Homo americanus vs Homo sovieticus: & EGALITARIANISM.

“From a sociological perspective, hierarchy and egalitarianism ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Organizations that are hierarchical are, by definition, the opposite of those that are “egalitarian.””

I have never been able to stand this “egalitarian western mentality”, inherited from an EXOTERIC INTERPRETATION of Christianism.

The Christians, the masses, have implanted it 'in the West'. Because they do not understand 'the esoteric nature' of the texts they manipulate. And anyway the 'masses is not initiatable'.

Fucking Christian do-gooders.

Christians are always lost 'IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTHERS'; that is why 'they have never understood anything about the Bible/and the New Testament'.

THESE IDIOTS think that THERE IS GOD, and do not “understand THE UNITARY PRINCIPLE OF THEIR OWN NATURE”. IT'S HOPELESS!

From Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies by David Bentley Hart:

“The picture MacMullen presents of pagan philanthropy is positively enchanting, even idyllic, but—alas—the evidence he cites from Libanius betrays him: if anything, it reflects only the rather restricted and occasional almsgiving practices adopted by pagan temples during the Christian era, as a result of the emperor Julian’s attempts to force the pagan PRIESTHOOD TO IMITATE THE CHURCH’S AID TO THE POOR.”

This is why the Christian's 'Savior Complex.'

“Again, I will happily stipulate that the rise of Christianity did not miraculously transform ancient society from the ground up, or for that matter from the top down; nor did it rid that society of its immemorial injustices.

To begin with, it is more than a touch perverse to credit the pagan cults with a religious egalitarianism greater than—or even comparable to—that of the early church. With some rare exceptions, such as the Bacchic mysteries, most organized religious societies of the ancient world admitted only one sex (GENERALLY MEN) AND STRICTLY EXCLUDED SLAVES from their memberships.”

“The Christians, by contrast, admitted men and women, free and bound, to equal membership and obliged them to worship together. This was, in many ways, the most radical novelty of their community: that it transcended and so, in an ultimate sense, annulled “natural” human divisions.”

From Christianity Without God: Moving Beyond the Dogmas and Retrieving the Epic Moral Narrative by Daniel C. Maguire:

“This sociopolitical egalitarianism in Israel put it at odds with the hierarchic centralized rules of neighboring city-states in that general area, and this often led to war. So protecting this EGALITARIAN SOCIETY [...].

SEEDS OF DEMOCRATIC THEORY.

THIS SYSTEM YAHWEH WAS TO PROTECT WAS A FIRST GLIMMERING OF DEMOCRATIC RULE.

It “depended greatly on consensual understanding of and commitment to COMMON INTERESTS requiring, as it were, the ancient tribal equivalent of ‘an enlightened and publicly active citizenry.’”

The feisty tribes of Yahweh were enlightened enough to know that UNLIMITED WEALTH wreaks “violence” (Micah 6:12) and is always shielded by lies and deceit, an insight that stands out in its enduring contemporaneity.

Yahweh and the people who crafted him were stubborn pioneers in early democracy.

As Gottwald asks: “What other instances do we possess from the ancient Near East OF THE UNDERCLASSES FROM A FEUDAL SOCIETY overthrowing their lords and living in an egalitarian social system over a wide area of formerly feudalized land for two centuries” before succumbing to monarchy?”

MARX BEFORE MARX.

“So, is God brutal? Or is God egalitarian and progressive? It all depends on the society’s shifting needs. For Tacitus, the gods were with the mighty. That made good imperial sense to the Romans.

When the early tribes of Yahweh pioneered an EGALITARIAN SOCIETY THAT FAVORED THE POOR OVER THE RICH [...] , their god became a “God of justice” (Isa. 30:18), described by Judith as a “God of the humble … the poor … the weak … the desperate … and the helpless” (Jud. 9:11). Strange credentials indeed for a god, but perfectly REFLECTIVE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY MOOD OF EARLY ISRAEL.”

What makes me laugh is the congenital hatred of the Jew by the Christian, whereas it is he the Christian, who carries the Jewish mentality in the West.

Hence the problem we have with the Christian, and how to get rid of him “politically”.

“In sum, the Hebrew gods show two things: (1) the people make the gods, not the other way around; and, (2) those gods have social functions. They can have a long shelf life and can be invoked centuries after their creation to prod folks to evil as with the Crusaders or Christian anti-Semites.

These prophetic movers and shakers put words like these into the mouth of God: “I remember the unfailing devotion of your youth, the love of your bridal days, when you followed me in the wilderness, through a land unsown,” when we pioneered together an EGALITARIAN JUST SOCIETY AND DREAMT DREAMS OF PEACE unparalleled in history (Jer. 2:2).”

From ,Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays by Murray N. Rothbard:

“WHEN EGALITARIANISM IS MEASURED BY THIS COMMONSENSE CRITERION, THE RESULTS ARE DEVASTATING. EVERYWHERE IN NATURE WE FIND INEQUALITY.

Attempts to remake human beings so that everyone fits the same mold lead INEVITABLY TO TYRANNY.”

From Third World to First: The Singapore Story – 1965-2000 by Lee Kuan Yew:

“Ostentatious egalitarianism is good politics. For decades in Mao’s China, the people wore the same-style Mao jacket and trousers, ostensibly of the same material with the same ill-fitting cut.

IN FACT THERE WERE DIFFERENT GRADES OF MAO JACKETS. A provincial leader in charge of tourism explained to one of my ministers that while they might look alike, they were of different quality cloth. To emphasise his point, he unbuttoned his jacket to show that it was fur-lined.”

From Jesus Is Dead by Robert M. Price:

“Christianity turned the norms upside down and said that birth, ethnicity, gender, and wealth — that which determined a person’s honor and worth in this setting — MEANT ZIPOLA.”

From The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—-How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer:

“Hierarchical social structures are almost UNIVERSAL.

EGALITARIANISM WORKS (BARELY) ONLY AMONG TINY BANDS OF HUNTER-GATHERERS IN RESOURCE-POOR ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THERE IS NEXT TO NO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Egalitarianism works (barely) only among tiny bands of hunter-gatherers in resource-poor environments where there is next to no private property.”

In the following preface, THE WHOLE EGALITARIAN THOUGHT IS LAID DOWN, and you will understand to what extent our modern societies are just that:

From Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm:

“To one who is living one’s life as a democrat, egalitarianism is a topic that affects not only the head, but the heart. My heart was in this book, not only in the research that underlies it, but in its writing. For egalitarianism, as opposed to actual equality, is intrinsic to the democracy that many people on this planet enjoy and often take for granted. We democrats live in societies that define us as political equals, and in spite of voter apathy and predatory lobbies we continue to wield our votes: the collective voice of the people continues to be, ultimately, powerful. It is this essential political leverage in the political decision-making process that keeps alive human freedom and human rights as we know them, and I shall argue that this type of political stance is quite ancient.

To a democrat the power of centralized government, be it national or local, is a perpetual threat to the personal autonomy of its citizens [...].”

Democracy is precisely that which removes “autonomy of the citizens”, by practicing majority voting. For a collectivist, the majority and the individual; it's a bit the same thing. But individualism is still 1.

“Our earliest precursor, in this respect, may well have been an African ape living some 5 to 7 million years ago. This vanished ancestral hominoid was likely to have formed political coalitions that enabled the rank and file, those who otherwise would have been utterly subordinated, to whittle away at the powers of alpha individuals whose regular practice it was to bully them. Our direct evolutionary precursor was a human physically just like ourselves, who lived in the Late Paleolithic and possessed an egalitarian ethos and an egalitarian political order similar to those of present-day hunting bands who have remained nomadic.”

These idiots are 'fantasizing about an egalitarian world that never existed' and never will.

Always from the same idiot:

From Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame by Christopher Boehm:

“[...] egalitarianism can stay in place only with the vigilant and active suppression of bullies, who as free riders could otherwise openly take what they wanted from others who were less selfish or less powerful.

It’s here that my work on the evolution of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism comes in, namely, the emphasis on the active and potentially quite violent policing of alpha-male social predators by their own band-level communities. I’m speaking of large, well-unified coalitions of subordinates and their aggressive and effective control of selfish bullies, whose predatory free rides at the expense of less powerful or less selfish others could otherwise be easily taken by force. In the next chapter, we’ll see that 45,000 years ago very likely almost all the humans on this planet were practicing such egalitarianism.”

“Their aggressive and effective control of selfish bullies” EXCEPT that it WAS COLLECTIVIST IDEOLOGIES THAT KILLED OVER 100 MILLION PEOPLE in the 20th century.

EGALITARIANISM HAS NEVER WORKED; AND WILL NEVER WORK.

In any group, LEADERS TAKE CONTROL.

The “egalitarian model” HAS LITERALLY KILLED EUROPE SINCE ITS INCEPTION; BY CHRISTIANISM.

As long as the West DOES NOT RETURN TO THE TRADITIONALIST MODEL, THEN THERE WILL BE NO WEST.

And the good thing about idiots is that they contradict themselves all the time, their doctrines being the wrong ones. Further 'in the Book':

“Indeed, egalitarianism itself is based on competition between A FEW STRONGER INDIVIDUALS AND THE SUBORDINATES WHO UNITE TO OPPOSE THEM.”

So, we need to know:

• The hierarchy, THE TRADITIONALIST MODEL works or does not work?

THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN DEMOCRATIC, EGALITARIAN MODELS.

EVERY TIME THIS ONE IS IMPLANTED, 'HIERARCHIES ARE RE-FORMED'.

When you look at it, HISTORICALLY, it's always the leaders “WHO TAKE CARE OF THE WEAKEST”, never the weakest who take care of the weakest.

Moreover, TO SAY THAT THERE ARE WEAK AND STRONG, nullifies this egalitarian argument.

BUT HOW STUPID THESE IDIOTS CAN BE!

From The Know Your Bill of Rights Book: Don't Lose Your Constitutional Rights—Learn Them! by Sean Patrick:

“NEW RIGHT VS. OLD RIGHT.

What is “new” about the North American New Right, and how does it relate to the “Old Right”?

Before I can answer that, I need to clarify what the Old Right and the New Right have in common and what differentiates them from today’s phony Right: namely the present-day center-Right parties and all forms of classical liberalism.

The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded ON THE REJECTION OF HUMAN EQUALITY AS A FACT AND AS A NORM.”

“The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded on the rejection of human equality as a fact and as a norm.

The true Right embraces the idea that mankind is and ought to BE UNEQUAL, that is DIFFERENTIATED.

MEN ARE DIFFERENT FROM WOMEN.

ADULTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM CHILDREN.

THE WISE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FOOLISH, THE SMART FROM THE STUPID, THE STRONG FROM THE WEAK, THE BEAUTIFUL FROM THE UGLY.

We are differentiated by RACE, HISTORY, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, NATION, TRIBE, AND CULTURE.

These differences matter, AND BECAUSE THEY MATTER, all of life is governed BY REAL HIERARCHIES of fact and value, not by the chimera of EQUALITY.

THE TRUE RIGHT REJECTS EGALITARIANISM ROOT AND BRANCH.

EVERY TRADITIONAL SOCIETY KNOWN TO MAN IS INEGALITARIAN.”

It is for this reason that the Christian, EGALITARIAN BY ESSENCE, rejects Tradition.

“All forms of traditional society have been destroyed—or are in the process of being destroyed—BY MODERN, EGALITARIAN, MASS SOCIETY.

The New Right and the Old Right share the same goal: a society that is not just hierarchical but also organic, a body politic, a racially and culturally homogeneous people, a people that is one in blood and spirit, a people that is politically organized and sovereign and thus in control of its OWN DESTINY.”

This is what the 'CASTE SOCIETY' PROVIDES, organized from above, and fundamentally 'anti-egalitarian'. And if the West 'wants to survive modernity', it has no choice but this: Reject democracy en masse/and let itself be ruled BY AN ELITE.

“I believe that America today is very much like Eastern Europe in the 1980s: a totalitarian system committed publicly to another version of the lie of egalitarianism. Like Communism, the American system is becoming increasingly hollow and brittle as more whites decide, in the privacy of their own minds, THAT EQUALITY IS A LIE, diversity is a plague, and the system is stacked against them. But they do not act on these convictions because they think that they are basically alone. If they slip, they know they will be persecuted, and nobody will come to their defense.”

THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO 'HAND OVER TO LEADERS': Something that 'the Westerners' are not yet 'ready' to do.

From Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism by Mark R. Levin:

“PROGRESSIVISM IS THE IDEA OF THE INEVITABILITY OF HISTORICAL PROGRESS AND THE PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN—AND HIS SELF-REALIZATION—THROUGH THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY OR COLLECTIVE.”

Yuck!

“Moreover, Croly, like many before and since, tied historic progress and the modern state to the idea of MATERIAL EGALITARIANISM, a central tenet of Marxism.

Let us remember, for the progressive, historical progress is said to be a process of never-ending cultural and societal adjustments intended to address the unique circumstances of the time, the ultimate goal of which is economic egalitarianism and the material LIBERATION OF “THE MASSES.””

Yuck! Yuck!

“Moreover, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE if the GOVERNING GOAL is the PURSUIT OF ECONOMIC EGALITARIANISM AND SOCIAL SAMENESS.”

Yuck!

“For the Founders, EQUALITY MEANT EQUAL JUSTICE AND EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, NOT THE UNIFORMITY OF MEN AND CONFORMITY TO CENTRALIZED PLANS AND RULES.”

NOT REALLY WHAT YOU HAVE IN AMERICA. BUT YOU WANT DEMOCRACY AND YOUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE.

“Hayek explained: “[O]nly because men are IN FACT UNEQUAL CAN WE TREAT THEM EQUALLY.””

From Rubicon Last Years of Roman Republic by Tom Holland:

“FOR A CITIZEN, THE ESSENCE OF LIFE was competition; wealth and votes the accepted measures of success. On top of that, of course, the REPUBLIC WAS A SUPERPOWER, WITH A REACH AND PREPONDERANCE quite new in Western history.

A few decades ago, in the late 1930s, the great Oxford classicist Ronald Syme saw IN THE RISE TO POWER OF THE CAESARS A ‘ROMAN REVOLUTION’, A PREFIGURING OF THE AGE OF THE FASCIST AND COMMUNIST DICTATORS.

[...] Yet parallels can be deceptive. THE ROMANS, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING, EXISTED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES – PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, INTELLECTUAL – PROFOUNDLY DIFFERENT FROM OUR OWN.

OFTEN, IN FACT, THE ROMANS CAN BE STRANGEST WHEN THEY APPEAR MOST FAMILIAR.

A poet mourning the cruelty of his mistress, or a father his dead daughter, these may seem to speak to us directly of something permanent in human nature, and yet how alien, how utterly alien a Roman’s assumptions about sexual relations, or family life, would appear to us.

So too the values that GAVE BREATH TO THE REPUBLIC ITSELF, THE DESIRES OF ITS CITIZENS, THE RITUALS AND CODES OF THEIR BEHAVIOUR.

Understand these and much THAT STRIKES US AS ABHORRENT ABOUT THE ROMANS, ACTIONS WHICH TO OUR WAY OF THINKING ARE SELF-EVIDENTLY CRIMES, CAN BE, IF NOT FORGIVEN, THEN AT LEAST BETTER UNDERSTOOD.

The spilling of blood in an arena, THE OBLITERATION OF A GREAT CITY, THE CONQUEST OF THE WORLD – THESE, TO THE ROMAN WAY OF THINKING, MIGHT BE REGARDED AS GLORIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

Periodically, waste from the insulae would be wheeled out in barrows to fertilise gardens beyond the city walls, but there was always too much of it, urine sloshing over the rims of fullers’ jars, mounds of excrement submerging the streets.

IN DEATH, THE POOR THEMSELVES WOULD BE SUBSUMED INTO WASTE. NOT FOR THEM the dignity of a tomb beside the Appian Way.

Instead their carcasses would be tossed with all the other refuse into giant pits beyond the easternmost city gate, the Esquiline. Travellers approaching Rome by this route would see bones littering the sides of the road. Degradation on such a scale was something new in the world. The suffering of the urban poor was all the more terrible because, by depriving them of the solaces of community, it denied them everything that made a Roman what he was. THE LONELINESS OF LIFE ON THE TOP FLOOR OF AN APARTMENT BLOCK REPRESENTED THE ANTITHESIS OF ALL THAT A CITIZEN MOST PRIZED.

TO BE CUT OFF FROM THE RITUALS AND RHYTHMS OF SOCIETY was to sink to the level of a barbarian.

THE LONELINESS OF LIFE ON THE TOP FLOOR OF AN APARTMENT BLOCK REPRESENTED THE ANTITHESIS OF ALL THAT A CITIZEN MOST PRIZED. TO BE CUT OFF FROM THE RITUALS AND RHYTHMS OF SOCIETY was to sink to the level of a barbarian.

To its own citizens, as to its enemies, the Republic was unyielding.

IT GAVE UP ON THOSE WHO GAVE UP ON IT.”

You wanted your freedom, people of modernity, abandoning the City. And you have lost everything:

• Your real INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

and your soul.

“It was no wonder that life in ROME SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DESPERATE STRUGGLE TO AVOID SUCH A FATE. COMMUNITY WAS CHERISHED WHEREVER IT WAS FOUND.

THE POTENTIAL ANONYMITY OF BIG-CITY LIFE WAS NOT ALL-CONQUERING. VAST AND FORMLESS THOUGH THE METROPOLIS APPEARED, THERE WERE PATTERNS OF ORDER DEFYING ITS CHAOS.

TEMPLES WERE NOT THE ONLY REPOSITORIES OF THE DIVINE. Crossroads, TOO, WERE BELIEVED TO BE CHARGED WITH SPIRITUAL ENERGY.

Shadowy gods, the Lares, watched over the intersection of all the city’s high streets.

These streets, THE VICI, WERE SO SIGNIFICANT AS A FOCUS FOR COMMUNITY LIFE THAT THE ROMANS USED THE SAME WORD TO DESCRIBE AN ENTIRE URBAN QUARTER.

Every January, at the festival of the Compitalia, inhabitants of a vicus would hold a great public feast. Woollen dolls would be hung beside the shrine of the Lares, one for every free man and woman in the quarter, and a ball for every slave. This relative egalitarianism was reflected in the trade associations that were also centred on the vicus, and were open to everyone: citizen, freedman and slave alike.

It was in these ASSOCIATIONS, THE COLLEGIA, rather than on the broader stage of the city, that most citizens sought to win that universal goal of a Roman – prestige. In a vicus a citizen could know his fellows, sit down to supper with them, join in festivities throughout the year, and live confident that mourners would attend his funeral. In a patchwork of communities across the metropolis, the intimacies of traditional small-town life still endured.

[UPPER CLASSES] scorn for ‘the mob’ was unvarying. It embraced not only the wretches starving on the streets or crammed into insulae, but also traders, shopkeepers and craftsmen. ‘Necessity’, it was assumed, ‘made every poor man dishonest.’

Such contempt – unsurprisingly – was much resented by those who were its object.

Plebs was a word never spoken by a nobleman without a curling of the lip, but the plebs themselves took a certain pride in it. A description once spat as an insult had become a BADGE OF IDENTITY, and in Rome SUCH BADGES WERE ALWAYS HIGHLY PRIZED.”

Christianism that is egalitarianism: the Negation OF “THE SENSE OF SOCIAL CLASSES”, which obviously ends up “uprooting this idiot” “WHO NO LONGER BELONGS TO ANY GROUP”.

“Of all Rome’s seven hills, however, the Palatine was the most exclusive by far. Here the city’s elite chose to cluster. Only the very, very rich could afford the prices. Yet, incongruously, there on the world’s most expensive real estate stood a shepherd’s hut made of reeds. The reeds might dry and fall away, but they would always be replaced, so that the hut never seemed to alter. It was the ultimate triumph OF ROMAN CONSERVATIONISM – the childhood home of Romulus, Rome’s first king, and Remus, his twin.

THERE WERE NO SUBTLE GRADATIONS OF WEALTH IN ROME, Nothing that could approximate to a modern middle class.”

That's why I always say; “that the advent of the bourgeois-merchant class”, was the end of the tradition.

This bourgeoisie class “that always WANTS TO BE THE ELITE”. The mentality “IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE JEWS”, but all “MIDDLE CLASSES” HAVE THE SAME ATTRIBUTES. POLITICALLY, THE “MIDDLE CLASS” IS ALWAYS TO BE PUT DOWN.

“For all the gulf that yawned between them, the ideal of a SHARED COMMUNITY STILL HELD FIRM FOR MILLIONAIRE AND PAUPER ALIKE. BOTH WERE CITIZENS OF THE SAME REPUBLIC.”

I repeat:

“For all the gulf that yawned between them, the ideal of a SHARED COMMUNITY STILL HELD FIRM FOR MILLIONAIRE AND PAUPER ALIKE. BOTH WERE CITIZENS OF THE SAME REPUBLIC.”

