I have been thinking a lot lately about the mechanisms of empire seen through the lens of abuser; this has resulted in some really rapid transformations within both my body and my mind. Here’s some of what I have been observing.

One of the mechanisms of an abuser is the whammy concept of the abused being responsible, in an ever shifting variety of reasons, for their abuse. On the micro level of direct, personal abuse this is experienced as a message that embodied as a possibility of hope: if there is some fundamental reason based on our behaviours or way of being that the abuse is happening then we have the possibility of doing something about it. We can try different ways of being, being different selves completely, using different words, explaining things in a myriad of ways, moving ourselves around the space in every possible permutation because we have been told by our abuser- either overtly or covertly- that we are totally responsible for what is happening for us.

palestinian-children-arrested-jerusalem

When this inevitably fails- which it does not because of our own actions but because the premise on which it is based- that we are responsible for our abuse- is an utter lie- we are told that it is because we haven’t found the ‘right’ combination, we haven’t achieved the correct state in which the abuse will stop. We haven’t said or done the ‘right’ things, we have once again offended or failed in some way; the abuse continues with increasing effect while our efforts become more concentrated and desperate. We are fighting a battle against the idea that somehow, in ways we cannot begin to comprehend, we are wrong, that there is a gap between those that have good things happen to them and us, that whatever elements are necessary between the ok and the not ok we are part of the latter group, no matter how hard we strive or what we might do to transform that.

Now take this template, lay it across the planetary culture and observe the current reality through this frame: we have exactly the same abuser tactics- that one is responsible for one’s experience and abuse- being played out on a macro scale. Individuals are left to rot, to die, to starve, to waste away at the manned entrances to other countries, to wither in the hopeless wasteland of ‘not good enough’ while the new propaganda of ‘you COULD have it all, you’re just not trying hard enough’ is pushed from every direction by the voices of the new agents for the same old empire. In the times of colonisation it was that one was on the wrong side of the race line, which meant being on the wrong side of the dominating force; one’s choices were limited to aligning with the new dominators, struggling against them in a desperate bid for freedom, taking flight and hoping to find somewhere the dominators were not yet inhabiting or burying oneself in the new paradigm in the hopes that the dominators wouldn’t be interested in you.

The game that the dominators play is the same game that abusers have always played- the game of ‘if you can guess what it is that I want, which isn’t going to be anything I TELL you that I want, then this misery will end and you can go free’. The dominators played this game with the iron and bloody fist of their perverted religions, bewildering new landscapes of foreign and insane ‘rules’, transgressions of which permitted the abusers all kinds of ‘punishments’ (fairly doled out of course, in courts speaking languages that the accused had no hope whatsoever of comprehending), of social and cultural mysteries that made the uninitiated fair game for whatever brutality amused the abusers in the moment.

In the game of global abuse, nothing has changed: while it is the abusers who call the shots, who set monetary and economic ‘policies’ that plunge entire countries into starvation and desperation while others experience gluts that leave them obese and bloated on every level, abusers who decide which governments stand and fall, which group it is this decade that shall be the universal enemy and thus deserving of being bombed into oblivion, abusers who manipulate the cultural mind with media and advertising propaganda aimed at destroying the spirit of the individual- while it is the abusers that control the landscape it is the abused that take on the responsibility for what is happening to them because, like all victims of psychopathic, sadistic and brutalising abusers, they have been inculcated with the belief that this is happening to them because on some level they deserve it.

Syrian refugee children

Two of the current, powerful mechanisms for this are new age re-workings of older religious concepts and abuse via global economics, both creations originally of empire. Religion of every brand declared that, for some reason or another, being in a physical form was a sign of the ‘sinful’ or imperfect nature of the individual and required a life long attitude of apology, repentance and servitude in order to have some hope of remedy. Naturally, this servitude would come in the shape of obedience to ‘the church’ in whatever current form this appeared and the individual was forced, through a variety of means, to comply with the consensus reality and experience; refusal to comply meant risking brutal and often deadly force upon one’s own head, if not one’s family and entire community.

This possibility of extended disapproval from empire gave the consensus reality great force; the individuals within each community became the police of everyone else, which is why we see the same tool used repeatedly in a variety of historical settings. Empire knows that using programmed individuals to do their work for them is far more effective than having an occupying force to rally together and push against; far better to fear one’s own neighbours and community and to vent one’s frustration at individuals who had little to no chance of being able to defend themselves.

stockholm syndrome cartoon

Fast forward to today and that group has now, amongst others, become the global issue of refugees who, in the culturally indoctrinated minds of the many, MUST have done something to warrant their situation, the ‘something’ of which ranges from laziness- they want something for nothing- to economic- they’re not really refugees, they’re just trying to buy their way out of poverty and into a better life- to religious- if whatever god of choice approved of them they wouldn’t be in this situation- to race, sex and gender arguments that wrap neatly around the central, black goo core of the tried and true ‘blame the victim’ mechanism. It’s not empire’s fault that terrible things are happening to these individuals, it’s whatever judgement can be made that will  neatly fit the bill.

quote-the-superstition-in-which-we-grew-up-though-we-may-recognize-it-does-not-lose-its-power-over-us-gotthold-ephraim-lessing-321413

Some who like to consider themselves as more enlightened take a higher level approach: it’s a matter of developing the right policies, of proper government initiatives, of economic reform and redistribution, or new age mantras of love, light and utter compliance, while conveniently leaving out of the discussion the fact that empire both created and controls these and other platforms. Unsurprisingly, this deflecting language has been effectively used for millennia- any serious student of history can point to any number of historical records that speak of precisely these efforts of cultural reform, to the same inevitable effect- a temporary fluffing of the pillows and then back to business as usual with perhaps some external makeovers to assure the masses that Things Have Indeed Changed.

I’ve written in other essays about my rejection of the word ‘change’ when it comes to the global situation (http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/it-isnt-adaptation-we-want-its-evolution  is one such essay) – because at its core change is nothing more than a rearrangement of the elements concerned. The word I’m actually interested in is transformation, because when something transforms- caterpillar to butterfly- there is little in the new to connect to the old. (This distinction is crucial when looking at the actions and mechanisms of empire for what is really going on: if an individual or group can be fooled into thinking change is the same as transformation, then a simple rearranging of deck chairs can give the impression that we’re on an entirely new ship. It’s still the Titanic.) The global population has, as a result, consistently demonstrated that it is ridiculously easy to fool, primarily because at the core of everything the global population is trying desperately to avoid being abused.

The fundamentalist religion of Economics functions precisely the same way: there is a ‘heaven’ (resource/financial abundance) that one can attain if one properly executes the ‘right’ moves, actions and behaviours while repeating the sanctioned dogmas and rhetoric. The propaganda is that these moves and actions will ALWAYS RESULT in the abundance- if one does not experience the abundance, one is not doing the moves and actions right and therefore the fault-surprise!- is in the individual and not in the propaganda. There is never the possibility that, like every other gambling enterprise, the entire game is rigged; the agents of the economic nirvana are adamant that if one is poor it’s because of one’s own laziness, unworthiness, wrong attitude (including poverty mentality, self sabotaging beliefs etc, and there are plenty of individual willing, for a suitable fee, to help you get over these issues and into your own flow of endless abundance)- always, always it is the fault of the individual, group or nation, never the issue of the rigged table, the global game that is being played by a very few individuals for a purpose and intention that is never revealed.

Famine Victim

Here we see the mechanisms of the individual abuser- victim blaming and holding out the myth of the possibility of the abuse ending if the abused can just find the right magic key- being played out on a grand scale. What is absolute to me is that the myriads of issues that the abusive system creates- poverty, sickness, homelessness, despair, death, spiritual emptiness, war, ecological destruction, suffering on a monumental scale of beings of all kinds- can be distilled down to one point- the abusive empire itself. The reality is that these wide ranging and seemingly never ending issues would vanish on the macro scale if empire stopped playing its global game- what would then be left is the issue of empire within each individual, which is what the Eneris platform is about- and that all the actions that individuals are taking to address whatever issue they’re looking at is achieving nothing while the issue of the global abusers is being ignored.

While we agree to systematic abuse being called ‘policy’, ‘law’, ‘cultural practice’, ‘gender norms’, ‘how things are’ or any other such disingenuous label we are covertly covering over the actions of the abuser, just like any co-dependent actively works- inadvertently or not- to enable and support their abuser. Refusing to strongly name and call out abuse is co-dependence- we are convinced that we NEED empire to survive in the world, we NEED empire’s approval because without it we will starve, we will be thrown to the wolves, we will be without support, without the mark of acceptability that allows us as individuals to move through the occupied territory of the planet without being harassed or molested.

It is is complete fiction, this belief that with the right actions and moves we can deflect empire- millions across the planet now suffering were, just a few years ago, living in relative prosperity and peace until empire decided it wanted something from them that they weren’t willing to give up; now they are the dispossessed, the discarded, the refugees that move desperately from one space to another finding every door to them closed, faces turned away because THAT group doesn’t want empire’s attention. They are infected with the disapproval of empire and nobody else wants to catch that disease.

JORDAN-AMMAN-SYRIAN REFUGEES

The reality of it is, the planetary culture already has that disease: empire’s toxic mind programs, born from the Wetiko virus that is part of empire’s heart, has been endemic on this planet for millennia due to the systematic and focused actions of empire’s propaganda and control mechanisms. In prior centuries this was achieved primarily through religious and local dominating forces such as royalty or warlords; today it is achieved through the illusion of ‘law’, media bombardment, consensus realities and the inherited effects of unrelenting trauma. Empire absolutely relies on our unwillingness to call it out, our fear of naming what is truly going on, our fear, our fear, our fear- and while we fear, we are helpless, and we are hooked into both the system and the deeply infected culture around us in part via the homogenisation that empire enforces. We are not individuals, we are a group, a race, a type, a collective, a category, which allows the individual to be wiped out from the picture, replaced by whatever empire generated meme suits its intention of the moment.

The remedy to this situation isn’t in appealing to the better nature of our abusers; those who have experienced abuse directed at them specifically are aware that no amount of appeal, pleading, attempts to appease, compliance- or any of the other desperate measures individuals take on in the empty quest to stop the abuse- actually work. Sometimes we’re given a glimmer of possibility, which serves to raise our energy momentarily and which is intentional on the part of the abuser; it gives extra kick to whatever it is they are getting out of the situation; the hope is never actually based on anything real because there is no better nature in our abusers to appeal to. They don’t at all wish to end the abuse.

This is why the Jews in Germany lined up to be ‘registered’, to comply; like all abused they needed to believe that compliance would save them from further abuse, that surely now it would be good and things would even out, that the attention would turn from them and onto someone or something else. Their compliance demonstrated their good will, their lack of threat, their essential obedience which, they had long been told, would surely bring them safety from the monsters; but who will keep you safe from the monsters when it is the monsters that rule? They registered, they obediently wore their yellow stars, they submitted to each demand of compliance and submission, wanting to believe that the increasing abuse would end while refusing to call what they were experiencing by its real, true name. They made excuses for the humiliations, the hostilities and restrictions, the open discrimination and venting of cultural charge by those that they had once absolutely believed to be community, close friends and even family.

slovak-jews-with-star-of-david

It is the same scenario played out differently generation after generation; every generation has their ‘never again!’, their Daesh, their Syria, their Rwanda, their Kurdistan, their Vietnam killing fields, their Idi Amin, their Armenia, their Native American holocaust, their genocides and massacres- and each time the cloud passes those who are not being targeted in the moment breathe a collective sigh of relief that it isn’t them.  To support this they create a raft of rationalisations and evil-eye warding slogans designed to ensure the wrath of the global god will pass over them, or their family, their community, either by directly joining in the vilification of the other or indirectly supporting empire’s propaganda through the consensus reality memes- economic fictions, political fictions, religious superiority, the propaganda that individuals as a whole must be policed or else nothing but chaos and destruction will ensue. They share these memes, reinforcing daily what empire tells them is real, is true, is absolute about the world and its inhabitants and enforcing it on others.

All this, while the ACTUAL empire driven chaos, mayhem, murder and destruction run unchecked on the planet: don’t tell me it’s ‘getting better’ because with those words you demonstrate your palpable ignorance of what is actually going on; you demonstrate your blindness, your temporary privilege and your willingness to perpetuate the same memes that empire uses to further its agendas. It might be better for you but one has only to look at the millions of refugees on the planet to see that things are not better. Better is an illusion that a privileged few can indulge in; better is one of the ways that individuals are co-opted into being agents of empire- better to be an agent than a victim.

quote-my-relationship-to-power-and-authority-is-that-i-m-all-for-it-people-need-somebody-to-watch-over-arnold-schwarzenegger-265416

The remedy to empire that individuals desperately seek do not and can never lie within the poisoned construct of empire and its hydra-headed functions- religion, politics, science, education, economics, industry, psychology. Instead, the remedy begins in the very first moment of recognising that we are being intentionally and wilfully abused; without this nothing further is possible. We need to stop naming abuse in the pseudo-speak language of empire: government policy, religious ‘truth’, law, cultural practice, social lubrication, psychological rationalisations, excuses; whatever it may be that is allowing the abuse of the individual or group to happen, the permission that the heteronomy of the moment is being given, needs to be clearly named. Abuser. Enabler. Agent. Dominator. Stop negotiating with our abusers. Stop pimping their interests, their desires. Stop agreeing to your own abuse, in whatever way you have been agreeing to it; your obedience has not and will never deflect the abuse, it simply creates a complaint victim. Every individual who has ever broken free from their own abuse experience can attest that the first step is to take action away from the abuser; when it is the cultures, the world’s organisations, the religious platforms, the agencies of politics, economic mythologies, the educational institutions that serve as indoctrination spaces and the other mechanisms that allows and supports systemic abuse, the process is the same: name it for what it is. Once this is done, the path of uncoupling our experience of Self from the constructs of our abusers can begin, founded on the principle of Eneris and true free will.

Any other way simply leads back to the enfolding arms of empire.

The following was written in response to internet questions regarding the Sui Generis and in particular this post here-  http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/?p=306   I’m now going off to work on the ‘sui generis authority is not externally based’ essay, because I’ve realised greater explanation is required as to what sui generis *is* and *is not*.

          You write that you are “the wrong individual” of whom to ask questions of the practicalities of Sui Generis anarchism.

Let’s stop right there. I do not refer to the Sui Generis ‘anarchism’, I refer to to the Sui Generis platform as the Sui Generis. You’re the one referring to it as anarchism. They’re not the same thing, as I’ve pointed out to you before: anarchism is a PHILOSOPHY, Sui Generis is a clearly demonstrable *physical principle* of living organisms that is ALSO a principle of LAW. These are *not the same thing* as a political THEORY.
I am genuinely open to the possibility that anarchism is practical, and I am very interested in your arguments to that effect, so your unwillingness to provide any is… well, disappointing. I wonder too why you would reject the opportunity to put forward those arguments not just to me but also to other readers of your blog, when from what I can tell the point of your blog is to advocate for social, not just personal, change.
I  advocate social *transformation*, not ‘change’, because these two things are *also* NOT the same thing. Transformation is the only thing I’m interested in. I’m not interested in *political philosophies*, for the reasons I’ve stated to you before. I’m totally up for discussing *principles* and how these transform the current state of play on the planet, and I’m *not* interested in arguing or debating, which is what *philosophies* create: disagreement. Dissension. Entanglement in details. Schisms. THIS is why I am NOT interested in *philosophies*- humans like to kill each other because of differences. The Sui Generis principle demonstrates how *differences are part of the system* and demonstrates the platform from which this simple principle can be embraced so that humans will stop killing each other, arguing with each other, persecuting each other, demonising each other, ostracising each other etc over *the differences which are a fundamental part of the physical dimensional platform*. Anything else is not of interest to me because it’s a mechanism of Empire: anything that does NOT embrace the Sui Generis of a living organism is heteronomy. Heteronomy is the foundational platform of Empire.

To be fair, you have given *other* reasons why you think that we should adopt Sui Generis anarchism, they just don’t move me. You write that it is justified by the principle that no being has authority over any other being. In my view, the almost paradoxical truth is that the best way of upholding this principle is to maintain, rather than to dissolve, collectively-recognised external authorities – without them, there is nothing to prevent dog-eat-dog behaviour, vigilante justice and the unchecked spiral of violence/counter-violence due to unresolvable disputes. Without external authority, nothing prevents beings from regularly exercising self-appointed authority over other beings, very probably leading to more, not fewer, violations of this principle.
History demonstrates that the path you advocate is useless for achieving the aims you desire. Again I will say it- Sui Generis is neither philosophy or theory. Anarchism is a political philosophy and theory- as are *all other political platforms*. Sui Generis is not political. It’s a principle upon which a range of individual and social behaviours arise from.

Your own subjective reality is being demonstrated by your belief- not knowledge, but belief- that an external authority is *necessary* to stop individuals from being horrendous to one another, yet it is the *external authorities* of the planet that are at the forefront of this horrendous behaviour. Heteronomy is both the belief in and the action of domination and control of one another and while individuals are able to look out and observe agencies dominating and controlling them (under, apparently, your banner of ‘for their own good’) then *individuals will do the same to other individuals*. This is amply demonstrated by *human history*: what you are advocating is the same system that already exists, the failures of which are amply demonstrated throughout several thousand years of mainstream historical record.

You talk about ‘unresolvable disputes’, yet I’ve already demonstrated to you previously that your notion of ‘disputes’ is actually about individuals believing that it is right and proper for them to dominate and control other individuals, groups, organisms and systems. The fundamental problem is this belief in heteronomy. Remove the ‘right’ to dominate, control or harm another individual and overnight there is the platform for world peace. Nobody has to agree on anything, there’s no voting about it, no arguing, just the recognition of something that is PHYSICALLY DEMONSTRABLE and which also underpins a crucial element of LAW. Sui generis is ALREADY IN THE LAW, it’s simply being repressed.

You are confused if you think that I am imagining a world in which there is no palpable and decisive response to an individual choosing to practice heteronomy- I absolutely do know that there will be consequences for those that choose to dominate and control another, but it won’t be via the current system of response to ‘violation’ that Empire has developed for its own ends, which translates as ‘law’. Law has nothing to do with sui generis and the natural boundaries that arise from the practice of it, but individuals can’t get to that part until they begin to practice it. Again, it’s not a THEORY, it’s a *physical principle*, and physical principles have their own way of behaving.
Your suggestion of “collectively-recognised external authorities” demonstrates the problem in the description you gave it: external. The authority of the individual is not their own, it must be handed over to another group. This does not work. It is impossible to create an external authority that satisfies the deep needs of every individual within ANY community, so what you’re going for is a ‘one size fits all badly’ solution that again relies on imposing some kind of ‘collectively agreed’ consensus reality approved parameters upon ALL individuals within that sphere. What part of ‘domination and control’ is this NOT? This is, by your own demonstration of its function, another form of *domination and control*, which has demonstrated its ability to attract and reward *predators* since the beginning of consensus reality approved written history. What part of ‘but OUR heteronomy is better than THEIRS’ don’t you get? You’re just reduxing the same old mechanisms as have always demonstrated themselves to be nothing but differently shaped tools of Empire’s design. I’m curious as to why you think that’s effective- obviously part of it is that you think the heteronomy your ruling authority would be using would be better than anyone else’s.
I am NOT interested in what does not work. I’m not interested in WHY you think dominating and controlling others is necessary because history has proven that no matter WHY a group thinks it’s ‘necessary’, those who are being dominated and controlled *always suffer the cost* and then the recyling nature of ‘revolutions’ occur. It’s a stupid system that doesn’t work because heteronomy seeks to annul a unique individual into a THING and the unique code within them *won’t tolerate that*. There are a number of mathematical and scientific theories that seek to demonstrate the underlying principle of WHY systems and organisms won’t tolerate being controlled for long, and for me all these are simply pointing to the principle of the Sui Generis. Authority moves in very different ways when individuals are living by their own authority, recognising the principle of ‘do no harm’ and the consequences of violating that principle. One of the reasons individuals feel free to constantly violate one another and the planet is because there is currently no consequence- and that is shifting, NOT to a *different* form of ‘external authority’, but within the individuals themselves.

