New Age Racism and the "Smile between their teeth"

[Nemiel]

A friend of mine from Facebook confirmed via his channel that the alternative media has really gotten out of hand - the whole "it's your ego, man!" and "you are a left brainer - you are so judgmental" and the classic "dead by consent" - all classic Plato hierarchy structures and these ironic ideals are totally lost on them - the only reason there is so much control freak behavior in the alternative media is because most of them have no idea where they are coming from.

To say "I have no ego" to prove superiority while seeking equality is what it's all based on - the fact that "I" is included in the sentence while claiming to have no ego says everything about their understanding. lol

Here is a video that pretty much sums up the new age ideals and underneath is the video from one of my friends, who is a brilliant researcher of mysticism using graphic imagery to find symbols.

I had all this nailed a few months ago too - I hope that this fear of judgement to express ourselves because we are afraid we have an ego (as if it is a disease, which it isn't, it's just a concept) will end/

I recently made a series about Plato and Nietzsche - the contrast of these two philosophers - one ancient and with a massive presence in Western thought and Christianity - the other a much more modern philosopher who focused on morality and relative perspective - the series was about my study of these two philsophers and i found that Plato is EVERYWHERE in the new age movements - once I saw that there was a set formula based on Platos divided line, I saw that there was no way that there could be any new waves of thought, but Nietzsche shows us how we have to take into account the perspective of the observer and that plato only shows how we can end up chasing an ideal that can never be achieved - this has also drawn me to look at conditioning and how the hype over government infiltration in the alternative media doesn't need to exist as they have done such a good job using Platos formula - it works every time, it's genius - chase the ideal. However it is not truthful to how we respond to our environment - we create our realities based on our perspective, the divided line excludes the individuals' subjective relation to other subjects by making out that the objective is the whole truth, rather than accounting for the process of observation.

The existential view that we create spirituality is empowering and affirming of this life - the other negates our existence here. I know this is totally radical and very hard for people to swallow, as it means accepting nihilism and that everything that we call divine is "of this world" and our creation, this leaves things uncertain and unpredictable, but also open to many more possibilities and responsibility, instead of placing the truth in an external source and being counter intuitive by saying we are anything but perfect for this world (which doesn't mean we will be perfect in a utopia, it just means we are here and we have to accept it and revalue our experience)

I want to reach more people, I have done my research and I am addressing the issues very well, but it's difficult to reach a wider audience, I share and I share, but I really do think I am little ahead of my time - what do you think?

I will leave you with my series, I am open to your opinions and respect you entirely - I knew you werre real while i was at SOTHS with that bunch of PR fakers and I hope I am not coming across as someone who just wants to reach people for those kinds of reasons - i want to liberate people at no charge, granted I do have my own natal chart service, but that is not my main focus at all anymore, I even removed my donate buttons as i want to be respected for my choice to share my perspective and i want this new age racism and judgment to end - people should be able to express their subjective feelings and thoughts with other subjects without fear of judgement and alienation - I want life to be about people and relationships - subject to subject. Here is the playlist anyway : https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... ciPIeAt1ix - I start off with Plato and show how lightworking is basically the same thing, but then i begin to criticize it and then bring it around to existentialism - I found it strange that no one would want to criticize - the whole "taker what resonates with you" thing is cool, but it means that you will probably only hear and see what you want to hear and see anyway - the better way to evolve philosophy is via debate and this involves the good and the bad, morality is a distraction if you ask me, truth is literally beyond good and evil. I am just as passionate as you are Danny and you are the only hope I have left in this movement at this time of satuartion and repitiion of the same old crap that has been with us for 2000 years. it's time to transreeavluate all values - I say "yes" to this life and this world.

Take care Danny, keep up the passion I hope you respond wih some suggestions, but if not, feel free to use any of my ideas if they help with anything

[manonthepath]

You've tackled a great deal here in a single posting ans I commend your idealism and recognize the level of detailed research taken to get where you seem to be. You asked for thoughts and here are my initial impressions:

Initially tackle each topic specifically to better facilitate others to keep up with you. It also allows the audience to respond to specific aspects of each variable as a discreet entity.

Welcome counter-arguments as ways to test and improve your concepts.

Interweave the topics together into a greater context at the speed and in the manner most useful to your audience.

DO NOT TRY TO CONVINCE! Allow others to be where they are in the process.

Let's start with Nietsche. Open your heart brother (or sister, which ever you prefer).

[manofsands]

Not relevant to the conversation, but I'm not one for convention...

