Oeaohoo

The perfect satire of Schmachtenberger and all of his kind:

How do people awaken? In all sorts of ways. Ideally, and ordinarily in prior times, through a mastery of some spiritual discipline. In most cases today, separation makes people miserable and they start looking for a way out of their misery. They grow in separation simply because time itself is a movement away from the original manifestation of the world out of consciousness. As time goes on, the memory of this origin becomes more distant. You don't have to take my word for it: what else did Plato mean when he said that all real understanding is remembering? The process that I have described is essentially that which every religion describes, albeit with certain variations and adaptations given the specific time and place. The end of time is the point at which the world is no longer serving any purpose. The salt has lost it's saltiness and so on... The world at this point is withdrawn back into pure consciousness and created anew. This process repeats itself indefinitely. When they finally wake up? Like you said, consciousness has realised itself and they collapse into Oneness!

This earth and this society. Organised degeneracy on a global scale. That is comparable to hell!

How on earth is that equivalent to nihilism?

In hell, Schmachtenberger chooses to analyse the flames; I choose to try to wake whoever I can up before getting the hell out of here!

Of course but these two phenomena really go together: a dumbed down mainstream culture and an overly "nuanced" crowd analysing it from the sidelines. Both of them "miss the boat"! Hell on earth. Mistaking itself for a new Heaven... Of course they don't! They are too "nuanced" for that... This is exactly what I mean. These people are such spineless effeminate molluscs that they lack the capacity to ever stand up for anything. Just a bunch of cosmopolitan intellectuals convincing themselves that they are saving the world simply by analysing its destruction!

I was just pointing out a way in which they are the same: mentally masturbating so as to avoid the obvious reality that confronts them. Obviously they are very different thinkers in other ways. Not obvious, to the spiritually blind... You know that Al-Dajjal, the Islamic Antichrist, is one-eyed? He only has an eye for the material dimension. Only a one-eyed man could fail to see contemporary civilisation for what it is! Probably not. Then again, even if he ultimately failed, Nietzsche was one of the last philosophers with the capacity for a holistic vision. The problem with people like Schmachtenberger is that they are so addicted to their compartmentalised and "nuanced" worldview that they fail to ever look upon reality with a complete and unwavering gaze. You yourself have described his work as "analysis". Do you think that mere analysis will cut it? At least Nietzsche understood the relevance of immanence and not just transcendence...

We were just playing around with rhyming phrases. Who knows, maybe Hegel had some deep experiences in his life. He probably did. Consciousness begins as itself; then it manifests a world of sentient beings who still remember and are connected with their divine origin; as time progresses, the distance between these creatures and their creator deepens and they forget who they really are; this process continues until, by the end of time, they have become completely lost in the dream of their separateness; at this point, consciousness realises itself once again and collapses everything back into Oneness. Those beings who had recognised their real nature within this cyclic process are liberated and do not return to limited and separate existence. The rest go round and round in this fashion until they finally wake up... This is the true vision of history. Anything else is "petty human bullshit"!

Things may be complex but what about the “one thing needful”? Have you noticed how all philosophers of the last hundred years or so use an extremely idiosyncratic, rarefied and abstruse vocabulary? Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Lacan... One has to study their works for months to have the slightest idea what they are on about. Why do you think this is? I think it is because the appropriate analysis of contemporary civilisation is so obvious that one has to create an elaborate system of thought so as not to see it for what it is! The obvious truth is that there is no Game B. Degeneracy has triumphed everywhere. All the nuance in the world is not going to be able to put all of this evil back inside Pandora's box. And do you remember the one evil which remained in Pandora's box after all the others had been unleashed? Hope. That is all these people are providing you with: false promises that team "nuance" is going to triumph over Satan himself...

