123 thoughts on “The Simple Rules That Govern Our Modern Political World”

1. Apparently they’re going to have a huge smearing campaign next week to paint Trump as a pedophile rapist. Sh*t’s getting real, Trump needs to nail her TONIGHT or the chance is gone forever.

   1. Trump is pretty much donesky. Even if by some miracle he wins (and I can’t imagine they won’t stuff the boxes just to be sure he doesn’t), they’re gonna wrap him up on rape charges. “I, for one, welcome our NWO overlords.”

      1. Personally I find them good-looking, benign in their intentions and very wise. Unless of course Trump wins in which case they’re all going down.

      2. In that case he should pull an Erdogan and call it a coup, the military is suffering under female and homosexual integration, the police have been thrown under the BLM bus, and he can get many thousands of shitlords in the streets. Purging 10s of thousands of feminists from the universities and media would be more beautiful than a border wall

   2. The more this plays out, the more trump seems like he was pulled out just to tank it all so ‘glorious’ Killary can save us all.

      1. Hillary would’ve mopped the floor with Jeb! No good reason to bring this kind of spectacle to the election.
         The other side of the coin is that even when Trump loses, you still have a large mass of Americans who have been stirred up like a hornet’s nest. What benefit does the left get from that? The majority of pissed off folks have been voting D/Union their entire lives.

         1. Yeah, perhaps it was a miscalculation. I don’t know one way or another with trump. He mentioned the fed which was huge, but then I find out every one of his family members is married or dating a jew, he talks at AIPAC etc.

         2. Same benefit talleyrand had in releasing napoleon to beat him 100 days later. Expend the opponents’s energy quickly before it has time to build up and actually pose a threat. That is the only explanation i can think of for the elite deliberately destroying society, other than sheer incompetence and a fundamental misalignment of interests (which is still a very legitimate possibility).

2. Their main weapon is the legions of dipshits who actually believe their ideology is to ‘help people’, and not consolidate their grip on power. The shit put out by the media is so ludicrous IDK how anyone could believe it anymore. It’s more of a reflection of the gullibility of the general public.

   1. Most people want to be told what to do. Slavery is a human condition.

   2. Yeah, pathologic alturism really sums it up.

      1. The backlash against Trump is hypocritical virtue signaling.

         1. Don’t forget jealousy.

3. “I don’t know exactly how they coordinate,..”
   Journo-list is one, but I suscpect they are other media hubs to coordinate their narratives. Media today is synonymous for propaganda and alot of people out there know it.
   And Roosh, you should know yourself this site is monitored. No surprises there.

   1. Elite spies!
      If David Icke is right that would make them monitor lizards.

      1. Not at all. I used to inhibit a political site about 12 years ago. Great posters and good discussions and we had more than on guy who was in the military or from DC posting. In fact, we were tipped off Saddam Hussein was captured before it hit the world news.
         We were forewarned later that the site was being monitored.

         1. Back then surveillance wasn’t so routine. Now it’s more a question of how and by whom. Shaping ideas on the net is a pretty universal phenomenon though these days though. A lot of its goes back to the strategy of obama’s information tsar.

   2. I bet than 80% of it is organic. People are just so conditioned and brainwashed that they simply wait for any opportunity to prove themselves to the hive and put up a glorious fight against evil sexist patriarchs. 80% do it out of narcissism and hero-complex, not because they are coordinated and have goals and understanding.

      1. Just look at the “moderates” who usurped GamerGate for their own purposes – shekels and narcissistic supply, mostly – and began mouthing the socially acceptable narrative. The weren’t entryists or plants, but they might as well have been. Their programming drove them to declare victory after losing the war.

         1. Not sure what your last sentence means, but yup. If some form of real conspiracy were necessary that requires everyone to have some sort of connection to the evil overlord and be an ‘entryist’, it would be much less effective.

         2. The big voices for GG declared victory a while back, despite the anons on Pol knowing different. Ultimately the “namefag” GGers were in favour of the same multiculti policies that the SJWs stood for, the just got off on arguing and insulting people under the excuse of a noble political cause… which, if you think about it, is exactly what the SJW hordes get up to as well.

         3. I remember a video chat between an anti-GGer and Mike Cernovich. Basically, Mike argued that ‘GG’ is not a ‘movement’. It is just a hashtag used by a lot of different individuals. And the other guy argued ‘well, you should make a movement out of it and make an organization and then hold people accountable etc’ and Mike was like ‘wtf for?’.
            Seems like that is what the ‘infiltrating’ SJWs did. Only that there was nothing to infiltrate in the first place.

4. YKW is only 2% of populace but over 50% of ceos for major bank,media, clinton contributors etc.
   That’s the real enemy.

5. “1. I have an agenda that is traditional and patriarchal.
   2. Those in power have an agenda that is non-traditional and matriarchal.
   3. I began to physically organize into a proto-political movement.”
   I question part 2 here. You stand behind traditional and patriarchal, yes, because you (I believe you do) think it is the best for the greater good, for whatever that’s worth.
   I don’t think that the people in power stand behind matriarchal and non-traditional values as you stand behind patriarchal. I think they just use them because they are effective at helping them achieve their goals.
   Make it unthinkable that power exists (inhumane!!!!) and those in power can rule without any opposition.
   Come think of it … reminds me of the old ‘The best trick of the devil was to convince you he doesn’t exist’ saying.

   1. So those in power pretend they don’t have any power or don’t exist?

      1. No no. Those in power pretend that what they have is not ‘power’, but simply something else like ‘a good heart’ or ‘humanitarian qualities in selfless service’ or blah blah.
         There was a nice article on Dark Triad man by a guest blogger. He argued that leftists use the exact same power games everyone else does, but they pretend to be ‘against power’. Which makes them blind to what is happening, as they fail to see the structural underpinnings of their own movement.
         In fact, I think it was the book 48 Laws of Power that said that those who claim ‘I don’t play power games’ in reality are playing a power game simply for making this assertion (by pretending to be “above it” etc, which gives them a form of power).

         1. Good points and I agree in large part. The only thing is those people in power pretending that they don’t have power, may or may not be doing it cynically. Sometimes, perhaps at its essence politics and power is about nothing but politics and power – i.e. it is pure ego, theleme, will or whatever. But particularly with the left it doesn’t necessarily do to underestimate the role of belief / conviction. What makes the end justify the means? Cynicism. I’m not so sure. I think Roosh’s analysis is correct, but perhaps not entirely so. People need to believe in what they do. Pure egotism doesn’t necessarily inspire. Even tyrants want to believe they have risen to the position because somehow the Gods have decreed it, and even in a less superstitious age people still want to believe it is for the good (whether that good be a universal one or not is another matter).
            But then it’s not even necessarily just about justification. People need something to do. David Rockefeller justifies his NWO machinations by his belief that a more global connected world will be a better place rather than a worse one. I would say the most useful skill the real elite has is to balance their will to power with their belief that will is a (almost?) holy cause

         2. Carnegie wrote that everyone wants / does believe they are really ‘good’. That even mafia bosses and the likes always believe they are doing it for ‘good’. Now the obvious typical interpretation is ‘they are deluded’. What if the truth is more subtle? What if ‘good’ is just a word connected to an emotion of, say, acceptance and acknowledgement, and THAT is what people really crave? (Harmonizes with Carnegie too)
            So basically, you can believe you are doing ‘good’ always as long as you get acknowledgement. But are you REALLY good? But what if ‘really good’ doesn’t exist and is just an abstract concept? What if the emotion of acknowledgement IS what we call ‘good’?
            “Pure egotism doesn’t necessarily inspire”
            What if that is ass-backwards? What if ‘inspiration’ is really a very egotistical thing? What if ‘inspiration’ is ‘the desire to do good’ and in reflection, the desire for acknowledgement. Now, that would mean that dependent on what you grew up with associating with the word ‘good’, this is what you will do to gain this feeling of acknowledgment. Bad-ass narcs will do it through ‘success’ and ‘being tough’ and whatever. The reverse co-dependent will do it by ‘serving’ etc. Both really have the same goal though on an emotional level. ?

