Aha! I see you too are familiar with Master Dogen's famous Trump koan! It is a true testament to the man's genius and achievement of satori that he was able to predict the rise of The Don back in 13th-century feudal Japan.
And, of course, we both know the answer is: "Yes... if you smell it."
Thank you for the kind words, Ric! I look forward to checking out your article :D If this resonates with you, too, then I know I am on the right track here.
Man, my mind immediately went to TOOL upon seeing that "gladhands" comment. I hovered my cursor on the link, and uh, imagine my shock! https://youtu.be/72KbeqN7pZ4?feature=shared Was genuinely elated :D
I've already uttered the "nOt mUcH of a TrUmP fAn" catechism, so I'll spare my ramblings on that front--I'm definitely pessimistic that all the meaningful stuff is already left up to the Powers That Be (Dat We'll Neva See 𝄞), but that also prevents me from being adversely affected by the election outcome. Right about now is when people would say I did a racism/sexism, but if anything, the Don's outward abrasiveness is actually a bit refreshing (and congruent!) in comparison to people who'll speak beautifully but sanction the most depraved acts.
Your note on the Dems and their increased preoccupation with Archetypal Feminine is quite interesting in that sense. When it comes to self-actualization, I think spurning the masculine or the feminine can be quite detrimental, and it's best to *integrate* them--both archetypes are avenues through which one can act (im)morally, after all. Yet, instead of organically desiring candidates who do have more theoretically altruistic visions (e.g. I wish Bernie didn't capitulate to the DNC every single time), many self-avowed progressives sought to just offend themselves out of competency or free expression, which created a vacuum for the GOP to be the "edgy" Archetypal Masculine. But that deserves another article on how the "gender war" largely appears to be a symptom of Manichean times. And on that note...
So you're saying that I should partake in underage drinking?! How daaaaaaaare you?!
But all of this is besides the point! I have no doubts that even if the Trump presidency significantly improves the country, there will be a cohort that'll lament him having committed a "trans genocide" or something--even if nothing happens, he'll have built Gilead. When it comes to choosing between self-preservation and ego defense, there are many (on both "sidez!") who are inclined towards the latter.
Of course, it's also possible that Trump could be so disastrous that voting for a woman might've been less stupid by comparison (I stole that from Bill Burr ;). In that case, uh, see you down in Arizona Bay! In either case, great piece--just some mediocre (Ahmad's comment stung ;-;) musings!
I am blessed to have such great comments like yours and Amel's below. They greatly improve on the ideas I'm floating, and make up for all the Newmanoids who rush to hamfist out some incoherent nonsense demonstrating their complete unwillingess/inability to read and think.
But yeah, all well said: I too lament Comrade Bernie bending the knee, am skeptical to what degree "the world of Caesar" (as Neville Goddard would call it) operates free from the secret hand of some eminence gris, concur Donnie can't win with some people even if the madlad does a decent job after all, love the Handmaid's reference and the Bill Burr line haha... all great stuff. Not sure who Ahmad is but if he suggested your musings are mediocre than he has only advertised his own stupidity.
The Archetypal Feminine/Masculine framing is something I've been thinking about for a while now, and you're quite right that it warrants (several) of its own articles. I strongly agree that the key, especially in a society, is balance, and trying to maintain their respecitve "light" forms and minimizing their "shadow" forms. Our entire system seems to be fundamentally flawed in deliberately pitting the two forces against each other and insisting we schizoprenia ourselves in choosing one (often the most corrupted shadow of the two) to the deleterious exclusion of the other. If we tip toward overly Masculine/Shadow Masculine structures we get the Bush/Cheney Rep side of the Uniparty with its "vulgar displays of power" and Dick(Cheney)-measuring contests of violence and military strength, even further in that direction gets us to literal warlords who rule with the sheer physical brutality and savagery of super-sized, apotheosized ego: might ascendant, rape, murder, savagery... a Darwinian nightmare like a Chaos ending in a MegaTen game (ironic since I don't disagree with Lobster Pete about Feminine=Chaos/Masculine=Order in terms of general metaphysical alignment, but how that manifest in the "lower" forms of dimensional experience is also its own artilce or three haha). Too far in the Feminine gets us the current Democrat Party side of the Uniparty with its emotional savagery of compulsion, manipulated consensus, ostracization, and psycho-reputational assassination. Even further gets deeper into Nurse Ratched/Headmaster Umbridge nightmare states... whew, it's a lot to unpack!