First, but not most importantly, I'd like to pat manonthepath.... reflecting my own ignorance, I was surprised at your sincere and compassionate response.

Secondly, but more importantly, Nemiel, I'd like to say you are a beautiful, intelligent person passionate about the Truths you've uncovered.

It does and doesn't matter. Don't lose your passion for Truth for lack of response. I say this because of a point in my life when I was on fire for Truth. I wanted to share it. I didn't understand why others didn't catch flame at the obviousness of it. Proclaim it, step up on your soap box, shout it out. But don't expect or hope for response. It's not the point, though it may feel like it. A flower blooming in the forest has no one to observe. That may or may not be you. You may or may not change the world. Don't worry if you do or don't. Proclaim away with the Universe as your witness and let that be enough.

Though I may not have conveyed the feeling properly, I hope you understand its sincerity.

[Cybernetic_Jazz]

The tough thing about getting one's voice out there is that there are so many sounds out there from so many people. I found that in making music - getting attention even from word of mouth and people liking one's stuff can still yield no more than 25 plays on Soundcloud a year.

If I've come to a conclusion at all about reality is that the saying 'there's no political solution to spiritual problems' is dead-aim. Pretty much if half the people out there are believers in-name-only and the culture they parrot is almost worse than they're agnosticism-playing-church or further down that road you have people who adamantly don't believe in the existence of a human soul, are too wrapped up in social dynamics, they simply will not have the options of societal better living being available in their minds as realistic possibilities. They'll lob political solution after political solution on a problem but they forget that a group of cynical people whose convictions are ultimately fiat will make a mess of any system they're given. Similarly new agers, seers, psychics, etc. get into the political game - for example I know a lady whose a huge astral traveler and also very big on TZM, Venus Project, etc. - and they're looking to system as solution but it seems obvious that no system works if the people both in it and running it are dysfunctional. I understand now why mystic orders abstain from taking political stances - not only of course do they avoid losing relevance as a party they're tied to does or they avoid excluding wonderful people of the other political persuasion, they get it - a society of fully functioning people with great values, wisdom, and spiritual insight could make anything work and it wouldn't be the system, it would be them.

It seems like what's needed is a way for people who are adept mystics and otherwise to just keep flooding the gates with evidence that we are all one being, YHVH Tetragrammaton or 'The One Thing' of Hermes Trismegistus, that as you said separation and duality are illusion, and when people take that knowledge on board as whole truth rather than wishful thinking and even come to encounter their own personal evidence as their walk progresses (flipping it from intellectual belief to intellectual and emotional knowing) it opens up all kinds of options of how life can be looked at. That seems to be the quagmire we're in - that a lot of very dark games have been played with what people are allowed to consider 'real'; part of my path in the two mystic orders I'm in is about taking that apart and getting rid of it at the same time as having it increase my functionality in society. When people think that this is all there, that you spontaneously appeared when your seed was germinated and that you'll disappear when you die - the sense of options in respect to what can be 'had' by our race is limited because that makes evolution and social darwinism the law of nature rather than the many other natural laws and because of that things get bent and skewed all out of perspective. Similarly how many gangsters would do differently if they had a very realistic finger on better options? How many people would be out even joy-stealing (like grabbing systems from cars) if they knew it interfered not with liberty but with far better living that could be had simply by turning an eye inward and talking to the Master Within? Yeah, I get that a lot of people are lazy but.... it's really a very selective laziness when the same people who are so-called lazy in one thing might be top athlete and practice for hours, spend hours a day in front of the TV training themselves to win at a first person shooter, or guys ripping apart and rebuilding cars, motorcycles, girls having 15+ years of ballet, etc.. - it shows that it's not a lot of lack of effort in certain areas is laziness but rather its simply their economic reaction to who they are, their environment, and what they can or can't get for return on effort to the best of their available knowledge.

