Yeah, its really deep stuff. Unfortunately most people dont care for the esoteric, deep philosophy behind these things, specifically the claims about it being a religion which are merited. The best we can do is show people examples of this cult happening in the real world IMO.
@@Ubu987 Yes. They just bate and switch with infinite fracture and flux for process reality and anti identity and endless literature then try to critique you with pedantry for daring to pin down what they are. They do it with marxist, post modernist, anarchist etc. "I'm not a Marxist, I'm an anarchist maaan..", "I'm cultural, "The only REAL Marxist is an anarchist" and now I'm libertarian socialist, but I'm holding up Marx. Then go back to Hegel. Then be esoteric. It's bullshit. He's a gnostic or one of these people who can't judge and has to facilitate dialectic from the middle every time. James goes way more in depth in bigger vids too, and this tracks with the Orthodox case Fr Seraphim Rose makes in Orthodox Survival course on how it broke free through scholasticism and chiliasm into the age of reason in Orthodox Survival Course. See his video on alchemy, philosophy, and the science of dialectical manipulation. RJ Rushdooney also addresses it in The One and The Many and in To Be As God. Or go into any Jungian or esoteric group and look at the politics in the gnostic cesspit.
Wow, James. This was an astounding one. This might make me cobble together the money to get a membership. The times when you describe something and then describe its modern incantations with the same words and a sort of paragraph rhyme are the hardest hitters. Whether it’s this one on Gnosticism or the ones that show the Marxian parallels across the various critical theories they all hit so well. The bullets format + “here’s the source”, “here’s the modern one described the same way just changing out the names, “here’s the postmodern one the same way” = point made perfrctly
And bring Jay Dyer with Coughlin. Talk to Peterson about it to and critique his model, he means well and has done so much good, but it will be swallowed by the fact he is built on this with science and Jung. He had to integrate his model with Vervaeke through thesis and antithesis recently, cuz dialectic and science.
Likely the reason for giving black people that name is the same as using 'Black', it's to represent people by skin color (but actually by a strict social hegemony) as a corpus. Racial socialism.
I refuse to let them (friends, teaching colleagues) do that. I say, “Bodies. You mean people, right? Human beings?” And force them to change their term or defend it to the point of absurdity.
Freire’s ‘Conscientization’ - rebirth. James - great job :) Quite a task to distill those main elements from such a labyrinthian subject. Very useful for people.
I think it's important to make a distinction that these people are turning Gnosticism and Hermeticism on it's head just as they do with everything. The mystical experience is attained through self reflection and the Alchemical "Great Work" which is about losing your worldly conditioning and discovering a more solid and foundational version of yourself. These people instead take these ideas and reverse them from being an inward practice to an outward practice. They remove the mystical part of it completely, as mysticism is in many ways defined by non-dogmatism and the individual pursuit of truth, and instead say the only way to salvation is accepting the outward/physical/materialistic expression of these ideas. Symbols of black and white (dark and light), masculine and feminine, chaos and order, above and below, all of which are meant to find unity WITHIN one's consciousness, are instead being blended and redefined within the framework of society. The balance of black and white is now a balance of power. The merging of the masculine and feminine is now the elimination of any kind of biological determination. The merging of the above and the below is the redistribution of wealth so everything is equalized. For me, because it removes the spiritual essence of these ideas, it becomes by-definition "Satanic" within the context of esoteric spirituality, as the element of Spirit, or the inward world has been usurped by the element society, our the outward world.
sex: the state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females therefore have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual sperm. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or disordered sex, to be more accurate). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). gender: the status of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that there are only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in his/her womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate him/herself). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from "genus", such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word in recent times, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral ideologies.
Thank you for this excellent bullet, James. As a Christian esotericist, I think you miss some important distinctions like the difference between sorcery and sacred magic (Woke Marxism being the former, responsible Hermeticism the latter), but this one about the Gnostic belief in reality as a prison is spot on. The first thought I had is that not only are the Woke the new moral Puritans, as some have pointed out; they are also the new Calvinists. Calvinism famously teaches the doctrine of Total Depravity: that the world is totally infected with sin and God therefore cannot actually love the world. It is a very dark view of human existence. The great irony, of course, is that the Far Left congratulates itself on its supposed humanism, but its dark anti-human foundation is coming to light, as you point out in all three examples of trans, abortion, and feminism. Marxist feminists don't celebrate womanhood; they hate it. There is a documentary on the trans issue called "Running from Womanhood Like a House on Fire." It all roots back to this suspicious Gnostic belief that the world was not created in wisdom, goodness, and purpose. As theologian Charles Williams puts it, "They regarded creation in a Deity not so much as impossible as indecent." This clearly maps on to human reproduction.
If I remember correctly, Calvin was heavily influenced by St. Augistine of Hippo who was, himself, originally a Gnostic before converting to Christianity, so it's unsurprising that Gnostic beliefs would be incorporated into Christianity by him, and subsequently by Calvin.
LOL Quite. My current roommate has been studying Hermetic tradition for a while, and from what he tells me, heretical elements aside, it was mostly the medieval equivalent of "Christianity for nerds," with all the alchemy stuff mostly serving as code for more abstract concepts (ie the Philosopher's Stone is literally Jesus) and a perceived means to enlightenment (in which case, many of its excesses can be chalked up to practitioners being too dumb/power-hungry to understand it).
@@Xbalanque84 🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Cont...
Deuteronomy 18:10 There must not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or uses witchcraft, or an interpreter of omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts spells, or a spiritualist, or an occultist, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God will drive them out from before you. 13 You must be blameless before the Lord your God.
12:59 - (Gender roles, feminism, and abortion) For an excellent example of this, see Tweets by musician “Grimes”. After pregnancy, she talked about how strange it is that she has to give her body over to childbirth and implied that it’s further strange that men do not have to (pregnancy itself as inequality), then later suggested that artificial wombs would be for women what ending hot wars would be for men. She’s not necessarily some activist-Marxist, but she’s very deep into postmodern ideas of tech-modified humans. It’s all part of the same poisonous tree where a false liberation accidentally ends the humanity of humans.
For clarification, there were no 'ancient' Gnostics, only Christian Gnostics. The Greeks had the concept of 'gnosis' but were not Gnostics in the sense James is talking about here.
I'm 3/4 the way through and he's not once mentioned the Kabbalah. This whole misinterpretation sounds like a grift to me. Gnostics never talked about wanting to chop up their bodies to escape flesh prison. They never talked about wanting to become gods; they talked about wanting to reunite with the first primary emination of divine light.
The earliest Christians had no distinctions between these. Valentinus was almost made bishop of Rome. It was only later when the church became subservient to the Roman Empire that heresy hunters were trying to root out ideas that didn’t conform to the worship of the demiurge.
@@Sage.Craft. First christian Bible was literally made by guy who call Yahweh evil. His name Marcion. We have valentinians too as well, but they call Yahweh Ignorant.
6:17 one minor note: some sources claim demiurge wasn't evil but imperfect, that is immortal but lacking in power or awareness in comparision to God which is how it started to produce evil in an ongoing necessarily failed attempt to imitate God & heaven.
Yes, I would guess that the Demiurge is a more recent version of Prometeus and his brother Epitemeus, creating the imperfect humans, almost against the will of Zeus. So nothing demonic really. Just a lower level of divinity.
Before Marx, socialism was basically a religious movement, and many early socialists were not just conventionally religious, but occultists. The most famous example being Eliphas Lévi, the father of modern occultism. And Marx himself was a student of Hegel who was influenced by hermeticism. So it makes sense that their intellectual heirs would have a gnostic worldview.
I've studied Gnosticism & Hermeticism for several years now. I do understand that they teach equanimity, but I never knew that it had been either hijacked or even started out to become Marxism
you're lying because they dont. the gnostics were a group of wacky christians and the hermeticists are just as opposed to materialists (the actual precursors to socialism and therefore woke) as anyone else
This is great. But visually I think I just need a column like comparison of beliefs. It's hard to tell where the limits for tolerance should be on these things. For example: - I have secret knowledge (That is not falsifiable) - Ok fine, good for you if you think so.. - I have to share that secret knowledge to everyone - Still probably ok. People are allowed to believe what they want to. - I believe EVERYONE should adopt this thinking style - Probably crossed a line - I believe everyone MUST adopt this thinking style - Definitely crossed the line. OR Gnostics/Marxists/Woke We can be GOD Sane People Any concept of God is fully detached from anything we'll ever be. It's important to show the corresponding normal sane Christian/Classic Liberal/Scientific Method etc views We've seen tons of crazy. People are starting to lose what sane is.
Whats the difference between marxism/progressivism/wokeness and liberalism/enlightenment thought? According to liberals: The concept of feudalism was constructed by nobility and it imprisons you in the class you are born in, and we had to become enlightened in order to change society away from feudalism. Marxism is just a continuation to that, Marxists say the exact same thing about capitalism as liberals say about feudalism: The concept of private property was constructed and imprisons you in the class you were born in, we have to become class conscious in order to change society away from capitalism. You can disagree and say feudalism and capitalism not analogous, but gaining knowledge to become gnostic/class conscious/enlightened and then change society through that knowledge isn't new and clearly isn't a bad thing, unless you think the overthrow of feudalism was wrong.
@@thijmstickman8349 In feudalism you had to change society to get out of it. In capitalism you just had to do something with enough merit to get out of it.
@@sirellyn Okay, I said you allowed to disagree with marxism, but my point still stands about it being a continuation of enlightenment philosophy. The thought process of a constructed concept keeping certain people in charge imprisoning you in the class you are born in, and having to become enlightened (or class conscious) in order to change society isn't some Gnostic conspiracy, its just a continuation of enlightenment thought. You can say its going too far, but this weird Gnosticism narrative just ignores the fact that changing society isn't unique to gnosticism or marxism or progressivism or wokeness or "Post modern neo-marxism", its just modern enlightenment philosophy applied in a way we disagree with.
I don't know if this classification of Marxism as a modern form of gnosis is really accurate. Although I too am very critical of Marxism, especially Cultural Marxism and Woke Culture, I do not think it is right to compare these movements to the ancient religion of Gnosticism. On the surface they may have some features in common, such as the notion of a degraded world and evil demiurgic forces at work within it, but basically this could be said about any form of radical critique of the political and economic status quo associated with an alternative notion of a supposedly better society. One could also say that the ideology of liberal capitalism itself-and yes, liberal capitalism is also an ideology, not the absence of an ideology-with its linear notion of time and economic growth and its inherent focus on "progress", that is to say a "better future", is also a form of modern gnosticism.
You're giving Lindsay too much credit. He hasn't actually read much Marx, he only understands that it gets people to click. The basic theses of Dialectical Materialism are the exact opposite of what Lindsay is claiming.
An interesting question: James has done the historical and theological sleuthing to find the roots of what's bad in the world today, and he's done a good job of it. What happens if he were to explore the roots and history of what's good in the world today?
Look into, well, history and logistics and medicine and chemistry. Non-partisan in nature. Premodern has a video on population growth, Veritasium has one on chemistry, ChubbyEmu has horrible medical cases, etc
"What happens if he were to explore the roots and history of what's good in the world today?" You find Christ, and the influence of the Catholic Church on Roman society, and the Western Civilization growing from it, including ideas like individualism, rationalism, the mystical doctrine of the equal rights of the poor and downtrodden, the scientific revolution -- and to see Christ as the father of all these things is anathema to the modern and postmodern mind, who runs away blaspheming, screaming, and cursing should anyone speak this truth aloud.
@@johnwright1447 There is nothing promoting equality in the words of Christ or any scripture for that matter. There is order and Law not democracy and equality. Interpreting scripture in the postmodern context set is nothing more than another type of avenue in culture of critique. Roman Catholicism is just more globalism and gnostiscm. There is no room for any sort of Pope in scripture. Perhaps the meaning of life isn't to fawn over what is "good" in the minds of men and but to practice what Christ left us with as his last commandment, to watch over and care for his flock. There is no political solution to this situation.
A good Socialist replaces the Bourgeoisie with their own self in the Politburo. Every other Socialist can expect a sharp decline in the standard of living, destitution of their own making.