Never mind that. To quote a much more profound man than the one above, the Italian esotericist Julius Evola: ‘His enemies claimed that Seth [the Egyptian God of destruction, chaos and foreigners who murdered his “good” brother Osiris] had abandoned his people, that he had confused them. But they couldn’t see beyond their noses. The confusion was in their heads. No, Seth had clear vision: you have to be a mischief maker in a society of idiots, of democrats, of molluscs. They of course will repay you with hatred, or indifference. Exile you to the wilderness of anonymity, to the desert of insignificance. They don’t realise they do you a favour. It is good being away from the riffraff! Seth had got it right. I could never have been a priest, not a priest of any monotheistic religion - my caste is warriors - but, a priest of Seth, perhaps…’ Thanks, sister. I think what bothers me most about these “intellectuals” is how neutered they are. They don’t call it neutered; they call it “nuance”! Isn’t it interesting that nuance is etymologically derived from the Latin word nubes, that is to say “a cloud, mist, vapor”? As what remains of our world slowly evaporates into the clouds of a tepid and bland universalism, it is only natural that an “intellectual” class would emerge who represent this trend; and that those who mistake this evaporation for “progress” would proceed to follow them… What really is “nuance”? The failure to have the courage of ones convictions; a retreat into the abstract realm of ideas, the peace and renewal that come from this being mistaken for “love” and “acceptance”; a tacit acquiescence to whatever are the current “terms of the debate”, and the vague sense of belonging that may come of this; exploring the endless ramifications of a certain set of logical axioms, and even being willing to play with other sets in the same way. What does any of this have to do with truth? Therefore, for those who would happily sing along to the French proverb “Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner!” (To understand all is to forgive all!) I would repeat this passage of Nietzsche’s Antichrist:

Why thank you… Stop or you’ll make me blush!

Stage Beige. If only because it’s the only one that rhymes!

This guy is so lame. I’d never before seen anyone who has a head shoved so far up their ass that they have their head in the clouds! What are “Rebel Wisdom” rebelling against? The meta-attempt to destroy the foundations of sense-making in the neo-feudal exponential tech space? What a lot of rubbish.

Sam Harris: “It was a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely, it was - but I think it was warranted.” (37 minutes) Steady on, Sam… Don’t give the game away so easily!

Hegel, he came before Nagel. He believed the future was better than the past: what a fable! He snuck in alchemical doctrine under the table. Schopenhauer labelled him a fraud and wondered if he was really able, to come up with anything more profound than a baby’s babble! He wasn’t disabled but he was rather ugly, nor did his dry dreary philosophy enable him to transcend the world of labels. He spoke about spirit without ever having seen it, he spoke about God without ever having been it. Still, at least he spoke about the State, before it was too late!

Indeed. Hegel talks about antiquated things like the State and civil society!

I've always enjoyed Schopenhauer and Nietzsche's hatred of almost everything German. I feel very much the same about the English...

Hegel died almost 200 years ago. I doubt his lectures are on YouTube... If they are, they might be a little fuzzy! They are published in book form. No. At least, not in the sense that this is generally meant. In this sense, evolution by natural selection is an attempt to explain all biological existence with reference to nature alone, excluding any explanation in terms of a "supernatural" or transcendent influence. This naturally emerged in the Victorian world of which Darwin was a product because that world was already more or less atheistic. Whilst it doesn't necessarily refute the idea that species adapt to their environment through processes of natural selection, it seems unspeakably obvious to me that there is a power at work in the natural world that is itself super-biological and supernatural. Even Hegel would not believe in an evolution conceived in these terms: in his philosophy, evolution does not occur through natural selection but through the action of Spirit as Consciousness and Will.

As is generally the case with modern philosophers, Hegel confounds certain profound truths with a vain and eccentric personal philosophy. The important parts of what you have quoted are really just restatements of eternal truths: the “absolute arbiter of things entirely unmoved by contingencies” is the Unmoved Mover of Aristotelian metaphysics; the spirit as Hegel describes it is essentially the Holy Spirit of Christianity, which is the feminine presence and driving power of God’s Will; the “latent germ of being” that he speaks of is the Hiranyagarbha (“World Egg”) of Hinduism; the completion and ultimate fulfilment of creation is the Pleroma (“Fullness”) of Gnosticism; and so on… To quote Ecclesiastes: “The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun”! If you are interested, there is an excellent book on the influence of esoteric Christian doctrine on Hegel called Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. The only difference between the ideas of Hegel and the traditional doctrines I have described above is that Hegel distorts them to fit in with the trending progressivist ideology of his time. History according to him is moving towards the freedom of consciousness. I don’t see much evidence for that personally; if anything, it seems to be moving towards the total enslavement of consciousness to power, passion and a merely material prosperity… The Stoic philosopher and slave Epictetus was more free in his consciousness than most people today! That being said, if we take “progress” to simply refer to the full unfoldment of the possibilities latent in the “germ of being” or “World Egg”, there is no problem.

Hahaha! It would certainly seem that way… But who knows, maybe “Dark Brandon” or Kamala Harris will pull some magical manoeuvres out of the works!

