provoking AI doom debates.

As intelligent as the doomer host of this channel is, I don't think his conclusions are ultimately correct. I doubt that a super intelligent AI would deliberately exterminate humans. I think the really serious problem with super intelligent AI is that it will eliminate 95% of all jobs and give mankind no reason for existing. The job losses and lack of purpose for humans caused by even much less than super AGI is perhaps the biggest political problem on the horizon for mankind. I don't see how this problem is solvable. If mankind creates a machine that can do everything better than any human can do, the purpose of human existence is over. It's like giving every player in a game infinite money. It sounds good in theory but in practice it ruins the whole game. Humans needs interesting challenges to solve for life to be worthwhile. We don't want a super AI who solves all our problems for us, but humanity is too stupid, greedy, and lazy to hold off from creating such an AI. So this is a very serious problem.

The problem of AI is not an evil Skynet, it's 95% unemployment. Imagine a world with 95% unemployment. That's not a world I want to live to see.

The second half of this video is especially good and practical.

Start at timestamp: 44:00

Tom Bilyeu is pure pragmatism — which then becomes his biggest bottleneck. Pragmatism is not fundamental enough to understand reality, since pragmatism conflates survival with reality.

What he said towards the end about first principles thinking is so correct. And if you apply first principles thinking to epistemology, ontology, and philosophy — and you avoid all self-deception — what you end up with is Infinity. That's the basis for all my work. I do the most fundamental first principles thinking of any intellectual in the world. My thinking is so first principles that it transcends human sanity because sanity is not a first principle. Rationality is not fundamental enough to understand reality. The reason I know that is because I questioned absolutely everything. I questioned spirituality so deeply that I discovered entirely new categories of Awakening.

Actuaized.org is a monument to the power of first principles thinking. That's what I teach because it's the only way to understand God. God cannot be understood through any kind of social consensus or incremental thinking. This is why even something like Buddhism or nonduality is not enough to understand reality.

Infinity will outrun any attempt your mind makes to capture it. You can't capture God in a bottle like a firefly.

This is what infinite consciousness feels like:

Note: It can look many other ways. Don't get trapped by one example. Consciousness has endless variety.

It infuriates me when conservatives act like Hitler was a leftist or socialist. This is a ghastly display of political ignorance because this stuff is so easy to look up. It shows that conservatives are intellectually bankrupt.

Here are all the reasons why Hitler was a conservative:

• Hitler and the Nazis hated and outlawed modern, post-modern, and abstract art, which they viewed as degenerate. They only wanted traditional art that glorified German tradition. This is how conservatives regard art. Conservatives hate post-modern art because it is too free, too open, too ambiguous, too transgressive.
• Who were Hitler's mortal enemies? Who was Hitler's opposition? Socialists! Communists! Marxists! Social Democrats. Hitler hated them as much as he hated Jews. In fact, he equated Jews and Marxists. His mission was to kill them all. This is what an ultra-conservative wants. An ultra-conservative doesn't just want to stop or ban Marxists, he wants to crack their skulls and send them to the gas-chambers.
• Which parties did Hitler ban as soon as he took power? Left or right? Marxists and Social Democrats. He outlawed these parties, arrested, tortured, and killed their leaders. He did not do that with conservative parties. At least not initially, only towards the end to finalize his dictatorship.
• Which parties did Hitler and the Nazis ally and merge with? The liberal and Marxist ones? No! The most traditional and conservative ones in Germany.
• Did Hitler fight for greater democracy or greater authoritarian consolidation of power? Hitler despised democracy. Hitler wanted 100% dictatorial top-down control of the state. That is not a leftist position, that is a conservative position. Conservatives always want to defend and preserve hierarchy. Leftists and liberals want to flatten and reduce hierarchy.
• Did Hitler promise to outlaw private property? No! Marxists promised that. Hitler met with Germany's top industrialists and promised them that he would not eliminate private property so they could keep their wealth and power. This is a conservative position. Conservatives want to preserve or revive old power structures. Conservatives want rich industrialists to have more power, not less.
• Was Hitler open to free love and weird gender fluidity? No! He wanted to kill homosexuals and any non-traditional deviants. Who loves to kill gays, freaks, and hippies? Ultra-conservatives.
• Was Hitler open to freedom of press and speech? No! Hitler wanted to burn all the books with deviant and non-traditional radical social ideas. Who wants to ban and burn books that challenge tradition? Ultra-conservatives, not liberals. Who wants to ban books about gay sex? Conservatives.
• Which parts of the German political class supported and endorsed Hitler the most? Was it the Communists, liberals, Democrats? No! It was the religious traditionalists, the far-right, and the son of the former Kaiser who thought Hitler would help reinstate the monarchy. Who wants to do away with democracies and republics to instate monarchies? Ultra-conservatives.
• Was Hitler a nationalist or an internationalist? He was an ultra-nationalist. Hitler hated internationalists (globalists) because they were liberal multicultural Marxist Jews who threatened Aryan German identity. Who loves nationalism and hates internationalism? Conservatives. Who hates multiculturalism? Conservatives.
• Did Hitler abolish private property and ownership of big businesses? No.
• Did Hitler champion equality and inclusiveness for all regardless of their class, race, gender, genetic ability? No! Hitler believed and said that the most powerful in society should dominate and kill the weak. This is a conservative position. It is conservative to let the weak die without wasting resources on them.
• Did Hitler value and encourage diversity? Diversity of genetics, races, cultures, sexual orientations, perspectives, opinions, art styles? No! Hitler wanted a pure traditional Germanic culture, to the point of killing off everything and everyone else.
• Was Hitler for or against freedom of sex? Against. The Nazis forced-sterilized half a million people they considered genetically inferior or deviant. Who limits, blocks, and outlaws sex? Conservatives.
• Was Hitler very openminded or very closedminded? Extremely closedminded. He killed anyone who disagreed with or challenged his perspective or worldview. Conservatives are closedminded. Leftists are openminded.
• Was Hitler loose, relaxed, and easy-going, or was he rigid and uptight? Hitler was so uptight that you could stick coal up his ass to make diamonds. Did Hitler drink, smoke, whore around? No. Hitler was very conservative and disciplined. He refused to play board games with his Nazi leadership because he believed that his followers should never see their leader lose.
• Was Hitler compassionate and empathetic towards all? No! Hitler wanted to murder anyone who stood in the way of his strict nationalist agenda. That's how ultra-conservatives are.
• How did Hitler sell his political agenda to his supporters? Did Hitler champion nuance, openness, compassion, equality, fairness, love, peace, freedom, forgiveness? No! All his speeches were black & white, he spoke in absolutes, us vs them, good vs evil, crush your opponents, crack their skulls, kill the weak, blood and soil. This is how conservative think. This is what makes conservatives jizz their pants.
• Was Hitler pro-immigration or anti-immigration? Hitler wanted to kill or deport anyone who didn't fit his rigid, narrow notion of Aryan German. That's what conservatives value: ethnic, racial, and national purity.
• Did Hitler want a rich multi-cultural Germany or a narrow mono-cultural Germany? Mono-cultural, traditional, narrow, strict. That's what conservatives love.
