A Case for Superfascism (Metaphysical Traditionalism)

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Sincerity said:

See the icon in the upper right. You can open a temporary chat which won't be saved in memory. I often use it for irrelevant stuff which I don't want chatGPT to remember. Lately I pretty much use it always.

I'm a hoarder, I can't do that 🤡

[Emerald]

I read through all of what you wrote.

One trap that Fascists (and I suppose SuperFascists too) fall into is to believe in the myth of the Golden Age.. and to try to create an authoritarian system to bring us back to the glory days of the Golden Age.

That's the fundamental underpinning of what Fascism is, "We were once a great people and living in the Golden Age! And we can be great again, if we ruthlessly remove all the obstacles and enemies to restructuring society along the lines of the structures of the Golden Age."

And I see a similar kind of false romanticism in your post, where you seem to believe that "Society has fallen into degeneracy. So, we need to restructure things along the lines of a previous system to pull us out of degeneracy."

But the reality is that people have always been people. And people do not cease to be people when the systems around them change. And the systems around them changing doesn't address the addressable ills, which can only be addressed through deep inner work.

So, even when there was an organic emergence of this archetypal order being applied to reality, there was still rape, murder, addiction, child abuse, cruelty, and all sorts of other "degenerate" elements.

And these "degenerate" elements were evident to the 'Fascist' thinkers of the time... and they pined for some even earlier Golden Age.

But the trick is that the Golden Age doesn't exist. It's an illusion that people project into the past (or the future) and it turns people into fanatical zealots who can't accept humanity and the current reality as it is.

So, even if we could rally the authoritarian forces to impose this past divine archetypal order onto the contemporary environment, I don't believe that re-ordering society along the lines of a caste system/feudal system that operates through the divine right of kings is going to solve anything that humans are currently grappling with in the current stage of evolution we're in as a species.

And really, what you're advocating for here is similar to a child who's terrified of the 3rd grade. And so they want to go back to the 2nd grade, where the problems are less complex to solve.

And that's what's appealing about having an agreed upon divine order and everyone knows their place. It provides absolute certainty... and acts as a salve to the fears of uncertainty.

But if you want to evolve as a person, you must embrace uncertainty and find sovereignty in yourself instead of looking for the divinely ordained king to lead the way.

Plus, are you really going to be okay if the "divinely ordained king" (who's really just a dude) is an unwise oppressive despot and decides that you're a lifelong serf and that there's nothing you can do about it?

So, I disagree with both Fascism and SuperFascism.

1. Because the divinely ordained paradigm arose organically and cannot be imposed onto the modern context in top-down authoritarian ways without terrible outcomes
2. Because there is no such thing as a Golden Age... and if there is one, it definitely isn't in the past.
3. Fascists are always trying to get absolute certainty... but reality doesn't operate that way. So, it is an untrue paradigm
4. These hierarchies are psychological projections of archetypes in the collective unconscious. And if we project them onto reality and live by them, we're just psychologically shadow boxing with ourselves (individually and collectively).
5. Because these divinely ordained hierarchies are a human construct, the royalty and nobles are just regular people. And when you project divine perfection onto human beings and see them as a God, terrible things happen.

I could go on and on. But that's the gist of it.

[Elliott]

I think Suprafascist is a more accurate name, it's fascism and metaphysics.

I think most people can agree with some of the core principles, but I also think you and Evola are making giant revisionist leaps.

I think most people would agree with "modern" decadence, quantity over quality, lack of meaning and purpose. But I disagree that this is a uniquely modern issue, that meaning and purpose were ever priority over survival or accumulation, that there ever was or is a divine meaning or purpose. Citing ancient civilizations that are in literal walking distance of eachother as having isolated yet similar religious centered hierarchies, is historical malfeasance. Religion is borne out of the ability of a leader to defer blame to something imaginary, so his tribe didn't kill him when they started starving. 

It's a fairytale. Now Anarchy on the other hand, pure perfection.

Edited 17 hours ago by Elliott

[Enigma777]

8 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Religion is borne out of the ability of a leader to defer blame to something imaginary, so his tribe didn't kill him when they started starving. 

It's a fairytale.