         3. well for the most part I’d say that is true. Of course the possibility that we are deceiving ourselves about what we are doing when we think that we pursue the good (when in fact we are doing it for acknowledgement / narcissism etc) isn’t necessarily a proof that there is no Good, but merely that we are very good about deceiving ourselves about it. What I think your observation points to is the reality in our lives of Plato’s Great Beast – the fact that when we please the beast we get positive feedback – feedback that we are good – but when we displease the beast (which is really just society in the unthinking, unreasoning aggregate) we get negative feedback. Thus we find ourselves at an impasse – if Plato is right then by seeking to please the beast we are actually failing to seek what is right, good and reasoned.
            Obviously there remains the issue of whether their can be any objective good (without metaphysical guarantee) but demonstrating that we typically deceive ourselves isn’t necessarily to prove that such an objective notion of good is meaningless

         4. Well, a simple proof-of-concept that ‘good’ is just a word is the fact that the English language is not global. Other languages use entirely different words, but the underlying mechanism is the same. What if the word is the lie and the mechanism is the truth?
            And what if the greater ‘truth’ lies not in ‘doing good’ but simply doing nothing and just observing? Which is what a commenter on my blog also remarked in regards to spiritual enlightenment and what I read many times in a similar fashion: To become enlightened is to STOP doing.
            And from that point on, there may be this non-duality thing, where there is no separation between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. And once this separation no longer exists, ironically, you stop fighting, because there is nothing of value to be fought for, because everything just is what it is. And when you stop fighting, you no longer introduce conflict into your own life. And if we extend this, if everybody did this, there would be no conflict and there would be no ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
            Which of course could lead to the erroneous (?) assumption that we need to make everybody ‘conform to’ enlightenment and stop fighting, which is KINDA what the left does. But I think that would be a major failure to truly understand truth. If there is on a deeper level no ‘good’ and no ‘evil’, it likewise cannot be said that the fight between ‘good and evil’ is ‘bad’. So you would just accept it and not mind it and just see it for what it is. Which would, ironically, make enlightenment and true peace a solely personal ‘pursuit’ as it would be saying ‘I am in peace. But I don’t mind it if other’s aren’t, because that is not “bad” It just is. And I will eventually be at such a point myself once more’.
            Which would of course lead to the conclusion that there really is no need for enlightenment, because enlightenment is not ‘good’ or anything. And that everything is just ‘fine’ (although that would be another judgment) as it is.
            Does it not say that ‘all roads to hell are paved with GOOD intentions’? Maybe it doesn’t describe a material hell, but rather a personal one. That if you fight for X while fighting against Y, you deny half of who you are and this inner conflict creates ‘hell’ for you.

         5. “And from that point on, there may be this non-duality thing, where there is no separation between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. And once this separation no longer exists, ironically, you stop fighting, because there is nothing of value to be fought for, because everything just is what it is. And when you stop fighting, you no longer introduce conflict into your own life. And if we extend this, if everybody did this, there would be no conflict and there would be no ‘good’ and ‘evil’.”
            That kind of transcendental spirituality obviously has a long and worthy history and I don’t reject it out right, not least because I don’t know enough about it to properly assess or evaluate it (beyond what you have said right here) however it seems inhumanly quietist and passive. Regardless of whether it can produce inner peace through the transcendence of inner conflict it does seem rather as though it its upshot would be the end of desire, and therefore of human history in a sense. That’s the strange thing – we’re in this world which is racing to evolve into the next incarnation of humanity, marching forward at breakneck speed, yet there is also this tendency towards simply stopping and getting off. I would say that’s what happens with a mindset of millenialist progress, it always ends with eschatology. i.e. I don’t think it’s possible to just stop and rise above it all; we either move forward or end it all. Progress is always towards a cliff, and the final step forward is always over that cliff
            The problem with transcending good and evil though is the problem of (the encounter with) evil itself. We can withdraw from the world, but when we do it tends to come and get us. This is the problem of theodicy, and I’m not sure breaking down the boundaries between good and evil successfully solves that problem. Indeed from the traditional religious or at least Christian / Jewish) perspective the dissolution of good and evil (including as concepts or mere words that might refer no nothing beyond other concepts and words) is itself an evil. This is the problem with regarding the world as constituted only in language and only therefore in society. It ultimately leads to solipsism. The belief that only society exists, may lead ultimately to the belief only in oneself. And of course once one believes only in oneself, one has given oneself permission to commit evil unto others, since neither good or evil exists

         6. Well, wait. I don’t think it’s really about ‘stopping time’ or anything like that. To stop doing is to stop fighting the self. It is the opposite of ‘stopping the self’. Rather, it is the notion to let the self flow freely. To ‘fight advancement’ would be quite the opposite of ‘doing nothing’, ironically. I don’t think it’s about stopping events and time. I think it’s the opposite. To let everythng that comes come and pass. To experience all facets of human existence without resistance or judgment.
            Yes, the transcendence comes through confronting evil. But what does that mean on a deeper level? We could argue that if evil does not truly exist, but exists in our minds, what we are truly confronting is our own mind, in which evil is a real concept. Incorporating the Shadow, as Jung would say. Once the things that one associates with ‘evil’ are confronted and approached with love instead of fear, they dissolve and show you their true nature, which is neither good nor evil, but just is. So ‘confronting evil’ would feel very real, but in essence it would more realistically be ‘confronting the illusion of evil’ or ‘confronting one’s fears about certain aspects of the self’.
            “And of course once one believes only in oneself, one has given oneself permission to commit evil unto others, since neither good or evil exists”
            Well, yes and no. You are judging non-duality from a place of duality, which is invalid. If neither good nor evil exist, there is no evil that can be feared. I admit it’s a bit of a mindfuck.
            Let me give an example: I grew up, as apparently many men, with core shame about my masculinity. I thought and felt about it as ‘evil’, and when I acted in a masculine manner, I felt I was hurting others and I felt guilty. But the more I dissolve my fear regarding masculinity and lose the shame, I realize there is nothing inherently ‘evil’ about masculinity. It just is.
            And if you take a closer look, our world IS non-dual in many ways. To our eyes, it appears as the cognitive dissonance we tend to call ‘hypocrisy’. We judge one thing, but then we do the same. But sometimes we do it in a different context, so suddenly it is okay. We say ‘doing X is wrong, unless you are doing it because Y’. We say it’s okay to discipline children and teach them that we have power over them, yet we detest that the government has power over us. We teach that we shall overcome fear, yet many preach fear of the devil. We condemn slavery, yet in other ways we practice it (but use other words for it). Is any of those actions inherently good or evil?
            And then, sometimes humans commit what later gets to be called ‘atrocious crimes’, but at the time the actions were referred to as ‘heroic deeds’. Take WW2 as an example, literally Hitler. Were those actions inherently ‘evil’? If so, how come those who did them did not recognize this? Because they were brainwashed? But what if everything just is what it is and WE are brainwashed? What if both perspectives are brainwashed?

         7. Interesting comments. Have to sleep now though. Thanks for the debate

         8. N8 mate.

         9. Interesting post.
            “To ‘fight advancement’ would be quite the opposite of ‘doing nothing’, ironically. I don’t think it’s about stopping events and time. I think it’s the opposite.”
            Sounds to me like you’re operating under an assumption that “advancement” or whatever is necessary, ineluctable, as Hegel and Marx did. Progress, change, advancement, just is, and all we have to do is stop resisting it, a state of affairs that creates within us conflict and unhappiness, and then we’d be free, transcendent of this juggernaut of history, and able to concentrate on our own needs and desires, or rise above them.
            I’m actually pretty much with you with respect to the whole mindfulness approach to things. To watch ourselves and others, from a meta position, in awareness of the feelings and thoughts we have, and perhaps as you suggest adopting an affectionate attitude, if you like an attitude of loving-kindness . I’m actually a great believer in that kind of approach except to the extent that depending on how one understands it one might end up dis-engaging rather than engaging with the world.
            Which returns us to the issue of advancement, events, progress etc. Is that thing called progress / advancement or whatever really just happening, moving forward of its own momentum, or it is being sculpted by human actors which to the extent we adopt such a quiescent transcendent position will consist of actions performed without our influence, and indeed without our consent.
            You might re-interpret such a transcendent position as enjoying the right to say yes – to go with the flow of history much as one might swim or surf with the flow of a fast-moving river – but not to say ‘no’, to refuse consent, or to offer an alternative vision, for that, particularly the former, but also the latter to the extent that the stream is fixed, would be to resist, create conflict etc. So yes, you might have identified a cause of unhappiness, but I don’t know that you’ve made the case that seeking it has any greater virtue that to wish to go to sleep or enter a hypnotic trance.
            I don’t really get what you mean when you say “you are judging non-duality from a place of duality, which is invalid”. Or rather I do, but I’m making the claim that a non-duality that embraces good and evil as a mere illusion, or an artifact of human culture and history, is ultimately solipsistic. I think your case is strong in many ways. We have just come out of a century that has demonstrated that much of what we assumed to be real was in fact merely an artefact of language and thought. Sure, good and evil are concepts, and how we describe them will determine what our idea of good and evil is, what kind of culture we live in etc. Likewise it seems difficult to argue that evil is absolute and fixed, or that the relativist argument that it is historically and culturally specific isn’t in large part correct, but I would argue that the encounter with evil tends to return us to the contemplation of the absolute and the restoration of that dualism, this boundary between the holy and the unholy. Evil has this tendency to explode through the definitions which would seek to contain it and reduce it to relativity, to some subset of the dictum ‘all is mind’. It returns us to the idea of the real.
            Of course we do not have an absolute standard of what evil is. In many ways WWII & the Holocaust appeared to provide us with that. It represented a gold standard for good and evil, one which is in still in many ways the cornerstone of our understanding of morality. But of course as we see all around us, that too is challenged, and as you suggest those doing the challenging will presumably not be self-consciously embracing evil, but challenging it’s definition with a different conception of good (and evil). Yet, still the distinction between good and evil, the form subsists even if the content changes. Given that good and evil are things that we experience, why would we expect otherwise?
            It’s worth returning though to the issue of solipsism. For Simone Weil, evil does have a content. It is precisely not believing in others – and presumably “the Other” although she does not use that term. Evil is possible to the extent that we do not truly believe that others exist. We can only harm, torture or kill others by this reading because in the moment when we do so, they do not exist for us, as fully human or fully real. This is the logical consequence for the belief that all is mind. By this reading, which you I imagine you would reject, love is only possible if others are real