And it is tricky because if you don't really lay it all out at once you get the deluge of Newmanoids on both "sidez" shrieking misogony/misandry or claiming personal attacks or what not when I am not asserting these cosmic principles should be used as justification for small minds or petty rulers to constrain the expression of any one soveriegn individual; I'm trying to look at this though Ephesian eyes, i.e., "... we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Plus, it's just interesting and fun to think about regardless of how right it is :D I've realized that, unlike me haha, lot of people--even supposed "intellectuals" **cough Sam Harris cough cough** really DO NOT like or enjoy just discussing crazy ideas for the sheer joy of it. Cést la vie! They can learn to swim ;)
Haha, it is I who is blessed to encounter a thoughtful writer such as yourself! That mediocrity comment was just one of the responses to your restack (so kind, thank you!) of my indictment of Freud-wannabes--still stings, though I probably had it coming for my verbosity... and now I'm going to be guilty of it once again >_<
With regards to the feminine/masculine framing in society, here's an inchoate hypothesis I've had for a while now:
I think the mainstream scene has been somewhat, er, “de-dudeified”, haha--if I try to list who’s on the radio today (e.g. Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish), it’d be almost all women (apart from a few rappers). Then the question that arises is, who are the big names trying to appeal to? I don’t mind if someone has a mostly female audience or anything like that, but most are just rephrasing Twilight in the effort to stay relevant, and in some way creating a gendered echo chamber. Plus, given the insular nature of many internet spaces (think both red-pill spaces and 'GirlStack), society's not inclined towards balance.
Once again, I'm inclined to cite a Maynard interview (though I think we're suffering from the flip side--I will never forgive the "haha you like the Joker, Drive, or a piece of media that appeals to guys?! What an incel!" idiocy): https://youtu.be/9-Np2ZWOLfs?feature=shared Speaking of which, that MTV scene in the '90s* included both talented men (even the '90s left-ish outfits like RATM, Pearl Jam, or NIN weren't full on "Sorry that I'm a dude") and women, which I think created for a more balanced gender polarity (add to that the lack of screens). But hey, it's a bloody behemoth, bucko!
*Inb4 the Newmanoids: Fully concur that part of the reason why I vicariously romanticize the '90s is because I wasn't around back then (nine days till I turn 19, and then two more years until I can't make that underage drinking joke anymore ;-;). Still, I think there's a value to looking back at recent developments and figuring out what to keep, leave, and retrieve from the past.
Fully agreed on the shadows, and especially how the Dems turned themselves into a daycare-esque safe space (and again, letting the GOP espouse a monopoly on edginess, despite claiming to be the "party of family / Christian values"). Although, even the dysfunction's a mix of the shadows of both archetypes! The enthusiasm with which the Dems embraced Dick Cheney (that play on words with the measuring contest is one of the best things I've witnessed on this place ... along with the Pantera reference!) or tried to get people to overlook the US's aiding and abetting of Israel's actions in Gaza is a weird collusion of war acceptance and desire to maintain social harmony ("hey, we can’t *have* bleeding hearts, we’ll get some bleeding-" okay, I won’t finish the rest of that sentence, it's too crass). Even the "Woke Right" is using good old social manipulation to forbid criticism of the war effort ("tsk tsk tsk, wouldn't wanna be antisemitic now"), as if Anita Sarkeesian didn't inoculate us all to this. I think we're entitled to a little vaccine injury compensation now ;)
Interesting to see that both the shadow feminine and masculine undermine individual sovereignty in favor of some unnatural and yet quite chaotic order. On another note, it's why I'm quite skeptical when I see a tradwife-esque "feminism ruined everything by teaching women to act like men! Back in the day their smoldering gaze could get them to rule the world!" type of Note, because there's value to not having people be subject to extremely stratified gender norms--excessive stratification can lead to unintended value judgments that enable the cultivation of a shadow (of either archetype!). I suspect that we ought to strive to incorporate the Good, *regardless* of where it fits within a schema--may we all be as courageously righteous as the "Knights of Cydonia", and as caring as "Nettie"! :D
And agreed on the unwillingness of many self-avowed intellectuals to discuss crazy ideas for the hell of it! I think most of the stuff that we find to be correct stem from *pretty* kooky sources, and in either case, it's worth engaging with ideas at their most primordial. Yet, often, when intellectuals do entertain those topics, often they'll jump to a "you asked if I believe in God; define "do", define "you", define "believe" type of linguistic linguine. Fortunately, I'm neither an intellectual nor intelligent, just anti-semantic ;)
Great read, my friend. It is maddening to think about and I can maybe understand from my own point of view. Crash is a perfect example of Moral vs Morale. That dynamic is what we also see with the new adminsitration coming in, we have two sides of the same coin. Trump is a product of what they once bred. They created him and it is an interesting reflection of who they are.
