By: Ronald Thomas West
The Decline of the West & its Shaping by Long-Standing European Misconceptions on the Essence of Society and Being
t should be said first that the following observations offer a view that does not originate with Western thought, and therefore in the Western academic sense may be deemed insufficient.
This is for two reasons, primarily; 1) the thought that all analysis must be subject to exam for the fact of necessary cultural bias, when bias must be synonymous to belief, and; 2) this essay does not delve deeply into the subject academically but necessarily notes certain phenomena in a context of inter-cultural observation, exogenous to what is known as the ‘Institution’. This is necessitated by the observation that Western academia can be (more often than not often is as a matter of rule) a feedback loop where mistaken ideas are perpetrated by a process of ‘peer review’, or subjected to strict framing by ‘empiricism’ (3rd party interpretation) with a vested interest in protecting a status quo.
The method used here is not Western but derives from an oral history form exogenous to European culture. This method proposes a story constructed from metadata and is a hybrid in that philosophical elements of non-Western oral history and related to underlying principles of thought and a format is applied to (or superimposed upon) Western metadata.
It should be noted with short explanation that, in context of the preceding, the following is influenced or shaped by the rules of ancient tribal matriarchy modified, conformed to Western language and thinking. Necessarily adapting the following to the culture (language) of ‘Europe’ is neither an easy nor comfortable fit. This matriarchy had been far away from western feminism or the dualism of the larger ‘old world’, the difference is stark; the (matriarchal) perception would be the western feminists, when (for example) competing with men, are becoming the very thing they organize against, an order of chauvinism issuing diktats upon the other sex.
This is especially so the case because the Western thought that often originates these days from ostensibly Native communities (the Native Studies programs) are a politically correct trick of perception that is rather a perversion of what had been (is actually a form of Western anthropology.) The concepts translated here (overall, with my larger body of work) circumvents the phenomena of western perception imposed on native, rather here we present something very opposite, having drawn underlying principles-ideas from pre-Western indigenous immersion and circumvented Western education processes. This could cause deep discomfort from the ‘Native Studies department’ educated people of indigenous origin and it is hoped that this is not a handicap but rather seen as opportunity.
In the ancient Native American matriarchal model, radically mistaken Western anthropological interpretations and stereotypes set aside, it was the elder women who educated the young males to time of puberty, creating from that human clay young giants that should mature into practical demigods (ethical titans) when exiled to male society; by comparison superior in every respect to today’s typical Western male. Complimenting this, the elder women trained the females to care for these males as nothing less than divine beings. The sexes were seen in complimentary light, not opposites, with great respect between their respective worlds. In the course of this social phenomenon, women were the philosophical disciplinarians, stabilizing a radically decentralized society, where men were the enforcers.
However youth might have seen opportunity at rehabilitation, woe unto the woman or man who trespassed certain immutable laws, the elder women insisted on a judgement that saw any socially criminal woman (for instance persistent gossip causing problems between families, or promiscuity involving married men) disfigured and enslaved for life, whereas certain criminal men (rapists, example given) were executed outright. Beyond this, there was little law other than practicing a high ethical code inclusive (especially) of a self restraint, often translated (somewhat inaccurately) as ‘non-interference’, extending to all of one’s surroundings, whether human or natural, where all environment is perceived as ‘social.’ Top-down management in the Western sense had been unknown. As such, this social organization had remained in a stable state of equilibrium for millennia.
Grasping and understanding this system, together with living the expected behavior, contrasted to the rampant criminality of a culture remarkable for its compulsion to interfere and control everyone’s business, the present state of the world remind the culturally intact indigenous of nothing so much as trapped in a dark science fiction cinema plot.
It is in the preceding context this essay contemplates top-down hierarchy and the likes of Pence, Pompeo, Kelly, Mattis and Bolton on the one side (with Trump disqualified as an atypical Western political mentality), and Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev and Alexander Dugin, on the other side, and more generally, the West versus Russia.
The first or Western group, are the ‘liberal democracy’ phenomenon explained as a peculiar ‘religious sociopathy’ sourced malignant curse on civilization in the essay Beware the Perception. Understanding the Russian group is a bit more tricky, as it must depend on acquaintance with Russians who are not particularly political (to temper bias), and secondary sources. It was just such an apolitical source, a Russian whose observation is the Russian mentality, although nominally European, is significantly modified away from typical European thought by its longtime exposure to, one even might say to some extent integration to, Asian cultural influences. This is not to speak of ‘classical’ Asian influence so much as the Siberian cultural influence and other ‘tribal’ societies with longtime influence of Russian mentality.