Thanks James. I knew you'd get around to this at some point. Here's a full xlation of bit you posted on twitter. I tweaked the xlation a bit. The voice of NOUS is even more self-aggrandizing than Klaus Schwab's, but it's going in a rather different direction. The the "BORGY" tone of "you will be assimilated into the pleroma, which I will run, and you will like it" is present in both. This is Corpus Hermeticum 1:22-25 or so. κβ is the Greek letters used as the numbers for 22. (κβʹ) οὐ πάντες γὰρ ἄνθρωποι νοῦν ἔχουσιν; ‘But surely the Nous is granted to all men?’ I asked. Εὐφήμει͵ ὦ οὗτος͵ λαλῶν! παραγνομαι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ὁ Νοῦς τοῖς ὁσίοις καὶ ἀγαθοῖς καὶ καθαροῖς καὶ ἐλεήμοσι͵ τοῖς εὐ-σεβοῦσι· ‘Have a care to your words, you, for here you are babbling! I, Nous itself, am come to the aid of the devout, the noble, the pure, the merciful, and those who live piously, καὶ ἡ παρ-ουσίᾱ μου γνεται βοήθεια͵ καὶ εὐθὺς τὰ πάντα γνωρίζουσι and, in the cases when present, I become a help, and straightaway men know all things. καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἱλάσκονται ἀγαπητικῶς καὶ εὐ-χαριστοῦσιν εὐ-λογοῦντες καὶ ὑμνοῦντες τεταγμένως πρὸς αὐτὸν τῇ στοργῇ͵ Indeed, they propitiate the Father lovingly; And, full of gratitude, they give thanks; And they sing hymns to him, out of their love, in orderly fashion. And before giving up the body to its own natural death, they condemn the senses, having seen their effects; καὶ πρὸ τοῦ παρα-δοῦναι τὸ σῶμα ἰδίῳ θανάτῳ μυσάττονται τς αἰσθήσεις͵ εἰδότες αὐτῶν τὰ ἐν-εργήματα· or rather, I, Nous, will not allow the the powers of bodily sensuality, which assail them to have effect. μᾶλλον δὲ, οὐκ ἐσω αὐτὸς ὁ Νοῦς τὰ προσ-πίπτοντα ἐνεργήματα τοῦ σώματος ἐκ-τελεσθῆναι. Being the gate-keeper, I shall close off the senses as entrances of evil and dishonourable influences, cutting off their sensual passions. πυλωρὸς ὢν ἀπο-κλείσω τς εἰσ-όδους τῶν κακῶν καὶ αἰσχρῶν ἐν-εργημάτων͵ τς ἐν-θῡμήσεις ἐκ-κόπτων. 23. ‘As for those without Nous, the evil, the worthless, the envious, the greedy, the murderers, the ungodly, I am very far from them, (κγʹ) τοῖς δὲ ἀ-νοήτοις καὶ κακοῖς καὶ πονηροῖς καὶ φθονεροῖς καὶ πλεονέκταις καὶ φονεῦσι καὶ ἀ-σεβέσι πόρρωθέν εἰμι͵ having ceded my place to the Aenging Spirit, who throws the sharptest fire at them, Attacking them via their senses. τῷ τῑμωρῷ ἐκ-χωρήσᾱς δαίμονι͵ ὅστις τὴν ὀξύτητα τοῦ πυρὸς προσ-βάλλων θρώσκει αὐτὸν αἰσθητικῶς He also moves them to greater and greater acts of lawlessness, so that such a man suffers greater retribution, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τς ἀ-νομίᾱς αὐτὸν ὁπλίζει͵ ἵνα τύχῃ πλείονος τῑμωρίᾱς͵ yet he does not cease from having limitless appetite for his lust nor from fighting in the dark without respite. καὶ οὐ παύεται ἐπ’ ὀρέξεις ἀ-πλέτους τὴν ἐπι-θῡμίαν ἔχων͵ ἀ-κορέστως σκοτο-μαχῶν͵ The avenging spirit then puts him to torture and increases the fire upon him to its utmost.’ καὶ τοῦτον βασανίζει͵ καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν πῦρ ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖον αὐξάνει. 24. ‘You have taught me these things well, as I wished, O Nous. Now tell how the way back [from such sensual degradation] is found?” (κδʹ) Εὖ μοι πάντα͵ ὡς ἐβουλόμην͵ ἐδίδαξας͵ ὦ Νοῦς͵ ἔτι δέ μοι εἰπὲ, περὶ τῆς ἀν-όδου τῆς γῑνομένης. To this Poimandres replied: “First, in the dissolution of the material body, one gives the body itself up to change. πρὸς ταῦτα ὁ Ποιμάνδρης εἷπε· Πρῶτον μὲν ἐν τῇ ἀνα-λύσει τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ὑλικοῦ παρα-δίδως αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα εἰς ἀλλοίωσιν͵ The form you had becomes unseen, and you surrender to the divine power your habitual character, now inactive. καὶ τὸ εἶδος ὃ εἶχες, ἀ-φανὲς γνεται͵ καὶ τὸ ἦθος τῷ δαίμονι ἀν-εν-έργητον παρα-δίδως͵ The bodily senses return to their own sources. καὶ αἱ αἰσθήσεις τοῦ σώματος εἰς τς ἑαυτῶν πηγς ἐπ-αν-έρχονται͵ Broken down into their component parts, They rise again to perform their function. μέρη γῑνόμεναι, καὶ πάλιν συν-αν-ιστάμεναι εἰς τς ἐν-εργείᾱς. while the appetitive soul and its appetitites proceed according to their irrational nature. καὶ ὁ θῡμὸς καὶ ἡ ἐπι-θῡμίᾱ εἰς τὴν ἄ-λογον φύσιν χωρεῖ. 25. Thus a man so re-formed and freed of earthly sensuality starts to rise up through the harmony of the cosmos. (κεʹ) καὶ οὕτως ὁρμᾷ λοιπὸν ἄνω διὰ τῆς ἁρμονίᾱς͵ In leaving the first sphere, he surrenders the activity of growth and diminution; καὶ τῇ πρώτῃ ζώνῃ, δίδωσι τὴν αὐξητικὴν ἐν-έργειαν καὶ τὴν μειωτικήν͵ In leaving the second, the means of evil, trickery now being inactive; καὶ τῇ δευτέρᾳ τὴν μηχανὴν τῶν κακῶν͵ δόλον ἀν-εν-έργητον͵ In leaving the third, covetous deceit, now inactive, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ τὴν ἐπι-θῡμητικὴν ἀπάτην, ἀν-εν-έργητον͵ and in leaving the fourth, the eminence pertaining to a ruler, being now without avarice; καὶ τῇ τετάρτῃ, τὴν ἀρχοντικὴν προ-φανίᾱν ἀ-πλεονέκτητον͵
In leaving the fifth, impious daring and reckless audacity, καὶ τῇ πέμπτῃ τὸ θράσος τὸ ἀν-όσιον καὶ τῆς τόλμης τὴν προ-πέτειαν͵ In leaving the sixth, evil impulses for wealth, all of these being now inactive, καὶ τῇ ἕκτῃ, τς ἀφορμς τς κακς τοῦ πλούτου ἀν-εν-εργήτους͵ and in leaving the seventh plain, the falsehood which waits in ambush. καὶ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ζώνῃ, τὸ ἐν-εδρεῦον ψεῦδος. 26. ‘Then, Being stripped of the lower forces of the cosmos, he enters the substance of the eighth sphere, in the fullness of his own power, (κϛʹ) καὶ τότε, γυμνωθεὶς ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς ἁρμονίᾱς ἐν-εργημάτων γνεται ἐπὶ τὴν ὀγδοᾱτικὴν φύσιν͵ τὴν ἰδίᾱν δύναμιν ἔχων͵ and he sings praise to the Father with those who are present; and those who are present, rejoice at his coming. καὶ ὑμνεῖ σὺν τοῖς οὖσι τὸν πατέρα· συγ-χαίρουσι δὲ οἱ παρ-όντες τῇ τούτου παρ-ουσίᾳ͵
Being made like to those who were there before, he also hears certain powers which are above the eighth sphere, singing praises to God, with sweet voice. καὶ ὁμοιωθεὶς τοῖς συν-οῦσιν ἀκούει καί τινων δυνάμεων ὑπὲρ τὴν ὀγδοᾱτικὴν φύσιν φωνῇ τινι ἡδείᾳ ὑμνουσῶν τὸν θεόν· Then in due order, they all ascend to the Father; and they surrender themselves to his powers. And in becoming his powers, they are merged in God. καὶ τότε τάξει ἀν-έρχονται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα͵ καὶ αὐτοὶ εἰς δυνάμεις ἑαυτοὺς παρα-διδόᾱσι͵ καὶ δυνάμεις γενόμενοι, ἐν θεῷ γνονται. This is the end, the Supreme Good, for those who have had the higher knowledge: to become God! τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἀγαθὸν τέλος τοῖς γνῶσιν ἐσχηκόσι͵ θεωθῆναι! Well then, why do you delay? λοιπόν͵ τί μέλλεις; Should you not, having received all, become the guide to those who are worthy, so that the human race may be saved by God through you? οὐχ ὡς πάντα παρα-λαβὼν καθοδηγὸς γνῃ τοῖς ἀξίοις͵ ὅπως τὸ γένος τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος διὰ σοῦ ὑπὸ θεοῦ σωθῇ;
I want to see this gnostic theory applied here too to the Ray Kurztweillian view of transhumanism: the future holds the key to man's liberation from the prison of their limited body, and early adoption of tech is the key to glimpsing the liberation, or something like that.
Thank you so much for this channel James! I tried reading the material and books you suggested. Many are helpful, most I cannot extract it's deeper meaning. Your explanation brings it to a level I can begin to wrap my head around. I have 3 young men in my life, 2 of which have drunk the woke kool-aid. It's heart breaking. The two live at home and are under the "Devouring Mother's" thumb. In their twenties... living at home.... they are NOT out slaying dragons and building a life. I listen to you and Jordan Peterson. Have you guys done an intetview?? Please do! James Lindsey and JP... what an AWESOME Duo you would make!!
It is so fascinating, informative, timely and somewhat scary, to learn the long deluded and persistent history, of wokery! Once again, thank you James for all this elucidating erudition!
I haven't watched the video yet, but consider this: Hegel collaborated (and may have been) a Freemason (he even wrote Masonic poetry). Freemasons were influenced by Gnosticism. Direct correlation, if not causation?
@@abundantharmony, do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure propositions, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄
I've been listening to you since you did the 4 hour Hagel video. This is one of the best and most succinct explanations I can remember. I know it has rightly taken this long to absorb the knowledge to be so succinct, and likely, detractors would require more robust explanations, but all that information is available to them. Well done.
More accurately, it's a cult of inverted Gnostic Christianity. True Gnostic Christianity would be commonly understood and practiced co-operatively. They've used Gnosticism to create a psychological control structure that sounds wonderful, but only works for the individual practitioner. Early Christianity didn't have an organized "church" structure and was never supposed to. The Church itself is the very satanism Christians fear, and Communism is the satanic global ruling structure they're establishing.
@@ryucartel351 I mean I both agree and disagree. We need organized church, for like fellowship and stuff. And the role of pastor isnt like it was back in that day because we have a direct connection with God through his word and Jesus, I believe that. But its still what we call the guy who preaches the word.
@@ConsistentCed just finished it. It was worth the watch. But I don't agree with his interpretation of Smith. I still think Smith is the embodiment of all encompassing resentment - he resents his existence.
You've just shown you don't understand gnosticism at all. Taking one type of it and correlating that to the modern wokeness is not the win you think it is.
It should certainly be enough to support the position that it should be ousted from public schooling on constitutional grounds. Philosophically, there are psychological dynamics to some non-dogmatic aspects of gnostic principles that are still valuable, ie. descriptive of positive experiences of ‘revelatory understanding’, that are actually happening. While it is obviously possible (and an ever present danger), it is by no means assured, that what such approaches ‘reveal’, is ‘the evil of existence itself’, or our ‘correctness’ in contemplating this ‘fact’ with resentment, self pity, spite, revulsion, and fear.
@@dh8834 I think the fundaments of conservatism can be cashed out fairly logically without the need for an appeal to god, and while conservatives may make arguments for the need to preserve their religions, such claims (however weak or strong we may find them) are about ethics, and are typically argued for on a basis of demonstrable utility, and the maintenance of universally desirable societal outcomes; not the correctness of a particular spiritual dogma, and/or a normative directive to adopt their faith as our own. Neither can our rights be demonstrated to depend on a particular religious outlook, or even a general one. Atheists would certainly have something to say about it if we tried it. ‘God given’ is certainly how the religious express the status of our rights as ‘inalienable’, and indeed the religious are constitutionally protected in so doing, but for the rest of us, it is sufficient to recognise that our rights are innate; that they are not contingent upon some additional state of affairs (their potential forfeiture via our criminal disregard of the rights of others notwithstanding). Keeping religion out of school was never intended as a denial of the Christianity upon which the nation was founded. The United States of America IS a Christian nation. It was about recognising the primacy of our spiritual autonomy; that our religious proclivities are our own spiritual business, and that the responsibility of the State was not to shepherd our souls, but to provide access, for people of any faith and none, to high quality education in service to the whole of society.
@@dh8834 I don’t agree that conservatism has “religious elements”. While all longstanding religions necessarily carry a degree of conservatism (without which they could not maintain their own coherence over time) there is no reciprocal dependency. Someone can be conservative and also be religious. Someone can make a conservative argument for maintaining a society’s religious observance, either in general, or in regard to a specific religion. Neither of these statements carry any implication that conservatism is itself a religion, or that it carries a necessary theological component. Conservatism describes a stance that one takes towards: •societal arrangements and practices in times past and their consequences, •the changes that have occurred over time and their consequences, and with these factors in mind, crucially, •how we might best practically proceed into the near future, with an emphasis on retaining that which has already proved fruitful. “Can't Socialism? Or it doesn't matter since this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values?” ‘Socialism’ is not under discussion. Socialism is a term so heavily diluted in comparison to the issue at hand that one may apply it to almost any civic arrangement set up in order to facilitate a common good. The manifestations of Marxist critical theory that have emerged across academia, flow from the installed Marxist pedagogy that explicitly reproduces the Marxist/Gnostic/Alchemical theology, or metaphysic. In its theological aspect, Marxism is deeply conservative. Among the concepts and values that it theologically conserves are: •That there is no god but man. •That the purpose of man is to consciously take up the mission of fulfilling the universe’s foreseen destiny, ie. It is mankind’s mandate to bring about the ordained ‘end of history’. •That this will happen when we finally arrive at communism. •That the term ‘Communism’ signifies no specific details of the constituent political arrangement of its referent; it refers opaquely to the unguessable perfect end-state for humanity, civilisation, and reality itself. •That the alchemical ‘seed’ of this utopia is hidden far beneath, or deep within, the current thoroughly objectionable political state of affairs. •That the subsequent mechanism by which communism must be pursued (ie, the way to construct this ideal society) must not involve any actual attempt at design or construction of any kind, but instead it must be ‘discovered’ by dismantling everything that already exists; by means of the active subversion of all existing values with their antitheses, and an endless process of negative moral reframing and ruthless criticism; maintaining a perpetual condition of all encompassing revolt until the utopia is suddenly revealed at the end of history. These metaphysical concepts and values underpin the operational model of reality that informs all practitioners of critical praxis. Their belief that their methodology will ultimately result in a better tomorrow (as opposed to, say, the dystopian hellscape that is the ubiquitous inference of the remainder of humanity; over whom alchemical models of the universe, and the Hegelian episteme, no longer hold sway) is a *sacred article of Faith* ; not the logical product of rational axioms, and certainly not springing from any supporting sociological evidence (which, without exception, runs reliably and predictably in the other direction); but, quite literally, an inheritance authored by a series of misanthropic ‘mystic seers’, and handed down from one iteration of the cult to the next. So what? Most religions have a whacky basis, sacred dogmas, and claim revelation concerning the purpose of man and of existence itself. This is true, and perhaps as nutty cults go, critical theorists are largely unremarkable. Except that their failure to recognise their own religiosity, or at least their failure to openly declare it, has allowed them to occupy the educational space, and that the ‘commandments’ of their religion demand they subvert and repurpose the basic epistemic/preparatory function of schooling common to every other creed of humanity on earth, to instead religiously inculcate upcoming generations into a future of restless ignorance, acrimonious activism, and crippling cognitive dissonance. “"universally desirable societal outcomes": Not universal by Lefties.” •Having enough to eat, •Not living in an endless state of abject despair. •Minimal compulsory exposure to mortal danger. •Expectation of good health etc. etc. Even communist desire these societal outcomes; they just find them philosophically and strategically inconvenient when they turn up before the end of history. “If the argument is to not teach how Praxis can make the world in a religious sense, sure, unconstitutional. But seems we want to dig deeper and remove equity math lessons from school since it's ROOTED in Socialist gnosticism.” That is precisely backwards. If someone wants to run a course of study entitled: “Understanding The Religion of Critical Theory” which includes the module: “Critical Praxis, and it’s place in Critical Theory”, that would be fine. I’ll even provide some suggestions for examination essay questions: ‘What implications are inherent in the Critical Theorist’s concept of ‘Praxis’ with respect to the Separation of Church and State?’ ‘Discuss the role ‘Praxis’ plays within Critical Theory, regarding the cognitive foreclosure of religious dissent.’ And, of course, ‘Lucy has Equity Math on Wednesdays from 10:45 to 11:30, and on Fridays from 13:00 to 14:00. If Lucy’s -Teacher- ‘Co-Learner’, spends 25% of Wednesday’s class steering the conversation around to an ideological tirade on economic inequality, and 37% of Friday’s class attempting to provoke an emotional response to the systemic white supremacy highlighted by a study of rates of disease across populations, how many additional years of schooling would Lucy have to complete before learning how to calculate the area under a curve?’ The study ‘of’ Praxis as a philosophical concept, or theological principle, as it applies to Marxist religions, is perfectly acceptable, although properly suited to college level work. It’s Equity Math that needs to go. Praxis ‘deployed’ is what is unconstitutional. Praxis is no more hazardous as a subject of study than any other heinous philosophical concept. It’s the fact that teachers are ‘engaging in praxis’ that is so detrimental. Take a Maths lesson, and turn it into a Critical Theory indoctrination, at the expense of a child’s mathematical education. If all you’ve had is ‘Equity Math’ you have no idea what skills you have been wrongfully deprived of for the sake of furthering a cult-captured idiot’s ideological agenda. The same goes for every other subject that has similarly been grossly diminished and perverted. “You could say 'equity' is just the practical equivalent of the merit element though.” I don’t know what this means. “Honestly in schools, I don't think we need this, Conservatism as a belief is not really taught in schools anyway, so sure, anything tangental to a curriculum or ideological is not in the interests of students, remove it. But not sure unconsitituonal.” Yeah, Conservatism is dispositional. It’s not a belief, it’s an attitude, and it is an attitude that everyone has towards ‘something’. Every aspect of your culture that you have experienced will at some point be offered in sacrifice to the non-existent dead god of Cultural Marxism if it is not resisted. Eventually, something that you care deeply about will be on the chopping-block, and at that moment, your attitude to the thing that “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Has Got to Go!” will be a *’Conservative’* attitude. “In govt, think Lindsay was making the case it's a religion, so it has to be separate from lawmaking or something.” Yes, the separation of Church and State is fundamental. Freedom of religion, including the freedom to remain religiously unaffiliated, is your right as a citizen, and that freedom is protected by the prohibition of legislation generated from exclusively and explicitly religious principles. Most religions have a great deal to say about what they consider to be moral and immoral. They declare what we should or shouldn’t, must or mustn’t, do. The lives they describe for us often offer very little room for manoeuvre. Embracing the limitations of a specific religion, and choosing to live only in accord with its tenets, must be a choice freely made. If the tendency of religion to prescribe how we should live were extended to the entity of the State, with its power to enforce, and its monopoly on violence, then its fundamental role as a protector of our freedom to determine for ourselves the kind of lives we wish to live, would transform rapidly into an all powerful enforcer of religious dogma. Religion is concerned with ‘the ultimate’ the ‘absolute’ the ‘Devine and unassailable’. The State must always be a disinterested party with respect to absolutes, in order to remain an effective tool of diplomacy and negotiated compromise between disparate interpretations of the ultimate; facilitating, albeit imperfectly, the peaceful coexistence of people who live their lives against differing metaphysical backgrounds.