• Did Hitler want a progressive new form of government or a regressive old one? A regressive old one akin to a monarchy with himself as king. That's conservative. Hitler was so conservative and traditional that he didn't even want liberal democracy or a parliament that could check him. Hitler wasn't just too conservative for Marxism, he was too conservative for a republic. He wanted to roll things back to the days of Caesar.
• Did Hitler love or hate revolutionaries? Hitler hated leftist revolutionaries and wanted them all killed. That's conservative.
• Did Hitler champion a leaping forward toward a new progressive future or turning backward towards a mythologized past? Hitler adored the mythologized German past. Make Germany Great Again.
• Was Hitler more aligned with atheism or religion? Religion. Hitler staunchly criticized atheism and was favorable toward traditional Christian ideals. Hitler identified himself as a "German Christian". Although Hitler had a complex and twisted relationship with Christianity, publicly Hitler aligned himself with Christianity to capture their votes because Christians are traditional and conservative — his ideal people. This is exactly what Trump did, what Putin did. They don't need to be Christians, they just need conservative voters.
• Did Hitler believe that all people are created equal? No! Hitler thought that his race was the best. That's how conservatives think. Conservatives believe their tribe, their in-group is superior to all others.
• Which political leaders did Hitler admire and emulate most? Mussolini, a far-right conservative fascist. Hitler allied himself with the Italian far right because they represented his values and vision the best.
• Did Hitler want to flatten and eliminate hierarchy or increase it? Increase it to an absolute hierarchy, which is what conservatives love. Conservatives love a macho strongman leader. Conservatives love to be part of a hierarchy in which they earn their position through obedient duty, loyalty, and discipline.
• Did Hitler want to champion and defend minorities? Did Hitler want to share power equally with minorities? No! He wanted to dominate and kill minorities. That's what conservatives love. Conservatives consider minorities to be inferior to the majority.
• Was Hitler pro-intellectual or anti-intellectual? Anti-intellectual. Hitler had many progressive intellectuals imprisoned or killed. Conservatives are consistently anti-intellectual because intellectuals are weird progressive freaks with radical and dangerous ideas that question tradition and subvert culture.
• Were the Nazis culturally loose or strict? They were ultra strict. They discouraged the following activities: use of cosmetics, premarital sex, prostitution, pornography, sexual vices, smoking, excessive drinking. This is how conservatives behave. These are conservative traditional ideals.
• Did Hitler and the Nazis dress is a loose hippie way to allow everyone to express their individuality and uniqueness? No! They dressed in strict crisp uniforms, with armbands and flags, as conservatives love to do.
• Did Hitler speak out against cultural decay and social decadence? Of course he did. That's what all conservatives do. Conservatives can't stop whining about the moral decay of culture. Conservatives always complain how the men have turned into decadent pussies and fags.
• Was Hitler for or against racial mixing? Against. Hitler was a racist. Ultra-conservatives are the biggest racists. Not all conservatives are racist but the biggest racists are all conservatives. This is not a coincidence.
• Was Hitler feminist or patriarchal? Hardcore patriarchal, as all conservatives are. Did Hitler believe that men and women are equal? Of course not. Hitler said that women should stay at home and raise children and have no role in public or political life.
• Did Hitler believe in a weak or strong military? Ultra strong. Did Hitler believe in being peaceful and diplomatic, or using military force and displays of strength? Displays of strength. This is what all conservatives love: military strength. Macho military patriot big dick energy.
• Did Hitler and the Nazis support independent labor movements and unions? Of course not. Nazis squashed and killed unions, labor strikes, workers' rights. That's what all conservatives do. Conservatives want industry to hold power, not labor.
• Was Hitler egalitarian or elitist? Hardcore elitist, as conservatives are. Conservatives do not want to spread power downward, they want to consolidate power into a strict hierarchy of class and status.
• Did Hitler care about human rights and tolerance for those unlike himself? No! Conservatives do not care about human rights. Human rights for me, not for thee. Conservatives want to benefit and profit by taking human rights away from minorities, turning minorities into pawns.
• How did Hitler gain power in the Wiemar Republic parliamentary system? By allying himself with other right-wing, conservative, traditional parties. Not with any of the left-wing liberal parties.
• Did Hitler value compassion and empathy for all? Absolutely not. Conservatives don't care about such things. Conservatives think that empathy is weak and gay. Conservatives value power and strength over compassion and compromise.
• Today, are American neo-Nazis right or left, conservative or liberal? Which party do neo-Nazis vote for? Do neo-Nazis vote for Kamala Harris, Obama, Hilary Clinton?
• Today, what kind of media do neo-Nazis consume? Left-wing media or right-wing media?
• Today, who do neo-Nazis target for violence and mass shootings? Minorities: Jews, blacks, gays, trans, Asians, Latinos, feminists, hippies, liberals, intellectuals.

