The Age of Advanced Incoherence 8: The Eyes of the State

Full PDF of this series.

Minority Rule & Late-Phase Culture

“Historically, the movement toward androgyny occurs in late phases of culture as a civilization is starting to unravel and you can find it again and again through history. [T]he people who live in such periods, late phase of culture, . . . feel that they’re very sophisticated . . . but from the perspective of historical distance you can see that it’s a culture that no longer believes in itself. . . . What you invariably get are people who are convinced of the power of heroic masculinity on the edges whether the Vandals and the Huns or whether they’re the barbarians of Isis, you see them you know starting to mass on the outsides of the culture. And that’s what we have right now, there is a tremendous and rather terrifying disconnect between the infatuation with the transgender movement in our own culture and what’s going on out there . . . I feel it’s ominous.” —Camille Paglia

Lastly, to round up this series, there is one more, equally pressing question I want to raise. It is this:

If, as a society, we find ourselves bending over backwards to over-represent a tiny minority, the result is to grant said minority disproportionate influence within society. This is inherently destabilizing for the society in question. Is this really the best way to ensure tolerance, compassion, and openness towards that minority—or is it more likely to lead to an opposite and equal reaction?

Minorities aren’t persecuted by communities because they are minorities, but when and as they are perceived as a threat to the stability of that community. This doesn’t mean they actually present a threat, but if the community is sufficiently unstable, and the minority sufficiently visible to serve as a scapegoat to bind the community together, the persecution will unfold just as if in reaction to a genuine threat. So how do you make something appear more threatening than it actually is? You first raise it up to a higher position.

If the gender-confused turn out to be victims of the very agendas that purport to rescue them, it wouldn’t be the first time a sociopolitical wolf dressed up in ideological sheep clothing. The strongest evidence for this, I think, is found by observing how the ideological drive to promote gender fluidity has such little regard for facts, figures, statistics, or even testimonies of gender fluid people that don’t conform to the dominant ideological drive. This latter proceeds just as you would expect a wolf to proceed: it huffs and puffs and it blows houses down. And it tears to shreds its opponents.

Recall how another fairy tale wolf ate Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother by pretending to be Red Riding Hood, then dressed up as her grandmother and ate Red Riding Hood? Trans-wolf—what big hands you have! It’s darkly ironic—and in the nature of this beast—that one of the primary rationales for this ideological drive takes the guise of compassion and tolerance, as a supposed preventative against prejudicial treatment, bullying, etc., of these misunderstood minorities. For example (from Wikipedia):

In the United States, the majority of respondents to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey chose ‘A gender not listed here.’ The ‘Not Listed Here’ respondents were nine percentage-points (33 percent) more likely to report forgoing healthcare due to fear of discrimination than the general sample (36 percent compared to 27 percent). 90 percent reported experiencing anti-trans bias at work, and 43 percent reported having attempted suicide.

This sort of data is designed to act as a thought-stopper because it couches facts in a primeval context, that of predator and prey, in this case innocent victims of discrimination driven to suicide by heartless bigots. Once an emotional reaction is triggered, questioning or even examining the facts becomes much harder—it risks siding with the wolf, with heartlessness and bigotry. We tend to read the data as statistical fact, rather than as subjective testimony. We assume that, if 90% of the people interviewed experienced “anti-trans bias at work,” then anti-trans bias was at work. Questioning the alleged victims’ version of events becomes akin to adding insult to injury.

In fact, there’s no inherent reason to take such testimony as proven fact, just as there is no reason to believe any other subjective statement about people we don’t like. Being “Trans” doesn’t automatically make a person incapable of poor judgment or prejudice, or of bullying, egomania, or obnoxious behavior. The alleged victims are not babies. So how do they, much less we, know if they were being “discriminated” against for existing negative qualities, i.e., quite independently of their “Trans”-ness? The answer is that we don’t. But one thing we do know is that anyone who is given special societal status and privilege—amounting to a license to file a complaint whenever they don’t get what they want—is likely to abuse it.

Here are some more “stats,” these from The Guardian, 2018:

Of those trans people lucky enough to have a job, one in eight have been physically attacked by a colleague or customer within the past year. Drink after work? Maybe next time, eh. A third of trans people have been discriminated against when visiting a cafe, bar or restaurant. Quiet night in? A quarter of trans people in a relationship in the last year have experienced domestic abuse. These are just some of the findings published in new research by YouGov and LGBT charity Stonewall, revealing the profound discrimination trans people face in Britain. It’s shocking stuff, though not surprising, I suspect, to the majority of trans people who, like me, will have experienced some if not all of these kinds of bullying at some point.

And The Independent 2017:

Campaigners believe the statistics could be the “tip of the iceberg” with the majority of victims not feeling safe in reporting their experiences to the authorities. In Manchester, an initiative has been launched between the LGBT Foundation and Greater Manchester Police, where the charity would act as a third-party for reporting hate crime in a bid to encourage people to come forward. “Whether you are a victim or a witness, it is important to report every hate crime,” said James Huyton, community safety officer at LGBT Foundation.

The problem here is circular reasoning: because transgender is a natural and normal variation in human behavior, any resistance to it or intolerance of it is proof of ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry. This leaves out the possibility (explored in the previous seven parts of this series) that at least some gender dysphoria is neither natural nor normal (in the sense of healthy and desirable) but is rather symptomatic of intense psychological distress that’s sourced in early trauma and other adverse environmental factors.

By this same token, the assumption that the high suicide and suicide attempts rates among gender dysphoric people can be wholly (or even primarily) attributed to the adverse effects of social intolerance and bigotry is just that, an assumption. The possibility that already suicidally-inclined psychological types might also suffer from weak boundaries and a confused or poorly formed sense of identity, and therefore be drawn towards “gender identification” “solutions” is more or less ignored, if it isn’t being reviled as prejudice.