I haven’t yet listened to all of it but it seemed to be an evocation of the fluid aspect of consciousness, the alchemical prima materia which is pure formless substance that can consequently take any shape. It also reminded me of Lovecraft’s fiction, without of course his reactionary politics… In a literary-historical context, a peculiar mix of modernist stream of consciousness and desert Burning Man psychedelia!

Why not go all the way? Two cheeks of the same arse! It’s been a long time since conservatives actually conserved anything… Besides, particularly in America, what do you really have that is worth conserving? Very little in the way of deep-rooted traditions, sacred sites or proven pathways to higher states of being; just Puritanical Protestantism and a stupid constitution declaring the “self-evident truths” that all “human beings” have the “right” to “live” as animals, to debase themselves in the name of “liberty” and to “pursue happiness” at the expense of all spiritual accomplishments… I say: Get rid of it! Not that the situation is much better in most other places. As I understand it, the real meaning of modern progress is expressed in Nietzsche’s phrase: ‘that which you can’t teach to fly, teach to fall faster!’ You are right, though, that progress without conservatism is essentially suicide: welcome to what Burnham called the ‘Suicide of the West’!

That is certainly one possibility. Others might temporarily retreat to a concern for their own development, whether material or spiritual, and wait for a more auspicious time to engage with external events. Some might even engage with political matters whilst recognising the futility of it, either for it’s own sake or for the possibilities it might offer in terms of their personal development. Also, I don’t mean to prescribe a universal formula: it is possible that some people in “Tier 2” will feel called to act in some way in our current political climate and find ways to do worthwhile work within it. I just can’t help but feel that it is mostly wasted effort. In some sense all earthly endeavours are a compromise; after all, Truth, Love, Wisdom and all the rest of it are metaphysical realities of which the physical world is only a reflection. Our aim should be to make this world as clear of a reflection of these realities as possible. However, it is one thing to compromise with Truth itself, another to compromise with a healthy social order, and another still to compromise with an unhealthy one. To quote a typical passage of one of our last British Sages, Thomas Carlyle: To me, at least, working within the present system can only be a form of “ignoble conservatism”! Well, within the model “Stage Yellow” represents a shift back towards individualism and away from collectivism. “Stage Green” can therefore confuse this with the individualism of prior stages.

I would suggest that “Tier 2” is not compatible with a political system reduced to a system of compromises, which are essentially partial allegiances with the forces of “Tier 1”. In such a system, everything from a “Tier 2” perspective comes down to how one conceptualises history as a system: those who view history in terms of universal and linear progress will side with the most “spirally developed” “Tier 1” candidate, whilst those who view history in cyclic terms relative to a given civilisation will side with those who are most appropriate for the political moment. The former is what is generally seen around here. I would also like to say, though it isn’t necessarily relevant to this discussion, that the distinction between “Tier 1” and “Tier 2” is really just a liberal form of the ancient distinction between patricians and plebeians. It is not a matter of “stages of development” but of leaders destined to rule, who therefore require a direct connection with the divine and a capacity to think systematically, and of people destined to obey, who therefore require a mediated connection with the divine and to confine their concern to their own livelihoods; only the disdain for innate difference which abounds today requires everything to be framed in terms of “personal development”. That is not to say, of course, that the difference between the ruling and ruled classes is entirely innate and that there can be no social mobility. After all, the real “Tier 2” ambition is to create an Augustinian City of God as a pure physical reflection of metaphysical reality, and I don’t see much likelihood of that happening today… Why would anyone in “Tier 2” want to waste their precious time with this hopeless world of compromises? Better to let it destroy itself, as it understandably seems all too willing and able to do, and see what can emerge out of the ruins.

Beautiful. It is worth drawing out something that is implied in this: satanic pride is a deviated form of the heroic impulse. It is a failure of a trial, the result of pursuing a goal for which one is not qualified or prepared; in this case, “a state pure souls alone were able to attain.” Initiation, particularly in the pre-Abrahamic world, was often a matter of trials of this sort, ensuring that only those deserving of the highest truths would be able to receive them. After all, there is something audacious and almost arrogant in the pursuit of ultimate liberation: one is seeking to go beyond society and all human knowledge, the limitations of embodied existence and even of all gods as they are conceived; Buddhism in particular emphasises this aspect of conquering the gods themselves. If one deviates from the path during this pursuit, one danger is that the arrogance which was necessary in the beginning becomes inflated and takes on a titanic or even demonic form. In medieval chivalric literature, which also had an initiatic dimension in the sense that I have described it, this temptation was represented through the female figure of Orgeluse, whose name is literally the Old French word for “Pride”.