1. There is something I would call a spiritual disease: The tendency to think and obsess about things that are bad, perverse, and generally unwholesome.
In conversations, people with this tendency usually jump to topics that are fear- or disgust-inducing, no matter the starting point or direction set by others. You tell them “No, let’s not talk about (horrible, degenerate, low-vibrational) things today, let’s focus on the good, the productive and the wholesome for once” and they only read “horrible, degenerate”.
It’s like an automatic re-direct to thoughts that lead nowhere and paralyse you. You share something great and beautiful with them, and their mind immediatly jumps to something bad or violent.
Many people entertain such morbid thoughts – and the entertain[t]
ment complex does its best to support their proclivities. Think about the people who’ve developed a sick fascination with the recent pandemic-thing, and have spent countless hours reading about it.
There are so many other things one can think about instead –
2. Normality as a dogmatic religion – every time the adherent notices something outside the sphere of normality that has qualities, he is compelled to declare it as ineffective or non-existent (or at the very least as unproven).
Why? Bc of the hidden assumption of normality as an universal yardstick, as that which determines reality – “If this would work, everyone would do it, so if no one even knows about it, it can’t work” – “It must be wrong, otherwise everyone would do it/know about it”
Put differently, the gravitational center of the herd is the center of his universe.
These people often say nonsensical (for a thal) things like “No one’s doing [good but not popular thing] anymore, that’s old-fashioned/outdated”. As you can plainly see, this is not an argument – but, for the normie/crom, it is.
“It’s no good bc no one’s doing it anymore / it’s not fashionable anymore” is not an argument to a thal, but it sure is to a herd type. For the latter, it is the supreme argument besides which none can stand. Current group behaviour and near-term expectation of group behaviour are his gods, and he’s deeply religious.
I think that race and sex are realities of great metaphysical significance. And I also think the same is true of genetic ancestry on the individual and the sub-racial level, and of sexuality.
Your ancestral heritage, your sex and your type of sexuality are major factors in the equation determining the type(s) of magic/metaphysics you can use and the ones that can be used on you.
This idea is the opposite of new of course. Jung spoke of different kinds of collective unconscious (besides the general human one). Specifically, he talked about jews and germans having each a different collective unconscious and based his dream interpretation on this.
I see little acknowledgement of (and engagement with) these topics among the occult/paranormal crowd, just as I see little acknowledgement of (and engagement with) occult/paranormal topics among the people who focus on race and sex. I think this split is unfortunate bc solving many of the puzzles in front of us now requires taking both domains seriously, which is why I like to bring up heredity among the occult/paranormal crowd and supernatural stuff among the racialist/”traditionalist” crowd.
Keel noted how different races and ethnies encounter the paranormal with different frequencies, and paulides notes how people of certain (genetic) backgrounds disappear far more often than others – and of course, the connection of celtic ancestry, O type neg blood and a couple of other hereditary factors with the paranormal is well-attested.
Supernatural contact of bad (“abduction”, “haunting”), good (“contactee”, “divine inspiration”) and indifferent (“experiencer”, synchronicities) character tends (often strongly) to “run in the family”.
Everyone who acknowledges I 2. and isn’t a relativist will – at least implicitly – rank races/tribes. That ranking can, but certainly doesn’t have to, be universalistic.
Add non-materialism, and a spiritual hierarchy of races/tribes is a given. That means that, in order to avoid spiritual/metaphysical racialism, one has to do at least one of these three things:
So, again, the leftist, modernist and postmodernist views are the abnormal ones.
And do note that all kinds of traditional cultures have a great deal to say about spiritual heredity, with tribes/races of gods, demigods and various kinds “supernatural” beings + special human groups being far beyond regular human ability (and humans being, in other ways, far beyond their abilities).
