Yeah, Zeal and Ardor definitely lean heavy into the satanic imagery to exentuate their atheism, lol. I like the song, especially when I'm starting a workout. It's a cold but empowering reminder (for me) that the light inside of us is ultimately ours to maintain.
Also, great piece btw. It really tapped into how I've been ontologically feeling as of late. I think the mushroom hero was onto something, but as you said, free will is no easy thing to collectively pin down.
Yes, exactly. I love the idea of this being a song to workout to. Thank you so much for the kind feedback and taking the time to read it. I feel the same about the mushroom hero. My thoughts on that entire situation is this:
Compare our sick race to a body dying of cancer. The surgeon recommends removing the deadly cells to help with the terminal prognosis, and this makes sense. Obviously one proceeds with cutting out the sickness. But then what happens afterwards? What is done to heal the body to so that it stops producing cancer cells? This is just a short term solution until the cancer returns, often in a more aggressive manner. I'm not sure what needs to be done to heal our collective body.
I often wonder if that's the wheel corporeal life is supposed to be stuck in. The whole samsara thing. Cyclic entropy preying on persistent novelty.
That or we start spiking punch bowls with Ayahuasca and watch what happens. Be like the gods and throw a bunch of stuff at the wall until something sticks.
My brother insists psychedelics are the answer to everything, and although I disagree, I see where he’s coming from and I can see the type he’s talking about that needs a forceful awakening out of the cycle they’re permanently stuck in (as shown in the other comments here lol)
I think I already have too much awareness to benefit from something like indigenous medicine, unless it was a way to navigate being human (I feel a lot of despair and pain being here) but I see how useful it is for trauma and for, as you have already mentioned, those who are caught up in the cycle.
The issue is, in my opinion, the human ego. Something about that is nuts lol. Perhaps a very slow evolution through and out of the human ego is actually happening, we’re just not aware of it?. Idk. Many thoughts. Thank you for the good conversation.
I've found one of the great problems is people for the most part are no longer able to distinguish between 'religion' and 'pagan spirituality' - the latter is, and has been, normal for human beings since they became human beings 300,000 years or so ago - why? Because it's based on actual lived experience (what you would call 'nature', I imagine) - nature does indeed contain 'supernatural' stuff.
I see the difference between 'belief' and 'faith' as belief being 'hope it's true but don't actually know' whereas 'faith' is epistemological, 'knowing it's true because have experienced it'.
In order to understand the way the world is we need to look at it in a historical way. At some point, evil began its war against the spirit, starting with its very effective weapon, so-called monotheistic ideology - this is one of the main insights - 'it's not a god, it's a demon pretending to be a god' - this is why it doesn't want people eating the apple, of course, and seeing it for what it really is - because that's the truth that would make them free.
Since then, the monotheistic ideology and its offshoots, which include 'materialism', like 'atheism' and 'Marxism' and all the rest, have waged continued vicious war against the spirit - against true human nature which - as you would perfectly understand, is in tune with nature (and supernature) and yes, is thus a kind of 'neutral'.
So it's not that I would blame human beings for the way things are. We have to understand the malign influence of true evil over the course of several thousand years. Human beings in their natural state are wonderfully trusting and good-natured and so on (there is zero evidence of anything remotely like 'war' before around 3-5000 BCE), and thus very easy to deceive and manipulate because they simply don't see it coming. They don't expect it because in nature they simply have no 'lived experience' of it. And it's always too late when they do see it.
Of course the picture is more complicated than this, but we can't judge 'humanity' by looking at a 'snapshot in time', so to speak. Unless we look at the 97-98% of human history in which they never had any war or conflict or anything - in which case we should say 'that's the real human nature'.
I wrote a fair bit about this in my Social Psychology and the Cabal series. 'Evil' is something separate from humanity. It is not 'within' humanity. The idea that humans have some 'dark side' is a myth perpetrated by evil, for what should be obvious reasons. Humans need to learn to look 'at' this demon pretending to be a god, not 'from' it. Otherwise they will continue to see it as some kind of archetype, to be emulated. Questioning that blatantly evil entity should be second nature. Unfortunately it isn't, because of all the threats of violence etc. - that's called serious mind control abuse, or at best 'coercive control'. So, yes, it is a cult, in the true, dark sense of the word...