And we have abandoned this for EGALITARIAN MONOTHEISM in the West.

“Blood in the Labyrinth.

THE CENTRAL PARADOX OF ROMAN SOCIETY – THAT SAVAGE DIVISIONS OF CLASS COULD COEXIST WITH AN ALMOST RELIGIOUS SENSE OF COMMUNITY [...].”

Difficult for a 'modern to understand this', who lives in an 'EGALITARIAN FANTASY'.

“Indeed, in the early years of the Republic’s history, Roman society had come perilously close to ossifying altogether. The plebeians, however, refusing to accept they BELONGED TO AN INFERIOR CASTE, had fought back in the only way they could – by going on strike.

Gradually, over the years, the class system had become ever more permeable. The old rigid polarisation between patrician and plebeian had begun to crack. ‘What sort of justice is it to preclude a native-born Roman from all hope of the consulship simply because he is of humble birth?’ the plebeians had demanded. No justice at all, it had finally been agreed. In 367 BC a law had been passed that permitted any citizen TO STAND FOR ELECTION TO THE GREAT OFFICE of the state – previously a prerogative of the PATRICIANS ALONE.

IN PRACTICE AS WELL AS PRINCIPLE THE REPUBLIC WAS SAVAGELY MERITOCRATIC. Indeed, this, to the Romans, WAS WHAT LIBERTY MEANT. It appeared self-evident to them that the entire course of their history had been an evolution away from slavery, towards a freedom based on the dynamics of perpetual competition. The proof of the superiority of this model of society lay in its trouncing of every conceivable alternative. The Romans knew that had they remained the slaves of a monarch, or of a self-perpetuating clique of aristocrats, they would never have succeeded in conquering the world. ‘It is almost beyond belief how great the REPUBLIC’S ACHIEVEMENTS were once the people had gained THEIR LIBERTY, such was the longing for glory WHICH IT LIT IN EVERY MAN’S HEART.’

Just as the Roman streets formed a labyrinth, SO THE BYWAYS THAT A CITIZEN HAD TO NEGOTIATE THROUGHOUT HIS PUBLIC LIFE WERE CONFUSING, OCCLUDED AND FULL OF DEAD ENDS. YET THEY HAD TO BE FOLLOWED.”

THAT'S WHY DEMOCRACY IS CHAOS, because there are NO RULES OF SOCIETY in democracy. Everyone is free 'in a democratic society'; WHICH ALSO MEANS by definition; “NO ONE IS FREE”.

'IT IS CONSTRAINT THAT MAKES ONE FREE', that is in esoteric terms; 'TO BE FREE FROM MATTER'.

For freedom is not in 'MATERIAL PLEASURES'.

“FOR ALL THE RUTHLESSNESS OF COMPETITION IN THE REPUBLIC, IT WAS STRUCTURED BY RULES as complex and fluid as THEY WERE INVIOLABLE.

TO MASTER THEM WAS A LIFETIME’S WORK.”

Hence the “active character” of the Republic and of the citizen, and Contrary “to the passive character” of Democracy and of the democrat.

“AS WELL AS TALENT AND APPLICATION, THIS REQUIRED CONTACTS, MONEY AND FREE TIME. The consequence was yet further paradox: meritocracy, real and relentless as it was, nevertheless served to perpetuate a society in which only THE RICH COULD AFFORD TO DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO A POLITICAL CAREER. INDIVIDUALS MIGHT RISE TO GREATNESS, ancient families might decline, yet through it all the faith in hierarchy ENDURED UNCHANGING.

Inequality was the price that citizens of the Republic WILLINGLY PAID FOR THEIR SENSE OF COMMUNITY.”

I repeat “for your modern ears”:

“Inequality was the price that citizens of the Republic WILLINGLY PAID FOR THEIR SENSE OF COMMUNITY.

The class-based agitation that had brought the plebeians their equality with the patricians was a thing of the long-vanished past – not merely impossible, but almost IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE.

THAT THIS WAS THE CASE REFLECTED AN IRONY TYPICAL OF THE REPUBLIC. IN THE VERY HOUR OF THEIR TRIUMPH THE PLEBEIANS HAD DESTROYED THEMSELVES AS A REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.”

From The Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed by Helen K. Bond:

“[...] all ancient societies were patriarchal, and there are no examples of egalitarianism as we would understand it in any contemporary context, whether Jewish or Graeco–Roman.

Tempting as it might be to see Jesus as a ‘FEMINIST’, the evidence cannot support SUCH A CLAIM.

Women play a role in his movement not primarily because of Jesus’ radical social views but rather because Jewish society of the time allowed them to act in these ways.”

From The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament by Hughson T. Ong:

“I do not intend to enter into this debate over gender equality in the New Testament nor do I want to argue against any particular view, especially since I acknowledge that there are in fact many views within a particular view’s camp.

BUT BASED ON THE GOSPELS’ EVIDENCE, IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT JESUS DID VIEW THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS AN EGALITARIAN COMMUNITY [...].”

From The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-oriented by John Elliott:

“A close examination of texts of the authentic Jesus tradition alleged to attest Jesus’ creation of a “discipleship of equals” reveals that the egalitarian argument is fatally flawed in several respects. Most of these problems also plague egalitarian interpretations of the New Testament [...].

1. Egalitarian theorists have left undefined the key terms under discussion; namely, “equal,” “equality,” “egalitarian,” “egalitarianism.”

Consequently the nature of the equality proposed is left unclear and the idea of equality is often confused with its concrete economic and social manifestation, a manifestation never demonstrated by the theorists.

WHEN THE FAMILY OF TERMS IS CLARIFIED, HOWEVER, THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THE SOCIAL REALITIES OF THE BIBLICAL WORLD IS IMMEDIATELY OPEN TO QUESTION.

“EGALITARIAN,” IS DEFINED AS MEANING “ASSERTING, RESULTING FROM, OR CHARACTERIZED BY BELIEF IN THE EQUALITY OF ALL PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, OR SOCIAL LIFE.”

THIS CONCEPT THAT ALL PERSONS ARE EQUAL IN RESPECT TO ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND POLITICAL DOMAINS IS OF MODERN, [...].

The equality celebrated in the American and French revolutions, has little, if anything, in common with the comparatively rarely discussed concept of equality (MORE FREQUENTLY “EQUITY” OR PROPORTIONAL EQUALITY) IN THE ANCIENT WORLD.

ACCORDINGLY, SEARCHING FOR INSTANCES OF EGALITARIANISM in the New Testament communities, indeed in the ANCIENT WORLD on the whole, IS AS POINTLESS as hunting for modern needles in ancient haystacks.

1. EGALITARIAN THEORISTS HAVE SUCCUMBED TO THE “IDEALIST FALLACY” of regarding assumed visions, ideas and ideals of equality as concrete economic and social realities.

There is no cogent evidence that Jesus ever did or ever could reject the patriarchalism of his time and establish a “discipleship of equals” during his lifetime.

A key feature of the Jesus movement in the Pauline period, scholars agree, was its household orientation:

its mission focused not on individuals but household groups; believers assembled in houses for worship; and the household or family (oikos) provided a chief metaphor, as it did for Jesus, for characterizing relations and responsibilities within and among the believing communities.

On the other hand, to what extent these house churches were “egalitarian” communities is a highly debated issue.

Some scholars claim that the house churches were divested of their patriarchal features and were thoroughly egalitarian in structure and spirit like voluntary associations were assumed to be.

Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, for example, imagines that in the Pauline period the house churches were structured not like patriarchal families but like religious associations, which, she claims, were “associations of equals” presumably structured along egalitarian lines.”

It always amuses me when I hear this, because whatever the organizational structure “patriarchal families versus religious associations”, THERE IS ALWAYS A LEADER 'FORMING' IN THIS GROUP.

So it's not a male/female problem, but the negation of the presence of the reality of a leader in the group: WHICH PROVES “EVERY TIME THAT THE EGALITARIAN MODEL IS A CRAZY DELUSION”.

“House churches, like associations, had certain persons who performed supervisory and leadership functions that distinguished them from, and ranked them above, the other members. PATRON BENEFACTORS OF THE ASSOCIATIONS, LIKE PATRON HOUSEHOLDERS OF THE HOUSE CHURCHES, WERE EVEN MORE DISTINGUISHED IN THESE GROUPS than the hoi polloi and enjoyed even HIGHER PRESTIGE AND STATUS THAN THE GROUPS’ functionaries. From a sociological perspective, HIERARCHY AND EGALITARIANISM ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE HIERARCHICAL ARE, BY DEFINITION, THE OPPOSITE OF THOSE THAT ARE “EGALITARIAN.”

IN SUM, ALTHOUGH SEARCHING FOR TRACES OF EGALITARIANISM, Schmeller has proved only that both associations and HOUSE CHURCHES WERE STRATIFIED OR “HIERARCHICAL” IN STRUCTURE.”

No. no kidding.

“In a cogent critique, Karl Olav Sandnes (1997) has shown that household and brotherhood models are not alternative models but rather converge, as, it might be added, is clearly evident in 1 Peter; see Elliott 1990, 2000. Sandnes justly concludes that the New Testament shows NOT EGALITARIAN GROUPS REPLACING OR BEING REPLACED BY PATRIARCHAL STRUCTURES BUT RATHER “THE BROTHERHOOD-LIKE NATURE OF THE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP in the making, embedded in household structure” (1997:151, 162-63).”

WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

1 Corinthians 11:8, Lamsa Bible:

“For the man was not created from the woman; but the woman was created from the man.”

NO. THE BIBLE IS NOT EGALITARIAN. Never has been “and never will be”.

“Not one New Testament text points to an instance of actual economic or social equality among the house churches of the Pauline period. This alone is a fatal blow to the egalitarian theory. Compounding this fatality is the further fact that the house churches of Paul and of later time were stratified along conventional lines and marked by a plethora of economic and social disparities.

Paul’s proposed solution in every case was not to criticize or condemn the inequities, but to encourage those of superior status not to scandalize and rather respect brothers and sisters of inferior status.”

This is the Aristocratic Ethic.

“[…] as already noted above, females were considered inferior, not equal, to males and believing wives were expected to continue to subordinate themselves to their husbands.

[… Paul] but never advocated MANUMISSION OR THE ELIMINATION of slavery altogether.”

It's not very socially egalitarian, because the Bible is not egalitarian but traditional.

It may piss off 'many Christians', but nowhere in the Bible is the concept of social equality written.

