The Demon Inside Technology
How Technological Progress Corrupts Humanity
Technology is a radical, demonic force that permanently transmogrifies society and the human spirit. That’s my perspective. The most common definition of technology is that it’s merely a tool. I find this naive and easily disputed.
Unlike Luddites—particularly the most famous and now clichéd among them, Ted Kaczynski—I understand that technological progress is inevitable. It will not be rolled back. I’m not even sure it’s desirable to roll it back. Thus, rather than theorize about what might occur in the future—something anti-technology writing typically does—I will focus on something more powerful: what has already occurred. Through this, we can observe its trajectory. Science fiction best belongs in fiction, after all.
“Why is the modern world so feminine and gay?”
The answer is simple. Though it may be controversial. I’ll start with the most fetishized object in right-wing culture: the gun.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
True, but also mundane. What’s interesting about this statement is it exposes a common right-wing bias: they view the world through an ideological lens of individualism. Thus, to the right-winger, the morality and essence of the gun depends on who has their finger on the trigger. Cop or criminal? Good guy or bad guy? White man or n****r1
This is why they assume technology is just a tool.
Would you wish for a world without guns?
It’s an irrelevant question2, but it also exposes a key trait of technology that brings us closer to it’s true nature.
Once a piece of technology is discovered, it can’t be undiscovered. What is known, can’t be unknown—unless civilization collapses entirely. There’s no going back. You can’t 'retvrn' to an earlier state.
We can’t undiscover guns.
Thus, to understand technology, you must address this specific quality: What impact do these irreversible discoveries have on civilization? How do they reshape and reorient the type of social order capable of being produced?
The essence of the gun is simple.
Guns removed physical strength from the application of force. It was an inflection point in the history of war, and in the history of humanity.
The NRA today calls them the “great equalizer.” Their logic is even a weak man can defeat a much stronger man, or even a woman can overcome her rapist. Your physical size, or strength in numbers, is invalidated by this little object. But what effect did this ‘equalization’ of force have on the world?
It allowed the creation of the most matriarchal order that’s ever existed on Earth. Women have been royalty in the past. And America has yet to see a female president. But the difference is in the average woman’s experience, not our elite or our leadership. The degree of social freedom, and even dominance, of the average woman in the 21st century puts a aristocratic woman from centuries ago to shame.
“It sounds like you want to take away women’s freedom?”
No, no, NO! Don’t be crazy!
I want to take away everyone’s freedom.
Freedom itself is a subversive concept in liberalism, as I’ve explained before. People say they want freedom, when what they want is control.
But let’s not get lost in the weeds.
Am I saying the gun is solely responsible for the creation of the liberal order? That would be ridiculous. You know what’s equally ridiculous? Pretending the liberal order could’ve existed before the gun was created.
Right-wingers consider guns masculine, an object that grants personal sovereignty. They don’t need to rely on the police for their protection. They could—in their dream of dreams—overthrow a tyrannical government, which in their fantasy often suspiciously mirrors totalitarian governments from the 20th century: ‘if only Jews had guns, the Holocaust never would have happened!’ Yet another example of how right-wingers embrace the source of their own dispossession.
What was the world like before guns were discovered? Masculine virtue had to be embedded within society. It was demanded for internal security and external expansion. Whoever had the greatest number of well-trained men kept control of resources, the most valuable of which, was women. War was waged with the incentive that leaders would “look the other way” when their men won. In other words, the reward for winning was rape. This was also the motivation for defense: to prevent the euphemistic ‘pillaging’ of your city.
Martial culture was dominant. Male children, trained from birth, had to be ready to die, to kill and to defend what was theirs with steel. The strong ruled society and ruled the world. Warrior values were cultivated in song, folklore, mythology, art, architecture—embedded within the social fabric itself.
