Enigma777

It’s really not that simple, man. People aren’t having fewer kids because they “forgot” how to repopulate — it’s because of a whole web of socioeconomic and cultural factors: the cost of living, housing prices, women entering the workforce, declining religious influence, delayed marriage, and overall lifestyle expectations in modern economies. You can’t just say, “we’ll repopulate like we used to.” Society has completely changed. Families today can barely afford one child, let alone three or four. And what exactly would “repopulating” even look like in policy terms? Are we talking forced monogamy? Government-mandated births? Financial incentives so big they tank the economy? That’s the thing — you can’t just will a demographic recovery into existence. Western birth rates have been below replacement for decades despite multiple government programs trying to reverse it (tax breaks, parental leave, childcare benefits, etc.). It’s not a moral issue — it’s structural. So immigration isn’t some conspiracy to “replace” people — it’s literally how modern economies stay afloat when the native population is shrinking. It’s not ideal or utopian, but it’s pragmatic.

I get where you’re coming from, but you’ve gotta look at this in historical context — especially the global political shifts after WWII. Key things to research are globalism, free markets, liberal democracy, and how they emerged in the mid-20th century. It’s not that our political leaders are sitting in a room plotting to “dissolve our culture.” Sure, you’ll always find a small group of ideological activists — usually in academia or social movements — who use extreme rhetoric like “abolish whiteness” or “down with patriarchy.” But the idea that this minority somehow represents most Western politicians is just paranoia pushed by certain right-wing circles. It doesn’t match reality. And to be fair, the progressive side isn’t entirely wrong either. It’s easy to forget that racial segregation in the U.S. ended only about 60 years ago. We’ve only recently become a racially egalitarian society, and no reasonable person wants to roll that back. It’s not about “moral dogma” — it’s just common sense. The broader shift toward globalization and multiculturalism has been happening for decades. It wasn’t started by “woke” activists or some shadowy cabal — it was largely a geopolitical response to the devastation of two world wars. Nationalism had just plunged the world into chaos twice, so international cooperation and integration seemed like the only sane path forward. That’s why we saw the rise of organizations like the UN, NATO, the EU, and global trade systems. The underlying idea was that interconnected economies and multicultural societies would make another world war less likely. It was a utopian dream, maybe naïve in parts, but not an evil conspiracy. So no — politicians today aren’t trying to erase Western culture. They’ve just inherited a system built on the post-war ideal of global peace and integration. Whether that ideal still works in today’s world is a valid debate — but saying it’s “proof of a great replacement” is a massive oversimplification of what’s really going on.

The mistake is in falsely assuming that this is some kind of organized effort to undermine *your* tribe and *your* culture, by some sort of evil globalist elite attempting to tear everything down. Like, chill bro, Klaus Schwab ain’t trying to erase white people from existence. This document from the UN doesn’t support the “Great Replacement” theory; if anything, it undermines it. It shows you that western politicians are, yes, trying to bring in more people from the four corners of the world, but not with some sort of nefarious purpose in mind, but for very straightforward socio-economic reasons. There are very real statistics on fertility rates among native white westerners, and there have been for decades now; our populations in developed occidental countries have been shrinking for various(not intentional cause, that would be impossible) reasons for a while and politicians are trying to bring in more people to fill the gap. Do you know why a smaller population is bad? Plenty of reasons; shrinking labor force which weakens the economy, shrinking tax base, high dependency ratio of retiree workers(toll on social funds and resources), smaller military etc. Life’s already hard and complicated enough as individuals, do you really think some group of “elites” has the time and energy to dedicate to…what? Tearing down civilization? There are a bunch of rational, data based, reality based concerns for why to bring in large numbers of immigrants. Your conspiracy theories just pull a veil in front of your eyes and drown you in fantasy. Your politicians(as flawed as they are) aren’t trying to destroy civilization or social engineer anything man. Chill