“As another example of inequality, Paul reckoned Israel, the recipient of God’s promise, to be, as “stock,” prior to— and thus superior to—the Gentiles, though both were recipients of God’s grace.

The house churches of the Pauline period were not groups of equals but were stratified economically, socially and culturally.

The Post-Pauline Period.

Families and households, PATRIARCHALLY STRUCTURED, remained the focus of mission and the locus of assembly as the messianic movement continued its spread across the Mediterranean world.”

Where is the Equality?

“There is no incontestable evidence of a supposed egalitarian phase of the Jesus movement prior to Paul and hence no evidence that Paul and his successors undermined and reversed this egalitarianism. To the contrary, after Jesus’ death the movement was marked by the same social, economic and legal inequalities that prevailed earlier.”

From Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia by Mary Ann Beavis:

“[John] Elliott trenchantly asserts:

“The currently-advanced theory that Jesus was an egalitarian who founded a “community of equals” is devoid of social and political plausibility and, more importantly, of textual and historical evidence. More over, it DISTORTS THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL NATURE OF THE NASCENT Jesus movement and CONSTITUTES A GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF AN “IDEALIST FALLACY.” The biblical texts to which proponents of the EGALITARIAN THEORY appeal show Jesus and his followers engaged NOT IN SOCIAL REVOLUTION, DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, EQUALITY, AND THE ERADICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY, BUT IN ESTABLISHING A FORM OF COMMUNITY MODELLED ON THE FAMILY AS REDEFINED BY JESUS and united by familial VALUES, NORMS, AND MODES OF CONDUCT.””

From Jesus Was Not an Egalitarian. A Critique of an Anachronistic and Idealist Theory by John Elliott:

“As a preliminary observation, it is necessary to note that if there is New Testament evidence of EGALITARIANISM and social equality within the Jesus movement, THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE A UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANCIENT WORLD.”

L.O.L..

I AM WAITING FOR “FEMINISTS” to show me 'historically' a non-traditional society, that is “WITHOUT LEADERS”.

They will find 'none', because NATURE 'LIKES ORDER'.

Otherwise, it would make men and women of 'EQUAL INTELLIGENCE', which is not the case.

From The Oxford Handbook of Global Studies by Mark Juergensmeyer (Editor), Saskia Sassen (Editor), Manfred B. Steger (Editor), and Victor Faessel (Editor):

“After four decades of reforms, China—which was once one of the world’s most egalitarian societies—had become one of the most unequal societies, its Gini coefficient being higher than that of the United States .”

Because it's the Way of the world; this Fantasy of MATERIAL EQUALITY IS, AS ITS NAME 'INDICATES IT', MATERIALISM.

AND MATERIALISM 'IS NOT ORGANIC'.

Which means sooner or later, THESE EGALITARIAN DEMOCRATIC POLICIES CREATE MORE DIVERSITY, WHILE THEY SEEK TO DO THE OPPOSITE. What the simpletons have 'still not understood', INEQUALITY IS ORGANIC, to think that it's not is inorganic.

From Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age by Tomislav Sunic:

“Regardless of the fact that millions of Americans adhere to various Christian and non-Christian sects and denominations, or even belong to anti-Christian tribes or cults, the mindset of the majority of Americans is shaped by the Bible. The same Biblical fanaticism that had accompanied the Civil War in England was to be detected in the English colonies overseas—in what was to become America.”

You find the same fanaticism today in all Right-Wing Circles in America. And my reason, why 'I can't stand them'.

There is not an inch of reason in these groups, JUST BLIND FAITH. And you don't build 'a daily life on Fanaticism'.

“PURITANISM WAS AN IDEAL RELIGION for American pilgrims as it fostered social discipline and hard work, urging avoidance of violent rhetoric, while promoting a remarkable degree of civic decency.”

Yuck!

“The American way of life and the so-called “have a nice day” mentality, which Europeans wrongly deride as a form of hypocrisy or a capitalist facade, are direct behavioral products of early Puritanism.”

And you don't build a nation on Puritanism.

“Although America prides itself on a high degree of social tolerance and rejects in practice political interference of any organized church, its obsession with moralistic preaching borders on mass delirium.”

This is the Hypocrisy OF THE RELIGIOUS;

Saying one thing

he Does another.

“Most Americans are hardly aware of it and usually take their moralistic stance as something desirable for all human beings.”

No. Dear americans, moralism 'IS IMMORAL AND ANTI-SOCIAL'.

“The former president Ronald Reagan used to say that “the prosperity and might of America are the proof that America is blessed by God.””

Dah! What does this have to do with anything?

“The country which is closest to God must also be Gods’ representative on Earth with the three godly characteristics; omniscience, omnipotence, and generosity.”

“Therefore, it is questionable to what extent America can be a free country for all if the Biblical moralistic framework, however secular it appears, is a precondition for professional success.”

AMERICA IS NOT A FREE COUNTRY.

Religious people “think they are free but are slaves to their minds and therefore 'as far from God as possible'.”

“[Emma Goldman] realizes that Puritanism inevitably leads to the “stifling of free speech and creates a culture of mediocrity. Modern American heretics are summarily dismissed as the “enemies of democracy” or “racists,” or “right-wingers.” The new neo-Puritan offspring advocate now “safe and clean sex,” “safe and clean politics,” affirmative action,” et cetera.

The ideology of political correctness, which was described in the previous chapter, also originated in America in the 80s as a form of intellectual self-censorship. Yet it also represents the postmodern version of the old Puritan mindset.”

Hey, what is the difference between DEMOCRACY AND PURITANISM?

No difference.

“Today this political correctness ruins the careers of independent American and European free minds and makes intellectual inquiry into modern American taboos VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.”

Not virtually impossible, impossible.

I have always said “that it was the Christians who were the main obstacle to getting my ideas across and in 50 years, that has never changed. On the Contrary, IT HAS GOTTEN WORSE.”

I have no problem TO COMMUNICATE WITH ASIANS but Westerners, and Americans in particular, it's impossible. They are completely OSSIFIED.

“American founding myths drew their inspiration from Hebrew thought. The notion of the “City on the Hill” and “God’s own country” were borrowed from the Old Testament and the Jewish people.”

It pisses Christians off to hear this, but no mystic could have written such crap as “God's own country”. And religious TEXTS ARE ESOTERIC IN NATURE.

“Sombart further writes that “the United States is filled to the brim with the JEWISH SPIRIT.”

Even American Christian anti-Semites are subconsciously enamored with the Jewish idea of predestination, while at the same time harboring anti-Semitic sentiments.”

There is nothing MORE DUMB THAN AN ANTI-SEMITE.

“In fact, American anti-Semitism can be described as a distorted form of hidden philo-semitism which, while not able to materialize itself on its own American choseness, projects its would-be supremacy through its hatred against Jews.”

I spend my TIME REPEATING IT, a kind of Oedipal complex.

“Americanism is designed for all peoples, races and nations on earth.”

Hence the American Civil War, and the Refusal of the South “TO SUBSCRIBE TO THIS DEMOCRATIC IDEAL.”

Appearances in the USA:

“In a country whose ideological principles are entrenched in an aggressive rhetoric about free speech, only few authors dare critically address the issue of Judaism in America.”

“American Neurosis: Love or Hate for the Jews?”

Both.

It is the permanent fight against THE ESOTERIC BY THE MATERIALISM ('EXOTERIC').

The religious “wants to awaken”, but he's always in the complex as to quote above, oedipal. He's always Attached to this identification 'with Matter'(body/mind). He wants to awaken but cannot; 'HENCE THIS STRUGGLE'; and the Jew is “World Champion in this internal neurosis”.

The Christian has only followed this example, and does not understand in any case the Esoteric Texts that He Repeats.

So Basically a tool.

Homo americanus vs Homo sovieticus: & EGALITARIANISM #progress #Egalitarianism #western-societies #West #Western-Society #Tomislav-Sunic #Homo-americanus #Homo-sovieticus #arktos #Esotericism #Esoterism

https://bittube.tv/post/0980d385-47f7-4893-9846-572d6a7fea9b – Part 1 https://bittube.tv/post/e12990d8-a32f-4ff5-9bb0-d4a7b72763b9 – Part 2 https://odysee.com/@periodic-reset-of-civilizations:c/Homo-americanus-vs-Homo-sovieticus----EGALITARIANISM:b https://tube.midov.pl/w/mv94VFTD2sA3fr9Xdds5jP https://www.bitchute.com/video/i2GZEgRHtxAW/

All the platforms I Am on: https://steemit.com/links/@resetciviliz/link-s

▶ BITCOIN 34c3XCeSyoi9DPRks867KL7GVD7tGVcxnH ▶ ETHEREUM 0xAc1FBaEBaCc83D332494B55123F5493a113cE457 ▶ TEESPRING https://periodic-reset.creator-spring.com

Heroes: Bowie. Losers.

From Poor but Sexy: Culture Clashes in Europe East and West by Agata Pyzik:

“The 1970s were the era of defeat. As the 60s were extremely intense in terms of political and social change, from the early 70s the FLUX WENT STEADY. David Bowie, who debuted in the late 60s, marked this change when he invented Ziggy Stardust in 1972: no more real heroes, from now on the most desirable thing was to be fabricated. What is genuine, authentic, is boring. The only hero that really matters, is pure artifice, cut out from the comic books, movies and dressed in everything that’s glamorous. Bowie more than anyone contributed to the cherishing of artifice in pop music, realizing the idea of a “hero for a day”, only following the course mass culture had been taking for decades. Was he conscious of that? Some of his lyrics of the era mark the mourning of the DEPOLITICIZATION OF HIS GENERATION: in the lyrics to the song ‘Star’, he mentions “Bevan (who) tried to change the nation”, AND POSING HIMSELF instead as someone who “could make a transformation as a rock & roll star”.

Facing the growing nihilism of his generation, he still believes that as a star of artifice, he can carry on their political task.

‘All the Young Dudes’, a song he wrote for Mott the Hoople in ’72, reeks of the youth’s disappointment and disillusionment, forming A KIND OF “SOLIDARITY OF THE LOSERS” ANTHEM.

Bowie, always too erratic to make any firm political commitment, was rather in love with various dubious figures, “cracked actors”, (the inspiration for Ziggy was a forgotten singer who was believed to be a combination of god and an alien), necromantics like Aleister Crowley, Kenneth Anger’s satanism, Fascist dictators.

He was, nevertheless, obsessed with certain elements of modernity.”

We all are.