@@dh8834 Except it isn’t. You don’t really have much experience with atheist conservatives over there, so I understand the tendency to confound conservatism with religiosity, and with Christianity in particular. There are, of course, conservatives of all faiths, and none. Not so long ago, and going back all the way, almost every American of every imaginable disposition, was some kind of theist. Commonplace Atheism is a relatively new phenomena. Conservative types are never the first in line for new stuff. That’s kind of their schtick. The fact that American conservatism goes hand in hand, in the minds of young American free thinkers, with ‘traditional Christian values’, has everything to do with the values being ‘traditional’, but that they are also ‘Christian’ values is circumstantial, and incidental, but to see the two appear together so reliably, encourages us to infer that there must be a more meaningful connection of some description. If Christianity had never existed, and you were to somehow invent it tomorrow, conservatives would be the *last* people to perceive any value in it. The conservative mindset does not want to sacrifice well understood and reliable patterns from our past, on the gamble that a novel untested pattern may do even better for us tomorrow, and that is pretty much all there is to it. It’s not that deep.
@@dh8834 As for the rest, The state must remain disinterested with with respect to ‘our’ various conceptions of The Absolute; seeking it’s Religious opinion should return a null signal. It is not in that business, it is not its purpose. Now ‘politicians’ are likely to be very religiously opinionated, or to at least make noises like they are, and that is all well and good. But none of those opinions should be legislatively enshrined, and however religious the politicians are, they should understand that principle and believe in the need for it as ardently as any facet of their faith. Should they falter in this, they tempt the transformation of the State I mentioned previously. The transformation of the State into a force of ethical compulsion aligned with a single specific ideological perspective, is desired hungrily by Critical Theorists. The path to capturing the State, begins in education, and in law. Against a politically healthy, and self aware United States, they could not succeed, but corruption allows the possibility of infiltration and capture of the judiciary. The plan is to install an ‘Equity tzar’. A political office with the power to veto any and all new legislation on ‘social justice’ grounds. An alert informed citizenry would spot the trap, see the fundamental overthrowing of the foundation of the nation, and stop it. ‘Justice’ needs no qualifier, nor could it withstand one and remain ‘Justice’. ‘Social Justice’ is ‘Not Justice’, it’s ‘Instead of Justice’. ‘Justice’ is the product of judgement agreed fair and reasonable. ‘Social Justice’ is the product of judgement determined to be socially equitable; meaning the guilty may go unpunished, and the innocent be incriminated and destroyed if such judgements serve to equalise the tally of outcomes across populations, or mores the point, they will serve to *unbalance* the tally across populations and in doing so “equalise” across ‘racial lines of historical oppression’. This is not ‘conspiracy minded’ speculation, this insanity has been proposed, and when the time comes to press home their advantage, all that will keep them from the extraordinary power of final say on all new legislation will be whatever public blowback can be mustered, and by then, everyone of age will have been processed through the religious schools of Critical Theory. They will screech at any remaining citizens who have somehow kept alive an understanding of the function of the nation’s foundational principles and stand up in challenge, they will mindlessly call them all the ‘ists’ and accuse them of all the ‘isms’, and they will demand for them to be silenced, imprisoned, or worse. If the Woke cannot be awakened, they will be cheering even as the trap snaps shut. Kids on a field trip should never hear the word Praxis come out of anybodies mouth. They also shouldn’t be encouraged to ‘remake the world’, they should be encouraged to begin to explore and understand it, and if they must ‘make a change through their actions’, taught to pick up their trash before they leave. Praxis is the embodiment in action of critical consciousness. Critical consciousness is the psychological state of being fully emotionally captured by the cult, so that your outlook and intentions are aligned with its world model and objectives. Praxis is nothing as benign and banal as ‘feeling like you can make a difference’ or ‘stepping up and getting involved, with a go get’em attitude”. Praxis is a word that cultist want to get kids used to, sure, but the kids can’t ‘engage’ in praxis. Praxis requires ‘critical consciousness’. That comes later. Praxis occurring in schools is enacted through the teachers and administrators. Their praxis is the action taken to convert schools; from institutions of learning, (where they are entrusted with the welfare of children and responsible for facilitating their acquisition of skills and information to the highest level of competence commensurate with the capacities of each child) into indoctrination camps, where these supposed educators respond to their heavy responsibility of ‘bringing forth the end of history’ by subverting the subject matter of every class so that instead of spending the class time imparting understanding, they instead focus on instilling a deep existential dissatisfaction with the social arrangements of mankind. To get kids to see every person as primarily a member of a racial group with an associated metric of oppression. To disrupt their developing sense of stable identity (other than their racial group identity, which determines whether they are either a victim or a perpetrator of oppression). In short, they are manipulated to serve the political ends of the cult, except there will be no end. They are inculcated into a resentment of their society that can have no resolution, but must nevertheless be acted on in perpetuity. They must be hobbled academically and emotionally, trained to never find relief in any aspect of the world as it is, because it is all wrong and it must all be deconstructed, they must revolt, they must take action. They may as well; they’re no good for anything else and the world as they have been taught to see it is of no use to them in its current condition. They are taught to problematise, to see a torrent of injustice everywhere, especially where there was none to begin with. It is the function of Praxis to destroy the lives of children so they will be of use to the cult in its quest for a state of perpetual revolution. While Marxists are no more right about this than anything else, they WILL succeed in ruining the prospects and quality of life for millions of children; condemning them to relative ignorance and bitter confusion. Only the fact that they are largely ‘shut-eyes’ should save them from imprisonment, for perpetrating the most destructive con job in human history.
@@latt.qcd9221 You can say both, or even Xenoblade Chronicles (because a lot of the ideas are carried over) - though in fairness, if memory serves me, KOS-MOS' password was "Ye shall be as gods." too :)
@@shukuffxi I still have yet to play through the Xenoblade games, but I've been dying to. Good to hear they stuck with the same themes. Was it really? Dang, I must have missed that detail during my first playthrough. That's pretty neat if it was!
@@latt.qcd9221 The Xenoblade Chronicles games are better than the Xenosaga games imo (even though KOS-MOS is still the best). And yep, KOS-MOS's password is "Ye Shall Be As Gods" - I think it's in all three games, and it's definitely used when Shion enters the Encephalon to awaken KOS-MOS. I'd say play the Xenoblade Chronicles games, because they're all really good - but the philosophy stuff is so well done and woven into the story. Plus, all 3 games are tied together despite being pretty different. The recent one was the best of the trilogy, and that's saying something based on how good 1 and 2 were.
@@shukuffxi Not too surprising. I was always a little underwhelmed with the Xenosaga trilogy, especially having played Xenogears immediately before it. I must have forgotten about it. Haven't played the trilogy in probably 15 years, now. Good to hear that they stuck with the philosophy stuff. I was always concerned that they might water things down a lot to give it a wider appeal, given that a lot of the philosophy, at least in Xenogears, could be pretty esoteric.
James, have you heard about Reintergrative Therapy? It is a mode of Trauma Therapy that incorporates EMDR and focuses on sexual longing trauma. It has eliminated same sex desires in some patients. It is not conversion therapy. The goal is not to change sexual orientation, but to tap into the trauma. For some, the result is the loss of prior desires of same sex longing. I would like to hear your thoughts on this therapy.
Finally!! Every Orthodox Christian is rejoicing!! Finally someone has gone back far enough to find the true roots of the problem, and reveal the fundamental demonic pattern of these revolution. Thanks James. He who seeks finds, he who knocks, to him the door will be opened. Thank you thank you thank you. So great to see someone finally get at the spiritual roots of all this.
There used to be a word of the day type of thing, not a video, but a written article to read and for people to comment on. Does it still exist? I haven't seen one in a while.
Hello, thanks for the show. I think you have made this over complicated. What we witness as PM or CM, etc. are at best contemporary forms of transformation. What they lack is a true spiritual center. What in the Perennial Tradition has been spiritual transformation through knowledge, discipline and initiation(Being), is now a mere identifying with mere ‘material’ forms (Becoming). I personally see an devolution in or cultural forms. At the deepest level our battle is an individual one. Just to add. The ‘secret knowledge’ is not mysticism. It is super sensible consciousness. Objective metaphysical reality is an art and science.
Brilliant! I'm aware of terrible long-lasting impact of Gnosticism and Hermeticism on Christianitas and the resulting and following "Western" civilization, but I could explain the modern part nowhere near to how you did it here. Both these esoteric belief systems were holistic, eclectic, syncretic Frankensteins already back then, and then... they were brought to the center of Christianitas as revolutionary and liberating sources of hidden truths, usually by cherry-picking what from the ancient knowledge was deemed fit, while leaving the rest unmentioned. The ancient near-eastern knowledge, be it writing, math, trade, mythology or epics (like Gilgamesh) made perfect sense in the context of civilizations existing prior to the ancient Dark Ages, and even some time into the archaic and classical era. However, after the Macedonian conquest the weird mixing of everything already ancient with everything Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Aramaic, Jewish, Christian, Arabian, Indian, and who knows whet else, made a nasty cocktail for a perfect brainFk! This was unfortunately brought to Europe by returning crusaders, Holy Land visitors, and adventurers, then picked up and developed by various sects and organizations, especially Rosicrucians (existing to this day in fact) and Renaissance thinkers. Then somewhere at the start of XVIII c. it resulted in proliferation of Freemasonic lodges and explosion of The Revolution, so it certainly had to impact Marxism as well. Your explanation though brought me a fresh perspective and better understanding of e.g. the process of killing of Philosophy starting from Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, through Young Hegelians (Feuerbach, Marx, Cieszkowski, etc.), and ending with Nietzsche, Popper and Heidegger. All these ppl seem to be increasingly infected with the esoteric brainFk virus, regardless whether they actually directly write in esoteric or not.
7:46 - If it's the social relations that have imprisoned Man, then how the Hell can it be said that freedom comes through becoming a "social being"? 🤦🏿♂️
Thanks for the content, concise and on point. While listening to this, I came up with maybe a little silly question - does every cult ought to be gnostic? If not, what are the principal differences?
Cults or cult-like groups or cultish groups have a variety of characteristics, including dishonesty, controlling tactics, and harm to followers. There are plenty of ways to hurt and control people that doesn't involve gnostic beliefs.
They're definitely different. A cult typically refers to religious-like groups that are not considered one of the dominant religions and that typically put some kind of "twist" on religious practices with unusual practices. It's very common for them to revolve around a particular charismatic figure. I would go one step further and refer to cults as a predatory organization that uses religious language and practices to conceal its intentions, in the same way that a snake-oil salesman tries to use medical terms to fool people into buying their snake-oil, and benefiting themselves. This is in contrast to a religion which is supposed to benefit the individuals practicing it, rather than the cult leader or group overseeing the cult. Cults will often employ tactics like blackmail to keep people trapped within them, as they are ultimately predatory. Gnosticism, on the other hand, is an umbrella term for a large number of ancient beliefs held that revolve around philosophy and religious beliefs. It can't be classified as a religion, even though it has clear religious beliefs, because there was never a single "Gnostic church" or anything of the sort. There's no standard doctrine or text to it, like other religions would have, there's no standard rituals, etc. so it's not really a religion in the usual sense. It's just the term used to describe a lot of different but similar religious and philosophical beliefs that people held in those days. There is some overlap in their beliefs, however, which is what James points out at the beginning when describing the cosmology of Gnosticism (e.g. The Monad, Sophia, the Demiurge (or Yaldabaoth), etc.) Many forms of Gnosticism, such as Manichaeism, Valentinianism, Sethianism, and others have such concepts. The early church would have considered the Valentinians a heretical movement, as the Valentinians were one of the Gnostic Christian movements. The problem with James' definition of it, is that he sort of separates out all of the cosmology, etc. from it and reduces it down to just a belief that "the material world is a prison" and "it means having secret knowledge." Limiting the definition to this doesn't make much sense, though, because it ignores all of the cosmology of Gnosticism, which forms a large core of the belief system. It would make more sense to characterize the wokeness as an esoteric cult, that also holds the belief that the material world is a prison, as the Gnostics would have. By just his definition, Calvinism would be a form of Gnosticism. Claiming that wokeness is Gnostic just because they both believe the material world is a prison, is sort of like claiming that someone that's racist is a Nazi, just because the Nazis held racist beliefs. You'd have to ignore all of the politics of the Nazis to just call someone that's racist a Nazi -- something that the woke do regularly. In the same way, you'd have to ignore all of the religious beliefs of the Gnostics and the entire cosmology if you wanted to claim that someone that's woke is Gnostic, because the woke don't believe in The Monad, Sophia, Yaldabaoth, etc.
I'll rephrase - if gnosticism is about possessing some spiritual knowledge about the only possible way for salvation, which cannot be reached through reasoning and can only be passed down by those who already know, isn't every cult in a sense gnostic?
This is why it’s important to gain gnosis. Without gnosis how does one engage in the current spiritual war? Learn about the secret knowledge. Walk the Bardo, peer through the veil. Gain gnosis and utilise it to commit esoterroristic attacks against those who caste the spells of Woke.
That's how I saw it years ago. If there's someone who's in control, that means they know something everyone else doesn't. Find out what it is exactly that they know, and everything opens up. Everything.
