Archdevil Grimthistle Lectures on the Internet
Author’s Note: I wrote this a few years ago as a thought experiment. Intrigued by the style and mythos of C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, I wondered what it would be like if Lewis’s anti-hero Screwtape (or a demon like him) were to give an update to his colleagues on the state of the world with the rise of the internet and social media. What advice would Screwtape give to other devils today whose sole purpose in existence is to make human life more miserable? To give myself more freedom, I created my own character—an Archdevil named Grimthistle—operating within Lewis’s mythos. Though similar to Screwtape in some ways, Grimthistle is first and foremost an academic who finds himself lecturing an auditorium full of other devilish academics on the possibilities afforded by emergent technologies to nurture human misery.
My lovely young devils, demons, succubi, and wraiths, it is with special delight that I speak to you today. As you are all well-aware, human history has taken some interesting turns in recent decades as our forces and those of the Enemy have guided humans in developing ever new mechanisms of warfare, both of the crude physical variety, such as naval and air vessels, machine weaponry, drones, and the most holy atomics, but also of the more refined intellectual and social variety, such as mass media, radio and television broadcasting, movies, and now, the internet and social media.
It is of the latter that I will speak today. I do so without intending any disrespect to the awesome mechanisms of destruction that many of you have had a claw or tentacle involved in developing. For who could ever argue against the amazing destructive power of the gatling gun, napalm, or chlorine gas? Indeed, I have never addressed a group of you, my fellow sufferers, in which the mere mention of phosgene did not elicit riotous applause. Yet, I fear that our wild successes in the 19th and 20th centuries on this front have somewhat distracted us from our eternal quest.
It is true. Seeing humans writhe in agony on a battlefield, dismembered, mutilated, frightened, and despondent has led me to shudder in ecstasy more times than I can remember. With delight I have pictured in my mind the ocean of tears that we have undoubtedly wrung from our Eternal Enemy’s eyes as He has been forced to watch his self-destructive children brutally hack each other to bits in ever bloodier and bloodier conflicts. Yet, in the eternal scheme, the joys of mortal bloodshed are merely a passing amusement that can lull our demonic efforts into a sense of security.
As I have always argued, war itself garners us no net benefit to souls corrupted. Lest we forget, the soldier can just as surely be saved by the Enemy as can the pacifist, and I can tell by your grumbling stomachs that many of you have developed quite a taste for the souls of these pacifists that now seem to find their ways to our kingdom in droves. Indeed, all humans will die, and though it may give us pleasure to help them toward that end sooner rather than later, we must always remember that our true goal is not to speed them toward death but to ensure that they belong to us thereafter.
Though a bare bodkin is all it takes to kill a saint, you need words to kill the memory of that saint and to prevent others from becoming saints themselves.
Toward this end, I have always contended that the aforementioned mechanisms of intellectual warfare have ever been of more use to us than their more blunt and explosive counterparts, because though a bomb may efficiently destroy the body, only words, ideas, and beliefs can corrupt the soul.
You might remember some of my earlier work with the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, English, French, and Russians on this front. Through the mere writing and reading of words, we have empowered a single devil to serve as any given author’s muse, and through that author, that devil’s words can be propagated to untold thousands, even millions of humans. Indeed, how many of the countless children of light squirming in your insatiable bellies now were first corrupted by actions and ideas that originated from a written word?
For that reason, we should embrace human technological advancements that allow us to share our demonic messages at an ever greater scale and rate. But, if we do not act quickly, I fear that the Enemy will use these mechanisms toward achieving His ends, as He attempted to do, and I fear met some success with, when He began using the printing press to propagate His words and a knowledge of the universe to the masses. That is, we must always be at the forefront of every new advancement in communication the humans make both to thwart the Enemy’s purposes and to expand our own.
For the most part, I feel that we have done this and have beaten the Enemy handily across every emergent medium, ranging from early written texts to Hollywood movies. But I cannot stress enough to you how the internet, and social media in particular, is different from anything we have seen before, and for that reason, we should divert all of our attention away from any other interests we might have and focus squarely here. I will not belabor this point further, but suffice it to say that these new media have more potential for evil (or good) than any previous communication medium in history, and if we do not act quickly and in a devilishly smart way, then we may quickly find ourselves losing hard-fought headway in this great and eternal war.