“He was driven to German culture, especially the Weimar period, expressionism, Neue Sachlichkeit, theatre, Brecht. His first break-through hit concerned a man lost in space, after all, and the space age gets a strongly melancholic treatment from Bowie, as his character Major Tom is rather terrified by the silence of space.

Another obsession, as we will see, was Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Bowie’s fixation with ‘totalitarianism’ applied to both sides. At one point he planned to stage an adaptation of the Soviet-Czech comic book Octobriana, about a socialist she-devil super-heroine – a samizdat publication, that was circulated between creators only through the post. Bowie could only have learned about it from its 1971 American edition. On the other side, his dalliance with the far right was something more than just the famous Sieg Heil he made to fans in 1976 at Victoria Station.

It’s not an accident pop bands are very rarely left-wing, and Bowie’s reaction to the economic crisis of the 70s was to imagine becoming a right wing politician who’ll “sort things out”.

‘I believe strongly in Fascism’, Bowie said; ‘the only way we can speed up the sort of liberalism that’s hanging foul in the air is to speed up the progress of a right wing tyranny.

People have responded always more efficiently under a regimental leadership.’”

Hierarchy is the Natural Order.

“Bowie recognized, if only half-consciously, the appeal and meaning of the pop idol as a dictator.

[…] Bowie’s fascination with Germany and Berlin was only partly expressionism – much of it was also quite simply, fascism.

Bowie who might have started an “anti-communist” music tradition which we now see flourishing amidst the New Wave of futurist bands’.”

He did.

“It was the growing synthpop and New Romanticism that was emerging from the post-punk bands. Although we are used to seeing industrial/synthpop/postpunk as ruthless modernists, the bands were actually rarely openly left wing.”

Nothing is left wing during this period, I would say 'One of the few periods in the 20th century', really lucid of itself. Who will end up 'with this GENERATION X' the only one left in the West with a soul and a heart.

“The political message, if any, was rather vague.”

We were the political message, our lives were enough for this world. We didn't have Fathers, who had chosen 'modernism'. We have educated ourselves without fathers,we are the only last generation to have matured completely.

“Bands dwelling on the space age came often from dispossessed areas, which they then made topics for their music, but the result didn’t have to be politically sound.

If you take the whole fascination with the Germanic in post punk bands, like Siouxsie and the Banshees or, omen omen, Joy Division, the twisted outpourings of their leaders weren’t just simply teasing their parents.

They were flirting with the outrageous (Siouxsie), against the war generation, or they were openly right wing, like Ian Curtis.

In a context of pseudo-denazification, militancy reached its peak around 1968 and the police shooting of Benno Ohnesorg. By 1976, when Bowie moved to Berlin, it had become the armed terrorism of RAF, the Red Army Faction.

Oh we can beat them, forever and ever.

If you look at any footage of the West Berlin in 70s, you see a murky city, gravitating around the Wall. Living next to a prison, even if theoretically you’re not the prisoner, you can develop symptoms of suffocation. Knowing people can be killed over an illegal crossing of the Wall, not being able to walk all of your city, imagining what there can be on the other side.

Rainer Werner Fassbinder felt shame for the post-war West Germans, for the way the West stuffed their mouths with consumerism and told them to shut up.

One of the reasons the punk generation reads dystopias like Nineteen-Eighty-Four and A Clockwork Orange as if they were their lives, and looks longingly towards the communist East in their aesthetics, is their depoliticization. The generation of their grandparents was the one who survived the war, believed in socialism, was changing the world, joined political parties. Earlier, to piss off your parents, you’d join a Communist Party.

By the 70s, those who wanted to change the world were discredited and all they had left was the aesthetics.

A generation or two before, people believed in the modernist ideal for living: built estates for collective life, in which neighbors were to meet in the patio and socialize.”

All this architecture 'has aged horribly', and shows 'that it was a false doctrine'; the freedom of the individual passes through 'the total individuation' of the individual: his liberation; 'mythologized' by the resurrection; Long, painful 'but only capable of realizing the detachment from the matter'.

“The 1960s and 70s also marked the crisis and decline of the nuclear family.”

Ending 'the bourgeois economical model'.

“In the regress […] with a growing number of divorces, this generation was paying for the necessary experiment of their parents […].

The counter culture as a resource/channel of political culture also began to decline.”

… And we have 'really “entered” the nihilistic modernity'.

“What was left were the drugs. Berlin since the 70s started having an enormous population of drug addicts.

The 70s were an era of abandoned children, with no more support in institutions.

Christiane hates Gropiusstadt, where she lives with her single, always-at-work mother, who is always absent, unless she is fucking her dodgy boyfriend.

The only company and community she finds is in the night clubs and friends, who are all into drugs.

She goes to the Sound, the famous disco club, labelled as “the most modern discotheque in Europe”. She starts lightly, takes speed and coke, but the whole thing is about “H”. H is her obsession, a gate to a different reality, where she can communicate with her idol, Bowie.”

ALL SOCIETIES 'NEED LEADERS'. No leaders Equals an abandoned society.

“In “Heroes”, Bowie makes a final declaration: there’s no more heroes, LONG LIVE THE HEROES!

And it is the easterners who shoot, who perpetrate the terror, it’s true: it was the choice of the DDR government to erect the Wall, as between the establishing of the republic in 1948 and 1961 their population was growingly defecting to the West. This was the ideological failure of the East, who had to lock their citizens to convince them they live in the best of the worlds.

They couldn’t, continuing to be trapped with their lives. For young people of the declining late 70s, Bowie – an endlessly enigmatic hero for one day, […] replaced their politicians, parents, institutions, their god.

Berlin is there a hard-edged, harsh city with no mercy, ruthless, easily claiming lives, once ascending city of modernity, where their dreams have died. We are in the realm of “joy division”: their passionless sex, their un-joy, resignation, their absolute nihilism.

Punk was dead.

Punk was dead. West Berlin was full of pale, lifeless, sleepwalking young people (Hitler called Germany a “nation of sleepwalkers”).

The real Christiane F (Felscherinow) was offered a career as “tell us our story”. She recorded hours of material that then became the famous book, and then the film. When her story broke, it caused a wave of outrage and self-accusations over the ‘health of the nation’ in the shadow of its Nazi guilt.”

There was no need for Hitler. Jesus Christ made the beginning.

“It seemed like the post-war optimism was finally over and the children of the hippie generation had been submerged by the nihilist punk wave.”

Christianism does not have a 'long life'.

“Christiane wasn’t abused, didn’t lack education, didn’t grow up in poverty or worse yet – she wasn’t an East German – [...] SHE WAS ALIENATED and she was from a broken home. She was raised in the personal freedoms promised by liberalism, that in the process became meaningless.”

Alienated like any good Christian.

“The weird aesthetic space that emerged between the neoliberal space opening in the late 70s, means that commodified subcultures become an ersatz of a political emancipation from the past which is no longer available. Subculture replaces political engagement which, for different reasons, can’t be expressed politically […].”

A dead Western society, ABANDONED, “building URBAN FURNITURE” rather than social bonds. 50 years later, the West has pushed this line “by legislating against the Rupture of the social bonding”. As if a State “could provide 'social bonding'”; but Westerners far too zombified “don't even understand what's going on.”

“The obsession this era has with the mechanical, controlled man evoked the fears of totalitarianism and the state control just as a deeper fantasy of human efficiency. The measurement of the body, of its possibilities, was at the start of the technological revolution, and organization. It was a dark echo of the Golem, puppets, Karel Capek’s robots, and Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, the real source of post-punk imagery, although of deeply dubious politics. Punks, a lost generation betrayed by history, were obsessed with it, despite claiming a lack of any interest in the past. Their obsession was a fantasy within the late capitalist, increasingly post-Fordist society, where efficiency was already beginning to be replaced with dubious financial capital.

The mechanized organism was a Fordist obsession, and found its sickly, glam repetition in Klaus Nomi, a Bavarian former pastry maker, who discovered an operatic countertenor in himself. In the famous Saturday Nigh Live performance with Bowie in 1979, they channel the German avant-garde, dressed in Sonia Delaunay-inspired bombastic dada-suits, with exaggerated inflatable arms and legs, Bowie using also a puppet and a communist China blue suit with a Mao-Collar, but equipped with a skirt.

With the political crisis approaching, the post-boom generation, as if feeling that history was going to strike back again, took on the task of performing painful historical exorcisms on themselves. They lived as if it was the 20s, 30s, 50s or 60s, and yet they lived inevitably in the present.

It was Bowie who put the elements together. Bowie, a model postmodernist, someone who built his life and art out of the artificial, who went though pop art, comic books and Brecht, needed the necessary frisson of the real, which he found in Berlin, Warszawa and Moscow.

As we saw, he was the wall against which Christiane F. and her drugged, prostituting young friends were projecting their saccharine dreams that never came true. Berlin was, like any other big post war metropolis raised from ashes, a scene of “modernity’s failure”, with the decaying tower block estates, like Gropiusstadt, which for Christiane is in turn everything SHE FEARS AND HATES.

It was the conservative Catholic modernist Anthony Burgess whose terrifying vision of modish city oiks turned Soviet was the one which kept stirring generations of youth and became a foundational text for the glam and punk generation. A Clockwork Orange, of which we speak, had its roots in a trip Burgess took to Russia in the 50s, when he got beaten by Western-dressed smart looking young delinquents in Leningrad.”

And this is why We don't need the Christian in Europe.

““Everyone says Joy Division music is gloomy and heavy. For me it was because the whole neighbourhood I lived in was completely decimated in the mid-60s. At the end of our street there was a huge chemical factory” – says Bernie Sumner in a Jon Savage interview – “there was a huge sense of community where I lived. I remember the summer holidays when I was a kid. What happened in the 60s is that someone in council decided that it wasn’t very healthy and something had to go and it was my neighbourhood that went. We were moved to the tower block. At the time I thought it was fantastic: now of course I realise it was an absolute disaster.”

Joy Division were English boys for whom the end of the world as they knew it resulted in bleak fascination with the other side: people under totalitarianism, with whom they felt a secret affinity, making music as if their world was their own. But it also worked the other way round.

The morbidity of their music hit exactly the emotions disaffected […].”

It is funny to see that these barbarities that are the states had to create idols, materialized forms of the heroes.

This shows how low man has fallen into matter.

And they're all asking for 'free iPhones and universal income'.