You also mention people's verbal cudgels - I tend to agree on people using derisive or pejorative terms as artillery because it's the behavior of what I'd call 'people of faith'. They sail a half-built chamira of rafts and a john boat out to sea (I know - scary analogy after the Martime Law talk) believing it will stay buoyant and it clearly doesn't but it's their desire to believe it's real and ramrod their internal reality on outer reality that sends them for the rocks or simply a long swim back to shore. I've noticed, especially in things like the theist/anti-theist debate, that sides are good at sealing their 'facts' as separate from the other side's 'facts', there are few if any common peer-reviewers, it's so stripped down that one has to assemble several experiments scattered between to piece together one point or another which just gets hammered by the other side as being yayhoo or crank interpretation because they can argue on there being all kinds of blur in your interpretation of making the case and whether or not you're right or their wrong they can make it disappear from their own view as a threat to their beliefs. Simply put it seems like anyone whose dyed-in-the-wool anything isn't approachable for dialog, they have all the answers and that's it (to me it only gets to be a problem when they start pontificating or getting evangelical about their own dogmas). The best part - reality really does seem to conspire in creating these impasses, almost as if these impasses are evidence in and of themselves that beliefs, if not literally 'creating' reality, at least profoundly shape it at a level that a reductive materialist would deem to be of acausal relationship. It seems like in that kind of 'debate' the winner has two qualities 1) can out brow-beat their opponent and 2) is numb to the shame either from the other person's points or the other person's less-successful attempt at brow-beating. When it's a brow-beating game it seems to mean that content is irrelevant and in cases like that about all that can be done is let those people feel increasingly obsolete and disconnected as they become increasing minorities and as anyone around them with a level head has deft ways to run circles around their 'logic'.

Side question; do you have any familiarity with Manly P Hall? If not I might recommend some of his videos on the topics you're interested in. I'm finding that I like his way of dissecting things more and more as time goes on.

[Nemiel]

You've tackled a great deal here in a single posting ans I commend your idealism and recognize the level of detailed research taken to get where you seem to be. You asked for thoughts and here are my initial impressions:

Initially tackle each topic specifically to better facilitate others to keep up with you. It also allows the audience to respond to specific aspects of each variable as a discreet entity.

Welcome counter-arguments as ways to test and improve your concepts.

Interweave the topics together into a greater context at the speed and in the manner most useful to your audience.

DO NOT TRY TO CONVINCE! Allow others to be where they are in the process.

Let's start with Nietsche. Open your heart brother (or sister, which ever you prefer).

I took your advice and have began to compress the findings of the Light and the source of Truth series into a more practical and compressed way of understanding what Nietzsche and Plato are talking about.

The Light and the Source of Truth is a counter argument series, from one system of thought to another - the debate is focused on whether ideals are more important than perspective and whether or not basing our society and culture on natural patterns is absurd.

I certainly refrain from convincing - all I ask is for the other person to state where they are coming from - spoon feeding is pointless anyway, as concepts have many different meanings, so my version of a concept is what is true to me and not as a universal truth.

I don't look at myself as an idealist - more someone who just says where they are coming from, I share my perspective and that is either affirmed by others, or negated.

Overall though, I am taking your advice about making the videos shorter so everyone can keep up with me - over the past year or so, have mostly just been exploring many possibilities and that requires getting messy sometimes - but most of all, the videos are to show how much effort needs to be put in to reach understanding - I also ask for people to be honest about whether or not they are truly devout and if not, then that is nothing to be ashamed of.

The series I am making now focuses on idealism as it opposes perspective, the aim is to follow the assumption that knowledge is used for power and that we shouldn't be looking to reject aesthetic ideals, but rather just be truthful about our perspective.

[Nemiel]

Secondly, but more importantly, Nemiel, I'd like to say you are a beautiful, intelligent person passionate about the Truths you've uncovered.

It does and doesn't matter. Don't lose your passion for Truth for lack of response. I say this because of a point in my life when I was on fire for Truth. I wanted to share it. I didn't understand why others didn't catch flame at the obviousness of it. Proclaim it, step up on your soap box, shout it out. But don't expect or hope for response. It's not the point, though it may feel like it. A flower blooming in the forest has no one to observe. That may or may not be you. You may or may not change the world. Don't worry if you do or don't. Proclaim away with the Universe as your witness and let that be enough.

Though I may not have conveyed the feeling properly, I hope you understand its sincerity.

Thank you - although I have been searching for a way to expand, I also recognize that the topics I talk about are specific to those who really want to know - I will aim to make the videos more interesting by showing how it all relates to the modern age - I have started to use film clips and making the videos shorter makes the points clearer and easier to understand in steps.

I understand why many wont hear me out and that is due to their own perspectives that I am aware of - so even if they aren't and I never reach a wider audience, I can also be happy with what I do know about myself and my reality.

Changing the world is an ideal that I relieved myself of - all i seek is those who want to question what Nietzsche calls "the dangerous perhapses" - that ideals and morality have been the cause of mans' errors.