It's an embarrassment to humanity that I have to sit down and write out this list because this should be common knowledge among all school children.

Why is this topic important?

Because, if one cannot get such a basic issue right, it demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of not only politics but the world. It means that one's entire worldview has foundational errors. Whatever your worldview, it needs to account for Hitler — why someone like Hitler came to exist and how to avoid becoming like Hitler yourself. If your worldview cannot even identify whether Hitler was liberal or conservative, left or right, that means you don't have enough education and self-awareness to avoid electing the next Hitler. It means that you cannot connect enough dots to see how right-wing conservative ideology and argument leads to Nazism, genocide, war, racism, sexism, eugenics, dictatorship, concentration camps, torture, criminality, sexual abuse, exploitation, corruption, assassination, slavery. What could be more fundamental in politics than that? Why should we take any of your political logic seriously?

And yes, as a leftist you're also not immune from this problem. Your worldview must pass the Communist litmus test. Only if your worldview passes both the Nazi and Communist litmus tests can we even begin to take it seriously. Any political view that doesn't pass these tests is garbage. That's the point. You must be able to sit down and identify every flaw within Nazism and Communism based on first principles and explain how your political worldview avoids all their flaws. If you cannot do this your political opinions are not just worthless but lethal.

- - - - -

But then why did Hitler name his party the National Socialist (Nazi) party? Because he used the word socialist in a very different way than we use it today. To him socialist meant a national, traditional, collective. A collective in the way that the US military is a collective. Hitler would have said that the US military is a "socialist" organization which should be adopted as the model for the entire nation. "Socialism" here means a mono-cultural community, like a traditional Christian parish. Hitler would call a Christian community socialist, as opposed to individualist or libertarian because proper Christians must adhere to a strict set of orthodox rules and traditions. Contrary to what many American conservatives tell themselves today, conservatives actually love collectives. Conservatives want to be part of a hierarchical orthodox collective like the military, the CIA, the special forces, the police department, the fire department, the Catholic church, the court, a sports team, a corporation, a tribe, a large extended family, the mob, a biker gang, a militia, the Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers, the Masons, al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, KKK, 4Chan, etc.

Hardcore conservatives are not individualist libertarians, they belong to collectives that uphold orthodox traditions. Libertarian conservatives are a recent modern development, it is not how conservatives usually operated. Libertarians are actually liberals. Hitler was too conservative to be a libertarian or individualist. Hardcore conservatives are collectivist not individualist. Think of Mormons, Quakers, Taliban, Vikings, KKK. These people are tribal and communal. That's the Nazi ideal and why Hitler included "socialist" in his party's name. You have to understand that people use words in eccentric ways across time. The meaning of words is not static nor monolithic. Hitler's notion of socialist is not the same as Jordan Peterson's, Ben Shapiro's, Dennis Prager's. Conservatives have a hard time understanding that concepts and categories can be this fluid and dynamic. Which is actually a lesson from post-modernism. Maybe if conservatives bothered to study post-modernism they wouldn't make such silly errors.

I’m coining a new term: Leftsplaining

Leftsplaining is like mansplaining, but by a leftist.

Leftsplaining is the annoying phenomena when a relatively educated, cocky leftist hits you with a barrage of trite arguments, facts, citations, and history which you already know and have taken into account, in order to distract from the larger point being made about the leftist view being limited, incomplete, skewed, unrealistic, and paradigm-locked. To leftsplain is to say whatever needs to be said to avoid ever admitting or even noticing that the leftist view on a given issue is limited, incomplete, biased, paradigm-locked, and not the highest, deepest, realest, or most holistic understanding possible.

Lily Rothman of The Atlantic defined mansplaining as "explaining without regard to the fact that the explainee knows more than the explainer", which transfers beautifully to our definition of leftsplaining. The most annoying aspect of leftsplaining is that it assumes it is a higher perspective than the one it's being presented with. This assumption is usually based in a sense of moral superiority because the leftist is an impassioned champion of social justice — the most important value, according to the leftist.

Leftsplaining especially occurs when trying to show a staunch leftist an Integral Tier 2 perspective which is more nuanced and explanatory than leftism but which the leftist must deny as it runs counter to leftist group-think and ideological commitments. Leftsplaining is an unconscious defense mechanism that keeps leftists locked in Stage Green, from evolving beyond leftism into a more serious and realistic Tier 2 understanding of political reality. Leftsplaining is often done by the leftist in a smug, arrogant, judgmental, closedminded, self-righteous manner which assumes his view is morally superior to the more realistic and complex one you are presenting, framing your Tier 2 view as centrist, neoliberal, "3rd way", or crypto right-wing. Leftsplaining loves to frame any point that challenges the leftist paradigm as a dangerous capitulation to the right that we cannot afford.

- - - - - -

Example 1: When a leftist leftsplains the history of Israeli occupation and colonization in the Palestine-Israeli issue — which your view already takes into account — while ignoring the larger point being made to him about the limits, distortions, and inadequacies of the leftist view on this issue.

Example 2: When a leftist leftsplains Marxist theory to you as you point out the legitimate virtues of capitalism and legitimate problems of socialism. Any higher, Tier 2 point you make is quickly smothered over with more trite Stage Green leftsplaining while accusing you of being a dreaded neoliberal.

Example 3: When a leftist leftsplains how evil the West has been in their imperial, colonial exploitation of the 3^rd world when you point out the underdevelopment of the Middle East. No matter how much you try to show that the Middle East is underdeveloped for organic home-grown reasons, the leftist will leftsplain it away by blaming the West and may even accuse you of being racist or Islamophobic, because hey, all cultures and people are supposed to be equal.

- - - - - -

Examples of usage in a sentence:

"I've had enough of your leftsplaining."

"Hasan Piker is a professional leftsplainer."

"He proceeded to leftsplain to us how corporate profits are exploitation of labor according to Karl Marx."