Heroes: Bowie #Heroes #Bowie #DDR #Wall #West #Agata-Pyzik #Pyzik #Esotericism #Esoterism

https://bittube.tv/post/4931a0d8-361a-4383-8995-4c7b73027646 https://odysee.com/@periodic-reset-of-civilizations:c/Heroes--Bowie:9 https://tube.midov.pl/w/xvFUYnAVFF98JMcntS5XbD https://www.bitchute.com/video/JgOMgRPps574/

All the platforms I Am on: https://steemit.com/links/@resetciviliz/link-s

▶ BITCOIN 34c3XCeSyoi9DPRks867KL7GVD7tGVcxnH ▶ ETHEREUM 0xAc1FBaEBaCc83D332494B55123F5493a113cE457 ▶ TEESPRING https://periodic-reset.creator-spring.com

Star Wars: the Hero.

Religious people don't WANT TO FIT INTO SOCIETY, don't try to Force them to fit into society; they don't want that. When I say “religious”, I mean All those people 'who Refuse to Accept Reality/and to Fit in it'.

Monotheism 'has just provided the SUPPORT FOR THE Religious Body to do so; 'a Personal God'.

An ILLUSORY character ('intermediary') Between the religious and society.

It's the Enemy of “Esotericism”, Hence their Hatred 'for it'.

You cannot 'not be around these people'. The religious WILL 'NOT BRING YOU ANYTHING'; they have 'decided to be WITHDRAWN' FROM THE SOCIETY of men. So it's useless to Talk to them.

From Awakening Kundalini: The Path to Radical Freedom

by Lawrence Edwards:

“Campbell discovered that the archetypal journey of the hero has three phases to it regardless of who the heroine or hero is, mythic or real.

Campbell summarizes the sequence of the hero’s journey in three phases: leaving, initiation, and return.

First, the journey demands that the hero leaves ordinary life in society — sometimes it’s by choice; sometimes it’s by circumstances or accidents that force them out of society and onto their quest. The hero or heroine is one who picks up the quest and is carried forward by transpersonal, archetypal, or mystical forces that are constellated by the quest. They summon what they can internally and externally to meet the demands of the quest, which, by its very nature, will require more than they will ever be able to gather alone. Secondly, the hero or heroine goes on a mythic journey during which they encounter supernatural forces or extraordinary situations that demand extraordinary responses from them and assistance from beyond the ordinary mind and everyday reality (may the force be with you!). In the process of meeting these demands, overcoming obstacles, persevering, discovering hidden supports, and so forth, they develop profound skills or strength, profound awareness, an open heart, deep compassion, or some other qualities. In this way they are initiated into a higher mode of being and functioning. As they reach the end of that segment of the hero’s quest, after having been through the ordeal and initiation, they take possession of something of great value. It may be that they found it in some remote place or, in the archetype of the spiritual quest, it is found within.

Lastly, the hero returns to their group or nation or humanity with the extraordinary prize to share it for the benefit of others. Campbell’s book Hero with a Thousand Faces brilliantly discusses many examples of this archetypal journey.

Campbell summarizes the sequence of the hero’s journey in three phases: leaving, initiation, and return. This sequence is repeated over and over again in countless myths. Joseph Campbell was a consultant on the original Star Wars trilogy.

Luke Skywalker and what he went through depicted the myth of the hero’s journey, as well as was his father’s journey to the dark side and back.

We see the hero’s myth in what Frodo went through in The Lord of the Rings as well, and the list of movies and stories focusing on the hero’s journey goes on and on: Moses and the Ten Commandments, The Lion King, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, The Matrix trilogy, the Harry Potter series, Avatar, and many others.

The mythic journey is perennially engaging for people because it offers the deep wisdom necessary for understanding the profound meaning of a purpose-driven life. The higher the purpose, the greater the meaning, but also the greater the challenges and sacrifices demanded.”

This is why the Image of the “Underworld” in Esoteric traditions. It is 'NECESSARY TO GO BEYOND' the Habitual structures of thought and to overcome them. You'll need to Discover 'what to Overcome' and Who you are.

From Edgar Cayce, The Meaning of Life and What to Do About It by Stephen Hawley Martin

“Campbell was a professor at Sarah Lawrence College who studied and taught comparative mythology and comparative religion. He wrote a shelf full of books covering a number of aspects of the human experience, including his best-known work, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949), in which he expounded upon his theory of the journey of the archetypal hero. The Hero’s Journey is a virtually ubiquitous tale recounted in mythologies in many different and diverse cultures across the globe. Ask any Hollywood writer or producer, and he or she will tell you it’s the plot at the core of the majority of successful movies and novels.

George Lucas used it to create Star Wars and even consulted with Joseph Campbell on the early episodes.

I believe we humans are so attracted to and taken by this storyline because we identify with it, subconsciously.”

We do. The Nature of myth IS THE SAME as that of our brain. The brain 'works' in this way; 'IN THE ABSTRACT'.

HENCE THE NEED FOR ESOTERICISM 'IN HUMANS'; THE NEED 'FOR MYTHS'.

AND THE ERROR OF THE RELIGIOUS who 'cannot get the Myth AND SEES SOME HISTORICAL FACTS; then for example the need for them 'of a historical Jesus'.

“You see, we each are a hero that has left home, our ordinary world, to undertake a perilous journey into and through the arduous, hard-knock, physical dimension.

THAT’S WHAT LIFE IS ABOUT—AN ADVENTURE.”

From Secrets of the Force: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Wars by Edward Gross and Mark A. Altman:

Ray Morton (senior editor, Script magazine):

“Lucas’s most significant creative decision in crafting the script for Star Wars was to purposefully infuse his narrative with a mythic structure—the classic “hero’s journey” plot identified by Joseph Campbell in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces as one that has recurred in the legends, folk tales, and fairy stories of every culture across the globe.

Lucas then enhanced this decision by peopling his story with archetypal characters resembling those who have appeared in the narratives of all of the world’s storytelling traditions.

In my opinion, it was this choice by Lucas to deliberately construct his B-movie narrative around these universal prototypes and archetypes from the collective myth that made it possible for Star Wars to connect with so many different people in so many different countries in the deep and meaningful way that it did and continues to do. Audiences in every part of the world could and can watch the film and find something familiar and resonant in it.”

SO, NO, having a YOUNG WOMAN 'AS A HERO' IS NOT PROBLEMATIC 'in Star Wars'.

If it is problematic, it's because the Theme of the movie and of Life 'is not understood'.

It's always THE SAME PEOPLE; the religious 'WHO CRY OUT FOR NOVELTY', without understanding 'the ESOTERIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RELIGIOUS TEXTS'.

RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE 'SOCIALLY MALADJUSTED'.

THEY WILL NOT MAKE 'THIS JOURNEY towards themselves'; TOO AFRAID OF IT, TOO WEAK.

THEN THEY 'WILL NEVER RETURN TO 'SOCIETY'. THEN ALWAYS BE 'A SOCIAL THREAT FOR SOCIETY'.

From Sword Fighting in the Star Wars Universe: Historical Origins, Style and Philosophy by Nick Jamilla:

“All great stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end.

The concept of a mythic hero has become part of common parlance when referring to the events that befall Anakin and Luke Skywalker. But as an outside observer, it is important to critique Lucas’s own comments on Star Wars and myth. Lucas has made numerous statements that he wanted to make a modern myth.

IT IS EVEN AN UNWRITTEN CORPORATE POLICY AMONG WRITERS ASSOCIATED WITH LUCASFILM TO DESCRIBE STAR WARS AS MYTH.

The most easily referenced statement on Lucas’s insistence that Star Wars is directly influenced by Joseph Campbell comes from a Bill Moyers interview in the April 26, 1999, issue of Time when Lucas said: “With Star Wars I consciously set about to re-create myths and the classic mythological motifs. I wanted to use those motifs to deal with issues that exist today.

The more research I did, the more I realized that the issues are the same ones that existed 3,000 years ago. That we haven’t come very far emotionally.”

WE DON'T. This is 'what those Christians DON'T UNDERSTAND'. The religious, those moderns in mentality, don't understand the myth (of the hero), and the 'Jesus story.' THESE MODERN IDIOTS “think that a HISTORICAL JESUS lived.” It's Heartbreaking of idiocy. These people are.

“As Lucas has always maintained, potential is defined by THE CHOICES A PERSON MAKES.”

“The pivotal religious aspect in the Star Wars saga concerning the Force was the prophecy of the chosen one—the appearance of someone who would destroy the Sith by bringing balance to the Force.

Christian influence of a virgin birth (Lucas says it was common to many religions) is the clearest real-world connection.

Early on, before the completion of the Prequel Trilogy, the lingering question was whether the chosen one was Luke or Anakin. Lucas states categorically in the “Chosen One” documentary that Anakin brings balance to the Force by destroying the evil Sith when Vader killed the Emperor.”

“BRINGS BALANCE TO THE FORCE” is the Key concept here.

For without balance, 'THERE IS CHAOS'.

THE NEED FOR THE MIDDLE PATH WITHOUT POLARITIES.

The religious constantly oscillates between polarities.

The aim of esotericism is 'to control of One's biology'.

“Here again, Lucas remains consistent in his duality of the Force with the prophecy that the expunging of evil leads to the proper equilibrium of the universe. It remains in line with the Christian concept that a universe absent of evil is by definition the perfect union and goodness of God.” I DON'T THINK THE AUTHOR OF THIS BOOK understands 'WHAT HE JUST SAID':

• IF THE FORCE —IS DUALISTIC— (“consistent in its duality of the Force”), then there is no need TO GET RID of a polarity (“the expunging of evil”).

This is the mistake of religious people; the 'Christians people', and their Obsession 'with evil'. Which makes them totally NEUROTIC on a daily basis.

Christianism is not the only religion 'that has put' the emphasis on the 'good/evil dichotomy'.

'But in the West', THE RELIGIOUS ARE THEM.

And they Inflict this 'duality' on a daily basis INTO THE WESTERN SOCIETY.

And makes the Western society 'so difficult to bear on a Daily basis.'

“A strong case for the Christ-Anakin allegory has been made by James Lawler, a professor of philosophy at the University of Buffalo, in his article “The Force Is With Us: Hegel’s Philosophy of Spirit Strikes Back at the Empire,” in which he uses Hegel’s interpretation of Christ having to endure a descent into the world of evil.”

YOU DON'T ENDURE A DESCENT INTO THE WORLD OF HELL, YOU CHOOSE 'THIS DESCENT INTO HELL'.

It's part of the INITIATIC PROCESS and you have to go through it whether 'you like it or not'.

“Jesus becomes human in an imperfect, and therefore evil, world.”

NO. THIS IS NOT UNDERSTANDING ESOTERICISM.

THIS WORLD 'IS NOT IMPERFECT', 'this mind and its functioning is IMPERFECT'.

