I didn't see Shoshana's interview with Brand but I could defend "single-issue-ing" advertising a bit. Where I certainly agree with her is that when you zoom out advertising revenue works to build structures that not only surveill but also to brainwash.
I could go as far as to say that it's probably responsible for a great deal of the mass narcisim you point out.
I am optimistic that if that feedback loop was broken, even in part, that it would give people back a significant portion of their time and attention back to focus on what's truly important, or at least what's helpful.
Not that I'm naive enough to believe these structures couldn't be replaced or rebranded in some other form.
Also, I initially felt compelled to point out that paying for services is no guarantee of a surveillance-free experience. I really liked how you framed that the ideal solution is a more honest understanding / relationship with services. That seems to be the real root of the matter, and is the point regardless of the particulars.
At the risk of oversimplifying...
"Politics is downstream of spirituality" feels like a weapons-grade take. Mostly because accepting it is more-or-less incompatible with the idea that secular democracy can work.
I commented on G&E's interview with Terry Wolfe's chat and floated the idea that it would be interesting for them to talk it out in a roundtable format. I would love to see you as a participant on that to represent a ...different side of the discussion.
Hi, Gabe. Yes, I think Russell's interview of Shoshana was only on the podcast service. Of course, I agree that surveillance and ubiquitous invasive advertising are both bad, and that it doesn't stop at just marketing. I hope to see that feedback loop broken in my lifetime. I think my primary objection to Shoshana was making this the issue of our lives, for which we should sacrifice all others. I think of it as a bowling strategy, that you need to take aim at the pin that will knock the others down in its wake, and I didn't see this as it.
I was telling my youngest daughter about you, Gabe, and I read her your improvement on what I was saying: "Politics is downstream of spirituality". That's a more succinct and elegant way of phrasing what I meant. And 'weapons-grade take' is high praise, particularly with your understanding that it does make the idea of secular democracy incompatible. We all have a spirituality of superiority or equality, we just don't call it that. Our politics is based on moral superiority. We don't want to question that, which is why we don't talk about spirituality.
I looked at the G&E chat. I'd love to be a part of that kind of roundtable, especially in defining the question and all the salient terms in it. But it's an odd dichotomy to have Biblical Christianity on one side and then a bunch of jargon to represent all other philosophies: "gnostic, new age, theosophy and is part of the deception which paves the way for and initiates the true new world order that humanity will embrace. The Great Awakening is the theosophical Age of Aquarius. New age and occult ideas such as "Christ Consciousness," quantum spirituality, and one-ism"
So here you have ideas that span millennium and continents and cultures, lumped together into one simplistic slide into the new world order. And only Jesus can stop it. Yes, please get me a seat at that table.
"Rule by rules, not by rulers"....I love that! Yes, the word anarchy has been deliberately painted to a perception that is ugly, lawless and chaotic......it is not, it is self-governance and it is voluntary, and it recognizes and uplifts the higher qualities that mankind embodies; honor, fairness, responsibility, loyalty, family and community, to name a few.
Oh I am so happy to hear someone who understands this! Yes, I often use small-scale sovereignty or community self-governance as alternatives because there's so much baggage that's been put on anarchy but it's the OG pushback to the oligarchs and has been smeared to take away its power. Thank you Kay!
Just had to stick my head in to mention that when backed into a corner and forced to label my political view, how I've coined my way around the unwanted linguistic baggage of "anarchist" by using the phrase "pro-social anarchist", and if necessary, explaining that "pro-social" correlates roughly with the "social" of homo sapiens as a "social primate", not a herd primate, and at our best in families or small, relatively egalitarian communities of about Dunbar's number or less. Interestingly, the largest size of a troop of chimpanzees before they automatically split into smaller groups is roughly the same as our Dunbar number.
The "anarchist" part of my definition refers to the freedom to question if not out-right reject top-down logico-linguistic structures that have become abstracted and distanced from immediate empathetic behavior (traditions, rituals, customs, codes, manners, laws, mandates, and increasingly — algorithms).
A key part of my definition of "anarchist" is the top-down imposition of another's will upon others rather than empathy-driven, emergent, cooperative (and occasionally altruistic) behavior on behalf of the family or community. A presumption of my definition is that the individual is not the basic unit of analysis for a social primate, but neither is the corporate nation-state, or any hierarchy larger than small communities.
This also distinguishes my thought from existentialists or their precursors such as Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, or Nietzsche. The core of their thought regarding human nature emerged from themselves as individuals suffering from what Emile Durkheim termed 'anomie' (thanks Chris Hedges). They were essentially isolated, without the emotional scaffolding and social context of a supportive family or community.
Though for different reasons, as described above, I reluctantly agree with that Maggie Thatcher quote in that there is no such thing as 'society' — or the corporate nation-state, other than in the minds of those who would impose their will through such structures and those mesmerized into taking part in the dance.
You weave in so much in small bits, Tereza. I get an image of you clearing a path, making it easier for those who follow to see through the tangle.
Enjoying your eye-opening book. So well done, so needed. The ancient Greece as foundation of democracy tale was a really good one. Seems even back then, TPTWB understood marketing and branding.
Tereza, I like where you went with this, even though I thought it drifted off the core topic of ‘debunking democracy’. Without having to watch the “Star Wars’ series I now know the meaning of Luke Skywalker’s ‘spiritual’ journey and the hidden message behind the name Obi-Wan Kenobi (IKR?!!).
I made Mention of this topic from a more pedestrian viewpoint. My favourite interpretation of Debunked Democracy so far is found in “The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy” by Matthew Raphael Johnson (first published 2003 – Third Edition 2010):
“DEMOCRACY: it is controlled by capitalist ownership and control of the media, grants from tax-free foundations and favoured press coverage for favoured political candidates. Wide franchise to vote is given to the people to make them easier to control by making them think that “the people” are responsible for the inevitable distortions and negative consequences of the policies the super-rich mattoids impose in order to serve their selfish interests. Democracy separates authority from responsibility, thus making it virtually impossible for the voters to reform the system. Those in authority (the mattoids) have no responsibility. Those responsible (the politicians) have no authority except that which is lent to them by their controllers.“
Johnson cites the original source:
W. A. Carto. May 20, 2003 in “Populism vs Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle” and cited in ”Publisher’s Note”
The ‘management’ of ‘democracy’ is no better illustrated than in this short clip …
• This is what mind control (democracy) looks like.
That's funny that you say that Julius. I'm with two of my daughters and I reminded my youngest of when she said that I didn't have to fit EVERYTHING I had to say in one video. I told her I was reposting an early one and managed to springboard from democracy, do a double flip into spirituality and swan dive into economics and my book, with a salute to Thich Nhat Hahn, Noam Chomsky and Marx.
That's a great definition of democracy.
And speaking of IKR, I can't believe it took me so long to get the meaning of Obi-Wan Kenobi. {forehead smack!} Thanks for watching and responding, Julius!
I didn't watch the video the first time but Steve reminded me of it. I thought it was Matt Orfalea who put that together. I thought I saw it the first time on Matt Taibbi. But it's always worth seeing again. Thanks Steve!
Hello! Question: when you say: “I then explain from my book how democracy was invented to quell a revolt against the archons, who were the landowners.” —> are you referring to the spiritual entities know as archons from Gnostic texts?
Good question, Franklin. No, what I mean were the Greek large landowners who were the ruling class. In the gnostic texts they are supernatural beings and, of course, archangel is the angel/ messenger of the archon aka spies.
My own belief is that hierarchy doesn't exist in ultimate reality--we are either equally beloved to God or God doesn't exist. I'm willing to entertain either of those possibilities but not a God who has favorites. I've been meaning to do an episode on the gnostics. They're such a wide range of heterodox thought, I'm not sure they can even be lumped together. I think the archons are part of the Seth/ Set scriptures, is that true?
Of course and thanks for sharing! I’ve done a lot work on the gnostics and as a former Christian I was drawn to them because of the more accurate view of reality they presented. Here’s my most recent article and I’m looking forward to checking yours out as well: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/christianity-gnosticism-and-why-im
in a rather round-about way, you are suggesting the principles that gautama taught and which buddhism twisted when 'someone' wanted to create the moralising-truth standards required by a religion. that is dependence co-arising (aka 'karma' in its rooted definition not in the spiritually by-pass new-agey cause and effect way it gets used. 'karma' comes "from the Sanskrit कर्मन्; kárman, “act, action, performance"); and gautama asked his disciples to relinquish all ontological requirements, to stop the need to 'rationalise' or 'justify' existence and, instead, to take full responsibility for 'treading the path [of life] with compassion, kindness, heart-felt engagement, ie love,.' [slight paraphrase.]
in other words, we are all interconnected (somewhat like your one-Mind idea, which i think is slightly misleading and can lead to narcissistic behaviours of disconnect because it offers a path of by-passing somatic experience.) this means that the raped child and the child's rapist are both connected to somatic / physical existence as equals in possibility although not awareness. one-Mind is too far from these actions as experiences to be a truly effective agent or inspiration to create change. (as you know, anneke lucas described that exquisitely well even as she was being raped and tortured as a human being being offered by satanic ritual by the belgium elite to satan and their own acts of 'evil'. i've add the link for the curious, since i know you have watched it: 'Epoché #003 - Anneke Lucas, https://youtu.be/SBte1s7oqCc 4hr and worth it).
our opportunity to reduce suffering is not dependent on our roots. it is enough to see the suffering and then, the hard part, to see how we are creating, increasing or contributing to that suffering. that goes to the 'no blame no complain' concept of yogic principles. to know that we are creating suffering is to give us the opportunity to change our behaviour to one of 'compassion, kindness, loving.' that is the core sense i get from Hahn's poem. " Please call me by my true names,/ so I can hear all my cries and laughter at once, / so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
Please call me by my true names, / so I can wake up / and the door of my heart / could be left open, / the door of compassion."
i don't think 'one-Mind' is strong enough to heal the suffering because it is too far removed from 'one experience of body-mind. Hahn's poem is all about body, the earth's many bodies as being one body.
great thoughtful and thought stimulating essay.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes.
I didn't see Shoshana's interview with Brand but I could defend "single-issue-ing" advertising a bit. Where I certainly agree with her is that when you zoom out advertising revenue works to build structures that not only surveill but also to brainwash.
I could go as far as to say that it's probably responsible for a great deal of the mass narcisim you point out.
I am optimistic that if that feedback loop was broken, even in part, that it would give people back a significant portion of their time and attention back to focus on what's truly important, or at least what's helpful.
Not that I'm naive enough to believe these structures couldn't be replaced or rebranded in some other form.
Also, I initially felt compelled to point out that paying for services is no guarantee of a surveillance-free experience. I really liked how you framed that the ideal solution is a more honest understanding / relationship with services. That seems to be the real root of the matter, and is the point regardless of the particulars.
At the risk of oversimplifying...
"Politics is downstream of spirituality" feels like a weapons-grade take. Mostly because accepting it is more-or-less incompatible with the idea that secular democracy can work.
I commented on G&E's interview with Terry Wolfe's chat and floated the idea that it would be interesting for them to talk it out in a roundtable format. I would love to see you as a participant on that to represent a ...different side of the discussion.
https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com/p/terry-wolfe-the-new-age-the-great/comment/65051612
Hi, Gabe. Yes, I think Russell's interview of Shoshana was only on the podcast service. Of course, I agree that surveillance and ubiquitous invasive advertising are both bad, and that it doesn't stop at just marketing. I hope to see that feedback loop broken in my lifetime. I think my primary objection to Shoshana was making this the issue of our lives, for which we should sacrifice all others. I think of it as a bowling strategy, that you need to take aim at the pin that will knock the others down in its wake, and I didn't see this as it.
I was telling my youngest daughter about you, Gabe, and I read her your improvement on what I was saying: "Politics is downstream of spirituality". That's a more succinct and elegant way of phrasing what I meant. And 'weapons-grade take' is high praise, particularly with your understanding that it does make the idea of secular democracy incompatible. We all have a spirituality of superiority or equality, we just don't call it that. Our politics is based on moral superiority. We don't want to question that, which is why we don't talk about spirituality.
I looked at the G&E chat. I'd love to be a part of that kind of roundtable, especially in defining the question and all the salient terms in it. But it's an odd dichotomy to have Biblical Christianity on one side and then a bunch of jargon to represent all other philosophies: "gnostic, new age, theosophy and is part of the deception which paves the way for and initiates the true new world order that humanity will embrace. The Great Awakening is the theosophical Age of Aquarius. New age and occult ideas such as "Christ Consciousness," quantum spirituality, and one-ism"
So here you have ideas that span millennium and continents and cultures, lumped together into one simplistic slide into the new world order. And only Jesus can stop it. Yes, please get me a seat at that table.
Thanks for responding, Gabe!
"Rule by rules, not by rulers"....I love that! Yes, the word anarchy has been deliberately painted to a perception that is ugly, lawless and chaotic......it is not, it is self-governance and it is voluntary, and it recognizes and uplifts the higher qualities that mankind embodies; honor, fairness, responsibility, loyalty, family and community, to name a few.
Oh I am so happy to hear someone who understands this! Yes, I often use small-scale sovereignty or community self-governance as alternatives because there's so much baggage that's been put on anarchy but it's the OG pushback to the oligarchs and has been smeared to take away its power. Thank you Kay!
