Our language always has been stolen from us and then reformulated by "the boys" to suit their world view. And they win every time. Language expresses the dominant world view, and currently that is very much male based. Language does not change world view. Even while it is struggling to add value to an existing world view to change it slightly, it is being warped to fit the existing limitations. So here we have an excellent example of toxic masculinity, where the way the boys want to define themselves is, by definition, toxic to women's preferred, but dominated into submission, world view.
Excellent point, Christine. It's been a recurring focus of mine how words have been stolen or warped, so that we can't think about abstract concepts outside the available language and metaphors. I think you'll find good company in pointing that out here. Great phrase, " fit the existing limitations." I find that whenever I try to talk about sovereignty, in particular. It's such a sterile, complicated word I can barely spell, but it's all we've got for such a big concept.
I guess you will have seen Dale Spender, Man Made Language. I read it many years ago, and was profoundly influenced by it, but I have not looked at it for many years. It might be out of date.
The interview attached below had me breathe a sigh of relief, when it comes to the political language of "isms", right and left etc. We don't even need to get into the fraught territory of gender to see how language constrains debate and even more, how it constrains our understanding of what we are looking at.
For non-Americans, this constraining impact of language is screamingly loud, because the militaristic and parochial culture of America is so extreme and unsubtle, compared to "the rest of the world". I have been shocked today to see how many potentially good analyses in my Inbox, have the word America in the title and are Americans talking about American sovereignty. To the rest of us, we are clearly facing a global issue for which the American population is simply used as a source of bodies and funds to commit global atrocities around the world and to which Americans themselves are no longer immune.
It disturbs me that Americans cannot see that we are all in this together.
Ah, that's an example right there. I use small-scale sovereignty because self-governance is impossible with even one million people. I look at commonwealths of 10-30K. So American sovereignty, to me, is a misnomer. Also because America is two continents but one assumes that it's the default. We don't even have a word for United Statesians, that's how much arrogance is embedded in our language!
Thanks for the link. And I think that 'American' dominance is coming to an end, sooner than we think.
It is really a matter of how long it remains the default for currency, young male bodies to die in battle, and funding for war. "They" are going to shore it up because there are no real alternatives ripe for exploitation. The other countries with the strength of economy and population numbers don't look like they are going to play ball, so who is going to bomb the life out of the middle east if not the Americans, and their allies? I cannot see the "allies" initiating middle east violence, particularly as they have also been stripped out culturally, economically, and of willing young males to hand their bodies over to the machine. Only the Americans, the Chinese and the Russians have the necessary level of nationalism to be stirred up into genocidal wars, and the latter two seem to have taken a more mature road. China is probably the most successful imperial power of all time but it does it through economics, and through building infrastructure in the countries it invades economically, and so building loyalty and wealth and even self-esteem in its economically controlled territories.
Whatever subculture is attempting to express ideas that run contrary to the prevailing cultural constraints. It could be women in a male dominated space or occultists in a reductionist space, in fact any group that defines it's own language to express it's own world view, to have that language stolen and redefined so that it no longer serves it's original purpose.
You know full well what I mean because you are an occultist, but I will explain it for others.
Gross examples, patriarchy cf matriarchy, and occultism.
Men interpret the word matriarchy according to the meaning of the word patriarchy, so they see it as women dominating men. Women interpret it as a world in which women and women's values are allowed to exist and be expressed without harassment. Men think it means dominance of women over men, women think it means their own freedom. Men take over words coined by women to describe something that matters to women and pervert them if they can. For the most part women can only use this language in female only company, and even then, very carefully. Witness the word feminist. I am a feminist, which means I expect to make my own decisions about my own life without fear or favour. Mainstream non-feminists, both men and women, interpret the word in a myriad of entirely negative ways, none of which bears any resemblance to what I mean by the word.
Occultists know there are rich worlds that are not detectable by the standard human senses, and occultism is the practice of expanding those senses in order to explore those worlds. Mainstream people can only associate the word with evil and so always project evil onto those who call themselves occultists, or onto those who at least appreciate occult investigation.
"I am a feminist." "I am an occultist." These are not statements anyone in their right minds makes in public, irrespective of the true nuanced meaning of either or both.
I've written that the word matriarchy is a contradiction in terms because it combines matri- mother with archon, and the Greek archons were exclusively men and large landowners. I see matrilineal as a more sensible property inheritance, if the purpose is to make sure all children are housed. And I think matrix is a word that's been turned into its opposite from a network of mothers to a dystopian reality overlaid with a pleasant fantasy. Perhaps to your point, Christine.
That's interesting that you point out occultist as a good thing, a person pursuing hidden knowledge rather than a person hiding the knowledge.
I think that Christine was actually paying you a compliment, Eric, from how I read it: "Occultists know there are rich worlds that are not detectable by the standard human senses, and occultism is the practice of expanding those senses in order to explore those worlds. Mainstream people can only associate the word with evil and so always project evil onto those who call themselves occultists, or onto those who at least appreciate occult investigation."
Since when am I an occultist? I've never described myself that way, certainly not to you. I meet no objective definition of "occultist." You must mean I'm an astrologer, writer, artist, student of astronomy, investigative reporter of scientific fraud. So you are labeling me. What is that about, Christine? What category are you putting me in? And what has your general theoretical statement got to do with me?
Now, above, you were talking about subcultures and prevailing cultural constraints; I asked for an example, and you gave me one from your life -- not from culture. I'm asking for you to describe this phenomenon objectively, from observation of the world. In this thread we are discussing a podcast about men stealing from women. "Feminist" is not a good example; there are plenty of male feminists, unless you are a feminist who defines men out of the concept, and there are plenty of those.
I still don't understand what you're talking about.
I've just played through this episode. I have quite a few responses, though I will start with two ideas, mainly. Okay maybe three.
One, in the digital realm, we are all sexless and genderless because we do not have bodies. Ideas matter somewhat, image matters a little, but there is no actual masculine or feminine other than symbolic in the astral plane of digital.
This is true generally of electrical media, all of which shocks people out of body and propels us over the wires at the speed of light. In the 1970s Marshall McLuhan commented that exposure to computers is the equivalent of their users being on LSD. We are all flying high on an acid trip right now, though some people know their zip code and some do not.
The problem is that this is an invisible condition and most people do not realize the nature of their phantom existence, as dream figures in one another's minds herein digital. Marshall's son Eric wrote:
“The body is everywhere assaulted by all of our new media, a state which has resulted in deep disorientation of intellect and destabilization of culture throughout the world. In the age of disembodied communication, the meaning and significance and experience of the body is utterly transformed and distorted.”
Speaking as a writer, my lifelong dedication, which also means reader, and scholar, including a major focus on women poets of the 20c, the whole of literature is writers referencing one another. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones borrowed musical concepts constantly and both were inspired by the Beach Boys Pet Sounds. Hendrix taught everyone how to play guitar. Anyone who heard Bob Dylan's lyrics started to write a little or a lot like him.
This is not the same as plagiarism. If I quote Bob Dylan quoting T.S. Eliot in a creative way, that is poetry and anyone who is a real reader of that art knows what I'm doing. The difference is respect. So it's not the same as co-opting something and claiming it, or flipping its meaning or turning it on you. That is not plagiarism, that is being a creep.
As regards Janice Fiamingo, I can hear how her work is landing with you, and she is not mincing her words. Though I would ask: are you aware of the nature of the problem she has been addressing? Can you state it plainly in matter-of-fact terms, shorn of the controversy, even if you don't agree with her concepts?
Neither in her lexicon nor mine is "feminist" equivalent to "woman." I think that her ideas and the ground from which they arise require a more thoughtful treatment. She is addressing a set of values and attitudes that are so ubiquitous as to have vanished into the environment. While I would prefer the world not be such a partisan place, that too is a property of the digital/astral environment: polarization.
There are very few people advocating for men, and few who recognize the issues we face, as men. Some would say we have nothing but privilege and need no advocacy. That would be a distortion. The biases are plain to see, if one looks, though it's difficult to see the quality of the filter one is looking through if one is looking only through it.
As I remember, Eric, you and I share the practice of A Course in Miracles, something I've studied daily for the last 20 yrs. So we entertain the possibility that we're all dream figures in the OneMind, without gender or bodies. Yet everything on this plane is a metaphor leading us back to ultimate reality, aka God. I think that the difference between the sexes is an essential clue that parallels Reality and needs to be unraveled.
One of my posts that might cover all three of your topics, to some extent, is this: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/five-feminine-economies. In it, I talk about all things that are infinitely replicable, like ideas, being part of the gift economy. Although I do have a way of giving credit there, that just makes it more fun because you get points for stealing ideas and for being stolen from.
In the text (but not the video) I added a deeper analysis on Eisenstein at the start. I don't know if it will clarify the difference I'm trying to get at.
And yes, I live in Santa Cruz, the woke capital of the world next to Berkeley/ Oakland. Things are completely off the deep end here. Which is why I titled mine 'Feminine Economies' and not 'Feminist.' Yet I see woke/anti-woke producing the desired action-reaction in creating anger against people, not changing the system.
Those are my half-baked thoughts. They may be better baked in the morning.
The natural differences between men and women are one of the most glorious things about this dimension of existence. In my opinion. And to assert that there is a difference cannot be inherently sexist. To assert superiority, as you propose, is the problem — no matter who is doing so. And this is a matter of actions more than of words, though actions include words.
The biological differences between women and men are essential to our maculate experience on Earth. Most differences we are told about are heavily socialized, conditioned and then mandated. These obscure the organic ones, such that a beautiful, feminine young woman can call herself "assigned female at birth" (AFAB) and is taken seriously, like she is doing us all a big favor.
Please.
And so too does the de-sexing effect of digital, of electricity and of the endocrine-disrupted environment: an environment where free-floating rage finds its way in easily, and is then projected outward, and takes up residence in a world where no part of sex or sexuality is actually welcome. As McLuhan (my favorite philosopher) said, a village is not a friendly place; the global village is not a friendly place. The question is what we are doing about this situation.
The episode I linked, on The Horus Gamos, talks about getting back to that place of fun in the difference between the sexes. Our current culture is sadly lacking in fun, and just appreciation and LIKING each other.
Whoo-hoo, I'm rich! Or will be when that whopping quarterly payment rolls in. Does this mean you compromised your principles for me? And bought it on Amazon? If anyone has earned indulgences in that great library in the sky, it's you. So glad it's in such good hands, and will be read by such a fine mind.
On another comment thread, Tonika (of Visceral Adventures) was saying she'll be finishing my book on an upcoming trip, after re-reading a couple of chapters. I was expressing my appreciation for you and saying, with no modesty, that the more someone knows about the problem, the more they 'get' what I'm saying. And you, I, Tonika, and Julius just below who's just gotten it, are people who start from the same baseline that the solution can't be at anyone else's expense. Along with others who've already finished it like Mark and Teo. I've been waiting all my life for this conversation.
And yes, people are always saying "Okay but let's just focus on what's possible. Fix this one thing (that affects me) first and then do your pie-in-the-sky thing." But nothing's really possible other than temporary tweaks if the question that obsesses everyone is "How do I make money?" and a handful of people have the only answers available to that.
By the way, I forgot to mention that "gifting" is very much alive in the region especially in villages. A neighbor would bring a plate with food, fruits or sweets, and the plate is later returned with something else.
Reading the following 2 chapters, I understood title of your substack, and publishing house, "third paradigm". For me there was a paradigm shift, I had absolutely no knowledge of the early phase of slavery whereby British kids where kidnapped (perhaps that's where the word "kidnapped" originated?).
In my book, I traced the empire a millennium back to the First Crusade, you did better by tracing it back to its true origins in Athenian and Roman empires. Athenians established to intellectual justification for exploiting "the other" and the Romans codified into law, that was eventually adopted in Western Europe and eventually in much of the world.
On abolitionism: You correctly connect it with the shift in wealth production to industry and the need for industrial labor. My comment is:
Until advent of the steam engine, energy was from wind (windmills), hydropower from rivers, animals for transport and ploughing, but mostly from humans. Hence the "great" achievements of civilizations dating back to Pharaohs and possibly earlier was with human energy mostly in the form of slavery. With invention of the steam engine, the need for human power was greatly reduced. Hence the connection of the abolitionist movement with the era of industrialization.
As I read, I realize how necessary it is to disseminate the facts and knowledge you present in schools and universities. It would be like a detergent that cleanses brains from tons of misconceptions enabling a "paradigm shift" in thinking and very importantly setting the stage for harmony between civilizations. Truly it forms the basis for "dismantling an empire", or should we say: "dismantling the empire".
Glad to hear the gift economy is thriving. Where are you located again, Fadi?
Yes, that was a complete paradigm shift for me too, that the first slaves were white and that they were treated MUCH more harshly because an African slave was an expensive investment but they only paid transport for 'indentured servants,' most of whom were children, and they were due land and a horse when they completed their servitude--so a reverse incentive for them to survive.
And yes, the term was kid-nabbed and the police got a bounty. The book I mention, Confessions of an Irish Slave Girl, tells about her being given a hot drink by a woman, only to wake up on the boat as a girl of seven. It's a very poignant story that talks about how Africans and Irish were interbred by the masters but kept apart so they wouldn't join together and revolt. (Since we're talking about language, isn't it interesting that we have 'revolting' from the word revolt?)
I'm not certain, after reading Guyenot's Anno Domini, how far apart the Roman Empire and the First Crusades were. I'm now entirely questioning whether there was an early Roman Empire or if the timeframe for Imperial Rome started in the 700's.
Oh, really interesting, Fadi, to connect the abolition movement to the steam engine. That makes so much sense. But I also now wonder if the pyramids were built on slave labor, since we've gotten that story from the YahChoPeeps (Yahweh's Chosen People) and everything has been inverted.
This was another paradigm shaker for me: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/a-royal-flush-and-irish-pharaohs. The author Andrew Power presents evidence that the world may have been a buoyant and humid bubble held in by a membrane. The first people were extremely tall as a result, and red-headed. Building things like pyramids was unencumbered by gravity. It wasn't until a meteor broke the membrane that the sky fell and the waters separated, maybe submerging Atlantis.
I don't know what I believe about that but his evidence is compelling. Despite my cover artwork, I don't know that any number of slaves could really move those huge blocks of stone. So I entertain the possibility that slavery hasn't always been with us.
And yes again, you noticed that I wrote it as a text. But I think you're mistaking the purpose of schools and universities--to keep us from figuring out these things. But I like the idea that it would be the detergent in my front loading washing machine ;-)
I am located in the Levant, last weekend I was in a village some 4 miles from the border with Palestine where there are ongoing clashes between the Israeli army and Hezbollah who activated this 60 mile front in support of Gaza. The village was peaceful, we could only hear drones overhead on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning.
Quote: "The first people were extremely tall as a result, and red-headed. Building things like pyramids was unencumbered by gravity."
"Despite my cover artwork, I don't know that any number of slaves could really move those huge blocks of stone.."
Too far fetched, say men were 12 feet tall and three times as strong as normal it would be 3 times the man-power. With levers you can achieve forces 10 times greater, and by sliding on slopes you can reduce load to move objects by a factor of 10, 20 or more. So with a little ingenuity and a lot of manpower it was possible to move the huge blocks of stone and build the pyramids.
Quote: "So I entertain the possibility that slavery hasn't always been with us."
It could be a combination of slavery or forced labor for a limited time period.
Quote: "I think you're mistaking the purpose of schools and universities"
Agree on the purpose as beautifully expressed in Pink Floyd's "Another brick in the wall". I taught for 10 years at universities in the US and Lebanon. The system is hard to beat, however it is possible to have an impact. I recall once the university issued a regulation, that motorcycles are not allowed on campus. When I arrived and was not allowed in, I told the security, no problem, if my bike is not allowed in, I will just leave and went home. The students had a sit-in, refused to attend classes, after which my bike was allowed in lol.
Another time, during the reign of militias in the civil war, the guys told me there are no classes on Wednesday coz there is a strike. I told them, no problem, I took part in strikes when I was a student, what is purpose of strike? They replied we don't know, just 2 guys came in and told us there is a strike. I counted the students, they were 17, I said you are 17 and just 2 impose a strike!? I will come on Wednesday, if there is more than 50% of the class, I will give a lecture. Wednesday attendance was 100% ;-) Taught the guys to have some guts and resist.
When I started my company making testing machines from a bedroom in my parents house, I didn't have money for sales & marketing. My x-students who went on to be managers of factories in the Gulf and Europe became my salespeople, and within 5 years our company became the global leader in our specific field. One student named his daughter after my daughter, she is now doing her PhD in biology at the University of Cambridge :-)
So despite the fact that schools and universities are designed to create bricks for the system, it is possible to "infiltrate" and the knowledge presented in your book would have a significant impact on at least a select few.
By the way, my publisher was surprised when my book with its "anti-American" sounding title was adopted as a textbook at a university in California lol.
Very good points, all. And we do know that Egypt was, at one point, run by the Hyksos or foreign rulers, and that the pyramids have been called the Pharaoh's grain siloes, which may be related to the Habiru/ Hebrew story of Joseph stealing the grain for the Pharaoh and turning the Egyptian farmers into landless serfs. So maybe the story of slavery in Genesis is true, but has been reversed for victim and oppressor.
And yes, I think that teachers and professors are some of the most subversive people on the planet ;-) They often finagle a way to slip the truth in. I'd love to see a classroom of young minds coming out of that detergent cycle of my book and engaging with how to solve the problems!
SLP (Standard lying procedure) is to construct the lies around as many truthful facts and events. That the Habiru fairytales or should I say horror stories contain a lot of truths is only natural.
Regarding Zoom session, sure would participate, after having finished the book, say after 10 days.
I'm so pleased by the lines you've picked out, and sorry for whatever caused you to need to order two! I'm going to respond more in the morning but I'm so happy you're reading. We are clearly speaking the same language.
Great idea. Would that be on Substack? Let me give that some thought. Tonika wants to do a zoom with others that we can record and post, after she's done. Would you be open to that? I have all kinds of domains I'm no longer using since I switched hosting services: thirdparadigm.org, retrometro.com, a2020vision.org, UniverseCity.us, parentnetwork.org and FoodintheHood.org (which were neighborhood dinners my daughters and I put on for global charities, where they presented the cause and we cooked food from that region ;-)
Substack is becoming widely used, so a page dedicated to discussing your book may be a good idea, especially that it is easy to go through threads and see comments and replies.
"What I love so much about this treasure you've [Margaret] shared is that I believe this is a message that needs to be better understood by young men. It's immensely more important to be loving than to "be alpha" or whatever the current meme is. That requires a completely different set of skills and attitudes than what is easily accessible in the mainstream."
While I'll acknowledge that Margaret's Poem "How to Build a Joyful Marriage" applies to both sexes, I'll share the lines that I had in mind when I posted that comment
- who accomplishes meaningful things with you.
- who isn’t afraid to grow.
- who has invigorating conversations with you.
_ who respects, admires, and trusts you. (big emphasis on TRUSTS)
I emphasize these 4 because they strike at the root of the troubles that young(er?) men face in any kind of interactions, but especially romantically. I believe that there are unique challenges that lead men to be desperate for a tribe to feel belonging that was either removed or withheld from them. At least as far as my own growing is concerned, I believe it is a necessary step to accept the world (and those around you) for the way it is rather than one would prefer it to be. What was particularly hard for me to learn is that accepting the world for what it is is not the same as approving everything about the way things are. If anything acceptance is the first step towards truly learning how one can make meaningful change. I believe that what makes this so difficult for many is that it is incredibly painful to trust others, and even the world when one is challenged. It's all-too-easy to cling to "wolf packs" of in-group reassurance without boldly challenging one's own missteps. There are many hard lessons people need to learn that require a phenomenal amount of bravery to challenge themselves, even within groups.
I feel very strongly that in our time, tonic masculinity is the way that men adapt to our world as it is, and lovingly embrace the challenges and opportunities within. This requires understanding, patience, trust, cooperation, and above all a strong moral compass. I'll certainly admit that I find nowadays a challenging time to hone these qualities, but when I think of the ideal that is the heading we need to aim towards.
That is absolutely beautiful, Gabe, you've certainly done it justice.
I'm so glad you brought out those four lines of Margaret's. What powerful concepts, that a couple would accomplish meaningful things together and have invigorating conversations. 'Not afraid to grow' is especially interesting since long term relationships are often established when you're one way and can be scary when one person changes, or both.
It occurs to me that your revelation, that accepting the world as it is leads to making meaningful change, reminds me of your other statement, that in order to change yourself you need to first love yourself as you are. My daughter Cassandra says you can only change what you love, so I think she'd agree.
I'm curious as to what trust means to you, with other people and the world?
I believe a non-trivial amount of the domineering pressure is driven by fear.
Fear of betrayal, fear of change as mentioned earlier, but definitely fear of the unknown.
A lot of the desire to institute (or re-institute / enhance) domineering opposition between the sexes seems to be driven by deep rooted fears that the other side will make the "wrong" decision(s) in regards to important matters.
Trust has definitely broken down (how long ago, or if it ever was there I can not tell) but it can absolutely be rebuilt.
Person to person, community to community, sex to sex.
But it requires a lot more than the simple and self-aggrandizing bros online offer.
They teach guys that the only way to maintain a modicum of self-respect is by making things worse, or acting out selfishly. This itself creates much of the ongoing downward spiral we see in trust, respect, or even communication.
What I'm starting to see is that a lot of men are realizing they've been hoodwinked by people selling the trappings of freedom and self respect in a false package that had harsh consequences. Now more than ever, it's clear that those offering their "simple tricks" were always rotten and that they never really cared about freedom or respect at all. The desire to feel "safe" from the throws of the culture war in my opinion has lead to a lot of hurt in all directions.
This is why I was focused-in on the idea that the Harris/Waltz team seizing the terms joy, and now tonic masculinity for partisan reasons. I think I finally see how the division is manufactured in real time when it comes to pressing people's emotional buttons. Many people (myself included) are desperate for a genuine optimistic joyful culture. but anyone who can reason know that the war machine isn't offering that up ever. Obviously the other side is guilty of it to, I believe Scott Adams argued that Trump "made men feel like men again" (totally paraphrasing the idea) and in hindsight I can definitely see how it made some men feel like they could use power over others again.
"It occurs to me that your revelation, that accepting the world as it is leads to making meaningful change, reminds me of your other statement, that in order to change yourself you need to first love yourself as you are. My daughter Cassandra says you can only change what you love, so I think she'd agree."
I have no idea where I picked it up, but it was imparted on me at one point that very often one's self-image is projected onto the world and vice-versa. I still can't quite say I understand what binds them together but I definitely have seen how they connect. If people are demoralized and dispossessed, it's a lot harder to trust the world, and sometimes even themselves. I'm very much a "noobie" at understanding human oppression and domineering, but it terrifies me how tyrants and abusers always manage to use their victims against themselves.
The reason I asked is because I don't know about that concept trust. I think it's our responsibility to see people and the world as it is. I think we're fooled when we want to be fooled. When someone says, "Trust me," I run. But I also find it a trick when someone says, "I trusted you." It's an expectation, an invisible contract. People look at trust as a gift 'I gave you my trust' but is it really? What is it the other person gets in return?
With public figures, I don't think that Latypova, Malone, Kennedy or Eisenstein betrayed my trust. What I know with 100% certainty is that all of them (except Kennedy) have lied, and Kennedy may just be fooling himself. So I need to take their capacity for dishonesty into account when considering anything that I can't prove for myself. It's not something they've done to me. If I 'trusted' them in the first place, it would have been out of the need for a hero to think for me, and that's on me.
Just a word I've given some thought to, but I know we agree in principle.
As a felloe ACIM student I have always appreciated your writing, your approach to mothering, and the way you pursue justice in standing up for Truth.
Eisenstein in particular set off alarm bells for me around the time of "new story"; it wasn't the ideas he was putting forth it was something more esoteric and I flat out didn't trust him but couldn't identify why. That feeling only grew in time and then he showed us all we need to know about his integrity (or lack thereof). That makes him a grifter in my book. One of the worst kind. So many in the hopium space. Ick.
I really appreciate that, Lucy. Yes, there's something that doesn't match with Charles' spiritual position of inclusion and his personal affect. It's why I included all the ums and uhs and losing his train of thought and segueing to a different topic before the sentence ended. It's a tell, I think, for when someone is dissembling and reciting a script. They're already bored with it.
And yes, SO many in the hopium space. Thank you for your kind words about all three of the spaces that are so important to me.
I don’t expect this to be Universally Liked but some of your readers might like this. I found it a bit Miss-And-Dronic. I'll just leave it here as a trigger - but most interesting😊
"The only way my ideas will likely ever be heard is if someone famous took them seriously."
This is a pretty depressing thought, but likely true.
I have been thinking about your comment about the "Bro code" (not challenging friends' ideas), and how, if true, it goes against my theory about men competing with other in the game of ideas. Since I live under a rock, have been out of the Silicon Valley culture for almost a decade, and have almost no male friends now, I can't speak from recent experience on this.
There's an alternative to the depressing view. Looking back, it seems like every 'famous' person starting with Chelsea Green as publisher was a stepping stone. After 'working' with a senior editor there (using that term very loosely, meaning a cursory but respectful relationship) for seven years, she retired just when my book was ready.
Then Ellen Brown was a potential blurb, and her co-founder in the Public Banking Institute was someone I hired to edit, which kept me going through a major rewrite because ONE person was going to read the chapter I finished.
Again and again, even with Malone and Eisenstein, I've gotten some recognition and thought, 'Maybe this will be the big break.' And then it crashes down in a way that's unmistakable.
Is that an accident or is it 'spirit' keeping me going until the conditions are right for my ideas to be heard on their own, without the benevolence of a benefactor?
Oh and I should mention David Graeber dying on me, after I sent a copy of my book to him during an overnight layover in Manchester ;-) That was a pretty dramatic closing of the possibility with the greatest influence on my book.
And Michael Hudson, as much as we have in common, depart in other ways. Once someone's famous, they're set on their solution. I don't know that they can really represent someone else's. So maybe I'm being told that I need to do this myself.
And I think you can verify or disprove my BroCode theory looking at any male-dominated internet thread. Unz Review would be a good one. Men are either all in agreement or absolutely vicious to their opponents. This is a rare space, my friend.
"Men are either all in agreement or absolutely vicious to their opponents." That clears things up a bit; there are two dynamics, not one.
I've never looked at Unz Review, but I suppose I could take a brief visit to that rabbit hole.
Edit: the Unz Review site has some stupid Javascript stuff that uses huge amounts of CPU on my laptop, which in turn causes the fan to come on and spin noisily. So I'll be looking at it only in brief spurts, until the heat and noise get too annoying, or maybe look at in a text-only terminal-based browser. To be fair, this is not the only web site that is broken like this; Home Depot is another offender.
It’s weird that he’d skip crediting you as I’ve seen him credit folks in lower public status than him in the past. (And by that I mean not as known.) but now that I think about it, it’s usually “someone said” and not usually naming that person unless they already have some kind of clout. I don’t know the other guys you mention at all. For what it’s worth, the first time I’ve heard of the term was on this Substack.
I'd love to see your take on the tonic, Tonika --that didn't even occur to me until I wrote it! But now it's obvious this tonic topic was made for you, O mother of sons.
I thought of you when writing again about Charles. I know you were holding out hope. And every time I look back at old episodes, I find myself having quoted him. I'm holding onto what resonated with me that came through him, and hope you do the same.
I will. Like you said, connect with the words and not who said them. And yes, every time I read about tonic masculinity I think about my boys. I'm trying to teach them to be protectors but also gentle, kind, and full of integrity. Teachable moments along our paths, but their heart is in the right place.
Carter is the guy who'd pop up with a giant axe when an innocent finds himself surrounded by ennemies, get you rid of the treat, then move on, selecting the most innocent people in danger
if he write things down it will be mega-warrior stuffs, well, "how to kill all bad guys surrounding the pregnant lady"
they have immediate treats in the US it's nuts it's every day
try not to discard him too fast but rather you may check a bit his area of expertise and action - it all makes sense - then he becomes a hero and fully service to other's dedicated
I wanted to add a thought here, Psychology, and I'll delete my other reply that you responded to on the other thread. 'John Carter' popping up with a giant ax to kill the bad guys is a fictional ego that the author created--one who doesn't have the courage to use his own name, thumbnail pic or video image in interviews. You and I have no idea who he is in real life, we only have his word for who he is.
From his own words, I know that he uses Tinder for casual hook-up sex where he says that girls say it's okay to choke them--something for which he blames them. Jay once described him as the angriest person he'd ever known. As a mother of daughters, I wouldn't want him anywhere near them. Lost in a forest, I'd likely choose the bear for them.
For all you know, his text may be as AI generated as his art, which is extremely demeaning to women, using cartoon exaggerations of voluptuous male fantasies. When you say he's a hero, you mean in his own mind, because that's the only place the actions exist. These are laptop warriors, battling against unruly women like me. And here's Mark Bisone in response to Mathew's note, as a case in point: https://substack.com/@markbisone/note/c-68173615.
"Perhaps Strauss-Kahn should be glad he ended up at Rikers and not at the Hague or in the walk-in freezer, like African leaders who took on dollar hegemony"
Our language always has been stolen from us and then reformulated by "the boys" to suit their world view. And they win every time. Language expresses the dominant world view, and currently that is very much male based. Language does not change world view. Even while it is struggling to add value to an existing world view to change it slightly, it is being warped to fit the existing limitations. So here we have an excellent example of toxic masculinity, where the way the boys want to define themselves is, by definition, toxic to women's preferred, but dominated into submission, world view.
Excellent point, Christine. It's been a recurring focus of mine how words have been stolen or warped, so that we can't think about abstract concepts outside the available language and metaphors. I think you'll find good company in pointing that out here. Great phrase, " fit the existing limitations." I find that whenever I try to talk about sovereignty, in particular. It's such a sterile, complicated word I can barely spell, but it's all we've got for such a big concept.
I guess you will have seen Dale Spender, Man Made Language. I read it many years ago, and was profoundly influenced by it, but I have not looked at it for many years. It might be out of date.
No, I haven't seen it. Thanks for telling me about it, Christine.
The interview attached below had me breathe a sigh of relief, when it comes to the political language of "isms", right and left etc. We don't even need to get into the fraught territory of gender to see how language constrains debate and even more, how it constrains our understanding of what we are looking at.
For non-Americans, this constraining impact of language is screamingly loud, because the militaristic and parochial culture of America is so extreme and unsubtle, compared to "the rest of the world". I have been shocked today to see how many potentially good analyses in my Inbox, have the word America in the title and are Americans talking about American sovereignty. To the rest of us, we are clearly facing a global issue for which the American population is simply used as a source of bodies and funds to commit global atrocities around the world and to which Americans themselves are no longer immune.
It disturbs me that Americans cannot see that we are all in this together.
https://rumble.com/v5avqj1-brave-new-normal-ep.-050-denis-rancourt.html
Ah, that's an example right there. I use small-scale sovereignty because self-governance is impossible with even one million people. I look at commonwealths of 10-30K. So American sovereignty, to me, is a misnomer. Also because America is two continents but one assumes that it's the default. We don't even have a word for United Statesians, that's how much arrogance is embedded in our language!
Thanks for the link. And I think that 'American' dominance is coming to an end, sooner than we think.
It is really a matter of how long it remains the default for currency, young male bodies to die in battle, and funding for war. "They" are going to shore it up because there are no real alternatives ripe for exploitation. The other countries with the strength of economy and population numbers don't look like they are going to play ball, so who is going to bomb the life out of the middle east if not the Americans, and their allies? I cannot see the "allies" initiating middle east violence, particularly as they have also been stripped out culturally, economically, and of willing young males to hand their bodies over to the machine. Only the Americans, the Chinese and the Russians have the necessary level of nationalism to be stirred up into genocidal wars, and the latter two seem to have taken a more mature road. China is probably the most successful imperial power of all time but it does it through economics, and through building infrastructure in the countries it invades economically, and so building loyalty and wealth and even self-esteem in its economically controlled territories.
Christine, who is "ours"?
Whatever subculture is attempting to express ideas that run contrary to the prevailing cultural constraints. It could be women in a male dominated space or occultists in a reductionist space, in fact any group that defines it's own language to express it's own world view, to have that language stolen and redefined so that it no longer serves it's original purpose.
Thank you Christine
Can you give me an example of this — something specific and tangible, with the provenance of the language shown, and the described results?
You know full well what I mean because you are an occultist, but I will explain it for others.
Gross examples, patriarchy cf matriarchy, and occultism.
Men interpret the word matriarchy according to the meaning of the word patriarchy, so they see it as women dominating men. Women interpret it as a world in which women and women's values are allowed to exist and be expressed without harassment. Men think it means dominance of women over men, women think it means their own freedom. Men take over words coined by women to describe something that matters to women and pervert them if they can. For the most part women can only use this language in female only company, and even then, very carefully. Witness the word feminist. I am a feminist, which means I expect to make my own decisions about my own life without fear or favour. Mainstream non-feminists, both men and women, interpret the word in a myriad of entirely negative ways, none of which bears any resemblance to what I mean by the word.
Occultists know there are rich worlds that are not detectable by the standard human senses, and occultism is the practice of expanding those senses in order to explore those worlds. Mainstream people can only associate the word with evil and so always project evil onto those who call themselves occultists, or onto those who at least appreciate occult investigation.
"I am a feminist." "I am an occultist." These are not statements anyone in their right minds makes in public, irrespective of the true nuanced meaning of either or both.
I've written that the word matriarchy is a contradiction in terms because it combines matri- mother with archon, and the Greek archons were exclusively men and large landowners. I see matrilineal as a more sensible property inheritance, if the purpose is to make sure all children are housed. And I think matrix is a word that's been turned into its opposite from a network of mothers to a dystopian reality overlaid with a pleasant fantasy. Perhaps to your point, Christine.
That's interesting that you point out occultist as a good thing, a person pursuing hidden knowledge rather than a person hiding the knowledge.
On the matrix: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/when-mothers-ran-the-world and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/changing-our-story.
<< You know full well what I mean because you are an occultist, but I will explain it for others. >>
This is quite an accusation...many accusations, and condescending as well, accusing me of publicly lying.
I think that Christine was actually paying you a compliment, Eric, from how I read it: "Occultists know there are rich worlds that are not detectable by the standard human senses, and occultism is the practice of expanding those senses in order to explore those worlds. Mainstream people can only associate the word with evil and so always project evil onto those who call themselves occultists, or onto those who at least appreciate occult investigation."
Since when am I an occultist? I've never described myself that way, certainly not to you. I meet no objective definition of "occultist." You must mean I'm an astrologer, writer, artist, student of astronomy, investigative reporter of scientific fraud. So you are labeling me. What is that about, Christine? What category are you putting me in? And what has your general theoretical statement got to do with me?
Now, above, you were talking about subcultures and prevailing cultural constraints; I asked for an example, and you gave me one from your life -- not from culture. I'm asking for you to describe this phenomenon objectively, from observation of the world. In this thread we are discussing a podcast about men stealing from women. "Feminist" is not a good example; there are plenty of male feminists, unless you are a feminist who defines men out of the concept, and there are plenty of those.
I still don't understand what you're talking about.
You are one heck of a colorful, full spectrum presenter, with a voice that sings out sincere teacher. Just a little maternal, with brass.
Thank you, Eric, what a sweet compliment! I especially like the brass and others have made the analogy to male anatomy ;-)
you will like this -- me vs Eisenstein. Mano a Mano.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aIs4zeVPgjTk
The man is a parrot and cannot think for himself.
there are some very witty and original parrots. yulia. this person's lack of intelligence is of the distinctly human kind.
I've just played through this episode. I have quite a few responses, though I will start with two ideas, mainly. Okay maybe three.
One, in the digital realm, we are all sexless and genderless because we do not have bodies. Ideas matter somewhat, image matters a little, but there is no actual masculine or feminine other than symbolic in the astral plane of digital.
This is true generally of electrical media, all of which shocks people out of body and propels us over the wires at the speed of light. In the 1970s Marshall McLuhan commented that exposure to computers is the equivalent of their users being on LSD. We are all flying high on an acid trip right now, though some people know their zip code and some do not.
The problem is that this is an invisible condition and most people do not realize the nature of their phantom existence, as dream figures in one another's minds herein digital. Marshall's son Eric wrote:
“The body is everywhere assaulted by all of our new media, a state which has resulted in deep disorientation of intellect and destabilization of culture throughout the world. In the age of disembodied communication, the meaning and significance and experience of the body is utterly transformed and distorted.”
Speaking as a writer, my lifelong dedication, which also means reader, and scholar, including a major focus on women poets of the 20c, the whole of literature is writers referencing one another. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones borrowed musical concepts constantly and both were inspired by the Beach Boys Pet Sounds. Hendrix taught everyone how to play guitar. Anyone who heard Bob Dylan's lyrics started to write a little or a lot like him.
This is not the same as plagiarism. If I quote Bob Dylan quoting T.S. Eliot in a creative way, that is poetry and anyone who is a real reader of that art knows what I'm doing. The difference is respect. So it's not the same as co-opting something and claiming it, or flipping its meaning or turning it on you. That is not plagiarism, that is being a creep.
As regards Janice Fiamingo, I can hear how her work is landing with you, and she is not mincing her words. Though I would ask: are you aware of the nature of the problem she has been addressing? Can you state it plainly in matter-of-fact terms, shorn of the controversy, even if you don't agree with her concepts?
Neither in her lexicon nor mine is "feminist" equivalent to "woman." I think that her ideas and the ground from which they arise require a more thoughtful treatment. She is addressing a set of values and attitudes that are so ubiquitous as to have vanished into the environment. While I would prefer the world not be such a partisan place, that too is a property of the digital/astral environment: polarization.
There are very few people advocating for men, and few who recognize the issues we face, as men. Some would say we have nothing but privilege and need no advocacy. That would be a distortion. The biases are plain to see, if one looks, though it's difficult to see the quality of the filter one is looking through if one is looking only through it.
As I remember, Eric, you and I share the practice of A Course in Miracles, something I've studied daily for the last 20 yrs. So we entertain the possibility that we're all dream figures in the OneMind, without gender or bodies. Yet everything on this plane is a metaphor leading us back to ultimate reality, aka God. I think that the difference between the sexes is an essential clue that parallels Reality and needs to be unraveled.
One of my posts that might cover all three of your topics, to some extent, is this: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/five-feminine-economies. In it, I talk about all things that are infinitely replicable, like ideas, being part of the gift economy. Although I do have a way of giving credit there, that just makes it more fun because you get points for stealing ideas and for being stolen from.
In the text (but not the video) I added a deeper analysis on Eisenstein at the start. I don't know if it will clarify the difference I'm trying to get at.
And yes, I live in Santa Cruz, the woke capital of the world next to Berkeley/ Oakland. Things are completely off the deep end here. Which is why I titled mine 'Feminine Economies' and not 'Feminist.' Yet I see woke/anti-woke producing the desired action-reaction in creating anger against people, not changing the system.
Those are my half-baked thoughts. They may be better baked in the morning.
The natural differences between men and women are one of the most glorious things about this dimension of existence. In my opinion. And to assert that there is a difference cannot be inherently sexist. To assert superiority, as you propose, is the problem — no matter who is doing so. And this is a matter of actions more than of words, though actions include words.
The biological differences between women and men are essential to our maculate experience on Earth. Most differences we are told about are heavily socialized, conditioned and then mandated. These obscure the organic ones, such that a beautiful, feminine young woman can call herself "assigned female at birth" (AFAB) and is taken seriously, like she is doing us all a big favor.
Please.
And so too does the de-sexing effect of digital, of electricity and of the endocrine-disrupted environment: an environment where free-floating rage finds its way in easily, and is then projected outward, and takes up residence in a world where no part of sex or sexuality is actually welcome. As McLuhan (my favorite philosopher) said, a village is not a friendly place; the global village is not a friendly place. The question is what we are doing about this situation.
The episode I linked, on The Horus Gamos, talks about getting back to that place of fun in the difference between the sexes. Our current culture is sadly lacking in fun, and just appreciation and LIKING each other.
At the risk of inspiring more saucy comments, this one was instigated by the Cormorant, who first told me about you: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/quantum-sex-and-dragon-chakras.
Yes - ACIM...
https://planetwaves.substack.com/p/trust-the-foundation-open
In passing - your seven-buck parcel arrived a couple of days ago. Can't wait to get started and start dismantling after finishing a few others.
Whoo-hoo, I'm rich! Or will be when that whopping quarterly payment rolls in. Does this mean you compromised your principles for me? And bought it on Amazon? If anyone has earned indulgences in that great library in the sky, it's you. So glad it's in such good hands, and will be read by such a fine mind.
Yes, I proudly compromised my principles - indirectly by asking my daughter to procure it for me as a gift for 'Tonic-Masculinity Day'. :-)
Hahahaha!
Finally received the book (had to order 2... long story for later)
Just gone through intro and first couple of chapters, and already so much to learn.
Some gems:
Without changing the system, changing any one thing is impossible.
From its very origin, democracy was backed by stolen labor, stolen language, and stolen land.
The lofty flag of democracy was rooted in the soil of colonization.
In summary Greek democracy was a pretty word laid over systemic violence.
Based on info you present, I calculated value of skilled labor back then in todays dollars:
$21,000 per year or $10.5 per hour. Seems the humongous leaps in human productivity didn't translate into much for labor :-)
On another comment thread, Tonika (of Visceral Adventures) was saying she'll be finishing my book on an upcoming trip, after re-reading a couple of chapters. I was expressing my appreciation for you and saying, with no modesty, that the more someone knows about the problem, the more they 'get' what I'm saying. And you, I, Tonika, and Julius just below who's just gotten it, are people who start from the same baseline that the solution can't be at anyone else's expense. Along with others who've already finished it like Mark and Teo. I've been waiting all my life for this conversation.
And yes, people are always saying "Okay but let's just focus on what's possible. Fix this one thing (that affects me) first and then do your pie-in-the-sky thing." But nothing's really possible other than temporary tweaks if the question that obsesses everyone is "How do I make money?" and a handful of people have the only answers available to that.
Looking forward to hearing more.
By the way, I forgot to mention that "gifting" is very much alive in the region especially in villages. A neighbor would bring a plate with food, fruits or sweets, and the plate is later returned with something else.
Reading the following 2 chapters, I understood title of your substack, and publishing house, "third paradigm". For me there was a paradigm shift, I had absolutely no knowledge of the early phase of slavery whereby British kids where kidnapped (perhaps that's where the word "kidnapped" originated?).
In my book, I traced the empire a millennium back to the First Crusade, you did better by tracing it back to its true origins in Athenian and Roman empires. Athenians established to intellectual justification for exploiting "the other" and the Romans codified into law, that was eventually adopted in Western Europe and eventually in much of the world.
On abolitionism: You correctly connect it with the shift in wealth production to industry and the need for industrial labor. My comment is:
Until advent of the steam engine, energy was from wind (windmills), hydropower from rivers, animals for transport and ploughing, but mostly from humans. Hence the "great" achievements of civilizations dating back to Pharaohs and possibly earlier was with human energy mostly in the form of slavery. With invention of the steam engine, the need for human power was greatly reduced. Hence the connection of the abolitionist movement with the era of industrialization.
As I read, I realize how necessary it is to disseminate the facts and knowledge you present in schools and universities. It would be like a detergent that cleanses brains from tons of misconceptions enabling a "paradigm shift" in thinking and very importantly setting the stage for harmony between civilizations. Truly it forms the basis for "dismantling an empire", or should we say: "dismantling the empire".
Still in chapter 5, have a lot more to learn.
Thank you
Glad to hear the gift economy is thriving. Where are you located again, Fadi?
Yes, that was a complete paradigm shift for me too, that the first slaves were white and that they were treated MUCH more harshly because an African slave was an expensive investment but they only paid transport for 'indentured servants,' most of whom were children, and they were due land and a horse when they completed their servitude--so a reverse incentive for them to survive.
And yes, the term was kid-nabbed and the police got a bounty. The book I mention, Confessions of an Irish Slave Girl, tells about her being given a hot drink by a woman, only to wake up on the boat as a girl of seven. It's a very poignant story that talks about how Africans and Irish were interbred by the masters but kept apart so they wouldn't join together and revolt. (Since we're talking about language, isn't it interesting that we have 'revolting' from the word revolt?)
I'm not certain, after reading Guyenot's Anno Domini, how far apart the Roman Empire and the First Crusades were. I'm now entirely questioning whether there was an early Roman Empire or if the timeframe for Imperial Rome started in the 700's.
Oh, really interesting, Fadi, to connect the abolition movement to the steam engine. That makes so much sense. But I also now wonder if the pyramids were built on slave labor, since we've gotten that story from the YahChoPeeps (Yahweh's Chosen People) and everything has been inverted.
This was another paradigm shaker for me: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/a-royal-flush-and-irish-pharaohs. The author Andrew Power presents evidence that the world may have been a buoyant and humid bubble held in by a membrane. The first people were extremely tall as a result, and red-headed. Building things like pyramids was unencumbered by gravity. It wasn't until a meteor broke the membrane that the sky fell and the waters separated, maybe submerging Atlantis.
I don't know what I believe about that but his evidence is compelling. Despite my cover artwork, I don't know that any number of slaves could really move those huge blocks of stone. So I entertain the possibility that slavery hasn't always been with us.
And yes again, you noticed that I wrote it as a text. But I think you're mistaking the purpose of schools and universities--to keep us from figuring out these things. But I like the idea that it would be the detergent in my front loading washing machine ;-)
I am located in the Levant, last weekend I was in a village some 4 miles from the border with Palestine where there are ongoing clashes between the Israeli army and Hezbollah who activated this 60 mile front in support of Gaza. The village was peaceful, we could only hear drones overhead on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning.
Quote: "The first people were extremely tall as a result, and red-headed. Building things like pyramids was unencumbered by gravity."