Abilities: “They can do things we can’t do, we can do things they can’t do, we can do some things easier/faster/better than them and they can do some things easier/faster/better than us”
Affinities: “We like things they don’t like, they like things we don’t like, we dislike things they don’t dislike and they dislike things we don’t dislike” – “We feel drawn to things they don’t feel drawn to, they feel drawn to things we don’t feel drawn to. We have goals, desires and ideals they don’t have and they have goals , desires and ideals we don’t have”
Needs: “We need things they don’t need, they need things we don’t need, we need some things more/more often than they do and they need some things more/more often than we do”
What I dislike about people obsessing over things like:
is that these topics do not arise naturally, but are memes seeded by the system. If you allow yourself to get dragged into such subjects you’re letting TPTB decide what you’re focused on.
It’s like they give you schoolwork for the day, only more subtle. They propagate certain things at certain times, they seed certain memes at certain occasions. Why do what they want you to at the exact same time they want you to do it? Why jump through their hoops like a trained animal?
The things I mentioned above all have the character of events – of events that can pop up, (apparently) relatively independent of the environment, the people and the culture – they’re random-for-no-reason, deus-ex-machina. Thus they can’t teach you much (if anything) about aforementioned three (you can’t learn from it).
This is how much of the mainstream’s narratives work – just, for no reason, some things happened and then other things happened and then we had no choice but to [further agenda conceived of and decided upon long, long before said event occured].
It is actually concerning just how much of so-called alternative media consists of commenting on, (critically) assessing and re-framing the mainstream’s talking-points-of-the-week. This is a reactive, dependent approach, and one that reveal’s the implicit assumption that what happens on the screen is what happens in reality.
This is the hidden rule of mainstream media.
Almost everyone implicitly assumes, to some degree at least, that:
How to avoid this? One approach which is recommendable for other reasons as well is to stop consuming mainstream media and much of alternative media altogether. Read books, and if you want “news”, talk to your neighbours, friends, relatives, acquaintances about the things they, and the people they know personally, saw, heard and experienced.
There’s the saying: “Great minds dicuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people”
I think there’s some good in it, but it’s distorted. A somewhat better version would be: “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss people, small minds discuss events”.
However, I think that the saying should rather be:
“Great minds discuss the interaction between ideas and people and always connect these things to the events, big and small, that occur. Would-be-great minds talk endlessly about ideas but don’t leave their ivory tower to see how those relate to obserable reality and the people inhabiting it, while uneducated minds perceive people and events through inborn intuition and instinct .”
Out out I 1. and I 2., the following dilemma arises:
You and your group are inherently attuned to higher standards of thinking, working and treating others than the other groups in your environment.
How do you avoid the majority – which leans towards lower standards – from effectively imposing those standards on your people? How do you keep your people from having to lower their standards in order to compete, and from suffering the constant pain of not being allowed to do things properly, of always falling short of one’s desired outcomes?
How to imagine such high-standard people:
Watch the movie Idiocracy and then imagine having to suffer living in that world – and then, try to envision a type of human for whom the current world is like the Idiocracy-world is for you)
Higher-standard human types:
In all of these cases, greater ability is a double-edged sword and as such, not an universal advantage [universal advantages, just like universal disadvantages, do not exist]. Thus, normally gifted humans can (and will) exploit the highly pronounced weaknesses each gifted type has and being the majority, will not face anyone taking advantage of their specific weaknesses.
A solution to the problem of unequal standards:
The “solution” most current western societies default to is to socialize the gifted with the non-gifted (typically in a public school system), thereby ensuring the former’s social isolation, demoralization and finally, adaptation of the lower standards of the non-gifted (or some other kind of coping strategy).
A far superior approach, and one that develops naturally everytime top-down institutions do not interfere with human self-organization, is separation.
This brings us to the origins of aristocracy:
What is the idea behind the aristocratic worldview? Excellence.
What distinguished the aristocrat from the commoner? He was held accountable to a much higher standard.
Thus, aristocracy was – originally – a strategy by which gifted types found each other (strive for excellence) and filtered out those who weren’t like them (high standards).
Once they were – socially, even if not physically – among their own kind, they could, for the first time since the admixture of their type with other, non-gifted ones, live and work in a manner appropriate to their own nature.