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

[Elliott]

15 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:

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

It's not, really. Even eastern religions, used in this context of governing-hierarchies, the philosophical principles were used to defer blame for failures.

Edited 17 hours ago by Elliott

[Enigma777]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

So, I disagree with both Fascism and SuperFascism.

1. Because the divinely ordained paradigm arose organically and cannot be imposed onto the modern context in top-down authoritarian ways without terrible outcomes
2. Because there is no such thing as a Golden Age... and if there is one, it definitely isn't in the past.
3. Fascists are always trying to get absolute certainty... but reality doesn't operate that way. So, it is an untrue paradigm
4. These hierarchies are psychological projections of archetypes in the collective unconscious. And if we project them onto reality and live by them, we're just psychologically shadow boxing with ourselves (individually and collectively).
5. Because these divinely ordained hierarchies are a human construct, the royalty and nobles are just regular people. And when you project divine perfection onto human beings and see them as a God, terrible things happen.

I could go on and on. But that's the gist of it.

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. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Enigma777

[Enigma777]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

Now Anarchy on the other hand, pure perfection.

ANARCHY😂😂😂🤦🏽‍♂️

Of course you’re biased against religion; you’re a radical Leftist

Hey, it’s all love man🤧

Edited 16 hours ago by Enigma777

[Emerald]

53 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:

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.

But the thing is... that order won't re-emerge organically because the circumstances that that order arose out of are in the past... specifically prior to the scientific revolution.

That orientation to the socio-political system was an adaptation that was organically borne out of a very specific kind of pre-scientific cosmology, a very specific set of societal circumstances, and a very specific set of challenges that just don't apply in contemporary society.

And to project so cleanly that archetype onto reality you need a dirth of empirical knowledge and the inability to reflect on your cosmology from afar, so that the world is a blank projection screen for the archetypes of the collective unconscious and you can fully "live in" the world of projected archetypes.

Once you wake up to the rational, you cannot go back to the pre-rational. But you can go forward to the post-rational and you can rationally start to understand the importance of these patterns as archetypes and psychological contents but not as good/functional sociopolitical systems to live in.

Jung was sharing in one of his books about how people in the pre-scientific/pre-rational worldviews tend to just be living the archetypal story... totally immersed in the world of projected psychological archetypes, like a living myth. But they lack the ability to empirically reflect on the story they're living from afar.

So, the reality is that we contemporary people just have too much empirical knowledge and too great an understanding of rationality to be able to cleanly project this archetype onto reality to the point where it can be lived in on a society-wide scale.

But pre-rational people could because they needed an understanding of reality but lacked the empirical methods and tools to be able to fill in the blanks with what they observe. 

It's sort of like how alchemists were engaging in a proto-science that was non-empirical... and because they weren't doing actual science (because that wasn't fully available yet) they ended up projecting the internal psychological processes onto the practice of alchemy.

And alchemy is shit as a science... but amazing as a point of reference for introspection and understanding how the psyche functions. The same is true of the way that kingdoms functioned in feudal times.

But people after the scientific revolution could not project their psychological contents onto alchemy if it were happening in this era. That is specifically a possibility for pre-rational people who are operating in pre-rational cosmologies where everything is a blank projection screen for the world of archetypes.

And so, that just wouldn't work as an organic re-emergence.

Really the only way to get this order re-established (in form but not in substance) is to have an authoritarian leader impose that system from the top-down.

And so, this idea is never going to actually get any traction without some kind of authoritarian imposition. And even then, it would not be the way it was.

It will not arise organically like it did in the past. Expecting society to organically re-constellate this worldview would be like expecting a 30 year old to organically go through puberty again.

Edited 16 hours ago by Emerald

[Emerald]

54 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:

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 

But it does have a lot to do with historical Fascism... because it's answering to the same insecurities and needs as Fascism does. And it uses similar ways of thinking about the past and the present as historical Fascism does.

Really, it ends up being a distinction without a difference once people try to impose that order onto reality.

And as I said in my previous post, pre-modern people were projecting an archetype onto reality in lieu of empirical knowledge. That's why this archetype was so wide-spread.

But it's actually a really good thing that we're deviating from living that archetype.

