Oeaohoo

This isn’t overly surprising. The pioneering intellectuals of “Stage Green” all signed a petition to drastically lower the age of consent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws. The normalisation of child sexuality is one of the logical conclusions of the “Stage Green” form of moral relativism - that is, of a “relativism” which ironically imposes itself absolutely. According to this immature form of relativism, every moral stricture of the past has to be violated in the name of “liberation from the super-structures of oppression”. As we move further into Stage Green, increasingly fundamental strictures have to be “challenged”, and protecting children from sexualisation is one of the most fundamental for most people. Not to mention that “Stage Green” culture is characterised by a low-level obsession with sexuality in general. “Free your mind and your ass will follow”… Whilst I don’t believe in the Spiral of Progress, even those who do must admit that “Stage Yellow” must transcend this dogmatic relativism through a more profound form of inclusivity, one which is capable of meeting people where they are at rather than forcing a pet ideology onto them. Many people are converted to right-wing ideology today as a result of this and closely related issues. The demonisation of “Stage Green” today is often fuelled by the desire of ordinary parents to protect their children from miseducation, perversion and, in the worst case, exploitation. Of course, the “lower Stages” are hardly immune to this problem either. In most cases, though, they don’t go around actively and openly celebrating it like the more extreme advocates of “Stage Green” relativism do today.

This isn’t something that I have been personally involved with, though I noticed discussion of it whilst posting in “The Journal.” I think it was started by @thisintegrated and later joined by @AtheisticNonduality as well as probably some other people. I don’t know so much about the former user but neither of them strike me as people who would want to sabotage this forum or steal your followers. My impression is that they just wanted a space to discuss their views in a more private and efficient way. The open forum encourages a lot of lame posturing and grand-standing, making big statements about things rather than just having a friendly discussion. It’s also much slower than other messaging services. In other words, even if it might have been against the rules, I don’t think they were using Discord to sow discord! Obviously what I think is more or less irrelevant here but I don’t think it should be necessary to ban them. Yeah, exactly. I mostly only write anything on here so as to clarify/distil my own thoughts on something. Socialising with pixels on a screen gets a bit lonely after a while…

The progressive Left don’t need war as much because they dominate through soft power: manufacturing consent, relentlessly pushing for more radical change, never giving in or settling with what has already been “achieved”, gradually altering demographics, implying narratives of guilt and retribution through entertainment and education, creating an atmosphere of fear by enforcing denouncements of the “enemy” on every political issue, framing the opposition as “insane” rather than misguided or even evil and psychologising them through various other appeals to “mental health”, maintaining a therapeutic managerial state organised around a cult of normality and avoiding “extremism” (in other words, opposition to progress), forcing cultural change by claiming that it is “inevitable” because the “course of history” must bend towards progress (whilst simultaneously being terrified that it might not), systematically smearing the past whilst overlooking the evils of the present, using “anarcho-tyranny” or the deliberate sowing of chaos and discord within society (and particular within dissident spheres) so as to dispel any threat to their power, and so on ad nauseam. Who needs war and physical conflict when you can just gaslight everyone into agreeing with you? A question posed by many women…

Democracy Now! Demagoguery Then!

The ego can graft itself onto anything. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate the thing itself. The atheists also think they’re right and they aren’t attributing divinity to anything! They aren’t necessarily playing God either because God created all of the religions as paths back to Himself. What you are describing here would be a sort of straying off of the path by mistaking the path for the goal. Also, some of what you are describing here is not primarily the result of a belief in a theistic God. Christianity and Islam are ways of life as much as they are systems of belief, and these ways of life are in many ways incompatible. On the exoteric plane, there is always going to be conflict. It is an inevitable product of the diversity of life and a beautiful thing in its own way. Unity, on the other hand, is esoteric (though it includes all of this conflict within itself). I’m not sure that I agree with this. When an ego becomes convinced that it is divine, that is called megalomania! It is only true to say that the self is divine when it has reclaimed it’s original divinity.

If you ask me, this is a classic New Age mistake. Hardly anybody knows that they are God. It’s the ultimate Secret. Simply telling people, “You’re already divine! You don’t need any guidance or a framework to facilitate your spiritual development!”, will not create a society of God-realised beings. It will mostly just produce confusion and chaos.