Inseparable from this is the possibility that transgender behaviors—being evidence of psychological instability and despair—might be genuinely threatening towards some members of a community, just as it was once quite normal, even sensible, to feel threatened by a man wearing a wig and a dress outside of the realm of performance, since a man in disguise indicates to our primordial brains that something isn’t right. (Cf. the “uncanny valley” hypothesis.[1]) Of course, people can be educated and socially reconditioned out of this “prejudice,” but not without some unpredictable side effects or the likelihood of social, cultural backlash.

The ideological bias that supports anyone who self-identifies or is identified as a victim of “discrimination”—and condemns anyone who feels threatened by social aberrations or mutations—is apparent in the ways in which the discussion so often proceeds around this subject. Anyone who questions the prevailing doctrine about gender fluidity and dysphoria, or who presents factual data that contradicts it, is frequently accused of being a “transphobe,” a bigot, etc.

Technically, however, bigotry is defined as “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.” In my experience, this more closely describes the people who violently defend the concepts of gender fluidity or sexual orientation from alleged “hate speech,” than it does those questioning these concepts, as I have done. This includes especially anyone who questions, as I have done, the assumption that gender fluidity has been scientifically proven as positive and life-enhancing, and that children should be “educated” to see it this way.

By today’s definition of “an anti-trans bias,” anyone who doesn’t support a gender fluid individual in their worldview 100% is acting prejudicially and is therefore a bigot, even if they don’t know it yet because they haven’t been educated properly.

Pillars of Salt (Problem-Reaction-Solution)

“Brighton Council is advocating that all adults in a child’s life work to set in stone for the child a sense of identity which is split off from the body, to condition the child into a mind-body disconnect which is an indicator for mental ill-health. Schools should be an environment where a child’s sense of self is given the space to develop, expand and change, and no school should be actively reinforcing hatred and rejection of the body as a foundation upon which to build a sense of self.” —Transgender Trend, 2016

I have spent so much time on the warp and woof of gender fluidity not because I consider these questions particularly meaningful—they seem to me like the secular equivalent of counting angels on the head of a surgical needle—but to illustrate just how fragmented, factitious, and self-devouring progressivist identity politics discourse has become—and how violent. What is of greatest significance, in my opinion, is the fact that children as young as two or three years old are being dragged into an ideological battleground around human sex and sexuality, and that parents have less and less of a grasp of the artillery being deployed.

Curiously, all of this debate centers around an ideological framework (gender fluidity) based on very flimsy evidence, beginning with the evidence for an identity-self that possesses gender and exists independent of biology. From here, it is argued by some that there is no such thing as biological sex, at all, because, like gender, it is a purely social construct. This notion has never been proven because, like 2 + 2 = 5, it is inherently unprovable and self-contradictory. Yet like Orwell’s proof of State-allegiance, it has been uncritically accepted by many people who blindly support the supposed needs of children to be encouraged to “transition,” and to be protected from any sort of questioning or criticism (even when intended to help them). The reasoning is that these children will be happier if they are allowed to reject the biology they were born with, and given total freedom to define their own reality, as well as the power to oblige everyone else to go along with their definitions.

How is it possible for so many people to believe so strongly in social policies, education reforms, and medical interventions involving the most invasive technologies imaginable as a means to address something they have not even begun to understand? Perhaps the answer is found in the question: that as long as science appears to offer the solution, it follows that it must have fully understood the problem. This is probably the primary pitfall of a technologically driven society in which all the solutions address problems externally, and hence are increasingly founded on ignoring all internal causes.

Clearly, we have managed to convince ourselves—or let ourselves be convinced—that we understand the problem of transgender and gender fluidity. Now all that’s required is to educate others to understand it too. How did this happen? Besides the section on mass media presentation, I have shied away from looking at the deeper social engineering programs behind the gender fluidity movement—programs which began at least as far back as Havelock Ellis, at the start of the 20th century, and that continue to this day in (mostly open but very little known) deep state sociopolitical agendas. The reason I have avoided going into this material (which would require perhaps an equally long exploration) is that I don’t want to alienate the average reader with too much unfamiliar and potentially threatening information, especially when it is the kind of information which uninformed and credulous readers tend to dismiss as “conspiracy theory.”

Fortunately, there’s a much simpler and shorter answer to the question of how a belief devoid of understanding became so widespread and so passionate so quickly. It is that most people in 2018 are almost completely ignorant of psychology. And because the psyche abhors a vacuum, when people are deprived of even the most rudimentary knowledge of the psychological principles of their existence (which prior to Freud were generally provided by the arts), they become vulnerable to possession by a counterfeit set of beliefs. This counterfeit belief-set is in a self-determining, self-inventing, and self-orienting identity that exists, like a reverse circle, with a circumference (outer shell) that is everywhere, and a center that is nowhere found.

In a recent celebrated case, Australia changed its laws so adolescents can now freely choose to change their sex without court approval. The first beneficiary of the new law was 14-year-old Isabelle Langley (trans-girl), who was quoted as saying: “By [the court’s] logic it was as though trans kids aren’t mature enough to decide how they want to manage their own puberty. . . . I want to have control over my body and what goes into my body. . . . I know what I need. . .”

Dr. Michelle Telfer, the head of the gender service at the Royal Children’s Hospital treating Langley, added this:

And what I will say about many of the youth who want puberty blockers is: I have never met such an altruistic group of kids around adoption! Never! “I will adopt because there are so many children who need good homes.” And I think that’s both heartfelt but also they’re trying to tell us the most important thing to me right now is being able to have every opportunity to have my gender affirmation be as complete as possible. Anything else is secondary.