When an archetype gets lived in, we can't reflect on it and integrate it because we're like a fish in pre-rational, psychological water.

But once we become rational, we can move into the post-rational paradigm of being able to integrate this archetype on a psychological level... as opposed to just projecting it outward unconsciously onto reality.

The archetype is indeed important. But living an archetype fully is dysfunctional.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Enigma777 said:

4. And how’s it working living outside of those “projections”? Ask modernity

Just as expected... as we are now in the rational era of human development. And there's important work to be done in this era.

We begin with pre-rational, where we're fully projecting the world of archetypes onto reality and living fully immersed in the reflection without any ability to question it.

Then, there is a dawning of rational, empirical thinking. And one of the drawbacks is that, in seeing beyond the projected archetypes, we lose our sense of certainty and there's a loss of meaning. But it also gives us the ability to interface with empirical reality, and it gives us distance to study our psychology and the archetypes.

Then, the rational sets up the necessary foundation to be able to actually integrate pre-rational archetypes into a more holistic post-rational cosmology. So, instead of projecting a king outwardly, we can find the inner sovereign. And Instead of projecting our psychological anatomy onto the universe, we can recognize it as a structure that exists within us.

And most of all, we can live as real whole humans... instead of trying to match up to cut and dried impersonal and ideal archetypes.

But I see Fascism (and SuperFascism as you describe it) as reactionary response to the loss of meaning that's inherent in this stage of the process (which centers around empiricism and rationality). 

But its this very discomfort and embrace of uncertainty that precipitates the collective evolution towards the post-rational, where archetypal meaning is actually integrated instead of just projected and unconscious lived in.

Edited 15 hours ago by Emerald

[Enigma777]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Just as expected... as we are now in the rational era of human development. And there's important work to be done in this era.

We begin with pre-rational, where we're fully projecting the world of archetypes onto reality and living fully immersed in the reflection without any ability to question it.

Then, there is a dawning of rational, empirical thinking. And one of the drawbacks is that, in seeing beyond the projected archetypes, we lose our sense of certainty and there's a loss of meaning. But it also gives us the ability to interface with empirical reality, and it gives us distance to study our psychology and the archetypes.

Then, the rational sets up the necessary foundation to be able to actually integrate pre-rational archetypes into a more holistic post-rational cosmology. So, instead of projecting a king outwardly, we can find the inner sovereign. And Instead of projecting our psychological anatomy onto the universe, we can recognize it as a structure that exists within us.

And most of all, we can live as real whole humans... instead of trying to match up to cut and dried impersonal and ideal archetypes.

But I see Fascism (and SuperFascism as you describe it) as reactionary response to the loss of meaning that's inherent in this stage of the process (which centers around empiricism and rationality). 

But its this very discomfort and embrace of uncertainty that precipitates the collective evolution towards the post-rational, where archetypal meaning is actually integrated instead of just projected and unconscious lived in.

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. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Enigma777

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Enigma777 said:

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 Ipse Dixit and somehow assume that this 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. 

Yes, it's true that this form of societal delineation can be found across many esoteric and mystical traditions.

And that is specifically because this model of society it's an archetype and part of the anatomy of the human psyche.

It's also why the kingdom and queens and kings and the divine order of things are really popular story motifs.

But that doesn't mean that it's the best way for humans to organize themselves socially and politically or that it would be an adaptive framework to live by... especially in the rational and post-rational era.

And Plato's World of the Forms is basically a pre-Jungian way of thinking about archetypes. But there's still the pre-rational tendency to want to realize the archetypes as ideals as opposed to living in the real, and integrating the archetypes on a more psychological level.

But apropos of your comment about "presenting great thinkers and entire civilizational models as support" and implying that it constitutes support for your perspective...

That argument is moot because those are just appeals to authority... which is a logical fallacy.

So, it doesn't matter if you presented great thinkers and entire civilizational models to support your point. It doesn't mean that those thinkers or civilizational models are correct, functional, or optimal... as there are also great thinkers who would totally disagree and civilizational models that have are not based on this particular archetype.

But your hypothesis is that living in accordance with this archetype will provide more meaning and be more functional, as we'll be returning to a "less degenerate" natural order of things.