Right-wingers wish to retvrn to the Bronze Age. They like the Greeks. They prefer the Romans. Groups claiming to be modern fascist yell slogans like: “we need to be ruled by a warrior class! Not a class of merchants!” But society was ruled and dominated by warrior values from genuine need. Not because they appreciated those values. They were simply necessary. The creation of the gun, and its extension—bombs and missiles—extinguished masculine virtue from the Earth. Anyone can pull a trigger. Anyone can press a button. A woman. A child. A fat black lesbian who’s undergoing gender transition surgery. Who do you imagine is flying MQ-9 Reaper drones from in a trailer in Arizona, shooting missiles to blow up men on the opposite side of the world? An Aryan with blue eyes and perfect body? His muscles sculpted from years of swinging his sword in the hot sun.
Think again.
A gun deletes the need for muscles. Right-wingers spend some untold hours practicing their stance at gun ranges, a topic they always seem eager to give advice on. But how do today’s killers use guns? They hold them sideways, their pants hanging off their ass. They don’t polish guns and keep them on their wall like a trophy. They scratch the serial number off and toss them in a dumpster. Despite what’s commonly thought, guns require next to no training. Because the most effective way to use a gun is up close, not far away. It’s sneaking up to “get the drop on someone,” not engaging in an honorable duel. The most effective way to use a gun is when the other person doesn’t have one.
Gun fights are rare. Shooters hide behind cover. Use blindfire. Disengage and retreat. When an armed suspect causes havoc, the police arrive in their SWAT vehicles, like armored clown cars, and pile out. How many police does it take to apprehend one armed suspect? Usually 30 or 40. They shut down multiple city blocks, snipers on the roof. They use “overwhelming force.” And then the news reporters discuss this with the chief of police, a lesbian DEI hire, who congratulates the ‘heros,’ those brave men… and women. But what actually happened? After several hours, a sniper blew the suspects head off, unseen, unheard, fifty yards away—a cheap shot delivered by a ghost. The opposite of courage.
But men are still necessary on the battlefield, aren’t they?
Feminism took a backseat when war broke out in Ukraine. Women eagerly fled to other European countries, to dance in nightclubs and do OnlyFans, smugly spreading their legs while their men died for ideals they didn’t fully comprehend, not unlike most wars then.
Hundreds of thousands of men died in Ukraine. How many looked into the eyes of the man who killed them? Or even saw the person at all? Most deaths occur by an unmanned drone skittering at them like insane insect. Or a missile shot from miles and miles away whistling down, their last thought some undignified descriptive comment, “OH SHIT THAT’S A MISSILE!” before the lights of their consciousness go out.
There was video of a Russian and Ukrainian soldier that got into a knife fight which went viral several weeks ago. The Ukrainian lost. He said “you killed me, now let me die in peace please. You were the greatest fighter I ever saw. You won.” The Russian breathing heavy, bleeding, weighed his decision, his knife in hand, and eventually, he gruffly let the Ukrainian go, who laid to his side, the camera on his helmet titled to the sky.
This video was praised by pro-Russian sources, commending the honor of the Ukrainian. It evoked in them respect. Maybe it moved them to tears. Not from sadness. But the beauty of honor. A quality normally absent in mechanized warfare.
Cowboys often challenge villains to a duel: Who has the quickest hands in the West? This is noble because it brings honor, quick reflexes, and a sense of training into the fight. This romanticizes guns, however, twisting them to mirror physical combat—a form of violence men secretly crave. The infamous last stand is another example: facing an insurmountable horde, with only a few bullets left, the man meets death like a warrior. But the gun is immaterial, if he uses one at all. It could be a machete, a baseball bat or even something comical like a spoon. In the film Goodfellas, Ray Liotta hears a gun click behind his head, then profanity “Don’t move you cocksucker!” In voiceover, he narrates this is how he knew it was a cop: if it were the mob, he would’ve heard nothing. He’d just be dead. That’s more accurate to how guns are used. Not necessarily up close, like an assassin. You often hear nothing—even in war. You don’t see who pulled the trigger. You’re just dead.
Many misunderstood why Russia was winning in Ukraine from the beginning. Many still do. Ukraine never had a manpower problem; they had a dead man problem. They have enough guns. Not enough bullets. Enough tanks. Not enough shells. Enough launchers. Not enough missiles. They’ve been spammed to death from the beginning. Training, virtue and honor have little to do with who wins or loses in modern war, unlike industrial capacity, magazine stock and technological proficiency. In fact, most reactionary forces since the Industrial Revolution have lost despite their martial culture and pound for pound superiority. The South in the American Civil War. The Nazis in WW2. Every big bad traditionalist oppressor.