It is apparently a given in today’s progressive circles that children are mature enough to “manage their own puberty.” But I wonder how many of these people, the adults I mean, would claim they managed their own puberty wisely? Did anyone? Isn’t it literally an oxymoron to say that an adolescent is mature enough to manage his or her own sexual development, especially when most forty-year-olds haven’t yet got the hang of it? Most adults are still figuring out when to have sex and with who, how to sensibly navigate alcohol and drug use, and how to maintain a healthy diet. Suddenly children have the means, motive, and opportunity to engineer their own sexual development and reconstruct their bodies—including permanent sterilization[2]—and this is seen as a benign development free from risks?

To cap off her testimonial, Dr. Telfer added proudly: “These young people are healthy with a strong sense of justice, they are absolute pillars of society.” I’d say that gives a pretty clear indication of what to expect.

Children are being taught that there are not two but many genders, and that, like the mythical creatures of fairy tales, mysterious entities called “gender identities” can morph and change according to whim, while being entirely invisible except for their effects. Like myth, these state-backed children’s stories eschew scientific or medical evidence, in favor of a theoretical mish-mash of ideological imaginings with subjective testimonies from (generally distressed) children and adolescents. Life’s a fairy tale in which you can be whatever you want to be and no one can tell you otherwise? No wonder they want to target children, because who else would believe this?

The promise that corporate raiders from the Serpent on up have perfected is this: If you eat our fruit, ye shall be as gods. There is an identity for everyone, for every occasion. You can get to be whichever “you” you want, whenever, wherever, and for however long you want. But who is the “I” that gets to decide what “it” gets to be?

The invalidation of biology as the primary determinant of identity has, at the same time and most bizarrely, made body modification central to identity-recreation. How is this circle squared? Only by leaving a vacuum where the psyche used to be, a vacuum that has been hollowed out by corporations mining for natural human resources.

The soggy SOGI merchants of self-reinvention-via-self-absorption want to appeal to the lowest part of us by promising to raise it up to the highest plateau. They are selling a cure for a soul that migrated to the wrong body without acknowledging that, if psyches are no longer finding their somas, if more and more people are not at home in their bodies, something has gone terribly wrong on Terra Firma.

This problem isn’t acknowledged as a problem because the proffered “solution” is being sold as so wonderful that it promises to transform the situation into sheer opportunity. Certainly, it is some sort of opportunity, but whose? In this brave new land, all opportunities and all solutions come from the Scientistic State, and all problems are sourced in the body, in Nature, and in God. Surely the inversion of this must be obvious? If there are those who don’t see it, it can only be because they have replaced their eyes with a set of Google glasses.

They are now seeing with the eyes of the State.


[1] The uncanny valley hypothesis predicts an entity appearing almost human risks eliciting cold, eerie feelings in viewers, see “The Uncanny Valley: Implications for Facial Plastic Surgery” by Joshua Choo, MD Gerald O’Daniel, MD: “According to the cognitive psychology literature, objects such as faces are evaluated by a complex process of contextual integration—often referred to as category processing or membership. These evaluations assimilate cues inherent to the object and to the larger environment that form a rich contextual basis for categorization. Objects that are congruent with their contextual setting “make sense” and are therefore perceived to be more beautiful.” Also: “Japanese roboticist Dr Masahiro Mori postulated that the more closely a robot approximated human features, the more endearing it became until a point was reached when the subtle imperfections of appearance or behavior created an opposite effect—that of eeriness and revulsion. Several theories exist to explain why this response occurs and what elicits it, but it is this concept of category congruence that the authors believe to have the most explanatory power when applied to plastic surgery. [T]he uncanny valley is encountered when cosmetic procedures create category uncertainty.” (Ref.) “But what we’re finding today is that it’s not robots we have to worry about; the uncanny valley is all around you. Just consider. . . The Booming “Realistic” Sex Doll Industry. People Who Want to Be Anime Characters—Animegao Kigurumi – btw, most costumes out there are female. Most players are male. People Who Want to be Anime Characters (Part 2) — Ulzzang. Photoshop is Filling Magazines With Dead-Eyed Humanoids. CGI Humans Are More Terrifying Than Ever.”

[2] From the website 4thWaveNow: “During the closing panel discussion, Ehrensaft and Baum devote several minutes to the topic of sterilizing trans kids—but explain it away with a twofer: By equating it to treatments for children with life-threatening cancers, and by stating that parents reluctant to sterilize their 11-year-olds are only concerned because they selfishly want grandchildren. . . . Ehrensaft: ‘There’s a lot of parents who have dreams of becoming grandparents. It’s very hard for them not to imagine those genetically related grandchildren. So we have to work with parents around, these aren’t your dreams. [laughs]. You have to focus on your child’s dreams. What they want.’ Ehrensaft laughingly implies that parents concerned about their child’s human right to choose or not to choose to reproduce . . . are really only concerned about future grandchildren, not the bodily integrity or cognitive wherewithal of their prepubescent child. These egocentric parents are denying their children “their dreams.” These thoughtless parents need to be “worked with” by gender specialists. Here comes the punchline—the ultimate “leverage point”: You can either have grandchildren or not have a kid anymore because they’ve ended the relationship with you or in some cases because they’ve chosen a more dangerous path for themselves.

Full PDF of this series.