It is this mind THAT MUST BE CHANGED, not the world.

Hence the progressive destruction of this human species, which destroys 'its environment' and I would say 'also' his own biology.

“Jesus’ separation from the perfection of God constitutes the evil of the world.”

No. This vision of Evil is an imperfection of the Mind.

“His descent is followed by an ascent into perfection through love, which reconnects Jesus with his divine nature.”

Yes, that is Correct.

“Many writers have identified Star Wars as a monomyth, a term coined by Joseph Campbell (1904–1987), a professor of mythology who is widely considered the primary influence on the Star Wars saga. The monomyth is the synthesis of a broad story outline that, according to Campbell, explains the similarities of the tales told in cultures around the world at various times in history.

While interesting in terms of comparative cultural studies, the monomyth is so broad and general that that it is very easy to apply details of particular tales and legends to its format.”

'THIS IS THE HUMAN THEME'; 'THE AWAKENING'. The person WHO DISCOVERS 'who he is behind this illusion of separation', produced by the mental faculties.

The same mind, which it is a question of 'changing' in Esotericism. 'Not the World', the mind needs to be changed.

“And where Campbell attempts to synthesize cultural creativities, the monomyth can also be criticized for what it leaves out in terms of iconic or plot elements. The monomyth works because it expresses the basic plot ideas that make all stories successful and complete. The idea of a figure who faces adversity and then conquers it by creating some solution is fundamental to all storytelling. In one sense, it is good that humanity can be seen as universal in their experiences, but the uniqueness and individuality of each culture and its traditional stories can be lost in such loose and broad comparisons.”

Because there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CULTURES.

What is not understood by the Masses. Masses who do not awaken ('no initiation for them'), don't understand that there is no difference between people, and that what they perceive 'IS PERCEIVED'.

This is why 'the masses are racist' by nature.

“The story of Christ is profoundly different from that of Arjuna or Siddhartha.”

NO, IT IS NOT. THESE DIFFERENCES are perceived AND NOT REAL.

“To lump origin myths together is an interesting task for comparative religious studies, but in another sense it is insulting that the uniqueness of particular cultures are agglomerated and made to conform to a neat and orderly arrangement.”

THIS PARTICULARITY 'DOES NOT EXIST', only with the mental faculties that cut, classify 'INFORMATION'.

But this is just a mental activity, not what you are.

From Shimmering Sword: Samurai, Western, and Star Wars Sword Fighting by Nick Jamilla:

“Despite the popular consensus, encourage by Lucas and his philosophical mentor Joseph Campbell, Star Wars is not a myth, but an epic in the ancient tradition, telling the tales of men and women as masters of their own destiny. ”

If you add 'that element' of 'Destiny', 'THEN BY DEFINITION' the story' becomes MEANINGFUL.

If the story is meaningful THEN TOLD, then it 'becomes a useful myth'. 'Star Wars' is a story told for the Purpose of HELPING PEOPLE TO AWAKEN.

THE CONFUSED AUTHOR of this book is everything that is wrong with Christianism, 'a ridiculous sense of particularism'. Useless people. The Christian who has the verve of a child and 'Who does not want to lend his toys'.

In the West, there is no more narrow-minded and racist and socially sterile than the Christian; this is the religious 'of the west'.

From Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment (The Enlightenment Trilogy Book 2): The Enlightenment Trilogy by Jed McKenna:

“For those of you who weren't privileged to observe my performance here last month,” a few chuckles, “I pointed out the same thing I'm going to discuss tonight; that life isn't a spectator sport, that each of us is in it as much as anyone has ever been, that stories like Star Wars and the Bhagavad-Gita aren't someone else's stories, they're our stories.

“I think one of the reasons for this artificial distancing is the godlike quality of the people we see as heroes,”

THIS WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD 'by the christian'. Who is always 'the Subject of his mind'.

This 'godlike quality' is where you have to go. The Christian, the religious in general, still subject of his mind, cannot see this aspect. Aspect he Considers as “Heretical”. Hence the Almost millennial Hunt 'against Mystics' people by the religious. Not by religions by the religious people.

The mind cannot 'understand' that there is something 'BEYOND IT', because you identify YOURSELF WITH YOUR MENTAL FACULTIES. And you are therefore 'a retarded adolescent'.

I like to quote the following from Activate Your Vagus Nerve: Unleash Your Body's Natural Ability to Heal by Dr. Navaz Habib:

“Our bodies are designed to live and survive without the need for conscious thought.”

Which Means that the body DOES NOT NEED the mental activity TO FUNCTION.

THAT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE BY THE MIND. MIND THAT THINKS 'TO BE GOD'. Hence the 'Monotheistic Appeal' among religious people. Which Echoes their egocentrism. And the religious emphasis on MENTAL FACULTIES.

A Monotheistic God; An ALL POWERFUL GOD.

In fact the religious REFER TO THE MIND when they speak of God.

THIS MONOTHEISM WHICH RAVAGED GREEK PANTHEISM AND DESTROYED THE 'WESTERN CIVILIZATION'.

And I doubt there will be an AFTER WEST, as there is no need for 'ESOTERICISM' in this Western society.

THIS CIVILIZATION 'WILL JUST DIE OUT'.

““This next part, marked Mass of Men, is just that. This is where most everybody is. This is the line that you could isolate as its own spectrum of awakeness and place yourselves and virtually everyone you know along it somewhere. I marked it Mass of Men because of Thoreau's statement, 'The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.'”

“Here's where it gets good,” I say, circling the point at which the downward slanting line turns straight down and where the dotted vertical line divides the board into flesh and spirit.

“This is where real life begins, where we get into our true potential.” This causes some stirring and grumbles, but we could get stuck here all night if I don't forge on, so I do. “I've marked one side Flesh and one side Spirit because this is where that transition occurs;

death of the flesh, birth of the spirit.”

That's why you have 'the Resurrection in ESOTERICISM'; THE CENTRAL 'THEME'. '

NO SAVIOR OF MANKIND' has ever Existed'; NONE.

'You are here to AWAKEN 'BY YOURSELF'.

“Human Childhood on the left, Human Adulthood on the right.

This is where the small, segregated being ends and the boundless, integrated being is born. Death and rebirth.”

“Just observe for now. I should point out that this isn't my little pet theory. This is the human map. It's not Eastern or Western or Christian or Hindu, it's human, and you'll find it wherever you find people.”

From The Heroine's Journey: For Writers, Readers, and Fans of Pop Culture by Gail Carriger:

“I need hardly say that the first Star Wars movie is a Hero’s Journey. Both George Lucas (the creator of Star Wars) and Joseph Campbell (the creator of the Hero’s Journey as a field of study) openly acknowledge the correlation.

Lucas admits to having read The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949) and intentionally using it as a template for Star Wars (documented via quotations from Lucas in the authorized biography Joseph Campbell: A Fire in the Mind by Stephen and Robin Larsen, 2002, p. 541).

Luke’s birth contains elements of his being fated or ordained for something heroic (although we don’t necessarily know about this in the first movie).

CALL TO ADVENTURE.

Luke follows some droids and encounters a mentor in the guise of Obi-Wan Kenobi, and supernatural aid in the form of a lightsaber. Obi-Wan urges Luke to seek his destiny and learn the ways of the Force. Luke tries to go home, at which juncture it’s made clear this is no longer an option. His family is taken away from him, his parental figures murdered, and his home burned. Even at the beginning of his quest, this hero can never truly return home.

WITHDRAWAL.

Luke then begins his quest. In his first major withdrawal (he will engage in this pattern a lot through the course of these movies), Luke abandons what is left of his family and community. Princess Leia Organa shows up to act the required role of seductress and distraction. Luke engages in a virtual descent into the underworld (the garbage masher). His mentor/father figure is killed, finally leading us to the point where Luke, alone in his fighter, takes on the insurmountable odds of a whole Death Star. He defeats the enemy and retrieves a boon, which again takes the form of acknowledged mastery and recognition of his skills.

RETURN.

The movie ends with a classic return motif, the ritual presentation of medals of honor, a physical manifestation of recognition of victory. Interestingly enough, the final scene is one of glory within the group, unusual in a Hero’s Journey, and perhaps tied to the humor and heist trope component of these movies.”

HUMAN INERTIA.

“Civilization is correlated with femininity and stasis, our hero will lose what it means to be a hero if he returns and reintegrates fully into cohesive society.”

IS CIVILIZATION “FEMININE-PASSIVE”.

OR THIS HUMAN INERTIA IS INHERENT TO THE MIND?

THIS SAME MIND “THAT MUST BE OVERCOME”.

NO, A SOCIETY “IS NOT PASSIVE”, “it's THE Opposite”.

A SOCIETY —IS 'ACTIVE BY DEFINITION'—. And this is what the West “HAS FORGOTTEN”.

On The Other hand, the mind must be overcome before 'understanding this', MIND IS PASSIVE...REACTIVE. 'Reactive' because the brain is not conscious of itself; it's an organ.

From The Lunar Bull: About the Spiritual Significance of Matriarchy by Peter Fritz Walter:

“I found Joseph Campbell’s books in 1998, through a reference in The Great Mother, by Erich Neumann.

Joseph Campbell basically affirms that patriarchy is a form of collective neurosis—not a lifestyle, not a philosophy, not a Weltanschauung.”

'NO EVIDENCE IS CITED' by the author.

I doubt that Joseph Campbell EVER SAID This or 'even Wrote it'. Joseph Campbell 'WAS A MYTHOLOGIST' not a 'Repressed child'.

“Patriarchy, with its craving for obedience to the father, is a sort of compulsion neurosis.

Not only are individuals flattened out by systems that are ‘paternal’ hierarchies and replacements of real fathers, those that have typically abandoned their roles as true caretakers, having become troublemakers, but authority-craving individuals also have flattened out their better halves, their right brains, so as to serve the system.”

I read the TEARS OF A CHILD who refuses to Grow up.

If you don't want to 'deal with this KIND OF CRAZY' on a daily basis; you don't have to.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO 'RESPOND to the solicitations of crazy people'. I'm not sure many 'get this'.

From Three Story Method: Foundations of Fiction Book 1 of 2: Three Story Method by J. Thorn, Zach Bohannon, et al.:

“With the rise of modern feminism and approaching the new millennium, Maureen Murdock published The Heroine’s Journey in 1990. Murdock met Joseph Campbell in 1981, and she presented him with her take on the Hero’s Journey. She “felt that the focus of female spiritual development was to heal the internal split between a woman and her feminine nature”.”