Modern and post-modern people believe that age-old customs and rites from various traditional cultures around the world pertaining to reaching adulthood, marriage, procreation, pregnancy, child birth, funerals and celestial rhythms are just “social tools” invented by ancient tribes in order to organize themselves, foster social harmony and distribute ressources and status.
They believe that all the explanations given by all those cultures for why they are doing the otherwise non-explainable things they’re doing are deliberate lies or convenient delusions. In other words, their assumption is that we’re dealing with universal deception of self and/or of others occuring in hundreds of mostly independent traditional cultures on all inhabited continents.
This utter dismissal occupies one extreme of the spectrum of possible explanations.
“Moralization” of the subject:
A theme of this is the notion of “morality” being determinative of those rites and customs.
(Right from the start, it should be noted that the western notion of “morality” may not be applicable to most non-western cultures. In lieu of a different word, and bc what is not a “morality” in the western sense is nevertheless interpreted as such by westerners, that term will be applied to non-western cultures in the next paragraph.)
Modern man disregads the morality of all cultures but the (modern!) western one, while postmodern man disregards all morality except for his own inverted post-modern hypermorality. Yet, bc modern western morality is itself a morality and not an anti-morality (as in the post-modern case), the “moral compass” of various traditional cultures around the world does in many ways correspond relatively well with what the man of modernity regards as moral. Modern man measures those cultures by his culture, and since most of them have some similarity to the latter, the result is not wholly negative.
Not so in the post-modern case: All morality is seen as “oppressive” and thus of no value. Therefore, the postmodernist desires to deliberately break “moral taboos”, and in doing so, he not only acts against modern or early modern western morality, but against more or less all kinds of “morality” known in the human realm (bc all “moralities” share similarities)!
To complete the circle:
Traditional cultures around the world give magical, metaphysical reasons for their rites and customs and cite what befalls those who disregard them. Thus we are left with the two options to either indiscriminately throw out an enormous, multi-faceted wealth of independently corroborated evidence in favor of those rites and customs being beneficial and necessary magical actions, or acknowledge that they truly are effective metaphysical operations.
“Well, when you put it that way …”
As a consequence, the post-modernist childish rebellion against “moral taboos” is revealed to lead, in effect, to a destruction of the magical protection and help that had been in place for millenia in virtually all places of the world and its replacement by the kind of magic and metaphysical influences that have always and universally been viewed as highly malignant and dangerous!
The former comes from disregarding the spirit of important rites and customs (not just a specific expression of them) – ie “not doing what should be done” – and thus losing the beneficial effect they bestowed upon the participants/partitioners. The latter comes from actively engaging in behaviour that goes against those rites and customs, thereby “gaining” detrimental effects – ie “doing what should not be done”.
So instead of post-modernity being “magically neutral”, it is highly detrimental on the metaphysical level, weakening people and increasing their suffering immeasurably – which may very well explain why the denizens of postmodernity suffer from depression and the effects of trauma far more than their far more traumatized grand- and great-grandparents!
There’s the modern worldview, its precursor the early modern one, and its successor the postmodern – and then there are myriads of pre-modern and non-modern worldviews.
Wikipedia sets the early modern period as between 1500 and 1800 (roughly), which I find relatively good. I would say that modernity was the period roughly between 1800 and 1950.
The “scientitifc” ideology of the french revolution is pure modernity, the regime said revolution replaced was early modern. Eugenicism (the movement in 19th and 20th century) is, as an example of so-called “positivism”, modern to the core.
Modernity is faustian, it’s the reign of human reason which seeks, through the use of sophisticated, systematic methods and technology, to control and make useable all of nature. Systematically applying selective breeding to livestock is a modern thing – applying those same principles to humans is only the next logical step in that mindset (like they test drugs/treatments first on animals before testing them on humans).
Creating a “new human” is a major goal of modernity – a human with characteristics optimized by various algorithms determined by theories determined by human reason. As such, both communism and natsoc are modernist to the core – but so were the pre-1945 western behaviourists and eugenicists.