Immediately, from a (perhaps distant but maybe not culturally distant at all) ancient Native American perspective there seems an understanding of one aspect of Russia, the Russian individual’s ability to self sacrifice for the sake of the larger whole. As a metaphor it could described it something like this: when two face five in potentially lethal circumstance, if it were (Western) European men facing Europeans and the fewer number had some slight leverage (everyone’s weapons at the ready) the smaller party should name who they would kill before they died. This might back the larger party down. If it were (Western) Europeans facing a larger group of indigenous tribal people, the strategy that might work would certainly not name the individual but simply point out one (at least) of the opposing party who must die. Why the difference? The (Western) Europen men put a higher value on the individual, no one should set the precedent for his own ‘betrayal.’ On the other hand, if you were to name the tribal individual, that very named individual would be likeliest to initiate the attack, ‘to take a bullet for the boys.’ In the tribal people’s concept of a successful strategy, the compatriot is more important to the individual than the individual’s life. The Russian mentality seems very Native American in this respect. Siberia’s influence?
In this preceding regard, when one contemplates Putin has for example figures like Dmitry Medvdev on his liberal left and Alexander Dugin on his conservative right, men with ostensibly opposed approaches to future vision of Russia, it might be expected it is a very wrong perception this is somehow a cynical manipulation on Putin’s part, playing one off the other, and underestimates the Russian character. Suppose, just suppose, Medvedev is loyal to Russia beyond his personal political prejudices and Dugin is the same. Were this an actuality, Medvedev is Putin’s loyal foot-soldier for the sake of Russia, more so than personal loyalty to Putin, and Dugin lends his philosophical expertise to those close to Putin with identical motivation. In this case, the three of them might be Russian patriots, in the sense of a patriotism rising above that demonstrated by the politicians of the USA. An example in case is Hillary Clinton who back-stabbed Bernie Sanders for the sake of her individual ambitions; and likely reaction of Pence, Pompeo, Kelley, Mattis and Bolton would be to snort a laugh through the nose at the very suggestion of Sanders as a serious contributor to the Trump administration. Western individualism fences out collective action for the common good, and this even goes so far as Sander’s refusal to compromise his ‘individual’ image as a loyal Democratic Party operative and step away from that corrupted institution to attempt a credible 3rd party run for the greater good or opening a future for his supporters.
Into the vacuum this individualism creates in the American politic steps the ‘shadow government’ (corporate board personalities) and their ‘deep state’ minions (bought in bureaucrats.) Never were there so dangerous a world where a ‘super-power’ sees military-industrial profit and related individual power (wealth-greed) supplant a patriotism of personal integrity dedicated to the greater good.
Relevant to this, 2024 will be a momentous year, that is, if the world is to survive the psychopathy of the liberal democracies’ determination to encircle, isolate and dismantle Russia. Rome had its Nero, ‘modern’ Russia had its Gorbachev, who lost his grip, and its Yeltsin, who surrendered his sobriety prior to Russia manifesting a man who has raised Russia from the coming ashes of almost certain ruin. What is to insure a post-Putin political consolidation of Russia will see this nation placed in competent hands? Certain able men serve the interests of Russia in the present moment but none of them are immortal. One dissolute ruler can undo the work of ten titans preceding, so one might hope Russians look to the psychology of Siberia as in Russia’s best interest, sans liberal delusions of individualism and return of the oligarch.
When compared to the top-down Western hierarchy of Europe, and its many iterations of violent, internal and inter-national (within Europe) upheavals, the radically decentralized, ancient tribal matriarchy with millennia of stability, does at first glance look to be the superior model. But then, one is reminded the decentralized system stood no chance when confronted with Europe and its hierarchical or concentrated power in pursuit of wealth that is become capitalism. How could one encounter the concentrated power (wealth) of a top-down hierarchy and not experience a perfect slaughter of the decentralized authority? Is there a middle way?