@@ryucartel351 As we can see here folks, the kind of mystical thinking that Lindsay [falsely] accuses Marx of is in fact the backbone of his narrative, and his audience not only eats it up but openly proclaims what I suspected long ago.
@@maxstirner4197 Communism is an inversion of Gnostic Christianity, it isn't based in it. I don't think James has yet seen or understood the true depth of how some utilize "mystical thinking" as a weapon against the human population who isn't aware of it. Marx was in no way a mystical thinker, but the communist system, based off of his theories against capitalism, was designed around the inversion of Gnostic Christian thought. The same way the Catholic/Christian Church attracts followers works for communists as well, same ideas, but the intent and end outcome is different. The same people involved with the Church who erased Gnostic thought are the same people who utilized what they hid from us to create the psychological weapon we call communism. Because they know what it is and the rest of us don't no one can ever say exactly "what" it is, which is why no one ever effectively resists it.
@@ryucartel351 I think your misunderstanding Marxs project and the context it developed in. At the time the communiust manifesto was written most of Europe was still feudal, and the economy worked very differently. What Lindsay wants to ignore is that Lenins Voluntarism was an explicit break from Marx, and not just on a superficial level either. The foundational principles of Dialectical Materialism were thereby thrown out. Marx thought that the mind was an extension of the material world and determined by material and historical conditions, such that history consists in a succession of economic stages of development. Classes are a byproduct of various imbalances in each economic stage, at the end of the stage the instability is resolved, eliminating the old class structure, creating a new incetive structure. Capitalism is supposed to by the highest stage of this process, itself leading to an economic order developed enough to where classes dissolve completely.
@@maxstirner4197 My point is that "communism" is inverted Gnostic Christianity. What people think of as "communism" is a modern day brand name for a system that's existed for a very long time. Cathars in France, who were Gnostic, lived what we would recognize as a "communist" lifestyle. Except it wasn't communist, because communism is a 20th century political system. Gnostics share a common knowledge which naturally progresses into a "communist" state of living, but it isn't forced upon anyone from an elevated position of power or influence. Modern communism is the scam version of the real thing. It's like how the Chinese steal intellectual property and corrupt it into the weird, fake Chinese replica. Communism is the shitty replica of an actual thing that most aren't aware of. The lack of awareness of how a naturally occurring "communist" system comes about, or functions, means people will never be able to make it happen, and will instead be fooled into the synthetic scam that enslaves, rather than frees them.
Cheezies are orange Oranges 🍊 are also orange Therefore cheesies are made from oranges. Lindsay has a cargo-cult level of apprehension of Gnosis and Marxism.
I was blissfully ignorant to Hermetics and Gnosticism until I saw a tweet of James' today linking the 2 to Marxism. Postmodernism poisoned my education degree, so I was curious. I searched YT and came across MorgueOfficial - he proves James' theory.
The philosophy seems to be grounded in a feeling of resentment and the notion that it is better to try to change the world to make your own happenstance be more "equitable" rather than simply work on yourself and the things you can control. It relies on a false belief in cosmic justice and that those who see the world properly have the wisdom to know what that is.
They don't want to change or improve the world, they want to destroy it. The woke reliably sabotage any actual social justice movements. Note the Boston sculpture "honoring" Dr King.
Does anyone realize that Jesus effectively "democratized" access to God? You don't need a priest. In fact you are a priest, as a Christian. This state lasted quite some time in Christianity but took a turn back to darkness when it was made the official religion of the Roman empire in 4th century.
No he semi democratized it while leaving a church and we get fragments and letters and condemnations of heresy, christian practice and hesychasm that match the final canonization. It took its real turn to darkness after schisms, papal authority, and then the combination of scholasticism and chialiasm truning it into a neoplatonic/hermetic religion that was put on the same chopping block of reason Aquinas tried to prove it with. This is a bs gnostic/modern reading of Christianity you are doing. You are not automatically a priest, there are strict criteria for how to pray, how to live, and 90% of us don't live up to it, or the practices left behind, which is why there is a heirarchy and even the married priests of the laity, the bishops, and monastics don't live up to it, they create a small body of saints who do and layer down to the members to have examples of people and methods to emulate Christ. Without that this gnostic and neoplatonic garbage breaks out, or Christianity acts like it with charismatic Christianity, or becomes a sterile or empty mainline into fundamentalist movement.
Think of it this way, Lindsay can lecture us the history of Gnosticism that lead up to Marx and he can lecture this subject for hours at a time. Compared to that hypothetical full-length podcast that lectures for longer than 60 minutes, this 20 minute lecture forms the bullet point version of that full-length podcast.
Marx pretty much just copied Hegel's train of thought. That's all. Marx had little awareness of all the religious esoterica that informed Hegel. Marx doesn't know or care what the ancient Gnostics thought or what the Corpus Hermeticum was. Marx thought all religion was antiquated. He didn't carve out a special exception for Gnosticism.
And his ideas were still secularized gnostic and neoplatonic christianity and acted themselves out as such, especially if you read his Luciferian poetry and see the symbols and plays in communism that inverted Christianity, no different than the paganism and barbarism in Nazism and the French Revolution. Religion happens whether it's secular or not, and these sterile intellectual movements always return to their roots and we see the gnostic and alchemical identity flux in process philosophy and it is turning to meditation and secular forms of religion drawing from this stuff right now, in academia. If you don't understand that you don't understand humans.
But of a break through this, my mind has been blown since the episode WTF is SEL I have a question. In Alchemy. The Homonculous. The perfect being that is both male and female. Any connection there?
@Slick Dissident interesting, but gnostic existed before the Cathars Whether or not it is fabricated it exists as a system of beliefs that have axioms that inform philosophy.
Hope someday you actually investigate mysticism, which is difficult to appreciate as an object of study from the outside. No genuine mystic of my acquaintance has the slightest desire to control anything; cf. the Buddah, Jesus, Rumi, Meister Eckhart, et al. Therefore it is a serious mistake to conflate mysticism and gnosticisim, as you seen to do with your reference to Theodotus. There is in fact an essential distinction between gnosticism and the mystical experience, which you capture well with your explanation about the belief that the world is a prison. The mystic sees no such thing; rather, he experiences the unity of what appears disparate, finds this experience ineffable, i.e., impossible to explain adequately to anyone who hasn't experienced this, and is interested only in assisting others to discover this same experience for himself. The mystic does not claim to have acquired "knowledge" as we mean this in its modern sense. Much of the history of the early church was a struggle about how to deal with the utterly mystical experience of the crucifixion, resurrection, and assumption. I suggest that the church has never found a happy medium between the exoteric and esoteric expressions of the Christ's life and mission. And that's probably OK.
@@lemon__snicker5973 The definition he's using is too loose to be useful. It takes none of the Gnostic cosmology into consideration, which he briefly touches on in the beginning. Without the cosmology, it's not really even Gnosticism anymore. Makes more sense to just call it an esoteric cult, and one that shares one belief with Gnosticism that the material world is a prison to be freed from.
Nice to know that either ND or YT is suppressing critical comments. Sign into the account, comment is there, sign out? Comment is gone... Way to gaslight. Stay consistent. No worries though, if you were actually a threat to anything in any way, you wouldn't be allowed to exist on youtube. Must be nice to be considered controlled opposition. Please have a nice weekend. Keep poaching and participating.
I think you're giving these "cult members" too much credit. They don't come across as being smart enough to have worked through any of these plans in their heads.
That is the point. The low level cult members don’t know. That is a feature of esoteric religions. You gain pieces of the secret knowledge only as you progress through the levels. Like the Masons.
The foot soldiers are just obediently doing whatever they're told is "nice". The folks in power are reveling in narcissism and hubris, but they're neither stupid nor ignorant.
@@cpt.honklerof3rdkekistania400 Yup. The membership in Jonestown were mostly genuinely nice people trying to build a utopia. Jim Jones and his armed goons were not nice people. The members were mostly shocked and horrified at the order for mass suicide. They were forced to drink that poisoned kool-aid at gunpoint. They had no idea of the plan until Jim Jones had cut off all escape routes.
Where did you dig all of this up? I need sources. I've studied this stuff for a very long time, and I've never found anything Marxist in the root texts from the Gnostic or Hermetic traditions. Besides this, Marx was a total atheist. Woke people are almost entirely atheist. I'm definitely not a Marxist, either. You're making intellectually lazy assumptions, and it sounds like you haven't understood what the traditions have to teach. It's easy to tear something down that you fear, and I can tell you're dead afraid of Marxism, and you're looking for somewhere rational to put your fear. Except fear isn't rational, and neither are your presentations... Anyway.. I thought you should hear from a true constitutional conservative who actually understands what these systems have to teach. I know this whole thing is your entire platform, but you really need sources, not just opinion after opinion after opinion... and name-dropping is not a source.
Strange how you never mention Kabbalah 🤔 At least I haven't heard you do it yet in the few talks I've listened to. I have read a claim by J's that Gnosticism is originally J--ish. They said that later Gnosticism is "old wine in new bottles", to be precise.
I get where you are coming from on this stance. It’s more abstract from it in my opinion but the cognitive pattern makes sense in comparison. I’ve studied different forms and sects of Gnosticism for a decade now. Many of us interested in it see it a bit differently but there are absolutely idiots in their misunderstanding. Those are usually narcissists who are attempting to manipulate everyone else but never truly change for the better themselves. There is a reason so many woke shows(especially those geared to teens) have so much Luciferian Gnosticism underlying in them and sometimes more blatant.
that is my thought, as well. Gnosticism, in my research, is not much different from Christianity or Hinduism in that it is a way for people to ascend past the evils of this world and be more in line with the good. Of course, just like any religion, it can be manipulated into evil intent.
@@mst5g826 Gnostics run stealth under other religions, so their beliefs show up routinely posing as something else. The fundamental difference is that gnostics think there is NOTHING beautiful, good, or worth preserving about this world. Other religions see the world as certainly flawed, but not irredeemably so.
@@mamadragonful Yeah, they are definitely the most pessimistic of all religions. But, not the religion that came up with the phrase, "life is suffering." All I'm saying is that nowhere in what I've read did they tell me to cut my D off. And, all religions have been twisted into some pure evil some time in history.
@@mst5g826 Gnostics teach that your body is a cage, a prison, that should be destroyed and escaped. The transhumanists are techno-gnostics, and they support bio-hacking as an escape technique. What biological modifications do you really think are being suggested when they exhort people to "transcend gender?" If you're having trouble picturing it, look up "nullo surgery".
@@mst5g826 "Life is suffering" may sound pessimistic, but the result is compassionate. Look up Buddha and the parable of the mustard seed for an example.
If I just share and explain this to all my kith and kin who have lived here in Ireland for hounderds and thousands of years and then to all these newcomers, who seem to have more right to be here than us, everything will be honky dory. F#×k that, Ireland for the Irish, blood will flow, may God have mercy on us all. ☦️
Sadly you don't use a solid definition of Gnostic . Gnosticism is a blanket term that really spans a large number of religious texts . Great work but I don't think you have the best understanding of what Gnosticism is . Gnostics weren't a "thing" back in the day "they" made no claims and wrote no books. WE called them Gnostics 100s and 1000s of years later. It's a nuanced term and a complex history.
Thanks!
Been struggling in explaining this stuff, particularly the gnostic link to marxism, to people i know, this is very helpful! Thank you James!
Yeah, its really deep stuff.
Unfortunately most people dont care for the esoteric, deep philosophy behind these things, specifically the claims about it being a religion which are merited.
The best we can do is show people examples of this cult happening in the real world IMO.
@@k1_w3 💯% AGREED. James is on thin ice here. Cathars are a fabrication to elicit this exact Crusade. th-cam.com/video/8h9pMC2au94/w-d-xo.html
@@k1_w3 I disagree. It tracks very closely with my understanding of gnosticism.
@@k1_w3 OK Gnostic.
@@Ubu987 Yes. They just bate and switch with infinite fracture and flux for process reality and anti identity and endless literature then try to critique you with pedantry for daring to pin down what they are. They do it with marxist, post modernist, anarchist etc. "I'm not a Marxist, I'm an anarchist maaan..", "I'm cultural, "The only REAL Marxist is an anarchist" and now I'm libertarian socialist, but I'm holding up Marx. Then go back to Hegel. Then be esoteric. It's bullshit. He's a gnostic or one of these people who can't judge and has to facilitate dialectic from the middle every time. James goes way more in depth in bigger vids too, and this tracks with the Orthodox case Fr Seraphim Rose makes in Orthodox Survival course on how it broke free through scholasticism and chiliasm into the age of reason in Orthodox Survival Course. See his video on alchemy, philosophy, and the science of dialectical manipulation. RJ Rushdooney also addresses it in The One and The Many and in To Be As God. Or go into any Jungian or esoteric group and look at the politics in the gnostic cesspit.
Wow, James. This was an astounding one. This might make me cobble together the money to get a membership.
The times when you describe something and then describe its modern incantations with the same words and a sort of paragraph rhyme are the hardest hitters. Whether it’s this one on Gnosticism or the ones that show the Marxian parallels across the various critical theories they all hit so well.
The bullets format + “here’s the source”, “here’s the modern one described the same way just changing out the names, “here’s the postmodern one the same way” = point made perfrctly
James for the win! Please, go again to Joe Rogan to lay them out IT.
Cathar myth was fabricated to spark this EXACT flavor of crusade. th-cam.com/video/8h9pMC2au94/w-d-xo.html
I was just thinking this too
And bring Jay Dyer with Coughlin. Talk to Peterson about it to and critique his model, he means well and has done so much good, but it will be swallowed by the fact he is built on this with science and Jung. He had to integrate his model with Vervaeke through thesis and antithesis recently, cuz dialectic and science.
@@Ac-ip5hd yes!!!!
Joe Rogan Podcast is overdue.
Notice how often they refer to “bodies”: black bodies, white bodies, etc
Anything to dehumanize and detach, eh?
They pretend to "follow the science: but they accept the idea of a mind/body seperation, to the point of a mind/reality seperation.
They talk about black bodies so much, you'd think they were talking about radiation.
Likely the reason for giving black people that name is the same as using 'Black', it's to represent people by skin color (but actually by a strict social hegemony) as a corpus. Racial socialism.
I refuse to let them (friends, teaching colleagues) do that. I say, “Bodies. You mean people, right? Human beings?” And force them to change their term or defend it to the point of absurdity.
Freire’s ‘Conscientization’ - rebirth.
James - great job :) Quite a task to distill those main elements from such a labyrinthian subject. Very useful for people.
Well said
I think it's important to make a distinction that these people are turning Gnosticism and Hermeticism on it's head just as they do with everything. The mystical experience is attained through self reflection and the Alchemical "Great Work" which is about losing your worldly conditioning and discovering a more solid and foundational version of yourself. These people instead take these ideas and reverse them from being an inward practice to an outward practice. They remove the mystical part of it completely, as mysticism is in many ways defined by non-dogmatism and the individual pursuit of truth, and instead say the only way to salvation is accepting the outward/physical/materialistic expression of these ideas. Symbols of black and white (dark and light), masculine and feminine, chaos and order, above and below, all of which are meant to find unity WITHIN one's consciousness, are instead being blended and redefined within the framework of society. The balance of black and white is now a balance of power. The merging of the masculine and feminine is now the elimination of any kind of biological determination. The merging of the above and the below is the redistribution of wealth so everything is equalized. For me, because it removes the spiritual essence of these ideas, it becomes by-definition "Satanic" within the context of esoteric spirituality, as the element of Spirit, or the inward world has been usurped by the element society, our the outward world.