The so-called “Great Replacement” is less a geopolitical reality than a psychological projection I think the Great Replacement is a theory born out of a primal, biological impulse to be defensive and paranoid about the survival and perpetuation of one’s tribe or familiar in-group. We live in a globalized world, but we still carry the same set of instincts that our Paleolithic ancestors possessed. So we tend to operate on very primal, instinctive grounds — and then backwards-rationalize our irrational emotions through theories, mental constructs, and ideologies. What’s really fueling this “Great Replacement” idea is a kind of fundamental animal paranoia. It comes from a deep sense of being threatened, from fear and insecurity. You also have to factor in personality types — some people are simply more “neurotic,” more prone to fear and distrust than others. This overlaps with the well-documented personality differences between conservatives and progressives: conservatives generally have higher threat sensitivity and lower openness, which explains why this theory circulates almost exclusively in right-wing circles. So, psychologically speaking, the Great Replacement is a paranoia-fueled mental construct, behind which sits a very primal fear as its source. Now, sure — the world is changing. Cultures, rigid national borders, and fixed identities are dissolving. Everyone’s mixing together, and yes, that means your idealized white nationalist Christian state is disappearing. But… so what? Are the “evil Muslims” going to impose Sharia law? Are we going to devolve into third-world chaos because we imported all those uncivilized monkeys from the four corners of the globe? Those fears are baseless, irrational, and grounded in raw emotion, not fact. So no, there’s no “great replacement.” It’s all just a collective ego backlash. Sit back, watch it all unfold. It’s just another distraction.

Yea, solid too; that’s the difference between uncritically adopted beliefs and actual understanding. Spirituality isn’t about blind belief, fundamentalist faith, or dogma. It’s about experience(Participatory Epistemology/Gnosis) and understanding for yourself.

And Yes, that’s exactly what I refer to as the 5th Pillar: Gnosis, or Participatory Epistemology — a mode of knowing that’s direct, experiential, and unmediated by ideology, intellect, or conceptual filters. So the primacy of direct experience is indeed a core principle of the framework. And I fully agree regarding the deconstruction of self and identity: traditions that reinforce the “lower self” or serve personal survival agendas, rather than orienting toward awakening and transcendence, are seen as distortions or inversions of genuine spirituality within the system I presented.

Hey, totally fair point — and I actually agree that truth can be found across a wide variety of spiritual paths. The framework I laid out isn’t about dogmatically excluding anything or “canonizing” certain paths over others, but about discerning degrees of depth and alignment with universal metaphysical principles. It’s not a theological list of “approved” beliefs, but more of a meta-evaluative tool — a way to tell the difference between forms of spirituality that genuinely orient consciousness toward transcendence, and those that get stuck in ego, psychism, or horizontal materialism. So it’s about quality of alignment, not sectarian boundaries. It’s meant to bring nuance and structure to an otherwise chaotic spiritual landscape — not to shut anyone out of it. And also, there’s a key distinction between a teaching containing nuggets of truth and it constituting a coherent initiatory system. Many movements express fragments of higher principles, but few actually structure those truths into a path aligned with transcendence, discipline, and realization, and many (if not most) contain subtle corruptions and fundamental mistakes that can and do lead seekers astray. My framework is about promoting discernment in this vast sea of spiritual paths, and promoting rigorous but flexible standards for evaluating them — not denying truth wherever it appears or create rigid, dogmatic distinctions.

Amazing, glad to hear it. Hope it can be helpful on your path. (Thanks for engaging with the content, it’s pretty heavy and nerdy)

That’s a big one. Spirituality is exceedingly used for escapism, “LARPing”, bypassing, ego-inflation etc. It becomes another trick of the ego-mind to perpetuate and reinforce itself, feeding into defense mechanisms instead of dissolving them. It becomes another tool of survival as Gura himself as pointed out. That’s a massive insight. Genuine spirituality vs fantasy.

The framework outlined above is not a map of spiritual progress; it is not a path in itself, rather, it is a meta-framework meant to evaluate the validity of spiritual paths in general, so it seems your answer is simply out of context yet again. Again, it just seems like you haven’t read any of it, which just feels disrespectful. But this Neo-Advaita, anti-intellectual, “hippie” approach to spirituality is exactly what this framework warns against. If you wanna make a case against it by engaging with the actual content, please do so. Otherwise, you’re not adding to this conversation.

Yea, classic clinical narcissism. Very prevalent in “spiritual” circles. selfishness vs selflessness 🔑

Yes this is key. That’s the whole problem with dogmatic, ideological forms of spirituality(e.g. Fundamentalist religion). Uncritical engagement based in blind, passionate conviction. This is a distraction from the actual path, not to mention the bullshit and evils that derive from it.