Simplified, why the decentralized or tribal model sustained for millennia worked like this: there was no opportunity for abuse of power because the leadership was immediately accountable to the community at the local level. This system was ‘federalized’ in a sense where the communities each sent a single elected representative as a ‘spokes person’ with no power other than to express his community’s view to a gathering of like representatives who elected a greater ‘spokes person’ with no power other than to express a consensus view, where the communities would meet to determine future direction. This system was founded on immutable law that laid down a constraint preventing any deviation from the common good, down to the nuclear family level, without exception. In other words, if it were true the law recognized the common good as inviolable across the spectrum of the allied communities, the law also necessarily recognized no one community’s best interest could be singled out as expendable to the benefit of the other communities. For this system to function, communities must have real power over the totality of their environment at the local level. This system would be altogether incompatible with hierarchical structure imposed from the exterior. The fatal element concerning this decentralized structure in the present day is, if the local community were so empowered to protect its values at every level, and those values were inclusive of minimal social and environmental impacts for purpose of maintaining traditional lifestyles, the local communities would have not only a power to block certain national development initiatives, a corporate model of sustained development becomes nonviable.
History points to top-down hierarchy as subject to collapse. Native America experimented with this form of hierarchy, and if we are to correctly consider the oral histories, these hierarchies were imports from elsewhere (prior to Columbus) as well noted in some instance by European historians, example given:
“I saw in this land an Indian woman and a child who would not stand out among white blonds. These people [of the upper class] say that they were the children of the gods” – Pedro Pizarro, chronicler of the Spanish conquest of Peru
The Toltec collapsed prior to the Aztec and the Maya collapsed prior to the Spaniards, Cahokia collapsed prior to the arrival of the English and no doubt the Aztec, Inca and Maya (2nd iteration) would have collapsed as well, as opposed to being conquered, had they been left to their devices. The rise and fall of hierarchies related to Europe, with its many internecine wars, are too many to bother with counting. Asia and its classic cultures, as well, has its numerous examples of rise & fall and meanwhile, the Blackfeet tribal culture and others, based on the decentralized model shortly described in the preceding, had remained stable for millennia.
Top-down hierarchy, by its nature, depends on exploitation of humankind in its environment. If the term ‘capitalize’ (take advantage of) is self-descriptive in every respect, the associated deceit of ‘democracy’ notwithstanding, by contrast it would be of superficial consequence if the Marxist model claimed emancipation for the ‘workers’, the workers ended up working for someone other than themselves and in practice this meant the Central Committee, Politburo and Secretariat in what amounted to a top-down hierarchy, no matter any pretense of power derived from the ‘base’ of the pyramid. Relevant to the preceding, whether the capital model or the Marxist model, the economic development necessary to ‘progress’ has proved environmentally destructive, inclusive of the human social environment. In this regard it should be noted the necessary underpinning of progress that is ‘sustained development‘ of natural resources, is based precisely on a principle of cancer. Where do you see this proposed fact amending policy? Would a healthy policy ‘manage’ its cancer (state of denial) or work to remove its cause?
It follows, a culture practicing ‘plausible deniability’ should be examined as suffering from a virus, an underlying principle or driver of a sickness in the Western, modern, or European (readers choice) human spiritual state. This diagnosis is as easy as the simple and very black & white observation where a culture incompatible with its pretensions should assert liberal democracy is egalitarian. There is nothing egalitarian whatsoever in a scheme consolidating corporate-fascist control where feeding weapons into conflict increases a geographic theater’s social alienation. This in turn increases the violence level which demands more armaments applied to suppression of the increased level of violence, an oxymoron in actuality; and all of this vicious cycle is then billed to the consequent financially drowning common citizen-taxpayer while the liberal democracies’ stockholder-oligarchs are fed obscene amounts of money. The only egalitarian opportunity within this plausibly deniable scheme as applies to the liberal democracies’ ‘war on terror’ is the opportunity to sell one’s soul; as detailed in a rather ‘Calvinist’ (sociopathic) American folk-monograph: ‘The Devil and Daniel Webster.‘
Plausible denial must be as old as vertical hierarchy and related civilizations. Insofar as the ‘cradle of civilization’ responsible for birthing the modern liberal democracies or, alternatively stated, a culture incompatible with its pretensions of egalitarianism, one need look no farther than the English philosophers.