[Nemiel]

They'll lob political solution after political solution on a problem but they forget that a group of cynical people whose convictions are ultimately fiat will make a mess of any system they're given. Similarly new agers, seers, psychics, etc. get into the political game - for example I know a lady whose a huge astral traveler and also very big on TZM, Venus Project, etc. - and they're looking to system as solution but it seems obvious that no system works if the people both in it and running it are dysfunctional. I understand now why mystic orders abstain from taking political stances - not only of course do they avoid losing relevance as a party they're tied to does or they avoid excluding wonderful people of the other political persuasion, they get it - a society of fully functioning people with great values, wisdom, and spiritual insight could make anything work and it wouldn't be the system, it would be them

This is why i have been focusing on Plato, I have come across some very interesting information regarding his vision of politics and the philosopher ruler - check out the Universalism series that has just started.

It seems like what's needed is a way for people who are adept mystics and otherwise to just keep flooding the gates with evidence that we are all one being, YHVH Tetragrammaton or 'The One Thing' of Hermes Trismegistus, that as you said separation and duality are illusion,

I'm starting to take another look at Gnosticism and the whole unity thing - especially the alleged sources of the wisdom and especially the will of those with the knowledge.

and when people take that knowledge on board as whole truth rather than wishful thinking and even come to encounter their own personal evidence as their walk progresses (flipping it from intellectual belief to intellectual and emotional knowing)

The main problem I see is the confusing between assertions and meanings - an epistemological process that has been labelled an ontological one.

You also mention people's verbal cudgels - I tend to agree on people using derisive or pejorative terms as artillery because it's the behavior of what I'd call 'people of faith'.

yeah, I am starting to see that the whole "It's your ego, man" crap is designed to prevent you from speaking from your own position and to look towards an ideal.

but it's their desire to believe it's real and ramrod their internal reality on outer reality that sends them for the rocks or simply a long swim back to shore

.

Couldn't agree more.

I've noticed, especially in things like the theist/anti-theist debate, that sides are good at sealing their 'facts' as separate from the other side's 'facts', there are few if any common peer-reviewers, it's so stripped down that one has to assemble several experiments scattered between to piece together one point or another which just gets hammered by the other side as being yayhoo or crank interpretation because they can argue on there being all kinds of blur in your interpretation of making the case and whether or not you're right or their wrong they can make it disappear from their own view as a threat to their beliefs.

yeah, we all fall for the morality trap for sure.

Side question; do you have any familiarity with Manly P Hall? If not I might recommend some of his videos on the topics you're interested in. I'm finding that I like his way of dissecting things more and more as time goes on.

I have been looking at Manly Hall, but I have been focusing on Plato more, I have some very difficult questions that those "In the Light" will try to avoid - i can't disclose anyymore at thise point as I have to build my logic so that others can have a dialogue with me.

[Desecrated]

I really liked that song.

Post was too long to read.

Is that a guy in drag on the third video?

[Nemiel]

I really liked that song.

Post was too long to read.

Is that a guy in drag on the third video?

it will be the next ringtone on the streets for sure - the next "crazy frog"

and yeah, that's me in the video - although I am not a drag queen, I am a feminine man (but labels don't really work for me) - you have just take me as I come

[manofsands]

I think the idea of making your presentations shorter is a good idea. What you are talking on is very heady and needs to sink in. Short concise offerings stripped down to powerful points will transfer your ideas better.

I also like the idea of debate and conversation. I think you even said, two people may be looking at the same statement and only thru discussion can they really connect and see where they agree and disagree.

Yet at the same time, many people going into a known debate, do so defensively and the outcome is often just reinforcement of their original idea. BUT... someone on the sidelines may accidentally learn something in the crossfire... and occasionally even the debater.

[manofsands]

I understand now why mystic orders abstain from taking political stances - not only of course do they avoid losing relevance as a party they're tied to does or they avoid excluding wonderful people of the other political persuasion, they get it - a society of fully functioning people with great values, wisdom, and spiritual insight could make anything work and it wouldn't be the system, it would be them.

Wow! I like this statement! Funny thing is, I keep rereading it and I can't tell if what I'm getting out of it is what was intended (which is ironic, because that's part of the problem/topic)

What I get out of it is its smart to not lay down too many specific stances (in the Orders) because you then exclude smart people with different ideas. "They get it"... that a system needs conflicting ideas to function properly, or they are just creating a larger version of themselves.

Is that what you meant or did I just project that lesson onto your words?