Many who would critique my thesis would say “a martial culture, a right-wing culture, a masculine culture could exist in the modern world. In fact, they have existed since the creation of the gun.” Yes, they have, it’s true. But they don’t now. Have you ever considered why? Jews control society, and if we simply wrestled away control from them we could do XYZ. But why do they have control? How did they gain control so easily? Why haven’t we wrestled away control, if it’s so simple? These right-wingers would say pathological altruism have infected the white mind or any number of other explanations. But why is that there? It wasn’t a 100 years ago. And it never would have arisen without the gun—and the extension of guns like bombs and missiles to create the safety of mass society.
Guns had a femininizing effect so what was natural before—having a martial culture—wasn’t right-wing. It just was. And now, of course, we can create one again. All we have to do is convince people to give up their sedentary lifestyle, and embrace struggle and strife and suffering and to reject nihilism, and understand this will create more meaning in their lives. So easy. Such a simple task. If only I wasn’t so stupid, I would have seen how easy it really all was! Just tell people “don’t be a Last Man, bro.” Problem solved.
The parasitic, the weak, and the sick rule the world now. Guns aren’t the only reason. But they’re part of the reason. A significant part. After all, the nuclear weapon is the ultimate gun. Press a button and you can shoot 5,000 of them and destroy the world, perhaps several times over. The creation of it put a stop to mechanized warfare between peer competitors. Now we have proxy wars instead, which is to say, war by being passive aggressive. Maybe the next generation of warfare will see armies of unmanned vehicles fight each other. Literally, the male himself extracted from the battlefield. Answer this: would such a development make the world more masculine, or less?
Not all technological discoveries dramatically reshape the social landscape. However, as we’ve seen, those that do are permanent, and are made possible by countless smaller, often unnoticed innovations, which gradually accumulate and align until the significant discovery emerges.
Yet, we still won’t have the complete picture of what technology is until we examine how it merges with the human itself.
Next section:
Body Modification and Our Dysgenic Future
Human beings do not stand outside or above nature; they are a part of it. Thus, as technology modifies, manipulates and seeks to dominate nature, naturally, this means the human will modify, manipulate and dominate themself. The inherent contradiction of technology, explored in many works of fiction, such as Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein,” is you do not inherently control something you create because you are it’s creator. Parents often experience this with a child. Even the religious believe in free will. Somehow the most enthusiastic technologists miss the deeper extension of this point. They are subjected to technology, and born into a world where their lives are dependent on it. Thus, the problem of technology is worse than simply losing control of an independent creation. The problem is losing control of a creation that has inextricably become intertwined with the human experience itself.
Did you have braces when you were a kid?
Porn stars often use braces as a prop, because their primary connotation signifies adolescence. Braces are a harmless, effective modification of your teeth. But really, they’re a modification of your smile. They cost thousands of dollars, which is considered a small price to pay by many parents. Why do they pay it?
The lifetime benefit of a good smile must be worth more than the cost.
But keep in mind, straightened teeth through braces will not be a trait children inherit. They might get crooked, ugly teeth instead. They might not. It depends on the other parent. And ultimately it doesn’t matter. I’m not such an extreme reactionary I seek to ban access to braces—though don’t tempt me!
I’d rather draw your attention to the underlying principle. All body modification works with this intention: to circumvent genetic lineage and genetic inheritance.
First, we need to clear up some basic underlying questions.
What drives human behavior and achievement?
Sex, of course.
Humans seek the most valuable mate. For men, this means acquiring money, social status, creating art, hitting the gym—any number of activities. For women, it usually boils down to… well, showing up?
Next question.
Is sexual attraction objective or subjective?
It’s both—and neither. There are universal traits, seen as desirable across cultures, which the Left endlessly and tediously disputes. But there’s also a layer of relativism. Some might prioritize loyalty over physical traits, asking: "will this person stay with me?" Others might embrace becoming the infamous "man of cultvre" and value more jiggly or… gargantuan assets?