This is off subject; it doesn’t answer the original premise. It’s not even operating in the same context. What’s more, this sort of opinion is exactly the kind of Postmodern, relativistic, democratized, egalitarian, “everything goes” approach to spirituality that the framework criticizes. I’ll just assume that you didn’t read it. This approach is fine if you’re a weed smoking hippie with a surface level engagement in spirituality and a focus on carefree hedonism(nothing wrong with that per se), but it won’t help people who’ve actually had some legitimate spiritual insights but were left in some obscure, uncomfortable liminal position on the path with no knowledge of how to advance further(which happens a lot on the path, and in our current cultural context, people are left alone in such positions, without bearings or legitimate lineages/frameworks to lean on). This “everything goes” approach has nothing to do with actual spirituality. It’s the antithesis of actual Initiation. People need to make that distinction.

Furthermore, here are some key questions to distinguish Real vs Fake forms of spirituality to go along with this framework: Fundamental questions of spiritual discernment The following are fundamental questions meant to evaluate the validity of spiritual groups/mouvements/traditions 1-What is its ultimate aim — and is that aim truly Transcendent/Vertical Does the movement direct consciousness beyond the human and the contingent toward the Absolute, or does it merely circle within the horizontal domain of psychological, social, or material betterment? Criterion: The higher the aim, the more vertical the orientation. 2-What conception of Reality(or the Absolute) does it affirm — and is this conception metaphysically coherent and living? Is Reality understood as a hierarchical, ordered whole with a transcendent Source, or as a flattened field of relativistic experience? Criterion: Authentic paths acknowledge an ontological axis of ascent and return. 3-What is its anthropology — what does it believe Man is, and what Man can become? Does it recognize a spiritual principle (Self, Spirit, Nous, Atman, Ruach, etc.) latent in man that can be realized, or does it reduce the human being to psyche, emotion, or biology? Criterion: The higher the view of man’s nature, the more initiatic the path. 4-By what means does it propose transformation — and are those means ascetic, disciplined, and integrated? Is there a real praxis that reshapes being (meditation, ritual, prayer, contemplation, virtue), or only emotional stimulation, intellectual speculation, or spontaneous enthusiasm? Criterion: Real transformation demands sustained, structured practice. 5-Does it transmit a living knowledge — a Gnosis — or merely information, belief, and ideology? Does it initiate into direct participation in the Real, or does it merely offer doctrines to believe and techniques and paraphernalia to consume? Criterion: Authentic knowledge transforms the knower; it is participatory, not merely conceptual. 6-What are its fruits — ethical, existential, and noetic? Does prolonged engagement produce humility, clarity, virtue, detachment, and wisdom, or inflation, fanaticism, and self-importance? Does it make a distinction between mere psychic transmutation/well-being and Noetic realization? Criterion: The fruits of the spirit reveal the authenticity of the root. 7-How does it understand hierarchy and authority? Does it affirm the reality of gradations in realization, or does it dissolve all distinction under a false egalitarianism? Criterion: Recognition of authentic hierarchy reflects metaphysical realism. 8-What is its relationship to Truth — is it absolute yet inclusive, or relative and sentimental? Does it hold that Truth exists and can be known (however ineffably), or does it treat all beliefs as equal, subjective, or symbolic only? Criterion: True paths bow before Truth, not convenience. 