"She indignantly leftsplained how anyone on the left who opposes trans women in girls sports is not a real leftist but a closeted right-wing transphobe."

"It was impossible to explain Integral Theory to that group of socialists because they could not stop leftsplaining."

- - - - - -

Video example:

Skip to timestamp: 15:20

Warning: Be careful not to overuse this leftsplaining concept, as it can easily become a thought-terminating cliche. Sometimes a leftist explanation is valid or insightful. No one has a monopoly on 'splaining.

It's nice to see a grounded, pragmatic leftist:

In general, though, even with this guy, the problem with the socialist left is that it isn't practical. It just doesn't work because it doesn't understand the realities of survival.

Generally speaking, leftist political activism is not an effective way to do life. You are much better off just pulling yourself up by your bootstraps through capitalism than doing a lifetime of boycotting, picketing, unionizing, and rabble-rousing. I am not saying don't do political activism, but if you're a serious person who wants to accomplish serious things in the world, socialism and leftism is not how do it. How you do it is you build a business, you earn hundreds of millions, and then you use that money to fund whatever you're passionate about. The problem of course is that it's way harder to build a $100 million dollar ethical business than it is to stage a leftist rally or protest. Building a $100 million dollar ethical business would require serious emotional labor and skill. Which is exactly what leftists are avoiding. It would also require a painful worldview shift away from Marxist fantasy.

Here's the cold truth that leftists don't want to look in the face: business is a much more powerful mechanism of social change than political activism. If you really wanted to be intelligent about politics, you would first invest 20 years of your life building a multi-billion dollar business. Then you would do your political activism using those resources. That would be high intelligence. Low intelligence is chaining yourself to a tree and screaming about climate change while police drag you to away. Nothing positive was actually created. At the end of the day the leftist needs to ask herself, "What positive tangible things have I created for mankind?" This question will quickly reveal how useless leftists are.

If you really want to improve the world, business is the way. But it gets even harder because you'd want to do conscious business. See... business is constructive, complaining and moralizing is not constructive. Leftists overlook this basic point. If you care about the planet so much, why don't you create a billion dollar business? Then people will actually listen to things you say. Then you will have resources to promote your message. Then you will have the leadership skills and emotional maturity to lead a political movement.

"But Leo, I don't have the capital to start a billion dollar business!" — Exactly! In the real world you must figure out how to raise the capital from scratch to bootstrap something from nothing. How to convince investors to give you their precious money. Yeah, it's fucking hard and risky. In the real world there are no government handouts and tits to suck on — which is why capitalism is king. You would understand all this if you actually bothered to do serious business.

I'm not saying political activism isn't needed. I'm saying — for you personally — if you're a serious person, there exist much more intelligent and effective ways to make a political impact in the world. But it would require much higher intelligence, ambition, maturity, skill, and hard work.

Just notice that much of leftist activism is simply unintelligent because it is not effective at creating change. And that's because leftists are highly impractical, child-like people. Leftist ideas do not work in the real world most of the time. If a leftist tried to run a billion dollar business he would fall flat on his face. And that would teach the leftist valuable lessons about why the world does not and cannot run on leftist ideals. The leftist remains naive by shielding himself from contact with the cold hard reality of business, conflict, war, power, survival. The funny thing is, by the time a leftist succeeds in building a billion dollar business from scratch, he will no longer be a leftist. Because that pragmatic survival process will have transfigured his view of the world. This is not about becoming rich. I'm not talking about how to become rich. I'm talking about how to become effective, powerful, impactful in the world. If you want to improve the world you need power and resources. But, the process of acquiring power and resources will corrupt you. That's the Catch-22. What every leftist needs is a crash course called Survival 101. But this is no cushy university course. For this course we air-drop the leftist into a war-zone in Africa for 3 months and see how she survives using her leftist ideals.

I bought this handy little MP3 player. It's very portable and great for jogging when you don't want to drag your big phone along. It has all the right features like good Bluetooth connectivity, USB C, microSD card, 3.5mm audio jack, solid battery life, many audio file formats, easy menu interface. It's tiny and light, clips anywhere on your clothes.

Sometimes you just need audio without your phone around. I sometimes even use it to have dual audio. For example, I can play background music in my house using this MP3 player while I listen to a YouTube video or audiobook on my phone. It's also good for playing TinnitusMix. It's also good for tripping when you don't want access to internet or messaging from your phone (a big no-no texting people or posting online when you're tripping, or you will destroy relationships). Denying yourself access to your phone at certain parts of your day is a good thing, but you still want some audio.

Buy Here (aff link)