[Cybernetic_Jazz]

What I get out of it is its smart to not lay down too many specific stances (in the Orders) because you then exclude smart people with different ideas. "They get it"... that a system needs conflicting ideas to function properly, or they are just creating a larger version of themselves.

Is that what you meant or did I just project that lesson onto your words?

Yes on the first sentence, not specifically on the second but I'm sure that also isn't incorrect as they would want to have people getting along and being able to share contrary ideas well.

Where I was really going with that is this: if you have a cynical society where most people in it have beaten themselves or been beaten by others into thinking there's no hope for human moral courage and that the best they can do is salvage what trinkets they can for themselves from a collapsing western civilization - there's no political or economic system that can successfully accommodate that attitude. The economic and political game is just pushing numbers and accountability around on paper, eventually if human character falls far enough you get to where you need such a steep set of systemic checks against corruption that the checks and measures themselves become cost-prohibitive to running a company or a country. On the other hand if you have a bunch of people who believe that there is a lot more to this life than commiserating on there being no purpose or regularly getting as high or drunk as they can to forget that it's all in vain, if you have people actually making the public aspiration in life to be as loving and wise as one can and that there is a valid transcendent purpose for making moral courage your first priority - if that effect became broad based enough that culture could probably make even the worst political or economic design palatable because the people as a whole comprising that system would elevate its functioning rather than drag it down.

The thing that would make that last goal spiritual - it would take there being enough acceptable evidence of a benevolent deity such as the Neoplatonists and Hermeticists ascribed as being The One Thing. The other way, on the purely materialist path, we're stuck in increasingly deeper nihilism and that even starts heading toward human exterminism when its seen all the way through.

Hence mystic orders would understand that the political and economic system choices in a country still mean less than its integrity choices.

[Nemiel]

This is my new review video that signifies my departure from "new age" paradigms.

I am holding up a flag to those who have lost all hope in the new age and offer fantastic resources that offer knowledge by the truck load.

The cry of freedom is conflicted between the love of our bieghbour and our individual growth, it's not clear if it is "freedom from" or "freedom for" in the alternative movement anymore and the saturation of information is sending people around in circles that are counter intuitive and full of ad-hoc theories that are attempts to fill in any gaps of ancient knowledge.

"It's your ego" is a comment that is used frequently in the new age, while not only being insulting and arrogant, it is obvious why this has become an empty distinction and generalized when we take a look at the "order" that has the aim of "unity" - my position is to argue that the new age is Platonism reinterpreted, that the forms are alive and well in Theosophy, Hermeticism and they all fall under the umbrella of Gnostic doctrine - this will be the subject of a forthcoming documentary.

We are made to feel ashamed for thinking about ourselves and our individuality, this is because there is the objective to unify - but this attempt to unify and reject the New World Order is an irony that is lost on the new age doctrine, as it invokes everything that is required to begin a One World Religion - if you are in the new age, you are being led into a trap that presents epistemology as ontology and the concepts are too general with no real distinction, that suppositions and presuppostions are confused - this only serves to validate what was already believed, hence why we hear "Only take what resonates with you", which is fair enough, but is unlikely to lead to anything new, rather just what we want to hear.

Apart from these issues and there are many, the reductionism and unification of meanings via Syncretism are as good as dead and to be blunt - boring.

I only ask that people be honest, truth is beyond morality and we can't deny our drives and nature, or we may be piling burdens on ourselves to help our nieghbour, but spitefully and do more harm than good.

I will point you towards information that will allow you to understand the arguments and the systems that produced the ideas that are in the movement - there is no excuse for not looking into ideas - they were not burned by the Vatican, they are alive and well and are rife within Gnostic metaphysics.

The main resources are lecturers like Julian Jaynes, who has oddly got less subscribers than my channel, he discussed the "Bicameral Mind" (Ancient Evolution of Consciousness" and Gregory B. Sadler, a philosophy lecturer who shares his classes to YouTube.

I also want people to be honest about whether they have the time - if not, there is nothing to be ashamed of, but be aware that if you like 2 minute videos that make everything sound so easy, as if you only have to "believe" for it to be true - then you are looking to be spoon fed, rather than to do your own research and have your own point of view.

If you want to be empowered instead of being reminded of the uphill struggle, then here it is, you have to have faith in yourself, not someone else.

I will close on the fact that the biggest enemy to the new age and the old sterile and efficient paradigm is evolutionary theory - the process that shows how we can self organize and become complex without any exterior influence at all.