So, the reason that I am here is not to tell you that we need to win the internet. In fact, I think it’s pretty clear that we are winning, and one need look no further than Ratcruncher’s pioneering work with pornography or Spinemold’s ever-impressive sex trafficking networks to know that the Enemy has no idea how to counter the efforts of our vilest and most devious. Rather, I want to extend an invitation to you all to participate in this great and important work and to show you how easy it can be to use these tools to destroy families, destabilize communities, and ultimately corrupt souls. In short, I just want to show you how easy it is so that every sufferer within the sound of my voice can corrupt enough souls to evermore stave off the insatiable hunger that the Enemy in his cruelty has inflicted upon us.
First, use the newness of these media to divorce humans from the wisdom of their forebears. This is an old tactic that we have used in every bloody revolution in history, because it works! Young humans see Instagram, Snapchat, or whatever the newest app or tool is and think to themselves “this is my generation’s medium” and “older people just don’t get it.” And they’re right! Comically, they never stop to ask themselves why the older generations “don’t get it” or can’t be bothered to learn it, and this generational exceptionalism can be used to feed their hubris to a level that they will even divorce themselves completely from the aged, mock them, and disenfranchise them.
Once the young stop looking to the experiences of the old for wisdom, you know we have them! In the past, for instance, if you introduced relationship troubles to one of these youngsters, your greatest fear would be that they would go to a seasoned, responsible elder to learn from their experiences. The beauty of this generational isolation via the internet is that the young only talk to and trust the opinions of other inexperienced young exactly like them. Once they have started doing this, you should then encourage them to think that this is the meaning of community — surrounding themselves with others exactly like them — and you will quickly find them fumbling over one another incessantly, thinking themselves wise while they make the same mistakes made by their ancestors millennia ago. By playing upon this youthful exceptionalism, you can essentially create entire communities where no one has any experience, and by playing to their youthful hubris, you can prevent them from ever catching onto the simple fact that the best way to safeguard themselves against difficulties in life would be to learn from their elders as well as the other simple fact that homogeneity of experience is the antithesis of community.
If you do this correctly, they will quickly come to disregard the wisdom of millennia as quaint or old-fashioned, but you can take this one step further by simply introducing a few doubts in their minds about their forebears’ intelligence or morality — a few drops of poison in the deep well of history. Teach them some general labels or categories — without clear definitions, mind you — to apply to entire swathes of history, and you will never have to worry about them reading a book or entertaining a serious thought again. Don’t want them to read the Magna Carta? Remind them that England was an imperialist nation. Don’t want them to read Jane Austen? Convince them that she wasn’t a true feminist … or Victorian … or whatever. Don’t want them to read Milton? Convince them that he was not a true Christian … or for others that he was too much of a Christian. Ad aeternum. It’s that simple.
Though we all loved the spectacle when Needlegrinder and his devious minions guided the Nazis in burning mountains of books, we don’t need the young to physically burn anything to have the same effect. Merely teach them that if a reductionistic label can loosely be hung on any person or document, then it should be relegated to the rubbish heaps in their minds, and you will never have to worry about them seriously contemplating the wisdom of previous generations.
Besides, not having them physically burn books serves another purpose. Even the most brainwashed sychophant casting a book atop a pyre might experience an idle curiosity to crack open a tome to see what the fuss is all about, but the young enlightened mind doesn’t suffer from curiosity, because it has already neatly collated and categorized the ideas of previous generations without honestly having considered them. The beauty is that they think they know what they reject before even considering it and then pat themselves on the back for their brave prejudice.
It’s also quite comical to do this, because then you can watch them claim intellectual and moral superiority over absolutely anyone in history without realizing that they themselves are the most ignorant, prejudiced, and backward of all. I, after all, was there with Socrates and can tell you that the youngest ancient Greek completing his first lessons in logic could wipe the floor with any modern thinker’s supposed intellectual prowess.
Second, on the topic of logic, you should ever strive to convince them that logic is merely selective cynicism or comedic skepticism. Allow me to explain. We have done a fine job of convincing everyone that they know what “logic” is, and we have had similar successes with “science,” “reason,” “rationality,” and various other terms such that the vast majority of humans who now use them have little to no understanding of their actual meaning. This allows them to weaponize the terms in favor of their own “noble” prejudices and beliefs — using them to aggressively criticize those of others — as they sit comfortably in their own irrational belief systems.