Satan inverts
This reminds me of why they get so pissed off at the idea gender is tied to biology and inescapable. It’s seen as a prison.
sex:
the state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females therefore have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual sperm.
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or disordered sex, to be more accurate). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
gender:
the status of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that there are only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in his/her womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate him/herself). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender.
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from "genus", such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word in recent times, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral ideologies.
Thank you for this excellent bullet, James. As a Christian esotericist, I think you miss some important distinctions like the difference between sorcery and sacred magic (Woke Marxism being the former, responsible Hermeticism the latter), but this one about the Gnostic belief in reality as a prison is spot on. The first thought I had is that not only are the Woke the new moral Puritans, as some have pointed out; they are also the new Calvinists. Calvinism famously teaches the doctrine of Total Depravity: that the world is totally infected with sin and God therefore cannot actually love the world. It is a very dark view of human existence. The great irony, of course, is that the Far Left congratulates itself on its supposed humanism, but its dark anti-human foundation is coming to light, as you point out in all three examples of trans, abortion, and feminism. Marxist feminists don't celebrate womanhood; they hate it. There is a documentary on the trans issue called "Running from Womanhood Like a House on Fire." It all roots back to this suspicious Gnostic belief that the world was not created in wisdom, goodness, and purpose. As theologian Charles Williams puts it, "They regarded creation in a Deity not so much as impossible as indecent." This clearly maps on to human reproduction.
If I remember correctly, Calvin was heavily influenced by St. Augistine of Hippo who was, himself, originally a Gnostic before converting to Christianity, so it's unsurprising that Gnostic beliefs would be incorporated into Christianity by him, and subsequently by Calvin.
LOL Quite. My current roommate has been studying Hermetic tradition for a while, and from what he tells me, heretical elements aside, it was mostly the medieval equivalent of "Christianity for nerds," with all the alchemy stuff mostly serving as code for more abstract concepts (ie the Philosopher's Stone is literally Jesus) and a perceived means to enlightenment (in which case, many of its excesses can be chalked up to practitioners being too dumb/power-hungry to understand it).
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@Xbalanque84
🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”:
Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies.
According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.).
In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving!
Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent).
Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual.
APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it.
Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities).
“Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that!
This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness).
HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances.
Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief.
Cont...
Deuteronomy 18:10 There must not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or uses witchcraft, or an interpreter of omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts spells, or a spiritualist, or an occultist, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God will drive them out from before you. 13 You must be blameless before the Lord your God.
12:59 - (Gender roles, feminism, and abortion)
For an excellent example of this, see Tweets by musician “Grimes”. After pregnancy, she talked about how strange it is that she has to give her body over to childbirth and implied that it’s further strange that men do not have to (pregnancy itself as inequality), then later suggested that artificial wombs would be for women what ending hot wars would be for men.
She’s not necessarily some activist-Marxist, but she’s very deep into postmodern ideas of tech-modified humans. It’s all part of the same poisonous tree where a false liberation accidentally ends the humanity of humans.
For clarification, there were no 'ancient' Gnostics, only Christian Gnostics. The Greeks had the concept of 'gnosis' but were not Gnostics in the sense James is talking about here.
I'm 3/4 the way through and he's not once mentioned the Kabbalah. This whole misinterpretation sounds like a grift to me. Gnostics never talked about wanting to chop up their bodies to escape flesh prison. They never talked about wanting to become gods; they talked about wanting to reunite with the first primary emination of divine light.
Gnostics weren’t Christians. Do you know Xtians who call Yahweh Satan? I don’t.
The earliest Christians had no distinctions between these. Valentinus was almost made bishop of Rome. It was only later when the church became subservient to the Roman Empire that heresy hunters were trying to root out ideas that didn’t conform to the worship of the demiurge.
@@Sage.Craft. First christian Bible was literally made by guy who call Yahweh evil. His name Marcion. We have valentinians too as well, but they call Yahweh Ignorant.
Well explained Dr. Lindsay. Thank you.
6:17 one minor note: some sources claim demiurge wasn't evil but imperfect, that is immortal but lacking in power or awareness in comparision to God which is how it started to produce evil in an ongoing necessarily failed attempt to imitate God & heaven.
U read/watch one piece!? Awesome!
Yes, I would guess that the Demiurge is a more recent version of Prometeus and his brother Epitemeus, creating the imperfect humans, almost against the will of Zeus. So nothing demonic really. Just a lower level of divinity.
Before Marx, socialism was basically a religious movement, and many early socialists were not just conventionally religious, but occultists. The most famous example being Eliphas Lévi, the father of modern occultism. And Marx himself was a student of Hegel who was influenced by hermeticism. So it makes sense that their intellectual heirs would have a gnostic worldview.
This makes it clear why no matter how much I’ve tried to like writers like James Joyce I have never been able to.
I've studied Gnosticism & Hermeticism for several years now. I do understand that they teach equanimity, but I never knew that it had been either hijacked or even started out to become Marxism
you're lying because they dont. the gnostics were a group of wacky christians and the hermeticists are just as opposed to materialists (the actual precursors to socialism and therefore woke) as anyone else
The truly salient point with Gnosis is that it is _experiential_ first and foremost
When you refer to it as "knowledge" you turn in into an _object_.
This is great. But visually I think I just need a column like comparison of beliefs. It's hard to tell where the limits for tolerance should be on these things. For example:
- I have secret knowledge (That is not falsifiable) - Ok fine, good for you if you think so..
- I have to share that secret knowledge to everyone - Still probably ok. People are allowed to believe what they want to.
- I believe EVERYONE should adopt this thinking style - Probably crossed a line
- I believe everyone MUST adopt this thinking style - Definitely crossed the line.
OR
Gnostics/Marxists/Woke
We can be GOD
Sane People
Any concept of God is fully detached from anything we'll ever be.
It's important to show the corresponding normal sane Christian/Classic Liberal/Scientific Method etc views
We've seen tons of crazy. People are starting to lose what sane is.
Whats the difference between marxism/progressivism/wokeness and liberalism/enlightenment thought? According to liberals:
The concept of feudalism was constructed by nobility and it imprisons you in the class you are born in, and we had to become enlightened in order to change society away from feudalism.
Marxism is just a continuation to that, Marxists say the exact same thing about capitalism as liberals say about feudalism:
The concept of private property was constructed and imprisons you in the class you were born in, we have to become class conscious in order to change society away from capitalism.
You can disagree and say feudalism and capitalism not analogous, but gaining knowledge to become gnostic/class conscious/enlightened and then change society through that knowledge isn't new and clearly isn't a bad thing, unless you think the overthrow of feudalism was wrong.
@@thijmstickman8349 In feudalism you had to change society to get out of it.
In capitalism you just had to do something with enough merit to get out of it.
@@sirellyn Okay, I said you allowed to disagree with marxism, but my point still stands about it being a continuation of enlightenment philosophy.
The thought process of a constructed concept keeping certain people in charge imprisoning you in the class you are born in, and having to become enlightened (or class conscious) in order to change society isn't some Gnostic conspiracy, its just a continuation of enlightenment thought.
You can say its going too far, but this weird Gnosticism narrative just ignores the fact that changing society isn't unique to gnosticism or marxism or progressivism or wokeness or "Post modern neo-marxism", its just modern enlightenment philosophy applied in a way we disagree with.
I don't know if this classification of Marxism as a modern form of gnosis is really accurate. Although I too am very critical of Marxism, especially Cultural Marxism and Woke Culture, I do not think it is right to compare these movements to the ancient religion of Gnosticism. On the surface they may have some features in common, such as the notion of a degraded world and evil demiurgic forces at work within it, but basically this could be said about any form of radical critique of the political and economic status quo associated with an alternative notion of a supposedly better society. One could also say that the ideology of liberal capitalism itself-and yes, liberal capitalism is also an ideology, not the absence of an ideology-with its linear notion of time and economic growth and its inherent focus on "progress", that is to say a "better future", is also a form of modern gnosticism.
You're giving Lindsay too much credit. He hasn't actually read much Marx, he only understands that it gets people to click.
The basic theses of Dialectical Materialism are the exact opposite of what Lindsay is claiming.
@@maxstirner4197This is not about Marxism Leninism , its about the framework of it.
I've read lots of gnostic texts and never got any sense of it being liberal/marxist or political in any way really. This TH-camr is talking nonsense.
An interesting question: James has done the historical and theological sleuthing to find the roots of what's bad in the world today, and he's done a good job of it. What happens if he were to explore the roots and history of what's good in the world today?
Look into, well, history and logistics and medicine and chemistry. Non-partisan in nature.
Premodern has a video on population growth, Veritasium has one on chemistry, ChubbyEmu has horrible medical cases, etc
"What happens if he were to explore the roots and history of what's good in the world today?"
You find Christ, and the influence of the Catholic Church on Roman society, and the Western Civilization growing from it, including ideas like individualism, rationalism, the mystical doctrine of the equal rights of the poor and downtrodden, the scientific revolution -- and to see Christ as the father of all these things is anathema to the modern and postmodern mind, who runs away blaspheming, screaming, and cursing should anyone speak this truth aloud.
@@johnwright1447 💯
@@johnwright1447 There is nothing promoting equality in the words of Christ or any scripture for that matter. There is order and Law not democracy and equality. Interpreting scripture in the postmodern context set is nothing more than another type of avenue in culture of critique. Roman Catholicism is just more globalism and gnostiscm. There is no room for any sort of Pope in scripture. Perhaps the meaning of life isn't to fawn over what is "good" in the minds of men and but to practice what Christ left us with as his last commandment, to watch over and care for his flock. There is no political solution to this situation.
@@fortunefair, good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
A good Socialist replaces the Bourgeoisie with their own self in the Politburo. Every other Socialist can expect a sharp decline in the standard of living, destitution of their own making.
ok but why is a QR code that leads to this video on a public trashcan in a swiss city
JA GELLL
WOW! A very fascinating topic.
Thanks James. I knew you'd get around to this at some point. Here's a full xlation of bit you posted on twitter. I tweaked the xlation a bit. The voice of NOUS is even more self-aggrandizing than Klaus Schwab's, but it's going in a rather different direction. The the "BORGY" tone of "you will be assimilated into the pleroma, which I will run, and you will like it" is present in both.
This is Corpus Hermeticum 1:22-25 or so. κβ is the Greek letters used as the numbers for 22.
(κβʹ) οὐ πάντες γὰρ ἄνθρωποι νοῦν ἔχουσιν;
‘But surely the Nous is granted to all men?’ I asked.
Εὐφήμει͵ ὦ οὗτος͵ λαλῶν!
παραγνομαι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ὁ Νοῦς
τοῖς ὁσίοις καὶ ἀγαθοῖς καὶ καθαροῖς
καὶ ἐλεήμοσι͵ τοῖς εὐ-σεβοῦσι·
‘Have a care to your words, you, for here you are babbling!
I, Nous itself, am come to the aid
of the devout, the noble, the pure,
the merciful, and those who live piously,
καὶ ἡ παρ-ουσίᾱ μου γνεται βοήθεια͵
καὶ εὐθὺς τὰ πάντα γνωρίζουσι
and, in the cases when present, I become a help,
and straightaway men know all things.
καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἱλάσκονται ἀγαπητικῶς
καὶ εὐ-χαριστοῦσιν εὐ-λογοῦντες
καὶ ὑμνοῦντες τεταγμένως πρὸς αὐτὸν τῇ στοργῇ͵
Indeed, they propitiate the Father lovingly;
And, full of gratitude, they give thanks;
And they sing hymns to him, out of their love, in orderly fashion.
And before giving up the body to its own natural death,
they condemn the senses, having seen their effects;
καὶ πρὸ τοῦ παρα-δοῦναι τὸ σῶμα ἰδίῳ θανάτῳ μυσάττονται τς αἰσθήσεις͵ εἰδότες αὐτῶν τὰ ἐν-εργήματα·
or rather, I, Nous, will not allow the the powers of bodily sensuality, which assail them to have effect.
μᾶλλον δὲ, οὐκ ἐσω αὐτὸς ὁ Νοῦς
τὰ προσ-πίπτοντα ἐνεργήματα τοῦ σώματος
ἐκ-τελεσθῆναι.
Being the gate-keeper,
I shall close off the senses as entrances
of evil and dishonourable influences,
cutting off their sensual passions.
πυλωρὸς ὢν
ἀπο-κλείσω τς εἰσ-όδους
τῶν κακῶν καὶ αἰσχρῶν ἐν-εργημάτων͵
τς ἐν-θῡμήσεις ἐκ-κόπτων.
23. ‘As for those without Nous, the evil, the worthless,
the envious, the greedy, the murderers, the ungodly,
I am very far from them,
(κγʹ) τοῖς δὲ ἀ-νοήτοις καὶ κακοῖς καὶ πονηροῖς
καὶ φθονεροῖς καὶ πλεονέκταις καὶ φονεῦσι καὶ ἀ-σεβέσι πόρρωθέν εἰμι͵
having ceded my place to the Aenging Spirit,
who throws the sharptest fire at them,
Attacking them via their senses.
τῷ τῑμωρῷ ἐκ-χωρήσᾱς δαίμονι͵
ὅστις τὴν ὀξύτητα τοῦ πυρὸς προσ-βάλλων
θρώσκει αὐτὸν αἰσθητικῶς
He also moves them to greater and greater acts of lawlessness,
so that such a man suffers greater retribution,
καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τς ἀ-νομίᾱς αὐτὸν ὁπλίζει͵
ἵνα τύχῃ πλείονος τῑμωρίᾱς͵
yet he does not cease from having limitless appetite for his lust nor from fighting in the dark without respite.
καὶ οὐ παύεται ἐπ’ ὀρέξεις ἀ-πλέτους τὴν ἐπι-θῡμίαν ἔχων͵
ἀ-κορέστως σκοτο-μαχῶν͵
The avenging spirit then puts him to torture
and increases the fire upon him to its utmost.’
καὶ τοῦτον βασανίζει͵
καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτὸν πῦρ ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖον αὐξάνει.
24. ‘You have taught me these things well, as I wished, O Nous. Now tell how the way back [from such sensual degradation] is found?”
(κδʹ) Εὖ μοι πάντα͵ ὡς ἐβουλόμην͵ ἐδίδαξας͵ ὦ Νοῦς͵
ἔτι δέ μοι εἰπὲ, περὶ τῆς ἀν-όδου τῆς γῑνομένης.
To this Poimandres replied:
“First, in the dissolution of the material body,
one gives the body itself up to change.
πρὸς ταῦτα ὁ Ποιμάνδρης εἷπε·
Πρῶτον μὲν ἐν τῇ ἀνα-λύσει τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ὑλικοῦ παρα-δίδως αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα εἰς ἀλλοίωσιν͵
The form you had becomes unseen,
and you surrender to the divine power your habitual character, now inactive.