Don't become bitter and resentful and blame the world for the lack of growth - you just need to know the issues and address them correctly.

[Cybernetic_Jazz]

I hope this isn't a useless comment, its a bit more of an emotional form observation:

I'm enjoying traditional western esotericism because there's no demand to either be airy-fairy, pat a unicorn, etc. or else you don't fit in or, god forbid, you're an Eichmann or a face of 'the man'.

The thing I love is that I can sit there and study tarot, I can study number theology and theurgy, and at the same time help my dad pour a cement step for the deck, go to the bar and watch the OSU/Michigan game, take my 9mm to the range, talk auto repairs and hunting with the guys, be with the 'muggles' and increasingly not skip a beat nor even feel the need or desire to interrupt the conversation with the esoteric, even blending right in with them and if anything just seeming principled in the old-fashion Masonic sense. It seems like I can get the best of all worlds because there's no demand placed on me to be 'hippy', dainty, or stand-offish for the sake of looking 'enlightened'. In fact it seems like traditional mysteries is where things look the least like a Star Wars convention or a Comic Con (not knocking either - just that I really want to stress - it's NOT a requirement and there's many corners of esoteric culture that don't push it the way the self-titled new-agers tend to). Also, for whatever pop culture is I still occasionally turn on the radio and hear something like a Lana Del Ray, Charley XCX, Lorde, Muse, or even Kanye song and I can still get the feeling that Yahweh still very much shows up in the creativity of current culture no matter how much people like to belly-ache about everything at present being smut/trash or reminiscing on the 'good old days'. Change is constant, God is always looking for new means of self-expression and, well, current paradigms don't fall outside of that.

Seems, this could just be my own interpretation, that the more a person needs to be stand-offish or swear that they aren't like 'them' (ie. the 'muggles') the more it seems like they're either a) completely missing the point - ie. the esoteric underscores/undergirds everything from theurgy to BCS football or b) they're Gnostic/Cathar/Manichaeans and they just haven't found themselves yet. To the later as a Hermeticist I like that phrase in Genesis where God saw what He/She/it created and said it was good - IMHO God doesn't stutter and I'd count it as a stutter if Adam and Eve were able to undo that statement by little more than a mistake.

I hope that wasn't too off point but so much of this topic seems to fall into the subjective realm and like the anti-smoking extremists who want to ban smoking outdoors in some places simply because they find it ewwwy, I tend to see any autocratic new-age revulsion to certain things (I'm sure the bulk of new agers are fine people, it just takes a few to build a negative stereotype or group meme, such as has been the case with the term 'feminist') is just this - certain people not understanding that their subjective repulsions aren't something that should be made dogma for other people and in fact, this might be the most painful aspect to them, these things might be a sign that they themselves are practicing escapism and running from problems. The later is definitely not something to ram down on other people's heads because in many if not most cases it could be best looked on as a character flaw and one that they're attacking other people for not partaking with them!

[Nemiel]

[Nemiel]

Humanity is at a critical point, I am looking for a human being, can we find any left?

What do our spiritual, religious and social beliefs mean if we have no faith left in humanity itself? Can we at least begin to see that placing the blame on one ethnic group or another is completely irrelevant and only serves to enforce our disillusionment of mankind?

How can our governments not take any notice of people drinking and drugging themselves into unconsciousness, selling each other out, excluding everyone who wants to become different? How can people not see that they are invoking the very things they oppose?

It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, or if you think the Pleadians are coming to save us, it matters that we first only believe in man.

In the new age, or in normal groups of people, the gig is the same, no faith in man kind is the lowest form of nihilism we can get to, new agers can't stand anything that may threaten their illusions of certainty and determinism, they are using the same techniques they had before - they are still conditioned, they pretend that things are fixed already and if they pretend, then it will just be okay, but this is alienation and utopian thinking and only leads to making someone the villain, the new serpent, the one or the group who doesn't fit into the ideal.

I am now a master of suspicion, not only of those who talk of other worldly values and ideals, but also of those that originate out of no belief in man kind, if we can't accept humanity, then what is there to build on? You are a human being, get over it...as your values are not even in another world and definitely are not part of this one, they are in a "no-place" for those who only say "no" and that "NO" becomes their sole source of creativity - a no-place is No-where, that is a Utopia.

They don't want the truth or the solutions, they just want to know who is lying to them, they will follow the discrediting man and then follow the one after him, with each step is new thing to memorize, but I don't want to memorize, I want to never forget and that my friends comes only from understanding - that is the only way to identify with truth.