I am pushing back on that because the transcendence of that pre-rational model itself is part of the natural order of human evolution. And the loss of meaning and uncertainty is par for the course when it comes to being able to integrate an archetype as opposed to being collectively ruled by it.

And Fascism (and SuperFacsism in the way you describe it) are trying to solve a problem that isn't an actual problem... which is uncertainty that arise from the loss of previous archetypally-projected pre-rational cosmologies. It's actually a solution to the problems of pre-rationality with uncomfortable side-effects.

And people who don't like those side-effects tend to want to go backwards towards their notion of an idealized past Golden Age. But it's just them projecting that archetype onto the past... when the past was never Golden.

The only thing that's Golden is the archetype itself as na internal reality... not the projection of it.

[Emerald]

44 minutes ago, Enigma777 said:

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, no a Nazi. I uphold virtue, wisdom, consciousness etc, not 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 societies and individuals alike should strive  to reflect and embody. 

This is the central thesis, loosely. 

The issue here is that, if our politics is focused more on abstract archetypal projections and platonic ideals, we will get distracted by the realm of the ideal and lose sight of what really matters... which is the real. 

And conscious politics is about the realization of Golden Rule values played out through practical systems such that our greater societal system alleviates unnecessary suffering, meets basic human needs, and gives a stable container for human flourishing.

So, politics is not a wise arena to integrate these archetypes... as we just get into more abstract territory when the focus must be about concrete issues.

It also presents similar issues to the ones found in theocracy, where the religious is fused together as a Frankenstein monster with the political. It ends up becoming quite impractical and monstrous.

And at every step, we must be aware of what despots would use this framework for... as that's just practically what would happen if we started to blur the lines between the political and archetypal/spiritual/religious.

And Jung was correct that we lose meaning in the transition into modernity... and the integration of post-modern deconstructive frameworks, moral relativism, scientific empirical frameworks, rationalism, and the materialist paradigm are part of the catabolic phase of meaning loss... just like the shedding of old skin.

But Jung didn't recommend going back to a pre-rational archetypal way of structuring society... as he outlines clearly the issues with pre-rational societies that operate unconsciously through archetypes.

Instead, he advocates for individuals to integrate their Shadow and to get to know the anatomy of the psyche... so that one does not project their Shadow onto reality and live unconsciously possessed by archetypes of the collective unconscious.

But ultimately, my claim is that the wisest thing to do is to buckle in and prepare for a lifetime where humanity is integrating the rational paradigm.

On a wider scale, that awakening to rationality process began like two minutes ago and it will be going on for quite a few generations into the future. So, we aren't going to rush society into its post-rational phase just because some people feel uncomfortable with the uncertainty around the loss of meaning that accompanies it.

Society will operate just as it does... and eventually (likely when we're long dead) will flip over into the post-rational paradigm.

But luckily, individuals who are aware can work with these archetypes to integrate them within themselves now. Just don't count on most of society coming with you.

But the loss of meaning with the rational era is a necessary feature and not a bug. And just because it's uncomfortable and painful, doesn't mean that it's a negative thing. 

It's just a necessary shedding of forms that needs to be let go of... like a lobster molting and losing its exoskeleton, so it can grow larger.

But thinkers who lean more in the direction of Fascist-thinking, will always see the modern era as some uniquely abhorrent cesspool of degeneracy that has fallen from its former glory. 

So, they will interpret the necessary and natural shedding process as a negative that needs to be fixed... as there is a discomfort with uncertainty. And also because there is a preference in Fascist thinkers for believing that human nature is naturally far more ideal than it actually is... but that we've temporarily fallen from grace.

It's hard to face with the fact that humans are inherently ungraceful... and our societies always have been and always will be ungraceful. 

But to the Fascist thinker, this truth that humans are inherently "degenerate" is untenable... as the desire is to purify and restore humanity to its previous archetypal ideal (which never actually existed in reality).

And that's is a similarity that your SuperFascism shares with historical Fascists. 

But the way we are wise to approach human degeneracy is more Christ-like... and derived from the Golden Rule. 