There is also another principle: that we should organise society in the way that best achieves equity, harmony and safety, and that best meets the needs and goals of its members. I am not convinced that Sui Generis anarchism satisfies this principle better than democracy.

Democracy is the naked Emperor. The ideologies you are espousing are fundamentally and demonstrably flawed because what you are arguing is a different ‘one size fits all badly’ kind of system, in which the individuals that are *again* undersupported within that system are marginalised and demonised. Every system historically that has attempted to do politically what modern manufacturing has done to clothing- created a range of ‘sizes’ that everyone is supposed to conform to- has utterly failed and only succeeded in creating NEW groups that are vilified. The political path you’re advocating is the same OLD one that has been used to oppress certain groups while, over time, maximising the interests of specific groups due to a number of ‘desirable’ markers.

A case in point: the raging debate over gender and sexuality issues within any given community. Under the principle of Sui Generis, there are a few simple questions we can ask ourselves to discover what action, if any, needs to be taken in our community around this issue. These questions are- “Does it involve me personally?” No. “Is anyone being harmed (as in, are the individuals involved there as a result of full capacity to knowingly give enthusiastic consent)? No-one is being harmed. Conclusion: it’s none of my business! It is none of my business what individuals choose to do with others who have full capacity to give enthusiastic consent to ANY activity. NONE. It doesn’t matter WHAT the issue is- gender choices, sexual choices, colour, race, creed, the way an individual likes to live, their view of the multiverse- NONE of it is anyone else’s business unless HARM is being done to another. That’s it! Simple stuff! No endless debates, no dogmas, no domination, no subjugation, no ‘re-education’ disguised as ‘setting someone straight’, NO INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER AT ALL.

Heteronomy strips the ability of individuals to CONSENT or NOT CONSENT to ANY activity. Democracy is heteronomy by mob rule- the majority get, via the banner of consensus reality and ‘majority vote’, to *dominate and control others* against their wishes and preferences. Democracy is a mechanism by which the choices of those NOT of the majority can be dismissed via a number of convenient mechanisms and rationalisations, NONE of which I’m interested in because I’m not interested in systems that treat unique elements as groups, classifications, homogenies etc. This is what ‘democracy’ does: individuals are no longer unique, sui generis Beings, they’re numbers in a mass. THAT is part of the problem, yet the only system you can advocate doesn’t solve that problem because YOU are afraid that without external authorities wielding ‘order’ via force, the planetary population will run amok. Why will they do that? Because they’ve been educated by EMPIRE to do that!

You imply that our democratic system is being forced upon you – “if they all want to get together and do something their way that’s fine and hunky dory, *as long as they don’t try to enforce it on everyone else*” – yet if you get your way, Sui Generis anarchism will be forced upon those of us who believe that democracy is a better solution, so I don’t see much validity to this complaint.

Your language is odd- I wasn’t complaining, I was pointing out *what currently is*, which is that a whole heap of atrocity is being pointed at me, WITHOUT MY CONSENT, as a result of ‘democracy’. It’s the way democracy is BUILT. Sui generis in no way prevents *individuals* from forming whatever collectives they wish to engage in and from doing whatever they want, providing that this is NOT enforced on ANY WHO DO NOT GIVE INFORMED CONSENT, which includes the *ownership of children*: children do NOT have the ability to give informed consent and are manipulated by their emotional alliances to family and community. This is not consent, so the collective has no foundation for imposing their particular ideology onto a child. In a Sui Generis system, children are not considered the *property* of their parents because children are born with their OWN immature sui generis: what is offered to the child is the opportunity to live into their own unique Being, develop their own perspectives, explore their own interests and make their own INFORMED choices. Agendas- ‘democratic’ or otherwise- have no place anywhere within Sui Generis.

So, your assertion is flawed: it is not *I* that violates your principles to do whatever you like, it is in the demand that YOUR choice of ‘democracy’ be enforced on ME. I would NEVER consent to that. Never. And then what? Are you going to bring in your enforcers to FORCE my compliance? To FORCE everyone else who doesn’t consent? And this is different from what’s going on in the world how?  You are free to make decisions *for you* and THAT IS ALL- you can get together and decide to live ‘democratically’ and that’s fine until you start deciding that you CONTROL this or that bit of land, that you have THIS territory and you can do whatever you like with it.

No, no you can’t. Sui Generis extends to ALL living systems, including eco-systems, the land, the planet and all Life on it. YOU have authority ONLY over YOU: you don’t get to decide for any living creature, Being or system in the name of ‘human dominance’ or ‘resource based economies’ or any of the OTHER decrees whereby one group has gone to another and claimed authority over them. You could TRY that sort of crap, it’s only going to start a conflict, which is what Heteronomy does so well.

I agree with you that there are serious problems with our current political system, including its leadership. The Abbott government appals me. I am also 100% in agreement with you as to the abhorrence of the (continuing) dispossession and mistreatment of the indigenous peoples of various lands, including “our” own, in the course of the illegitimate and brutal colonisation by Europeans. Yes, the system under which we still live permitted those injustices. Injustice though is not an inevitable consequence of democracy, it is a consequence of unjust humans and human attitudes. I don’t see how anarchism would better save us from bad attitudes than democracy.

Injustice though is not an inevitable consequence of democracy, it is a consequence of unjust humans and human attitudes. I don’t see how anarchism would better save us from bad attitudes than democracy.

Democracy as a vehicle, for the reasons (and more) that I’ve put forth to you here, are intertwined. You cannot separate them, no matter how much you try, because it’s a system of domination and control. You can’t actually see what I’m talking about because you have Sui Generis and Anarchy intertwined. They’re not. Perhaps my insistent disentangling in this response will finally allow for a discussion on what I AM talking about, rather than your own confusion of it.

The government of the day is nothing more than a reflection of the population and what it is prepared to accept. Colonisation was done in the name of ‘divine right’, democracy does Empire’s work in the name of ‘political right’. They’re the same thing.

My favoured solution to the problem of abuse of concentrated political power is direct, participatory democracy, especially in both local communities and businesses/corporations/organisations, and especially internet-based, by which the public can propose and vote on the same legislative and executive decisions that political representatives can, and by which it can, given a majority, override parliamentary decisions. This could, I believe, achieve the (social) evolution you seek without the problems that anarchism has, and would even in itself be an example of that evolution.

You’re totally free to try that. You’re not free to IMPOSE IT on any other individual, creature, land base or living system. The planet does not  ‘belong’ to humans; humans co-exist with a host of living creatures and Beings that they’ve been busily extermination because of Heteronomy.

I will never consent to rule by domination; I will never consent to be RULED by anyone, no matter how many rationalisations are presented to try and convince me that it’s ok for someone to take my own authority from me. It’s not and it never will be. You’re free to try doing what was attempted over and over in the past- ‘democratic rule by citizen participation’- and you WILL leave me out of it, because anything else would be exactly the same as the action of Empire’s colonisation that you say you find abhorrent and ‘illegitimate’. Again, if I don’t consent, what are you going to do? Send enforcers? Penalise me through use of force and the rule of law?

Re “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”: I have read it before, but it is a great read, and at your prompting I enjoyed it a second time, so, thanks. To put things in context: I have been coding since I was ten, using Linux and other free/open source software since 1995, and I fell in love with the free/open source way at first sight. Yes, the free/open source community is very effective at what it does. The problem is in scaling it up to the level of an entire society: in the open source community, there is nothing that particularly *needs* to be done, and people are thus free to solely “scratch their personal itches”, as Eric puts it, without any particular problems arising from this approach; in society at large, however, certain tasks, sometimes unpalatable, *do* need to be performed independently of whether they scratch any personal itch – in particular, the development and maintenance of communal infrastructure and agriculture. These tasks neglected, society fails or at least degenerates, and it is not clear to me what under a moneyless anarchism would motivate people to perform them given the absence of a financial incentive: the financial incentive stems from a need to survive personally, such that one’s personal survival is linked with collective survival in the sense that socially necessary tasks are almost guaranteed to be undertaken because by paying people to do them, often out of public funds, we satisfy their survival needs. At least, that’s the way I see it.

“in society at large, however, certain tasks, sometimes unpalatable, *do* need to be performed independently of whether they scratch any personal itch – in particular, the development and maintenance of communal infrastructure and agriculture. These tasks neglected, society fails or at least degenerates, and it is not clear to me what under a moneyless anarchism would motivate people to perform them given the absence of a financial incentive ”

Again you demonstrate a belief system about individuals that suggests that without some kind of inducive carrot, they’ll all be either clubbing one another over the head or sitting about scratching their butts. You are talking about your own narrow perspective and view, NOT the world that *I* inhabit: how on earth did all those indigenous societies last for so long without some external authority prodding them along into ‘productive behaviour’? Gosh, we should all be utterly thankful that the Colonisers came along, who KNOWS where we’d be without them?

Far, far better off, as it turns out. Honestly, the Western mindset and ignorance of GLOBAL perspective demonstrated in your comments makes it difficult for me to respond without a degree of head shaking; indigenous cultures all over the world would be laughing at the suggestions you’re making if they weren’t so intertwined with a way of Being that is singularly and globally suicidal.

I’ve lived on communities and communal infrastructures get done *without* some external authority’s exhortations and pushing. Agriculture is death; *living systems* are not agriculture and agriculture cannot continue on the planet as it’s been currently practiced because it creates *dead soil and dustbowls*. I suggest you do some research on complex, small scale food systems via Vendana Shiva and permaculture research. Society fails/degenerates because of the *fundamental unsustainability of the methods of that society*- there are some societies on the planet that have been continuing for tens of thousands of years, all without the ‘help’ of a financial system paying them to do things they don’t want to do.

You really have no idea how *conscious* individuals work. As my other writing demonstrates, I’m not interested in the survival of  *unconscious* individuals because they are dangerous to the wellbeing of conscious individuals. I’m not in the slightest bit interested in keeping the unconscious going.

The RBE/TZM/TVP/Automation Socialism folk seem to believe that automation would save us from the problem of lack of financial incentive. Perhaps they are right – it is certainly a seductive possibility, however, it is not yet a reality, and, in any case, I think that there needs to be a broader conversation about whether a highly industrial, technological and/or automated society is even preferable or a good idea given the harm it does to ecologies, environment and other life, as well as the way that it tends to isolate humanity and individuals in materialism rather than connecting them in a more natural and spiritual existence. Deep Green Resistance have certainly taken a strong stand on this.

I don’t know how this came up: I’m not into the ‘technology will save us all’ view of the world. I’m not an advocate of RBE’s and the current state of the planet demonstrates that we don’t really have time for ‘broader conversations’ about preferences when species are dying every day. I’m mentioned in my writings that I’m a fan of Derrick Jensen’s perspective on the current state of play and that it’s civilisation that has to go; there’s no question of that for me. I’m interested in creating *what comes after* on a better foundation than the rubbish that has gone on before.

Re spiritual authority, have you looked into near-death experiences (NDEs)? They strongly suggest that there exists a spiritual being (or beings) who knows better than we do what is best for us, yet who allows us to exercise our free will anyway, which in turn suggests a benevolent and freedom-loving spiritual authority.

I’ve had my own experiences of these and many other related things and I have different perspectives on those, based on what I experienced. Again, I will express it: I don’t have an issue with an individual having *whatever belief and perspective they embody*, it’s when they impose that ONTO ME that it becomes problematic. Individuals are free to embrace and practice whatever they wish- their authority begins AND ENDS with themselves.  There is no Being of any kind that ALLOWS me to choose; I am Sui Generis and I do not consent to be dominated by ANY Being. You are free to consent to whatever reality YOU wish. This is the principle of Sui Generis extending out into every realm and part of the multiverse.

You write of my “own subjective experience” as if to suggest that it cannot correspond to an objective truth, and in one of the essays you link to you dismiss as “a personal choice” the idea of God, an empirical matter, apparently because it conflicts with your notion of Sui Generis, an abstract principle. I think, instead, with respect to truth claims, that empirical evidence takes precedence over abstract principles, and that there is enough evidence for the existence of God that it cannot be dismissed simply because it is (perceived to be) inconvenient to Sui Generis.

I do not recognise objective truths when it comes to subjective experiences for obvious reasons; as soon as one gets into the realm of ‘subjective experience’ EVERYONE has their own unique take on it. Sui Generis is not an ABSTRACT principle, it’s a physically demonstrable one, so your suggestion that it’s just my ‘notion’ is an indication that you don’t actually grasp what I’m talking about. Empirical claims of subjective experience do NOT take precedence over physically demonstrable principles, so you’ll need to reconfigure your objection to my position on ‘gods’ before it makes sense.

Your perspective seems to be (and please correct me if I have misunderstood you) that all “spiritual” phenomena are really manifestations of Empire, so that it is quite simply humanity versus Empire. Does it really seem likely though that we are battling Empire alone? What a depressing thought! In fact, countless reports of individuals across the ages attest that we are *not* alone in our battles. I am not sure why you would dismiss this positive news!

Your misinterpretation of my perspective is your own; you really haven’t read much of my writing, have you? Do you know what the Otherkind in ‘songsfortheotherkind’ is actually a reference to? I do NOT consider that we’re dealing with Empire on our own, nor do I EVER suggest that all spiritual phenomena are Empire manifestations; what I DO say is “spiritual heteronomy” is a product of Empire. There is a huge distinction between these two things for me. My experiences of the Otherrealms from childhood are in part what informed my foundation of perspective before I discovered the term ‘Sui Generis’ buried in the law; you have no idea at all what I know and experience. I will tell you this: all the Creators that I have ever experienced have ZERO interest in being ‘authorities’ of any kind, controlling or benign; heteronomy in spiritual form is no different than it is in any other form.

Re your response to the challenges I raised: some of our disagreements seem to stem from (what I see as) your exaggeration of the differences between certain words/concepts. Perhaps you do this to establish a unique identity for your thought, which would be understandable, but whatever the reason is, it makes communication more difficult. A few examples: change versus transformation; (formal) agreements versus contracts; principles versus philosophy; disagreements versus different wants. Because of this (that we might not disagree so much in principles as in definitions), and because this email is already long enough, I’ll avoid responding in that part of our exchange, with the exception of what follows.

Are you serious- no distinction between principle and philosophy? Disagreements vs different wants?  0-o

Your inability to recognise distinctions between seemingly similar appearing things is, to be frank,  not my problem: there is a great deal of information on the net regarding the deep importance of distinction between similar linguistic forms and how much of Empire’s ability to slide wrong through the cracks is via its ability to distort linguistic forms. I make these distinctions not because I’m trying to “establish a unique identity for [my] thought”, as you suggest, but because these distinctions are IMPORTANT. Do you have a background in law studies and trusts? Do you know the distinctions between a contract and an agreement? Do you know WHY they’re important distinctions? Do you know what a contract *does* in terms of evolution? Do you know that contracts require an entire infrastructure to enforce? I’ve written extensively on the issue of contracts in the past and why they’re problematic.

I have a background in many, many areas of study and I’ve learned that there is a tendency for MANY individuals to think that they know what something means or is being spoken about when they actually don’t- it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is why I’m really, really clear with the distinctions that I make, but if you think that these things aren’t important then you don’t actually know what is being discussed. This makes it really difficult for me to respond in a way that makes sense.

I don’t think that you have adequately answered the following question: if you reject collectively-recognised external authorities as a means of last resort of resolving disputes, then, when a dispute between two parties becomes intractable – as some inevitably will and do – how do you propose that it be resolved? In one of the links that you offer, you write “I’m not in the least bit interested in appealing to any external authority to take care of any situation that I’m facing- I want to do that on my own”. This is admirable but unrealistic: sometimes, the person/group with whom you are dealing will not be reasonable, or will even be actively exploitative. Without an external authority, your “taking [personal] care” of such situations might amount to accepting being exploited, or, alternatively, to gathering together a group of supportive friends and exacting vigilante justice upon the exploiter, potentially leading to a protracted and ungoverned conflict between your supporters and his/hers.

I don’t think this outcome will happen at all, because I know that the principle of Sui Generis carries with it its own ‘immune system response’ for wont of a better description. That, though, requires a whole other detailed response that I’d rather write as an essay in its own right; suffice to say that, in my own thinking, *none* of the scenarios that you described are the reality that I experience. From childhood I was aware that I could trigger deeply cognitively and physiologically dissonant states in certain types of individuals…

In this respect, you conclude your post with: “If something happens between mySelf and another individual, then it’s up to me to go to them and attempt to sort something out; if that doesn’t work, then I just let it go and get on with my life *unless they’re harming me*, in which case entirely different principles come into play”. It would be very helpful for you to elaborate on these different principles. If they do not amount to vigilante justice as I have just suggested, then what exactly are they? Also, do you acknowledge that having to sometimes accept being taken advantage of (which “just let[ting] it go” might, amongst other things, cover) is a serious drawback to your proposed (a)political system?

‘Letting it go’ in no way involves me getting taken advantage of because depending on the degree of issue between myself and the other individual, it can range from agreeing to disagree to disconnecting completely from that individual. There’s no question of ‘being taken advantage of': taking advantage of another is an act of heteronomy and abuse. I have zero tolerance for either; they are both a violation of the Sui Generis of another Being. I do not accept that there is EVER a time when an individual just has to ‘accept’ being abused in any way by another. Never.

You also write, with respect to the specific example I offered: “If, in your example, the sports group decides they have more ‘right’ to the resources than the second, then the sports group has just moved from Sui Generis to heteronomy, in which case the second group has a stronger base of engagement: does the sports group *really* wish to divest itself of the myriads of advantages that Sui Generis gifts them?”. In fact, I have no doubt that some individuals/groups *would* be unscrupulous enough as to adopt and advocate Sui Generis where it benefits them, and to dispense with it where, as in this case, it does not.

Then what they’ve ‘adopted’ isn’t Sui Generis, it’s heteronomy and manipulation. Sui Generis isn’t something you put on and off like a hat; it’s the recognition of a physically demonstrable principle that creates specific legal principles when applied to human behaviour and society. When you start discussing *this*, we’ll be having a different discussion; so far I’m simply constantly trying to get across to you the distinction between what you’re talking about and what *I* am talking about.

 It would be very nice to believe that this would never occur, but again, not very realistic. As I wrote in my last email, there are so many damaged people in the world that anarchism is currently probably not a practical choice – but again, I am open to examples of effective anarchist methods that could avoid this problem, should you change your mind about choosing to present them.

Actually being clear on what I’m talking about will be a first step; comprehending what I said I wasn’t prepared to discuss would be the second. You keep interpreting me through a lens that isn’t mine.

Finally, just to be clear: I am not antagonistic to either yourself or Sui Generis, in fact I like you both, I am just not (yet) convinced that the anarchism you say Sui Generis lays a foundation for is practical, much less that it is preferable.

Having a conversation where you stop referring to the Sui Generis as anarchism would be awesome and far more productive. :)

In relation to the Fckh8 promotional video featuring young girls saying the word ‘fuck’:

scream

I have observed the shocked reactions of adults when my daughters are utterly blunt about rejecting sexist/bigoted/anthropocentric attitudes regardless of who those attitudes might be aimed at; I’ve had adults demand that I ‘chastise’ my daughters for being outspoken against these things. I am too Derrick Jensen-ish to be softly softly with dangerous attitudes and anachronistic belief systems that have been brought to society’s attention *for the past 100 years*- we’re in the 21st century and we’re STILL having gender/sexual equality ‘debates’? We’re STILL having women and children killed by family members while the ‘administration’ can’t find its arse with both hands, a map and several helpful Youtoob videos? We’re STILL burying individuals because they committed the unforgiveable sin of loving someone of the same sex? Or because they chose a gender *outside* the limitations of the consensus binary?