καὶ τὸ εἶδος ὃ εἶχες, ἀ-φανὲς γνεται͵
καὶ τὸ ἦθος τῷ δαίμονι ἀν-εν-έργητον παρα-δίδως͵
The bodily senses
return to their own sources.
καὶ αἱ αἰσθήσεις τοῦ σώματος
εἰς τς ἑαυτῶν πηγς ἐπ-αν-έρχονται͵
Broken down into their component parts,
They rise again to perform their function.
μέρη γῑνόμεναι, καὶ πάλιν συν-αν-ιστάμεναι
εἰς τς ἐν-εργείᾱς.
while the appetitive soul and its appetitites
proceed according to their irrational nature.
καὶ ὁ θῡμὸς καὶ ἡ ἐπι-θῡμίᾱ
εἰς τὴν ἄ-λογον φύσιν χωρεῖ.
25. Thus a man so re-formed and freed of earthly sensuality starts to rise up
through the harmony of the cosmos.
(κεʹ) καὶ οὕτως ὁρμᾷ λοιπὸν ἄνω
διὰ τῆς ἁρμονίᾱς͵
In leaving the first sphere,
he surrenders the activity of growth and diminution;
καὶ τῇ πρώτῃ ζώνῃ,
δίδωσι τὴν αὐξητικὴν ἐν-έργειαν καὶ τὴν μειωτικήν͵
In leaving the second, the means of evil,
trickery now being inactive;
καὶ τῇ δευτέρᾳ τὴν μηχανὴν τῶν κακῶν͵
δόλον ἀν-εν-έργητον͵
In leaving the third, covetous deceit,
now inactive,
καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ τὴν ἐπι-θῡμητικὴν ἀπάτην,
ἀν-εν-έργητον͵
and in leaving the fourth,
the eminence pertaining to a ruler,
being now without avarice;
καὶ τῇ τετάρτῃ,
τὴν ἀρχοντικὴν προ-φανίᾱν
ἀ-πλεονέκτητον͵
In leaving the fifth,
impious daring
and reckless audacity,
καὶ τῇ πέμπτῃ
τὸ θράσος τὸ ἀν-όσιον
καὶ τῆς τόλμης τὴν προ-πέτειαν͵
In leaving the sixth,
evil impulses for wealth,
all of these being now inactive,
καὶ τῇ ἕκτῃ,
τς ἀφορμς τς κακς τοῦ πλούτου
ἀν-εν-εργήτους͵
and in leaving the seventh plain,
the falsehood which waits in ambush.
καὶ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ζώνῃ,
τὸ ἐν-εδρεῦον ψεῦδος.
26. ‘Then,
Being stripped of the lower forces of the cosmos,
he enters the substance of the eighth sphere,
in the fullness of his own power,
(κϛʹ) καὶ τότε,
γυμνωθεὶς ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς ἁρμονίᾱς ἐν-εργημάτων
γνεται ἐπὶ τὴν ὀγδοᾱτικὴν φύσιν͵
τὴν ἰδίᾱν δύναμιν ἔχων͵
and he sings praise to the Father with those who are present;
and those who are present, rejoice at his coming.
καὶ ὑμνεῖ σὺν τοῖς οὖσι τὸν πατέρα·
συγ-χαίρουσι δὲ οἱ παρ-όντες τῇ τούτου παρ-ουσίᾳ͵
Being made like to those who were there before,
he also hears certain powers which are above the eighth sphere, singing praises to God, with sweet voice.
καὶ ὁμοιωθεὶς τοῖς συν-οῦσιν
ἀκούει καί τινων δυνάμεων ὑπὲρ τὴν ὀγδοᾱτικὴν φύσιν φωνῇ τινι ἡδείᾳ ὑμνουσῶν τὸν θεόν·
Then in due order,
they all ascend to the Father;
and they surrender themselves to his powers.
And in becoming his powers, they are merged in God.
καὶ τότε τάξει
ἀν-έρχονται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα͵
καὶ αὐτοὶ εἰς δυνάμεις ἑαυτοὺς παρα-διδόᾱσι͵
καὶ δυνάμεις γενόμενοι, ἐν θεῷ γνονται.
This is the end, the Supreme Good,
for those who have had the higher knowledge:
to become God!
τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἀγαθὸν τέλος
τοῖς γνῶσιν ἐσχηκόσι͵
θεωθῆναι!
Well then, why do you delay?
λοιπόν͵ τί μέλλεις;
Should you not, having received all,
become the guide to those who are worthy,
so that the human race
may be saved by God through you?
οὐχ ὡς πάντα παρα-λαβὼν
καθοδηγὸς γνῃ τοῖς ἀξίοις͵
ὅπως τὸ γένος τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος
διὰ σοῦ ὑπὸ θεοῦ σωθῇ;
Finally someone who gets it!!! Thanks for this !
I want to see this gnostic theory applied here too to the Ray Kurztweillian view of transhumanism: the future holds the key to man's liberation from the prison of their limited body, and early adoption of tech is the key to glimpsing the liberation, or something like that.
One major hang up with regards to knowledge is how it can be molded into a conceptual mold that conforms to what one interprets to be right.
The last pieces of the puzzle are falling into place.
Thank you so much for this channel James! I tried reading the material and books you suggested. Many are helpful, most I cannot extract it's deeper meaning. Your explanation brings it to a level I can begin to wrap my head around. I have 3 young men in my life, 2 of which have drunk the woke kool-aid. It's heart breaking. The two live at home and are under the "Devouring Mother's" thumb. In their twenties... living at home.... they are NOT out slaying dragons and building a life. I listen to you and Jordan Peterson. Have you guys done an intetview??
Please do! James Lindsey and JP... what an AWESOME Duo you would make!!
It is so fascinating, informative, timely and somewhat scary, to learn the long deluded and persistent history, of wokery! Once again, thank you James for all this elucidating erudition!
I haven't watched the video yet, but consider this: Hegel collaborated (and may have been) a Freemason (he even wrote Masonic poetry). Freemasons were influenced by Gnosticism. Direct correlation, if not causation?
..and though the neo-platonist and gnostics had different world views, there are similarities.
Freemasons were influenced by hermeticism and Kabbalah not Gnosticism.
James…Great job 👍
This is brilliant
Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@ReverendDr.Thomas
"Claiming feces is inedible is RELATIVE and SUBJECTIVE."
-You basically
@@abundantharmony, do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure propositions, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄
Thank you James for making it all easy to understand so I can share with my people. I can say that I tried at least.
I've been listening to you since you did the 4 hour Hagel video. This is one of the best and most succinct explanations I can remember. I know it has rightly taken this long to absorb the knowledge to be so succinct, and likely, detractors would require more robust explanations, but all that information is available to them. Well done.
I knew it was a cult, I just didn't know how to describe what kind cult. Good to know the gnosticism is the word to use.
More accurately, it's a cult of inverted Gnostic Christianity. True Gnostic Christianity would be commonly understood and practiced co-operatively. They've used Gnosticism to create a psychological control structure that sounds wonderful, but only works for the individual practitioner. Early Christianity didn't have an organized "church" structure and was never supposed to. The Church itself is the very satanism Christians fear, and Communism is the satanic global ruling structure they're establishing.
@@ryucartel351 I mean I both agree and disagree. We need organized church, for like fellowship and stuff. And the role of pastor isnt like it was back in that day because we have a direct connection with God through his word and Jesus, I believe that. But its still what we call the guy who preaches the word.
Just think of the ever resentful Mr Smith from the matrix. Wanting to tear it all down so he can escape.
Gotta check out Mark Passio’s breakdown on the Matrix Trilogy. Definitely worth the watch
@@ConsistentCed thanks. Will check it out
Cathar myth was fabricated to spark this EXACT flavor of crusade. th-cam.com/video/8h9pMC2au94/w-d-xo.html
@@ConsistentCed just finished it. It was worth the watch. But I don't agree with his interpretation of Smith. I still think Smith is the embodiment of all encompassing resentment - he resents his existence.
@@battygirlrachel i have to refresh but i agree that smith is the anti-Logos, the all devouring resentment, defeated only by gratitude
You've just shown you don't understand gnosticism at all. Taking one type of it and correlating that to the modern wokeness is not the win you think it is.
No, he nailed it.
You are really treading on thin ice here. God bless you, my friend.
It should certainly be enough to support the position that it should be ousted from public schooling on constitutional grounds.
Philosophically, there are psychological dynamics to some non-dogmatic aspects of gnostic principles that are still valuable, ie. descriptive of positive experiences of ‘revelatory understanding’, that are actually happening.
While it is obviously possible (and an ever present danger), it is by no means assured, that what such approaches ‘reveal’, is ‘the evil of existence itself’, or our ‘correctness’ in contemplating this ‘fact’ with resentment, self pity, spite, revulsion, and fear.
@@dh8834 I think the fundaments of conservatism can be cashed out fairly logically without the need for an appeal to god, and while conservatives may make arguments for the need to preserve their religions, such claims (however weak or strong we may find them) are about ethics, and are typically argued for on a basis of demonstrable utility, and the maintenance of universally desirable societal outcomes; not the correctness of a particular spiritual dogma, and/or a normative directive to adopt their faith as our own.
Neither can our rights be demonstrated to depend on a particular religious outlook, or even a general one. Atheists would certainly have something to say about it if we tried it. ‘God given’ is certainly how the religious express the status of our rights as ‘inalienable’, and indeed the religious are constitutionally protected in so doing, but for the rest of us, it is sufficient to recognise that our rights are innate; that they are not contingent upon some additional state of affairs (their potential forfeiture via our criminal disregard of the rights of others notwithstanding).
Keeping religion out of school was never intended as a denial of the Christianity upon which the nation was founded. The United States of America IS a Christian nation.
It was about recognising the primacy of our spiritual autonomy; that our religious proclivities are our own spiritual business, and that the responsibility of the State was not to shepherd our souls, but to provide access, for people of any faith and none, to high quality education in service to the whole of society.
@@dh8834 I don’t agree that conservatism has “religious elements”. While all longstanding religions necessarily carry a degree of conservatism (without which they could not maintain their own coherence over time) there is no reciprocal dependency.
Someone can be conservative and also be religious.
Someone can make a conservative argument for maintaining a society’s religious observance, either in general, or in regard to a specific religion.
Neither of these statements carry any implication that conservatism is itself a religion, or that it carries a necessary theological component.
Conservatism describes a stance that one takes towards:
•societal arrangements and practices in times past and their consequences,
•the changes that have occurred over time and their consequences,
and with these factors in mind, crucially,
•how we might best practically proceed into the near future, with an emphasis on retaining that which has already proved fruitful.
“Can't Socialism? Or it doesn't matter since this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values?”
‘Socialism’ is not under discussion. Socialism is a term so heavily diluted in comparison to the issue at hand that one may apply it to almost any civic arrangement set up in order to facilitate a common good.
The manifestations of Marxist critical theory that have emerged across academia, flow from the installed Marxist pedagogy that explicitly reproduces the Marxist/Gnostic/Alchemical theology, or metaphysic.
In its theological aspect, Marxism is deeply conservative. Among the concepts and values that it theologically conserves are:
•That there is no god but man.
•That the purpose of man is to consciously take up the mission of fulfilling the universe’s foreseen destiny, ie. It is mankind’s mandate to bring about the ordained ‘end of history’.
•That this will happen when we finally arrive at communism.
•That the term ‘Communism’ signifies no specific details of the constituent political arrangement of its referent; it refers opaquely to the unguessable perfect end-state for humanity, civilisation, and reality itself.
•That the alchemical ‘seed’ of this utopia is hidden far beneath, or deep within, the current thoroughly objectionable political state of affairs.
•That the subsequent mechanism by which communism must be pursued (ie, the way to construct this ideal society) must not involve any actual attempt at design or construction of any kind, but instead it must be ‘discovered’ by dismantling everything that already exists; by means of the active subversion of all existing values with their antitheses, and an endless process of negative moral reframing and ruthless criticism; maintaining a perpetual condition of all encompassing revolt until the utopia is suddenly revealed at the end of history.
These metaphysical concepts and values underpin the operational model of reality that informs all practitioners of critical praxis.
Their belief that their methodology will ultimately result in a better tomorrow (as opposed to, say, the dystopian hellscape that is the ubiquitous inference of the remainder of humanity; over whom alchemical models of the universe, and the Hegelian episteme, no longer hold sway) is a *sacred article of Faith* ; not the logical product of rational axioms, and certainly not springing from any supporting sociological evidence (which, without exception, runs reliably and predictably in the other direction); but, quite literally, an inheritance authored by a series of misanthropic ‘mystic seers’, and handed down from one iteration of the cult to the next.
So what? Most religions have a whacky basis, sacred dogmas, and claim revelation concerning the purpose of man and of existence itself. This is true, and perhaps as nutty cults go, critical theorists are largely unremarkable.
Except that their failure to recognise their own religiosity, or at least their failure to openly declare it, has allowed them to occupy the educational space, and that the ‘commandments’ of their religion demand they subvert and repurpose the basic epistemic/preparatory function of schooling common to every other creed of humanity on earth, to instead religiously inculcate upcoming generations into a future of restless ignorance, acrimonious activism, and crippling cognitive dissonance.
“"universally desirable societal outcomes": Not universal by Lefties.”
•Having enough to eat,
•Not living in an endless state of abject despair.
•Minimal compulsory exposure to mortal danger.
•Expectation of good health etc. etc.
Even communist desire these societal outcomes; they just find them philosophically and strategically inconvenient when they turn up before the end of history.
“If the argument is to not teach how Praxis can make the world in a religious sense, sure, unconstitutional. But seems we want to dig deeper and remove equity math lessons from school since it's ROOTED in Socialist gnosticism.”
That is precisely backwards. If someone wants to run a course of study entitled: “Understanding The Religion of Critical Theory” which includes the module: “Critical Praxis, and it’s place in Critical Theory”, that would be fine. I’ll even provide some suggestions for examination essay questions:
‘What implications are inherent in the Critical Theorist’s concept of ‘Praxis’ with respect to the Separation of Church and State?’
‘Discuss the role ‘Praxis’ plays within Critical Theory, regarding the cognitive foreclosure of religious dissent.’
And, of course,
‘Lucy has Equity Math on Wednesdays from 10:45 to 11:30, and on Fridays from 13:00 to 14:00. If Lucy’s -Teacher- ‘Co-Learner’, spends 25% of Wednesday’s class steering the conversation around to an ideological tirade on economic inequality, and 37% of Friday’s class attempting to provoke an emotional response to the systemic white supremacy highlighted by a study of rates of disease across populations, how many additional years of schooling would Lucy have to complete before learning how to calculate the area under a curve?’
The study ‘of’ Praxis as a philosophical concept, or theological principle, as it applies to Marxist religions, is perfectly acceptable, although properly suited to college level work.
It’s Equity Math that needs to go. Praxis ‘deployed’ is what is unconstitutional. Praxis is no more hazardous as a subject of study than any other heinous philosophical concept. It’s the fact that teachers are ‘engaging in praxis’ that is so detrimental. Take a Maths lesson, and turn it into a Critical Theory indoctrination, at the expense of a child’s mathematical education. If all you’ve had is ‘Equity Math’ you have no idea what skills you have been wrongfully deprived of for the sake of furthering a cult-captured idiot’s ideological agenda. The same goes for every other subject that has similarly been grossly diminished and perverted.