Sometimes I think “SOME PEOPLE ARE REALLY too stupid to live”.

“Internal split between a woman and her feminine nature”, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Probably 'nothing', like 'those people'.

“The big question is whether you are going to be able to say a hearty yes to your adventure.”Joseph Campbell in Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth with Bill Moyers (video).

From You Are a Badass: How to Stop Doubting Your Greatness and Start Living an Awesome Life by Jen Sincero:

“Getting clear about what your unique purpose is can be the difference between living a happy, fulfilled life of abundance, choice, and expansiveness or living in the restrictive veal pen of your own indecision and tired old excuses.”

From Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded by John Scalzi:

“The word “entertainer” has as an assumption that the creator/actor is reaching out to his or audience to engage them.

George Lucas doesn’t bother with this.

He won’t keep you out of his universe; he just doesn’t care that you’re in it.”

'YES LITTLE MAN', that's what differentiates a 'living person' from a 'ROBOT'.

The robot is “collectivist by definition” and needs “the other”.

The living person does not need 'the other' because he is Whole. The Living person does not 'need Others' TO COMPLETE HIM. This is what differentiates THE “FUNCTIONAL PERSON in society” from the “religious”.

And the 'reason' why the religious person navigate 'IN POLARITIES', always, from hate to joy ('entertainment').

From Star Wars Psychology: Dark Side of the Mind (Volume 2) (Popular Culture Psychology) Star Wars Psychology: Dark Side of the Mind by Travis Langley (Editor):

Foreword: Why Star Wars Matters. Carrie Goldman, Author of Bullied: What Every Parent, Teacher, and Kid Needs to Know about Ending the Cycle of Fear (HarperCollins, 2012):

““Why do we have wars, if everyone is always wishing for peace? Why do some people do bad things to others?” a four-year-old girl asked me last year. There are the usual answers—lengthy explanations of land, politics, power, and religion—but the elegant simplicity of the young child’s question deserved an equally direct answer.

“I think it comes down to two things,” I told her.

“THE FIRST IS FEAR, and the second is a LACK OF EMPATHY.

“Fear of what?” she persisted.

A good question, because not all fear is bad. Fear of danger is what keeps us alive, just as fear of hunger motivates us to work and provide food for our families. But fear can morph and distend and become maladaptive. Fear of those who are DIFFERENT can lead to mistreatment; fear of losing power and privilege can lead to inequality; FEAR OF CHANGE can lead to close-mindedness; and fear of pain can lead to desperation and betrayal.”

“Fear of pain”, Hence the INCESSANT need of the human being TO ESCAPE FROM PAIN. Pain is “PART OF LIFE”.

Why? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ESCAPE 'UNSATISFYING MOMENTS' in your life.

The human 'HAS THIS EXTRAORDINARY FACULTY to be able to “USE HIS MENTAL CAPACITIES” TO ESCAPE FROM MENTAL PAIN; 'ITS DOOM'.

The religious are these people per excellence; “Always Inventing themselves “an idyllic world””.

This makes them 'Crazy'.

“When you combine unhealthy fear with a lack of empathy, you open a psychological door that allows people to harm others without pangs of conscience.”

THIS IS WHY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE 'are always a social danger'. And why monotheistic religions “SHOULD BE BANNED” socially.

“In milder forms, fear without empathy leads to attitudes of entitlement and unkindness, manifested as bullying behaviors. In its most extreme forms, this lethal psychological combination leads to severe bullying or even genocide, as we saw in Hutu Rwanda or Nazi Germany. When you view another person as less than human, you feel entitled to do whatever you want to that person.

In puzzling through how to explain these concepts to a small child, I turned to an ancient form of education: storytelling.”

This is why Antiquity 'WAS SUPERIOR' AND MORALLY SUPERIOR TO MODERNITY.

“People learn better through stories. If you want to convey the full breadth of the human condition, create an epic story that allows a large cast of characters to feel all the feelings. Share that story far and wide, so that different people with diverse life experiences can hear the same story and identify with the complex range of human emotions. If the story is good enough, it will have staying power, and it will be told for generation after generation.”

The moderns are so alien to THEIR OWN NATURE that they no 'LONGER UNDERSTAND THE MYTH'.

It is not by chance that Christians, religious people in general, do not understand that “religious stories are in fact myths”.

“The very best tales will transcend cultures and languages. Star Wars has achieved [that] level of immortality.

For example, the central figure in the first six theatrical Star Wars films is Anakin Skywalker. The progression of his character serves as a metaphor to help people understand the role that fear plays [...] and the role that finding empathy plays in opening the heart to acts of redemption.

Star Wars matters because it gets people talking to each other.”

THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH MODERNITY, 'PEOPLE DON'T COMMUNICATE ANYMORE'. 'NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES'; 'they see only difference EVERYWHERE';

Hence this Obsession of moderns 'TO DEFINE THEMSELVES 'all the time':

• I'm homosexual, I'm heterosexual, I'm bisexual;

• I'm a man, I'm a woman, I'm binary;

• I'm Christian, I'm Atheist, I'm Muslim, I'm Jewish;

• I'm from the Left, I'm from the Right;

• et Cetera.

IF YOU DEFINE YOURSELF, then you 'are alien to yourself'. You 'need the Other' to define yourself because you are not complete or you do not FEEL COMPLETE. IT'S ONLY A FEELING as there is no outside BUT ONLY PERCEPTIONS.

Introduction: Lights in the Dark Side.

Travis Langley:

“Life on this planet is too brief to plod mundanely through it when our minds can appreciate so much more.”

William James:

“We are all ready to be savage in some cause. The difference between a good man and a bad one IS THE CHOICE [...].”

A Discussion with Darth Maul: Sam Witwer Interview on the Antithesis of Self-Actualization. Jenna Busch and Travis Langley:

“Witwer: In the film [Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace], he’s a well-trained apprentice who had all this potential. He was anxious. He was confident. He was in control and eager to prove himself to his master. Things didn’t really go as well as he’d hoped. He got cut in half and sent down a bottomless pit and that’s not really good for anyone. But he survived. He survived because of the absolute self-obsession that fuels the Sith.”

THIS “ABSOLUTE SELF-OBSESSION” IS INDISPENSABLE “IN THE INITIATIC PROCESS”. Contrary to what the non-esoteric “people Maintain”.

'Awakening will bring Altruism', equal to no sense of separation, but in order TO ACCESS THIS, YOU MUST 'FIRST DIE to this world'; die 'to your ego-centrism'.

Don't try 'to get rid of your ego' in the process of awakening; ego is 'actually THE MAIN CHARACTER IN IT'. This ego that WILL BE DESTROYED 'in the process', when you will understand 'who you are'.

Joseph Campbell:

“All the gods, all the heavens, all the hells, ARE WITHIN YOU.”

From The World According to Star Wars by Cass R. Sunstein:

“Star Wars unifies people.”

NO. This Sense of UNITY IS 'YOUR OWN NATURE', HIDDEN BEHIND 'THIS PARTICULARISM'. Particularism inherent 'to the Mental activity, Mental activity that cuts and classifies all the time'.

IF YOU CAN 'ISOLATE THIS MIND'; the Condition of awakening; then 'YOU WILL SEE YOUR TRUE NATURE': hidden 'behind the mind'.

“Star Wars offers a modern version of a universal tale: the Hero’s Journey. Lucas was self-conscious about this, drawing directly on Joseph Campbell’s wildly influential book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which sets out the central life events that unify countless myths.

In its essentials, the hero’s journey is the tale of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, and Muhammad—and also Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Jessica Jones, and Luke Skywalker (and Anakin, too, and also Rey, and possibly Finn and Kylo).”

Yes. Myth is Awakening; 'to understand One's true nature'.

The brain works 'IN AN ABSTRACT WAY', and 'THIS IS' 'WHAT YOU HAVE TO FIND OUT'. It's THE INITIATIC PROCESS.

“The Hero’s Journey has deep psychological resonance. It taps directly into the recesses of the human psyche. Whoever you are, IT’S YOUR TALE AS WELL.”

“Star Wars also makes a bold claim about freedom of choice.”

The “freedom of choice” that has been denied since the advent of the 'collectivist doctrine'.

We have seen it again 'with the collectivist treatment of Covid' in the West. Which cannot 'get rid of this collectivist mentality' because the West has no more esoteric tradition.

No more initiatic support 'for the Young'.

It is historically the West that has created all 'these COLLECTIVIST IDEOLOGIES' because the Westerner, as a non-initiate, perceives 'an exterior', whereas 'these are only perceptions'.

Hence the feeling of 'INCOMPLETENESS'. Hence the Racist FEAR OF DIFFERENCE. Hence the last 200 years of the West.

And I 'don't want to be TOO PESSIMISTIC', but the episode of 'the collectivist treatment of covid in the West' SHOWS ME that I am right to be afraid of the West 'which will end up 'recreating' SOME FORM OF COLLECTIVISM and 'millions of dead'.

Just as people did not want to face the Reality in the time of arrival of Bolshevism and Nazism; the West 'does not want to see the next collectivist wave coming'.

AND YET IT WILL COME AS SURELY as it is programmed to come 'BY THE PASSIVITY OF THE WESTERNER'.

That LITTLE CHILD who is Afraid of life and don't want to grow up.

“That’s the hidden message and the real magic of Star Wars—and the foundation of its rousing TRIBUTE TO HUMAN FREEDOM.”

It's this same freedom that the Westerner does not want, and refuses for 1800 years, supported 'by the monotheistic egocentric doctrine.

But 'once again', the Westerner will not face 'HIS DEMONS', and they will swallow him up, AS THEY HAVE BEEN SWALLOWED UP HIM FOR 1800 YEARS.

Star Wars: Woke? Star Wars: the Hero #Star-wars #Starwars #Campbell #Myth #epic #Joseph-Campbell #Joseph_Campbell #Esotericism

https://bittube.tv/post/4a4cfb5f-7d4f-4728-863c-906cec8f5629

https://odysee.com/@periodic-reset-of-civilizations:c/Star-Wars--Woke--Star-Wars--the-Hero:d

https://tube.midov.pl/w/sX7ZWRyXsCkChXwiYDszFv

https://www.bitchute.com/video/tjwKXg7fi8jm/

All the platforms I Am on: https://steemit.com/links/@resetciviliz/link-s

▶ BITCOIN 34c3XCeSyoi9DPRks867KL7GVD7tGVcxnH

▶ ETHEREUM 0xAc1FBaEBaCc83D332494B55123F5493a113cE457

▶ TEESPRING https://periodic-reset.creator-spring.com