FUCK THAT. I’m not in the slightest bit interested in playing softly softly with ignorance anymore, for a number of different reasons, the main one being that I’ve concluded either individuals Get It or they don’t- and no amount of ‘education’ is going to transform that. Education only works on those who were open in the first place- hard core bigots are immune to transformation and I’m now immune to being nice to bigotry in any form. Playing nice, conforming to societal standards of ‘compassion’ and ‘empathy’ in the WRONG places has continued to get individuals from all walks of life killed.

Another assertion regarded comment regarding the ‘age appropriate’ element, suggesting that the script was inappropriate for the age of the girls concerned. That is subjective opinion, not fact: did the commenter KNOW the girls? Do they knew the developmental level of each girl involved? I have a six year old that can intelligently discuss subjects that leave most adults floundering because both her father, her other dad and I are all gifted and intelligent individuals who answer her questions intelligently: the version of ‘age appropriate’ that we get from outside our family (as in the version of her grandfather, for example) demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of my daughter as a Being. Using the ‘if you’re not from the demographic in question, you don’t get to have an opinion about it’ maxim, the only individuals who are positioned to decide if something is/is not developmentally appropriate for the child/ren involved are those that are involved in that child’s life, unless it is a clear case of exploitation.

I’ve read individuals claim that the girls in the video are ‘being exploited for financial and other gain’. Can anyone substantiate that the girls ARE being ‘exploited’? I know I used to prance around in the same way when I was 10 and many adults thought I was being ‘affected’ or ‘dramatic’ or ‘inappropriate’ when I was simply expressing a reality and way of Being that I personally experienced. The reactions of adults frequently bewildered me but I was expected to conform to THEIR ideas of what my behaviour ‘should’ be.

The suggestion of child exploitation is a very serious arena and, in this case, also diminishes the concept of actual child exploitation because of particular personal biases and opinions. A child being economically or sexually exploited in a power system that is designed explicitly to ensure the conditions for that exploitation is world’s away from the idea that the girls (and boy) in the video concerned are being exploited. This would be impossible to gauge without knowing the specific circumstances and individuals involved, whereas one doesn’t have to do any such investigation to know that a ten year old in a brothel is being exploited.

The issue of the assertion of ‘stereotypes’ also amuses me- where do you think these behaviours came from in the first place? The dominant culture from which these ‘stereotypes’ emerged. Different cultural communities have all kinds of mannerisms and ways of Being that can- but not necessarily are- elements that can be accused of later being used ‘stereotypically’ if individuals from outside those cultures are involved in the production. I was raised around Italians and sure got to learn that ANYTHING can be stereotyped.

If individuals within a particular cultural demographic find certain depictions offensive then I’m totally prepared to take that onboard; the thing is though, OTHER individuals from within that demographic may NOT find the depictions offensive and then where do those outside the situation sit? It gets to the point where ‘stereotyping’ can be an accusation of the depiction of ANY cultural mannerism or practice- so does that mean only individuals within specific demographics can make ads and productions with other individuals from specific demographics in them? Is there any indication that adult individuals from the particular demographics concerned were NOT involved in a creative way with this particular production?

What we currently have is a bunch of individuals not part of those demographics getting offended on behalf of those demographics. I’ve read about this in a number of feminist articles and essays and what I took away from those articles and essays is that it’s NOT UP TO ME to decide what is and isn’t acceptable for various demographics, it’s the individuals within those demographics that get to decide what’s ok for them.

Interestingly, individuals within various demographics ALSO don’t get to decide for one another what is and isn’t acceptable for the group, so there’s no such thing as an absolute consensus reality regarding, for example, creative license and the way that this is engaged. There are clearly some depictions of particular demographics that are found to be deeply offensive to that demographic and that is then a non-discussion; anything outside these

So I’m not buying into accusations of stereotyping when the parents of the girls involved were not concerned with it and, more importantly, I’m not the individual that can level that challenge at the production because I’M NOT PART OF that demographic. This is simple Feminism 101 to me.

There’s all kinds of reasons for all kinds of issues and you know what? If I’m not part of the demographic concerned I don’t get to go pushing my opinion about it one way or the other. I’ve learned this through some very clear and passionate expressions from individuals within the trans* community that essentially say ‘if it’s not about your experiences as a trans*, then SHUT UP and take a seat’. If this is absolutely appropriate for allies of the trans* community then, as far as I see it, it’s appropriate for EVERYTHING ELSE.

Do I get to have an opinion-purported-as-fact about what it’s like to be an individual outside my own area of experience? NO. Do I get to hold forth in a manner expressing some kind of special insider insight into stuff that I actually know NOTHING about other than some sketchy subjective opinion? Unsurprisingly, that’s also a NO. So, why do individuals who know NOTHING about the families and individuals involved in this particular video think that they have some kind of authority behind their particular opinion, when they wouldn’t for a second tolerate that sort of assumptive rubbish in a different setting.

It’s the distinction between subjective opinion and established parameters that can make a situation so murky that those who might have been inclined to explore the topic pull back because of unwillingness to get involved in semantics. This doesn’t solve ANY issues, especially difficult subjects that involve things like gender, sexuality, equality and all the other pesky and apparently incredibly difficult to grasp heteronomies that individuals like to engage in.

Here’s how I see it: individuals have many subjective opinions about what constitutes ‘age appropriate’ and ‘child exploitation’. Frequently, these individuals are NOT parents or even involved with children (I am the first to recognise that being either of those groups also frequently doesn’t give the individual any insight or authority in a situation and at the same time, having bad apples in a barrel doesn’t make the whole barrel rotten) so what they’re speaking from is subjective opinion. Opinion is fine and dandy UNTIL it becomes a basis for judging the actions of others.- then opinion becomes a right pain in the arse that can escalate to the kinds of actions that vilifies a particular group or causes an individual to be murdered because they’re outside the consensus reality.

Do those subjective opinions have any validity outside the scope of the individual? NO. Are they acted upon as if they DO? Yes, and it frequently results in nothing but harm to those being acted upon. Is there a difference between calling out an actual situation and calling subjective experience a ‘legitimate’ ‘criticism of an actual situation? YES.

It has been pointed out to me that the company concerned has dubious practices. I’m all up for being shown actual examples of their dubious practices, as one individual did, and I really appreciated this information; what I wasn’t interested in was a bunch of subjective opinion being paraded as reality because hello! MY reality- and the reality of my daughters- is different! And guess what? Other individuals don’t get to have a say about that because it’s NOT their area of expertise, just as making derogatory comments regarding the motivations of those concerned is also not their area of expertise- they do NOT know the individuals concerned, they have NO IDEA of what these girls are and are not aware of .

‘Age appropriate’ is NOT the same thing as developmentally appropriate, which any gifted child forced to go through the hell of ‘schooling’ can readily attest to: this differs from child to child and is not best gauged by a total outsider who knows absolutely NOTHING about the particular child involved, in which case ‘shut up and take a seat’ is a reasonable request.

I’m not interested in ANY heteronomy, no matter how much the individuals involved can rationalise their actions. There’s a difference between “I didn’t like it and I don’t like the company involved for this and that reason”, which leads to an exploration, and the dumping of an opinion-as-fact that causes an individual such as myself to have enough ‘wait, what?’ moments that responses such as this one emerge. Two very different things, these be.

I’m not interested in individual’s subjective opinions unless they’re speaking about their experiences, in which case I will shut up and take a respectful seat: this doesn’t mean I won’t ask questions but I’ll ASK if it’s ok to ask questions. I sure as fuck won’t be assuming I know anything at all of their experience, just like others cannot know mine.

I’d like to start with your suggestion that Sui Generis is “a non-hackable platform in its foundation”. I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. One possibility is that it ties in with your notion of the Virus, and by “non-hackable” you mean that it is not susceptible to being coopted by the Virus. If this is correct, then it’s almost tautological, and I agree with you: it’s not that surprising that a platform whose basis is the utter repudiation of the Virus would be immune from it.

S: Yes, it’s not possible for the Sui Generis platform to be co-opted by Empire: Empire’s interests cannot be enforced or enacted within a community that applies the Sui Generis as the foundational principle.

A more debatable interpretation would be if by “non-hackable” you mean “indisputably true”.

S:  In other of my writings I demonstrate that I don’t adhere to ‘truth’, I adhere to foundational principles: what demonstrates in the living system of things is that *all things are unique*, thus demonstrating the sui generis embedded within the dimensional layers of the multiverse.

In a very limited, sanitised and reduced sense, Sui Generis might be the idea that “sentient beings are personally responsible for the free will choices that they make”.

Unless Beings are truly free then their choices are being manipulated. I wrote about that here  http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/it-isnt-adaptation-we-want-its-evolution/

In this sense, I would agree that it is indisputably true (tautological even). It gets more questionable though when we express it more like it actually is: that “unique creations are their own authority and jurisdiction [as long as they do no harm to others]“. I actually really like this idea, and I hope that it’s true. The only problem for me is that personal experiences lead me to belief in a spiritual reality, which suggests the possibility of spiritual *authority*, to which we might be bound, despite that we might (and that I do) like the idea that we are (entirely) our own authorities. This is why I asked you what your metaphysical views are, because in this sense they are relevant.

S: It seems what you’re actually saying is that it isn’t the sui generis *platform* you’re having an issue with, it’s your own subjective experience that is causing you a conflict with it. And that’s exactly what sui generis is about: *you* can have whatever experience you want with the multiverse, it’s simply when that experience is transferred out to others that the problems arise.

I, for instance, have experienced external authorities (including energies claiming to be this or that ‘god) as nothing but Empire in its myriads of forms, including *spiritual*- spiritual heteronomy is part of Empire’s administration pattern and I’ve written about that here http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/explorations-in-how-the-sui-generis-works/  and the following two essays that accompany this one. I’m not ‘bound’ to ANY Being, Creator or otherwise- I explain my view of that here http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/dissolving-the-gods-how-sui-generis-undoes-old-and-new-age-spiritual-slavery/

My own views, as incomplete as they are, stem partly from experiences with negative spirit entities – this is why I asked you the specific question about your belief in such beings. I experience them even as I write this. I infer both from the existence of spiritual evil, and from an answered prayer – I prayed to God and all of His spiritual helpers for help in overcoming addiction to alcohol, and, immediately after that prayer, the cravings left me, and didn’t return for another two years – that a corresponding spiritual good exists. I don’t know what its nature is other than good – whether it is authoritative or liberal; whether it is happy for us to adopt the Sui Generis approach or whether it has other plans for us – I just mention this because of the possibility that spiritual authority overrides Sui Generis.

S: Nothing overrides the Sui Generis because the Sui Generis isn’t a *philosophy*, it’s a PRINCIPLE- a demonstrable, physical principle that embeds other principles within it. I too have had similar kinds of ‘spiritual’ experiences and eventually realised that they’re exactly the same as the black ops and disinformation practices that are engaged in constantly by other elements of Empire. The essays I’ve linked to will demonstrate why any Creator would reject the notion of control and domination: ‘gods’ are tools of domination and control, interested in very specific outcomes and carrying very specific intentions, none of which are the *evolution* of the Beings and systems involved. 

OK, from here on I’ll ignore that possibility and discuss Sui Generis as a legitimate (and appealing) possibility in itself. So, let’s say that it’s right. Then there are a whole lot of other things that you say that don’t seem to follow from it, even though they could. For example, you seem to suggest that anarchism follows from Sui Generis, but equally possible is that, using their own personal (Sui Generis) authority, “the people” decide that government is the most practical way to organise society – I might even suggest that this is what we *have* done. This is why I was interested in your outline of how a Sui Generis-based (anarchist) society would function pragmatically, because assessing pragmatic results is one of the ways in which people (including myself) would decide whether or not we think that we should adopt it (i.e. disband our government). I have thought a *little* about anarchism versus government-based democracy, I’ve discussed it with a thoughtful friend, and I’ve seen a few written discussions/debates on the issue, and, to be honest, the arguments in favour of government-based democracy seem stronger to me.

S: Here’s the thing- I am not interested in philosophical debate. I’m not interested in group think, I’m not interested in consensus ‘realities’, confirmation biases, ‘democracies’ or any other kind of group domination. I’ll say it again- Sui Generis is not a philosophy, it’s a principle. It is what shows up in the physical realities and manifestations. It’s not something that can be debated- biological organisms are not clones of one another, they are unique manifestations of physical expression. No two things are the same, which is what Sui Generis means- Unique. Without Peer. Of its own Authority. Its own Jurisdiction.

This means that no living Being has authority over ANOTHER Living Being. There can be no external authority over a Sui Generis Being, system or manifestation. NONE. So the issue of what one group of individuals decides is the ‘best’ way of doing something is immaterial- if they all want to get together and do something their way that’s fine and hunky dory, as long as they don’t try to enforce it on everyone else.

You might have 1000 friends and they all decide that ‘democracy’, despite being a proven tool of Empire, is still the way to go. There’s nothing wrong with that, you can all do whatever you like. The problems start when individuals start enforcing their opinions as ‘law’ for everyone else.

I’ll give you a really good example. Christopher Columbus and the Bogus Declaration of Subjugation, otherwise known as the Spanish Requerimiento of 1513. You can read about it in brief here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requerimiento  and do some further research of your own, but the gist of the article is clear: a bunch of individuals decide that they have some kind of ‘divine right to rule everyone else’ for whatever reason and hell ensues for the dominated. This is absolute heteronomy in action.
Individuals might like to argue that *their* particular brand of heteronomy is more just than that individual’s over THERE, but these arguments are nothing more than rationalisations for their own particular brand of dickery.
Hypocrisy
Individuals like to argue that things like the Requerimiento were *wrong* because, you know, Religion, or Empire, or bullshit monarchic systems or Economic domination, yet they then get very fundamentalist when describing their *own* particular form of domination as necessary, or sensible, or rational, eager to dismiss or overlook the glaringly obvious: that heteronomy is HETERONOMY no matter *what* flavour it’s being pimped in.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of room to improve our current democracies, but dispensing with government altogether seems to me to be a little foolhardy, particularly whilst there are so many damaged people getting around.

S: In case you haven’t noticed, the ‘damaged individuals’ are most frequently the ones IN government: those who are more than capable of coming up with far more Interesting and Intelligent systems are being kept out of the Sphere of Global Influence by some very powerful mechanisms. I’m not interested in *change*, I’m interested in transformation, which are two profoundly different elements. Change is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic into a more pleasing configuration, transformation is getting off the Titanic completely, letting it sink and doing something utterly different like learning to translocate. (And for those that like to find a word and go into a frenzy of denialism, I’m not here suggesting that the *only* solutions we’re going to create new solutions is developing superpowers, I’m just using that as an example of what ‘change’ *isn’t*.)

I am utterly interested in *what works* to evolve the global consciousness and dissolve Empire. Governments and their various offshoots of domination don’t work to achieve the evolution of global social consciousness and have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re used as active mechanisms of suppression and control of that evolutionary signal. Why, if I’m interested in evolution, would I support dinosaurs in the forms of institutionalised models such as governments? Why, if I’m interested in sui generis, would I be interested in forms of heteronomy, regardless of such labels as ‘democratic’?

Perhaps, though, you can point me to strong arguments and/or a model that would change my mind? I’ve looked a little into Stefan Molyneux’s anarcho-capitalist model of Dispute Resolution Organisations (DROs), and I don’t find it to be at all plausible. Is there anything more convincing on the scene?

S: You are asking the wrong individual these questions: I found the Sui Generis because I observed that *little to nothing* was sound in the systems around me. I have no interest in ‘from within the box’ solutions: what good are solutions that stay contained within the parameters that have been set previously? I’m not interested in *any* ‘solution’ that isn’t a solution at all.

You were interested in what I would challenge in one of your comments on your Facebook page, so I’ll go ahead and mount the challenges. I’ll ignore the more minor challenges and focus on the main ones.

You write that “disagreement is predicated upon the foundational idea of domination/superiority”, but I’m not so sure that this is right. Sometimes, people just want different things. Maybe a concrete example will help: let’s say that there is one weekend free in the local stadium’s annual schedule, and some (Sui Generis) people want the stadium to host a sporting event on that weekend, but others (also Sui Generis folk) want it to host a festival. Isn’t this an example of a disagreement *not* predicated on domination/superiority, just different people with different wants? And doesn’t this disagreement need to be solved in some way? How would it be solved in a Sui Generis society?

S: Your example is flawed: you equate ‘disagreement’ with ‘wanting different things’. I can entirely want something different from what you want, I don’t have to get into a *disagreement* with you about it- we want different things, this is what’s so: everything AFTER that unfolds based on the embedded ideologies of the individuals concerned. If neither of us has a problem with the other wanting something different, then what arises will be a co-creative solution to the issue, one that contains within it the acceptance that *want* does not equate with NEED, does not equate with ‘right to have one’s own way’, does not equate to ‘moral (or any other kind of) superiority’. If, then, there is no fundamental concept of ‘I want=you have to give me’, then things can unfold in any number of creatively solutioned ways.

education as filter system noam1-1

(As an aside, the paradigm of domination and control is the killer of creative solution, which is why open source anything comes up with way more interesting ideas than, say, Microsoft does- and it’s also why the commercial system is so constantly stealing the creations of the non-limited thinkers. That’s a different conversation from this one though. )

*Disagreements* arise when one individual or group decides that another individual or group *doesn’t have the rights, privileges or advantages* that the first group gives themselves. If, in your example, the sports group decides they have more ‘right’ to the resources than the second, then the sports group has just moved from Sui Generis to heteronomy, in which case the second group has a stronger base of engagement: does the sports group *really* wish to divest itself of the myriads of advantages that Sui Generis gifts them? Any individual or group who wishes to behave towards others in a heteronomous fashion demonstrate that they’re not interested in ANY of the tenets that Sui Generis embodies- autonomy, freedom from domination and control, freedom of evolution and exploration, to name a few- and this has serious ramifications for the individuals making the decision to engage in heteronomy.

You also write: “Agreements are fine; contracts are not. Agreements are living, healthy systems when they have the element of ‘withdrawal of consent’ built into them, for whatever reason: if I suddenly get uncomfortable and withdraw without giving another an explanation, upon what basis is the idea that they DESERVE an explanation from me?”. Firstly, I’m not sure of the distinction you make between agreements and contracts – aren’t contracts simply a type of agreement, albeit a more formal type?

S: Simply put, no, they are not. I’ve written a substantial essay on the difference between the two and comprehending the nature of contracts is part of the getting clear of heteronomy. Essentially, *agreements*, as I said, contain the awareness of the shifting nature of Life within them, they are not set in stone; contracts, on the other hand, are absolutely written in stone and are designed to be enforced, which requires enforcers, which sets up the new platforms of the next Empire.  http://songsfortheotherkind.com/blog/external-authorities-contracts-and-the-illusion-of-transformation/

In any case, I don’t understand your objection to contracts, nor why you object to contracts that stipulate non-rescindable performance items. If a person wants to accomplish a large goal that requires many people working together in an interdependent way, and s/he has the financial resources to hire people to help achieve his/her goal, then isn’t it very reasonable for that person to ask each of those people to commit very strictly to their part in the project, given that with all of the interdependencies, if one person fails to do what they were contracted to do, the project might fail, or at least that many other people in the project who were relying on that person would be very inconvenienced? Isn’t a contract a reasonable way to ensure this commitment?

S: You are thinking in terms of a whole heap of embedded heteronomies that I don’t function in. You might want to read through my other essays before engaging me on these subjects because I’ve written about all this before. ‘Financial resources’= Economy=Empire. I’m not into Economy, Economics and Markets, all of which are tools of domination and control. You might like to read this article for further thought  http://www.unterstein.net/su/docs/CathBaz.pdf

Essentially, you’re operating in this example from the paradigm that says *autonomous individuals will not operate intelligently unless forced to do so*. Contracts are a threat of consequence if a specific demand for performance is not adhered to: these threats have no place in a sui generis community because there’s no commerce, there’s no ‘economy’, there’s no coercion, no domination of any kind. Your examples are moot in the paradigm I’m describing.