         10. “but I would argue that the encounter with evil tends to return us to the contemplation of the absolute and the restoration of that dualism, this boundary between the holy and the unholy. Evil has this tendency to explode through the definitions which would seek to contain it and reduce it to relativity, to some subset of the dictum ‘all is mind’. It returns us to the idea of the real.”
             Instead of me interpreting what you mean by this through my own experiences, may I ask what you mean by this? Are you possibly just saying that when we encounter great pain that we are not equipped to deal with (yet), it overwhelms us?
             “It’s worth returning though to the issue of solipsism. For Simone Weil, evil does have a content. It is precisely not believing in others – and presumably “the Other” although she does not use that term. Evil is possible to the extent that we do not truly believe that others exist. We can only harm, torture or kill others by this reading because in the moment when we do so, they do not exist for us, as fully human or fully real. This is the logical consequence for the belief that all is mind. By this reading, which you I imagine you would reject, love is only possible if others are real”
             That, to me, is saying that the only possible way to not harm others is to be restricted by guilt or shame. What else is that statement implying? Why would an ‘unrealness’ of others make us hurt them? That is a non-sequitur to me. Hurting others is a form of emotional / energetic reaction to something else that happened to us or a concrete situation where it may be necessary. To say that we need to push an idea of ‘realness’ onto ‘others’ in order for us to be less inclined to hurt them makes me wonder what we in this context really mean by ‘real’? Why would a ‘realness’ of others influence how we act? What does that even mean? I think it’s an argument utilizing shame and guilt, as in ‘their realness weighs more than your own’ or ‘they are not to be touched in any circumstance, because they are better than you and your possible desire to hurt them’. Which I would say is a typical female argument.
             Here’s my argument: If you are fully mindful and aware … what reason would you have to hurt others unless a situation somehow demands it? I think a lot of hurting others can be reduced to us passing on and acting on our own pain, trying to run from our own pain. If we are fully mindful, there is nothing to run from, hence while in that state we would theoretically be fully free to, say, rape and murder without feeling too bad about it, there is simply no reason to do so, because we would harbor no desire or energetic constellation that would have this as an outcome. Rather, we would likely feel a strong sense of harmony and connectedness and, in the apperance, act lovingly and kindly.

         11. “I’m actually a great believer in that kind of approach except to the extent that depending on how one understands it one might end up dis-engaging rather than engaging with the world.”
             Well, and if it does? It may have this effect on some, and the opposite of others. What is wrong with either? I think that when you stop resisting, all you experience is who you are and what you want to be. To some it may mean disengaging, to others it may mean engaging. Also, maybe the disengaging-part is the one of BECOMING enlightened, not being it. To be mindful, we retreat to be alone with our demons. But once the demons are gone, what stops us from reengaging? Maybe you see it a bit too much as a doctrine and then maybe you have some popular culture images of ‘enlightened monks’ in your head that just meditate and do nothing all day. But I think that enlightenment is in a large part finding out who you are and then you automatically discard all notions about what ‘enlightenment’ means or what it ‘requires you to’ do.

         12. “Evil has this tendency to explode through the definitions which would seek to contain it and reduce it to relativity, to some subset of the dictum ‘all is mind’. It returns us to the idea of the real.”
             Instead of me interpreting what you mean by this through my own experiences, may I ask what you mean by this? Are you possibly just saying that when we encounter great pain that we are not equipped to deal with (yet), it overwhelms us?”
             Well I’d say that that is my explanation. You seem to regard evil as an artefact of language / culture, and in part I would certainly recognise that is true in any kind of sociological sense. The encounter with evil, with pain, loss etc. is I would say not an encounter with words and ideas in the first instance, but with reality, namely that which is out there. Transcending the dualism of good and evil, which of course itself is an idea, with a history in the sense we’ve discussed, is part of seeking to manage that experience. What you’ve described in terms of trascendence, mindfulness etc is part of managing that experience – and indeed is a very good way of doing so. Except it always ultimately falls short. We encounter evil in the failure of understanding, and in the failure to manage it. In some instances it will simply consume us, and the world becomes pure need or anguish or pity or whatever (yes words, but that’s all we have to work with). Our encounter with evil begins our quest to transcend it, and perhaps in the first instance the way we do that it is by naming it (and thereafter opposing it within a binary). In a sense I’m speculatively returning to a referential theory of language, and suggesting a purely psychological motivation. Language is meta-from the get go
             Re. the issue of harming people I’m not sure we’re entirely on the same page. When you say “That, to me, is saying that the only possible way to not harm others is to be restricted by guilt or shame,” I would have to say that we are talking about somewhat different things. Simone Weill is not talking about making the world a safer place i.e. reducing the sum of harm in the world. She is simply saying – whether she is right is another thing – that to murder someone or seriously hurt them – will reflect a failure of the imagination vis a vis that person, i.e. to do so is to fail to understand (imagine) them as fully real or fully human. In psychology this might be described in terms of theory of mind / mind-reading or putting yourself in anothers’ shoes, but she is I think saying something less computational: merely that if in inflicting pain, injury etc you could imagine the reality of experiencing that pain, injury as though you experienced it yourself then it would be impossible to perform that act. I am not necessarily saying she is right. People do after all harm themselves, hate themselves, and presumably when they do so they do doubt their own existence – or then again maybe they do – maybe it is a question of some kind of de-realization. It’s funny how often you hear of a murderer who was thinking about killing themselves but ended up opting for killing someone else instead. Was that person a substitute because they were less real. More real? One could still argue that the substitution was made because ultimately they made the evaluation – imaginatively – that the other person was less real than they were.
             Now your theory that the above for instance would not have happened had that person practiced some kind of transcendentalism / mindfulness (if that captures what you are suggesting) is probably correct. But again we are not talking here about harm reduction, risk management or building a safer world, but of the psychological conditions for committing evil. Sure from a utilitarian point of view it is entirely legitimate to say that a happy mindful solipsist may be more practically pro-social or even loving than someone who agonises about other people, even to the extent perhaps of burying or de-prioritising their own ego. I’m actually with you on that. I certainly don’t think it’s healthy to imagine people as ‘more real’ or more deserving of attention, love etc than yourself, which is why I think your concern about shame / guilt inducing is misplaced. I am purely talking about the conditions in which it is possible to commit evil, and more specifically about what I take Simone Weil’s definition of evil to be (I may be wrong – I am putting my own gloss on what she said on the issue – it is just an interpretation).
             Personally though I do think there is something in it. Perhaps achieving oneness with the universe is another method, but then as you yourself point out, there is a shadow side to the one, the monad. If we forget we ever discovered the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do we really overcome evil? If we transcend our knowledge of good and evil how do we know we are not simply left with evil rather than the fusion / negation of both? The further possibility that we are left with just good however seems to be disqualified in advance by the negation of the binary. So what is left? There may well be scope for a re-valuation of sorts, but it a question of on what basis. The only solution to this that I see is an aesthetic-ethical one. I don’t care to go into that, but that would involve a new hierarchy over the kind of levelling involved in negation