Thomas Hobbes contribution to Western philosophy is a typical self-imploding set of contradictions, in an era where Gutenberg had practically made it possible for anyone literate to become a blogger of that era. Hobbes, finding himself at loose ends, decided he would become a Western philosopher (‘confidence man’ would be the better description.) The recipe is simple in the Western European tradition; fill a 900 liter bag with verbiage-verbosity like Bernard-Henry Lévy, engineered as to incredibly complicate a subject, à la James Joyce, and discover result in generations of philosophical progeny spending endless semesters wrestling a ‘Leviathan‘, whilst attempting sense of nonsense.
Distilled from Hobbes’ inordinately complex, presumed order of things, his points may be summed up so: In our natural state or in raw ‘nature’, mankind is an inestimable beast prone to every savage act where:
“the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”
And in the same moment, without Man’s ‘natural’ understanding, God’s inspirations cannot be known:
“we shouldn’t renounce our senses and experience, or our natural reason, which is the undoubted word of God”
Do you suppose Hobbes actually meant to insinuate understanding derived from a ‘naturally endowed’ beastly nature inspires one to deeper knowledge of God’s message? Is he acknowledging ‘God’s image, man’ is naturally possessed of the violence we have seen Englishmen visit upon every culture deemed inferior to their own? Certainly not. If Hobbes were of a proclivity to be honest, he wouldn’t have to bury the contradictions of his culture in a massive circumlocution that can serve no other purpose than to conceal the facts. What we are actually looking at is, the phenomena of Western philosophers burying their culture’s contradictions in immense complications, so those contradictions never need be faced. Hobbes is a master of this common (but patently dishonest) philosophical fraud. And then, we have John Locke.
The similar problem with John Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” is, his philosophy demands all men are born a completely blank slate upon which everything is drawn subsequently. In effect, there is no innate understanding bestowed on man in which case there can be no innate spirit. If that were true, then his holding…
“The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure”
…demands the awareness of omnipresent “God”, who ‘created man in his image,‘ drew a portrait of self based in a perfect human ignorance. Again we find a fundamental contradiction buried in dishonest method employing circumlocution. Similar contradictions (culturally self-excusing form of denial) may be found in either the works or lives of Francis Bacon, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham and more recently, Richard Dawkins:
“Plants cannot think, and you’d have to be pretty eccentric to believe they can suffer. Plausibly the same might be true of earthworms” -Richard Dawkins
In fact earthworms writhe mightily in pain, while being skewered the length of their bodies on a fish-hook, where technique requires the shank of the hook must be entirely concealed in the worm’s living flesh. And plants can’t think? Plants & trees remain Platonic ‘objects’ for purposes of Dawkin’s scientific atheism and yet are known to communicate by land and by air. But for reluctance to look, where Dawkins plausible denial could be confronted, is in the modern lab:
“The [Cartesian-Platonic] doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment” -theoretical physicist Bernard d’Espagnat
What Russia is confronted with in its relations with the Anglo-Saxon world, and the related liberal democracies, or for that matter in a larger sense, the culture of Europe, is a denial mechanism.
One cannot pretend to know how the Siberian cultures affected and/or modified the Russian mentality if one were not Russian and have no sense of the historical context of that experience from within the Russian community. On the other hand, this naivete also might be useful, sans Russian cultural bias, particularly were the Siberian cultures to have some very fundamental similarities to the Native American, and this would appear to be the case as detailed by Karl Schlesier in his “The Wolves of Heaven.” There is no pretense made the cultural critique herein would come from any but the tribal side; however any criticism must be oblique as there is no presumption to go direct to the Siberian tribes’ Russian experience.
That said, if, as expected, the Russian ability to self-sacrifice and rise above the Western or European individualism is due to Siberian (or other tribal) cultural influence, there should be other Siberian (or other tribal) cultural markers as well. One of those markers should be an impelled intention to state the facts in no uncertain terms per the American folk proverb ‘say what you mean and mean what you say.’ Now, comes the relevant anecdote that might surprise (or discover denial in) many more Americans than Russians:
It was in America from its earliest days, but with increasing frequency post trans-Appalachian migrations or from 1830s and onset of Manifest Destiny, through the 1880s or end of the Indian Wars, tens of thousands of mixed marriages occurred between White European males and tribal women during the American expansion west. This marks the period of not only Manifest Destiny with its many wagon trains west, but also the ‘mountain men’ (fur trade), gold rush (California, Montana), Civil War (many thousands of Army deserters fled west, Mark Twain is perhaps the most famous of these), aftermath of Civil War (dislocated populace due to devastation of the South and lost livelihoods), where many single males took aboriginal wives during an era which had seen enhanced mortality of aboriginal males throughout (Indian wars.) The majority of offspring from these marriages were absorbed into what became the predominantly White Western states population. The result of this had been quite unexpected; the children of what amounted to robbers, with great disdain for the rights of the aboriginal people they had abused, became the precursor of conservative, highly principled men of the Western territories where one’s word was one’s sacred bond, or men who ‘say what they mean and mean what they say.’ How did this happen? The aboriginal women raised these children in the only way they knew how: to become ethical titans. Within a subsequent generation, again and again, a class of men sprang up whose handshake on any oral agreement was an inviolable contract.
