I love this Fox. You do good work disrupting pretenses. My suspicions stem from a more simple analysis and it's great to have that filled in coming from a different direction. I was exposed early to esoteric thought and did not care for most of it because of a sense of smugness and superiority in both leaders and followers. Also the effects, as it seemed to produce folk with poor lifestyle choices and generally rigid mental habits. Early conclusions centered around the thought that many schismatic approaches did not produce a positive relationship with the physical aspect of this world, which I regard as being the divine made manifest. For me this includes the notion of the sanctity of human life, missing in most modern idioms. I took the Theosophy thing as being a Brit intelligence operation early on and this helped defend myself from the allure of the derivatives. I do see the relationship between energy production and social advances, while also feeling that the growth element can get out of hand. Also an ongoing transfer of risk being offloaded onto the masses from the elites, with globalism being a big part of that. I do not like vaccines, GMO's and much of modern science, which seems more like scientism where the conclusions come before the research. One thing to note, when the Soviet Union collapsed it is said that 70% of food production came from backyard gardens. You may be underestimating the productive capacity of an active stewardship of the land compared to mono-cropping and 'green revolution' approaches.
I see our situation as one where our Creator shows (his) intent in the form of morals and ethics, while we are responsible for the content created here on earth. I feel that that by looking through our pretenses to their effects we can refine our thinking. So I might be seen as a non-dualist considering there is unity within the diversity that we do not yet see.
Great work, my subscription has already paid for itself.
Thank you Sounder - for your support and thoughtful comment! The theosophical roots of these weird hippie cults are a deep, deep rabbit hole. I started out as someone who first was vegetarian for almost a decade (as a teenager, for moral reasons), then switched over to localism (supporting farmers markets, critical of CAFO and monocrops), but eventually came to my current position because I was able to recognize the effect these esoteric cults have, and how they manifest as seemingly benign Health Food Store culture. I used to buy Weleda brand deodorant (a company directly formed by anthroposophists that performed tests in Nazi concentration camps) from a health food store called "Mother Earth"! There is a grain of truth, or at least something that feels truthful about "not putting chemicals in your body."
But this, I believe, is why understanding the philosophical underpinning of WHY we are using any kind of technology, vaccines, chemicals, etc. is at the crux of it all. Theosophists get away with it because they operate under a guise of "having your best interests at heart." But they certainly don't, their worldview sees human beings as no different than animals; which makes culling them an acceptable practice because it's "what nature does."
Man is distinct from the animal kingdom because he, alone, has free will, and the ability to creatively take part in shaping his destiny, and making positive contributions by discovering the natural laws of the universe. We are not just subject to material reality, like our dogs, cats and chickens. The frame in which Haeckelian hippies see the universe is fundamentally upside down, so every decision they make off that axiom is wrong. The universe is not entropic or dying a slow heat death. But, like Barry Commoner says, or the vast majority of the environmental movement believe, it should be the foundation of all economic and political decisions.
For more on technology, GMOs, vaccines etc. I recommend two things, a short essay and a discussion I had with Cynthia Chung on that exact topic:
But Lenin and Pannekoek praises Haeckel's work. Conservative in his philosophy, that does not matter, what is important are the revolutionary consequences of his research. In other words, Haeckel under a Bourgeois State leads to Nazism, but Haeckel under an Worker State leads to communism. It is an incentive to make the revolution, not to throw everything away and return to the church.
Besides, Gasman's book cited as a source is zionist rubbish, pure imperialism is that book.
Another question, I see that you have a lot of influence from Lyndon Larouche. I remember that Michael Hudson was once asked about Larouche's political ideas, and Hudson answered that he was a shady person, diplomatically said that he was a US intelligence service, and recommended staying away from him. Larouche sounds nice but he is poisoned. After reading and reflecting on this post, I definitely trust Hudson's advice.