You write: “If that individual decides my behaviour is unacceptable to them, they’re totally within their right to decide not to interact with me in the future: what they’re NOT within any right to do is to then tell others their opinion about me, make an analysis of my character based on those opinions and put them forth as fact”. Why should someone be prevented from letting others know that I have failed to honour my agreement? Isn’t this socially useful information? As for analysing my character – sure, that might be going a little far in some cases, but what if that person has had extensive experience with me, and has found that I regularly dishonour my agreements, with any and all people – don’t they have reliable information about my character, which it is in the interests of those who interact with me to know?

S: Again, you are blurring things that are *distinctly different*. Firstly, every circumstance is different -sui generis- and the circumstances I engaged with you in might be vastly different from the ones I’m engaging another individual in. On what basis would you then have any comparison? The *only* thing you could ever talk about is your own experience with me based purely on the experience, not any subjective interpretations of those events: “this is what happened” not, “this is what happened and here’s my subjective analysis of that individual’s inner workings, despite my knowing precisely zip about that individual as a Being and my not being them, which makes these comments nothing but a reflection of my *own* inner processings”. Mmm, very different patterns, these.

You say “why should someone be prevented from letting others know I have failed to honour my agreement?” Why is that someone telling others? Have others specifically asked that question or are they simply broadcasting their experience? Again, there’s a difference between a factual telling- “They didn’t fulfill the agreement”- and adding a pile of subjective interpretation into that. Subjective interpretation is the key- when individuals start adding their ‘take’ on the situation they’re asserting that they’re some kind of *peer* of the other individual and thus ‘qualified’ to analyse and proclaim *as some kind of truth* their opinions. Opinions are not *facts*.

If something happens between mySelf and another individual, then it’s up to me to go to them and attempt to sort something out; if that doesn’t work, then I just let it go and get on with my life *unless they’re harming me*, in which case entirely different principles come into play. It’s difficult for individuals raised in a commercial world to imagine how a *non-commercial* way of Being with one another is, because it’s a different world.

 

Recently I was introduced to a video in which the individual speaking appealed to a ‘spiritual court of equity’ to hear their declaration of severance from all kinds of spiritual contracts. There were a number of things that struck me in the video as being out of order, but it was this concept of some cosmic spiritual court that I wanted to deal with first. I’ve noticed that amongst many who resonate to any number of variants of New Age religious philosophy, the references to ‘galactic federations’, ‘spiritual courts of equity’, councils, overlords, Archangels, Universal Creators, gods and other such entities is frequently put forward as a solution to the global problems that currently beset the planet. There appears to be zero perspective on the reasons why these appeals to external authorities is not only an action reflecting Empire’s purpose and intention, it’s also useless if one wants an empowered, Empire immune planetary community.

(BTW, I’m not interested in discussions about the veracity of these beliefs, which would be nothing but a different shade of heteronomy itself; what I am interested in is clarifying the limitations of any of the current planetary perspectives, embedded within Empire as they are, regardless of shape, tone or message. )

The concept of a ‘spiritual court of equity’ is still founded on the philosophy of and ultimate reliance on an *externally governing force*, an overlord, an external authority under which other Beings are subordinate. This is Empire in a different suit. Courts of *all* kinds-the various colour of law, including ecclesiastical, or the courts of rulers and kings, a different kind of domination from the former- were created for *individuals that couldn’t get their own shit together in some way or another* and needed an external authority to intervene for them. Sui generis is the antithesis of this: there is no external authority because in a system of individuals that recognise their own unique authority external authority isn’t necessary.

justice-without-force-is-powerless-force-without-justice-is-tyrannical-blaise-pascal-142171

I’ll give you the analogy of the immune system. While an immune system is weak and the individual is struggling, external agents- herbal remedies, vitamin therapies etc- can be useful to support that individual through their process, but the aim is to eventually create a robust immune system that can deal effectively with any challenge that individual experiences. Individuals who rely on external agencies for their health are never truly independent; they are always subject to their reliance on the external agent for their wellbeing. This creates a dependency within the organism that, if not remedied, has lifelong effects that limit the possibilities of that individual. The object of any whole system healing modality is to raise the function of the individual to the highest point of autonomy possible, not to continue with a dependency that isn’t necessary or useful. (This is the contrast between the purpose and intention of holistic healing systems and big pharma: one has the individual’s best interests at the forefront and the other has the interests of the corporate hegemony’s profits. This creates two monumentally different intentions and outcomes.)

To expand this example out into the macro, any society that cannot function without external agency as authority is unhealthy and dependent on a subtle yet profound level: dependency on external agency creates the thin edge of the Empire wedge, a weakness that can, over time, be exploited by those that do not require such dependency- those who are willing and prepared to act to create their own realities. That the realities generated by such individuals are generally at the expense of the dependents is part of the inevitable outcome of dependency: those that do not create for themselves will have their reality created for them and one size fits all realities usually fit the individual really badly, one way or another. Only the individual can ever know what is truly best for them; external agencies are only ever going to be able to best guess and that will depend on the purpose and intention of their foundational platform.

Are those who recognise their own Creator abilities interested in supporting a system that encourages and fosters spiritual dependencies? What sort of ‘creator’ is interested in fostering and promoting a sense of permanent dependence within its creation? What kind of parent is the individual who deliberately creates dependency in their child, for their own particular agenda and purpose? Do we consider that kind of behaviour-the manipulation of individuals into dependencies- to be healthy? If we wouldn’t consider the deliberate fostering of dependence in a child to the degree where that dependence cripples their ability to be effective creators of their own adult life to be an acceptable model of physical and emotional patterning, why would we accept the same concept as a spiritual model? Why do we accept spiritual models that, under the guise of ‘loving compassion’ or ‘spiritual assistance’ or any of the other sugar coated flavourings, are used to perpetuate a model of spiritual dependence as the ‘way the universe works’?

I’m not in the least bit interested in appealing to any external authority to take care of any situation that I’m facing- I want to do that on my own. I don’t want an external authority to ‘rescue’ me, I want the ability to take care of mySelf regardless of the situation. To this end I’ve been considering the issue of immune system in the micro-macro scale, exploring the possibility of an immune system that has developed effective mechanisms for dismissing energetic and spiritual heteronomy, the actions of those who would dominate and control me. For me to feel secure in my ability to navigate the physical realm, it’s become apparent to me that I need an effective immune response to psychopathic domination, be it in the singular individual or the macro scale planetary domination system. I want to have an immune system that effectively responds to heteronomy in any form, including physical threat.

Eco-systems have system wide immune responses that trigger when a system is threatened from an external agency; the planet has the ability to respond to the threat of solar winds and actually has an ‘immune system response’ of sorts that cause various elements of the biosphere to actively respond to solar activity. The problem for the eco-system is that the concept of an element becoming psychotically detached from an awareness of its own interdependency with the system was never factored for: in other words, our current planetary ecosystem has no effective strategies or responses in place for the glaring problem of profoundly dissociated sentient Beings, commonly called ‘humans’. The micro of this is the observation that individual Beings have similarly not yet developed an immune response that comprehensively deals with the issue of the psychopathic predator element within their community and culture; communities have no effective immune response to protect them from psychopathic incursion and, upscaled, entire nations are similarly without effective immune strategies.

The common answer to this observation is the suggestion that it is possible to use the elements of Empire against Empire itself: ‘economic sanctions’, ‘political action’ creating ‘new laws’ that will force individuals and communities into various behaviours; if these fail then the fall back of threat of violence, actions of violence and outright war are the next behaviours of in the limited repertoire. The irony is that Empire has woven its own mythos so successfully into the planetary community’s consciousness that individuals who propose these- or other heteronomy based solutions- often have little to no idea that they are actually perfectly serving Empire’s intentions, desires and goals. The possibility that there can- and are- entirely different ways of achieving the outcomes of peace, abundance for all and a planetary community that is utterly unreliant on external agency for its wellbeing is beyond the mindset of such individuals.

This isn’t the domain of those whose worldview and perspective is solely created by the mainstream media and dominant culture; it’s open knowledge that the majority of the New Age religion-disguised- as-transformative-philosophy was created to serve the interests of the dominant paradigm and throttle the exploration of new paradigms, platforms and perspectives. The immotility embedded within the thinking of even those promoted as ‘agents of change’ hides itself in the artful deception that moving a piece around on the board constitutes actual transformation: part of this deception lies within the language itself.

butterfly is a transformation

Change is not evolution. Change is not transformation, it is a shift from one thing that is already known to another thing that is already known; social evolution is an entirely different creature from social change. This is why I never use words such as ‘revolution’ to describe the social transformation I’m interested in: despite the way the language is commonly used, revolution means to move in a circular motion around an unchanging central hub. In the case of societies, the central hub is the mythos upon which that society functions, the foundation of beliefs and consensus reality that the society has agreed to play by. For the majority of human history in this particular cycle of commonly accepted history (which has nothing to do with any actual history of humanity, but rather is just the version of history which those in control have created to promote their own particular purposes and intentions), a mass questioning of the underlying mythos has never been undertaken.

This isn’t to say that various communities haven’t been successfully engaged in considering questions about the apparent mythos- the issues of religion, of political, military and economic dominance, racism, sexism and the whole swathe of seemingly insurmountable challenges that currently plague the planetary community: there has been an increasing groundswell of challenges to the dominant paradigm, deconstruction of a thousand ‘sacred’ limitations and restrictions of the individual and the community, micro to macro. None of these to date have managed to get to the heart of the infinitely headed hydra and as a result the planetary community is being led by the nose, manipulated and shepherded into precisely the behaviours that the controllers want them to display.

While individuals are oblivious to the hub around which they revolve they will continue to act in exactly the ways that have been set out for them. They will continue to follow the hidden dictates of those engineering the behaviours, the psychology and the culture that is emerging as dominant on the planet; they will continue to be bewildered by the failure of their revolutions and uprisings to transform anything at all.

This is why the sui generis is unlike any other platform on the planet: it identifies and remedies the central hub, the operating platform that the psychopathic Wetiko culture requires in order to function. It names the one thing upon which every act of harm against any other individual, creature or ecosystem is built on; it identifies that which must be present in order for harm to occur to another.

That foundational element is heteronomy.

Heteronomy is both the belief that, for whatever reason, one individual or group can dominate and control another individual, group, creature or living system and it is the actions that spring from that belief. Without the foundational platform of belief in heteronomy, no harm could be done to another without the awareness that such harm was simultaneously being done to Self, one’s community and entire system of support. To function, heteronomy encompasses the idea of Self as separate from everything else; heteronomy engages and incorporates the concept of groups, classifications and ‘other’ in order to accomplish its goals and intentions.

Heteronomy creates Empire.

 Without heteronomy, it is impossible to create a system by which others are dominated and controlled. Those without the philosophy of heteronomy do not naturally engage in the domination and control of others; they recognise implicitly the co-creative nature of the multiverse and function from that platform. Heteronomy allows the perspective of ‘us and them’ through a sleight of hand, the equating of ‘similar’ with same, the emergence of sameness as a category that defines ‘not us’, classification weaponised to create a means of dominating and controlling anything outside the desires, goals and intentions of the few who control the definitions.

All-great-truths-begin-as-blasphemies-atheism-24203359-500-500

Sui generis is the remedy to heteronomy. Sui generis is the term used to describe something that is unique, beyond categorisation and generic; sui generis points to a reality that most individuals recognise in a limited fashion but have been deliberately discouraged from taking to the logical amplification- that all Beings, creatures and living systems are sui generis, unique, without peer, not subject to category, homogenisation, limitation, definition, discrimination, control or domination by any external agent. Sui generis is its own jurisdiction, its own authority: the controllers have used this in commerce and copyright to set the worth of a unique object, work of art, book, creation, but they have steadfastly maintained their division of sui generis from living Beings because living, sui generis Beings cannot be put under the domination of an external agency. It’s in their own law, which they themselves are dependent on for the constructs of their own commercial agencies, the rules by which they play amongst themselves: these are part of the hidden ‘law’ that courts and other agencies of rule are using when individuals who do not know they are seen as property enter into. Everything is commerce in the world of the pathocracy and commerce needs established rules for setting the worth of something. The foundational principle of sui generis is the bottom line that does this in their system.

Sui generis in action dissolves the heteronomy in this way: a sui generis Being knows what they are and that they are not a thing. They know that their authority begins and ends with their own Being; that which makes them unique are the very same elements that make all other Beings unique, so they have no basis upon which to claim any false superiority over another individual, creature or living system- which includes the planet. They know that an action of heteronomy is an act against the sui generis principle itself, which they rely on to maintain their own autonomy and self regulating authority; only the insane act in ways that are contrary to their own wellbeing and thus actions based in heteronomy are the actions of the insane.

Empire is revealed in totality for what it actually is: an expression of disorder, disturbance, a psychological and emotional pathosis which, if left unchecked, threatens all life around it. Empire is recognised as the enemy of individual and communal evolution; it is finally seen as the predator it truly is and responded to appropriately.

(This article was written while listening to Hammock’s magnificent ‘Raising Your Voice… Trying to Stop An Echo’ and ‘Chasing after Shadows… Living with the Ghosts’ albums. Bliss for my ears. )

OpenMind-web

This question has been asked of me: “First question: your paradigm sounds to me *very* similar, if not identical, to anarchism. Do you identify it as an anarchist paradigm, and do you personally identify as an anarchist? If not (and even if so), how do you distinguish yourself and your philosophy from anarchism; are there any fundamental differences and/or differences in focus? “

I really enjoyed this question because it gave me the opportunity to publically refract the sui generis in a number of ways I don’t usually go. Here’s my reply.

While it might appear in function that anarchism and Sui Generis are identical, it is at their foundation the differences emerge. Anarchism is a subjectively interpreted philosophy; debatable, contested, argued, disputed and challenged even amongst those that label themselves anarchists. This is the problem with philosophies: they’re debatable.

In the past I’ve intentionally experienced anarchist groups and perspectives, wondering if these contained the essential elements I was looking for; what I found was a group of individuals whose subjective experiences and interpretations frequently caused the group to go into intense upheavals that often resulted in fractures and splits within interpersonal and group dynamics. I observed that it was often the inability to reconcile the subjective philosophy of the individual to the external experience within the group; what I also observed was that it was the philosophical nature of anarchism itself- made fluid, shifting and interpretable by the subjective experience of the individual- that caused the problems. There was a failure on a deep level to establish the paradigm on something that removed the ability of subjectivity being an issue from the equation.

When I was looking for what would underpin a profound shift in consciousness that was scalable from individual to planetary community I intentionally rejected philosophies as a potential remedy because they rely on a specific kind of consensus in order to function even when, as is the case with anarchy, the foundational premise appears to be relatively simple- in anarchy’s case, the idea of ‘no master, no slave’. There are problems within this apparent simplicity on an experiential level, which I’ll explain as I go through my answer, but suffice to say these problems were enough for me to reject anarchy as a solution pretty quickly, along with pretty much every platform on the planet because they rely on some kind of consensus. I’ve had enough experience with individuals to recognise that consensus realities aren’t a good idea: I wanted something that Empire could not use to recreate itself.

Sui Generis isn’t a philosophy, it’s a principle, based on observable data, that backs the intuition and instinct many philosophies and alternative/counter cultures are based on. The principle of Sui Generis is elegantly simple in concept but incredibly powerful in action: sui generis removes the subjective dispute from the platform and places the responsibility for any cognitive dissonance experienced back onto the individual experiencing the dissonance, not the platform itself. It is a principle found in the natural world,  in the function of law and in the intuition and instinct of many-if not most- of the self aware individuals on the planet, although for the purposes and intention of the law makers the full import of the principle was deliberately hidden away in commerce and copyright law, where it could be employed towards things while keeping the full implications for sentient individuals out of the public domain.

Sui Generis simply states clearly that unique creations are their own authority and jurisdiction. How does this become a platform for social transformation?

Unlock Your Mind 28

When this term was first gifted to me through another individual who thought I could do more with it than they could, I’d spent two years buried in the law looking for the remedy I intuitively knew was buried in there. I’d been experimenting with the ‘freeman/sovereign’ movement and had gotten into trust law as a result; in trust law I found a contortion of construement, enslavement and conversions that left me boggled. I found legal definitions that construed ‘human beings’ as cattle, that defined human beings as ‘monsters’, interlinking laws that decreed adults were always, in the eyes of the law, wards of the state. Twice I had a mini breakdown just in sheer horror at the story that was unfolding on a planetary scale all done in the name of law. I had reached a point of overload that left my intuitive ability struggling but still clear that there WAS a remedy within it all because I’d seen with my own eyes that in court there was something that those in the system were obeying, it just wasn’t information that was available to the non-lawyers, the ordinary individuals, that were going through the system.

Then someone I knew sent me just those two words- sui generis- and said “I think this will interest you.” And the entire remedy unfolded out before me, hidden deep within commercial and copyright law: unique creations are THEIR OWN AUTHORITY. In copyright and commercial law, the sui generis of a particular creation is used in part to determine its commercial ‘worth’; it is the degree of sui generis expressed within that particular creation that is used to determine copyright infringement cases, or plagiarism, or the degree upon one creation has inspired another.

Sui Generis is the principle upon which the right of a creator- artist, writer, designer, architect, choreographer or any individual that produces original works- is established: the principle of sui generis, unique, of its own kind, is the foundation upon which intellectual and physical copyright is built. Nobody disputes the rights of an author to exercise copyright over their material unless it can be established that their work is not, in fact, original: that which is not original becomes generic and the worth of that thing is immediately reduced to a copy. This changes the way the law views this thing, regardless of what it is: knockoff Rolex’s will never be worth as much as the original, for instance, no matter how good a copy they are; knockoff Rembrandt’s are the same.

As I was contemplating these operations of law based on a foundation principle of ‘unique’ I had an explosion of awareness go off in my head, based on the myriads of other functions of law I’d researched as being in operation towards human beings: individual human beings were having their sui generis stripped from them by the full knowing of the functions of law: what I mean by this is that the ‘law’ and those enforcing it on a court level were fully aware of what wasn’t being afforded the individual and there were very, very specific reasons for that which revealed themselves in the commercial trading that goes on around human beings and their activities.

In the public domain law, human beings are not sui generis individuals, they are generic, a group, a classification, a designation: in the deep law, they are also construed variously as cattle, as resource, as tradeable item. The issue of individual sui generis is used against an individual or to establish a matter, such as in the use of an individual’s unique DNA, fingerprints or other biological markers to convict them of criminal charges, or to establish paternity, or to protect a particular copyright: the court knows that the individual is unique because it’s fully aware of the principle of sui generis in the physical realm, which is that no two living organisms are the same. They can be similar, but not identical- and this creates all kinds of legal function requirements.

It is from this knowing that patenting of life sprang: the majority of individuals believe that the patenting of life is possible because the principle of sui generis isn’t in public operation, which is exactly the way those in control wish it to remain: the actual issue with DNA and other life based patenting is that no two living organisms are identical and hence the complexities of actually making those patents stick if disputes arise between different corporations.

This is also why the US Govt went for the ‘70% similar’ spread with its patents on Ebola: it was going for the greatest spread against the individual differences between organisms that it could without taking it into the sui generis territory. This 70% spread has really big implications and expression when it comes to the human being domain and explains in part what the obsession with social engineering is about: individuals are not individuals if they behave, think and operate as a hive mind. In law, there are specific formulas and applications that are used to determine if a work is original or not, if it meets the definition of ‘plagiarism’ or not, and these formulas have to do with the degree of originality within the work or item itself. In writing this is often the 10% rule, when it comes to actual content- in works of art or design there are other formulas but the ones regarding living organisms are much more complex. If the US Govt has gone for the 70% spread then we can be assured that it’s a good ballpark figure to consider the courts are willing to accede to.