Here are a few more I've done on the topic:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/muskrat-love-and-anarchy
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-economics-of-anarchy
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/freedoms-the-answer-whats-the-question
Hello Dr. Kay (and Tereza)
Just had to stick my head in to mention that when backed into a corner and forced to label my political view, how I've coined my way around the unwanted linguistic baggage of "anarchist" by using the phrase "pro-social anarchist", and if necessary, explaining that "pro-social" correlates roughly with the "social" of homo sapiens as a "social primate", not a herd primate, and at our best in families or small, relatively egalitarian communities of about Dunbar's number or less. Interestingly, the largest size of a troop of chimpanzees before they automatically split into smaller groups is roughly the same as our Dunbar number.
The "anarchist" part of my definition refers to the freedom to question if not out-right reject top-down logico-linguistic structures that have become abstracted and distanced from immediate empathetic behavior (traditions, rituals, customs, codes, manners, laws, mandates, and increasingly — algorithms).
A key part of my definition of "anarchist" is the top-down imposition of another's will upon others rather than empathy-driven, emergent, cooperative (and occasionally altruistic) behavior on behalf of the family or community. A presumption of my definition is that the individual is not the basic unit of analysis for a social primate, but neither is the corporate nation-state, or any hierarchy larger than small communities.
This also distinguishes my thought from existentialists or their precursors such as Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, or Nietzsche. The core of their thought regarding human nature emerged from themselves as individuals suffering from what Emile Durkheim termed 'anomie' (thanks Chris Hedges). They were essentially isolated, without the emotional scaffolding and social context of a supportive family or community.
Though for different reasons, as described above, I reluctantly agree with that Maggie Thatcher quote in that there is no such thing as 'society' — or the corporate nation-state, other than in the minds of those who would impose their will through such structures and those mesmerized into taking part in the dance.
Cheers from a typhoon drenched Japan.
steve
You weave in so much in small bits, Tereza. I get an image of you clearing a path, making it easier for those who follow to see through the tangle.
Enjoying your eye-opening book. So well done, so needed. The ancient Greece as foundation of democracy tale was a really good one. Seems even back then, TPTWB understood marketing and branding.
Thank you for sharing what you've figured out!
Tereza, I like where you went with this, even though I thought it drifted off the core topic of ‘debunking democracy’. Without having to watch the “Star Wars’ series I now know the meaning of Luke Skywalker’s ‘spiritual’ journey and the hidden message behind the name Obi-Wan Kenobi (IKR?!!).
I made Mention of this topic from a more pedestrian viewpoint. My favourite interpretation of Debunked Democracy so far is found in “The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy” by Matthew Raphael Johnson (first published 2003 – Third Edition 2010):
“DEMOCRACY: it is controlled by capitalist ownership and control of the media, grants from tax-free foundations and favoured press coverage for favoured political candidates. Wide franchise to vote is given to the people to make them easier to control by making them think that “the people” are responsible for the inevitable distortions and negative consequences of the policies the super-rich mattoids impose in order to serve their selfish interests. Democracy separates authority from responsibility, thus making it virtually impossible for the voters to reform the system. Those in authority (the mattoids) have no responsibility. Those responsible (the politicians) have no authority except that which is lent to them by their controllers.“
Johnson cites the original source:
W. A. Carto. May 20, 2003 in “Populism vs Plutocracy: The Universal Struggle” and cited in ”Publisher’s Note”
The ‘management’ of ‘democracy’ is no better illustrated than in this short clip …
• This is what mind control (democracy) looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfu_RIdGT2A
That's funny that you say that Julius. I'm with two of my daughters and I reminded my youngest of when she said that I didn't have to fit EVERYTHING I had to say in one video. I told her I was reposting an early one and managed to springboard from democracy, do a double flip into spirituality and swan dive into economics and my book, with a salute to Thich Nhat Hahn, Noam Chomsky and Marx.
That's a great definition of democracy.
And speaking of IKR, I can't believe it took me so long to get the meaning of Obi-Wan Kenobi. {forehead smack!} Thanks for watching and responding, Julius!
I didn't watch the video the first time but Steve reminded me of it. I thought it was Matt Orfalea who put that together. I thought I saw it the first time on Matt Taibbi. But it's always worth seeing again. Thanks Steve!
Woo hoo! Mic drop!
Great quote!