Those who take the literal path of looking at the universe as vibration fail to see the truth before them, that if sound is the power of the cosmos, then language is greater than we and indeed words are greater than we and we will never transcend language - language gives us what is.

SUBSCRIBE TO CORY ANTON!!! I discovered him a few days ago and he has some amazing insights on existentialism and communication theory...

Cory Anton on Nietzsches' quote "God is Dead" -

[Nemiel]

As an outright fan of Friedrich Nietzsche and his use of genealogical techniques, I am able to recognize when others have grasped a thorough understanding of his version of action.

Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist, stands her ground incredibly well here - I instantly was on board with her views and perspective as she has used Nietzsches' style of genealogy on the subject of pornography and the matter of "sex=power" and has used his argument of "no ordering principle in nature" to make a room full of so called intellectuals sweat and scratch for their certainties when confronted with her arguments.

The only reasons people disagree with her is out of the inability to accept our condition - there are others who follow with gross misunderstandings of her work, such as the life denying celibacy woman who is also a guest and of whom Dworkin does not defend at all and then there are those who have not read any of her work at all and just don't want to see pornography challenged.

In my previous years before I began to change my ways of which I was not happy with, I have experienced the sex industry first hand and interacted with workers in the sex industry and known many abused women and I know that this is what Dworking is talking about and challenging and how we don't allow ourselves to talk about these issues.

She does not challenge the autonomous decisions to express sexuality on film, she is attacking the exploitation that many can't accept because they have had no experience of that side of sex.

Many still accept sex as an industry too and this is the fixed idealism that she challenges here and very well indeed.

It is when the question of "what is sex for?" is raised and biology, teleology and religion come into and even "spiritual celibacy" too, that we see the certainties crumble under her life affirming acceptance that there is no such thing as a pre determined principle in nature and when we begin to contemplate this and accept it, we can see how many atrocities and degradations of people in society, in particular women, fall victim to this phallogocentric oppression.

This is why I promote Nietzsche so much, as he can challenge the people the new agers dream of challenging into change, without false delusions that when they are ignored, they are winning - this is not true - the real deal lies in challenging where values and ideas come from - start from there using a genealogy and you will have a VERY strong position when addressing your concerns and they will be well founded.

***additional*** Although I love the points Dworkin makes, I differ on her action to censor and ban pornography - what is one mans porn, is another mans' bore. I think that education is enough, as change does not happen over night, it is a process of overcoming, of self overcoming and all overcoming is self overcoming too.

We can look back at her work and how many women have stopped to think about what they have chosen and to see they are responsible for that choice and that choice is available to them - education and awareness is a good start, but censorship will always fire blanks.

[Nemiel]

I hope that wasn't too off point but so much of this topic seems to fall into the subjective realm and like the anti-smoking extremists who want to ban smoking outdoors in some places simply because they find it ewwwy, I tend to see any autocratic new-age revulsion to certain things (I'm sure the bulk of new agers are fine people, it just takes a few to build a negative stereotype or group meme, such as has been the case with the term 'feminist') is just this - certain people not understanding that their subjective repulsions aren't something that should be made dogma for other people and in fact, this might be the most painful aspect to them, these things might be a sign that they themselves are practicing escapism and running from problems. The later is definitely not something to ram down on other people's heads because in many if not most cases it could be best looked on as a character flaw and one that they're attacking other people for not partaking with them!

People will believe what they want to believe, I think it's about time that this was accepted as a truth by everyone. I don't have a problem with that, as it fits into my definition of truth - the same as the Ancient Greeks (Micean Era), which is something that could not escape notice and something that you could never forget.

I have been looking into Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist and have found her points to be very valid indeed, if something can stand for itself and challenge the fixed views, then that is the best argument to me - I find it very hard to value the subjective less than objective, as what we call objective comes from the subjective anyway, "what is" is not the same as "the study of what is", we should look at the object in question and not undermine the experience of observation and take a position based on that process - accepting the process is much more dynamic and less dogmatic, as philosophy is subject to change all the time.

I have just completed my first book and much of it is not an academic work as such, more my own perspective that I hope others will offer feedback on, by accepting that other believe what they want to believe and that truth is something inescapable and unforgettable, I have found that philosophy takes on a whole new dimension that way and that is the rule of what the whole book is based on - experience.

"As soon as you feel yourself against me, you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion!

I want to awaken the greatest mistrust of myself: I speak only of things I have experienced and do not offer only events of the head.