27 thoughts on “The Age of Advanced Incoherence 8: The Eyes of the State”

  1. Amazing work. I watched Germaine Greer get made to look very stupid on a major network TV interview about her new book “On Rape”. She dared to suggest that contrary to the conventional man hating identity wisdom, most non-consensual sex takes place in marriages and other long term relationships and is not technically rape. Her keen mind is attempting to inject some nuance into the brain dead wolf ideology, but it cant handle it and they responded by making her look like a crazy old feminist who has joined the enemy in her dotage, Shows you how far we have come when Germaine is a conservative voice being painted as a patriarchal vassal.
    She also made the mistake of suggesting that a certain long term Oz female politician was not made Prime Minister because despite being a media darling, she is duplicitous and weak , therefore not all that good at her job. She has made the point quite a lot recently that feminism has been coopted by the corporate state, that it has come to mean women are allowed to mimic men and that is all.
    Sorry if i have segued here.

  2. Yes Greer is mentioned in pt 7; meanwhile this is pertinent to the problem of “transphobia”:
    Why transgender people make normies uncomfortable? And why Drag Queens may find more acceptance than transgenders – they look less ‘natural”:
    The uncanny valley hypothesis predicts an entity appearing almost human risks eliciting cold, eerie feelings in viewers.[4]
    The Uncanny Valley: Implications for Facial Plastic Surgery
    Joshua Choo, MD Gerald O’Daniel, MD
    Aesthetic Surgery Journal, Volume 36, Issue 1, 1 January 2016, Pages NP28–NP29,
    Published: 25 September 2015
    … The question of context is an important one. According to the cognitive psychology literature, objects such as faces are evaluated by a complex process of contextual integration—often referred to as category processing or membership. These evaluations assimilate cues inherent to the object and to the larger environment that form a rich contextual basis for categorization.4,5 Objects that are congruent with their contextual setting “make sense” and are therefore perceived to be more beautiful.6
    In his 1970 thesis, Bukimi No Tani (translated “Uncanny Valley”),7 Japanese roboticist Dr Masahiro Mori postulated that the more closely a robot approximated human features, the more endearing it became until a point was reached when the subtle imperfections of appearance or behavior created an opposite effect—that of eeriness and revulsion. Several theories exist to explain why this response occurs and what elicits it, but it is this concept of category congruence that the authors believe to have the most explanatory power when applied to plastic surgery.
    … It is the authors’ intent to formally introduce the concept of the uncanny valley and explore its implications within the discipline of plastic surgery. Taking our cues from the cognitive science literature,4-6 we hypothesize that the uncanny valley is encountered when cosmetic procedures create category uncertainty. Examples where the uncanny valley is more likely to be encountered are when well-defined categories such as ethnicity, age, and gender are unconsciously violated, such as can occur in an Asian patient desiring a more Westernized nose or eyelid, or in a male patient with masculine features desiring a more refined nasal tip. While the changes taken in isolation may be successful, taken in context of the whole they may cause subtle incongruities and conflicting visual cues that lead to the uncanny valley. In order to overcome these difficulties, it is critical to be sensitive to this phenomenon.
    5 Creepy Ways Humans Are Plunging Into the Uncanny Valley
    Way back in 1970, a Japanese roboticist named Masahiro Mori came up with the term “uncanny valley”, the theory that as robots get more human like, people will respond positively to them, but only up to the point where they still definitely look like robots. Once they cross that point, or the uncanny valley, real humans will be disgusted by their robot counterparts, because they’ll look almost like people, but not quite. And there is nothing we find more disturbing than that.
    But what we’re finding today is that it’s not robots we have to worry about; the uncanny valley is all around you. Just consider …
    The Booming “Realistic” Sex Doll Industry
    People Who Want to Be Anime Characters — Animegao Kigurumi – btw, most costumes out there are female. Most players are male.
    People Who Want to be Anime Characters (Part 2) — Ulzzang
    Photoshop is Filling Magazines With Dead-Eyed Humanoids
    CGI Humans Are More Terrifying Than Ever

  3. Absolutely outstanding. I stumbled across your blog by complete accident a couple of months ago. I am so happy about that.
    I subscribed to updates and this eight part series appeared soon after. It is the best writing I have come across on the transgender phenomenon bar none. Thank you so much.

    • at the risk of sounding immodest, I am glad someone noticed! writing this has at least brought peace to my own interiority around the subject; I no longer feel there is a controversy, even if one still rages out there… perhaps over time the series will reach and affect more eyes hearts & minds

  4. Yes, indeedy, Jasun, what you have written is so inspirational that it has inspired me to begin composing a song parody that I hope will become the very international anthem of Auticulture. At the present moment, all I have is a one word substitution for the song title, but believe me it’s a keeper and I will be working on the other stanzas in the future.
    Woody Guthrie took an old Gospel song classic and made it his own. His title was “You Gotta Walk that Lonesome Valley.”
    I have changed it to: “You Gotta Walk that Uncanny Valley.”
    [TECHNICAL NOTE: I realize that “Uncanny” has 3 syllables while “lonesome” has 2. But you can slide the “un-“ as an unaccented grace note to easily hit the accent on the CAN syllable so that. “LONE-some” becomes “un-CAN-ny”]
    Here is Pete Seeger singing it live in a concert from 40 years ago, with Woody’s son Arlo Guthrie at the piano.

      • Axolotl, Jasun! You may have just created and named a structural element in the psyche of every single human being — one to take its place among the other structural elements, like Jung’s Animus or Anima, the Shadow, or even Freud’s Ego, Id and Superego.
        I see now that by dropping the “that”, it not only syncs the syllables, but more importantly, it identifies Uncanny Valley (now to be capitalized) as a unique component of every human being’s inner psycho-spiritual structure.
        So can we go there? Does each of then us possess an Uncanny Valley unique to our respective genetically and environmentally molded Entelechies? Such a constituent structural element may then help explain why we feel revulsion and disgust at certain cognitively dissonant anomalies like transgenderism, homosexuality, loathing of other races, etc.
        If so, perhaps it might reduce the intensity of the morbid impasse we live in now, with accusations and counter-accusations of prejudice and any “-phobia” you want to name.