9-Does it reconcile transcendence and immanence — or collapse one into the other? Does it perceive the Absolute as both beyond and within, maintaining polarity and mystery, or does it deny transcendence (humanism) or deny immanence (escapism)? Criterion: Wholeness without flattening is the mark of metaphysical maturity. To conclude, brief description of Metamodern Traditionalism: The term Metamodern Traditionalism emerges out of a perceived necessity to reconcile the metaphysical depth of the Traditionalist school (as articulated by figures such as René Guénon and Julius Evola) with the epistemological and cultural insights of modernity, postmodernity, and their integral successors. While the Traditionalists correctly identified the metaphysical impoverishment and desacralization inherent in modern life, their critique was frequently bound to a regressive nostalgia for premodern social forms and a cyclical conception of history that obscured the evolutionary and dialectical unfolding of Spirit. In this sense, they fell prey to what Ken Wilber has identified as the pre/trans fallacy: the confusion of pre-rational modes of consciousness with trans-rational modes, resulting in a romanticization of archaic forms rather than a genuine integration of higher ones. Metamodern Traditionalism seeks to redeem and refine the Traditionalist project by situating it within a broader, integrative framework of cultural development. It affirms the ontological primacy of metaphysical first principles and the hierarchical structure of Being, but it rejects the exclusionary stance toward modern and postmodern sensibilities characteristic of earlier Traditionalists. Instead, it endeavors to operate at what integral theory terms a “second-tier” level of cognitive complexity, one that can hold and integrate multiple paradigms without collapsing into relativism or dogmatism. This involves embracing the scientific rigor and instrumental rationality of modernity, the deconstructive and pluralistic insights of postmodernity, and the emerging metamodern ethos of oscillation between sincerity and irony, hope and critique—while simultaneously recovering the participatory, “enchanted” sensibility of the premodern world. At its core, Metamodern Traditionalism is a project of redemptive synthesis. It affirms that modernity, despite its evident alienations, constitutes a necessary phase in the dialectical and evolutionary self-unfolding of Spirit. History is not to be understood as a simple degeneration from an original Golden Age, but rather as a fractal movement of division and higher reunification, in which Spirit comes to know itself through increasingly complex and self-reflexive forms. From this perspective, the metaphysical insights of the Traditionalists can be preserved and deepened without collapsing into regressive archaism. The task is not to retreat from modernity or postmodernity, but to integrate their partial truths into a more comprehensive cosmology—one that re-enchants the world while preserving the gains of scientific rationality, reflexive subjectivity, and cultural pluralism. Thus, Metamodern Traditionalism positions itself as both heir and corrective to the Traditionalist school. It retains the metaphysical absolutism of Tradition while rejecting its historical fatalism, affirming instead a Hegelian dialectical progression of Spirit. It seeks to offer a framework capable of reconciling perennial metaphysics with contemporary complexity, not by reducing one to the other, but by weaving them into a higher synthesis. Its aim is not merely critique, but the construction of a worldview adequate to the full spectrum of human cultural sensibilities—from premodern to metamodern—thereby opening the possibility of a renewed spiritual order commensurate with the challenges of our time.