The american pre-1960s focus on business and progress – progressivism itself – were modernist creatures. Look at those old “world fairs” and you’ll see the spirit of modernity!
“A century of progress”
The first modernist nation:
America was fated to become the foremost modernist country – in contrast to old england, it had no old established aristocracies or peasantry, no century-old villages and towns, no castles, no pre-early-modern history and legends, no old magic (except that of the natives and whoever lived there before them), no traditional ethnies or sub-ethnies with their respective territories and histories – no knightly battles, no saxon kings, no celtic chieftains had roamed that land! No local legends going back many hundreds of years (except those of the natives), and no cathedrals.
The colonies were created during the early modern period, as projects run by the crown (?) and by corporations (like the massachussetts bay company). And so, much of what was already modern or close to modernity in the early modern era was present on the eastern rim of that continent in the 18th century. America was to become the incarnation of bacon’s “new atlantis”, an expression of certain occult ideas that had been floating around in powerful english circles, but couldn’t be implemented in the old country (lack of space and the above reasons).
The purpose of modernity (I) :
The background and source of modernity is to be found in the occult. Its primary vehicle was what is commonly called the “enlightenment”. Is it appropriate to ask “What went wrong?” ?
No – bc all this modern, scientific-materialist business is but the expression of certain forces active in this world during that era – it’s the development of certain possibilities which, despite being very poor and low-vibrational, are nevertheless part of reality and thus deserve their place and time (like everything else).
It’s a very limited worldview in so many ways – yet, who’s to say that the limited has no right to exist and no purpose?
I think the development of modernity to full bloom (1950s) has to be seen as a big “experiment” or rather a big “game”. It’s awful in so many ways – but it might also be fun to play as long as you know it is a “game”.
The phenomenology of modernity:
Mass automobile use, highways, suburbanization, the television, masses of standardized, factory-made consumer goods (foodstuffs, pills, tools etc) available in standardized, big retail facilities (supermarkets, malls, special chains), home appliances in every household, civilian air traffic, mass higher education, the nigh-universal belief in science as the cure for all of humanities’ ills – this is the final stage of modernity.
Whereas the former are the reality of late modernism, spaceflight and atomic weapons are the myths with which modernism tried to prolong its era and appeal.
Both myths serve as starting points for a re-enactment of the mental and physical development of modernity – atomic weapons are just gun powder, only stronger and more deadly, other planets and star systems are just other continents, only bigger, farther away and more alien!
The purpose of modernity (II) :
Why were such myths necessary? Bc modernity was never about an endless expansion of humanity into “space” or an endless march of progress (whatever that would mean), it was created and spread by certain occult circles and the ultimate purpose was not even known to (most of?) them.
Computer technology, the logical black-and-white dualism (as in those famous checkered tracing boards), ridiculously enlarged in its power by the spell of scale (“miniaturization”) – that’s the purpose of modernity!
And this is why, of the three major candidates for development in the late 40s/early 50s (atomic weapons, spaceflight, transistor technology), two disappeared and one became more ubiquitous than about anything in society!
Two first saw apparent rapid development (making fantasies of nuclear cars, nuclear annihilation, holyday trips to the moon, deep space colonization etc plausible for the public), then apparent stagnation, and then literally disappeared from the face of the earth (some bad CGIs in one case notwithstanding) – while the third surged, first not obvious, becoming exponentially stronger until it was brought to the public (personal computer) and started to dominate life.
Your father / grandfather saw the moon landing and watched Star Trek TOS, but you’re not closer to visiting other planets or experiencing superluminal flight than he was – however, your pocket computer is far better than the one the people on the enterprise had!
Et tu, postmodernity?
What is postmodernity then? A disoriented, nihilistic version of modernity, bereft of goal and purpose? The dying breath of modernity?
Modernity was about understanding, controlling and using nature – postmodernity arose in a world that was already largely artificial (with a nature largely tamed) – it’s the worldview of people isolated from the natural world, of sick, degenerate city-dwellers.