"Despite my cover artwork, I don't know that any number of slaves could really move those huge blocks of stone.."
Too far fetched, say men were 12 feet tall and three times as strong as normal it would be 3 times the man-power. With levers you can achieve forces 10 times greater, and by sliding on slopes you can reduce load to move objects by a factor of 10, 20 or more. So with a little ingenuity and a lot of manpower it was possible to move the huge blocks of stone and build the pyramids.
Quote: "So I entertain the possibility that slavery hasn't always been with us."
It could be a combination of slavery or forced labor for a limited time period.
Quote: "I think you're mistaking the purpose of schools and universities"
Agree on the purpose as beautifully expressed in Pink Floyd's "Another brick in the wall". I taught for 10 years at universities in the US and Lebanon. The system is hard to beat, however it is possible to have an impact. I recall once the university issued a regulation, that motorcycles are not allowed on campus. When I arrived and was not allowed in, I told the security, no problem, if my bike is not allowed in, I will just leave and went home. The students had a sit-in, refused to attend classes, after which my bike was allowed in lol.
Another time, during the reign of militias in the civil war, the guys told me there are no classes on Wednesday coz there is a strike. I told them, no problem, I took part in strikes when I was a student, what is purpose of strike? They replied we don't know, just 2 guys came in and told us there is a strike. I counted the students, they were 17, I said you are 17 and just 2 impose a strike!? I will come on Wednesday, if there is more than 50% of the class, I will give a lecture. Wednesday attendance was 100% ;-) Taught the guys to have some guts and resist.
When I started my company making testing machines from a bedroom in my parents house, I didn't have money for sales & marketing. My x-students who went on to be managers of factories in the Gulf and Europe became my salespeople, and within 5 years our company became the global leader in our specific field. One student named his daughter after my daughter, she is now doing her PhD in biology at the University of Cambridge :-)
So despite the fact that schools and universities are designed to create bricks for the system, it is possible to "infiltrate" and the knowledge presented in your book would have a significant impact on at least a select few.
By the way, my publisher was surprised when my book with its "anti-American" sounding title was adopted as a textbook at a university in California lol.
Very good points, all. And we do know that Egypt was, at one point, run by the Hyksos or foreign rulers, and that the pyramids have been called the Pharaoh's grain siloes, which may be related to the Habiru/ Hebrew story of Joseph stealing the grain for the Pharaoh and turning the Egyptian farmers into landless serfs. So maybe the story of slavery in Genesis is true, but has been reversed for victim and oppressor.
And yes, I think that teachers and professors are some of the most subversive people on the planet ;-) They often finagle a way to slip the truth in. I'd love to see a classroom of young minds coming out of that detergent cycle of my book and engaging with how to solve the problems!
Thank you, Fadi!
SLP (Standard lying procedure) is to construct the lies around as many truthful facts and events. That the Habiru fairytales or should I say horror stories contain a lot of truths is only natural.
Regarding Zoom session, sure would participate, after having finished the book, say after 10 days.
I'm so pleased by the lines you've picked out, and sorry for whatever caused you to need to order two! I'm going to respond more in the morning but I'm so happy you're reading. We are clearly speaking the same language.
Just an idea, why not make a page where we can comment and discuss the book?
Great idea. Would that be on Substack? Let me give that some thought. Tonika wants to do a zoom with others that we can record and post, after she's done. Would you be open to that? I have all kinds of domains I'm no longer using since I switched hosting services: thirdparadigm.org, retrometro.com, a2020vision.org, UniverseCity.us, parentnetwork.org and FoodintheHood.org (which were neighborhood dinners my daughters and I put on for global charities, where they presented the cause and we cooked food from that region ;-)
Substack is becoming widely used, so a page dedicated to discussing your book may be a good idea, especially that it is easy to go through threads and see comments and replies.
"What I didn’t say in my comment is that I would absolutely LOVE to see Gabe write what tonic masculinity is for him. Wouldn’t that be the best?"
I'm called out! ...Not sure I'm going to do this justice... but here goes.
I'm glad you linked Margaret's posts, I commented (https://open.substack.com/pub/margaretannaalice/p/how-to-build-a-joyful-marriage?&commentId=65935787)
"What I love so much about this treasure you've [Margaret] shared is that I believe this is a message that needs to be better understood by young men. It's immensely more important to be loving than to "be alpha" or whatever the current meme is. That requires a completely different set of skills and attitudes than what is easily accessible in the mainstream."
While I'll acknowledge that Margaret's Poem "How to Build a Joyful Marriage" applies to both sexes, I'll share the lines that I had in mind when I posted that comment
- who accomplishes meaningful things with you.
- who isn’t afraid to grow.
- who has invigorating conversations with you.
_ who respects, admires, and trusts you. (big emphasis on TRUSTS)
I emphasize these 4 because they strike at the root of the troubles that young(er?) men face in any kind of interactions, but especially romantically. I believe that there are unique challenges that lead men to be desperate for a tribe to feel belonging that was either removed or withheld from them. At least as far as my own growing is concerned, I believe it is a necessary step to accept the world (and those around you) for the way it is rather than one would prefer it to be. What was particularly hard for me to learn is that accepting the world for what it is is not the same as approving everything about the way things are. If anything acceptance is the first step towards truly learning how one can make meaningful change. I believe that what makes this so difficult for many is that it is incredibly painful to trust others, and even the world when one is challenged. It's all-too-easy to cling to "wolf packs" of in-group reassurance without boldly challenging one's own missteps. There are many hard lessons people need to learn that require a phenomenal amount of bravery to challenge themselves, even within groups.
I feel very strongly that in our time, tonic masculinity is the way that men adapt to our world as it is, and lovingly embrace the challenges and opportunities within. This requires understanding, patience, trust, cooperation, and above all a strong moral compass. I'll certainly admit that I find nowadays a challenging time to hone these qualities, but when I think of the ideal that is the heading we need to aim towards.
That is absolutely beautiful, Gabe, you've certainly done it justice.
I'm so glad you brought out those four lines of Margaret's. What powerful concepts, that a couple would accomplish meaningful things together and have invigorating conversations. 'Not afraid to grow' is especially interesting since long term relationships are often established when you're one way and can be scary when one person changes, or both.
It occurs to me that your revelation, that accepting the world as it is leads to making meaningful change, reminds me of your other statement, that in order to change yourself you need to first love yourself as you are. My daughter Cassandra says you can only change what you love, so I think she'd agree.
I'm curious as to what trust means to you, with other people and the world?
The trust part is really hard.
I believe a non-trivial amount of the domineering pressure is driven by fear.
Fear of betrayal, fear of change as mentioned earlier, but definitely fear of the unknown.
A lot of the desire to institute (or re-institute / enhance) domineering opposition between the sexes seems to be driven by deep rooted fears that the other side will make the "wrong" decision(s) in regards to important matters.
Trust has definitely broken down (how long ago, or if it ever was there I can not tell) but it can absolutely be rebuilt.
Person to person, community to community, sex to sex.
But it requires a lot more than the simple and self-aggrandizing bros online offer.
They teach guys that the only way to maintain a modicum of self-respect is by making things worse, or acting out selfishly. This itself creates much of the ongoing downward spiral we see in trust, respect, or even communication.
What I'm starting to see is that a lot of men are realizing they've been hoodwinked by people selling the trappings of freedom and self respect in a false package that had harsh consequences. Now more than ever, it's clear that those offering their "simple tricks" were always rotten and that they never really cared about freedom or respect at all. The desire to feel "safe" from the throws of the culture war in my opinion has lead to a lot of hurt in all directions.
