Enigma777

Yes, you nailed it👏👏👏👏 Thank you sir. And yea, I am nuts, I am a Right-wing radical😱 LOVE IS SUPERFASCIST😂😂😂😂😂 But yea, Divine Order = Dharma, Tao, Rta, Ma’at, Logos etc etc

Look, this is getting ridiculous; as mentioned before, none of what was said called for “imposition” of anything. And I’ve also spent quite some time literally and explicitly differentiating “Superfascism” from historical “fascism”, making it clear it was a play on words that had essentially nothing to do with Fascism itself; it had more of a click bait and analogical function rather than an actually descriptive one. And although you’re making some good points, you’re mainly responding to a strawman of my argument, or what you think I am saying rather than what I am actually saying. You’re writing paragraphs grounded in false assumptions that I’ve already clarified previously. You’re not engaging my paradigm; you’re arguing with yourself, in your own paradigm, using your own premises against your own caricature of my position and you think you’re responding to me. Meanwhile you’re talking 20000 light years past my point. So a lot of what you’re saying is truly clever and accurate…but it’s addressing a point I am NOT making. Which makes this whole conversation pointless.

You are possessed by the devil.

You took “systematically addressing my arguments” a little too seriously, more than what I care to debate on here. But I’ll say this: Yes, I am somewhat familiar with Spiral Dynamics and such branches of evolutionary psychology and spirituality, and I do agree with what you’re positing here broadly. Again, what I am proposing is less a preservation of SPECIFIC social forms, but rather the specific KIND of orientation toward the political. I am NOT advocating for a return to medieval feudalism, Roman Imperial hierarchy, or some Hindu caste system; rather, I am advocating for the retrieval of the qualitative Principles which were inherent to those social systems and their reintegration into our times and present conditions. So it’s less about specific social organization and more about the place of the Sacred in the political. And regarding that, I am a Platonist, not a Nazi. I uphold virtue, wisdom, consciousness etc, not nations, race, ethnicity or whatever particular political identity. Plato and Hitler have nothing to do with each other(no matter what Popper might have to say about it). My ultimate assertion is that, Modernity, as incredible as it was in terms of technological progress and increase of horizontal(material, contingent, as opposed to Vertical or Transcendent) well-being, lost something fundamental to Premodernity. This was also Jung’s observation. Therefore, yes, humanity should move materially and technologically forward(not that we can stop that), but without marrying the Vertical to the Horizontal, the Sacred to the Profane, and overall reintegrating what was lost to Premodern times back into our modern consciousness at a collective scale, our times will always be decadent and spiritually rotten. Even though we can still save ourselves individually of course. We lost something fundamental and cosmically significant to Premodernity —> We can and should recover it at a collective scale if we don’t want more chaos, degeneracy and destruction —> this requires acknowledging the existence of timeless Eternal Principles that societies and individuals alike should strive to reflect and embody in their expression. This is the central thesis, loosely. Now, for social particulars, you might argue for some Integral Holarchy(Wilber) or a Global Democratic Conscious political order(Gura), and I have less of a say on those particular matters. They’re up for debate and we could ramble on endlessly about them. As far as I am concerned, I am skeptical of this utterly utopian order where everyone finds their “inner sovereignty” and become those wise, conscious, virtuous individuals; there will always be qualitative gradations and differentiation and the masses will always need an ordering hierarchical structure where philosopher kings preside over political affairs and the masses serve their proper role in this organic order. Now you could refute that forever, but that’s where I stand. If a “Wilberian” or “Guran” collective democratic political utopia is ever possible, then I am not opposed to it, but as far as I am concerned, this looks more like an improbable new age pipe dream. And I am quite the idealist myself. In any case, we’ll never see any of those “spiritual” political systems consolidate in our lifetimes.

ANARCHY😂😂😂🤦🏽‍♂️ Of course you’re biased against religion; you’re a radical Leftist Hey, it’s all love man🤧

1. I did not propose the authoritarian imposition of such an order. In fact, that would be antithetical to what I’ve laid out. Nowhere did I propose a martial, fascist political mobilization to impose such an order out of naive romanticism or ideological conviction. Rather, I recognize the need for such then establishment an order to arise organically, as did Evola in his later life. Whatever we may think of his involvement with the 20th century Fascist regimes, in the Post-war era, he was very clear in his writings that the “revolutio needed to happen through enough individuals cultivating the proper internal orientation (through consciousness work, esoteric/mystical initiation etc), so that, in future generations, those individuals could reach a critical mass and the social order could organically shift toward something more Traditional. Believe it or not, Evola was, in the end, opposed to authoritarianism as much as he was democracy. 2. This idea of a “Golden Age” does permeate Traditionalist literature, but as I’ve mentioned earlier in this discussion, it is better to conceive of this Traditional ideal as just that—an ideal, or a Platonic Form, or perhaps an abstract archetype. Premodern societies were seen as instantiating this ideal at a greater degree than modernity, modernity in fact representing the highest level of decadence, and being the era of history removed the furthest from it. 3. Again this has nothing to do with historical Fascism 4. And how’s it working living outside of those “projections”? Ask modernity 5. The doctrine of Ontological gradation of being and qualitative differentiation can be found across the vast majority of esoteric and mystical traditions through history. Collapsing everything into “those are regular people” misses the point entirely, and doesn’t address in any meaningful way the Platonic argument, or the Evolian one, or the Confucian one, or the Vedic one, or the Guenonian one. In proper philosophical discourse, you can’t just arbitrarily collapse an opposing set of propositions into a broad, generalized, oversimplified claim and assert it Ipse Dixit, then act as if that represents justified refutation. I laid out my arguments and presented great thinkers and entire civilizational models as support. Now you need to systematically address those arguments according to general rules of logic and discourse, not just collapse them simply because “it is so” So, it just seems like you talked past my entire point here. All the arguments in the world lead nowhere if we’re not speaking on the same level and are operating in distinct and irreconcilable paradigms.

With all due respect, this is such a crude, low brow, and naive take on religion that I don’t think you can even begin to engage with the ideas I’ve laid out in my text to any meaningful degree; you need to better understand the Premodern mind. Read Jung, Eliade etc

Here, free game for everyone; eat my children

Start by making a genuine effort at comprehension and come back around after buddy. Again, it’s a lazy oversimplification; you don’t know what you’re talking about.

To repeat myself, the word itself is not misleading, and it’s technical meaning has pretty much nothing to do with historical Fascism. Now, I will concede the Swastika part though😂😂😂 I’ll take out the Swastika for you but I am not changing the title, because I actually AM a proud Superfascist. If you’re not happy with it, you’ll have to take it down, but that would be a shame, and ACTUAL fascist censorship🤧 Update: Well, idk how to change the title, so that’s that

This is true in many cases, but here, it’s a lazy oversimplification.

Be honest? “The title is provocative click bait” is literally what I’ve said a few texts ago, I don’t hide that. BUT, the title remains true. I AM a Superfascist; if you actually read the text, I actually explain the meaning of the word. I explain it’s etymology and what it means, and yes, I do give it a technical term. In this sense, the title, although “click bait-ish”, is not misleading. Superfascism is NOT Fascism; it refers to a political orientation that is BEYOND it.

So insightful bro, I love how you provided this sharp, systematic, comprehensive essay in response to my arguments and contributed your own perspective to the discussion in a constructive manner. Keep it up man 👍

You watch Gura’s videos right? Here’s one for you:

Just say you can’t read x2 😂😂😂