         13. maybe it’s possible like Rambo, or those stereotypical wounded martial artist warriors in the movies to withdraw in order to heal / achieve enlightenment, and then return to the fight. Maybe that can occur both diachronically and syncrhonically (sorry for the wank-ful words) but then that’s not the way it comes across. If you consider the politics of this site for instance, it is perfectly consistent to improve oneself, work on one’s transcendental frame (?) or whatever, but insofar as their demons to be overcome those demons exist at least as much in the outside world as within the inner. Indeed if you want to become a warrior for trump (or for neo-masculinity or whatever) then any disengagement of the kind you describe would need to have the purpose of re-engaging more effectively with those flesh and blood demons – like Hillary Clinton and male feminism etc. But I don’t really get that from what you are saying. It sounds more like, so what if Trump or Clinton wins; so what if Hillary personally neuters with her teeth …. it’s all good, because good and evil are just words. No, Hillary gnashing at our goolies and then snowballing them with Huma is pure evil. Down with that sort of thing

         14. “It sounds more like, so what if Trump or Clinton wins; so what if Hillary personally neuters with her teeth …. it’s all good, because good and evil are just words.”
             No, it’s not all good. If good doesn’t exist, it can’t be good. It just is.
             Think about what it is beyond those words ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Hillary is a person who threatens to cause you pain. That per se is just a fact, neither evil nor good. Now we can conclude she does this because she is ‘evil’, but what does that really tell us? Nothing. It’s an emotional statement that says ‘I hate that bitch and I will fight her’. Which is cool of course, but it does not really lead to any understanding.
             Now, ‘understanding’ is often used as an excuse to harm others and not be harmed back or whatever. What I propose is more the matter-of-fact kind of ‘understanding’. That is, understanding why things happen as they do, without calling it either ‘good’ nor ‘evil’.
             Why does Hillary do this? We can assume she has pain in herself. This pain rules her. This pain makes her do what she does.
             Does that mean you should like her? Does that mean you should not defend yourself? No. If you hate that bitch and want to fight her, that’s cool. (OR is it?) She wants to hurt you and you want to defend yourself. Neither of those acts is ‘good’ or ‘evil’. It just is how it works.
             I don’t think enlightenment necessarily changes how you feel about things … it’s more that you recognize these feelings for what they are instead of being ruled by them. Which I think is very much in harmony with most masculine ideologies.
             You observe that she wants to hurt you. You observe why she does this. You observe how you become angry and defend yourself. You observe why you do this. You don’t interfere and let it flow. Does that sound acceptable? 🙂

         15. “Well I’d say that that is my explanation. You seem to regard evil as an artefact of language / culture, and in part I would certainly recognise that is true in any kind of sociological sense. The encounter with evil, with pain, loss etc. is I would say not an encounter with words and ideas in the first instance, but with reality, namely that which is out there. ”
             Well, is pain and loss equivalent to evil? Is death evil? Is the impermanence of our existence evil? Or is it simply what it is?
             A lot of men here recognize that pain is an inevitable part of life. Some say one should love it. Why restrict this to weight lifting? Why not embrace it fully and extend it to every form of pain?
             To simply say something is ‘evil’ is to miss an opportunity to observe what is actually happening. And in some cases, to miss an opportunity to act smarter than just to blindly condemn and defend yourself. Surely sometimes defense is absolutely required. Other times, kindness and love may be the answer. I think that once you live in this non-duality thing, you do not ‘think’ about whether you should defend yourself or show love instead. You just act out of intuition. You are one. There is no conflict inside of you. Maybe you realize that all happens as it happens because it is the only way it could be, because our emotions/values/etc are just forms of energies in our body (I said it once already, but it’s not hocus pocus; our nervous system is “electrical” in many aspects, as is our entire physical world). You observe these energies and how they interact. You observe the energy of hatred from Hillary, you observe how your own energy of anger pushes against it and blah blah. But you don’t interfere or get caught up in it. You just look at it. And when I say ‘you’ in this case, I mean a deeper kind of ‘you’ that is seperate from your physical you. The observer. You are the observer that observes the physical you. If your physical you gets violent in defense, you observe. If your physical you is kind, you observe. Etc. I think that is what is meant by ‘not doing anything’. It’s not that the physical you becomes inactive. It’s that your mind is at peace while you observe everything.
             A commenter on my blog brought up the example of being with a girl. How it is important to be ‘in the moment’. I think that’s exactly it. To be fully present. Not governed by fear or analysis or anything like that. Just to be there and observe. And then, sex happens. It’s not that you ‘do sex’. You just let it happen. If that makes sense. Of course, I am not there yet, but I am starting to see how this is a very plausible perspective.

         16. “Well, is pain and loss equivalent to evil? Is death evil? Is the impermanence of our existence evil? Or is it simply what it is?
             A lot of men here recognize that pain is an inevitable part of life. Some
             say one should love it. Why restrict this to weight lifting? Why not
             embrace it fully and extend it to every form of pain?To simply say something is ‘evil’ is to miss an opportunity to observe what is actually happening”
             I don’t think I’m necessarily saying that: that our definitions of evil are or should be fixed, but merely that however much we may seek to rise above circumstances, and our unreflective, instinctual (and conflicted) lives we are always wont to fail, and that when this happens it is frequently in encountering evil, or at least what we might call evil, even if we can recognise that that will always remain an evaluation, and for the most part a provisional one at that.
             One thing I’ve always been interested in is the relationship of narrative to evil, particularly insofar as narrative may change and even invert the value of evil in the telling. Events that go wrong, or harm us, or bereave us when encountered directly we call evil, but when we mediate this within our personal or wider narratives, such ‘reversals’ often take on a quite different hue, to the point that sometimes the value of the discrete event is flipped on its head, or at least seems to be. That may not be quite what you mean, but it is another kind of going ‘meta’ on the event otherwise understood in the ‘absolute’ as though it had a single, and necessarily negative value. I am not disputing then the possibility of re-valuing / trans-valuing events, that would ordinarily be considered to be inherently negative, bad or evil, c.f. for instance evil events may have an ultimately positive implication within the “quest narrative” tradition of Joseph Campbell (broadly jungian).
             The above is probably compatible with your take on adopting a transcendent / meta / mindful position, although the apparent difference would be that in your case you are suspending judgement, negative evaluations and therefore resistance to the perceived flow of events (c.f. Csikszentmihalyi) whereas in the narrative approach I’m talking about, something slightly different, and potentially more judgemental is going on. In the narrative view for instance evil is not revalued necessarily because one distances oneself from it, or accepts it, or stops resisting it, but because it serves a narrative purpose. This is a tradition that in many ways is actually quite compatible with a traditional form of morality but which nevertheless may violate the kind of evalutation that usually goes with such morality. The Christian church for instance rarely resolves the tensions in its view of evil. Sin / evil for the most part is absolutely sinful or absolutely evil – it’s all bad in other words. Yet within this same tradition you will typically find thinkers who regard evil as ultimately serving the will of God, where that will is an undifferrentiated good. Christianity doesn’t resolve this tension – namely that evil may serve good (or vice versa if you wish to be err. adversarial). Jung obviously introduces the shadow side, and the over-god Abraxas etc. where good and evil is dissolved, perhaps in a way not so different from what you describe. Yet in the former tradition, one which increasingly tends towards a narrative view, evil remains evil even when it serves the greater good. This appears to be the point of disagreement. You are arguing for the equality of good and evil, achieved ultimately in the levelling (negation) of the binary itself and I am arguing that one of those terms is greater than the other and serves the other (although the question could still be asked: which one?), that there is indeed a re-valuation in order, but that that revaluation does not require the abolition of the opposition, even if it may require its transcendence.