Regardless, parents perpetuate this cycle through their offspring. Not all parents take such an active role, but every parent inherently values their own child over a stranger’s. Grandchildren and great grandchildren give an elderly person comfort as the end of their life nears. Death approaches, but your genes succeed you. Name something more comforting than lying on your deathbed, watching your grandchildren smile, cradling babies of their own?
Humans have already started using technology to hack this cycle of reproduction, which is no trivial matter. As I have shown, it is the underlying foundation that grants meaning to human existence itself.
One of my favorite examples comes from a Twitter story about a man who underwent limb-lengthening surgery. At five foot six, he wanted to hit that magic six-foot mark, a number ingrained in the American psyche. (I say American, because apparently, outside of Burgerland, people measure height in centimeters. Unthinkable, I know.) So, both his legs were broken and steel rods were inserted. Fast forward six months: after extensive rehab, he was like a toddler taking his first steps, albeit with a slightly unnatural gait. People were shocked—most mocked him, some were horrified. Or normgroids pretended to feel these reactions in a performative way for Twitter “likes.” Either way, I did not share it.
I thought “is this any different than braces?” Well, yes. Obviously. It’s more extreme. But what’s the underlying purpose of sexual desire?
In other words, beyond simply having children, the real drive behind sexual desire is seeing your own traits inherited by your children. This explains the Right’s obsession with ‘cucking’ and avoiding being cucked, or the spiritual cuckoldry of conservatism, which wishes to see infinite brown migrants from the Global South overtake countries with ever dwindling European stock.
The fundamental issue with limb-lengthening surgery isn’t that it’s extreme. It’s that it’s extreme right now. Technology could improve. And yes, it would require quite the cybernetic turn to normalize limb-lengthening surgery. But it could be done.
Look at all the ways we enhance ourselves today. Plastic surgery, steroids and make-up are so common they’re taken as part of daily life and thought of as mundane. But their effects are quite shocking. Videos circulate with Asian women using make-up that make men exclaim their mouths open like shocked Pikachu “that should be illegal!” Going from hideous beast to art-form waifu only takes three pounds of meticulously applied paste. The men who won bodybuilding competitions in the 1940’s and 1950’s are dwarfed by the most muscular bros at your local gym; men today must really be taking nutrition seriously and using good form!3 Penis enlargement still doesn’t work. But the day it does, you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn’t opt to install their ‘third leg.’
We’re still at the early stages of this evolution, with gene editing advancing rapidly. As I mentioned earlier, I won’t speculate on the future. The dangers of genetic engineering is something Ted Kaczynski mentioned in his manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future, rest assured, our concerns couldn’t be any more diametrically opposed to each other.
I’ll say it this: one of the greatest lies ever told is that inheritance is unearned, unworthy, or should be stripped away. Tradition isn’t about empty rituals to waste your time; it connects you to the long line of people who came before you and shaped who you are. You are them. They are you. Your ancestors live within you. Technology obscures this by cloaking you in false traits, seeking to artificially modify what you’ve inherited. Could anything be a greater source of deracination?
Good genes are earned. And it’s your personal responsibility to everyone who came before you to pass them on, for both your family’s sake and your extended family’s sake, which is your race. You can ignore this. But you’ll never be able to overcome the deep sense of misery and nihilism of your petty existence until the day you die, if you make the choice for extinction.
Eugenics is often seen as a dirty word, conjuring images of Nazism, forced sterilizations, or test tubes. But eugenics and dysgenics are more akin to economic growth—either the line is trending up or down when viewed over a long enough period. Similarly, civilization is either becoming more eugenic or more dysgenic. And no one truly doubts which direction we’re heading. The zeitgeist has often offered a glimpse into our collective unconscious.
In the post-War era, our view of urbanization—and the future—shifted, reflected in science fiction not through plot or characters, but through setting and world. In the 1950s, the future was painted in a romantic, glowing light: imagine a pink Cadillac with a perfect Aryan couple, kids in the backseat, a shaggy dog licking their faces, all ordering from a drive-through. The backdrop? A twinkling cosmos, a magnificent vision of destiny. By the 1970s, however, science fiction embraced the aesthetics of Neo-Noir, and the future became dystopic. The Jetsons were gone. Instead, every sci-fi film that embraced realism adopted the aesthetic of Blade Runner. This shift mirrored societal changes. Racial integration occurred in the 1960s and urban decay followed, marked by rising crime, disease, degeneracy, homelessness, and moral rot—echoed in Travis Bickle's infamous monologue.