  5. Comment from a reader who asked that their original posts be deleted due to a desire not to leave a cyber trail:

    A thought has arisen, from time to time, that I think may be relevant here…
    The so-called Weimar period, in the years preceding the Nazi assumption of power, was one of extremes. There was a surge, ostensibly from below (i.e. the hidden aspects of society), that brought into the light a world of radical disavowal of previous social and religious forms.
    This was the time when the various forms of spiritualism and occultism, always present in Germany but submerged, came into the light. And, in tandem with this, a pandemonium of social and historical anxieties, as well as repressed desires came with them.
    At then end of this time frame, the Nazis appeared to be a scourge against “decadent” forms. And, indeed, due to their infatuation with the outre left, most historians have portrayed the Weimar milieu and the rising Nazi menace as thesis and antithesis.
    But, what is clear, with those with the eyes to see, is that the Volkisch current, which found its political manifestation in the NSDAP, was not a foreigner to the bizarre world of Weimar experimentation, but another offshoot of it. It was simply one aspect of a fragmented, collective, German psyche. Albeit, one that came to dominate the nation, and impose its will on that country.
    My point here is that without the disintegration of the post-WWI, Weimar period, Nazism would not have been possible. It was the fragmentation of that society, and the subsequent grasping at extreme solutions, that allowed Nazism to come to power. The fact that the outre crowd of the Weimar era made a point of attacking and devaluing all that had come before was simply fuel for the fire. Though, the Nazi movement was itself a product of this disintegration, the extremists of the Weimar period allowed them a convenient target. By drawing attention to the radical stance of the avant garde, (which including all the elements that we see in our culture, drug use, indiscriminate sexual gratification, gender confusion), the Nazis could pose as the redeemers of Germany.
    It is known that at the end of WWII our government, and its attendant intelligence agencies, collaborated with, sheltered, funded, and even brought into the US, large elements of the Nazi apparatus of power. And, it is speculated that among the matters that these “ex” Nazis were influential in, were the then nascent methods of social and psychological engineering.
    I have wondered if the spiral into decadence that this country has undergone may be part of an experiment. A large, and far ranging one…
    Contrary to what many assume about the Nazis, there were many among them that were acutely aware of exactly how their own psychology functioned. They knew and understood that the weltanschauung that they presented was the product of trauma. They understood, as well, that without the trauma of the war that preceded them, and the subsequent implosion of German society, they would never have come to power.
    Is it possible that this destabilization that we see all around us is phase one of a broader agenda? To reduce America to a stage analogous to that of Weimar Germany, thus laying the groundwork for the eventual “salvation” of the country by some movement that would parallel the Nazi Party?

    Great thesis comment, which sums up the underlying thesis, or one primary side of it, of this series. Thanks!
    The salvation party probably won’t resemble Nazis however, au contraire. A perfect genetically engineered new breed of silicon valley uncanny humans empathy-trained by psychopaths to pass the Turing test. 😉

    • I’m thinking of “for-profit prisons” as maybe a good example. They’re also a nice mash-up of governmental, economic, medical and architectural dehumanization.

  6. Comments from same reader who asked their original posts to be deleted due to a desire not to leave a cyber trail:

    Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.
    As to additional examples…. As I mentioned before, I have spent a great deal of time in the call center/corporate milieu. And, before that, I worked in the finance industry. So, I may have further things to contribute.
    Like you, I have a strange convergence of influences at work in my mind and thought. I have spent a large portion of my life searching. And, that search has gone through some parallels with your own. (Including an eventual disillusionment with the occult. I still practice; but my practice these days is more of an acceptance of a kind of obsession,along with the desire to control and delimit the obsession, than any kind of passionate calling.)
    If such searching ever has a final phase, then mine began about 6 years ago. When I began reading on para politics, and mind-control/alien abduction scenarios.
    For me, this started as just another way of exploring the occult, in the most broad sense of the aspects of existence that are hidden. I did not go into with an expectation that I myself might be a victim of these things.
    At that point, certain memories and what I would call quasi-memories began to surface; (you may or may not recall, I have shared certain incidences of these with you via email), It was this possibility that radically altered my perception of my life and search. I no longer have the ability to lose myself in transcendent abstractions. These days, almost every time a perception of an occult nature arises, I am forced to ask myself what its traumatic corollary may be.
    I realize that my comments tend to be a bit lengthy, so I will try and give it a break for a while after this comment.
    A large portion of what has drawn me to this site, and your work, has been this final phase of my explorations. I am attempting, myself, to gather data that may have some importance to what I am trying to piece together.
    I am wanting contact with others who have seen and experienced these things, yes. But, there is an agenda here.
    I am specifically looking for input in the realm of the Thelemic practices, with an even narrower focus on the so-called “Enochian” materials that were brought forth by John Dee and Edward Kelly.
    I have worked with various permutations of that lore for over 20 years. And, though I do not deceive myself into believing there is a final, complete explanation for all its oddities and dark sub-text, I continue to compile accounts and input from others.
    So, a large part of what I am looking for is information concerning the orders that have placed the Dee/Kelly materials in a central position in their doctrines and practices. This would include the Golden Dawn, the Aurum Solis, as well as many others.
    I am interested not so much in any published materials on this, as personal experiences of other practitioners. And, most acutely, in any “apocryphal” information pertaining to possible involvement of these organizations in organized/sacrificial abuse practices.
    Finally, I am also exploring the Necronomicon phenomenon. The concept of this book as a self-replicating/advancing occult meme/virus. I have been doing a lot of digging, specifically on the Simon Necronomicon, and have uncovered some interesting things.
    It goes to something addressed in Gonce and Harms “The Necronomicon Files”. Therein, various explanations about the S.N. are advanced. One being the obvious idea of it as a money-making hoax. But, at one point in the book, the authors speculate that it could have been something that partook of this, but had other dimensions.
    Your posts on Levenda have helped bring this into greater focus. It is almost a given, at this point, that Levenda is Simon; or at least one of the persons that made up that persona. You pointed out, in these pages, that he had written a laudatory review of one of Aquino’s books. This brought back one of the suspicions voiced the T.N.F. It has been suggested that Aquino may have been, in some way, involved with the process that brought the Simon Necronomicon into print.
    My personal experiences with that text argue that there is a bit more than just greed behind it. I believe that it is a vehicle for something more than just that.