         17. “Hillary is a person who threatens to cause you pain. That per se is just
             a fact, neither evil nor good. Now we can conclude she does this
             because she is ‘evil’, but what does that really tell us? Nothing. It’s
             an emotional statement that says ‘I hate that bitch and I will fight
             her’.”
             no not at all. What you’re describing is ‘good’ in the false sense that Plato outlined, namely the unreflective, instinctual evaluation of the beast. What pleases the beast, the senses etc is good, what displeases is bad. If good is an invalid concept (e.g. because it is just a concept) it is not invalid because it merely reflects an emotional / psychological response, although I agree it is important to understand the psychology and emotions involved in the pursuit of ‘good’ which may well involve self-deception / intellectual confusion
             “Hillary is a person who threatens to cause you pain. That per se is just
             a fact, neither evil nor good. Now we can conclude she does this
             because she is ‘evil’, but what does that really tell us? Nothing. It’s
             an emotional statement that says ‘I hate that bitch and I will fight
             her’. ”
             I think we are partly in agreement here. At least insofar as accepting / observing negative positive emotions without judgement etc. at least insofar as this seems to be a utilitarian approach that may help us to manage our emotions / mental health etc. But I don’t see why this requires abandoning the distinction between good and evil. Accepting negative emotions experienced because we’ve had a bad day, or Hillary’s passed a law banning testicles need not impact on whether good and evil are meaningful concepts

6. This might help make the big picture a little clearer…a little something I put together quite a while back, for an article such as this one.
   https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6d9f524e8ba7e08451cf1ea57d6719a9025a8c74db1371b63273f0953c6f9de.jpg

7. This dovetails with what Roosh imparted in his article, and might make the big picture a little bit clearer…I put this together quite a while back, for an article just like this one.
   https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88ef1093ad1fadcdec8da0b1a9598b538e3da9f5e3267c14cd7dda42c9ad8734.jpg

   1. Very nice.
      Hey I had a thought that may be of interest to you (since we had this dream reality talks): What if the physical laws of the universe don’t exist per se, but only exist because we believe in them aka some Law of Manifestation of the mind? What if science IS true, but is only true because we believe so deeply in it that we laugh at and can’t fathom it isn’t?
      Think Yoda and Luke. Yoda lifts the space ship out of the swamp. Luke says ‘I dont believe it’. Yoda says ‘That is why you fail’
      If this were true even half-way, we would have the whole power-play ass-backwards. It would mean that the main real form of power is a form of metaphysical mind-control. Make other spiritual beings believe in a certain form of world that is governed by ‘scientific’ laws and once everybody believes it depply, it has become reality.
      Now we could say there are parallel universes. Some in which most of us here live, where physical laws are valid and exist. And others where they don’t. And we jump between these universes by means of our beliefs.
      Now, those parallel universes could overlap every now and then and people could through fluctuations in their belifs cross the borders and then we would get stuff like Jesus in our reality who comes and does some weird wonders (turning water to wine etc). Say this actually happened. But we could never prove it. Why? Because in our reality (manifested by our beliefs), it is impossible. To prove it, you would have to first deeply and intimately believe that it is possible and then you would get your proof. Only then you would no longer reside in the same parallel reality that we are in NOW, so you could never ‘go back’ and show it to those who don’t believe, because in order to communicate with them, you would first have to enter their universe by actually stopping to believe it is possible ….
      A little mindfuck fyp.

      1. “What if the physical laws of the universe don’t exist per se, but only exist because we believe in them aka some Law of Manifestation of the mind? What if science IS true, but is only true because we believe so deeply in it that we laugh at and can’t fathom it isn’t?”
         I think that’s more than just a ‘what if’…I think it’s much closer to reality than what the average person believes. As in my illustration/meme above, the scientist dictates what the physical laws of the universe are, in the minds of the plebes. It used to be the church that did that; and it still does, to a large degree, because the separation of church and state is a lie, basically.
         But let’s take the notion a step further – what if the elite already know this to be true, and they use the Law of Manifestation of the mind to their full advantage, by focusing their intent, single-mindedly, as a GROUP (the power of two dreamers squared, three dreamers cubed, etc.), on the structure and content of our world and shape it accordingly…I am definitely with you on this line of reasoning, Tom.

         1. Heh, exactly.
            Existence is fucking weird, mate.

         2. That it is my friend. It’s definitely all in the mind. Quite literally (Hitler)…

         3. But what IS the mind even?

         4. Good point. Maybe there are two minds – since we live in a world of duality. The rational mind, and the infinite mind. And maybe we stopped using our infinite mind (where we knew things directly), a long time ago, and maybe that’s the “fall” the Bible talks about. Hmm. I have half a (rational) mind that agrees with that, and another half a (rational) mind that doesn’t…

         5. Yah, same here.
            Btw, another (minor) mindfuck.
            In the vicepres debate, the dem guy said: ‘One who does not understand the difference between leadership and dictatorship is not suited to … blah blah’
            Now the other guy could have asked: Please tell me the difference.
            But how do people react to such a question? With a real answer? No. To them, such a question is an attack of their fundamental beliefs and when you ask it, they assume it is rhetorical and they will shame you and act as if you were an imbecile.
            But what if we seriously ask this question non-rhetorically? What IS the difference between, say, Obama and Putin, reflectively leadership and dictatorship?
            Is the answer so clear? Or are we using two words with vastly different emotional content to describe things that are actually quite similar?

         6. Yes. I often see people arguing, and they are saying the exact same thing and merely using different words. Words limit, obfuscate, and confuse. Knowing something directly is a different animal. Like incidences of alleged ESP (or coincidence) – “I just knew the phone was going to ring.” Well, maybe we can know things directly, maybe we used to do that as easy as we now send text messages. My mind is getting fried just thinking about this. I want an aspartame-laced Diet Coke, a bag of GMO chips, and a nice, warm, fuzzy mindfuck of a TV show to make me stop thinking…zzzzz.

         7. I use to rarely have these moments of ‘I have been here before’. Like yesterday, I was rendering a 3D scene and I swear, I had this very strong sense of ‘Wait, I have been here before. I have done this exact same thing’ Maybe that is some kind of … dunno … cosmic convergence that give you some kind of hint. Whatever it means. Maybe it just means ‘there is no future and no past. All always is and always will be. There is no advancement or pursuit, there is only a shift in perspective.’
            Have you read Stephen King’s Dark Tower novels? At the end of the 7th and final novel, there is quite a mindfuck that alludes to this idea.
            In fact, if we take it a little deeper and more existential, is there a thought more scary than the thought that you could be living your life over and over again without even knowing it? Having forever lived the same life over and over and being doomed (or not) to do so forever? I don’t know, but to me the thought feels like jumping into the rabbit hole and falling right through its ground into deeper truths that even the red pill doesn’t dare to speak of.

         8. Haven’t read the Dark Tower series. But I was talking to a 29th-degree Freemason at a bar the other night. Didn’t know him beforehand, we just “coincidentally” wound up sitting next to each other. We discussed that very thing, and a lot more. In the end, after several of those jolts you get when you realize somebody is on the exact same page that you are, because they say things that you had formulated in your mind a second before the person actually said them, we came to the conclusion that single-mindedness is the key to ascension on any level. We shape our reality. By focused thought. By the power of GROUP focused thought, if we want to shape our own world. He’s a Mason, so he believes in the Grand Architect – whereas a Christian believes in God the Father. But we are what we think, and we think what we are. And I’m no Mason…I don’t adhere to any dogma – unless it’s a dogma of my own creation, heh (because I cling to it in my mind). The elite want to be gods on earth. They know they could be much more. But, “better to reign in hell”, and all that…in other words they cling to the now, and the shaping of it, instead of focusing on higher states of being, in ethereal realms (in other worlds). To each their own. No hard feelings. Etc.

         9. “.I don’t adhere to any dogma – unless it’s a dogma of my own creation, heh (because I cling to it in my mind)”
            Another mindfuck: What if our very nature (our SELF) is constantly molded and created by our surroundings and everything is interconnected?
            If that is true, the sentence ‘be yourself’ is almost dangerous, because it basically puts you into a conflict with your real nature: Constant change, adaption and interconnectedness.
            So you basically start feeling ashamed of being ‘moldable’ and try to be ‘autonomous’, but while you try to be ‘autonomous’, you can only do so by falling back to what you already are, which is 100% mold out of your past experience. Which is a devilish double bind that can lead you to questioning and condemning your own existence.
            In fact, what if the ‘be yourself’ and ‘be individual’ is just a scheme to make us conform to the idea of ‘individual’ that the elite propagates? To label influence of patriarchs and other people as ‘collective’ and ‘oppressive’ or whatever and their own influence as ‘boosting individuality’? What IS individuality?
            In that sense, clinging to something because it is ‘your own’ could become tantamount to total nonsense. Which also harmonizes with the Buddhistic non-attachment ideas. I had this conversation with a dude in Peru who advised me to take magic mushrooms. He said that when he takes them, all his thoughts become separated from ‘himself’ and float on a plane outside of his core consciousness. Which made him realize ‘his thoughts are not his own’. Weird!
            And when I had my Ayahuasca experience, I did experience this moment where I could not even recall what ‘personality’ or ‘time’ or ‘location’ means. That fucking scared me (or did it scare the personality I currently live in?). They were calling ‘Tom, we want to help you’ and I had a similar experience to what the guy described: The words just floated on a sphere outside of me and I realized they are meaningless.