The postmodern spiritual marketplace is vast and fragmented, and it can be dizzying for seekers trying to orient themselves within it. Amid this abundance of teachings, movements, and practices, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between authentic forms of spirituality and their counterfeit or corrupted counterparts—between those paths that lead to genuine inner transformation and those that merely lead astray. In today’s globalized and pluralistic context, we face an unprecedented level of multiplicity. Without a coherent evaluative framework, it becomes nearly impossible to discern which traditions, movements, or groups are worthy of serious engagement and which are not. This is why we have developed a systematic framework for evaluating spiritual systems—a way to assess their validity and authenticity that strives to be universal and objective, yet nuanced and flexible. This evaluative framework forms part of a broader esoteric-philosophical system known as Metamodern Traditionalism, grounded in cultural theory, Integral Theory (Ken Wilber), and the Traditionalist School (Guénon, Schuon, Coomaraswamy, etc.). The first two were synthesized with the latter to correct what we perceive as the Traditionalist school’s core epistemic and historical limitations. A basic understanding of Traditionalist doctrine—especially the Guénonian formulation—will help contextualize what follows, though the ideas presented here are intended to be accessible even to those unfamiliar with that background. Here are some preliminary remarks and a brief introduction: To understand the purpose of this framework, it helps to grasp a few key ideas. Traditionalism, as articulated by thinkers such as René Guénon and Frithjof Schuon, holds that all authentic religions express a single metaphysical Truth—the Primordial Tradition—which transcends historical and cultural forms. However, Traditionalism often views modernity as a process of degeneration and rejects the possibility of spiritual evolution within history. We can think of it as a more rigorous and systematic Perennialism. Integral Theory, pioneered by Ken Wilber, approaches reality through developmental and multidimensional models of consciousness, emphasizing evolution, integration, and the coexistence of multiple valid perspectives. Cultural Theory—and specifically Metamodernism—explores the dialectical movement beyond modern and postmodern paradigms, toward a worldview capable of synthesizing sincerity and irony, faith and reason, transcendence and immanence. Metamodern Traditionalism unites these threads. It preserves the metaphysical depth and discernment of Traditionalism while integrating the developmental, pluralistic, and self-reflexive insights of Integral and Metamodern thought. The result is a framework that seeks not only to recover the sacred but to articulate it coherently within the conditions of contemporary consciousness. In order to understand the evaluative framework that follows, it is necessary to clarify a few fundamental principles which underlie this approach. These principles are drawn from the perennial metaphysical worldview, reformulated here in a contemporary language that integrates the insights of developmental and metamodern thought. 1. The Nature of Tradition “Tradition,” in the metaphysical sense, does not mean the mere repetition of ancestral customs or religious dogmas. It refers to a transcendent source of wisdom—a body of revealed and realized knowledge concerning the structure of Reality itself, its Divine Origin, and the path of return to that Origin. Every authentic civilization has, at its core, a transmission of this Primordial Tradition, expressed through symbolic, ritual, and doctrinal forms suited to its epoch and culture. Traditional spirituality thus recognizes the immutable principles behind all mutable forms. 2. The Vertical and the Horizontal Dimensions of Being Reality unfolds along two axes: the Vertical and the Horizontal. The Horizontal represents the plane of time, history, and becoming—psychological development, culture, and social evolution. The Vertical refers to the axis of transcendence—the eternal dimension of Being, consciousness, and the Absolute. Modern and postmodern paradigms have largely collapsed the Vertical into the Horizontal, reducing spirit to psyche or culture. Authentic spirituality restores this Vertical orientation, directing man upward toward the Real rather than outward into endless relativism or inward into mere subjectivity. 3. Initiation and Transmission Because the higher states of consciousness cannot be reached through theoretical knowledge or scattered and inconsistent practice alone, initiation is required. Initiation, in its true sense, is not a social ceremony but a metaphysical process of opening the higher centers of being, often mediated through a living lineage, realized teacher, or a rigorous process of self-initiation through both intense and disciplined theory and praxis(practice as opposed to theory). 4. Esotericism and Exotericism Another foundational principle of this framework is the distinction between Exotericism and Esotericism. Exotericism refers to the outward, institutional, and dogmatic aspect of religion — its moral codes, rituals, myths, and collective belief structures intended for the general faithful. It provides social cohesion and ethical guidance but remains within the domain of belief and form. Esotericism, by contrast, concerns the inner and transformative dimension of the spiritual path — the direct realization of metaphysical truths through inner illumination rather than external authority. It replaces dogmatic belief with participatory knowledge (gnosis): a direct, experiential apprehension of divine realities that transcends conceptual mediation. We are now moving on to the framework and presenting to you what we refer to as “The five axioms and the tripartite Typology: An evaluative framework of spiritual movements” First, the 5 Axioms Traditional standards of genuine spirituality/Five Pillars of