“You could say 'equity' is just the practical equivalent of the merit element though.”
I don’t know what this means.
“Honestly in schools, I don't think we need this, Conservatism as a belief is not really taught in schools anyway, so sure, anything tangental to a curriculum or ideological is not in the interests of students, remove it. But not sure unconsitituonal.”
Yeah, Conservatism is dispositional. It’s not a belief, it’s an attitude, and it is an attitude that everyone has towards ‘something’. Every aspect of your culture that you have experienced will at some point be offered in sacrifice to the non-existent dead god of Cultural Marxism if it is not resisted. Eventually, something that you care deeply about will be on the chopping-block, and at that moment, your attitude to the thing that “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Has Got to Go!” will be a *’Conservative’* attitude.
“In govt, think Lindsay was making the case it's a religion, so it has to be separate from lawmaking or something.”
Yes, the separation of Church and State is fundamental. Freedom of religion, including the freedom to remain religiously unaffiliated, is your right as a citizen, and that freedom is protected by the prohibition of legislation generated from exclusively and explicitly religious principles. Most religions have a great deal to say about what they consider to be moral and immoral. They declare what we should or shouldn’t, must or mustn’t, do. The lives they describe for us often offer very little room for manoeuvre. Embracing the limitations of a specific religion, and choosing to live only in accord with its tenets, must be a choice freely made. If the tendency of religion to prescribe how we should live were extended to the entity of the State, with its power to enforce, and its monopoly on violence, then its fundamental role as a protector of our freedom to determine for ourselves the kind of lives we wish to live, would transform rapidly into an all powerful enforcer of religious dogma. Religion is concerned with ‘the ultimate’ the ‘absolute’ the ‘Devine and unassailable’. The State must always be a disinterested party with respect to absolutes, in order to remain an effective tool of diplomacy and negotiated compromise between disparate interpretations of the ultimate; facilitating, albeit imperfectly, the peaceful coexistence of people who live their lives against differing metaphysical backgrounds.
@@dh8834
Except it isn’t.
You don’t really have much experience with atheist conservatives over there, so I understand the tendency to confound conservatism with religiosity, and with Christianity in particular. There are, of course, conservatives of all faiths, and none.
Not so long ago, and going back all the way, almost every American of every imaginable disposition, was some kind of theist. Commonplace Atheism is a relatively new phenomena.
Conservative types are never the first in line for new stuff. That’s kind of their schtick. The fact that American conservatism goes hand in hand, in the minds of young American free thinkers, with ‘traditional Christian values’, has everything to do with the values being ‘traditional’, but that they are also ‘Christian’ values is circumstantial, and incidental, but to see the two appear together so reliably, encourages us to infer that there must be a more meaningful connection of some description.
If Christianity had never existed, and you were to somehow invent it tomorrow, conservatives would be the *last* people to perceive any value in it.
The conservative mindset does not want to sacrifice well understood and reliable patterns from our past, on the gamble that a novel untested pattern may do even better for us tomorrow, and that is pretty much all there is to it. It’s not that deep.
@@dh8834 As for the rest, The state must remain disinterested with with respect to ‘our’ various conceptions of The Absolute; seeking it’s Religious opinion should return a null signal. It is not in that business, it is not its purpose. Now ‘politicians’ are likely to be very religiously opinionated, or to at least make noises like they are, and that is all well and good. But none of those opinions should be legislatively enshrined, and however religious the politicians are, they should understand that principle and believe in the need for it as ardently as any facet of their faith. Should they falter in this, they tempt the transformation of the State I mentioned previously.
The transformation of the State into a force of ethical compulsion aligned with a single specific ideological perspective, is desired hungrily by Critical Theorists. The path to capturing the State, begins in education, and in law. Against a politically healthy, and self aware United States, they could not succeed, but corruption allows the possibility of infiltration and capture of the judiciary. The plan is to install an ‘Equity tzar’. A political office with the power to veto any and all new legislation on ‘social justice’ grounds. An alert informed citizenry would spot the trap, see the fundamental overthrowing of the foundation of the nation, and stop it. ‘Justice’ needs no qualifier, nor could it withstand one and remain ‘Justice’. ‘Social Justice’ is ‘Not Justice’, it’s ‘Instead of Justice’. ‘Justice’ is the product of judgement agreed fair and reasonable. ‘Social Justice’ is the product of judgement determined to be socially equitable; meaning the guilty may go unpunished, and the innocent be incriminated and destroyed if such judgements serve to equalise the tally of outcomes across populations, or mores the point, they will serve to *unbalance* the tally across populations and in doing so “equalise” across ‘racial lines of historical oppression’. This is not ‘conspiracy minded’ speculation, this insanity has been proposed, and when the time comes to press home their advantage, all that will keep them from the extraordinary power of final say on all new legislation will be whatever public blowback can be mustered, and by then, everyone of age will have been processed through the religious schools of Critical Theory. They will screech at any remaining citizens who have somehow kept alive an understanding of the function of the nation’s foundational principles and stand up in challenge, they will mindlessly call them all the ‘ists’ and accuse them of all the ‘isms’, and they will demand for them to be silenced, imprisoned, or worse. If the Woke cannot be awakened, they will be cheering even as the trap snaps shut.
Kids on a field trip should never hear the word Praxis come out of anybodies mouth. They also shouldn’t be encouraged to ‘remake the world’, they should be encouraged to begin to explore and understand it, and if they must ‘make a change through their actions’, taught to pick up their trash before they leave.
Praxis is the embodiment in action of critical consciousness. Critical consciousness is the psychological state of being fully emotionally captured by the cult, so that your outlook and intentions are aligned with its world model and objectives. Praxis is nothing as benign and banal as ‘feeling like you can make a difference’ or ‘stepping up and getting involved, with a go get’em attitude”. Praxis is a word that cultist want to get kids used to, sure, but the kids can’t ‘engage’ in praxis. Praxis requires ‘critical consciousness’. That comes later. Praxis occurring in schools is enacted through the teachers and administrators. Their praxis is the action taken to convert schools; from institutions of learning, (where they are entrusted with the welfare of children and responsible for facilitating their acquisition of skills and information to the highest level of competence commensurate with the capacities of each child) into indoctrination camps, where these supposed educators respond to their heavy responsibility of ‘bringing forth the end of history’ by subverting the subject matter of every class so that instead of spending the class time imparting understanding, they instead focus on instilling a deep existential dissatisfaction with the social arrangements of mankind. To get kids to see every person as primarily a member of a racial group with an associated metric of oppression. To disrupt their developing sense of stable identity (other than their racial group identity, which determines whether they are either a victim or a perpetrator of oppression). In short, they are manipulated to serve the political ends of the cult, except there will be no end. They are inculcated into a resentment of their society that can have no resolution, but must nevertheless be acted on in perpetuity. They must be hobbled academically and emotionally, trained to never find relief in any aspect of the world as it is, because it is all wrong and it must all be deconstructed, they must revolt, they must take action. They may as well; they’re no good for anything else and the world as they have been taught to see it is of no use to them in its current condition. They are taught to problematise, to see a torrent of injustice everywhere, especially where there was none to begin with.
It is the function of Praxis to destroy the lives of children so they will be of use to the cult in its quest for a state of perpetual revolution. While Marxists are no more right about this than anything else, they WILL succeed in ruining the prospects and quality of life for millions of children; condemning them to relative ignorance and bitter confusion. Only the fact that they are largely ‘shut-eyes’ should save them from imprisonment, for perpetrating the most destructive con job in human history.
Really helpful. Thanks!
Sounds like we are getting close to examining the Talmud and it's theory on gender. Let's do it!
@@k1_w3 ye? Are you using old English?
Cathar myth was fabricated to spark this EXACT flavor of crusade. th-cam.com/video/8h9pMC2au94/w-d-xo.html
@@cmennenger The artist formerly known as Kanye
@@Jmoneysmoothboy I see my error now. Thank you
God bless you
James just giving away the plot of Xenosaga just like that!
More like the plot of Xenogears. He even quotes it when he says "Ye shall be as gods." ;)
@@latt.qcd9221 You can say both, or even Xenoblade Chronicles (because a lot of the ideas are carried over) - though in fairness, if memory serves me, KOS-MOS' password was "Ye shall be as gods." too :)
@@shukuffxi I still have yet to play through the Xenoblade games, but I've been dying to. Good to hear they stuck with the same themes.
Was it really? Dang, I must have missed that detail during my first playthrough. That's pretty neat if it was!
@@latt.qcd9221 The Xenoblade Chronicles games are better than the Xenosaga games imo (even though KOS-MOS is still the best).
And yep, KOS-MOS's password is "Ye Shall Be As Gods" - I think it's in all three games, and it's definitely used when Shion enters the Encephalon to awaken KOS-MOS.
I'd say play the Xenoblade Chronicles games, because they're all really good - but the philosophy stuff is so well done and woven into the story. Plus, all 3 games are tied together despite being pretty different. The recent one was the best of the trilogy, and that's saying something based on how good 1 and 2 were.
@@shukuffxi Not too surprising. I was always a little underwhelmed with the Xenosaga trilogy, especially having played Xenogears immediately before it.
I must have forgotten about it. Haven't played the trilogy in probably 15 years, now.
Good to hear that they stuck with the philosophy stuff. I was always concerned that they might water things down a lot to give it a wider appeal, given that a lot of the philosophy, at least in Xenogears, could be pretty esoteric.
James, have you heard about Reintergrative Therapy? It is a mode of Trauma Therapy that incorporates EMDR and focuses on sexual longing trauma. It has eliminated same sex desires in some patients. It is not conversion therapy. The goal is not to change sexual orientation, but to tap into the trauma. For some, the result is the loss of prior desires of same sex longing. I would like to hear your thoughts on this therapy.
Finally!! Every Orthodox Christian is rejoicing!! Finally someone has gone back far enough to find the true roots of the problem, and reveal the fundamental demonic pattern of these revolution.
Thanks James. He who seeks finds, he who knocks, to him the door will be opened. Thank you thank you thank you. So great to see someone finally get at the spiritual roots of all this.
😂
There used to be a word of the day type of thing, not a video, but a written article to read and for people to comment on. Does it still exist? I haven't seen one in a while.
Hello, thanks for the show. I think you have made this over complicated. What we witness as PM or CM, etc. are at best contemporary forms of transformation. What they lack is a true spiritual center. What in the Perennial Tradition has been spiritual transformation through knowledge, discipline and initiation(Being), is now a mere identifying with mere ‘material’ forms (Becoming).
I personally see an devolution in or cultural forms. At the deepest level our battle is an individual one.
Just to add. The ‘secret knowledge’ is not mysticism. It is super sensible consciousness. Objective metaphysical reality is an art and science.
Just curious James, are you speaking to any Constitutional lawyer types about your thoughts on the violation of the 1st Amendment?
Brilliant! I'm aware of terrible long-lasting impact of Gnosticism and Hermeticism on Christianitas and the resulting and following "Western" civilization, but I could explain the modern part nowhere near to how you did it here.
Both these esoteric belief systems were holistic, eclectic, syncretic Frankensteins already back then, and then... they were brought to the center of Christianitas as revolutionary and liberating sources of hidden truths, usually by cherry-picking what from the ancient knowledge was deemed fit, while leaving the rest unmentioned. The ancient near-eastern knowledge, be it writing, math, trade, mythology or epics (like Gilgamesh) made perfect sense in the context of civilizations existing prior to the ancient Dark Ages, and even some time into the archaic and classical era. However, after the Macedonian conquest the weird mixing of everything already ancient with everything Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, Aramaic, Jewish, Christian, Arabian, Indian, and who knows whet else, made a nasty cocktail for a perfect brainFk! This was unfortunately brought to Europe by returning crusaders, Holy Land visitors, and adventurers, then picked up and developed by various sects and organizations, especially Rosicrucians (existing to this day in fact) and Renaissance thinkers. Then somewhere at the start of XVIII c. it resulted in proliferation of Freemasonic lodges and explosion of The Revolution, so it certainly had to impact Marxism as well.
Your explanation though brought me a fresh perspective and better understanding of e.g. the process of killing of Philosophy starting from Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, through Young Hegelians (Feuerbach, Marx, Cieszkowski, etc.), and ending with Nietzsche, Popper and Heidegger. All these ppl seem to be increasingly infected with the esoteric brainFk virus, regardless whether they actually directly write in esoteric or not.
I'd love to see a collaboration between James and Lloyd De Jongh on gnosticism.
Gnosticism is based, first time ive disagreed with one of your videos a lot
Marx crafted gnostic interpretation of economy.
Cathar myth was fabricated to spark this EXACT flavor of crusade. th-cam.com/video/8h9pMC2au94/w-d-xo.html
This also applies to the matrix and redpilling people on twitter with the memes of production
Good vid 👍👍👍
7:46 - If it's the social relations that have imprisoned Man, then how the Hell can it be said that freedom comes through becoming a "social being"? 🤦🏿♂️
Thanks for the content, concise and on point. While listening to this, I came up with maybe a little silly question - does every cult ought to be gnostic? If not, what are the principal differences?
Cathar myth was fabricated to spark this EXACT flavor of crusade. th-cam.com/video/8h9pMC2au94/w-d-xo.html
Islam is not gnostic, nor Mormonism, nor Scientology.
Cults or cult-like groups or cultish groups have a variety of characteristics, including dishonesty, controlling tactics, and harm to followers. There are plenty of ways to hurt and control people that doesn't involve gnostic beliefs.
They're definitely different. A cult typically refers to religious-like groups that are not considered one of the dominant religions and that typically put some kind of "twist" on religious practices with unusual practices. It's very common for them to revolve around a particular charismatic figure. I would go one step further and refer to cults as a predatory organization that uses religious language and practices to conceal its intentions, in the same way that a snake-oil salesman tries to use medical terms to fool people into buying their snake-oil, and benefiting themselves. This is in contrast to a religion which is supposed to benefit the individuals practicing it, rather than the cult leader or group overseeing the cult. Cults will often employ tactics like blackmail to keep people trapped within them, as they are ultimately predatory.
Gnosticism, on the other hand, is an umbrella term for a large number of ancient beliefs held that revolve around philosophy and religious beliefs. It can't be classified as a religion, even though it has clear religious beliefs, because there was never a single "Gnostic church" or anything of the sort. There's no standard doctrine or text to it, like other religions would have, there's no standard rituals, etc. so it's not really a religion in the usual sense. It's just the term used to describe a lot of different but similar religious and philosophical beliefs that people held in those days. There is some overlap in their beliefs, however, which is what James points out at the beginning when describing the cosmology of Gnosticism (e.g. The Monad, Sophia, the Demiurge (or Yaldabaoth), etc.) Many forms of Gnosticism, such as Manichaeism, Valentinianism, Sethianism, and others have such concepts. The early church would have considered the Valentinians a heretical movement, as the Valentinians were one of the Gnostic Christian movements.
The problem with James' definition of it, is that he sort of separates out all of the cosmology, etc. from it and reduces it down to just a belief that "the material world is a prison" and "it means having secret knowledge." Limiting the definition to this doesn't make much sense, though, because it ignores all of the cosmology of Gnosticism, which forms a large core of the belief system. It would make more sense to characterize the wokeness as an esoteric cult, that also holds the belief that the material world is a prison, as the Gnostics would have. By just his definition, Calvinism would be a form of Gnosticism.