It is important also to consider that in copyright and commerce it’s not simply the equation of a strict number of words or phrases, or how a thing looks, it’s the non-tangibles that are also taken into consideration; in the case of written works, for example, the themes, tones and intention of the writing is taken into account. This is intellectual copyright, the understanding that ideas, concepts, platforms can themselves be copyright: the products of an individual’s thinking is unique and can have copyright applied to it. This is why nobody disputes Einstein’s work and why his thinking about that work is uniquely his as well: nobody serious would help themselves to his notes and try to pass off his thinking as their own.

Why is this so important? What does this implicate for human beings?

open_your_mind_by_victorhugoqisso-d31ktva

There is no disputing-within either law or actual science- that individual humans are absolutely unique (ScienceForHireTM isn’t science at all, it’s the Cult of Scientific Propaganda so I never consider that as actual science). Everything about an individual human beings is unique, but this doesn’t serve the interests of commerce, which relies on the ability to classify various groups into classes in order to assign value to them, yet commerce in action is silently testifying all the time that it’s totally aware individual human beings are unique: what else do eye scanners, fingerprint scanners and voice recognition systems operate on? Commerce and the function of law around us is continually telling us what actually IS, which is that every single living human being is not a category or part of some other whole, but is a unique, one of a kind, Sui Generis Being, without peer, of their own jurisdiction, their own authority, their own designation.

 Here’s the thing: the statute law (which makes up the body of ‘law’ that operates in corporations, of which every govt in the world is one) has no authority over living, sui generis individuals: the law that applies to these individuals is the principle of sui generis itself, that each Being is authority over their own Self only; any act of domination and control over another constitutes harm and immediately takes an individual out of their own sui generis and brings them under external authority law: the law that applies to things, categories and property. If an individual demonstrates an inability to function as a sui generis Being then they must be treated as immature, a child, a ward, in need of management: what has happened within our culture is those in power have construed and tortiously converted the trusts in such a way that nobody outside their system is seen as an adult because they’re not told about their sui generis, not shown how to be truly mature, responsible Beings. This suits the agendas of those in control on any number of levels but creates a system in which the overbearing hand of the ‘guardian’ is becoming the greatest danger: the psychopaths are in control because control is the opposite of sui generis.

The stifling of the sui generis in living Sentient Beings has an even greater function: the stifling of the evolution of consciousness within the planetary community. This leads into a different discussion of the deep nature of contracts, which I won’t get into here, but the purpose and intention is the same: preventing the evolution of the individual and the planetary community. There’s enough information out in the ether that points to the incompatibility of a community of free thinking, self aware and personally responsible individuals and a culture of domination and control; those in power are addicted to their own perceptions and propagandas in this regard.

(This is why the models of ‘universe at war with itself over scarce resources’ and the ‘dominator/dominated, predator/prey’ models of evolution served the controller’s purpose so well; it’s much much harder to achieve one’s aims of absolute control over a sentient population when that population believes evolution to be inspired by co-operation and symbiotic connection. )

Returning to the question, though, this is why I do not experience sui generis to be identical to anarchy, because sui generis is the anchoring platform anarchy has been looking for: sui generis is the principles, observable, demonstrable and indisputable, upon which the right of an individual to their own autonomy, self determinism and personal authority is founded. We are self determining because we are unique: there is no individual that can determine for us our best course because no other individual IS us; no other individual has our uniquely subjective process, the combination of elements that result in the entirely one of a kind Being that we are. Just as no other individual can dominate, control or classify us, we are not free to dominate, control or classify another living Being regardless of form: sui generis applies to ALL organisms, from microbes to galaxies- we are authorities over our own Being, nothing more: everything else is co-operation, co-creation, respectful dialogue, the awareness of one another’s right to self determination.

open-your-mind-paulo-zerbato

This is what anarchy was pointing towards intuitively but couldn’t substantiate. I wanted a platform that individuals couldn’t argue over; I was intuitively aware that there was a principle in operation on the planet that would dissolve Empire’s ability to function and in the principles of sui generis I have found it. No matter how I’ve hacked this platform, no matter how many ways I’ve moved the pieces around and challenged it, it remains intact and impervious to the machinations of individuals who conflate legal argument for actual exploration (legal argument is a function of law, designed not to establish the heart of a matter but to demonstrate linguistic and conceptual skill at the expense of clarity).

I’m looking forward to more explorations. :)

This is a warning and reminder to those in the media who think that writing articles and propaganda that align with particular corporate ‘party lines’ is a morality and consequence free activity.

Rupert salute

 

Julius Streicher was the founder of the Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer (The Stormer or, literally, The Attacker) and the head of a publishing house that was responsible for publishing anti-Jewish literature including three books specifically aimed at children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

From the Wiki article:

“Julius Streicher was not a member of the military and did not take part in planning the Holocaust, or the invasion of other nations. Yet his pivotal role in inciting the extermination of Jews was significant enough, in the prosecutors’ judgment, to include him in the indictment of Major War Criminals [emphasis mine] before the International Military Tribunal – which sat in Nuremberg, where Streicher had once been an unchallenged authority. Most of the evidence against Streicher came from his numerous speeches and articles over the years. In essence, prosecutors contended that Streicher’s articles and speeches were so incendiary that he was an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews (such as Hans Frank and Ernst Kaltenbrunner). They further argued that he kept them up when he was well aware Jews were being slaughtered.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkischer_Beobachter

From 1923, Alfred Rosenberg was the editor of the Nazi propaganda vehicle the Volkish Observer. He was hung for his war crimes- mostly for his role in the propaganda machine and his development of specific philosophical tenets upon which much of the Nazi action against various groups of individuals was based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg

Words are powerful tools, capable of creating or destroying depending on the purpose and intention of the writer. Writers are not morally excused from the import of what they write, particularly those writers who work in the service of the institution of Public Media; those who claim to be the re-porters, the carriers of ‘what happened’, are responsible for what they write and allow to be published in their names.

Those who are currently employed by the Murdoch propaganda machines, those who are employed as writers or on air re-porters, would do well to remember that *those who knowingly repeat the lies because of ‘just obeying orders’ are NOT spared culpability in a court of criminal law, nor will they be spared the judgement of the masses.  If an individual decides to write propagandist shite in support of various corporate interests, they ARE absolutely responsible- morally, physically and in every other way- for what is it that they have written and what they have promulgated in the hearts and minds of their readers. Writers of hate propaganda, of deliberate corporate deceptions, of bigotries based on self serving interests and hidden corporate agendas, of material that serves to incite prejudice or discrimination of any kind are not free of the full gamut of responsibility for what it is that they have written.

Jewish children dying

When an individual considers the deep import of the power of words, what is it that they are willing to say if their life hangs in the balance? Are the individuals currently willing to be the carping mouthpieces for corporate destruction, deception, propaganda and agenda willing to stake their lives on their lies and actions?

Reporters and publishers do not always die in the name of honest recounting and a sincere desire for an  accurate portrayal of events; sometimes, reporters and publishers die because they are inextricably entwined in serving the interests of those that would do incalculable harm to the majority; they serve the interests of a narrow few, the corporate monopolies whose actions result every day in the deaths of countless, silenced and suffering individuals. Why are these individuals silenced? Why do they live lives of desperate poverty, of miserable lack, of grinding and hopeless hours and days and weeks and years of unending physical labour and hardship?

Wetiko cannibal

In part, they are condemned because of the constant willingness of mainstream media to be the propaganda arm of Empire. This element of the Cult of Heteronomy is not a machine, but is made up of thousands of willing servants, each making the private choice to become part of the Voice of Empire and its activities. They are willing to write lies to support illegal and immoral activities, to write lies that distort the facts towards the specific agendas of their corporate employers. They comply with the dictates from above to be silent on certain subjects, to refuse to report particular events or activities that demonstrate the resistance to the corporate policies or edicts that are increasingly flowing into the lives of the many.

shooting woman and child

Does it matter that the individuals writing and talking for those waging the corporate war are not representing an obvious war machine, are not advocating an open and straightforward call to arms, the honest and clear vilification of any particular group of individuals?

Does it matter that the war those in service to the media arm of Empire in any of its elements are promoting and supporting is a hidden war? Does it matter that it is a genocidal war against the natural world, the First Nations of every continent, the living signal of Ecosanity and social evolution, the war on the poor, the war of the Economic juggernaut that devours everything in its path? Does it matter that this is a different war than the overt one Julius Streicher was fighting? Does it matter that it’s a more covert war than every other totalitarian regime has waged?

War fought by economic means is still war. An individual dying because of economic warfare against certain countries by those who have the force and means to use economics as a tool of war is still an individual dying in war- everything else is the linguistic semantics of propaganda.

starving child pleading

Let us stop telling lies about what is happening on and to our planetary ecosystem and its inhabitants of all kinds and expressions. Let us cease engaging in linguistic distortions inspired by the narrow interests of the few. This is war and, like it or not, we are at war with those who despise everything that is not them, who are bent on destroying the entire planetary ecosystem and its inhabitants. Those who promote and engage the interests of war- either covertly or overtly, economic warfare or otherwise- are responsible for their actions.

They are responsible for the power of words and imagery that they are abusing. They are responsible for the harm they are creating, for the pain and distress and death that their words directly create and support by promoting the willful ignorance of the majority.  Every single individual who takes words and uses them to express something is responsible for what they are expressing.

Words have immense power.

It’s time we took that power back. We can begin by calling things by their proper name.

The proper name for what is happening on and to the planet is not ‘economic policy’ or ‘economic reform’ or ‘government planning’ or ‘good management’- the proper name for what is happening is corporate Empire’s economy driven ecocide- the wholesale destruction of the planetary ecosystem and its inhabitants.

Over the past few weeks I have been having a series of conversations with an individual I know online regarding the existence of privilege and its relevance of recognising the pattern of privilege to the unfolding of planetary evolution that needs to happen: it was interesting to experience because this particular individual becomes incensed at the concept of male privilege and essentially eventually ended up taking the position that there can’t be a conversation about privilege because that equates to a conversation about victimhood: victimhood is bad and therefore anyone discussing privilege is actually discussing the evidence of their own disempowerment and can thus be dismissed.

This resulted in me getting quite passionate on the thread they’d started on it and I responded as I usually do, with emphasis and a flow of ideas based on that passion; naturally this was taken negatively and used as an opportunity to distort both my essential Being and my work which, I’d like to point out, the individual has been quite happy to appropriate elements of and incorporate into their own work after my extending them much time and energy both in written and skype communications expanding on and explaining the elements of my work that they didn’t comprehend.

I sat there in fascination, watching elements of the culture of privilege being blatantly displayed and acted upon while the refusal to see that behaviour continued and was supported by other commenters; I watched my Self in fascination as my internal distress rose and I wondered what was the root cause of this distress. Why is it that I find these actions and interactions with individuals so jangling? Given that part of my whole purpose and intention is my own evolution I went and started poking around in my internal landscape to discover what was actually at the root of it: as I did so, another story unfolded in another part of the world that entwined the two elements in a way that led me to some great internal clarity.

A few days ago a disgruntled young man- who himself was a product of the culture of several streams of privilege- decided to take himself out into the world and end the lives of six random strangers; he left a trail of online messages that indicated the source of his motivation was that he was 22, still a virgin and furious at women because they weren’t putting out for him. He saw himself as an alpha male and a fantastic guy who was being oppressed and denied his ‘right’ to women’s bodies because of the evils of feminism; this led him to conclude that it was his right to get some guns and a knife and go take out his discontent on others.

There is absolutely no denying the source of his viewpoint because he wrote about it: women had an obligation to serve the needs and desires of men and if they weren’t meeting that obligation then they were failing in their duty. In the wake of his killings and subsequent suicide, thousands of men have commented online in support of both his viewpoint and his actions; thousands of men believe the things about women and their duty to be there only to serve the desires of men that this young man believed.

This individual did not form these opinions in a vacuum. He did not represent a small group of ‘mentally ill’ individuals who, in their delusion, will do things such as shoot and stab strangers; the thousands of men (and in some cases Stockholm Syndrome women) who comment online in celebration and support of his actions are not a small group of mentally ill individuals, they represent a vocal group of a large portion of society that actually believe these things, that women are in the world to serve the needs of men regardless of what those needs might be.

That is, in its purest form, a culture of privilege and entitlement. It is precisely the culture of privilege that I was striving to point to in my initial discussions online, where I was attempting to triangulate the many headed hydra that this arena of privilege is: my passion for the sui generis of all Beings leads me into the arenas of feminist dialogue and linguistic analysis, searching and sifting through the nuanced and varied mechanisms by which the Virus perpetuates and nourishes these states of conflict between different groups.

One of the things that was supported by the naysayers was the concept that “everyone suffers” and therefore that all suffering is equal.  I sat there with this one for awhile, pondering the state of mind and distortion that it takes to suggest that the suffering of those in famine countries, holding their dying children in their own stick-like arms while in their heart they know no help is coming, is the same as the individual in the first world angsting over the state of their bank balance and ‘why can’t I have what that guy over THERE has?’: I watched as the cult of New Age Thinking was trotted out, the now standard ‘we all create our realities, all individuals are equal, there is no harm here’ that justifies the continued inaction and disinterest of the speaker to shifting from passive to active in the face of the continued practices of economic and cultural disenfranchisement. It’s a poisonous plant, that one, wherein the suffering of individuals is shifted from something that is actively being done through a complex series of events that fundamentally rest on the belief of individuals that if someone is suffering it’s somehow their own fault: if individuals are starving in Africa it’s not because individuals somewhere else are standing by allowing corporate and economic domination and privilege to occur, it’s because the starving individuals have manifested this for themselves and they need to ‘empower’ themselves, get up off their non-existent butts and change their situation- or die, that’s ok too because there’s no such thing as death really so it’s all karma working out perfectly.

The main thing is to avoid the idea that it might be something the speaker is doing to passively support a corrupt system: that is unacceptable because don’t you know, THEY are as much a victim of the system as anyone else and so there can’t be any group that’s at a greater disadvantage than as another, because it’s all individuals creating their own realities-

and so the wheel turns. The rhetoric and stance then becomes that any discussion of the disenfranchisement of others, the possibility that there might be some kind of unconscious belief system that we’re carrying that could be contributing to this culture of entitlement and disenfranchisement of others, the suggestion that it might be worth exploring the cultural bespelling that occurs through the use of language and embedded concepts, is drowned beneath the need of those from more privileged spheres to justify their privilege. New Age concepts have succeeded in absorbing and recycling the Judeo-Christian view of the moral or spiritual basis of poverty: if you are poor it’s either because you’re too lazy not to be or because it’s a sign of some kind of moral lack on your part, some indication of past life imbalance that’s working itself out, anything other than the reality of a system of manipulation and control that, in part, continues to succeed because those that could influence it otherwise do nothing.

The insistence that individual empowerment and examining the nature of the virus mechanisms are exclusive is one that is hideous to me: the dogma that says to consider the tactics of the virus is to declare my Self a victim,  is evidence that I’m ‘expecting others to come to my rescue’ rather than looking at how the virus succeeds in reinventing Empire over and over again is to me an indication of the immersion of the speaker in the virus rather than an accurate statement about my Self.

One of my interests is in the area of trauma rehabilitation: out of the many areas of study in this arena are emerging some brilliant insights into the nature of how the physiology of an individual contributes to and is the root cause of such conditions as PTSD and chronic anxiety disorders, conditions that effectively render an individual unable to evolve; I view these insights as part of the evolution signal and pattern itself, that these researchers are being led by inspiration and insight to discover a more wholistic and comprehensive model of physical wellbeing than has previously existed. These things occur because individuals ask questions outside the previously accepted box; they challenge existing ‘truths’, things accepted as normal and unquestionable and as a result they move into a totally different part of the hologram. If the individuals who insist that other parts of the cultural hologram cannot be questioned, examined, brought into the light because of their own biases and discomfort wish to be consistent, then they must ignore and eschew any such examinations of dominant paradigm thinking: there can be no discussions regarding advances in knowledge in physiology, energy medicine and the like because to do so is to indicate an individual’s victimhood to whatever their body or their mind is doing.

This is how my mind works: it’s not acceptable to me for a group with a particular privilege- in this case, economic- to use pseudo moral or spiritual judgement disguised as philosophy to excuse the actions and inactions of others. Privilege does not exist in a vacuum: no cultural practice or belief exists in a vacuum, there is always a miasm of nutrients and support to keep the practice or belief alive because without that support the practice or belief dies: where are the Chinese girls these days with bound feet? Is it enough to point to the lack of bound feet when what has happened is that the virus has moved underground and now acts to bind the souls of girls in a spiral of body loathing and self hatred? Is it acceptable to stand back from these actions of the virus and declare that any girl who succumbs to such programming by starving herself to death or committing suicide is to be dismissed because of her victimhood, her obvious inability to see her Self as the ‘creator’ of her life and therefore the culture of oppression that she’s experienced isn’t at least a solid part of the problem? And from where exactly does that culture arise?

It arises from the refusal of individuals who can do something, who can speak out, who can refuse to support it, to do those things.

I absolutely agree that individuals have the opportunity and possibility to be the Creators of their lives; when, however, an individual is caught within an internal loop of  virus programming they are not creating their own lives, the virus is. Those who know this, those who are able to see what is happening, know that such individuals are not able to create their lives in the sense of create something positive; these individuals are not assisted by the notion that they are ‘creating’ their pain, their anguish, their circumstances, because such assertions only heap more weight on their already weighed down heads. While it may very well be absolutely so on a quantum level that such individuals are, in a sense, ‘creating’ their own misery, it is not the same kind of creativity as an individual who knows the cultural and energetic manipulation that is being done to them and can bypass it. These two things are NOT the same, although the mechanism by which they occur has its roots in the same quantum process.

When individuals like to suggest the New Age theory of how all suffering is the fault of the individual who is suffering, I like to offer an alternative theory- that such individuals are actually indicators of where action on the part of those that CAN see needs to take place: I see these individuals as the eyes of the evolution watching those who could be acting as the voices of the silenced do nothing at all, or even worse, pontificate as to how those who are suffering are the direct causes of their own suffering and how, if they’d just activate their empowerment, there’d no longer be a shortage of food caused by the machinations of a greedy and materialistic corporate and banking hegemony and held in place by the apathy and self interest of the majority and the poor would no longer exist.

I see the existence of suffering in part as an indictment of the continued self indulgence of individuals who experience a level of comfort and safety that they don’t want to risk: there is absolutely a spiritual question being asked but it’s not being asked in the way that New Age religionists like to frame it: the Virus is the Shadow created by and for the planetary community created by all Beings, not just those that the ones experiencing certain kinds of privilege like to feel spiritually superior to. And this is where my explorations of the new Church of Entitled Privilege- under the guise of the cult of New Age Religion- got really interesting.

How it began:

For awhile I had an ongoing internet conversation with an individual who expressed an interest in the sui generis; I engaged them in sometimes long Skype and chat conversations that explored various elements of the sui generis platform and the absence of the notion of any kind of dominant ‘god’ or force preventing the evolution its full expression.

Then came the conversation that became an exploration of new age spiritual premises in which the correspondent stated that children are, through a series of imagined ‘contracts’ in the spiritual realm, responsible for their abuse.

My question: “Are you telling me that children who are preyed upon are playing the victim? Just to make it clear?”

Response: “I am telling you. YES TELLING YOU. that it is possible to enter a reality where that was YOUR call to make. to be predated upon, just to be clear”

This individual then sent me the following document to explain how this works in their model: as my deconstruction progressed they moderated their perspective by telling me that a later version asserted the Universal Self as ‘schizophrenic’ and that this ameliorated the conflicts within the model as it was written. It didn’t ameliorate the conflicts for me and, in fact, increased them.

I was intrigued by the process that I engaged with in examining and confronting this kind of belief system. In it I recognized the roots and insidious tendrils of the ancient belief systems from which the monolithic, monodeity and patriarchal control religions sprang and in deconstructing this intellectually I found my Self engaging in a deeply emotional clearing of vestigial demons of my own experience with Judeo-Christianity and its offspring.