         10. Yesterday I was thinking very similar thoughts. What if – and this is a trip, I realize, speaking of ayahuasca, etc. – what if not only are we bombarded by these outside interferences and force-fed perceptions, what if our world was exclusive? Unique – only perceived by us, by the individual. A prison for us, and us alone. Speaking of the Matrix, I am visualizing Neo in that incubator-type device. And he awakens, and he’s in this tub of water, with hoses and wires attached to him, and he looks around, and people are in their own little pods of the same type. The manosphere always talks Red Pill vs. Blue Pill. And most specifically as it pertains to waking up to the true nature of women. But the manosphere never seems to readily latch on to other Red Pill truths, which were expressed in the movie from which it takes one of its most cherished phrases – “Red Pill”. The longer I live, the more I am convinced that my world – my experience – is unique to itself. And maybe all of the “people” around me, aren’t people at all, but holograms, or non-human dark entities, like the agents of the Matrix. And the whole thing is designed uniquely for each of us, to hold us back, to keep us in place, so something else can feed off of our energy. But then I wake up, and realize that the whole notion is crazy, and I start watching reruns of “Silver Spoons”, or today’s game of the week…

         11. “what if not only are we bombarded by these outside interferences and force-fed perceptions, what if our world was exlusive”
             What if the conflict between ‘individual self’ and ‘collective thought’ is simply a fight between two forces in the universe that are both collective AND individual in the same amount?
             “And the whole thing is designed uniquely for each of us, to hold us back, to keep us in place, so something else can feed off of our energy.”
             Right. But if we dig deeper, what if it is not designed merely FOR us, but BY us? Because we decided, before entering this lifespan, that we wanted to experience exactly this?

         12. Hey it most definitely could be the case. I am open to any notion. If we aren’t, well, we’re pinned down, and we’re at the mercy of the forces that rule that locale…whether they are our own forces (our own intent), or the forces of some other entity. OMG I want a blowjob from a succulent redhead. Hey. Something just shoved that sexual thought in my mind…or did I do it? Which came first, the chicken or the egg. We could go round and round forever, chasing the notion, like a dog chasing its own tail…which sounds pretty fun at the moment. Chasing tail.

         13. The thing about the existence of science begets a similar underlying aspect that Newton had with gravity.
             People found it ridiculous to question why objects merely dropped to the ground if you let it go. Newton knew that there was much more than that and discovered gravity and how it applies to many more than objects dropping.
             Nowadays kids and young people cannot see past the “obvious” aspects, they take everything for granted. They want the proof, but they themselves don’t even know where to begin to find any evidence to support their side of the argument nor do they know what is good evidence and bad evidence.

         14. Btw, this “The longer I live, the more I am convinced that my world – my experience – is unique to itself” notion is fascinating as hell too.
             I particularly get this with emotions. Due to my traumata etc I project a lot (used to do this more). Which is FASCINATING beyond belief. Basically, for instance, I used to hate the hell out of leftists. Before that, I hated the hell out of masculine men. Etc.
             Why? Well, I saw such a person. And then I kinda FELT that person. And I thought ‘what a pathetic piece of shit’. But the more I meditate on this process in my mind, the more I realize it’s much more subtle.
             For example, I used to have certain emotions about my mother. I ‘felt’ my mother. I imagined her in my mind and I felt who she was and I hated that.
             Further down the path, I realized that I ‘shared’ those emotions, which made me wonder: ‘Am I really female and like my mother’?
             But even further down the path I realize: I am not feeling my mother. I am seeing an image of my mother in my inner eye and then I feel a presence. This presence is my own. What I thought I felt was not my mother, it was myself.
             In fact, it was not even ‘like’ my mother. It was solely myself. I pictured an image of her and then I felt something.
             I don’t truly hate her. I hate who I (!) am in her presence!
             And that my feelings are not really feminine, but rather a masculine (? or undefinable ?) reaction to her femininity.
             Who knows. Deeper down the path, this may lead to the conclusion that ’empathy’ is just an illusion, created through projection. And that we never really see or look into another person, but always just into ourselves.

         15. I see your point…for sure.

         16. I think what Newton (and many others) had there was a connection to the Infinite Mind.
             What indeed MAKES you question such a thing? Where does such an intuition come from? Where did people get the idea from that the world is made out of atoms? Sure, we can prove it nowadays. But we would never have proven it if we had not first assumed it. So what makes us assume or contemplate such things? Certainly not ‘what has been there before’, because how does the mind create ‘something’ out of ‘nothing’.
             No, there is a black nothingness out of which these ideas come, for no reason and with no explanation.
             Can you explain to someone how to get a good idea? Can you? I certainly can’t. I used to think I had control over my ideas, my creations, my art. I don’t. It either comes to me or it doesn’t. I have absolutely no influence over it.

         17. Absolutely. Especially if our universe is exclusive. We are what we think and we think what we are. If we obsess on any one thing, we are that thing. Or that state of emotion. Or that state of mind/thought. I close my eyes when I obsess, and roll them slowly to the left or right. It gives me great relief, and stops obsession. Now it might not work for anybody else, but it does for me. And obsession is something that is counter-productive to me personally. Whatever works.

         18. Good point. Heh.
             Btw, there is a form of trauma-therapy that works with eye-movement. It’s basically about releasing and reliving emotions by making the mind access those memories through moving the eyes to the left and right in constant intervals. (Not sure if the underlying theory is correct, but it seems to work for some. Not so much for me tho)

         19. Yeah. The scary thought is not even ‘what if we are being oppressed’, but ‘What if we are oppressed because we WANT to be? Because we WANT this experience?’
             On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we are ‘slaves’ of the situation. I mean, since we don’t know anything about the decisions we made for this life beforehand, it could just as well be possible that we signed up for a ‘free ourselves from the oppression and gain freedom’ kind of trip!

         20. The way I do it (based on the advice of another individual) is I close my eyes tight. Then slowly roll my eyes in a circle, to the left or right, whichever works better, for a period of about a minute. Disconnects me from whatever I was obsessed with…like…POP. Gone. Of course, if I decide I want to reobsess, I’ll stop and try to retrieve what I was thinking about. Heh. Crazy world.

         21. Wow. Could be. Enjoyed the back and forth. I’m outta here for a little while, to focus on some earthly matters (which are way less interesting, but pay the bills). Probably stop back in later. Adieu for the time being, amigo…

         22. Reality via consensus a true democracy…

      2. Interesting. Leaving aside the wacky bits (which coulod well be pretty regular speculative physics for all I know) your position is consistent with the ‘all is mind’ position within the occult / esoteric tradition. In your universe reality is not intransigent or constant (unless there is some higher level law and arguably ‘all is mind’ would be such a higher level law which itself would be subject to its constitution in belief)
         what your saying is also consistent with the idea of the thought-form in magic, or more prosaically the idea that reality is at least as far as we are concerned co-terminous with reality i.e. socially constituted, but perhaps is a harder version of the social constructionist idea.
         I believe there is already theory out there that suggests that laws are not immutable, and in some cases may themselves evolve with human consciousness. I’m not entirely sure of this but I think process theology works along these lines – God evolves with human consciousness (I might be wrong about this though).
         There is also something quite hegelian & perhaps jewish about the idea too – insofar as another way of looking at this could be seen as humans completing God’s plan – or more sacriligeously even – completing God.
         Separately didn’t Roosh say in the above that the elites wanted to be Gods? Would they settle for a bit of finishing up?