The tribal peoples very survival had, over millennia, demanded accurate reporting, placing a high value on truth and this value passed, via the aboriginal women, into the Western territories new populace. The pity is, this social value never became a prerequisite to wield power in the American political experiment, rather having remained localized and ultimately become overwhelmed by the corrupt nature (or as the case may be, reactionary forces, such as the religious right) of liberal democracy per se.
It is true it would be a speculation from the North American indigenous perspective, as to whether the present day Russia, finding itself somewhat freed from its Euro-centric political past, were to discover its source of impatience with the liberal democracies pervasive lying (a denial mechanism) stems from the Siberian cultural influence. However if this were indeed the case, it should surprise no one familiar with certain tribal cultures.
Ostensible Siberian (or other tribal) cultural influences aside, the relevant question would be to what extent the self-deceit of Europe does hold the Russian mentality in its grip. If this small inquiry had begun with insistence exploring the subject matter must necessarily be in some sense shallow, let us conclude, if only for a moment, what must be shallow is a means to intelligent end; a tribal bias circumventing the European philosophers’ propensity to bury the contradictions of European culture in circumlocution.
To begin, let us examine what would seem patent nonsense on its face: the thought ‘without the chainsaw, there could be no advanced space exploration.’ But suddenly this absurd proposal might seem less far-fetched, were one to consider the idea in a sightly refined form; 1) chainsaws are typically employed to strip valleys slated to be filled with the water of hydroelectric projects 2) in turn feeding the electric grid supplying the immense power requirement of the CERN Large Hadron Collider (particle accelerator) which 3) provides necessary understanding to design advanced probes capable of long term survival in space.
Now, we can extrapolate from this immediate preceding and consider it is not only the altered environment from hydroelectric but also gas, coal and nuclear, with all of its environmental cost, makes powering the Large Hadron Collider possible. Meanwhile, the chainsaw not only fells the Amazon and the forests of Indonesia, but also encroaches in Siberia, while feeding a principle, that is sustained development, a principle of cancer, that has made development of civilization possible to point of exploring space. It follows, the tribal understanding’s challenge to the honest Russian physicist would be to give us the mathematical equation providing the sustained development related ratio of damage to our environment to the ratio of achieved advancement in knowledge necessary to explore space. God did not provide us with wings, let alone propulsion rockets integrated to space suits, maybe the intention was to keep our feet on the ground.