I decided to chronicle my process so that I had, for my Self, the internal platform that allows me to dismiss with my own internal clarity the smoke and mirrors logic of those that refuse to engage the physical as meaningful in any way; the ‘spirituality’ that decries the sui generis while claiming to embrace it, the contorted rationalisations that create the illusion of one thing- a form of ‘spiritual enlightenment’- while achieving an entirely different aim altogether. I have found it absolutely freeing to undergo this process; perhaps Others might also.

This is the original model as sent to me:

A note on gender: Where “man” is used, “woman” is inclusively implied. Where “him” is used, “her” is inclusively implied. 

The Basic Model 

There are three components that make up the parts of what we consider “us” and the Universe. They are the Observer, the Ego and the Self. I will identify each part and then explain how they are related. 

The Self

To eliminate confusion, as often we refer to our “self” as being “us”, An explanation is in order. This “me” is not what is indicated by the term “Self” in this document. The Self is the “Spirit Within”. The Holy Bible refers to it as the “Holy Spirit”. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism refer to the “Atman”. There is one Self, shared by all, and it is part of Ø (pronounced “Ahn”) or what man calls “Truth”, “Allah”, “The Source”, “Love”, “God” etc. I often refer to it as the Supreme Authority as there is no thing or non-thing that subverts or infringes on its power, will, and authority. Ø is not the Universe but the Universe is part of and is produced by Ø.

The Self is the “positive” (aggregative, inclusive) aspect of the duality and provides positive reinforcement in the life experience along with purpose and meaning. It is what we know of as the True Self, the “Holy Spirit”, Ø or that which man calls “God”. It is actually only an aspect, one facet of the Creator, but it is one in essence with that which man calls God. When one perceives the Universe in a Left-Brained way, Self appears as separate from us. As we exist in left-brain until we are released, we must operate as if Self is external to us such that we must ask Self for our release. 

If there is something that we see as a true limit, boundary, principle or law then its source is the Self. The universal Self controls the simulation that we call the Universe and remains both tangibly outside the universe and invisible to our senses within the Universe. The Self governs the learning experience of the Observer through control exerted over Ego. Ultimately the Self/Ø controls all aspects of the Observer’s learning experience. The Self is singular and all Observers share this singular, all-controlling “spirit”. Self determines what knowledge the Observer has access to though a conduit connecting the Observer to the universal mind.

The Observer

That which truly makes us unique is not the persona (Ego) or the “Spirit Within” (Self/Ø). We are merely Observers viewing the interplay of duality between Ego and Self as just one of the multiple facets or eyes of Ø. 

The Ego

Ego, the “negative (segregative, exclusive) aspect of the duality, creates perceived external enemies and friends and is responsible for all pain and suffering. This pain and suffering is used by the Self to give the Observer uncomfortable life experience in order to teach the observer valuable lessons that only pain and suffering can provide such that it is remembered. Because of this operation, it is often referred to (by the Ego itself, ironically) as the “Satan” figure. 

The Reality Movie

The Ego and the Self act together to project reality to the Observer. The Ego creates negative experience to provide an educational presentation to the Observer. It is a protective mechanism that has taken over the typical man or woman’s life experience. Ego is often mistaken for the thing we call “me”. It provides the illusion of a physical universe outside of us and casts other individuals as friends or enemies. This is an illusion or a delusion, as Ego creates the illusory perception of separateness, accident, future and past. The illusion of potent free will is also a construct of Ego and it is possible that Ego projects our perceived will backward in time such that it appears to arrive before the actual physical expression of an ostensible choice on our part.

Ego, as part of its presentation of the physical universe, provides sensory and emotional feedback to the observer. Ego is associated with left-brain function and governs spoken and written language, logic and the appearance of “doing”. The Ego, in a very real sense, controls the universe. However, the Self controls Ego, but usually people allow it unfettered control to create negative reinforcement in their lives without any limits. This lack of control leads to a build up of unprocessed life lessons that obscures the Truth/Self/Ø/Holy Spirit from the Observer. The build-up, or backlog of lessons is created by the process explained below.

The Repression Process

In its primary role as a defense mechanism the Ego represses uncomfortable experience to protect the Observer from the harshness of it. These memories often become buried under others. The fact that the Observer cannot even remember the memories’ existence renders them invisible to the Observer. Thus, the Observer is unable to process the negative life experiences for the positive purposes for which they were intended and manifested by the Self. The apparent paradox of Ego serving as both inflicter of pain and protector is solved by realizing that the Ego has no real, substantive existence of its own. It is a construct of learned patterns. There is nothing real to protect, as there is no real enemy, and no real death. Thus, Ego places its own survival at the highest priority (for the discovery of the benign nature of existence would strip it of its power and potentially its existence), and through multiplicity of projected enemies is capable of projecting very intense, realistic hell experiences for the Observer. 

The Means of Communicating the Process of Escape.

Left-Brain/Ego communicates in written and spoken words and this is why descriptions about existing in Right-Brain/Self are difficult because we lack the language to describe it. In reality the lack of context requires one to describe the Right-Brain paradigm not as what it is, but rather what it is not. Similarly to enter the right paradigm one does not “do” something or think something rather it requires non-“doing” and non-thinking. This is a passive act of repression by the Ego. Said another way: One cannot find the door out. One must stop and wait for the door to find them. Another way to understand it is that the Ego produces the structure of the door and a left-brain key. It takes a left-brained action to turn the key and open the door. Once outside the door the key and the door are meaningless and this is why the process must be done from a Left-Brain/Ego paradigm. The left-brain paradigm is as a “room”, a containment that one leaves in the described transition, rather than the transition being an entering “into” anything. Since the Ego hates not being in control, calming it to a point where one is able to practice the appropriate “non-action” is quite difficult.

Operating in the Self

The primary objective is to attenuate the function of Ego such that Self determines the conduct and course of the simulation (Life experience). This is gained through entering into a contract with Ø. The entry into this contract is not something that is performed, but an acceptance of the ultimate control of Ø in one’s life, which is to say, one gives up the ability to act contrary to the will of Ø (which ability is in itself an illusion to begin with, it must be remembered!). It is not what we do; it is what we stop doing. Left-brain Ego cannot understand what place it it going to. It can at best understand that it is a better place and that Ego-based communications are inadequate to describe this “better place”. This is why parable and metaphor are required. Ego cannot pass accurate concepts of the “better place” to the Observer as it lacks the ability. Apprehension of the nature of the “heavenly realm” is a Yin (feminine, yielding) action and not a Yang (masculine, pushing) action. One does not open the door; one allows the door to be opened. Perhaps the greatest challenge, and indeed the primary goal of the life experience itself is this achievement, since the process must be done from a left-brain perspective. The process has no meaning in the right-brain paradigm. 

The Purpose and Nature of the Universe

The Universe is a virtual simulation, created by Ø for the purpose of exploring its own nature. It is practice and we are here specifically to fail and learn from that failure. We as spiritual beings came here by contract to learn and evolve. Who we were born to and the general lessons we were to take from our lives was understood by our Observers, prenatally, through the willing acceptance of a contract with Ø, the details of which are intentionally hidden from the Ego (but not from the Self or Observer) so that we could learn (meet the challenge of illusory ignorance) and take our experience seriously.

    Recap: 

    The Self, controlling the Ego, creates our experience for the conscious observer. The Self is the “Holy Spirit” or the “spirit within us”. 

    The Ego appears to have control but the self retains control in all things.

    We as Observers are therefore protected from anything the Ego gets itself into. 

    Operating in the Ego can only precipitate a series of negative reinforcement as that is its function. 

    To minimize suffering, the Ego needs to be placed back to its proper role (facilitator/projector for the illusion of separateness) so as to allow the Observer an unfettered view of the events and lessons the Self creates for it. 

    The Universe is practice. One must understand that we came here to learn, and the fastest way to learn is to make mistakes. 

    People must face the uncomfortable experiences that they have amassed through the course of their lives instead of allowing the Ego to repress the memories through fear and aversion.

    Our “negative” characteristics and memories must be introspectively investigated such that we can learn the positive lesson from these negative experiences, otherwise the Self will force us to relive and relearn the lesson over and over.

Until this “negative” content is purged it serves as an obstacle to the proper contact with the Self

    People must forgive themselves for their errors and shortcomings because we must remember we came here specifically to fail

    The Self allows the Ego to create suffering, pain and stress to focus our attention on the lessons we must learn. Pain, suffering and stress thus serve a perfectly logical and good purpose.

The following is my original deconstruction; part two is my response using the model of the sui generis. Note that although the writer co-opts my Godel Self model as a simile for ø, this has no similarity whatsoever to the original context in which I shared and explained the concept to them; in the sui generis, the Godel Self does not in any way indicate an Overmind.

The Self

To eliminate confusion, as often we refer to our “self” as being “us”, An explanation is in order. This “me” is not what is indicated by the term “Self” in this document. The Self is the “Spirit Within”. The Holy Bible refers to it as the “Holy Spirit”. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism refer to the “Atman”. There is one Self, shared by all, and it is part of Ø (pronounced “Ahn”) or what man calls “Truth”, “Allah”, “The Source”, “Love”, “God” etc. I often refer to it as the Supreme Authority as there is no thing or non-thing that subverts or infringes on its power, will, and authority.

So this Universal Self, Supreme Authority, is already all it can ever be- which indicates that it has no possibility of further evolution, which makes it useless in the Multiverse. Hmm. Interesting.

We are immediately introduced to an external authority (although I’m aware that further in the model you assert, through a series of mechanisms, that this ø isn’t an external authority: essentially you have introduced exactly the same construct as every dominator religion on the planet; this then requires a ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ that cannot be substantiated and thus already shapes itself to be something that must be accepted as dogma in order to work. This is anathema to the foundational premises on which I created the sui generis platform: the sui generis seeks to explore all possibilities including those in which there is no such construct as a ‘supreme authority’.

Ø is not the Universe but the Universe is part of and is produced by Ø.

In the model you have presented, this Univeral Self has no Godel Self as I originally presented the concept; within the tenets of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem this would mean that this Universal Self is a part of a system that it can never fully know : it can’t get outside itself and thus see its own limitations which results in all of the parts created by that Self having the same limitation of perspective. Whatever this Universal Self might be in your model it is not and can never be ‘supreme’: there are things that it does not and cannot know because of the construct it exists inside and cannot see beyond. 

Your model requires, as part of this foundational premise, the belief in or experience of this ‘Supreme Authority’ as ‘all knowing’. Within the parameters of your construct this is not possible, as I’ve just demonstrated; it is your foundation upon which everything else flows and thus must be the Absolute Dogma, without which the rest of your premise fails.

At its simplest analysis this is simply virus control in the form of Church dogma repackaged for a larger, more inclusive audience. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that a) the Virus morphed in this way because it’s able to do that and b) that individuals fell for the repackaging because they do all the time.

In the Sui Generis, I have created a platform that requires no dogma whatsoever to implement, no belief in any external ‘authority’ is necessary (and is, in fact, often anathema), no individual must bow to a concept or world view that they do not resonate to. You have nothing but human tradition and so-called ‘holy’ writings to back up your premise and assertions, yet Godel’s Theorem indicates that there is another view that can be taken; that this Theorem is in the multiverse indicates that it’s actually already present in frequency possibility, which means there are places where your view regarding Supreme Authorities are inconsequential and irrelevant.

“The Self is the “positive” (aggregative, inclusive) aspect of the duality and provides positive reinforcement in the life experience along with purpose and meaning. It is what we know of as the True Self, the “Holy Spirit”, Ø or that which man calls “God”. It is actually only an aspect, one facet of the Creator, but it is one in essence with that which man calls God. When one perceives the Universe in a Left-Brained way, Self appears as separate from us. As we exist in left-brain until we are released, we must operate as if Self is external to us such that we must ask Self for our release.”

This is straight up control; while any individual must ‘ask’ for release they have no free will. You are talking about a totalitarian universal model; the Universal Self again has created a bunch of toys with which to amuse itself, none of which have any volition or freedom. Individuals here in the corporate governed world recognize that if they must ask for freedom then they don’t have it even if it’s ‘granted’ them- what gives with one hand can just as easily take with the other.

The Universal Self provides the purpose and meaning, not the individual, yet the Universal Self has no concept of embodiment except through observation and speculation: unless a Being has actually experienced embodiment it can have nothing but speculation and thought experiment. A life lived through one’s children is only a remote approximation of living that life first hand; it doesn’t  work in the micro and it’s not going to work in the macro. Just as a parent assuming that they know what their adult child is thinking and feeling- and that thus they are some kind of authority on what’s best for that adult child- same goes for your Universal Self: it can have only Observer approximation of what being embodied is actually like and thus can only have a best guess approximation of what might best serve that individual based on its own limited comprehension and fictions.

As pointed out earlier, this Universal Self is already operating in a limited perspective based on its lack of Godel Self- ‘outside itself’ perspective- so at best it’s always just having a bit of a guess: it doesn’t matter that this guess might be far more comprehensive than the embodied Observer that it’s manipulating, that’s beside the point: the point I’m making is to deconstruct the model at its flawed core. The model of Universal Self as a Supreme Authority is thus again demonstrably unsupportable.

I’m not interested in the guff around this Universal Self being some kind of ‘loving’ Being, that’s just wishful thinking because if they’re not- and they’re really just mucking about for their own amusement-  then we really ARE all royally screwed: better to exist in cosmic Stockholm Syndrome than to consider that perhaps the Great Green Head of Oz is actually a controlling force that prevents- by its very existence- any real spiritual or cosmic evolution from occurring. Woe betide said Universal Self if the minions figure out they don’t actually need it…

“If there is something that we see as a true limit, boundary, principle or law then its source is the Self. The universal Self controls the simulation that we call the Universe and remains both tangibly outside the universe and invisible to our senses within the Universe. The Self governs the learning experience of the Observer through control exerted over Ego. Ultimately the Self/Ø controls all aspects of the Observer’s learning experience. The Self is singular and all Observers share this singular, all-controlling “spirit”.

You are essentially describing a hive mind; how is this a useful universal or spiritual model?

In Star Trek, this was called The Borg and the only difference is that you have assumed a benevolent  appearance for your Supreme Authority/One Mind.  There is absolutely no difference in the model you are demonstrating: one Mind controlling a host that has absolutely no free will, that only exists to serve the intentions and desires of the Mind and that is utterly dependent on that Mind for its entire existence.

“Self determines what knowledge the Observer has access to though a conduit connecting the Observer to the universal mind.”

Let’s just look at this from a sui generis perspective. Here you are stating that the Universal Self controls the simulation that we experience as Universe; not only does it do this, it also controls all aspects of the Observer’s learning experience though control exerted over the Ego. Thus, the Universal Mind’s control exists within everything it already knows; to the Observer there is nothing that it can experience which the Universal Self is not in control of.

Evolution requires growth outside what already IS; evolution occurs when that which hasn’t already been thought of/done comes into play; this is the nature of the sui generis multiverse, the organization of the Cosmic Mind into a system where the infinite possibilities of evolution are able to play out without the dissonance that the Virus has created.

The Observer

That which truly makes us unique is not the persona (Ego) or the “Spirit Within” (Self/Ø). We are merely Observers viewing the interplay of duality between Ego and Self as just one of the multiple facets or eyes of Ø.

Sui generis says you are utterly free to believe and follow *whatever you wish* and this is absolutely so providing that your ‘authority’ ENDS with you; your world perspective presented here in your writing demonstrates that this is actually not so, that you believe there is an entity that is controlling every aspect of the Observer’s experience, in which case the Observer has no free will. The Observer is merely a toy in Sid’s Backyard, there at the whim and direction of the Universal Self; the Universal Self is engaging in nothing more than manipulation and idle self amusement, unable to triangulate anything beyond what it already knows because it has set itself up as the controller and indisputable Authority.

The Ego

Ego, the “negative (segregative, exclusive) aspect of the duality, creates perceived external enemies and friends and is responsible for all pain and suffering. This pain and suffering is used by the Self to give the Observer uncomfortable life experience in order to teach the observer valuable lessons that only pain and suffering can provide such that it is remembered. Because of this operation, it is often referred to (by the Ego itself, ironically) as the “Satan” figure.

Just to get this clear: the Observer has no free will and is utterly controlled by the Universal Self to the degree where it is “merely…viewing the interplay of duality etc” so it has no ability to act on its own behalf. So essentially the Universal Self is torturing the Observer under the guise of ‘spiritual’ education through “uncomfortable life experience”- and this is supposed to be a healthy model.

The Reality Movie

The Ego and the Self act together to project reality to the Observer.

The Observer who is still passively receiving this agony, unable to act in any way.

The Ego creates negative experience to provide an educational presentation to the Observer. It is a protective mechanism that has taken over the typical man or woman’s life experience. Ego is often mistaken for the thing we call “me”. It provides the illusion of a physical universe outside of us and casts other individuals as friends or enemies. This is an illusion or a delusion, as Ego creates the illusory perception of separateness, accident, future and past. The illusion of potent free will is also a construct of Ego and it is possible that Ego projects our perceived will backward in time such that it appears to arrive before the actual physical expression of an ostensible choice on our part.

Ego, as part of its presentation of the physical universe, provides sensory and emotional feedback to the observer. Ego is associated with left-brain function and governs spoken and written language, logic and the appearance of “doing”.

This is entirely your own supposition and misinterpretation of how ‘mind’ works; this perception is also based on some 19th century viewpoints of a split between spirit and Being that the quantum floor perspective kicked in the gonads almost 100 years ago.

The Ego, in a very real sense, controls the universe. However, the Self controls Ego, but usually people

Wait, there are ‘people’? What ‘people’? Where did these ‘people’ come from? What are they?

allow it

‘allow’- they have the ability to affect their circumstance or the actions of the other elements? How, in this model? If they have the ability to change things ‘people’ can’t be the Observer: as ‘it’ seems to indicate the ‘Ego’ and ‘people’ definitely isn’t the Universal Supreme Authority, I’m genuinely mystified as to who these mysterious ‘people’ are

unfettered control to create negative reinforcement in their lives without any limits.

Again I say- allow? The model as presented doesn’t have free will in it- and this part of the your model indicates that this is intentional because ‘free will’ is actually nothing more than a construct and manipulation of Ego. Given that you’ve already said that the Observer has no capacity to do anything but Observe, and the Ego (in tandem with the Universal Self) is the one at the helm of the entire unpleasant experience the Observer is being subjected to, again, who are these ‘people’ that are ‘allowing’ Ego unfettered control?

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because in your model, the only entity allowing Ego unfettered control would be that which you assert controls the Ego, which would be the Universal Self, which leads us back to the increasing viewpoint of the Universal Self as a rather nasty minded individual who likes to torture elements of itself. This leads us to the suspicion that the Universal Self may, in fact, have a mental disorder of some kind, in part demonstrated by an inclination to Universal Self harm…

This lack of control leads to a build up of unprocessed life lessons that obscures the Truth/Self/Ø/Holy Spirit from the Observer. The build-up, or backlog of lessons is created by the process explained below.

So, any usefulness that the Observer may have served in the beginning of this process is diminished over time by the very process of engaging in the sadism of the Universal Self. Who exactly has this ‘lack of control’ is a mystery, yet it apparently allows the Ego in this model to make the Observer’s life ‘hell’.

The Repression Process

In its primary role as a defense mechanism the Ego represses uncomfortable experience to protect the Observer from the harshness of it.

“The Ego creates negative experience to provide an educational presentation to the Observer”.

Let’s get this clear again: in this model, the Universal Self controls the Ego, which creates the negative experience ostensibly to provide an ‘educational’ presentation to the Observer. The Observer, as previously clarified, has no power or free will and is effectively at the mercy of the Ego (and thus the Universal Self) while the Ego creates situations that it then needs to ‘protect’ the Observer from.