         1. Heh. I had this idea: Gender is not a social construct. It is a spiritual construct. Gender is real in our reality, but nonetheless created through the much deeper idea of its existence. Because think of it … the male and the female … complete each other. God, on the other hand, is already complete and always will be. The Eastern tradition often speaks of ‘the illusion of separation’.
            Which btw is a reason why I don’t think there is a ‘Gods plan’. God is complete, infinite, whole. There is nothing God needs to achieve or do because God is infinite and everything already. There is just stories to be experienced and told.
            Yes, magic is a good point.
            A while back, a commenter on my blog remarked that he heard some piece of music and it suddenly reminded him of some situation. And he wondered how that was possible, because he did not explicitly listen to this music in that memory.
            I brushed it off with ‘neural associations blah blah’, but is it that simple?
            Where do our deeper inspirations come from? Why DO we have stories that involve magic and things like that? How is it possible such a thing even enters our minds? Maybe there is a more deeper truth to reality that speaks to us, a reality in which magic IS possible? There was a book whose name I forgot. It was about parallel realities. One in which magic still exists and our reality where it doesn’t. In the magic world there is a war. The book is inspired by SJW a bit. Basically, in that magic world, there are people who aren’t able to use magic and are jealous and want to abolish magic and kill all magicians and in this story, it is our world in which this has happened long ago.
            Stuff to wonder about…

         2. That last bit sounds like Harry Potter. In the latter the muggles are generally unaware of the existence of magical folk, but the magical folk are of course aware of them, and in the case of the dark magicians (Voldemort / literally Hitler) there are some genocidal plans for doing them away. If you have neither read the books or seen the films, perhaps that story is an old one (JKRowling is a notorius plagiarist ideas-wise). Or maybe it’s just as Joseph Campbell suggested and the same stories keep re-creating themselves in different guises – a narrative version perhaps of reincarnation / metempsychosis.
            Re. magic though, I think the Harry Potter view obscures more than it reveals. Practitioners of Magic(k) seem to me to be particularly adept 🙂 at blurring the lines between supernatural and purely secular understanding of magic. The magician may or may not have magical / supernatural powers, and may or may not seek to persuade his audience of such powers, but for all intents in purpose in its study and practice magic is large part psychology, sleight of hand and the art of influence. Indeed the very project of the supernatural (regardless of whether the supernatural exists) may itself depend on distraction.
            Re God’s completeness and gender I think that is an issue that has been extensively grappled with at least from the time of Plato – in the symposium Diotima for instance suggests we are split into two halves that long for re-union. In Kabbala Primordial Adam is as yet sexually undifferentiated despite his butch name

         3. Well, we typically approach magic and the supernatural as ‘breaking the laws’. But if magic existed, surely it would follow some sort of laws. For instance, you could consider our ability to make fire ‘magical’. And yet it follows laws, can be analyzed etc.
            So if magic existed, it would not be mystical to us at all. It would just be.
            So maybe the question is not ‘how to break the laws of the universe’, but rather ‘how to lose limiting beliefs about what is actually possible’? That would make the whole thing a lot less mystical and mysterious and much more ‘solid’.
            I read the books and saw the movies btw. In the book I referenced it’s the other way around. The non-magical folks want to eliminate the magical folks.
            “Or maybe it’s just as Joseph Campbell suggested and the same stories keep re-creating themselves in different guises”
            Someone here suggested to me that the Bible was ‘truth’, because we can see that all our culture keeps ‘recreating bible stories’. I think that’s inaccurate. I think that the Bible is simply another collection of stories molded by the same collective unconscious streams and meta-truths about our reality. It’s not that we keep recreating the bible stories. It’s that the subconscious stream of information from the universe keeps feeding us the same variation of ‘frequencies’ (????) that we then transform into stories.
            But I think that this is just half the truth. Likely, these variations that we already know are just a limited version of consciousness restricted to our particular reality. In absolutum, I think there is simply ‘everything’. An infinite variation of variations without rules, without restrictions, without whatever.

         4. ” I think that the Bible is simply another collection of stories molded by the same collective unconscious streams and meta-truths about our reality. It’s not that we keep recreating the bible stories. It’s that the subconscious stream of information from the universe keeps feeding us the same variation of ‘frequencies’ (????) that we then transform into stories”
            Actually, that will probably please as many bible folks as it displeases. Obviously much of the assault on religion has involved a focus on comparative religion and the commonalities between religions such that the unique historical claims of christianity etc can be invalidated (e.g. christ is just a spring / harvest deity celebrating the new harvest, Christ is just osiris or whatever). The claims that there is a perennial religion may or may not invalidate any given religion depending on the fixity of the claims made.
            Re. the nature of the universe, it is interesting to speculate but its amazing how quickly doing so can become just another form of metaphysics. Your final paragraph – however self-aware it might be – could easily become the basis for a future religion were it to harden
            Re. magic and the laws of the universe, in an age of science magic has tended to be viewed as superstition because of the belief that the laws of physics have pretty much all been discovered. I would say that most practitioners of magic beyond stage conjurors see themselves as working within the laws of physics but without being reductionist about it i.e. allowing for the possibility of higher level laws. Concealment is of course a major part of magic, and manipulating the laws of science is a part of that. Science is sometimes indistinguishable from magic insofar as it reveals itself in the breach of existing laws and the revelation of such higher level laws. So magic and science work hand in hand potentially
            Yes, your version of the genocide of magical folk seems the more likely: ignorance and superstition stokes fear after all. I would be interested to know which book this story is from. JK Rowling clearly got things muddled up. But then of course she’s a muggle

         5. Well, surely in our reality what you say about the relationship between science and magic is true. I don’t doubt that. My point is, if our reality were to be merely created by our beliefs to a certain extent, our scientific laws that govern this reality would be molded by this very strongly. So I am saying that, (possibly), if we discarded all beliefs we hold about science, we would be able to enter a reality with different laws that allow a much greater and more comprehensive variety of magic, while it of course would still adhere to the (then different) laws that govern that reality. In that reality, there may still be science, but this science may be one that has discovered things about reality that are unthinkable in our current relaity. Pure speculation, of course, but interesting nonetheless and not entirely impossible I believe.
            And yeah, as I said, what we call science may be called magic by those who don’t understand science very easily. We can fly. We have gravity (an invisible force that binds matter together ????). We have electromagnetic forces. We have radio and wireless transmision (invisible forces transmitting information???). Now, frankly, is that not magic? Is it not also science? What’s the difference, except that maybe one talks from a perspective of ignorance and the other from a perspective of analysis? Does the fact that we have deciphered some patterns in the physical manifestation of our universe make it any less magical? Maybe ‘science’ and ‘magic’ are just words that both obfuscate reality. Which just is. 😉
            I dug it up for you:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Nines

         6. To expand upon that magic thing: If one were not aware of the scientific laws of our reality, how would one distinguish ‘magic’ from ‘science’? Is ‘magic’ not simply what we call things that seem to be outside of what we already know? In other words, if we didn’t know that WiFi was possible, would it not practically constitute magic? But then we come and have a label for it and suddenly it’s not magic anymore. 🙂

         7. I’ve certainly encountered the idea that our universe and the laws that govern it may be a function of our perception, either individually or collectively. I’m not sure whether I believe it myself, but I’m not sure I don’t necessarily either – I’ve had not dis-similar ideas myself although the idea that we could strip ourselves of our concatenated beliefs is a actually very interesting idea. Out of interest, how would you operationalise your idea as experiment? Might be tricky.
            I’d also say the idea is quite consistent with magic. In fact I would say that one way of describing what you’ve suggested would be to say that such laws are effectively ‘thought-forms’ that adherents somehow operationalise through (collective) belief. An immediate problem though might be the conflict here between any such individual stripped of such beliefs capable of operating without the encumbrance of accreted knowledge and the rest of society, which would not be so disabused. Belief is powerful, but with respect to how powerful, I’m always reminded of this guy in China I read about who tried to stop a train using just the power of Chi. Maybe there’s an alternate universe somewhere he’s still alive, and the most celebrated man in China but I doubt it

         8. Well, it’s all theory and a little mind-fuck. The question is naturally: Even if this is true, do we actually deeply WANT a world that does not conform to the laws we currently experience? Maybe in the wisdom of our infinite mind, we have come to the conclusion that this reality is exactly what we want.
            To strip ourselves of all those beliefs … might be difficult indeed. And again, do we even want to? I mean, deeply? I think that mindfulness basically goes a long way. You don’t ‘throw away’ beliefs. You look at them. And sometimes they dissolve. Other times you may find you need this belief for whatever reason…
            And I mean, what happens when we dream? What happens when we die? Surely our existence is then no longer part of this reality, at least until maybe we are reincarnated. What happens in this void of existence? Is it governed by the same laws? Who knows. Maybe it is our very aliveness and human nature that restricts us from being more than we are.

         9. I’m fine with my comfy slippers and my human nature. Do we deeply want a world though that does not conform to the laws we currently experience? Yes, I think we probably do, but only with a regard to the economics of the thing i.e. were the laws to bend too often we would probably lose our minds. But if they bend a little in a way that momentarily knocks us off our perches, then we can call that a miracle of sorts, however you care to categorise such a thing

         10. In the case of reality, perception is not 9/10ths of the law.

         11. “were the laws to bend too often we would probably lose our minds”
             What if our minds are the problem to a large degree?