Thank you! I used it in this piece because I see it as a good example of how God is weaponized, as it portrays the perspective of a slave whose oppressors are of the institution of Christianity, causing them to turn away from a God that is supposed to be merciful, but has only beaten, tortured and dominated over them. To them, that God was evil and at that point the Devil sounds like a reasonable figure.
Maybe it's like C. Jung said....man is the only animal that can disobey the will of God. They are broken enough to go against what comes freely and naturally. I might be wrong. But it seems like what is actually abhorrent to the ego is the appearance of no choice to be made, of there being no free will, and so ego is hell-bent on doing something that serves whatever makes it feel like it was able to choose, even if that choice is a total disaster. Even though there was no real choice to be made in the first place. Even though the natural thing given by God/nature is already there to be had. In my view, it's free will to accept what is freely given, even if there's no choice in terms of what ego would consider to be choice. Human ego needs there to be a choice so it can feel that power trip, instead of just going with the flow.
The time has come when those who preach the dogmas of materialism, whether of the east or the west, whether of capitalism or socialism, must give account of the moral stewardship they have presumed to exercise. Where is the “new world” promised by these ideologies? Where is the international peace to whose ideals they proclaim their devotion? Where are the breakthroughs into new realms of cultural achievement produced by the aggrandizement of this race, of that nation or of a particular class? Why is the vast majority of the world’s peoples sinking ever deeper into hunger and wretchedness when wealth on a scale undreamed of by the Pharaohs, the Caesars, or even the imperialist powers of the nineteenth century is at the disposal of the present arbiters of human affairs?
> Okay, I need to figure out how to approach this query. The user has provided a passage that critiques materialism in both Eastern and Western contexts, capitalism, and socialism. They’re questioning the outcomes of these ideologies in terms of delivering a "new world," international peace, cultural achievements, and addressing global inequality and poverty. The user wants an answer generated, but first, I need to understand the underlying themes here.
>
> First, the passage is clearly critical of materialism across different political systems. It points out that despite the wealth available today, there's still widespread poverty and suffering. The questions asked are rhetorical, highlighting the failure of these systems to meet their promised utopias. The mention of Pharaohs, Caesars, and 19th-century imperialists suggests a historical comparison of wealth concentration.
>
> I should break down each part of the passage. The first part talks about materialism in both Eastern and Western contexts. So, capitalism and socialism are both under scrutiny. The user is asking where the promised new world is. That probably refers to the ideals each ideology promotes—capitalism's promise of prosperity through free markets, socialism's promise of equality through state intervention. But neither has delivered fully, as evidenced by ongoing issues.
>
> Next, international peace. Both ideologies claim to promote peace, but the world still has conflicts. Maybe the user is pointing out hypocrisy here. Then, cultural achievements: materialism might stifle culture by focusing on economic gains rather than artistic or intellectual progress. Finally, the disparity between wealth and poverty. Even with more wealth than historical empires, poverty persists.
>
> The user is likely looking for an analysis that connects these critiques, possibly from a moral or ethical standpoint. They might be interested in alternatives to these systems or a call for accountability. Since the original response mentioned the Bahá'í Faith's perspective, maybe the user wants a moral or spiritual angle on these issues.
>
> I need to ensure that the answer addresses each question posed in the passage. Let's see:
>
> 1. New world promised by ideologies: Both capitalism and socialism have not eradicated problems as promised.
> 2. International peace: Despite claims, conflicts persist.
> 3. Cultural achievements: Materialism might be hindering true cultural progress.
> 4. Wealth disparity: Vast resources exist, but are not distributed equitably.
>
> The answer should probably discuss the failures of these systems, the moral accountability of their proponents, and maybe suggest a different approach that prioritizes unity and spiritual values over materialism. The Bahá'í perspective was mentioned, so that could be a key part, emphasizing collective well-being, justice, and unity.