All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the street.
The origins of the modern Left have long been debated, particularly by right-wing theorists. You may have heard terms like Biological Leninism or Spiteful Mutant Theory. Regardless of whether you find these theories convincing, one thing is undeniable: the graph below illustrates the most dramatic shift in human history, which occurred with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and was driven by technological progress. These theories, in essence, try to explain why the explosion in population hasn’t exactly made the world a more beautiful place.
While technologists fixate on the possibilities of outer space, the true frontier of the 21st and 22nd centuries will lie in a realm that proves far more troubling: inner space. Visions of stepping foot on Mars, much less the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, are not just a distraction—they’re an activity trap to keep the influential and wealthy out of thinking of alternatives to the current system. Besides, the intermediary technologies needed to make such advancements meaningful are still far from realization, meanwhile our future is being shaped by AI, cybernetics like Neuralink (which has already enabled a quadriplegic man to control a computer with his mind4), and radical, untapped potentials like lucid dreaming. This fusion of human consciousness with Baudrillard’s hyperreality will not just transform us—it will eclipse the physical world entirely, drawing us into digital space to offer a more seductive, albeit hollow, existence. Much like the elderly in Inception, who find the dream world more compelling than the harshness of reality, why would humanity elect to live in anything but a digital illusion where time and suffering are erased, and your every fantasy can be realized on a whim? In fact, to be fair to Baudrillard’s work, he would say that’s already the world we live in today.
So what’s the liberal system’s ultimate goal? The answer is simple if not trite: transhumanism.
After communism’s collapse, a door opened for the Left to radically reorient itself around an idea that had long been germinating: the human body is the root of the world’s inequality. Technology was always lurking in plain sight, and finally emerged as the only solution. If absolute equality and absolute freedom for the individual were to be achieved, digitizing consciousness was the only way forward; the feasibility of this task matters little. Liberalism triumphed over its ideological competitors because it aligned most closely with the hidden impulse within technology: the drive to transcend humanity and bring about its extinction—not through defeat, but through false victory. What matters is not the outcome, but the drive itself—the desire that fuels this transformation. This is the demon inside technology.
Originally I was deliberating between using the N-word, uncensored, which better conveys the psychological meaning I intend, and was meant with artistic license not ‘hate,’ or I was considering the word Other. But ultimately, Other seemed too leftist-coded, and also vague. So I used asterisks to avoid any misunderstanding.
“Would you wish for a world without guns?” is a question I first heard posed by Sam Harris—the Jewish New Atheist—in an essay he wrote “The Riddle of the Gun.” He was writing to his liberal audience and chastising their naivety. The libtard would wish for a world without guns, because their assumption is the world would be safer—in their midwit understanding of safety, there would be no more school shootings, which are statistically inconsequential anyway, though perhaps symbolically meaningful. In the essay, Harris employs his classic handwringing and nebbish tone to describe what such a world would be. A world marked by violence and physical strength. A world where the liberal concept of “rights” could never exist. A world where the Nietzschean “blonde beast” could reign free; a world that couldn’t be dominated by slave morality, also known as—as anyone who’s actually read a “Genealogy of Morals” knows—Jewish morality (gasp, what horror!). Harris asked “who could wish for such a world?” Well, I guess… me? Inverting his logic is partially what inspired the views expressed in part one of this essay.
Pewdiepie’s video “every fitness celebrity influencer is lying to you” made me realize how widespread steroid usage is. Though I workout frequently, I had never given the topic much thought before watching this. I recommend if it interests you.
Noland Arbaugh can play video games and move the cursor on a computer with only his mind. Here’s his story on X. While a great development for him personally, isn’t this always how technology obscures it’s social implications and consequence—through individual use case nearly impossible to object to?
The best critique of technology coming from the right.