And the things the Christ focused on were brass tacks human needs... and materialistic concerns like "Let's feed people". He was not interested in imposing some archetypal kingdom onto society. He was interested in mercy... which is the opposite of Fascism.

Edited 14 hours ago by Emerald

[Enigma777]

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

imposing some archetypal kingdom onto society. He was interested in mercy... which is the opposite of Fascism.

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. 

[Salvijus]

To follow the devine law is to follow the law of love. Love is the ultimate authority. Love is superfascists. 

What you call devine order is called dharma in Hindu. Or the way of Dao, the principles of Dao. Every spiritual tradition had its own name for it. 

It's a good point you're making and it's a very ancient one. But the way you're explaining yourself is (pardon my language) it's nuts... 

Edited 13 hours ago by Salvijus

[Enigma777]

39 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

To follow the devine law is to follow the law of love. Love is the ultimate authority. Love is superfascists. 

What you call devine order is called dharma in Hindu. Or the way of Dao, the principles of Dao. Every spiritual tradition had its own name for it. 

It's a good point you're making and it's a very ancient one. But the way you're explaining yourself is (pardon my language) it's nuts... 

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

Edited 13 hours ago by Enigma777

[BlueOak]

7 hours ago, Enigma777 said:

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. 

Alright let's do the long debate as the one line wasn't enough

This is an egoic reaction to an obvious truth. - You want the world the way you want it and for people to be as you are.

Pick an area you think disagrees with this in your text, or shall I do them one by one?

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

To follow the devine law is to follow the law of love. Love is the ultimate authority.

Everything is in fact, the search for love; it doesn't mean this example is a divine order that everyone would be better off living by. Whoever is defining ''better off'. Shall I define my ideology as better off and put it in a divine context to give my ego a giant-sized pat on the head? 

I do it enough already I guess. I could do a three page essay on it also, it'd look very fancy.

Edited 12 hours ago by BlueOak

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

I find myself pulled in two directions by this discussion, and I'd like to offer a perspective that might bridge the gap, focusing on what I see as the core appeal and the core danger.

I think the initial appeal of this Superfascist or Traditionalist position isn't necessarily a desire for fascism, but a powerful, visceral reaction to what we might call the "flatness" of modernity. This is a critique I believe many of us on spiritual paths can empathize with, regardless of our politics. It's the feeling that something fundamental is missing.

The danger, as I see it, is in mistaking a specific historical structure for the eternal principle itself. @Enigma777, you rightly say you're advocating for the structure and orientation, not the specific content of premodern theocracies. However, the language of divinely ordained hierarchies, Philosopher-Kings, and organic roles is inextricably linked to a specific, historical model of power.
We have to ask: What is the check on this system? While the principle of hierarchy based on wisdom is appealing, the proposed mechanism; a top-down, metaphysically-justified authority, is indistinguishable from the historical systems that caused immense suffering.

So, the challenge you've laid out is a vital one: How do we re-integrate the Vertical into our Horizontal world? But the solution cannot be to resurrect a political model that, in practice, has almost always been a vehicle for human pathology.

Perhaps the path forward isn't about finding the right Philosopher-King to rule us, but about building societies where:
- The pursuit of Truth, Love, and Goodness is the highest cultural value, fostered through education, art, and community.
- Leadership is based on demonstrable wisdom, compassion, and competence, not on birthright or an unverifiable claim to metaphysical superiority.
- Spiritual authority is separated from political power, to prevent the corruption of both and to protect the freedom of consciousness.
- We cultivate inner sovereignty (as @Emerald mentioned) not as a substitute for social order, but as its essential foundation, creating a citizenry that can discern true quality from authoritarian posturing.

In conclusion, I believe your diagnosis of our spiritual malaise is sharp and important. But the prescription of Superfascism, even in its purified, metaphysical form, risks treating the disease with a more refined version of the original toxin. The real work for our century is to build bridges to those higher values that don't rely on rebuilding the old, problematic castles of unchecked authority.