>
> I should also check if the user is expecting a purely analytical response or if they want a specific ideological answer. The original response included the Bahá'í teachings, so maybe that's part of the context. However, the user might just want an exploration of the questions without a specific religious angle. But given the mention of moral stewardship, a values-based critique seems appropriate.
>
> Potential points to cover:
>
> - Critique of materialism in both capitalist and socialist systems.
> - Analysis of failed promises (peace, prosperity, cultural growth).
> - Discussion on wealth inequality and moral responsibility.
> - Possible solutions or alternatives that emphasize ethics, justice, and unity.
>
> I need to make sure the answer is well-structured, addresses each part of the passage, and provides a coherent analysis. Also, since the user provided the original response, maybe they want a similar structure but perhaps more detailed or from a different angle. But since I'm supposed to generate the thought process, I should focus on how to dissect the query and formulate the answer step by step.
>
The passage presents a poignant critique of materialism, capitalism, and socialism, challenging their moral legitimacy and outcomes. Here's a structured analysis of its themes and implications:
### 1. **Failure of Promised Utopias**
- **Capitalism** advocates for prosperity through free markets but often exacerbates inequality, prioritizing profit over equitable resource distribution.
- **Socialism** promises equality through state intervention but has struggled with inefficiency, authoritarianism, and stifled innovation in practice.
- **Result**: Neither system has delivered the "new world" they envisioned, as poverty, systemic injustice, and social fragmentation persist globally.
### 2. **The Illusion of International Peace**
- Despite ideological claims to promote peace, both systems have fueled conflict. Capitalism’s resource competition and socialism’s historical Cold War tensions reveal contradictions between rhetoric and reality.
- Modern geopolitics, driven by national or corporate interests, continues to prioritize power over collective security.
### 3. **Cultural Stagnation Under Materialism**
- Materialist ideologies often reduce human progress to economic metrics, sidelining cultural and spiritual growth.
- Artistic and intellectual achievements risk being commodified or politicized, undermining their role in fostering shared humanity.
### 4. **Wealth Disparity and Moral Accountability**
- The concentration of wealth—akin to historical empires—highlights a moral failure: abundance exists, yet billions lack basic needs.
- This disparity calls into question the stewardship of global elites and institutions, urging a reevaluation of values guiding resource allocation.
### 5. **Toward an Alternative Paradigm**
- The critique implicitly advocates for systems prioritizing **ethical frameworks** over materialism. Concepts like the Bahá'í emphasis on unity, justice, and collective well-being offer alternatives.
- Solutions might include:
- **Redefining progress** to include spiritual and cultural flourishing.
- **Global cooperation** to address inequality and climate crises.
- **Grassroots empowerment** to decentralize power and amplify marginalized voices.
### Conclusion
The passage challenges us to transcend ideological dogmas and reimagine governance and economics through a lens of moral responsibility. It calls for a shift from exploitation to equity, from division to unity, and from materialism to holistic human advancement. The unanswered questions serve as a catalyst for dialogue on creating systems that honor both material and spiritual dimensions of life.
No. As I’ve stated, God is everything : “Many people will hate hearing this, will hate me personally for it despite not knowing me - but it’s all God.
The thing that pushes you off the cliff and the thing that heals your broken bones, the pedophiles and the rapists, the firefighters and the nurses. The storm and the calm, the starving child and the food bank.
They’re not separate. God doesn’t choose sides.”
Humans are not separate from nature, that is an illusion. Humans were probably meant to be stewards of nature, and they’ve done the opposite.
As for everything else, that’s what you’ve projected onto me.
Nothing is separate here. That in it of itself is an illusion. Some pieces of consciousness can wake up enough to abuse their advantage rather than use it as a means to look over it, to ease suffering if it’s possible, and not design a hell hole of oppression and dogma.
It’s probably confusing if dogmatic oppression is your compass and not love and compassion, to which your definition of God will find all of this inflammatory.
My favorite writers are those who exude authenticity.
Well done, again.
This is a lovely compliment that made my day. Thank you so much ❤️
you got it goin’
New to substack and you are the first person Ive read! I loved it and followed everything. Thanks for writing.