Indeed, we have succeeded in convincing the most “rational” minds of the day to now believe that their thoughts are rational merely because they have them, and that anyone else’s are irrational simply because they do not. And rather than question the rationality of their own “noble” prejudices, they think that “logic” involves nothing more than the use of sophistry to interrogate and humiliate others.
A beautiful, succinct example of this can be seen in how thought leaders quickly focus on spelling and grammar errors on social media to try to delegitimize the arguments of any who disagree with them. Had they actually studied logic or knew how it worked, they would understand that there is absolutely no connection between the truth of a notion and how it is presented. Yet, when they only have 280 characters to convey a meaningful thought — as if that were even possible — they will regularly devote half of that space to questioning their opponent’s thumb typing, believing themselves to be rational only because their autocorrect was working properly that day. You can participate in this beautiful dance by convincing them to respond while driving or otherwise distracted, because then they will feel flustered and committed to the argument only to have the veracity of their thoughts reduced to whether their car hit a bump.
If that doesn’t work, then the boilerplate tu quoque has never gone out of style. When the hated Lamb shouted “thou hypocrite” to those we had seduced, He obviously did so to convince them to repent — signaling to them that their beliefs were correct, but their actions were not, thereby jeopardizing their souls. From time immemorial, we have devilishly twisted this powerful technique away from a tool for salvation toward destruction. Rather than concern for the welfare of their opponents’ souls, convince your humans to shout “hypocrite” in an attempt to attack their opponents’ underlying ideas. It will never occur to them that distance between belief and action actually represents cause to repent — the changing of one’s actions to better align with one’s beliefs — and they will rather use it to argue the inverse: that a person’s thoughts, ideals, and beliefs should retroactively be manipulated to reflect their actions. Or, in other words, that if there is a disconnect between belief and action, then belief must be the culprit.
This wicked tactic is devilishly sinister, because it implicitly confuses the relationship between belief and action to the point that they will no longer look to beliefs as ideals to aspire to (therefore inspiring them to change their actions) but will rather treat them as little more than excuses or justifications for their actions. Indeed, though the Lamb wanted his targeted “hypocrites” to act on their beliefs so that they might be saved, we can easily convince modern thinkers that their beliefs should be malleable constructs that serve no purpose beyond justifying their damnable actions. Hence, though the Enemy appealed to hypocrisy to convince humans to change their actions, we can devilishly appeal to hypocrisy to convince them to change their beliefs.
Taken together, these muddled approaches to logic are invaluable tactics for ensuring that our followers will always “strain at gnats” while “swallowing camels,” as the Enemy Himself suggested of our adherents. By absorbing themselves in the critique of others’ “gnats,” they can console themselves in their own “camels,” yielding beautiful generations of cynical, aggressive humans who have no rational basis for their own beliefs but who nonetheless demand pure, stone cold reason from any who disagree with them.
And third, because the simplest antidote to any of our efforts is civility — or hell forbid, love — you should work tirelessly to paint any instances of moderation, kindness, respect, or deference as weakness or, preferably, treason to one’s cause. What has at times been considered simple human decency and concern for the other should be treated as wishy-washy indecision or barriers to the crushing wheels of progress. Having a civil conversation should be treated as fraternization with the enemy. Speech itself should be treated as a form of oppression, rather than just the communication of ideas, so that the very act of speaking may be regulated and controlled and the speaker can be dehumanized as nothing more than a soulless perpetrator of evil to be stopped at all cost.
Here, again, labeling can be enormously useful. Just as history can be ignored if it is merely labeled, so too can the living human other. In the U.S., for instance, we have polarized politics enough that merely appending a D or an R to the end of a leader’s name is enough to convince almost half the population to distrust anything that they will say. And this works for lay people as well. Every time your adherents notice their neighbor saying something online, you should whisper softly to them “Mrs. So-and-So is a democrublican, so I should distrust her.” That way they don’t have to busy themselves with understanding the actual content of Mrs. So-and-So’s words, the reasons why she might say them, or the experiences that might have led her to do so. If they have a useful label for her, then Mrs. So-and-So becomes nothing more than a label, something to be collated and ignored at whim — certainly not a human to be valued.