This is why I was focused-in on the idea that the Harris/Waltz team seizing the terms joy, and now tonic masculinity for partisan reasons. I think I finally see how the division is manufactured in real time when it comes to pressing people's emotional buttons. Many people (myself included) are desperate for a genuine optimistic joyful culture. but anyone who can reason know that the war machine isn't offering that up ever. Obviously the other side is guilty of it to, I believe Scott Adams argued that Trump "made men feel like men again" (totally paraphrasing the idea) and in hindsight I can definitely see how it made some men feel like they could use power over others again.
"It occurs to me that your revelation, that accepting the world as it is leads to making meaningful change, reminds me of your other statement, that in order to change yourself you need to first love yourself as you are. My daughter Cassandra says you can only change what you love, so I think she'd agree."
I have no idea where I picked it up, but it was imparted on me at one point that very often one's self-image is projected onto the world and vice-versa. I still can't quite say I understand what binds them together but I definitely have seen how they connect. If people are demoralized and dispossessed, it's a lot harder to trust the world, and sometimes even themselves. I'm very much a "noobie" at understanding human oppression and domineering, but it terrifies me how tyrants and abusers always manage to use their victims against themselves.
The reason I asked is because I don't know about that concept trust. I think it's our responsibility to see people and the world as it is. I think we're fooled when we want to be fooled. When someone says, "Trust me," I run. But I also find it a trick when someone says, "I trusted you." It's an expectation, an invisible contract. People look at trust as a gift 'I gave you my trust' but is it really? What is it the other person gets in return?
With public figures, I don't think that Latypova, Malone, Kennedy or Eisenstein betrayed my trust. What I know with 100% certainty is that all of them (except Kennedy) have lied, and Kennedy may just be fooling himself. So I need to take their capacity for dishonesty into account when considering anything that I can't prove for myself. It's not something they've done to me. If I 'trusted' them in the first place, it would have been out of the need for a hero to think for me, and that's on me.
Just a word I've given some thought to, but I know we agree in principle.
Informative
As a felloe ACIM student I have always appreciated your writing, your approach to mothering, and the way you pursue justice in standing up for Truth.
Eisenstein in particular set off alarm bells for me around the time of "new story"; it wasn't the ideas he was putting forth it was something more esoteric and I flat out didn't trust him but couldn't identify why. That feeling only grew in time and then he showed us all we need to know about his integrity (or lack thereof). That makes him a grifter in my book. One of the worst kind. So many in the hopium space. Ick.
I really appreciate that, Lucy. Yes, there's something that doesn't match with Charles' spiritual position of inclusion and his personal affect. It's why I included all the ums and uhs and losing his train of thought and segueing to a different topic before the sentence ended. It's a tell, I think, for when someone is dissembling and reciting a script. They're already bored with it.
And yes, SO many in the hopium space. Thank you for your kind words about all three of the spaces that are so important to me.
• Pip Williams - The Dictionary of Lost Words - Geelong Regional Libraries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMKAUnmpFg0
I don’t expect this to be Universally Liked but some of your readers might like this. I found it a bit Miss-And-Dronic. I'll just leave it here as a trigger - but most interesting😊
"The only way my ideas will likely ever be heard is if someone famous took them seriously."
This is a pretty depressing thought, but likely true.
I have been thinking about your comment about the "Bro code" (not challenging friends' ideas), and how, if true, it goes against my theory about men competing with other in the game of ideas. Since I live under a rock, have been out of the Silicon Valley culture for almost a decade, and have almost no male friends now, I can't speak from recent experience on this.
There's an alternative to the depressing view. Looking back, it seems like every 'famous' person starting with Chelsea Green as publisher was a stepping stone. After 'working' with a senior editor there (using that term very loosely, meaning a cursory but respectful relationship) for seven years, she retired just when my book was ready.
Then Ellen Brown was a potential blurb, and her co-founder in the Public Banking Institute was someone I hired to edit, which kept me going through a major rewrite because ONE person was going to read the chapter I finished.
Again and again, even with Malone and Eisenstein, I've gotten some recognition and thought, 'Maybe this will be the big break.' And then it crashes down in a way that's unmistakable.
Is that an accident or is it 'spirit' keeping me going until the conditions are right for my ideas to be heard on their own, without the benevolence of a benefactor?
Oh and I should mention David Graeber dying on me, after I sent a copy of my book to him during an overnight layover in Manchester ;-) That was a pretty dramatic closing of the possibility with the greatest influence on my book.
And Michael Hudson, as much as we have in common, depart in other ways. Once someone's famous, they're set on their solution. I don't know that they can really represent someone else's. So maybe I'm being told that I need to do this myself.
And I think you can verify or disprove my BroCode theory looking at any male-dominated internet thread. Unz Review would be a good one. Men are either all in agreement or absolutely vicious to their opponents. This is a rare space, my friend.
"Men are either all in agreement or absolutely vicious to their opponents." That clears things up a bit; there are two dynamics, not one.
I've never looked at Unz Review, but I suppose I could take a brief visit to that rabbit hole.
Edit: the Unz Review site has some stupid Javascript stuff that uses huge amounts of CPU on my laptop, which in turn causes the fan to come on and spin noisily. So I'll be looking at it only in brief spurts, until the heat and noise get too annoying, or maybe look at in a text-only terminal-based browser. To be fair, this is not the only web site that is broken like this; Home Depot is another offender.
Et tu, Charles?
It’s weird that he’d skip crediting you as I’ve seen him credit folks in lower public status than him in the past. (And by that I mean not as known.) but now that I think about it, it’s usually “someone said” and not usually naming that person unless they already have some kind of clout. I don’t know the other guys you mention at all. For what it’s worth, the first time I’ve heard of the term was on this Substack.
I'd love to see your take on the tonic, Tonika --that didn't even occur to me until I wrote it! But now it's obvious this tonic topic was made for you, O mother of sons.
I thought of you when writing again about Charles. I know you were holding out hope. And every time I look back at old episodes, I find myself having quoted him. I'm holding onto what resonated with me that came through him, and hope you do the same.
I will. Like you said, connect with the words and not who said them. And yes, every time I read about tonic masculinity I think about my boys. I'm trying to teach them to be protectors but also gentle, kind, and full of integrity. Teachable moments along our paths, but their heart is in the right place.
I'm certain they have BIG hearts just like their mama.
🥰🥰🥰
Carter is the guy who'd pop up with a giant axe when an innocent finds himself surrounded by ennemies, get you rid of the treat, then move on, selecting the most innocent people in danger
if he write things down it will be mega-warrior stuffs, well, "how to kill all bad guys surrounding the pregnant lady"
they have immediate treats in the US it's nuts it's every day
try not to discard him too fast but rather you may check a bit his area of expertise and action - it all makes sense - then he becomes a hero and fully service to other's dedicated
it's the pool of the warriors, that's how it is.
I wanted to add a thought here, Psychology, and I'll delete my other reply that you responded to on the other thread. 'John Carter' popping up with a giant ax to kill the bad guys is a fictional ego that the author created--one who doesn't have the courage to use his own name, thumbnail pic or video image in interviews. You and I have no idea who he is in real life, we only have his word for who he is.
From his own words, I know that he uses Tinder for casual hook-up sex where he says that girls say it's okay to choke them--something for which he blames them. Jay once described him as the angriest person he'd ever known. As a mother of daughters, I wouldn't want him anywhere near them. Lost in a forest, I'd likely choose the bear for them.
For all you know, his text may be as AI generated as his art, which is extremely demeaning to women, using cartoon exaggerations of voluptuous male fantasies. When you say he's a hero, you mean in his own mind, because that's the only place the actions exist. These are laptop warriors, battling against unruly women like me. And here's Mark Bisone in response to Mathew's note, as a case in point: https://substack.com/@markbisone/note/c-68173615.
Had to share this, gave me a hearty laugh:
"Perhaps Strauss-Kahn should be glad he ended up at Rikers and not at the Hague or in the walk-in freezer, like African leaders who took on dollar hegemony"
I can't tell you how much joy it gives me to be read by someone who gets my jokes!