    Yes this is of interest to me,the Necronomicon part at least; the other stuff is too but it is too specific and (fortunately) too far outside the realm of my experience and expertise to comment on; this may be of relevance to your inquiry, however:
    “Since the 1570s, Dee had been an ardent advocate of imperial expansion, agitating in favour of it in his Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis (1570) for example. By his 1576 General and rare memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation, he was firmly arguing for the establishment of what he called – coining the term – a “British Empire”, citing Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of King Arthur’s supposed conquests in Ireland, as well as later, in his Title Royal (1580), the possibly apocryphal Welsh legend of Madog ap Owain Gwynedd’s arrival in America. Plotting his designs on a map of North America in 1577, Dee had noted Arthur’s own quest for the fabled Northwest Passage to Asia and his supposed conquest of Newfoundland, suggesting this vindicated a British claim upon the territory. . . .
    “Through the researches of the London Psychogeographical Association in the early 1990s, it was revealed that in 1566, Humfrey Gilbert had “revived” Arthur’s mythological campaign to open up the so-called Northwest Passage – the semi-legendary geographical shortcut to East Asia, through the icy channels, bays and inlets north of what is now Canada. The quest for the Northwest Passage was a key driver in the development of British imperial expansionism and as the LPA noted, George Gascoigne’s Discourse of a Discovery for a New Passage to Cataia, relates how Dee was particularly taken with Gilbert’s proposition, commending him in his preface to the English translation of Euclid. Indeed, so impressed was he with Gilbert’s text that Dee took his proposal and put it into action, constructing the Omphalos as the anchor of a powerful leyline that stretched all the way across the globe, marking precisely the main channel of the aforementioned Northwest Passage [fig 1., above].

  7. That is of interest; on many levels.
    You said that you do not have enough background on these matters to offer much. But, this is right in line with what I am aiming at.
    Everyone who practices some form of the Dee/Kelly system(s) rely greatly on Dee’s reputation and presence as an occultist. The part of his character that gets consistently downplayed is the fact of his position with the British Crown. And, his status as an intelligence asset. A few more recent books, (“John Dee and the Empire of the Angels”), address this aspect; but still stop short of considering the full range of possibilities there.
    Everyone refers again and again to his Spirit Diaries, and they never stop to consider the fact that his diaries may have been either deliberately, of semi-consciously, censored or crafted to a specific end.
    I have long considered the idea that his diaries, the records of the transmissions from the “angels” may be a front. They may be one, or several false narratives, (either in the forms of deliberate deception, or as, as you so aptly named them “crucial fictions.”)
    Where this may interest you, is in the following. If the records in the diaries are not simply a conscious fabrication, there are parallels between the events/encounters described therein and stories of alien abduction/encounters. And, unless I am completely off base, I believe that there is a similar pattern of manifestation of these entities, to Dee and Kelly, as to what we see with Strieber. To see what I mean, (if what I see is there), simply access any of the online copies of these records.

  8. Briefly, one of the more obvious parallels with Strieber lies in the fact that the entities they contacted pushed an agenda not unlike that which has become prevalent in Strieber’s communications.
    The so-called angels presented a doctrine that was at once, hopeful and immeasurably bleak. A vision of apocalypse, that required Dee/Kelly to proselytize on their behalf. That these two men, (each deeply flawed in their way), must become the visionary prophets of a dawning new age. And, all of this is presented against a background of impending catastrophe for humanity. As well as being voiced amid images that are, each in their way, deeply disturbing.
    That’s just a quick overview; as I said, if you access any of the diary records, I think you will begin to see what I mean.
    One thing that might be of interest here… in a book on the Dee/Kelly materials released earlier in the 2000+ era, an author named Lon Milo Duquettte, commenting on the Spirit Diaries, half-jokingly wrote that if they were not authentic, then they might be the world’s first example of a “science fiction novel”.
    I have pondered that; why “science fiction”, when the overall themes expressed in the visions seemed more religious than scientific. It would seem to me that if he was to speculate on the diaries being fiction, he would have likened them more to a mystical, fantasy novel, than a science fiction text.
    The comment may mean nothing; perhaps Duquette simply meant to lump all fantastic fiction together by using the term. But, a thought occurred to me while I read it.
    “Revelation of the Method”?