Playing upon historical pendula of oppression and evil-doing helps in this regard, because if humans can feel that their voices have been silenced in the past because of a label that has been placed upon them, they then can use this feeling of injustice as moral grounding to place labels on others for the purpose of silencing them in return. Some angry souls will embrace this as justifiable vengeance, but most must be convinced that it is merely a practical consideration to correct historical imbalances of power. At any rate, the effect is the same. Some are allowed to speak, while others are silenced not because of anything they themselves have done but because a label has been placed upon them that likely originated hundreds or even thousands of years in the past. The deliciousness of this irony is that oppressors and victims can engage in an eternal hateful dance, wherein they merely alternate who is leading at the moment. Feeling justified, oppressors can ridicule and demonize victims for as long as they are in power only to have the situation reversed in never ending cycles of hateful vindication.
The deliciousness of this dance is that they will never realize that the simple solution peddled by the Lamb is forgiveness, mercy, and love. By viewing human history as a never-ending cycle of oppressor vs. oppressed, they can easily be blinded to the only solution to the cycle, believing that someone must inevitably always be the oppressor and that the other must always inevitably be oppressed. Thus, they will direct all of their vengeance and moral outrage not toward destroying oppression but in becoming the oppressors themselves. This allows them to self-justify their hatred, wrong-doing, and all manner of injustices while at the same time patting themselves on the backs, claiming that their hatred is justified or is even an act of love.
As with other tactics I have previously mentioned, this tactic relies upon the use of labels and that they have a superficial awareness of one another. Be cautious in this regard, however, because though you want to provide enough identifying information to allow your adherents to effectively marginalize the other, you must walk a fine line between that devious enterprise and unknowingly guiding them to develop noble emotions like empathy. For that reason, keep labels limited to divisive issues of the day, and never encourage humans to label themselves in any way that acknowledges their common humanity or their common relationship to one another as children of the Enemy.
Some of you will contend that this is nothing new; after all, labeling the other has always been a useful tactic. But, I contend that the internet has made such labeling immensely more powerful for sowing discord and corrupting souls for two obvious reasons. First, the sheer amount of information that humans must now deal with via the internet and their social media feeds means that they must organize information — and by extension the people producing it — in ever more efficient ways, and labels are nothing if not devilishly efficient. And second, the actual design of these tools allows them to do this with ease! Many platforms actually solicit labels from their participants and allow them to block, ignore, or even silence other humans for no reason other than being different from themselves. Thus, with only a little prodding on your part, you can effectively guide your subjects in creating the most vitriolic, isolated, and homogenous echo chambers imaginable, where they incessantly rage against the idiocies of the unrepresented other while having their moral egos continuously stroked by those most like them.
It is amazing to think that rather than learning to love the quintessential other in the form of one’s neighbor, as the Enemy implored them to do millennia ago, human technologies have instead veered toward empowering ever more selectivity in determining who one’s neighbors are, thereby not requiring humans to make any kind of soul-stretching growth! Rather than following the Lamb’s uncomfortable commandment to “love thy enemies,” humans have rather decided to separate themselves more fully from their perceived enemies. After all, all religious and humanist arguments for loving others is predicated on the belief that the other is human, but if we can convince them to think of the other as something less than human (via a smorgasbord of available labels), then all such mandates become null and void, and those labels only develop teeth if they have a safe place where they can demonize labeled others without intellectual interference or empathetic overtures.
I am mindful of my time and that the hour draws late. As you might guess, I have much more to say on these topics and encourage you to visit my work published in Tormentors’ Quarterly and the Journal of Soul Corruption Techniques for more detailed guidance on how to use the internet to full effect. But allow me to just close by providing a few words of encouragement.
This is an exciting time for us as the demonic host, because humans have found themselves with more unbridled power and less soul-searching discipline than at any other time in history. The Enemy seeks to use these tools for promoting love, goodness, and salvation, but there is no doubt that we are winning. Humans today live on the privileges afforded to them from the sacrifices of previous generations and squander their time and resources on selfishness, self-delusion, and self-destruction. This old devil, for one, has never seen anything like it. What a time to be dead!
blakekathryn
dailybridgerton
romaincrisis
baratheonpilled