Hello! Question: when you say: “I then explain from my book how democracy was invented to quell a revolt against the archons, who were the landowners.” —> are you referring to the spiritual entities know as archons from Gnostic texts?
Good question, Franklin. No, what I mean were the Greek large landowners who were the ruling class. In the gnostic texts they are supernatural beings and, of course, archangel is the angel/ messenger of the archon aka spies.
My own belief is that hierarchy doesn't exist in ultimate reality--we are either equally beloved to God or God doesn't exist. I'm willing to entertain either of those possibilities but not a God who has favorites. I've been meaning to do an episode on the gnostics. They're such a wide range of heterodox thought, I'm not sure they can even be lumped together. I think the archons are part of the Seth/ Set scriptures, is that true?
I have some essays I did on the gnostic gospel of Philip that were the beginnings of a book called Revolutionary Mystics and How to Become ONE. Here are the first two: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/revolutionary-mystics-and-how-to and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-genesis-of-the-dysfunctional family.
Thanks for reading and asking!
Of course and thanks for sharing! I’ve done a lot work on the gnostics and as a former Christian I was drawn to them because of the more accurate view of reality they presented. Here’s my most recent article and I’m looking forward to checking yours out as well: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/christianity-gnosticism-and-why-im
I look forward to reading yours also! I had noticed and liked your stack name. I grew up Catholic and attended Catholic grade school, HS and college, entering as a religion major. Much later I spent a decade researching the Bible through the Jesus Seminars and came to some very unorthodox conclusions. Here are a couple on those, if you're curious: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-is-the-og-psy-ops and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-rebel-or-imperialist?
This piece from 1898 is of relevance here. (Yes, that’s 1898.)
• (Lie of Democracy) The great falsehood of our time - Konstantin Pobedonostev
https://odysee.com/@InvincibleOrthodoxy:3/lie-of-democracy-the-great-falsehood-of:2
Yes, it’s one of those computer voices so read in silence if you prefer – from page 31 of this PDF …
• “Reflections of a Russian statesman" (1898) by Konstantin Pobedonostev
https://archive.org/details/reflectionsofrus00pobeuoft
For more on Pobedonostev, here is Matthew Raphael Johnson
• Matthew Raphael Johnson discusses Konstantin Pobedonostsev
https://odysee.com/@InvincibleOrthodoxy:3/konstantin-pobedonostsev-matthew-raphael:4
hola, tereza.
in a rather round-about way, you are suggesting the principles that gautama taught and which buddhism twisted when 'someone' wanted to create the moralising-truth standards required by a religion. that is dependence co-arising (aka 'karma' in its rooted definition not in the spiritually by-pass new-agey cause and effect way it gets used. 'karma' comes "from the Sanskrit कर्मन्; kárman, “act, action, performance"); and gautama asked his disciples to relinquish all ontological requirements, to stop the need to 'rationalise' or 'justify' existence and, instead, to take full responsibility for 'treading the path [of life] with compassion, kindness, heart-felt engagement, ie love,.' [slight paraphrase.]
in other words, we are all interconnected (somewhat like your one-Mind idea, which i think is slightly misleading and can lead to narcissistic behaviours of disconnect because it offers a path of by-passing somatic experience.) this means that the raped child and the child's rapist are both connected to somatic / physical existence as equals in possibility although not awareness. one-Mind is too far from these actions as experiences to be a truly effective agent or inspiration to create change. (as you know, anneke lucas described that exquisitely well even as she was being raped and tortured as a human being being offered by satanic ritual by the belgium elite to satan and their own acts of 'evil'. i've add the link for the curious, since i know you have watched it: 'Epoché #003 - Anneke Lucas, https://youtu.be/SBte1s7oqCc 4hr and worth it).
our opportunity to reduce suffering is not dependent on our roots. it is enough to see the suffering and then, the hard part, to see how we are creating, increasing or contributing to that suffering. that goes to the 'no blame no complain' concept of yogic principles. to know that we are creating suffering is to give us the opportunity to change our behaviour to one of 'compassion, kindness, loving.' that is the core sense i get from Hahn's poem. " Please call me by my true names,/ so I can hear all my cries and laughter at once, / so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
Please call me by my true names, / so I can wake up / and the door of my heart / could be left open, / the door of compassion."
i don't think 'one-Mind' is strong enough to heal the suffering because it is too far removed from 'one experience of body-mind. Hahn's poem is all about body, the earth's many bodies as being one body.
great thoughtful and thought stimulating essay.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes.
Thank you for saying it was a thoughtful and thought stimulating essay, Guy. I appreciate your reading and your response.