Whether for 14,000 years or 40,000 or more years, a concept similar to intelligent design, which Richard Dawkins rejects as matter of fact, preexisted the European top down hierarchy through which Dawkin’s science descends. We don’t know if this idea were borrowed by, or influenced, the Deists of the Enlightenment who also were essentially believers in Intelligent Design recalling Thomas Paine…
“The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes. It is by the exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in His works, and imitate Him in His ways”
…but we can know it is the study of quantum mechanics moved one of its primary researchers to the same:
“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance” -theoretical physicist Michio Kaku
Recalling theoretical physicist Bernard d’Espagnat stating…
“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment”
Consider these preceding and then have a look at how it is Native American tribal people were thinking:
“In 1918 Christian missionary A. McG Beede took Yale graduate Harry Boise to the Standing Rock Sioux and Turtle Mountain Chippewa reservations on separate occasions, where Boise explained scientific ideas to tribal leaders. Beede wrote in his report that both groups immediately understood the concepts without difficulty, saying: “There is no difficulty in leading an old Teton Sioux Indian to understand the ‘scientific attitude’ that the processes that give rise to phenomena may be more and more known by man and may be, to some extent, controlled by man, and that in this way the forces of nature may become a mainspring of progress in the individual and in the human race. The idea of atoms and electrons is easy and pleasing to an old Indian, and he grasps the idea of chemistry.” -Vine Deloria, Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths
The two tribal groups spokesmen replied to Harry Boise, following discussion among themselves:
”The ’scientific view’ is inadequate to explain … how man is to find and know a road along which he wishes and chooses to make this said progress, unless Manitoo by his spirit, guides the mind of man, keeping human beings just and generous and hospitable” -Rising Sun, Chippewa
“The knowledge and use of any or all the powers of the objects on Earth around us, is as liable to lead a man wrong as to lead him right, because it is merely power, with no way of knowing how to use it correctly- except that spirit is with a man’s spirit for the light” -Red Tomahawk, Sioux
When Rising Sun says ‘Manitou by his spirit’ (guides the mind of man) he is speaking of collective creation, our very surroundings are intelligent design integrated to nature, or one might say omnipresent god. When Red Tomahawk says ‘spirit is with a man’s spirit’ (for the light), he is saying the same thing, both these men, at the end of their cultures’ many millennia era of knowledge, are looking at what d’Espangnat stumbles upon nearly 100 years later; recognizing an innate consciousness embodied in our surroundings plays in everything we can experience.
Moreover, Red Tomahawk is discriminating between a sole, intimate knowledge of any single object’s raw power, and an understanding of the larger purpose concerning the nature of that very object, recognizing these are distinct things. His understanding (different to the European concept) opens to the possibility of allowing for the trees (recalling trees communicate by land and by air), stones, or for that matter, everything surrounding us, to possess consciousness and to ‘know’ purpose exterior to the European self-centered or ‘individual’ cultural shaping and resultant handicapped perception. And it is only when this larger door of understanding is opened, we can know how to listen, know the ‘timing’ (the knowledge of creation as synchronized, to grasp nature as a living clock), and to ‘see’ our way through the multiple dimensions of reality; as the nearly extinct Native thought embodied in now past Native American elders so often attempted to point out to us, when stating ‘it’s all related.’ In retrospect, who are the primitives? The tribal people?
Or the people who, if they were to work out honest equation, must discover their ‘advancement’ & ‘progress’ via method of sustained development exploiting, desecrating one could say, the omnipresence of what amounts to the living god expressing us through creation, must point to our ceasing to exist and nullify awareness? Jesus admonished “Know you not you are gods?” What sort of gods should we propose to be? Those who put creation to death through the arrogance of the individual ego? That would be the effect of sustained development, globalism and the international oligarchs’ cancer on the very expression sustaining us.
Summed up from the ancient tribal view, when incorporating the modern understanding, our existence is Macro-Gaia (in the big picture) or all is [inter] related, from sub-atomic particle to planetary structures, with an element of Vitalism (the ‘great mystery’), taken together presenting as quasi or mimic intelligent design. The intelligent design would be ‘quasi or mimic’ because the tribal take on this aspect would be better described as ‘intelligent expression’, ‘design’ implies an egoic projection or attribution, whereas ‘expression’ should not. This thought goes to the ancient tribal persona of humility: There are some things one simply cannot know. This is why (in the tribal view) we cannot know ‘god’ except as a projection where man has created god in man’s image. The mystery of our existence cannot see god individuated except in a sense of arrogant projection of individual self, the ultimate self-deception.
Our creation and inseparable god is named a “mystery” for the very fact of its indecipherable nature; and when this is accepted, by a community in its entirety, the mystery opens at several levels but always with a caveat: no-one can know absolutes; as ‘reality’ is an elastic thing with frequently shifting parameters and any related ‘truths’ are often of fleeting relevance. Absolutes, something the European monotheists crave, are counter to flexible adjustments necessary to navigating reality, example given, Indo-European ‘civilization’ and its hierarchal relatives have a habit of rising and falling; wherein this Western civilized perception ‘truths’ become absolutes, leading to a brittle construction when the elasticity of reality shifts away from any particular society’s foundation in the Indo-European family of nations. Brittle constructions imply impending collapse as the given society’s parameter of ‘perceived reality’, which is actually a state of inter-generational perception in stasis, becomes farther and farther removed from the shifting nature of reality in actuality.