This made my whole day 🥹❤️. Thank you so much for being here, and welcome to Substack!
Yeah, Zeal and Ardor definitely lean heavy into the satanic imagery to exentuate their atheism, lol. I like the song, especially when I'm starting a workout. It's a cold but empowering reminder (for me) that the light inside of us is ultimately ours to maintain.
Also, great piece btw. It really tapped into how I've been ontologically feeling as of late. I think the mushroom hero was onto something, but as you said, free will is no easy thing to collectively pin down.
Yes, exactly. I love the idea of this being a song to workout to. Thank you so much for the kind feedback and taking the time to read it. I feel the same about the mushroom hero. My thoughts on that entire situation is this:
Compare our sick race to a body dying of cancer. The surgeon recommends removing the deadly cells to help with the terminal prognosis, and this makes sense. Obviously one proceeds with cutting out the sickness. But then what happens afterwards? What is done to heal the body to so that it stops producing cancer cells? This is just a short term solution until the cancer returns, often in a more aggressive manner. I'm not sure what needs to be done to heal our collective body.
I often wonder if that's the wheel corporeal life is supposed to be stuck in. The whole samsara thing. Cyclic entropy preying on persistent novelty.
That or we start spiking punch bowls with Ayahuasca and watch what happens. Be like the gods and throw a bunch of stuff at the wall until something sticks.
My brother insists psychedelics are the answer to everything, and although I disagree, I see where he’s coming from and I can see the type he’s talking about that needs a forceful awakening out of the cycle they’re permanently stuck in (as shown in the other comments here lol)
I think I already have too much awareness to benefit from something like indigenous medicine, unless it was a way to navigate being human (I feel a lot of despair and pain being here) but I see how useful it is for trauma and for, as you have already mentioned, those who are caught up in the cycle.
The issue is, in my opinion, the human ego. Something about that is nuts lol. Perhaps a very slow evolution through and out of the human ego is actually happening, we’re just not aware of it?. Idk. Many thoughts. Thank you for the good conversation.
I've found one of the great problems is people for the most part are no longer able to distinguish between 'religion' and 'pagan spirituality' - the latter is, and has been, normal for human beings since they became human beings 300,000 years or so ago - why? Because it's based on actual lived experience (what you would call 'nature', I imagine) - nature does indeed contain 'supernatural' stuff.
I see the difference between 'belief' and 'faith' as belief being 'hope it's true but don't actually know' whereas 'faith' is epistemological, 'knowing it's true because have experienced it'.
In order to understand the way the world is we need to look at it in a historical way. At some point, evil began its war against the spirit, starting with its very effective weapon, so-called monotheistic ideology - this is one of the main insights - 'it's not a god, it's a demon pretending to be a god' - this is why it doesn't want people eating the apple, of course, and seeing it for what it really is - because that's the truth that would make them free.
Since then, the monotheistic ideology and its offshoots, which include 'materialism', like 'atheism' and 'Marxism' and all the rest, have waged continued vicious war against the spirit - against true human nature which - as you would perfectly understand, is in tune with nature (and supernature) and yes, is thus a kind of 'neutral'.
So it's not that I would blame human beings for the way things are. We have to understand the malign influence of true evil over the course of several thousand years. Human beings in their natural state are wonderfully trusting and good-natured and so on (there is zero evidence of anything remotely like 'war' before around 3-5000 BCE), and thus very easy to deceive and manipulate because they simply don't see it coming. They don't expect it because in nature they simply have no 'lived experience' of it. And it's always too late when they do see it.
Of course the picture is more complicated than this, but we can't judge 'humanity' by looking at a 'snapshot in time', so to speak. Unless we look at the 97-98% of human history in which they never had any war or conflict or anything - in which case we should say 'that's the real human nature'.
I wrote a fair bit about this in my Social Psychology and the Cabal series. 'Evil' is something separate from humanity. It is not 'within' humanity. The idea that humans have some 'dark side' is a myth perpetrated by evil, for what should be obvious reasons. Humans need to learn to look 'at' this demon pretending to be a god, not 'from' it. Otherwise they will continue to see it as some kind of archetype, to be emulated. Questioning that blatantly evil entity should be second nature. Unfortunately it isn't, because of all the threats of violence etc. - that's called serious mind control abuse, or at best 'coercive control'. So, yes, it is a cult, in the true, dark sense of the word...