The Ego is thus engaging in a cosmic form of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy: it’s the psychotic parent making its ‘child’ ill so that it can ‘save’ the child from the illness. And this is ok because… the Universal Self says so, because ‘suffering is good for the soul’?

These memories often become buried under others. The fact that the Observer cannot even remember the memories’ existence renders them invisible to the Observer. Thus, the Observer is unable to process the negative life experiences for the positive purposes for which they were intended and manifested by the Self.

“We are merely Observers viewing the interplay of duality between Ego and Self as just one of the multiple facets or eyes of Ø.”

In your model, the Observer has no power and is controlled by the Ego; the Ego is controlled by the Universal Self and “The Self governs the learning experience of the Observer through control exerted over Ego. Ultimately the Self/Ø controls all aspects of the Observer’s learning experience.” 

And yet it is the Observer that is considered to be ‘unable to process the negative life experiences’ inflicted on it for the ‘positive purposes for which they were intended’ because of a function of Ego over which the Observer has absolutely no control. In other words, this is the blame the victim philosophy: this is classic abuser logic, in which the abuser/s act towards their target while blaming their target for the abuse they are engaging in. 

Unsurprisingly, this is also the logic that has been used by the majority of organized religions since their inception: blame the individual via various constructs of ‘born in sin’ etc for whatever happens to them even when what is happening to them is a direct action of the Church through its engagement with secular power playing and acquisition of wealth. Here it is the Observer, “That which truly makes us unique” that is caught in the crossfire between two entities that carry all the power- it is the sui generis of the Being that is being held accountable and tortured in the guise of ‘positive learning’.

An interesting model indeed: in North Korea and other totalitarian regimes it’s been called ‘re-education’, ‘corrective indoctrination’ and a whole host of other things: essentially what we are looking at in your model is one in which the Observer is continually being ‘educated’ through painful- and sometimes deadly- experiences at the whim of the Universal Self for an outcome that, due to the Ego, the Observer cannot even satisfy. The Observer cannot end its “experience” because it has neither ability to do so nor the information to satisfy its torturers- through no fault of its own it doesn’t know what the playing field is or what hoops it is expected to jump through in order to stop the pain because there are no demands, no parameters, no clear pattern in which the experience could end- even if the Observer could learn the lesson it can’t do anything with it: what ‘lesson’ is there that an entity that has no volition, no free will and no power can have that will be meaningful and, more importantly, have a positive purpose?

I know this experience personally because I was raised in exactly the same conditions: my mother was a violent, narcissistic psychopath and what you are describing is violent, narcissistic psychopathic behavior on the part of the Universal Mind and the Ego.  This makes the rest of this model much more comprehensible.

The apparent paradox of Ego serving as both inflicter of pain and protector is solved by realizing that the Ego has no real, substantive existence of its own.

Actually, fictions do horrible stuff all the time, as evidenced by the effects of corporations in the world; even individuals who, for all intents and purposes are very real, act as both inflicter of pain and ‘rescuer’ from the upheaval and misery they create: it happens all the time and is a feature of several major mental illnesses as well as the foundation of social and psychological constructs that cause various groups of individuals to be isolated and harmed for whatever reason. That the Ego would behave this way is no surprise at all and doesn’t require a slide into pseudo-quantum to excuse.

The slide into pseudo-quantum is also no surprise, because the philosophy of excusing abusers relies on any weak tactic it can get hold of. In this case the excuse is weak because in order to facilitate the experience of ‘learning’ a projection of a ‘reality’ has been engaged in; a handwaving dismissal of that reality ‘not being real’ doesn’t change that: for the reason of ‘effective lesson’, the Universal Self thought the ‘reality’ was important enough to engage in. A great deal of quantum construction goes into the experience of a ‘reality’; it is therefore not something that is irrelevant.

What a Being experiences in that reality has therefore been, according to your model, designed to ‘teach’ something; if the idea is to teach that there is no ‘reality’ then the method chosen to impart that lesson is an abysmally poor one given how ‘real’ that reality is. I can think of many ways to effectively teach that experience and none of it involves tortures, rape, murder, starvation, pain, fear, anguish or any of the myriad other ‘negative reinforcements’ that the Ego apparently likes to engage in to help the ‘lesson’ along- and I’m not claiming to be the Universal Self (because in my model that Self isn’t as interesting as singularity and Sui Generis Self, but then I’m not talking about my model here).

It is a construct of learned patterns. There is nothing real to protect, as there is no real enemy, and no real death.

The Ego controls the show according to your model, so if there are learned patterns then that’s entirely the Ego’s doing, not the Observer who is still copping the hammering via the Ego’s creations. Who is creating these ‘learned patterns’ at the core of things? The Universal Self, yet again, so whose ‘learned patterns’ are they really?

Thus, Ego places its own survival at the highest priority (for the discovery of the benign nature of existence would strip it of its power and potentially its existence),

This conflicts again with previously stated views of the relationship and power construct between Ego and Universal Self.

As for the ‘discovery of the benign nature of existence’ who exactly is responsible for hiding that in the first place? It wasn’t the Observer- we have already repeatedly established that the Observer has no ability to effect anything in its experience, so either the Universal Self hid it for reasons known only to it, or the Ego hid it from itself which would require a progression into multiple Egos within the one Ego. I have no problem at all with multiplicity of Self, it’s part of my universal model, but that isn’t what you’re talking about here; you’re creating a Universe in which there is no effective remedy to the problems created by the Universal Self in its contorted engagement with itself.

and through multiplicity of projected enemies is capable of projecting very intense, realistic hell experiences for the Observer.

It is the Ego that is creating these experiences, in this model; it is the Ego and the Universal Self that control the show, yet it is the Observer (unique, sui generis Self) that is experiencing the ‘reality’ that the Ego and Universal Self are creating, without any ability to transform its own experience. There is no lesson here, except for the sickness of the model in which a Being is subjected to the influences and actions of external authorities and forces over which it has no remedy. Unsurprisingly, this is precisely the current planetary society model that is being struggled against, but as we progress through your model we discover that this micro is a precise reflection of the macro that you propose the Universe to operate in: permanent entrapment within the limited and ever shrinking possibility of the non-evolving Universal Self.

The Means of Communicating the Process of Escape.

Left-Brain/Ego communicates in written and spoken words and this is why descriptions about existing in Right-Brain/Self are difficult because we lack the language to describe it.

Actually there are many ‘languages’ that can and do describe and express it, they simply don’t use or require verbal or written language: what therefor you are speaking of is subjective oral language rather than a language in which everything an individual experiences can be ‘explained’ or expressed to another individual. This isn’t a failure of language, it’s a recognition of the singularity that is the individual, something that your model seeks to nullify yet which is absolutely experienced in our engagement with ‘reality’: there is an element of singularity that defies subsumation into the One Mind/Borg view of the universe. The kind of ‘explanation’ that is being offered here is the reiteration of the one in which such singularity is ‘bad’ and that only the achievement of consensus with the External Authority is an indication of one’s ‘harmony’.

The problem with this is that, just like in the physical realm- ‘real’ or not- cloning has inherent problems in the long term.

This is in addition to the problem of dividing what is increasingly being a demonstrated as a phenomenon of great complexity- function of ‘mind’- into a two streamed option; right or left brain is an echo of a dualistic mindset that really has no place at all in a quantum holographic multiverse, but it’s an excellent tool for domination and control. The use of the dualistic platform allows for ‘us’ and ‘them’, hierarchies, segregations and prejudices based on a narrow, simplistic view that is echoed in ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as decided by any external-to-Self ‘authority’ or system.

Sentience simply isn’t that narrow a function in expression, but if the aim is to create a system of domination and control it absolutely is necessary to enforce such a contorted, unwholistic view.

In reality the lack of context requires one to describe the Right-Brain paradigm not as what it is, but rather what it is not. Similarly to enter the right paradigm one does not “do” something or think something rather it requires non-“doing” and non-thinking.

This is utterly inaccurate, as anyone who uses MRI and similar tools can readily demonstrate: the brain is very active when one is engaging in the wide range of activities outside that which is classically termed ‘thinking’- the problem in your model is the model of ‘thinking’ being narrowed down to a particular action that is then labeled ‘left brain’: intentionally engaging these altered states of Being is not a passive act. Even though the L/R brain model is inaccurate for the purposes of demonstration I’ll express from that platform: artists of all kinds enter the ‘right brain’ by engaging in a pattern of doing that intentionally diverts the ‘left’ brain away from its entrained dominance. This frequently requires a system of engaging the body differently from the normal state: the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain demonstrates that it is through a system of doing that the ‘right’ brain is activated. MRIs demonstrate that, in engaging with the body and mind this way, different elements of our brain are engaged- in other words, something is very definitely happening, it’s just outside the realm of the patterning that the dominant paradigm, for it’s own intention and purposes, has entrained individuals into.

This is a passive act of repression by the Ego.

I can only assume here that, using your model, you mean ‘of’ the Ego rather than by, because otherwise this makes no sense in the context you’re describing it.

Said another way: One cannot find the door out. One must stop and wait for the door to find them. Another way to understand it is that the Ego produces the structure of the door and a left-brain key. It takes a left-brained action to turn the key and open the door. Once outside the door the key and the door are meaningless and this is why the process must be done from a Left-Brain/Ego paradigm. The left-brain paradigm is as a “room”, a containment that one leaves in the described transition, rather than the transition being an entering “into” anything. Since the Ego hates not being in control, calming it to a point where one is able to practice the appropriate “non-action” is quite difficult.

Again we enter into the wonderful bizarro world where, despite being in agreement with the Universal Self, and in control of what is being done to the Observer, suddenly the Ego hates not being in control despite it knowing that it never actually is. The Ego produces the ‘structure’ of the door and key, but the Observer has no clue whatsoever as to what this is or what it might be about, due to the Ego obscuring the whole process:

“In its primary role as a defense mechanism the Ego represses uncomfortable experience to protect the Observer from the harshness of it.

The fact that the Observer cannot even remember the memories’ existence renders them invisible to the Observer. Thus, the Observer is unable to process the negative life experiences for the positive purposes for which they were intended and manifested by the Self.”

In this world, if an adult manifests this kind of insanity towards a child it’s called, appropriately, psychological and emotional abuse: in your model, because the abusers have been accredited with some kind of Universal overview and ‘wisdom’ this abuse then transforms into ‘educational experiences’ that are meant for ‘positive’ purposes.

Using this model, if I then wished for my children to advance spiritually as swiftly as possible, I’d abuse them in every way I possibly could, telling them that it was ‘for their own good’ and that they were going to advance as Beings by being tortured and harmed. Oddly enough these kinds of physically and emotionally abusive practices were standard fare in centuries gone by: unsurprisingly this didn’t result in producing a planet replete with startlingly spiritually advanced individuals and the reason is simple: the model of ‘pain for spiritual profit’ doesn’t actually produce the sterling results it claims to produce. This ‘suffering is good for the soul’ model presents a universe that is so repugnant to me and, I have ascertained by discussing with others, many other individuals as to be utterly unacceptable: any model in which the Universal Self can’t come up with effective teaching mechanisms other than psychological and emotional torture of a sentient Being (never mind the rubbish that such individuals are not ‘real’ so it doesn’t matter) demonstrates a Universal Self that is a) toxic on any number of levels and b) in serious lack of creative imagination.

It’s the next part of the theory that gets really chunky though.

Operating in the Self

The primary objective is to attenuate the function of Ego such that Self determines the conduct and course of the simulation (Life experience).

Beings are nothing more than puppets regurgitating what Self already knows. No evolution is possible. The universe demonstrates that that which cannot evolve or has reached the limit of its evolutionary possibility inevitably becomes extinct.  That which is controlled has no possibility of evolution; what is necessary is that something from outside the system is able to enter into the system and challenge it, which cannot be possible in any system that is utterly controlled by Universal Self: only when organisms are free to act outside the prescribed behaviours does evolution occur.

To suggest that Beings are free to do this is a sleight of hand trick; under this model nothing is free of the Universal Self and the construct in which it operates. No evolution is possible. Extinction is inevitable.

This is gained through entering into a contract with Ø.

If the rest of the ‘logic’ in this model hadn’t already been enough to make the embedded toxicity in it obvious, the concept of some kind of ‘contract for abuse’ between the Universal Self and whoever it wishes to enslave is the icing on the cake.

A contract is a legal document or arrangement that binds two parties into a particular course of action. Being able to enter in a contract requires that both parties have equal footing in the situation and are competent to enter into such an arrangement; there is much proscription against inequitable contracts in which one party is clearly at the distinct advantage to the other. A contract in which there is no foundational equity is not a contract; a contract made under duress is, by law, a null and void contract, which is why the Magna Carta is a useless document. King John was made to sign that contract under threat of death, which means the contract was made under duress, which makes it legally void.

The assertion that any Being could ‘enter into a contract’ with an entity that is holding every card in the deck is a legal fiction, something that is made up in order to tilt the balance in favour of one of the parties. Legal fictions are engaged with all the time by the powers that control the current dominant paradigm and they are no less repugnant than the legal fiction that’s being presented here as ‘spiritual wisdom’; legal fictions ensure that one party has constant and distinct advantage over any other and that ‘fact’ has very little to do with establishing a matter.

Proposing the idea that a slave has voluntarily entered into their enslavement because their ‘autograph’ is on a document is a trick of law wherein the ‘unclean hands’ (both a legal and spiritual term) of the entity that has engaged in the deception is being covered over: giving an individual the choice of ‘obedience or death’ is no choice at all, but by disguising it beneath a layer of dogma about ‘there is no ‘real’ death so this doesn’t matter’ and all the other contortions being engaged in through this morass of deception is as spiritually diseased as the legal tricks being pulled by the dominant elite are morally bankrupt.

The entire planetary culture is currently being manipulated through a series of legal fictions that have been created to enslave the entire human race; this is a reflection of the purpose and intention of the original creators of humans, but that’s a discussion for a different space- suffice to say that the human society is being given the opportunity to discover that individuals are absolutely NOT bound to contracts in which there has been no full disclosure of the terms (in commerce this renders a contract void), where there has been a clear imbalance of power (which also renders a contract void) or where the contract has been made under duress.

I have written in other essays regarding the nature of ‘contracts’: the word itself describes contraction, a restriction of movement and possibility that effectively freeze frames the evolution or possibility into a fixed pathway. Effectively, a contract seeks to ensure a particular set of behaviours and outcomes based on an agreement between the parties that thus it shall be so, because there is the ability of either party to appeal to an external authority for arbitration should either side fail to uphold their end of the contract.

This then requires that both parties have equal measure in the contract, as well as there being an external, impartial authority to appeal to should the contract prove colourable in any way or that information of a vital nature has been withheld. Where, in your model, is this available for the ‘created’ that is being maneuvered into the contract? There is absolutely no remedy available here, which is a vital element of any kind of trust or contract arrangement: one of the parties has positioned themselves as the Universal Arbiter of the other’s entire experience and Being. This is slavery, not an equitable contract; contracts in themselves were created to obviate the untrustworthy nature of individuals, while also ensuring a stranglehold on societal evolution.

The entry into this contract is not something that is performed, but an acceptance of the ultimate control of Ø in one’s life, which is to say, one gives up the ability to act contrary to the will of Ø (which ability is in itself an illusion to begin with, it must be remembered!).

This indicates the obvious: that one is not engaged in a ‘contract’ but is hopelessly, permanently bound in slavery to an external authority: because of this, the enslaved have simply chosen to construe the enslaver as ‘benevolent’ in an attempt to endure what would otherwise be unendurable. Stockholm Syndrome happens in all kinds of situations between dominator/dominated, abuser and abused, it’s nothing new, but what is being described in the model being presented is cosmic in scope, something I find particularly repugnant and that I repudiate absolutely.

To slide the reality of this slavery into the comfortable notion of a ‘contract’ to which the various parties agrees to is nothing but legal fiction; to suggest that there is any equity or positivity in this act of oppression-made-legal is to suggest that the same tortiously converting tactics used by the ‘law’ here at this time is equally acceptable. This is in absolute opposition to everything the sui generis represents and seeks to create. There is no equity, nor can there ever be; there is no possibility of evolution while the Universal Self maintains its iron grasp and enforcing its ‘will’ on those that have absolutely no choice to act otherwise- the Universal Self ensures this totalitarianism by maintaining a pattern of ‘obey or suffer the increasingly dire consequences’.

It is not what we do; it is what we stop doing. Left-brain Ego cannot understand what place it it going to. It can at best understand that it is a better place and that Ego-based communications are inadequate to describe this “better place”.

This is the standard Church exhortation to ‘nobly suffer’ the machinations around them for the promise of a glorious afterlife; there are so many things wrong with this that I find it difficult to enumerate them. It embeds the concept of ‘physical=bad, disembodied/spirit=good’ that permeates so much of the ‘enlightenment’ movement, which in turns helps promote and allow behaviours and actions that directly serve the interests of those who are currently decimating the planet for their own profit; it doesn’t matter what happens in or to the physical reality because ‘reality doesn’t exist’ and therefore what’s going on isn’t as important as promoting the legal fictions that allow atrocity to occur.

We cannot even talk about atrocity because ‘there isn’t any, none of it is real’ and to try and engage in a conversation with such an individual is to get sucked into the morass of amorphous logic that constantly shifts and moves beneath the feet of the listener, designed to keep recursing them back into a position of absolute powerlessness, subsumed beneath the will of some external authority that ‘knows best’ what is ‘good’ for us: we ‘as sinners’ (or as nothing but projections of the Universal Self, utterly controlled and ‘contracted’ to that Self) have no choice and no volition but abject and total subjection to that entity.

And this is acceptable because of some dogmatic, unprovable legal fictions regarding the benevolent nature of this dictatorial Self that likes to use negative reinforcement to ensure the eventual and complete surrender of the Being it is torturing. Classic Virus behavior. Classic psychopath behavior. The encapsulation of every dominant culture and individual that has ever walked the planet. How true the words ‘let us make man in our image’!

Words fail me that any intelligent, evolutionary minded individual would even tolerate this model, let alone promote it, but I never did fall completely beneath the yoke of domination by the Church and I’m not going to: it is clear to me that there are those who are absolutely Agents for the dominant paradigm and that these are disguised in all kinds of subtly nuanced ways.

This is why parable and metaphor are required. Ego cannot pass accurate concepts of the “better place” to the Observer as it lacks the ability.

Because the Observer knows, at the very heart of it, that such a place does not exist in this model.

Apprehension of the nature of the “heavenly realm” is a Yin (feminine, yielding) action and not a Yang (masculine, pushing) action. One does not open the door; one allows the door to be opened.

Which ‘One’ is this? The Ego one that, through a series of contortions designed to be ‘educational’, is hiding the existence of the door and how to open it; the Observer that has absolutely no power to do anything about its experience at all or the Universal Self orchestrating the entire debacle and calling it ‘educational’?

Perhaps the greatest challenge, and indeed the primary goal of the life experience itself is this achievement, since the process must be done from a left-brain perspective. The process has no meaning in the right-brain paradigm.

Of course the process would have ‘meaning’ in the R-brain paradigm, it just wouldn’t look like anything that the L-brain could grasp: what might not be present is the R-brain experiencing the entire thing as worth engaging in. So many other, more interesting things to be doing…

The Purpose and Nature of the Universe

The Universe is a virtual simulation,

In the first part of this particular sentence, there is actually nothing implicitly wrong with this element of the model; it’s one I also ascribe to.

created by Ø for the purpose of exploring its own nature.

It’s where this element is then taken to that causes everything to go pear shaped.

It is practice and we are here specifically to fail and learn from that failure.

Oddly enough, when the model of ‘learning by failing’ is applied to the education of children, utterly poor outcomes emerge: children are often permanently crippled in possibility by such ‘education’. Why would anyone tolerate a cosmic model wherein such poor methodologies are engaged when the undesirable outcomes of these are amply globally demonstrated in the human experience?