One must want to experience the great problems with ones' body and ones' soul.

I have at all times written my writings with my whole heart and soul: I do not know what purely intellectual problems are.

You know these things as thoughts, but your thoughts are not your experiences, they are an echo, and after effect of your experiences: as when your room trembles when a carriage goes past. I however am sitting in the carriage, and often I am the carriage itself"

- Friedrich Nietzsche

[Nemiel]

[AllSeeingGuy]

Hmmmm. I read your post and still don't really get what the hell you're talking about... something about New Age being a load of shit? You need to explain things more clearly and concisely.

Also, LOL @ the cross-dressing! Do you go out in public like that, or is that just your online persona? That's pretty brave. Weird, but brave.

[Frumens]

Also, LOL @ the cross-dressing! Do you go out in public like that, or is that just your online persona? That's pretty brave. Weird, but brave.

Haters gonna hate (and get reported).

[Nemiel]

Hmmmm. I read your post and still don't really get what the hell you're talking about... something about New Age being a load of shit? You need to explain things more clearly and concisely.

Also, LOL @ the cross-dressing! Do you go out in public like that, or is that just your online persona? That's pretty brave. Weird, but brave.

Yes I do go out in public dressed as a woman, not that it is a big deal, but yeah.

As regards the discussion - it's clear to understand if you are familiar with existentialism and the other sources I work with. Overall, you got the point, however.

If there is anything you are unclear on, you will be better off asking me a question that is as specific as possible.

The main source for my recent work is Friedrich Nietzsches' "The Genealogy of Morals", "Thus Spake Zarathustra", "Beyond Good and Evil", "The Twilight of the Idols" and then of course you will be required to look at the issues he brings up by going to Plato, Christian Morality etc.

The aspects of the new age I am criticizing are works by Walter Russell (who was inspired by Emerson and Kant), Thomas H. Burgoyne, who implements Gnosticism and Hermeticism with Kabballah, but then we are best looking towards C.W Kings' "The Gnostics and Their Remains - Ancient and Medieval" too. Lets not forget Manly Palmer Hall and Blavastky too.

I also advise that you look further into communication theory, such as Marshall McLuhan. There are also elements of Quine (For his critique using Logic on the subject of Ontology) and then some experience of the alternative media to see how ideas are presented and where the previous ideas and works come in, especially when Plato and the Forms become apparent and the Gnostics too.

A study of Zoroastrianism, the Greco-Roman world, Alexander the Great, The Persian Empire and the Influence of Zoroastrianism in Egypt, Platos claimed visit to Egypt and then the works of Aristobulus at the Library of Alexandria in Egypt, as this will then show the development of the Bible and the beginning of syncretic binding of information.

I wont cover all of the sources, as you can see, the study is vast, but the main issues are those concern with where information comes from. Idealism and rhetoric are also worthy subjects to understand here.

Of course you will be required to be interested first, this is around 2 years of study.

[Nemiel]

Also, LOL @ the cross-dressing! Do you go out in public like that, or is that just your online persona? That's pretty brave. Weird, but brave.

Haters gonna hate (and get reported).

Don't see the point in reporting myself.

Most of my work is focused on how different people are online compared to their real life as they can hide behind their vulnerabilities with the power of anonymity.

[Master Baphomet]

Also, LOL @ the cross-dressing! Do you go out in public like that, or is that just your online persona? That's pretty brave. Weird, but brave.

Haters gonna hate (and get reported).

Don't see the point in reporting myself.

Most of my work is focused on how different people are online compared to their real life as they can hide behind their vulnerabilities with the power of anonymity.

People are more honest in expressing their actual thoughts/beliefs/feelings anonymously on line because the politically-correct thought-police are at a loss to cause them harm in retribution for not going along with the Orwellian Right Think that the liberal leftists wish to impose on everyone. Liberal Leftists despise freedom of speech and are hypocrites who only want their side to have a voice while doing everything in their power to silence their opposition.

[Master Baphomet]

Hmmmm. I read your post and still don't really get what the hell you're talking about... something about New Age being a load of shit? You need to explain things more clearly and concisely.

Also, LOL @ the cross-dressing! Do you go out in public like that, or is that just your online persona? That's pretty brave. Weird, but brave.

Yes I do go out in public dressed as a woman, not that it is a big deal, but yeah.

Just out of curiosity, when you were a child/young adult were you the subject of sexual advances from another male? Or do you naturally have an atypical level of the hormone estrogen for a man?