Great song btw
Thank you! I used it in this piece because I see it as a good example of how God is weaponized, as it portrays the perspective of a slave whose oppressors are of the institution of Christianity, causing them to turn away from a God that is supposed to be merciful, but has only beaten, tortured and dominated over them. To them, that God was evil and at that point the Devil sounds like a reasonable figure.
Maybe it's like C. Jung said....man is the only animal that can disobey the will of God. They are broken enough to go against what comes freely and naturally. I might be wrong. But it seems like what is actually abhorrent to the ego is the appearance of no choice to be made, of there being no free will, and so ego is hell-bent on doing something that serves whatever makes it feel like it was able to choose, even if that choice is a total disaster. Even though there was no real choice to be made in the first place. Even though the natural thing given by God/nature is already there to be had. In my view, it's free will to accept what is freely given, even if there's no choice in terms of what ego would consider to be choice. Human ego needs there to be a choice so it can feel that power trip, instead of just going with the flow.
The time has come when those who preach the dogmas of materialism, whether of the east or the west, whether of capitalism or socialism, must give account of the moral stewardship they have presumed to exercise. Where is the “new world” promised by these ideologies? Where is the international peace to whose ideals they proclaim their devotion? Where are the breakthroughs into new realms of cultural achievement produced by the aggrandizement of this race, of that nation or of a particular class? Why is the vast majority of the world’s peoples sinking ever deeper into hunger and wretchedness when wealth on a scale undreamed of by the Pharaohs, the Caesars, or even the imperialist powers of the nineteenth century is at the disposal of the present arbiters of human affairs?
Thinking...
>
> Okay, I need to figure out how to approach this query. The user has provided a passage that critiques materialism in both Eastern and Western contexts, capitalism, and socialism. They’re questioning the outcomes of these ideologies in terms of delivering a "new world," international peace, cultural achievements, and addressing global inequality and poverty. The user wants an answer generated, but first, I need to understand the underlying themes here.
>
> First, the passage is clearly critical of materialism across different political systems. It points out that despite the wealth available today, there's still widespread poverty and suffering. The questions asked are rhetorical, highlighting the failure of these systems to meet their promised utopias. The mention of Pharaohs, Caesars, and 19th-century imperialists suggests a historical comparison of wealth concentration.
>
> I should break down each part of the passage. The first part talks about materialism in both Eastern and Western contexts. So, capitalism and socialism are both under scrutiny. The user is asking where the promised new world is. That probably refers to the ideals each ideology promotes—capitalism's promise of prosperity through free markets, socialism's promise of equality through state intervention. But neither has delivered fully, as evidenced by ongoing issues.
>
> Next, international peace. Both ideologies claim to promote peace, but the world still has conflicts. Maybe the user is pointing out hypocrisy here. Then, cultural achievements: materialism might stifle culture by focusing on economic gains rather than artistic or intellectual progress. Finally, the disparity between wealth and poverty. Even with more wealth than historical empires, poverty persists.
>
> The user is likely looking for an analysis that connects these critiques, possibly from a moral or ethical standpoint. They might be interested in alternatives to these systems or a call for accountability. Since the original response mentioned the Bahá'í Faith's perspective, maybe the user wants a moral or spiritual angle on these issues.
>
> I need to ensure that the answer addresses each question posed in the passage. Let's see:
>
> 1. New world promised by ideologies: Both capitalism and socialism have not eradicated problems as promised.
> 2. International peace: Despite claims, conflicts persist.
> 3. Cultural achievements: Materialism might be hindering true cultural progress.
> 4. Wealth disparity: Vast resources exist, but are not distributed equitably.
>
> The answer should probably discuss the failures of these systems, the moral accountability of their proponents, and maybe suggest a different approach that prioritizes unity and spiritual values over materialism. The Bahá'í perspective was mentioned, so that could be a key part, emphasizing collective well-being, justice, and unity.