It is more senile than infantile. If you were a 2000 year old religion, you might be a bit senile too! Extending this analogy, Fundamentalism is like the rigidity and brittleness of the elderly body. Christianity has become an increasingly intolerant religion as it has “progressed”. The main appeal of early Christianity to the late-Roman converts was its universalism, which suited an expansive empire. After this Empire fell in the West, Catholicism peacefully co-existed with residual forms of paganism and ordinary life for quite some time. The fusion of Christianity with pagan European spirituality can be seen beautifully depicted in the Grail myths, illustrated Christian texts like the Book of Kells, the chivalric love poetry which culminated in the greatness of Dante, and even just the general ambience of medieval Christendom. It was only towards the end of the Middle Ages that the famous persecutions and inquisitions came to predominate. The endless panoply of sects within Christianity, and the intolerance between them, mostly emerged with Protestantism, particularly in its Puritanical expressions. Many of these Puritans became the American settlers, such that contemporary American Evangelicals are the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to Christianity. We should try to think more systematically about religions, not as static entities to be generalised about, but as organisms with a life-cycle. Christianity today is a dying organism gasping for air… I was recently fascinated to discover that, according to the Prophecy of the Popes written in 1595, the present Pope is the last Pope! If all forms of Christianity were as brittle and intolerant as you make out, Christianity wouldn’t have survived for as long as it has.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the political revolutionaries of the past century were just straightforward traitors when they betrayed their ideals. One of the reasons that these people were so dangerous is that they were essentially failed artists; art being taken here in a very general sense as the domain of idealism, and politics as the domain of realism. For example, Communism didn’t start from a realistic version of how the world was but with a romantic and poetical vision of how it ought to be. The revolutionaries were able to betray their ideals so frequently because they never really cared about the mundane realities of politics. Any material hypocrisy was warranted so long as it served the cause of the attainment of their ideal world. Of course, in the long run this makes any revolution a sick joke: “In the name of my ideals, I am willing to betray all of my ideals!” As a failed artist myself, there is a little bit of confession in this analysis… A true Democrat is a Republican who rocked up to the party a few years early. A true Republican is a Democrat who got lost on the way and arrived a few years late!

René Guénon probably set the precedent for framing conspiracy in spiritual terms. I was recently reading Alexander Dugin’s critique of the Perennial Traditionalist idea of “counter-initiation” and the “counter-tradition” and he described it as follows: The meaning of counter-initiation is set out by René Guénon in his book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. In brief, we can say that Guénon understands counter-initiation to be the sum of secret organizations which, although in possession of initiatic and esoteric data, nonetheless direct their activities and efforts towards a goal which is the direct opposite of normal initiation. In other words, instead of striving towards the absolute, they head towards fatal disappearance and dissolution amidst the “reign of quantity” in its external twilight. In line with Islamic esotericism, Guénon called the hierarchs of counter-initiation Awliya es-Shaytan, that is to say the “saints of Satan.” In Guénon’s point of view, representatives of counter-initiation stand behind all the negative tendencies of modern civilization and are secretly administering the course of affairs down the path of degradation, materialization, and spiritual perversion.

Sorry if that all sounds very airy-fairy. I agree with your assessment of present-day society and I have no idea how you deal with the terror, other than just pulling through and recognising it for what it is.

If you mean this as some kind of absolute philosophical statement then it is very cynical. People can want what is best for each other, and the obvious fact that people often don’t want what is best for each other shouldn’t obscure this. I remember a passage in Aristotle where he pointed out that if you truly wanted what was best for your friend, you would want them to become a god. But if they became a god, they couldn’t be your friend anymore! So as a friend - that is, someone who truly wants what is best for someone else - you are stuck in a paradox. Of course, as long as we are flawed finite beings there is always the possibility of covetousness and all of the pettiness that comes with that. Alchemical texts always described “envy” as the greatest sin… Maybe Nietzsche caught the tail-end of this with his theory of “ressentiment” as the greatest sin.

Glad that you liked the parody! Whilst I am definitely sympathetic to the idea that he is harnessing fear to exploit his followers, I’m still somewhat ambivalent. The so-called “ego” does love to use this kind of paranoid skepticism as a defence mechanism. For example, a while back I studied Nietzsche’s book The Antichrist extremely closely, copying the whole thing by hand from the page to a notebook of mine. Whilst it is a very powerful and prescient text, it is extremely egotistical to the point of megalomania and full of just this kind of paranoid skepticism. Here is a typical passage (when he says “priest”, you can substitute any spiritual guru you are skeptical of for these reasons): This is a passionately exaggerated expression of what we are accusing Shunyamurti and others like him of, when we say that they are exploiting the fears of their followers. But I’m not so sure… Maybe we’re just too cynical to believe that anyone can be truly selfless. It’s always hard to know when you are projecting your own nonsense onto somebody else and when it is truly they that are flawed.

This video is a good example of this. At one point he even says, “Germany’s domestic policy has already for sometime been the destruction of its own society.” Dangerous words of wisdom from Shunyamurti! For sure. I even agree with him that society is collapsing and found it tiresome! I wrote a funny little parody of him a while back. Maybe somebody here will like it:

We’ve never spoken outside of this forum and AtheisticNonduality strongly disagrees with my attitude toward progressivism and related issues. I think you’re actually right about me to an extent, exaggerated accusations of QAnon and crude bigotry aside, but not so much about him. Not to gaslight you with psychologising but I also see a bit of projection here: you are only capable of interacting amicably with people who share your ideological sympathies, so you assume that this is true for everyone else. What I said above ought to be something you’d agree with anyway. Isn’t your basic fear of the “intolerant” destroying the “tolerant” society that has been created today?

That is a nice idea. But, to quote the Boomer classic “Revolution” by The Beatles, “You say you got a real solution / Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan”!

I think there could be a lot more of this around here! Not that @DrugsBunny will be pleased to hear it… However, I do wonder how tenable this sort of thing is as you move away from analysis towards practice. How much tolerance can there really be for intolerance? In material terms, intolerance will tend to overpower tolerance. For example, it two people are talking to each other, one open-minded and the other narrow-minded, it is much easier for the open-minded person to constrict themselves to the constraints of the small mind than vice versa, so that the views of the narrow-minded person will end up dictating everything. What is the solution to this?

I wonder how much of this comes from our stupid obsession with the individual artist as “genius”. The general conception of the “artist” today owes a lot to Romantic poets like Shelley and Byron, who narcissistically stood aloof from humanity whilst plunging the depths of their individual subjectivity and regurgitating it for the rest of the world to digest. This stands in stark opposition to the great artists of the traditional past - for example, those who built and painted the Churches and Cathedrals of Christendom - who generally remained anonymous. This was an ideal of objectivity (I use this word not to refer to the idea of an “objective” material world but in a more or less Platonic sense) which allowed the artist to transcend their petty human nature. Now, however, our culture is obsessed with this petty human nature and actively denies everything beyond it. When you take this to its conclusion, you get millions of people poring over every word that is impulsively summoned up from the psychological puddle-depths of the supposed “geniuses” of our time like Kanye. Who cares what Kanye has to say about political issues? It’s not his area of expertise or what, as a “celebrity”, he is celebrated for. One of the main absurdities of democracy is the idea that we have to take every drooling morons “opinion” into account on every damned issue.

The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But here, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and war-aims and operation-plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows, nor is allowed to know, the purposes for which he is used, nor even the role that he is to play. A more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined. Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares, but cannot; his will to think is only a willingness to think to order, and this is what he feels as his liberty.’ Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West. My conception of freedom. — The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it — what it costs us. I shall give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic — every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Twilight of the Idols.

This was at least nominally a “free market”, so that it is always self-described Classic Liberals who make the most noise about free speech. In the 21st Century, freedom is subordinated to Safety. This is typical decadence as the feminisation of culture, though I know it is supposed to be “Stage Green” growing out of “Stage Orange”. Not that the “free market” was much better..! It is a peculiar phenomenon that this Safety is simultaneously the logical conclusion and the inversion of liberal values. Extreme liberalism as anti-liberalism.

Why don’t these people just come out and say it? They want to live in a post-liberal one-party democracy where everyone is forced at flower-gun point to comply to the progressive agenda. Oh, my mistake, we mustn’t call it an agenda, that might give it away! It is the entirely beneficent guiding of us undeveloped lambs towards the light by the Shepherd of our souls, those “most developed folks in the world” over at Silicon Valley of the Shadow of Death. The Right must stop appealing to “freedom of speech” because the age of “freedom” is already over. Liberalism was only ever a brief respite between two forms of illiberalism: the enforcement of Truth, and the enforcement of lies.

I haven't watched any of Kanye's interviews, except for a few clips were he comes across as extremely incoherent, but I like his new song! Nice Donny Hathaway sample. "Everyone's a Karen / Claimin' that they care"... "I forgot what fear is / Other than the fear of the almighty Yashua / Who knew you before you knew who you was"! My favourite line is: "You knew I follow God, so you should follow me". This is exactly how a hierarchy (which etymologically means "sacred ruler") is supposed to be: a leader who follows God and people who follow their leader! Then, everyone is following God... It confirms what I wrote about Kanye the other day, which I refrained from posting here: I could be wrong but my suspicion is that Kanye doesn’t really care about the actual content of what he is saying. All he cares about is exercising his notion of “freedom”, which is “my right to do whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want to”. This childish sense of “freedom” is inhibited by anything which “they say you’re not supposed to do”. Since 1945, the ultimate thing that you are not supposed to do is everything that Kanye has recently been doing. He is essentially stuck in a vicious circle of taboo-breaking in the name of “freedom”… It is really a positive development for you progressives. Very few people will be convinced by any of what Kanye is saying because he is obviously unhinged. This bolsters the association in the common mind between conspiratorial thinking and mental illness. Not only that, but many on the Right will follow Kanye off the cliff of his own personal melodrama. This debacle can also be used to smear Trump and even Musk’s takeover of Twitter!

This is epitomised in Nietzsche’s phrase: “That which you cannot teach to fly, teach to fall faster!”

When a Conservative knows they can no longer conserve, they will instead seek to destroy. Out of that destruction, there is the hope that something new might arise that is worth preserving. As a thirst for something new, this can look like Liberalism. You see this in the more extreme and iconoclastic strands of Conservative thought, for example in Nietzsche’s Antichrist. Nazism also was extremely destructive of traditional German culture. On the other hand, when a society is extremely liberal, Liberals will of course want to conserve it!

They come full circle in the life-cycle of a civilisation. For example, look at the American situation today and how inverted it has become. The Conservatives want to destroy America and the Liberals want to conserve it… Conservatism and Liberalism have come full circle!