We as spiritual beings came here by contract to learn and evolve.

As I have already demonstrated, evolution of any kind- spiritual or otherwise-using this model is impossible, as is the possibility of actually contracting in any way that makes any evolutionary sense. Learning through trauma is the least effective method one could choose: are you suggesting that the Universal Self actually has a limited imagination or ability to apply effective, useful and sustainable learning models?

Who we were born to and the general lessons we were to take from our lives was understood by our Observers, prenatally, through the willing acceptance of a contract with Ø, the details of which are intentionally hidden from the Ego (but not from the Self or Observer) so that we could learn (meet the challenge of illusory ignorance) and take our experience seriously.

“Self determines what knowledge the Observer has access to though a conduit connecting the Observer to the universal mind.”  

We are merely Observers viewing the interplay of duality between Ego and Self as just one of the multiple facets or eyes of Ø. 

The primary objective is to attenuate the function of Ego such that Self determines the conduct and course of the simulation (Life experience).

In its primary role as a defense mechanism the Ego represses uncomfortable experience to protect the Observer from the harshness of it.

The fact that the Observer cannot even remember the memories’ existence renders them invisible to the Observer. Thus, the Observer is unable to process the negative life experiences for the positive purposes for which they were intended and manifested by the Self.

Thus, Ego places its own survival at the highest priority (for the discovery of the benign nature of existence would strip it of its power and potentially its existence),

The Self governs the learning experience of the Observer through control exerted over Ego. Ultimately the Self/Ø controls all aspects of the Observer’s learning experience. The Self is singular and all Observers share this singular, all-controlling “spirit”.

There is nothing healthy or sane in this model; the balance of power and control shift back and forth between a controller and two elements that variously have no memory of what is happening or what the ‘agreement’ was, one of which is designed to inflict pain and suffering in the name of ‘learning a lesson’ on the other, who is powerless to do anything at all in the situation.

This requires a faith that the one holding all the cards- the Universal Self- is actually a benevolent Being and not the sociopathic, sadistically minded individual that they appear to be. Faith throughout the ages has been one of the effective mechanisms of Empire to ensure the obedience of the masses via religious or social manipulation: Faith ensures that those that question or challenge are moved into the arena of heretic (in the old system) or unawakened in the new age system- either way, the same objective is achieved in that those that question are marked as ‘spiritually deficient’ and are able to be silenced through a variety of mechanisms, including violence and death, depending on who is doing the silencing.

In my expression of the Sui Generis model, I have repeatedly stated that the mechanisms of dogma, faith, sentimentality and emotion are all tools that Empire has used to its great advantage: I repeatedly point to the flaws within these deeply embedded mythologies, the fundamental errors that lead inexorably back to the tight fist of an intractable spiritually dead and energetically bankrupt Empire rebooting itself again and again through the willingness of individuals to engage in the same spiritual ‘vomit’ when it’s presented in shiny new packaging.

The model that you have presented allows Empire unchecked activity on the planet by leveraging the myth of ‘spiritual passivity as enlightenment and obedience to ø in whatever form ø demands this obedience to take’: to question the Church and its actions in the past is now the same as to question what happens on the planet via the actions of the corporations and governments: all things are as they should be and thus to take any action against these is to take action against ø itself.

You are modeling just another form of ancient dominator dogma, designed to subject and control, via an effective combination of mechanisms ranging from community condemnation, ‘re-education’ tactics (something heavily embedded in the cult of sentimentality), shunning, shaming, dismissal, violence and sometimes death,  those who observe that the Emperor has no clothes and would stand up to declare the same.

It isn’t adaptation we want, it’s evolution.

Part One: The social landscape of adaptation.

  

For various reasons, the planetary evolution of consciousness- and the dissolving of everything that prevents this- has been the central core of my purpose and intention since I was nine. I have immersed my Self in many facets of the exploration of ‘evolution’, including in terms of social consciousness, and lately I have been deeply immersed in considering the mythology that humanity’s ability to adapt is useful on an evolution-of-social-consciousness scale. I’ve been critically examining the kind of distortions that I have had to engage due to the phenomenon of ‘societal’ adaptation and I have come to view the confusion regarding ‘adaptation being an element of evolution’ as one of the many subtle distortions of perspective that the social virus1 likes to utilise.

Why is this consideration important? What is it that I’m seeing that makes this exploration useful? The core issue with adaption as I see it is the vital question ‘who has the power in this situation?’: when the power to adversely transform an individual’s environment rests in the hands of another individual or group, the dynamic of adaptation becomes the desperate and unceasing negotiation of a space that is being intentionally manipulated by forces that are often inherently hostile to the individual being forced to ‘adapt’.

This has direct and indirect effect on the individual, both overtly and covertly; while on the surface the individual is scrambling to adjust, be it physically, emotionally, psychologically, economically or a combination of any of these, the real damage is being done on the deepest psychological and physiological levels, which is precisely the desired effect. The mythology that is the concept of ‘adaptation’ then becomes a consideration of a tool that increasingly appears is being intentionally used to prevent social and individual evolution.

First, let us consider the modern dictionary definition of adaptation:

ad·ap·ta·tion [ad-uhp-tey-shuhn]

noun

1. the act of adapting.

2. the state of being adapted; adjustment.

3. something produced by adapting: an adaptation of a play for television.

4. Biology .

a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.

c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, especially because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.

5. Physiology.  the decrease in response of sensory receptor organs, as those of vision, touch, temperature, olfaction, audition, and pain, to changed, constantly applied, environmental conditions.

For the purposes of this discussion some clarification and exploration will be useful: all these definitions relate to the specific element of Virus activity of intentional societal control for an inherent purpose that I’m exploring in this writing.  I would like to reflect these definitions in light of the effect that a dominating element- the Virus- causes by stealth to be absorbed into the psychological landscape of an entire culture: it is by these psychological and linguistic sleights of hand that the trick of stealing an individual’s autonomy is effected. This is the reason these explorations are important: freeing ourselves linguistically and psychologically from the dominant cultural paradigm we find ourselves in is the baseline for profound evolution.

The dictionary defines the act of adaptation as an element of adaptation itself: how does this impact on individuals? Consider the pressure on children to conform to their society’s demands and standards: this conforming is, by definition, adaptation to a particular ecological niche.  Ecology for highly sentient Beings is not limited simply the physical environment they find themselves in: ecology for all such Beings intimately involves the full gamut of spiritual, psychological, energetic and physical wellbeing if we want a society of individuals that don’t simply survive. This ‘adaptation’ to external ecology is continually touted as a positive thing, particularly in psychology circles: it is a measure of how well the individual is maturing, how well they are managing the internal tensions between external forces and internal desires. There is little in society to suggest that this adaptation may actually be a detrimental act if one’s interest is in conscious evolution and there’s a very simple reason for this: you cannot control an evolutionary-based mind. For now, simply to recognize and question why our society actively inhibits and dislikes conscious evolution as a way of Being opens up interesting doorways.

obey_dees[1]

This then moves us to the concept of adaptation referring to the state of being adapted/adjusted.  Here the pressure button is created in which an individual’s failure to constantly adjust to the demands and shifts placed upon them by the manipulating forces serve as grounds to question the individual’s competence and place in the dominant culture as well as their ‘worth’ as a Being (or if the individual even qualifies as a Being within that particular construct). There are more and more insults and assaults to the core Self from without while the frequency and intensity of the parasitic thought-forms begins to increase: those thoughts of self loathing, self doubt and disturbance on every level that plague almost every individual on the planet, the existence of which has been dismissed or targeted over the millennia as being some kind of ‘core glitch’ of the human mind depending on who it is doing the manipulation; secularists or religionists.

Regardless of which element of the social virus is doing the criticising the effect on the individual is the same: an external authority is constantly creating new markers that the individual must meet, new standards that they must conform   (‘adapt’) to, new qualities that they must demonstrate, an endless stream of external demands that must be satisfied. It is this element of adaptation that both fuels and is hostage to the self image distorting industries of media, advertising and cultural memes of beauty, acceptability, normalisation and the myriads of other distortions that individuals are constantly forced to adapt to.

When the functions of higher sentience are factored into the picture, adaptation involves moving one’s internal world and physical self about in order to survive a rift between the psychologically familiar and the externally disrupted: in such Beings, adaptation is primarily about psychological- and thus physical- survival in an external world that alters radically from the one that the individual has internally mapped as ‘the way the world is’. These adaptations are always traumatic or challenging in one way or another; there is always a chance that the organism that fails to adapt to the new circumstances- to shift in their perception, to move their internal world so that it fits more readily with the external they are experiencing- can experience the same kind of internal collapse that causes individuals to die in the wilderness after just two days of being lost.

The sense of constant low grade cognitive dissonance can be easily achieved if the propaganda machine surrounding the individual is constantly depicting a life and rule set that never matches the experience, both internally and externally, of the observer participant: the desperate sense of being out of the loop that is promoted as so obviously available to others who do ‘make the grade’ is the enticingly dangling carrot that encourages individuals to greater conformity and effort. This is also part of the mechanism used to ensure that individuals become willing thought and behaviour police of those around them, working to ensure that others toe the line so that the endlessly promoted fictions will become facts.

Adaptation is an effective weapon for the Virus on so many fronts.

reclaim your mind

My daily focus is not on adaptation to a wide ranging spread of globally dominant behaviours: there is no ‘positive’ adaptation to a profoundly psychotic society in which the majority of those invested with power meet most of the diagnostics for sociopathic behaviour and/or pathological narcissism; there is no positive adaptation to a society that consistently gravitates towards violence, towards self destruction, towards addictions of every hue and dimension, towards ever increasing self annihilation.

Children raised in homes where such destructive behaviours are overt  often experience developmentally crippling conditions such as chronic PTSD and/or anxiety and behavioural disorders; they become traumatised to a degree that sees them grappling for the rest of their adult lives to find a ‘self’ that can operate outside trauma mode. Children raised in homes where the abusive behaviours are covert- covered in a veneer of respectability and social consensus- often experience a creeping sense of disturbance and questioning that can send them either way: deep into the arms of cultural and societal approval, forever embedded in the need and desire for the thumbs up from an external authority, any external authority, because they cannot self orient and self direct; or they go the other way, driven restlessly out into the open arms of a world that has many different faces, experiences on offer and options for constant distraction but no foundational platform of healing.

I’ve waded into various waters in the course of my own quest, that of discovering what will create a platform of global transformation on every level necessary to move from adaptation to evolution: I have observed the subtle linguistic bespelling that arises when individuals are essentially being used as agents for the Virus- be it via the subtle insidiousness of a squirmy spiritual ‘principle’ as promoted by the practitioners of religion, old or New Age- or the baton-to-the-head viciousness of the forces employed by the dominant paradigm to keep evolution at bay. The key essential ingredient to every action taken by the dominant paradigm is the determined effort to prevent evolution, to stifle any movement away from the complete and total domination of the Virus on every facet of society, on every facet of the fiction presented to individuals as ‘the way  life is’.

police-beating-kids-2

There is no healthy adaptation possible to this kind of behaviour and mindset, this kind of society. It is this mythology of adaptation, reformation- ‘change’- that I no longer have any interest in supporting; I have no patience with the rhetoric of ‘revolution’ and all the word implies, the refusal to see that revolution simply advocates yet another turn of the same wheel, yet another yank of the same prayer bell, the intonation of the same chant, the mouthing of the same platitudes, the election of another corporate drone in a suit.

Some individuals don’t grok why I won’t enter into ‘discussion’ with them regarding their perspective or beliefs around the subject of global ‘shift’. They consider me arrogant because I have no interest in compromise- what compromise is possible in the issue and mechanics of global child abuse? environmental destruction? genocide? endless wars and horrors perpetuated in the name of corporate profit? They consider me ‘unwilling to hear their side of the story’ and I suppose to those who can’t see the fundamental errors in their original thinking I do appear that way. I don’t mind at all, because I know that those who don’t get it don’t get to have it. I have no interest in massaging the horrors of heteronomy into a more palatable, saleable version that will appeal to a wider audience that has no desire to do the deep mining necessary to clear the causal heteronomy out of their own systems. I’m not interested in applauding a naked emperor as he parades obliviously down the street, nor posting memes about how great a guy Bill Gates is for funding the poisoning of Indian children via ‘necessary’ vaccinations; I’m not interested in the illusion of ‘political reform’- or any kind of reform, for that matter- all of which being nothing more than the next advent of adaptation to a psychotic, broken system. Reform in the context I’m observing is another way of adapting to or disguising insanity; given that my primary purpose and intention is to dissolve Empire in all its forms via a platform that will ensure it can never arise from the ashes, I’d be insane my Self to embrace ways of Being that are designed to provide a cosy nest for the next iteration of the same parasitic Virus I’ve been looking to permanently neutralise.

Whenever we leave room within us for the particular elements of adaptation to Virus that we are comfortable with, we are the fertile carriers of the next iteration- the New And Improved version- of the Virus. There is no safe parameter with this, no ‘little bit pregnant’, no rationalisation that can sterilise the Virus thinking into deactivation. While individuals insist that their particular adaptation to cultural insanity is reasonable there is no sui generis conversation that can be had with them: the alcoholic only begins to recover when they choose to see that they have a problem, the Virus carrier is exactly the same. While we continue to have conversations with individuals that have demonstrated a total inability to comprehend the extent of their infection we are casting our pearls before energetic swine; we are fooled into giving away our internal ‘gold’ to those that are nothing more than harvest vessels for energy.

We are trained to engage in this behaviour from birth: it’s called ‘socialising’, the pattern of engaging with other individuals while maintaining a strict mask of denial, silence in the face of overt or covert abuse, accepting culturally embedded malignant and destructive behaviours as being ‘normal’. Children are forcefully entrained through a wide variety of mechanisms to accept constant violation as the state of social normality; they are played in a complex game of psychological and emotional manipulation with virtually no chance of being able to discern and prevent the abuse. If they do happen to discover it, there are more mechanisms in place to ensure the child conforms in one way or another to the demands of the adult world around them until they either rebel out of their society, submit to the programming and become good carriers of the virus or collapse beneath the weight of it and become another mental health statistic.

kid-soldiers4

Individuals are often horrified at my perspective on the cultural manipulation that passes for ‘normal’ in any society. They try to argue that my perspective is unnaturally bleak, or skewed in some way, until I point out to them that the behaviour of the adult society is exactly the same.

This is how the Virus works: the majority of adult individuals on a daily basis engage in shaming, coercing, dominating and controlling one another. They are ardent watchdogs for a social conformity that seeks nothing more than to ensure evolution within individuals- and thus the global society- does not get a foothold. These shaming actions happen in myriads of ways every day and form the intricate foundation of a control platform that functions both internally and externally, micro to macro, in every moment: the individual is both policing others and being policed by these internal watchdogs of consciousness, the ‘counter-consciousness culture’. (Heh- the CCC- “it’s everywhere, man!”- more so than most individuals are ever prepared to consider.)

The individual forms one cell in a social organism that again seeks to control others through whatever ‘normalisation’ has been shaped to look like within that particular domain: for centuries this function was served by the double headed hydra of religion and monarchy, wielding the swords of righteousness and enforcement to ensure that little got beyond the acceptable parameters of domination. In our modern era,  the double headed hydra has absorbed an overload of toxicity and has managed to grow more heads than its masters can keep track of. This is one of the reasons we’re observing a desperate global attempt to control the heads that truly got away from the dominators: the internet and social media as a tool for witnessing and reporting on the real actions of those that purport to be flag bearers for All That’s Right and Good.

The internet provides another observation window into the same unevolving human behaviours that can be found in the most ancient texts currently available: humans haven’t changed in over 12,000 years (actually it’s a far older figure, once humans get that even their history is being royally dicked around with). The internet has proved to be a macro children’s playground of abuse, shaming and cultural normalisation that has roughly the same spread of demographics as can be observed in most playgrounds: those who are rigid enforcers of the cultural norms to the degree that they have learned them, those who are desperately hiding out from the majority by hanging out in the most distant corner permitted, those who gather together for protection in some supportive group or another, those who are targeted without mercy on a daily basis- and weaving through it all are the deep predators and sociopaths in training.

This unchanging human behaviour is one of the key elements to comprehending and accepting that it is not adaptation to a predator/prey mythos that is necessary; what is absolutely evident is that a total do-over of the foundational platform that the entire global society operates from is the necessary step. This is the only option open to us if we wish to create a society that is capable of embracing the elements necessary to thrive, not simply survive, on this jewel of a planet. These days even the latter appears increasingly dubious.

There is no room for allowing sneaky linguistic trickery within the task of resetting the consciousness of an entire platform: each individual who wishes to evolve needs to embark on a deep self examination of every virus based nuance within them. It is not enough to believe that one is free from contaminated thinking: if you think, in any way, that you have a right to criticise others who don’t ask for your critiques, that you have a right to pass moral judgement on the behaviours of another individual (right now I’m thinking about the vicious threats and attacks on Duke University student and porn actress Belle Knox while the porn watcher who outed her wasn’t even considered an issue); if you think that you have some platform of moral superiority that permits you to internally view certain individuals as lesser because of a private decision of what is ‘normal’ then you are a carrier of the Virus and you are at its mercy until you step outside the box of your own thinking.

This is where the foundational platform of sui generis has always been vital for me: it is simply not possible to build a healthy, consciously integrated and psychologically sound global society using traumatised, dissociated, disengaged individuals as the primary material. Traumatised individuals do not a problem solving society make: trauma thinking forces individuals to create armour and internal devices designed specifically for protection and containment. Evolution requires individuals who are delighted at the prospect of moving into the unknown, who are comfortable with looking over the edges of the places they normally like to hang out. Individuals and societies that embrace evolution of Being also embrace risk; they embrace exploration solution based behaviours rather than sticking to the same thing despite the obvious uselessness- or downright danger- of doing things the familiar way. A society that embraces its own evolution as a goal worth pursuing is a society that is able to ‘boldly go where none have gone before’, that is able to celebrate the rich possibilities offered to it through the diversity of its individuals rather than desperately seeking to homogenise and normalise individuals as a domination and control mechanism. This requires as a first step the recognition of the profoundly abusive and destructive nature of practically every element of Western ‘culture’ and its practices and a complete transformation of the way such practices are viewed. Part two of this essay will explore this element of transformation in greater depth; for now it’s enough to frame this within the context of the fiction of adaptation I’m presenting here.

I write a lot about the anti-evolutionary nature that is at the core of heteronomy because I happen to love conscious evolution as a way of Being: without being able to identify the core elements that are being actively employed within individuals- and thus, ultimately, the global society- to prevent the discarding of psychological, moral and mythos platforms that ensure the strangulation of any truly evolutionary move out of heteronomy, a constant cycling of the bent and useless social wheel is all that the majority can look forward to. Part of the clarifying of the core elements is to recognise that society has not now, nor has it ever evolved: it has adapted- sometimes desperately, sometimes with an air of hope and joy, sometimes despairingly- to the same grinding principles of heteronomy and Virus that have dogged the entire current iteration of human history. What individuals like to point to as evidence of an evolving human condition is simply not evolution at all: humans as a group are as much in the grip of their shadow masters as they have ever been. As individuals they refuse to consider the possibility that the parameters from within which they are busily creating their ‘rules about everything in the world’ are fundamentally and crucially flawed.

Adaptation to cultural insanity is not a life sustaining action; continuous and unrelenting adaptation to the ever increasing social psychosis is not going to go well for any individual or group engaging in that behaviour. Those who are watching the drama of the global unveiling of the deeply diseased planetary mythos- the one that has been at the very foundation of human actions and motivations- are being shown clearly that there is no future, no life and no possibility of a thriving global society while this mythos is adhered to. Either individuals will courageously embrace the necessity of rewriting their primary code at its core, or they will embrace the inevitable extinction that is approaching.

  1. For an explanation and exploration of the social control mechanism that I refer to as the Virus, please see some of my earlier essays on www.songsfortheotherkind.com/blog