         12. that goes without saying. But when you lose your mind this rarely involves jettisoning your entire brain. Hence things don’t necessarily get better and typically get worse

      3. It’s also known as quantum woo popularised by notorious quack Deepak Chopra and also in “The Secret”, or “What The Bleep do We Know?”.
         I think it is easy to invalidate by trying to believe thermodynamics is just a limiting belief and attempt to create free energy out of nothing. It just can’t be done and all notions of a perpetual motion engine consistently fail because thermodynamics is, in fact, a very real physical law, not a limiting belief.

      4. Total new age garbage for people too simple to pick up a standard high school text book on physics or chemistry. I hurts my brain to know that humans like you exist. We KNOW, factually, that there was a planet filled with critters, chemistry, physics, biology, etc LONG BEFORE sentient, bi-pedal mammals started organizing civilizations and thinking about epistemology. Why don’t you take another hit off the bong, buddy.

         1. Why don’t you go fuck yourself with one of the dildos in your nightdrawer?

         2. He’s just doing his job, dude…paid board troll. Yawn. “If I had a nickel,” etc.

   2. Good one…except the first one is the crap the very elite you mention peddles as “history”. Anyone who has studied history knows that in the middle Ages there was a lot of freedom and science was not persecuted. Barbaric: somewhat, violent: what do you expect, there were no countries or states, just feudal lords and the only thing that had a resemblance of order was the church.

      1. “It’s his-story, and he’s sticking to it.” One of my favorite phrases…

      2. You make it sound appealing. Maybe violence is not that bad after all? A few healthy tribe wars every now and then, heh.

         1. Hahaha. Was never my intention. But yes there was greater freedom…and greater risk.

         2. Those two seem to go hand in hand.

         3. These tribal wars now involve nukes. And believe me the elites are not going to be in the path

   3. Ya don’t say?
      

   4. What kind of tinfoil hat bullshit is this. Now the “scientist” basically plays the same role as the witchhunter? Newsflash retards: those dreaded scientists are responsible for inventing the math, physics and engineering that makes the computer and connected digital networks possible so you can sit on your obese paranoid ass typing about things you know little to nothing about to other low-info, room temperature iq chumps. Just thought I would point that out.

      1. Well, I’m not gonna argue with you. But then, only somebody who was being paid to do it, would write what you wrote there. A guy’s gotta eat though. I have no problem with it. Party on.

8. People speak of an impending war. The problem is the war has already begun, the enemies have been so crafty at concealing their activities that the people didn’t even knew they were on the losing side.

   1. War is happening in the Middle East. People don’t worry much cause it hasn’t reached the west yet.. And only time will tell what’s to come between the west and east.

9. No i don’t believe they are lizard people…
   but from all i’ve read and known;
   yes the ancestors of today’s controllers of mass media
   did indeed partake in blood sacrifices.

   1. So did everybody else. Life wasn’t fun 40,000 years ago in the Neolithic.

      1. How was life in the Neolithic different from, say, the life of today’s indigenous tribes (the ones who have next to no contact with civilization)?

      2. You raise a good point; not all groups of people have moved beyond the Neolithic Period at the same speed.

         1. Blood sacrifice was was practiced in the Mayan Empire. But, not by the Jews. There is just no historical evidence. Its just a myth perpetrated by Internet theorists and Muslims.

         2. The Mayan Empire sacrifices were different sacrifices.
            They weren’t sacrificing for the return of their homeland.

         3. So you read about it on the Internet. That must make it true.

         4. Who committed the mass murdering of Russians during the Bolshevik revolution?

         5. nah some of that material predates the internet.
            But FYI; control of the internet was handed over to some well-meaning international non-profit consortium.

      3. Ha!

      4. GOJ has this as first hand knowledge

10. Agreed on all points. The reality is that in order for any subversion to be successful, people are going to have to sacrifice. Right now, I see a lot of guys (or conservatives, or nationalists, etc) who are afraid to lose the comforts they have. Their 401k, their ability to put food on the table for the wife and kid, blah blah.
    Until enough men redpill and and we get some people in here who feel that the future is worth sacrificing the present, the enemy will continue to control us. And ofc someone has to lead, nothing’s going to get done when it’s just a bunch of pissed off people talking online.

    1. ..

       1. Well to be fair he’s one guy, and it’s not like there’s a manual on how to do this. But I do hope that some discussion is going behind the scenes about how to organize and join together in the real world in the future.

          1. ..

          2. Yeah I hear you, it’s tough. I’ve been reaching out to people in my local area just to try and gauge their receptiveness, but it’s a slow process.

          3. Very slow. That’s why we don’t have time to waste. Good job from your part. Keep going!

11. Great insights as always Roosh. “There is a group of very rich men who control the levers of power”. Yeap, It’s really that simple. Everything else does not really matter (If they are Askenazi Jews, Lizard people, aliens, annunaki etc). They have created a unified control scheme , just like the matrix, that essentially controls all the people of the world and their ultimate goal is to maintain this scheme for eternity, by weaken the people so much that it would be impossible to break the chains of this system. They have many weapons that they use like the media, politics (and the so called democracy) subversion, sexual liberation and loose morals, atheism, multiculturalism and racial mixing, toxic junk food etc. However, Usury and the banking system is the most efficient and deadliest of them all. World war 2 was essentially the last attempt of a nation (Germany) to break free from these chains. Now they are in a hurry to progress their globalist agenda on all Caucasian societies (that is why we have the muslim immigration/invastion and at the same time all Caucasian nations have a below replacement level of fertility) in order to prevent this from happening again.

    1. Personally I am of the belief that having an extremely open philosophical discourse between the different sects and religions, including scientific endeavours is essential for us. Progress can only really be made by gaining different perspective on the reality of things. Religion like science centres around the goal of unity. I do consider myself liberal when it comes to racial inequality issues but I strongly believe nature requires us to adhere to a set of moral standards. This overly hyper sexualised notion society loves to portray in every medium, anti-theism (atheistic religions do exist) and general disregard for all things sacred will ultimately be the west’s undoing. However much advanced we are in comparison to our ancestor’s, it’ll never replace the corruption within our souls. Unfortunately the idea of virtue or contemplating over what it means to be virtuous is long gone and we all knows what happens when things get to that stage.

    2. Khazarian Jews*

12. I disagree that their agenda is matriarchal. It’s matriarchal FOR YOU. The idea is to weaken and demoralize any potential opposition by getting things to such a point that they don’t even have to step in: the brain dead masses of white knights and feminists will do the dirty work

13. Here is one rule that if you are ever contemplating politics you must know. There are well funded machines that both parties run which are dedicated to generating information that can be used for blackmail and character assassination. There are people with full time jobs who do this. In fact rooms of people. They are paid to make sure a mic is “hot” at the right time. They hoard information for decades to only deploy at the right time if it ever becomes necessary (did you really think some random recording of Trump from 2005 was accidentally discovered and leaked two days before the event?).
    If you ever run for public office, even dog catcher in a town that is bigger than 100 people, expect a blacked out van to be parked just outside of your house, a man wearing dark sunglasses and a hat walking behind you on occasion, someone telling your kid outside of school that it is best for his dad to stay away, midnight phone calls with heavy breathing, the occasional broken car window, etc. etc. This stuff isn’t necessarily designed to bully you out of running. It is designed to let you know they can get you if they want to do so.

14. It is crucial for men to understand the benefits of being ostracized by herd-thinkers. Even though the herd uses touchy-feely words to virtue signal, beneath it all is resentment, laziness and fear; and seeing someone like you breathing fresh air enrages them.
    Let them drop away.

15. I’m sorry but you guys be losing me when you start talking about some secret cabal of rich people who control the world. For one, there comes a point where you have made so much money that you cant possibly spend it in your life time. Also whats the point in supporting activities that lead into a collapse, won’t you run the risk of dying and devaluing everything you own. Can’t we just realize that the state the west is in has alot to deal with our society of excess combined with laziness, giving women the right to vote, and not standing up for masculine virtues.

    1. You don’t read up on history much do you ?

    2. What a naive fool you are sir! Your comment would be funny if it wasn’t so sadly pathetic.

16. 5. Most of those men are jews.

17. Rule nr.1: Is it good for the J3vv$?

18. One can best analyze the current presidential campaign, as not a contest between candidates, but as a contest between Legacy media and Alt media for control of the American Empire.

19. So start naming them!!!!

20. It’s really that simple ?
    However, this group is not monolithic, and so can be dismantled piece by piece, divided and conquered.
    This is called intelligence, and is a paramount element of the Art of War.
    HENCE, the differences between political parties,
    HENCE, because there is an “Illuminati” that does blood sacrifices,
    HENCE, when those at the top are Jews,
    we have our various quarters of the fight.
    One move chess players annoy me.

Comments are closed.