Claiming that wokeness is Gnostic just because they both believe the material world is a prison, is sort of like claiming that someone that's racist is a Nazi, just because the Nazis held racist beliefs. You'd have to ignore all of the politics of the Nazis to just call someone that's racist a Nazi -- something that the woke do regularly. In the same way, you'd have to ignore all of the religious beliefs of the Gnostics and the entire cosmology if you wanted to claim that someone that's woke is Gnostic, because the woke don't believe in The Monad, Sophia, Yaldabaoth, etc.
I'll rephrase - if gnosticism is about possessing some spiritual knowledge about the only possible way for salvation, which cannot be reached through reasoning and can only be passed down by those who already know, isn't every cult in a sense gnostic?
James, what about the claim that Marx may have been a satanist? Richard Wurmbrand's book "Marx and Satan" seems to make a sound claim.
Marx didn't believe in religious fiction.
Satan is a storybook character.
This is why it’s important to gain gnosis. Without gnosis how does one engage in the current spiritual war? Learn about the secret knowledge. Walk the Bardo, peer through the veil. Gain gnosis and utilise it to commit esoterroristic attacks against those who caste the spells of Woke.
That's how I saw it years ago. If there's someone who's in control, that means they know something everyone else doesn't. Find out what it is exactly that they know, and everything opens up. Everything.
@@ryucartel351 As we can see here folks, the kind of mystical thinking that Lindsay [falsely] accuses Marx of is in fact the backbone of his narrative, and his audience not only eats it up but openly proclaims what I suspected long ago.
@@maxstirner4197 Communism is an inversion of Gnostic Christianity, it isn't based in it. I don't think James has yet seen or understood the true depth of how some utilize "mystical thinking" as a weapon against the human population who isn't aware of it. Marx was in no way a mystical thinker, but the communist system, based off of his theories against capitalism, was designed around the inversion of Gnostic Christian thought. The same way the Catholic/Christian Church attracts followers works for communists as well, same ideas, but the intent and end outcome is different. The same people involved with the Church who erased Gnostic thought are the same people who utilized what they hid from us to create the psychological weapon we call communism. Because they know what it is and the rest of us don't no one can ever say exactly "what" it is, which is why no one ever effectively resists it.
@@ryucartel351 I think your misunderstanding Marxs project and the context it developed in. At the time the communiust manifesto was written most of Europe was still feudal, and the economy worked very differently.
What Lindsay wants to ignore is that Lenins Voluntarism was an explicit break from Marx, and not just on a superficial level either. The foundational principles of Dialectical Materialism were thereby thrown out.
Marx thought that the mind was an extension of the material world and determined by material and historical conditions, such that history consists in a succession of economic stages of development. Classes are a byproduct of various imbalances in each economic stage, at the end of the stage the instability is resolved, eliminating the old class structure, creating a new incetive structure. Capitalism is supposed to by the highest stage of this process, itself leading to an economic order developed enough to where classes dissolve completely.
@@maxstirner4197 My point is that "communism" is inverted Gnostic Christianity. What people think of as "communism" is a modern day brand name for a system that's existed for a very long time. Cathars in France, who were Gnostic, lived what we would recognize as a "communist" lifestyle. Except it wasn't communist, because communism is a 20th century political system. Gnostics share a common knowledge which naturally progresses into a "communist" state of living, but it isn't forced upon anyone from an elevated position of power or influence. Modern communism is the scam version of the real thing. It's like how the Chinese steal intellectual property and corrupt it into the weird, fake Chinese replica. Communism is the shitty replica of an actual thing that most aren't aware of. The lack of awareness of how a naturally occurring "communist" system comes about, or functions, means people will never be able to make it happen, and will instead be fooled into the synthetic scam that enslaves, rather than frees them.
Very interesting!
Why does every other idea besides church backed dogma need to be called a cult. As if Gnosticism is a bad word. I disagree with James on this one.
….and no one is cutting anything off. 🙄
This is rad!! Definitely scared the fuck out of me 😅🤣😂😆😭🤣😆 This is a solid one for sure 👌 Appreciate the insight 🙏
James, this actually sheds light on
Many of your discourses. Brilliant
Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Perfect timing.
(Was just looking up Gnosticism recently. Thank you for the content/upload.)
Cheezies are orange
Oranges 🍊 are also orange
Therefore cheesies are made from oranges.
Lindsay has a cargo-cult level of apprehension of Gnosis and Marxism.
I was blissfully ignorant to Hermetics and Gnosticism until I saw a tweet of James' today linking the 2 to Marxism. Postmodernism poisoned my education degree, so I was curious. I searched YT and came across MorgueOfficial - he proves James' theory.
This vid was on the wall bruh
Critical new atheists, manipulating grifters
The 2+2=4 shirt would be funnier if the equation was pictured on dice. You know in the hood when they play two plus two equals four.
God will know his own
The philosophy seems to be grounded in a feeling of resentment and the notion that it is better to try to change the world to make your own happenstance be more "equitable" rather than simply work on yourself and the things you can control. It relies on a false belief in cosmic justice and that those who see the world properly have the wisdom to know what that is.
They don't want to change or improve the world, they want to destroy it. The woke reliably sabotage any actual social justice movements. Note the Boston sculpture "honoring" Dr King.
Does anyone realize that Jesus effectively "democratized" access to God? You don't need a priest. In fact you are a priest, as a Christian. This state lasted quite some time in Christianity but took a turn back to darkness when it was made the official religion of the Roman empire in 4th century.
You mean when the majority of Christians were gnostics and Constantine killed them all to gain political power through religion?
Cathar myth was fabricated to spark this EXACT flavor of crusade. th-cam.com/video/8h9pMC2au94/w-d-xo.html
No he semi democratized it while leaving a church and we get fragments and letters and condemnations of heresy, christian practice and hesychasm that match the final canonization. It took its real turn to darkness after schisms, papal authority, and then the combination of scholasticism and chialiasm truning it into a neoplatonic/hermetic religion that was put on the same chopping block of reason Aquinas tried to prove it with. This is a bs gnostic/modern reading of Christianity you are doing. You are not automatically a priest, there are strict criteria for how to pray, how to live, and 90% of us don't live up to it, or the practices left behind, which is why there is a heirarchy and even the married priests of the laity, the bishops, and monastics don't live up to it, they create a small body of saints who do and layer down to the members to have examples of people and methods to emulate Christ. Without that this gnostic and neoplatonic garbage breaks out, or Christianity acts like it with charismatic Christianity, or becomes a sterile or empty mainline into fundamentalist movement.
I don’t fully agree with the second part, but 75%: exactly.
Another kind of Gnostic sees institutional religion as the demiurge trapping people. The pattern of argument is the same.
You are inspiring so many people to fight the good fight
20min bullet isn't a bullet. But MASTER work as always.
Consider it a musket ball .
Think of it this way, Lindsay can lecture us the history of Gnosticism that lead up to Marx and he can lecture this subject for hours at a time. Compared to that hypothetical full-length podcast that lectures for longer than 60 minutes, this 20 minute lecture forms the bullet point version of that full-length podcast.
4:16 A parallel I'd like to point out: the idea of world-as-prison is also an axiom of Scientology.
Marx pretty much just copied Hegel's train of thought. That's all. Marx had little awareness of all the religious esoterica that informed Hegel. Marx doesn't know or care what the ancient Gnostics thought or what the Corpus Hermeticum was. Marx thought all religion was antiquated. He didn't carve out a special exception for Gnosticism.
@@k1_w3 Yes, but rabbis were not talking about Gnosticism in the early 1800s.
And his ideas were still secularized gnostic and neoplatonic christianity and acted themselves out as such, especially if you read his Luciferian poetry and see the symbols and plays in communism that inverted Christianity, no different than the paganism and barbarism in Nazism and the French Revolution. Religion happens whether it's secular or not, and these sterile intellectual movements always return to their roots and we see the gnostic and alchemical identity flux in process philosophy and it is turning to meditation and secular forms of religion drawing from this stuff right now, in academia. If you don't understand that you don't understand humans.
Emmenbrücke, when you know you know
brüelstrasse:)
james, i want to watch more of your stuff, but i'm a simpleton and need a face or some pictures to get me to focus. cheers.
But of a break through this, my mind has been blown since the episode WTF is SEL
I have a question.
In Alchemy. The Homonculous. The perfect being that is both male and female. Any connection there?
Cathar myth was fabricated to spark this EXACT flavor of crusade. th-cam.com/video/8h9pMC2au94/w-d-xo.html
@Slick Dissident interesting, but gnostic existed before the Cathars
Whether or not it is fabricated it exists as a system of beliefs that have axioms that inform philosophy.
Can you look at secular humanism as an esoteric religion?.......
Hope someday you actually investigate mysticism, which is difficult to appreciate as an object of study from the outside. No genuine mystic of my acquaintance has the slightest desire to control anything; cf. the Buddah, Jesus, Rumi, Meister Eckhart, et al. Therefore it is a serious mistake to conflate mysticism and gnosticisim, as you seen to do with your reference to Theodotus. There is in fact an essential distinction between gnosticism and the mystical experience, which you capture well with your explanation about the belief that the world is a prison. The mystic sees no such thing; rather, he experiences the unity of what appears disparate, finds this experience ineffable, i.e., impossible to explain adequately to anyone who hasn't experienced this, and is interested only in assisting others to discover this same experience for himself. The mystic does not claim to have acquired "knowledge" as we mean this in its modern sense. Much of the history of the early church was a struggle about how to deal with the utterly mystical experience of the crucifixion, resurrection, and assumption. I suggest that the church has never found a happy medium between the exoteric and esoteric expressions of the Christ's life and mission. And that's probably OK.
Great comments here thank you
Not convinced on this gnostic connection.
You haven't been paying close enough attention, then.
@@lemon__snicker5973 The definition he's using is too loose to be useful. It takes none of the Gnostic cosmology into consideration, which he briefly touches on in the beginning. Without the cosmology, it's not really even Gnosticism anymore. Makes more sense to just call it an esoteric cult, and one that shares one belief with Gnosticism that the material world is a prison to be freed from.
Me neither. Wokeism's more like Calvinism, with its doctrine of the elect and the irredeemably damned.
you need to credit Erik Voegelin for this theory. He was talking about this in the 50s
Hey James my mom says hi.
My name is james
although I am sympathetic to your arguments, this video fails to establish how "post modernism" has anything to do with this gnostic liberation.
I really struggle to understand how Christians are different. I'm not trying to be a troll....just genuinely confused.
Guess not having followed your episodes, some of your direction seems awkward. Still interesting and thought provoking - not bad.
🙂😎👍
New T shirt James ? "Bourgeois Pride" ??? Anyone ?
I hate institutionalized rebellion.
Nice to know that either ND or YT is suppressing critical comments. Sign into the account, comment is there, sign out? Comment is gone... Way to gaslight. Stay consistent. No worries though, if you were actually a threat to anything in any way, you wouldn't be allowed to exist on youtube. Must be nice to be considered controlled opposition. Please have a nice weekend. Keep poaching and participating.
I think you're giving these "cult members" too much credit. They don't come across as being smart enough to have worked through any of these plans in their heads.
That is the point. The low level cult members don’t know. That is a feature of esoteric religions. You gain pieces of the secret knowledge only as you progress through the levels. Like the Masons.
You don't need to be privy to the inner workings of the cabinet to march under a leader's banner.
The foot soldiers are just obediently doing whatever they're told is "nice". The folks in power are reveling in narcissism and hubris, but they're neither stupid nor ignorant.
Something glossed over is how most cults have tiered levels of "memberships" kinda like the mob
Boss
Underboss
Capo
Soldier
@@cpt.honklerof3rdkekistania400 Yup. The membership in Jonestown were mostly genuinely nice people trying to build a utopia. Jim Jones and his armed goons were not nice people. The members were mostly shocked and horrified at the order for mass suicide. They were forced to drink that poisoned kool-aid at gunpoint. They had no idea of the plan until Jim Jones had cut off all escape routes.
Good content!
Where did you dig all of this up? I need sources. I've studied this stuff for a very long time, and I've never found anything Marxist in the root texts from the Gnostic or Hermetic traditions. Besides this, Marx was a total atheist. Woke people are almost entirely atheist. I'm definitely not a Marxist, either. You're making intellectually lazy assumptions, and it sounds like you haven't understood what the traditions have to teach. It's easy to tear something down that you fear, and I can tell you're dead afraid of Marxism, and you're looking for somewhere rational to put your fear. Except fear isn't rational, and neither are your presentations... Anyway.. I thought you should hear from a true constitutional conservative who actually understands what these systems have to teach. I know this whole thing is your entire platform, but you really need sources, not just opinion after opinion after opinion... and name-dropping is not a source.
Strange how you never mention Kabbalah 🤔 At least I haven't heard you do it yet in the few talks I've listened to. I have read a claim by J's that Gnosticism is originally J--ish. They said that later Gnosticism is "old wine in new bottles", to be precise.
They give out prizes for cheering them on.
I get where you are coming from on this stance. It’s more abstract from it in my opinion but the cognitive pattern makes sense in comparison.
I’ve studied different forms and sects of Gnosticism for a decade now. Many of us interested in it see it a bit differently but there are absolutely idiots in their misunderstanding. Those are usually narcissists who are attempting to manipulate everyone else but never truly change for the better themselves. There is a reason so many woke shows(especially those geared to teens) have so much Luciferian Gnosticism underlying in them and sometimes more blatant.
that is my thought, as well. Gnosticism, in my research, is not much different from Christianity or Hinduism in that it is a way for people to ascend past the evils of this world and be more in line with the good. Of course, just like any religion, it can be manipulated into evil intent.
@@mst5g826 Gnostics run stealth under other religions, so their beliefs show up routinely posing as something else. The fundamental difference is that gnostics think there is NOTHING beautiful, good, or worth preserving about this world. Other religions see the world as certainly flawed, but not irredeemably so.
@@mamadragonful Yeah, they are definitely the most pessimistic of all religions. But, not the religion that came up with the phrase, "life is suffering." All I'm saying is that nowhere in what I've read did they tell me to cut my D off. And, all religions have been twisted into some pure evil some time in history.
@@mst5g826 Gnostics teach that your body is a cage, a prison, that should be destroyed and escaped. The transhumanists are techno-gnostics, and they support bio-hacking as an escape technique. What biological modifications do you really think are being suggested when they exhort people to "transcend gender?"
If you're having trouble picturing it, look up "nullo surgery".
@@mst5g826 "Life is suffering" may sound pessimistic, but the result is compassionate. Look up Buddha and the parable of the mustard seed for an example.
Nothing new under the sun.
If I just share and explain this to all my kith and kin who have lived here in Ireland for hounderds and thousands of years and then to all these newcomers, who seem to have more right to be here than us, everything will be honky dory.
F#×k that, Ireland for the Irish, blood will flow, may God have mercy on us all. ☦️
Sadly you don't use a solid definition of Gnostic . Gnosticism is a blanket term that really spans a large number of religious texts . Great work but I don't think you have the best understanding of what Gnosticism is . Gnostics weren't a "thing" back in the day "they" made no claims and wrote no books. WE called them Gnostics 100s and 1000s of years later. It's a nuanced term and a complex history.