[Elliott]

8 hours ago, Enigma777 said:

ANARCHY😂😂😂🤦🏽‍♂️

Of course you’re biased against religion; you’re a radical Leftist

Hey, it’s all love man🤧

Let's look at the evidence rather than the propaganda. Your premise is quality over quantity, a divine Telos. Yet, ancient civilizations functioned purely "quantitatively", bloody, power and resource-hungry murderers. Anarchist societies, still existing to this day live peacefully, while none of your so-called "divine" Traditional hierarchies survive. One not indoctrinated by manipulative rulers would call Anarchist societies 'love', and "Traditional" societies cowardly, hateful, and evil, with the introduction of Fascism being the original sin. The divinity of your supposed Telos, would only be if Satan is your God.

 

 

"The oldest writing ever found is the Kish Tablet, a limestone artifact dating to approximately 3500 BCE that was discovered in Iraq. It is a form of proto-cuneiform writing, a system that predates the more developed cuneiform script that emerged in Mesopotamia around 3200 BCE. The tablet features symbols that have been deciphered as a record of trade and accounts.  "

"Mesopotamia was not destroyed but its ancient civilization gradually declined due to a combination of factors, including conquest, over-irrigation, climate change, and the rise of new empires. The region, now largely modern Iraq, was conquered by successive empires like the Persians, Greeks, Romans,"

"Major Upheavals of Ancient India

1. Decline of the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 1900–1300 BCE)
The highly advanced urban Indus Valley Civilization, with planned cities like Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, experienced a major decline and de-urbanization around 1900 BCE. 

Cause: This upheaval was likely triggered by significant climatic changes, specifically a decrease in the intensity of summer monsoons, leading to droughts and agricultural difficulties.

Impact: The population migrated eastward to the foothills of the Himalayas, and the complex urban system collapsed, giving way to a less structured society. 

2. The Vedic Age Transformations (c. 1500–500 BCE)
The period following the Indus Valley decline, known as the Vedic Age, was a time of significant social and philosophical change. 

Events: The arrival and migration of Indo-Aryan people into the subcontinent coincided with this era (though the exact nature of their arrival, whether by invasion or migration, is debated). The social structure transitioned from an urban civilization to independent tribal kingdoms.

Impact: This era saw the composition of the Vedas and the gradual development of early Hinduism and the social hierarchy that would later become the rigid caste system, fundamentally altering Indian society. 

3. The Rise of New Religions and Empires (c. 6th–4th Centuries BCE)
The end of the Vedic Age was marked by a general societal upheaval that challenged existing Brahmanical social systems.

Events: The 6th century BCE saw the birth of Gautama Buddha and Vardhamana Mahavira, leading to the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, which rejected certain aspects of the Vedas and the caste system.

Impact: This "philosophical revolution" fostered new urban growth and eventually paved the way for the rise of larger, more unified empires, beginning with the Mauryan Empire. 

4. Foreign Invasions and Dynastic Shifts (c. 5th Century BCE onwards)
Ancient India's northwestern region was repeatedly subject to external invasions, leading to significant political and cultural exchange.

Persian and Greek Invasions: The Achaemenid Empire of Persia, under Cyrus and Darius I, conquered parts of northwest India around 550 BCE. Later, Alexander the Great's invasion in 326 BCE, while brief, broke the existing power structures and facilitated direct contact with the Hellenic world, influencing art and administration.

Central Asian Migrations: The decline of the Mauryan (c. 185 BCE) and Gupta (c. 550 CE) empires led to periods of fragmentation and invasions by groups like the Kushans and Huns, who established their own kingdoms and integrated into the Indian cultural landscape. 

5. The Arrival of Islam (8th Century CE onwards)
The Muslim conquests, beginning in the 8th century CE, marked a major turning point, ending the era of indigenous empires and leading to the rise of various Islamic Sultanates and later the Mughal Empire. This introduced new religions and worldviews, leading to the diverse, complex cultural fabric of the subcontinent today. "

"Ancient Egypt's upheavals included periods of political collapse, civil war, and foreign invasion, often triggered by environmental crises like severe droughts and reduced Nile floods. Key upheavals were the First Intermediate Period following the Old Kingdom's collapse, the Hyksos rule during the Second Intermediate Period, and numerous revolts against foreign rulers, like the Persians and Ptolemies, which often coincided with climate-related famines. "

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Elliott