    • “…in a book on the Dee/Kelly materials released earlier in the 2000+ era, an author named Lon Milo Duquettte, commenting on the Spirit Diaries, half-jokingly wrote that if they were not authentic, then they might be the world’s first example of a “science fiction novel”.
      I said the same thing about major ancient writings on this blog last year.
      Fantastic fiction has run amok on Earth for a long time.
      I likened these ancient texts to “Star Wars” (every movie starts as a script of course).
      Note the fact that George Lucas blended many religious and mystical elements into his “science fiction” movie.
      Maybe us moderns have been affected/brainwashed by this somewhat new “blend” since 1977?
      Now about the Revelation Of The Method theory :
      To me, the word “science” is complete bullshit as used everywhere these days.
      I get an instinctual gut feeling weirdness when I see people blindly use the word in forums etc.
      Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”)[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]
      Ok, it’s just a Latin word meaning knowledge (supposedly). Note the “from Latin” bit.
      But try to look at that sentence in a face value way for a minute.
      “Knowledge is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge….”
      Later down the page:
      “Modern science
      The scientific revolution established science as a source for the growth of knowledge.[clarification needed][131] During the 19th century, the practice of science became professionalized and institutionalized in ways that continued through the 20th century. As the role of scientific knowledge grew in society, it became incorporated with many aspects of the functioning of nation-states.[citation needed]”
      Replace “scientific” and “science” with the word “knowledge”. Things become kind of circular eh?
      “The knowledge revolution established knowledge as a source for the growth of knowledge”
      ” relating to science, or using the organized methods of science”
      From above: “As the role of scientific knowledge grew in society, it became incorporated with many aspects of the functioning of nation-states.”
      Science is not plain “knowledge”, it is a word loosely based on a Latin one denoting a professional institutionalized system incorporated with the nation state.
      There’s yer John Dee right there.
      This is a “hidden in plain sight” deal.
      I like knowledge as a concept. Not going along with the “Science” system that has been concocted.
      Bbbbuttt what about the “Scientific Method” you say?
      Welp, the “scientists” will have ya turnin’ little Bobby into Bobbi with their state approved system of conclusions.
      Let’s go back to knowledge itself. It exists apart from “Modern Science,” always has.

      • The “Science” rabbit hole:
        “Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin[12] and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method).”
        Lee Smolin goes full on party line:
        “Here I have to emphasize I’m not saying that anything goes. I’m not saying that any quack, anybody without an education is equal in interest or is equal in importance to somebody with his Ph.D. and his scientific training at a university. And it’s very important to say that because I get a lot of mail from people who miss that.
        I’m talking about the ethics within a community of people who have accreditation and are working within the community. Within the community it’s necessary for science to progress as fast as possible, not to prematurely form paradigms, not to prematurely make up our mind that one research program is right to the exclusion of others. It’s important to encourage competition, to encourage diversification, to encourage disagreement in the effort to get us to that consensus which is governed by the first principle.
        So those are the two principles that I think govern science. And I think that part of becoming a scientist is being trained well enough that you can be trusted to present your evidence, your arguments in light of those two principles.
        Now just in addition a thing that I think is interesting about seeing science that way is that makes science very closely connected to democracy because I think that those same two principles governing the success of democratic societies. And therefore it’s not an accident that the history of science is intertwined with the history of democratic societies and it’s not an accident that science has flourished best, not exclusively, but mostly in democratic societies.”
        Now remember, where did “universities” come from?
        “The University of Oxford (formally The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford)[11] is a collegiate research university located in Oxford, England. It has no known date of foundation, but there is evidence of teaching as far back as 1096”
        They try to obfuscate the fact that it’s really a sketchy creation of the Church.
        Who else do you think was in charge in 1096 England?
        Motto: Dominus Illuminatio Mea (Latin)
        Motto in English: “The Lord is my Light”
        “I’m not saying that any quack, anybody without an education is equal in interest or is equal in importance to somebody with his Ph.D. and his scientific training at a university.”
        Basically, religion has been running “Science”, since the beginning, not the other way around.
        The “history books” try to make you believe that it’s always been “Science vs. Religion”.
        Back to Lee Smolin:
        “And therefore it’s not an accident that the history of science is intertwined with the history of democratic societies and it’s not an accident that science has flourished best, not exclusively, but mostly in democratic societies.”
        Great. Just great.
        Guess I gotta read up on the French Revolution now. To see what happened when “The Church” got kicked out of power.
        What happened with “Science” in those days?

  9. Jasun, many thanks for this. It is a really strong & thought-provoking piece of work, and it deserves to be widely read. Your patience is admirable, as is your stalwart refusal to adopt a sarcastic or satirical tone. God knows it would have been easy to succumb to that temptation.
    I haven’t done a wordcount but don’t you already have a short book there? The illustrations too are well chosen and well made, they contribute to the readability of a long and closely-reasoned text, and they’re also an integral part of your argument. Maybe Zero Books could be persuaded?

    • hi Mac
      Thanks for the words of en-courage-ment – which do just that. The total piece is around 20,000 so probably needs to be at least half as long again to make a small book. Ironic you mention ZB as they are now, under the reign of Doug Lain, officially a “socialist press” and I am perhaps as welcome there at this point as … choose your turd-punch bowl current affairs equivalent.
      One area that I do seem to be running out of steam/patience is regarding publishing books; there’s the feeling that it will somehow legitimatize the material & reach a wider audience that way, but so far this has proven to be the proverbial (turd) pie in the (chem-trailed filled) sky.
      The occasional comment like yours seems to suffice for the old validation fix. 😉

  10. To KK… your input on the use if the word “science” has far too many salient and interesting points for me to be able to address them in a single comment. I will say that I have reached some similar conclusions about the way the word, and the concept, has been in use.
    To me, science, in the pure sense, is simply the process of perceiving and apprehending. So, this is something that can happen on many levels, in many, shall we say, dimensions. So, I as well, tend to frame my seeking in the context of knowledge rather than what people call science. I am, to an extent, very comfortable with the empirical method. But, it is not the only valid form of inquiry.
    Though, the argument and its explication has been over and misused among certain circles, there is more than a little truth behind the idea that the established base of what is called science, (academics, researchers, and of course the actual technicians in the government and corporate sector), have become a kind of center of religious feeling. With all that such a thing implies.
    People reserve for these element of our societies the same kind of instant awe and deference once accorded to priests. And, I have known enough persons who work or study in the field to know that they can be just as doctrinal and narrow minded as any clergyman.
    Perhaps, when I have time, I may be able to try and look at each individual point addressed in your comments. Thank you for providing some additional fuel for thought.