The “New age”, “witchcraft”, neopaganism are all postmodern phenomena – how many members truly believe in what they’re doing (and don’t see it just as an action against “the patriarchy” or whatever) ? How many leaders truly believe? It’s 95% LARPing, at least (yet who’s to say that that isn’t sufficient to call forth some entities? ).
The modern man scoffs at the notion of magic and interdimensional entities, the postmodern man LARPs these things without taking them seriously even one bit.
I don’t care about either. I am interested in the pre- and non-modern, which is bound to become the post-postmodern.
The first three:
I 1. There is a variety of hereditary potentials, both of character and of ability, among individuals
I 2. There is a variety of hereditary potentials, both of character and of ability, among kinship groups both close (family) and wide (ethnies and races).
I 3. There is a difference in hereditary potentials, both of character and of ability, between women and men.
II 1. There is a hereditary polarity of the sexes.
II 2. There is a hereditary polarity of childhood and adulthood, and those two form, together with the transitional state of adolescence, a spectrum
III That which is inherent is natural and good. It is “the way things should be”.
The second three:
I. Self-interest exists. People want some things, and want to avoid other things. Typically based on need: People need some things, and need to avoid other things.
II. Incompatibilities, trade-offs and conflicts of interest exist. If I own a piece of land then you cannot own it as well – if we could both “own” the land, then “owning” means something else than it does when only one owns it.
III. Power exists. Those with power can do things, those without can’t. The former can do things to the latter, and the latter is in a position in which things can be done to him. Regular chemistry graduates have to find a job, the chemical/pharmaceutical industry needs some of them, but not anyone specific, and it has the ressources to provide jobs, meaning the former are dependent on the latter, and the latter can demand studies that serve their interest.
All six apply equally to the animal kingdom (and most to the plant kingdom as well) – and of the second triad, the first applies to all lifeforms, while the second’s domain extents to those things usually regarded as lifeless as well.
Every notion, belief and ideology that contradicts one of these six principles defeats itself by that very fact.
Hence, the next step is to assess to which degree the various religions, ideologies and worldviews adhere to and acknowledge those principles.
“It was originally formed in 1990 as Time Warner, from the merger of Time Inc. and Warner Communications“
“Time Inc. was an American worldwide mass media corporation founded on November 28, 1922, by Henry Luce and Briton Hadden and based in New York City. It owned and published over 100 magazine brands, including its namesake Time, Sports Illustrated, Travel + Leisure, Food & Wine, Fortune, People, InStyle, Life, Golf Magazine, Southern Living, Essence, Real Simple, and Entertainment Weekly.”
“In 1923, Hadden and Luce co-founded Time magazine along with Robert Livingston Johnson and another Yale classmate.”
Robert Livingston Johnson:
“Kinney National Services, Inc. … was an American conglomerate company from 1966 to 1972. Its successors were National Kinney Corporation and Warner Communications. ” – It was formed in 1966 as Kinney National Company … The new company was headed by Steve Ross.” – “Steve Ross was the company’s sole CEO, president, and chairman. Directors included Charles A. Agemian, the CEO of Garden State National Bank.”
“In 1972 the entertainment assets of Kinney National Company were spun-off into Warner Communications due to a financial scandal over its parking operations. Warner Communications served as the parent company for Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Music Group and, through Warner Cable, Dimension Pictures. It also owned DC Comics and Mad magazine.””
“after spinning off its non-entertainment assets, Kinney National Services renamed itself Warner Communications with Ross serving as co-CEO from 1969 to 1972.” – “In 1972, Ross was appointed CEO, president and chairman of Warner Communications.”
“In 1989, Warner Communications was merged with Time Inc. in a $14 billion deal creating the largest media and entertainment company at the time“ – “Originally advertised as a combination of equals with both Ross and J. Richard Munro of Time Inc. listed as Co-Chief Operating Officers, within a year of the merger, Ross became the sole CEO“
Charles A. Agemian: