Enigma777

Ok well then I have a simple question for you: How do you reconcile the so called blue traditionalist perspective of transcendent principles and fundamental moral order with the turquoise conception of timeless universal principles. Of course, blue morality is generally rigid, dogmatic and made up of bullshit platitudes we don’t wanna hear anymore, BUT how do you explain someone like whatifalthist having genuine awareness of fundamental spiritual truths and being at a blue center of gravity? We’re not talking about a simple blue stage morality here, it’s more complex than that, how do you explain this complexity? Cuz the morality he’s proposing is not simply some blue stage rhetoric, it’s much deeper than that and I don’t know how to reconcile that with turquoise teachings. So how do you? And btw, Peterson was critical of Trump back when it didn’t grease his pockets to praise him, so no, he’s not fundamentally a Trump apologist, he became one when it served his interests.

I saw @Leo Gura’s blog post about the YouTube channel “whatifalthist”, and since I think it raises crucial issues at many levels, I thought a more extensive conversation on the subject was necessary. First of all, taking into consideration the spiritual insights that he brings to the table, to simply dismiss him as a blue stage reactionary seems like an oversimplification. Sure, his videos are to a certain degree corrupted by a stream of stereotypical and immature right wing ideology but I think this is fundamentally rooted in the complete failure of the modern political zeitgeist, based on leftist politics, to bring any sort of higher order meaning to the collective. Meaning that you don’t have to be a radical conservative ideologue to be dissatisfied with the modern leftist discourse; over the years, we have seen people who identified with the left wing such as Joe Rogan(who, as he stated himself, would’ve been a Bernie Sanders voter a few years back) and Russel Brand suddenly shift poles in terms of their political identification. This, in my estimation, is a sort of Hegelian dynamic, the dialect between the political left and right forming a sort of pendulum where extremes are compensated by antithetical motions of the pendulum swinging in opposite directions and balancing out the collective dynamic. The ideologies of the left went too far and a natural systemic compensation arose, leading masses of people to start leaning on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Therefore, I think that Rudyard is less of a radical right wing ideologue(although he might advertise some radical ideas to pander to a certain audience) but simply another individual who’s dissatisfied with the hollow and spiritually emtpy doctrine of the modern left. Peterson is right to say that old institutions falling away and the West losing its identity and tradition laid the ground for the dissolution of collective identity, meaning and fundamental orientation in the world. And this is a problem that the left simply hasn’t solved. Now, it is a very difficult problem to solve and one I do not think figures such as Peterson are capable of solving, but I do believe that, if listened to closely, thinkers such as whatifalthist might bring something closer to a meaningful answer. My critique of Leo’s commentary on him is that it is overly simplistic. Again, to dismiss Rudyard as a blue reactionary is just too easy. How would you explain the spiritual insights he clearly has? A high level of waking up but a low level of growing up? Perhaps, but in one of his videos(linked below), he mentions Ken Wilber and integral theory, showing an understanding of the developmental nature of consciousness development. Leo himself once said that Lower levels are not aware of the spiral. He might present blue stage ideas yet, he’s still aware of the spiral. How do you explain that? See, Leo always wants to remind people of the complexity of reality, but oftentimes he himself seems to overlook it and oversimplify his arguments especially when it fits his own political biases. Leo often touches on politics, always from a left leaning perspective but he never seems to bring a higher paradigm than the modern left to the discourse. Yes, I’ve watched his videos on conscious politics and am aware of his propositions on world government and a conscious society, yet he rarely speaks from this perspective in the rest of his political opinions. He doesn’t seem to address major problems with the modern left such as the pervasive lack of meaning that it’s paradigm induced in society and too easily dismisses the commentaries of figures such as Peterson(which is not your average conservative or fundamentalist). Also, Leo is a left leaning political thinker, which is fundamentally a relativistic paradigm which offers no higher order solution to the chaos of modernity. Yet, he’s also aware of fundamental spiritual principles underlying the structure reality and by extension, human existence, yet he rarely mentions the role of these principles as far as politics and government goes. A relativistic society is simply not compatible with an awareness of these higher principles. In conclusion, here’s a whatifalthist video that’s pretty solid(although admittedly somewhat corrupted by a certain level of modern day right wing ideology): Watch this video and tell me he’s just another blue level thinker. You simply cannot do that, this is a gross oversimplification. He brings solid point there and even though I might disagree with the use of the term “right” in this context, to conceptualize of a society that honours timeless transcendent principles and traditional moral values in the purpose of reestablishing meaning and order seems to be a hell of a lot better than what we have now as a society and culture. Yes, your spirituality can be tainted by right or left wing biases, but it’s still higher in paradigm than the modern secular left.

Hey @Leo Gura, I would want your personal opinion on the WEF. Most of what I see online are right wing capitalists and conservative propagandists blindly reacting to the idea of “globalization” and demonizing this organization. So I wanted a non biased alternative perspective on them and thus came here From what I see from them they seem to be at a green/emergent yellow perspective. They seem to be high up on the spiral and seem to embody the healthy aspects of green. Just like in an individual’s psyche, the disparate parts must come together(through Love) to form a coherent whole, do you think the WEF and their plans of globalization are the doorway towards a greater global unity and a reaching up collectively on the spiral? I heard you speak about the conscious future of humanity being a unified one world government, and the WEF might be a doorway towards this happening. We know what happened in the 20th century with ideologies promoting the dissolution of boundaries(communism) for the greater good, which is representative of the shadow of green, it’s toxic aspect. Could the WEF be the healthy green going into yellow the collective was waiting for, and the prerequisite for a future global turquoise government? Where do you stand on all of this

I remember hearing Leo say that Jordan Peterson might be a stage yellow thinker with a green shadow. I did get the gist of what that meant but without any specific insight into the psyche of Peterson. It’s easy to see that it is the case that he has such a shadow because of his emotional reactions and anger when talking about his postmodern neo-Marxist nightmare but it is another thing to have actual insight into the mechanics of such a shadow. A channel named “The living philosophy” made a video about Peterson that, in 25 minutes, gives you much more information on what’s wrong with J.P than @Leo Gura’s video could in 2+ hours. It is a masterpiece diving in Peterso’s shadow: Did you know that J.P was in a socialist group while in college and that he upheld utopian ideals for society, most likely the kind of ideals he now is a fierce critique of? I also remember him talking with his daughter on a podcast saying how in the same period of his life(college) he had multiple failed relationships. He identified the cause of these failures as his tendency to put his girlfriends on a pedestal. He also has been very opened about his struggles with alcohol, major depression and a lack of order in his life in his early twenties. So what does this tell us about him? We all know the stereotype of the passive, weak, liberal nice guy who upholds such ideas as socialism, feminism etc and who bends over backwards to please females in an effort to be validated. Well it seems like Jordan Peterson in college was exactly this type of guy and that, through a certain psychological process, he became the opposite(through Enantiodromia) of what he was to a certain degree and made a shadow of his past self. So Peterson, appearing as a disciplinarian, capitalist conservative is actually a soft, socialist liberal. In fact, deep down, he’s the very thing he’s fighting. That’s why he straw men’s the progressive type; he couldn’t do otherwise, as he sees his own shadow, his own self projected out of him. When he sees the liberal sjw’s, he is really seeing himself in them, and reacting to them not objectively as they are, but reacting to the contents of his own mind projected outward of himself and onto his environment. If you watch the video, notice how he frames Foucault as a suicidal outcast using his very high IQ to impose his pathological postmodern ideology on others. Well, as stated above, J.P himself has been open about his struggles with severe depression and about the desire that arises to use one’s intellect to acquire power(talking about having to face this temptation himself). He’s a very intellectual type so we can imagine he also was a nerd type of guy, maybe making him an outcast to a certain degree. So when you see him talk about Foucault in the video, replace the name “Foucault”, with “Peterson”, as if he was talking in third person. It’ll make more sense and you’ll see how he’s ultimately talking about himself. So yeah, huge green shadow. It’s sad, he could’ve been such an apex level intellectual without his issues, biases and shadows, yet in the end they held him back from unfolding his true potential. And if you listen to J.P too much and without this context, your mind is gonna be infected by his shadows and pathology, a trap too many have fallen into. Don’t fall into the Peterson trap.

I get what you’re saying and it is true, most people do live in a cave of some sort. But I wasn’t referring to those people. Notice how people who are ideological and dogmatic can also be properly adapted to physical reality and relate properly to the external world. I was specifically referring to a process by which a socially maladapted individual becomes absorbed by inflationary ideas(ideas that lead to inflation of ego) leading him to lock himself in a conceptual world, remaining stuck in his fantasies while his physical life remains unactualized. Leo speaks about such people. The people who listen to him and his big ideas and concepts while not having any kind of real world success and experience. But from a psychological perspective this issue goes way deeper than I’ve seen him address. It can create serious neurosis to be maladapted to physical reality while engaging with such ideas. And Leo Gura’s ideas are among the most inflationary you could possibly come accross so I wanted to highlight the danger for some people. Hence the videos that I linked, to help individuals in such a situation get out of it.

Also this video outlines the process of many individuals who engage with inflationary ideas in such a way:

I am sure most of you here are aware of Plato’s allegory of the cave and the shadows on the wall; representative of a state of absorption into illusion and a disconnection from truth, the real world, represented by the sun rays shining in the cavern. Too often, people in communities such as this one become infatuated with big, inflated ideas communicated by charismatic gurus and such figures. They unconsciously absorb worldviews and their whole perspective of reality become filtered through such worldviews, to the point where they encase themselves in a bubble of theories and concepts. They even adopt such ideas as dogma, parroting buzz words and catch phrases they learned from a certain figure, without truly being conscious of who they are as individuals and where they stand. They get absorbed by these ideas, and through such process, become prisoners of a cave, infatuated with shadows on a cave wall, disconnected from the real world and the materiality of things. To live infatuated with external figures and fancy ideas is to be a prisoner, and I suspect that it is the case of many individuals here. Many times, engagement with intellectual subjects is used as a compensation for a lack of ability to properly engage with the world. One thus becomes hyper intellectual as a way of compensating for their failure to properly adapt to the demands of life and allow their egos to become inflated by the highfalutin ideas they engage with, believing themselves to be superior or different from the rest of their human peers. The content that @Leo Gura shares online, as much as I myself like it, is especially dangerous for that kind of projection to happen. It can easily trap individuals into a conceptual world where they feel elevated and superior, while remaining stuck in a cave of conceptual thinking and lack of proper adaptation to actual reality. The ideas that Leo shares act as perfect psychic containers of projections by individuals who start identifying with such ideas. Also, it is important to note that whatever pathology a given guru exhibits, will be transferred unto and picked up by whoever follows such guru, because an identification with a given figure leads to psychological transference of both good and bad aspects of such figure. And we have already seen Leo in the past become highly inflated himself, reaching a point of arrogance that borders on delusion. I acknowledge that he has become aware of it and grew in wisdom throughout the years which is honourable, but the point still remains that being exposed to such content can easily lead maladapted and hyper intellectual individuals into further delusion. Leo’s ideas are exactly the kind that leads to such happening, and I haven’t seen him address this enough. I am not one of those people who will call Leo a cult leader, I am well aware of his work and respects it very much. I know that he has warned his followers throughout the years about certain dangers that I have outlined here but I just think he has failed to PROPERLY and thoroughly address this danger which I believe affects more people here than he may think. That is why below are two videos from depth psychologists speaking about the very same dangers I’ve outlined but with the ideas of Carl Jung. But you could replace “Carl Jung” by “Leo Gura” or any other guru/teacher for that matter:

The following is a short text I came up with on sociological entropy. The concepts I had in mind when I first wrote it were emergent phenomena like crimes rates, different ideological currents overtaking certain societies, the rise and fall of different businesses, corporations, public figures(healthy or toxic) and how their level on the spiral dynamics scale of consciousness is a reflection of the state of the broader collective etc. We see a lot of “green” and even healthy, well meaning, orange and blue people trying to tackle these issues but it always end up being some sort of radical solution or ideological war never going to the root cause of the problem. So here’s a brief summary of how society can get to the bottom of such issues(in the end, only higher levels of consciousness will do it): “From a sociological perspective, we’re only the victims of entropy induced emergent phenomena when we do not have sufficient understanding and awareness of the broader patterns giving rise to said phenomena. Whether at an individual(micro) scale or at a societal(macro) scale, developing an understanding of the patterns of non linear causation can help us break or prevent negative emergent phenomena and induce desired ones. Now obviously, every set of variables in any system can’t possibly be taken into consideration, so entropy, and therefore unwanted emergent phenomena will always occur, but the more we foster an understanding of fundamental natural patterns at different levels of existence the more we can limit the spread of “cancerous” or parasitic archetypal forces. The less conscious an invididual or a society is, the more of a victim it will be to the tides of unseen forces directing its course. The more conscious a system is on the other hand, the more it will be able to act in accordance with the fundamental laws governing the universe and to deliberately steer itself on a more optimal course of being or timeline/field configuration.”

Jesse Lee Peterson is a known political commentator. At first glance he is a clown to be laught at and not someone to be taken seriously. He’s a Christian but just like with most(especially conservative) religious individuals you would expect ideological dogma and pure idiocy but in a new interview that came out you actually can notice that he has some level of spiritual, metaphysical and psychological knowledge. Skip at 34:15 “Forgiveness will set you free”. I think he’s far from truly understanding what he’s saying and even further from actual integration but damn, such knowledge from someone that you would consider a right wing normie. Because what he says relating to forvgiveness of the mother, even though extremely simplified and crude, is very accurate from a psychological and spiritual perspective. It’s way deeper than how he communicates it but even then, he has some grasp of extremely deep concepts while apparently being not very conscious, extremely biased, homophobic etc. Do you,@Leo Gura have any explanation for how some normies having a baseline level of consciousness that is very low, can demonstrate such feats of abstract comprehension. I would’ve never expected such sauce to come out of this man’s mouth this has given me a pretty rough mind fuck. He even speaks about Gods energy being something that brings(even though not in these words) equanimity(which he basically calls peace). He speaks about how Gods energy transcends the neurotic up and downs of the ego and centres you in something more fundamental basically which gives you peace, or what is most commonly referred to in our circles as equanimity. This is extremely deep knowledge that someone like him SHOULD NOT be aware of in the least. What’s going on here?

Knowing that big corporations are at least as powerful as the state, you could ask yourself. Interesting series of documentaries on the subject:

They overlap. There is no contradiction between them. You seem to have a crude conception of both these things, the only problem is in how you see these concepts. Spirituality is the continuation of self actualization. The purpose of self actualization is the same as individuation in Jungian terms. The purpose of spirituality is the dissolution of the IDENTIFICATION with the individual. But in the natural process of the evolution of your consciousness, spirituality is nothing but a continuation of self actualization. Individuation is a prerequisite to the transcendence of identification with such individuality, they are not opposites, they are part of a continuum. In spiral dynamics, you must go through and burn the karma of previous stages before being properly integrated at a new level of consciousness. So again, they are part of the same process just like an orgasm is the product of the continuation of masturbation, well spirituality is the continuation and emerging product of evolving your consciousness to a certain level. I highly recommend you Leo’s video about burning karma.

No you didn’t properly read what I said. Masculinity and femininity are concepts true, but what is not a concept is what they are POINTING TO. These are not arbitrary constructs, they are constructs as long as they remain in the realm of mind and words. But look at what they are pointing to within yourself. Dont think. Feel. What is your body telling you? What kind of porn do you watch? What kind of sexual fantasies do you have? What do you truly want? If you listen closely and pay attention to your psyche and the message it sends, the answer will be clear and you’ll understand what I mean. Unless you are asexual or something you are like most souls and are under the law of gender. “Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all planes”. What is masculinity? What is femininity? The answers are not found in the rational mind. They are found in the imagination(intuitive aspect of the mind) through fantasies and in our penises and vaginas. FEEL what being a man/woman is. This is fundamental in actual nature, this is God given.

Also this is not coming from some alpha red pill ideologue Andrew Tate type of “Man”. This is coming from someone who embraces more than most the feminine aspects of his psyche like unconditional love, presence, fun etc. In fact I’ve realized you can’t be a true man without that. Integrating the feminine aspects of your psyche even strengthens your masculinity. So this is not some ideological rant of some butt hurt wanna be macho man, I am just expressing my metaphysical knowledge and my concerns of letting behind the divine(integrated, healthy) masculine and the divine feminine and that doing so is a mistake of tremendously dangerous implications. Woman need strong men and men need nurturing woman, there is no going around that and any philosophy trying to deny this simple fact will just contribute to make EVERYBODY more miserable. If you are a serious intellectual, these videos might help you:

So I am watching the video “is gender a social construct” and even though I agree with @Leo Gura on most of what he says, the blurring of the line between masculine and feminine is a mistake. Of course, there is no definite line and it’s a spectrum, but, masculinity and femininity are fundamental aspects of nature. Now one argument he gave is that, before animals and humans existed, there was no male or female. This is only partially true. The truth is that the principles from which masculinity and femininity emanate from have always existed. The metaphysical principles of expansion and contraction, or the active and passive principles(Yin/Yang) have ALWAYS existed. Of course from the ultimate perspective these dualities are just conveniences that God used to manifest itself into form and to interact with itself and from the absolute perspective no such distinctions exist, but to claim that here, there is nothing fundamental about masculinity and femininity and that these things are nothing but mental constructs is, again, a mistake. There are objective ways into which the female genome and male genome manifest themselves through our behaviour. Even though reality is nuanced and there are masculine woman and feminine men, they are a minority. And even then, notice that an individual either leans more to what we identify as “masculine” or “feminine” or a mix of those but never to some other unknown pattern of behavior. What does that tell us? That these are the primary forces of nature forming this plane of reality that we exist on. Feminine creatures are more passive, nurturing, emotional/intuitive, receptive(Vagina, *being* penetrated) etc. Masculine creatures are more active, grounded, aggressive/forward going, penetrative(Penis, *Doing* the penetration). So a mistake Leo is making is to say that all of these patterns of behavior are subjectively and arbitrarily ascribed to stereotypical and imaginary constructions that we call “Men” and “Woman” for the purpose of survival. There is an aspect of it BUT this is not all there is to it!!!! He seems to forget that DIRECT EXPERIENCE IS KING. There is a difference between the mind/intellect and the instincts(here I am not talking about the big Mind but the rational aspect of the human condition). The instincts are something fundamental that are not created(created by God yes, not socially created) but DIRECTLY felt and experienced regardless of conceptual projections or not. Woman or feminine creatures seek the masculine for (emotional not necessarily financial) stability, security and having a strong pillar acting as a contrast to their chaotic natures. They want a powerful figure of authority and discipline(without him being a tyrant as nobody likes being oppressed which is pathological masculinity). That’s why most woman want to be “taken” and often fantasize about dangerous, tough men and want their man to be taller and stronger than them. Notice that a woman doesn’t want a more emotional men, because according to the law of polarity, there is no magnetic or energetic pull and thus no *attraction*. In the same way men, or masculine individuals, want soft, sweet, nurturing, happy, smiling partners who can calm their incessant desire for conquest, their fire of masculine intensity burning within them. They do not want a strong, independent, tough, dangerous, big partner, for the same reason that feminine individuals do not want feminine partners, because attractions works through opposites and masculinity and femininity happen to be FUNDAMENTAL opposites(that complement each other) of nature. Now of course the healthier solution in both cases is for the feminine to integrate the masculine aspects of her psyche(Animus in Jungian philosophy) and be in a state of cohesion, alignement and balance and for the masculine to integrate the joyful, present, happy and nurturing aspects(Anima) of its consciousness. As Leo once said, the goal is to become both men and woman or balancing both of these energies within ourselves and this is very true. So my point is that these things are not merely social constructs. The fact that a young man wants to drive fast on the highway is not a cultural construct based on an arbitrary projection of expected behaviour, but something that is deep in our nature, fundamentally. In fact, the expectation that men should engage in such behaviors, emerged from our implicit subconscious understanding of our fundamental nature. Our sexual fantasies are also not constructs as they are FELT and directly experienced. There are very definite ways into which the feminine genome strives to survive(being as attractive, sweet and nurturing as possible as to seduce the most powerful and dangerous male of the tribe) and ways into which the masculine genome tries to survive(being as confident, secure, dominant as possible so as to crush opposing masculine competition and gain the best female for reproduction). THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY!!!! Recent waves of feminism and other such modern movements trying to claim that there is absolutely no such things as femininity and masculinity are a tremendous danger to the survival and thriving of the human genome. No matter what kinds of ideas you hold, it doesn’t matter, instincts are there whether you are conscious of them or not. Also my final point would be that, I find @Leo Gura to be disingenuous in his claims simply because he himself is undeniably still run by his hormones and instincts, and no matter what he says about identity(which he is mostly right about from a matter of absolute perspective) he still is run by the most primal aspects of his carnal being. He doesn’t want to be fucked by some woman with a strap on or be taken charge of. He most likely wants to be in control in the bed and take initiative and he doesn’t relate to men the same way he does woman. He wants to fuck woman and has a different kind of relationship with them as he does with men. He also probably doesn’t want to put on a nice dress, make himself all pretty and be picked up by his date who’s gonna open the doors for him and pay dinner, an idea which most likely repels him or at the very least, is simply totally unrealistic to him. It’s not true that masculine or feminine roles are constructed and don’t matter, it’s very real and it’s F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L. So no matter what he says, the activity of the masculine energy is there in him also which deconstructs any claim that masculinity and femininity are constructs. You can’t think your way through relating in such a fundamental way, what you directly experience and feel is what is real, and the feeling is either masculine or feminine. This stuff is deep within the core of your soul, whether you carry a more masculine energy or a more feminine energy.

Anyone studying the future of the world and where it’s headed to has inevitably come across the World Economic Forum(WEF); This intergovernmental organization that connects the worlds most powerful corporations and government leaders from all major countries. But then the following question arises: Is the WEF an evolution in the progress of humanity or a dangerous organization that we should be worried about. People like Russel Brand and Jordan Peterson have pointed out some of the dangers associated with them from a rational instead of conspiratorial perspective and it can be hard to discern the true nature of the World Economic Forum because of all these good points on both sides: I am wondering what people on this forum and more specifically, what do you, @Leo Gura think about the WEF. Do you see it as a necessary stepping stone in the healthy spiral development of humanity towards a healthy green stage Global Government or do you think it is justified to be worried about it and a possible dystopian China-like future it could impose to the world?