>
> I should also check if the user is expecting a purely analytical response or if they want a specific ideological answer. The original response included the Bahá'í teachings, so maybe that's part of the context. However, the user might just want an exploration of the questions without a specific religious angle. But given the mention of moral stewardship, a values-based critique seems appropriate.
>
> Potential points to cover:
>
> - Critique of materialism in both capitalist and socialist systems.
> - Analysis of failed promises (peace, prosperity, cultural growth).
> - Discussion on wealth inequality and moral responsibility.
> - Possible solutions or alternatives that emphasize ethics, justice, and unity.
>
> I need to make sure the answer is well-structured, addresses each part of the passage, and provides a coherent analysis. Also, since the user provided the original response, maybe they want a similar structure but perhaps more detailed or from a different angle. But since I'm supposed to generate the thought process, I should focus on how to dissect the query and formulate the answer step by step.
>
The passage presents a poignant critique of materialism, capitalism, and socialism, challenging their moral legitimacy and outcomes. Here's a structured analysis of its themes and implications:
### 1. **Failure of Promised Utopias**
- **Capitalism** advocates for prosperity through free markets but often exacerbates inequality, prioritizing profit over equitable resource distribution.
- **Socialism** promises equality through state intervention but has struggled with inefficiency, authoritarianism, and stifled innovation in practice.
- **Result**: Neither system has delivered the "new world" they envisioned, as poverty, systemic injustice, and social fragmentation persist globally.
### 2. **The Illusion of International Peace**
- Despite ideological claims to promote peace, both systems have fueled conflict. Capitalism’s resource competition and socialism’s historical Cold War tensions reveal contradictions between rhetoric and reality.
- Modern geopolitics, driven by national or corporate interests, continues to prioritize power over collective security.
### 3. **Cultural Stagnation Under Materialism**
- Materialist ideologies often reduce human progress to economic metrics, sidelining cultural and spiritual growth.
- Artistic and intellectual achievements risk being commodified or politicized, undermining their role in fostering shared humanity.
### 4. **Wealth Disparity and Moral Accountability**
- The concentration of wealth—akin to historical empires—highlights a moral failure: abundance exists, yet billions lack basic needs.
- This disparity calls into question the stewardship of global elites and institutions, urging a reevaluation of values guiding resource allocation.
### 5. **Toward an Alternative Paradigm**
- The critique implicitly advocates for systems prioritizing **ethical frameworks** over materialism. Concepts like the Bahá'í emphasis on unity, justice, and collective well-being offer alternatives.
- Solutions might include:
- **Redefining progress** to include spiritual and cultural flourishing.
- **Global cooperation** to address inequality and climate crises.
- **Grassroots empowerment** to decentralize power and amplify marginalized voices.
### Conclusion
The passage challenges us to transcend ideological dogmas and reimagine governance and economics through a lens of moral responsibility. It calls for a shift from exploitation to equity, from division to unity, and from materialism to holistic human advancement. The unanswered questions serve as a catalyst for dialogue on creating systems that honor both material and spiritual dimensions of life.
Very flattered that it was a source of inspiration for you ❤️ and yes, exactly.
No. As I’ve stated, God is everything : “Many people will hate hearing this, will hate me personally for it despite not knowing me - but it’s all God.
The thing that pushes you off the cliff and the thing that heals your broken bones, the pedophiles and the rapists, the firefighters and the nurses. The storm and the calm, the starving child and the food bank.
They’re not separate. God doesn’t choose sides.”
Humans are not separate from nature, that is an illusion. Humans were probably meant to be stewards of nature, and they’ve done the opposite.
As for everything else, that’s what you’ve projected onto me.
Nothing is separate here. That in it of itself is an illusion. Some pieces of consciousness can wake up enough to abuse their advantage rather than use it as a means to look over it, to ease suffering if it’s possible, and not design a hell hole of oppression and dogma.
It’s probably confusing if dogmatic oppression is your compass and not love and compassion, to which your definition of God will find all of this inflammatory.