It is doubted that the major Indo-European family’s enlightened figures, whether in the historical order of Krishna, Buddha, (or the adopted) Jesus and Mohammed, made any pretense to embody the entirety of the Great Mystery of our existence but it didn’t matter, lesser men were certain to falsely confer this upon them; insuring lesser ideas became fixtures of those respective cultures. The many cases of rise & fall throughout history are example of the hierarchies stasis of thinking or inter-generational inflexibility of thought pointing to repeat of collapse. There is likely no greater coming probability of collapse than that of present day Europe and its foundation in the objectivity of Plato.
Finally, this ‘outside looking in’ analysis from the tribal side holds the focus on the individual sets the collective adrift, there is no anchor to prevent a collective suicide where archetypal myth determines Europe create its collective fate altogether independently of its leaders; when events take on involuntary volition powered by a ‘super-conscious’ intelligence that is organized, functions as though it were managed by individuals (even when it is not) and the result is, we can read into today’s events as though they were managed in a sense they actually are not. If this were the case, the idea the West’s leaders could correct course is impotent. This collective ‘meme’ can explain what is called in the biblical sense ‘principalities of darkness’ or that is to say a ‘spirit of evil’ progressing in a sense of superstition yet effectively implementing reality. Thusly Western culture creates reality independent of the individual’s aware thought, despite appearance this is certainly by design, when design is not actually the case.
Such would explain a belief in Illuminati when in fact it did not exist in any factual ego-aware or organized form but nevertheless manifest as an observable phenomena of symptoms or consequence derived from a collective super-conscious phenomenon. A conclusion could be the European mentality has created paradox of a seeming unconscious yet ‘super aware’ phenomenon of evil as its cultural driver. The natural progression to end result would be, when a large portion of an aggressive society collectively believes in an Armageddon archetype, all of the necessary players will naturally manifest in a super-conscious organized format empowered to bring it off, where no one individual or group of individuals or players could effect this by individual or personal volition; nevertheless the super-consciousness of the event’s initiating group insures creation of this reality for the collective whole. A case of Shiva causing Europe to fall on its sword?
There is a remarkable convergence in the apocalyptic ‘good versus evil’ fables driving our world’s several fundamentalist religions’ reality. If a futuristic cosmology of destruction is the effective driver of what appears to be pointed to inevitable catastrophic outcome, better to change fables should be a rational conclusion. Or alternatively, turn to ancient tribal intelligence for inspiration. A society founded on a redevelopment of North America-Siberia tribal principles and related ethics should prevent Man’s technical applications aspiring to exercise the authority of God.
If one can be convinced, cultural bias notwithstanding, radical decentralization with total community control over environment, social and physical, is the only road out of today’s geopolitical madness and environmental train wreck; with a strict model of community self-sufficiency demanding high degree of care for the natural environment of the world we live in, one should not be so naive to expect this should happen overnight. One only need recall what happened to the said tribal cultures in North America when faced with top-down hierarchy and the thoughtless, multiple aggressions of Europe. The history of Manifest Destiny and its European predecessor (and contemporary), that is colonialism (and present day neocolonialism), should caution not only the tribal people, but also Russia and much of today’s world. Empire covets the untapped, raw natural resources of Siberia, and Russia herself, if she fully commits to the European path (never forget what went on while Yeltsin was drunk) will cease to be a reservoir of possibilities for future sanity.
In this regard, one should not envy President Putin, even had the internal circumstance he inherited been sane; never yet has Europe learned from its mistakes, but only compounds them, and it cannot be denied Russia is also Europe. Let’s hope Russia’s most remarkable minds step up to not only support consolidating a future Russia pointed to its best interests but also fearlessly support new direction open to possibility of discarding the European ego’s most damnable traits.
How Europe came about was the fusion of Plato’s misogyny (denigration of female intelligence principles) with the Judeo-Christian archetype myth ‘The Fall.’ One’s intelligence here does not come into play, all are subject to the reality-perception limitations created by European cultural shaping, from infancy, of this artificial, internal conflict of intelligence or conflicting light-dark duality. This unnatural duality (split) is reflected in the personalities of those high IQs in science who can see no contradiction in the fact of any proposed ‘saved by science future’ is relying on the culture and mentality producing the technologies destroying us, to save us. Grasping this contradiction of conflicted spirit is key to surviving the trap the Western mentality had set for itself. As Einstein had noted, our “Problems cannot be solved with the same mindset that created them”