I love this Fox. You do good work disrupting pretenses. My suspicions stem from a more simple analysis and it's great to have that filled in coming from a different direction. I was exposed early to esoteric thought and did not care for most of it because of a sense of smugness and superiority in both leaders and followers. Also the effects, as it seemed to produce folk with poor lifestyle choices and generally rigid mental habits. Early conclusions centered around the thought that many schismatic approaches did not produce a positive relationship with the physical aspect of this world, which I regard as being the divine made manifest. For me this includes the notion of the sanctity of human life, missing in most modern idioms. I took the Theosophy thing as being a Brit intelligence operation early on and this helped defend myself from the allure of the derivatives. I do see the relationship between energy production and social advances, while also feeling that the growth element can get out of hand. Also an ongoing transfer of risk being offloaded onto the masses from the elites, with globalism being a big part of that. I do not like vaccines, GMO's and much of modern science, which seems more like scientism where the conclusions come before the research. One thing to note, when the Soviet Union collapsed it is said that 70% of food production came from backyard gardens. You may be underestimating the productive capacity of an active stewardship of the land compared to mono-cropping and 'green revolution' approaches.
I see our situation as one where our Creator shows (his) intent in the form of morals and ethics, while we are responsible for the content created here on earth. I feel that that by looking through our pretenses to their effects we can refine our thinking. So I might be seen as a non-dualist considering there is unity within the diversity that we do not yet see.
Great work, my subscription has already paid for itself.
Thank you Sounder - for your support and thoughtful comment! The theosophical roots of these weird hippie cults are a deep, deep rabbit hole. I started out as someone who first was vegetarian for almost a decade (as a teenager, for moral reasons), then switched over to localism (supporting farmers markets, critical of CAFO and monocrops), but eventually came to my current position because I was able to recognize the effect these esoteric cults have, and how they manifest as seemingly benign Health Food Store culture. I used to buy Weleda brand deodorant (a company directly formed by anthroposophists that performed tests in Nazi concentration camps) from a health food store called "Mother Earth"! There is a grain of truth, or at least something that feels truthful about "not putting chemicals in your body."
But this, I believe, is why understanding the philosophical underpinning of WHY we are using any kind of technology, vaccines, chemicals, etc. is at the crux of it all. Theosophists get away with it because they operate under a guise of "having your best interests at heart." But they certainly don't, their worldview sees human beings as no different than animals; which makes culling them an acceptable practice because it's "what nature does."
Man is distinct from the animal kingdom because he, alone, has free will, and the ability to creatively take part in shaping his destiny, and making positive contributions by discovering the natural laws of the universe. We are not just subject to material reality, like our dogs, cats and chickens. The frame in which Haeckelian hippies see the universe is fundamentally upside down, so every decision they make off that axiom is wrong. The universe is not entropic or dying a slow heat death. But, like Barry Commoner says, or the vast majority of the environmental movement believe, it should be the foundation of all economic and political decisions.
For more on technology, GMOs, vaccines etc. I recommend two things, a short essay and a discussion I had with Cynthia Chung on that exact topic:
1. https://spacecommune.substack.com/p/robert-kennedy-jr-is-anti-technology
2. https://spacecommune.substack.com/p/ep-034-there-are-no-limits-to-scientific-53e
Absolutely brilliant piece of work
Thank you Matt! I'm so glad you like it.
But Lenin and Pannekoek praises Haeckel's work. Conservative in his philosophy, that does not matter, what is important are the revolutionary consequences of his research. In other words, Haeckel under a Bourgeois State leads to Nazism, but Haeckel under an Worker State leads to communism. It is an incentive to make the revolution, not to throw everything away and return to the church.
Besides, Gasman's book cited as a source is zionist rubbish, pure imperialism is that book.
Another question, I see that you have a lot of influence from Lyndon Larouche. I remember that Michael Hudson was once asked about Larouche's political ideas, and Hudson answered that he was a shady person, diplomatically said that he was a US intelligence service, and recommended staying away from him. Larouche sounds nice but he is poisoned. After reading and reflecting on this post, I definitely trust Hudson's advice.