Esoteric Orthodoxy: 1: Vertical Transcendence Authentic spirituality orients man toward what surpasses him — the Absolute, the Transcendent, the Unconditioned. It cannot be reduced to psychology, therapy, lifestyle enhancement, material gains, or even mere “peace of mind”, and recognizes that a true spiritual path must point beyond mere therapeutic self-improvement. It also recognizes a transcendent, absolute, infinite Principle that is the source of all existence, and towards which all of creation is teleologically oriented. There is a clear distinction between the Vertical line of Being and the Horizontal line of Becoming. This includes the distinction between the Psychic and the Spiritual/Noetic ; Genuine spirituality discerns between psychic phenomena and noetic illumination. Experiences of energy, emotion, vision, or temporary altered states are subordinate to the realization of the Self beyond form. 2: Hierarchical Ontology Authentic spirituality recognizes itself as a path along a hierarchical Chain of Being and aims at conscious developmental unfoldment along this chain. It recognizes gradations of spiritual attainment and an initiatory hierarchy that needs to be ascended. 3: Praxis/Ascesis Authentic spirituality requires sustained Praxis— disciplined practice aimed at the vertical unfoldment of consciousness — as opposed to merely theory. 4: Lineage and transmission Not absolutely necessary but optimal(by a large margin). Authentic spirituality ideally operates within a lineage of transmission, ensuring continuity of realization and method. Yet when such formal chains are inaccessible, the seeker may still attune inwardly to the living archetype of Tradition, provided this is approached with seriousness, discernment, and unwavering rigor and discipline. 5: Gnosis(Participatory Epistemology) Authentic spirituality is always centered around Gnosis — a mode of knowing that is participatory, transformative, and ontological rather than merely conceptual and ideological; a direct apprehension of Transcendent realities. It transcends the dualism between subject and object by uniting knower and known in direct realization. Gnosis is not belief in metaphysical truths, but the realization of them through conscious participation in the living fabric of Being. Secondly, the Tripartite Typology A Typology of Premodern, Modern, and Postmodern Spiritual Movements: From Counter-Initiation to Authentic Tradition Classification system: •Initiatic Orthodoxy/Canonical Esotericism -Denotes movements that are sufficiently aligned with the Five Pillars of Esoteric Orthodoxy to make them fully legitimate spiritual currents -“Orthodoxy” here means right alignment with flexible Principle and analytic criteria(on a spectrum scale), not dogma. •Esoteric Heterodoxy/Semi-Initiatic Currents(Redeemable movements) -Legitimate initiatic content present, but with distortions or partial errors (pre/trans confusions, excessive psychologism, confusion of Psychic/Noetic etc) •Counter-Initiatic Currents/Pseudo-Esotericism/Inverted Spirituality -Movements that simulate initiation but actually invert or sever the Vertical axis, replacing transcendence with psychic inflation or materialization, effectively collapsing the Vertical into the Horizontal. Simulacra of Tradition. “LARPers”. -“Inverted” points to ontological reversal, not just moral error. The question now arises: In light of this typology, how do we classify the various spiritual groups/movements/traditions into the three tiers? What standards do we use and how do we use those standards to rank spiritual lineages into those categories? Well, since this framework was only recently developed, it doesn’t have some rigorous, empirical, scientific method of evaluation here(part of the reason we use the word “Typology” and not “Taxonomy”). We merely use a soft(more grounded in common intuition) and basic measuring system: First, we base our analysis on the five axioms/pillars we outlined above. Then, we take a certain spiritual group/movement/tradition, and score it against each pillar on a scale of 5 points, for a maximum possible score of 25. Then, we multiply the final result by four and it gives us a percentage. The percentages associated with each tier are as follows: •Below 50% = Counter-Initiatic Currents/Pseudo-Esotericism/Inverted Spirituality •50-80% = Esoteric Heterodoxy/Semi-Initiatic Currents(Redeemable movements) •80%+ = Initiatic Orthodoxy/Canonical Esotericism Here is an exemple with a concrete movement to illustrate this evaluative method: We take the Pragmatic Dharma movement 1st Axiom — Vertical Transcendence: Consciousness work oriented toward supra-personal experience, Nibbana, cessation - explicitly vertical. Caveat being a focus on “emptiness”, and a lack of consideration for the “Infinite”, “Absolute” side of the coin. Score: 3/5 2nd Axiom — Hierarchical Ontology: Theravada maps: Mind & Body, Cause & Effect, Three Characteristics, A&P, Dark Night, Equanimity, Four Path Model - RIGOROUS hierarchy. Score: 5/5 3rd Axiom — Praxis/Ascesis: Serious, ometimes absurdly rigorous. However, solitary practice is in most cases prone to procrastination and a falling back in unconscious tendencies, off the path. Score: 3/5 4th Axiom — Lineage and Transmission: Traditional Dharmic Doctrine provided in a Western context. Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, legitimate Theravada transmission, etc, just informal presentation. Score: 3/5 5th Axiom — Gnosis(Participatory Epistemology): Direct phenomenological investigation as fundamental to Dharmic doctrine. Score: 5/5 Final score on 5 levels of analysis: 3+5+3+3+5 = 19/25 x 4 = 76%. This places the Pragmatic Dharma in the upper levels of the second tier of classification: Esoteric Heterodoxy/Semi-Initiatic Currents(Redeemable movements). As can be seen, the framework is still far from rigorous, but we believe is still strong enough to effectively pressure-test spiritual doctrines and separate wheat from chaff in our current 21st century, Postmodern, globalized spiritual landscape.