    • “the established base of what is called science, (academics, researchers, and of course the actual technicians in the government and corporate sector), have become a kind of center of religious feeling. With all that such a thing implies.
      People reserve for these element of our societies the same kind of instant awe and deference once accorded to priests. And, I have known enough persons who work or study in the field to know that they can be just as doctrinal and narrow minded as any clergyman.”
      Yes. This is by design. Oxford was founded (nobody even knows when!) by “The Church” after all.
      The whole university system was orchestrated by “The Church” from day one.
      “Science”, not Scientia, was the goal from the start. Co-opt any movement away from the church.
      “Science” for the “smart followers”, Religion for the “dopey” masses.

  11. As far as Science Vs. Religion, I think it’s more fair to say that both “methodologies” or perceptual modes have been co-opted and (mis)applied by same or similar factions throughout history (and by the constructed or false identity); this no more invalidates them as perceptual-interpretive modes than does a series of hammer-murders invalidate the use of a hammer for making a table – IMO.
    Coincidentally I just read this from C S Lewis’ Miracles:

    The difference between the two views might be expressed by saying that Naturalism gives us a
    democratic, Supernaturalism a monarchical, picture of reality. The Naturalist thinks that the privilege
    of ‘being on its own’ resides in the total mass of things, just as in a democracy sovereignty resides in
    the whole mass of the people. The Supernaturalist thinks that this privilege belongs to some things or
    (more probably) One Thing and not to others—just as, in a real monarchy, the king has sovereignty
    and the people have not. And just as, in a democracy, all citizens are equal, so for the Naturalist one
    thing or event is as good as another, in the sense that they are all equally dependent on the total system
    of things. Indeed each of them is only the way in which the character of that total system exhibits itself
    at a particular point in space and time. The Super-naturalist, on the other hand, believes that the one
    original or self-existent thing is on a different level from, and more important than, all other things.
    At this point a suspicion may occur that Supernaturalism first arose from reading into the
    universe the structure of monarchical societies. But then of course it may with equal reason be
    suspected that Naturalism has arisen from reading into it the structure of modern democracies. The
    two suspicions thus cancel out and give us no help in deciding which theory is more likely to be true.
    They do indeed remind us that Supernaturalism is the characteristic philosophy of a monarchical age
    and Naturalism of a democratic, in the sense that Supernaturalism, even if false, would have been
    believed by the great mass of unthinking people four hundred years ago, just as Naturalism, even if
    false, will be believed by the great mass of unthinking people today.

    Regarding the question of whether science (or religion) has any validity outside of ideology or whether the scientific (or religious) method truly exists or merely creates its own criteria for existence – I think this requires going all the way into that etymology and asking the same about knowledge per se: is it a true viable route to anything besides more knowledge? Namely, does the accumulating of knowledge lead to wisdom or does it rather provide a surrogate and a counterfeit for it, much like Google does today?
    I addressed this question some time ago in my piece for the Sync Book, see here

      “from Latin scientia “knowledge, a knowing; expertness,” from sciens (genitive scientis) “intelligent, skilled,” present participle of scire “to know,” probably originally “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,” related to scindere “to cut, divide,” from PIE root *skei- “to cut, split” (source also of Greek skhizein “to split, rend, cleave,”
      In the age of advanced incoherence, we need to know “one of these things is not like the other” eh?
      Being skilled at distinguishing things is hugely important. It’s a complement to wisdom but does not lead to it.
      Is wisdom really a be all end all? Having wisdom does not automatically mean you will make the right choices.
      Wisdom is just prudence and self control. No guarantees though, cause , yanno, humans.
      Google can gather a bunch of information with some software. Where is their expertness? Where is the ability to distinguish anything? Where is their self control? The people behind the Google machine can make a buck. Thats about as far as their focus goes. It’s like they are operating on the Underpants Gnomes plan from South Park:
      Phase 1: Collect Underpants
      Phase 2: ?
      Phase 3: Profit
      As a person you should probably have self control and be skilled at distinguishing one thing from another.
      These things are their own reward, not a route to somewhere.
      They are standalone attributes. One does not lead to the other.

  12. Yes I would agree that discernment is what a true “scientific method” is good for, as in the example I give in the linked piece, distinguishing healthy foods from unhealthy, poisonous from nutritious mushrooms or berries, say; only a madman would say this sort of scientific method is ideological (the same sort who wants us to pretend genitals don’t = sex, perhaps).
    As for wisdom being an end, perhaps not a final end but certainly closer to one than knowledge, which is at best a means. In fact, my point about accumulating knowledge not necessarily leading to wisdom was just this, that true wisdom may result from becoming fully embodied or enlightened and thereby having a continuous, in the moment connection to the source of both wisdom and (useful) knowledge. In this sense, wisdom certainly would ensure one made the right choices, and I am not sure what sort of wisdom wouldn’t, or what it would be good for if it didn’t. That might even be a good definition of wisdom: the ability to make the best choices at all times? Perhaps it is even akin to actual free will or autonomy.


Leave a Comment