You know, for me under the Biden Administration, things were bad and I was to the point where I wanted to leave this country. But I remember having a conversation with you and I realized that no, this is MY country. I served, I put time and blood in and why should I leave? Held onto hope and faith and his staff picks are amazing. He could make everyone millionaires and those who hate him will say why couldn't they have been billionaires.
I don't know. It is pretty funny and seeing those who are quick to flee the country after the election. These people don'f know what it means to be patriotic.
Thank you very much for the read and the reply. I could not agree more with your sentiments here. There are so many great points! "Moral vs. Morale" is a great framing. Trump is certainly a product of the society and a mirror they refuse to look in. The "fight or flight" dilemma is real here, and it can be challenging to want to stay and defend your country when a small group of fanatics hijacks key institutions to present the illusion of a majority and cultural hegemony, but I concur that is YOUR country, OUR country, the nation of all peoples who love and uphold its values and principles, and thankfully you are still here and we are righting this ship. (Cue "Captain Phillips" meme haha)
One last thing, I loved the line: "He could make everyone millionaires and those who hate him will say why couldn't they have been billionaires." I say this all the time haha, but it is very true. For me a lot of Trump detractors get upset at that assertion, but they need to realize that--though they may be one of the rare cases, who do exists, of individuals who can levy rational and reasoned critique or The Don relatively objectively--there is an enormous contigent of the Dem Faithful who truly would respond the way you describe. As I often say, if Donne cured cancer (Didn't Joey promise he was going to do that, btw?), they'd write paeans to melanoma. That is exactly what I was looking at this article, when you allow your hatred for something or someone to control you and your life, your views. It is an interesting phenomenon!
Thanks again for the time and for the thoughtful response, my friend. I sincerely appreciate it.
Only time will tell. Trump says a lot of stuff. All politicians do since they don't have any real power so there's no need to take responsibility for anything they say or do.
More or less like a five year old. A very dangerous one.
Holding Biden responsible for all the maladies this country is experiencing is pretty naive. This is a long game and anything that people see visibily happen has been years in the making. Some for decades and centuries.
Before anyone freaks, I support no politicians or political parties. They are puppet shows for children and I don't find them interesting.
As far as allowing Trump to pull me out of a burning car, sure. And I'd be grateful for the help.
I appreciate the read and the reply. Just a couple quick things in response:
>Holding Biden responsible for all the maladies this country is experiencing is pretty naive.
From my article above: "Also, I should note, I am not saying that the outgoing regime is solely responsible for this whole Pandora’s Box of politics, nor am I saying that the incoming regime is going to magically solve all of these things."
> All politicians do since they don't have any real power...
> More or less like a five year old. A very dangerous one.
If Trump farts in the forest, and I don't hear, does Trump actually exist?
Aha! I see you too are familiar with Master Dogen's famous Trump koan! It is a true testament to the man's genius and achievement of satori that he was able to predict the rise of The Don back in 13th-century feudal Japan.
And, of course, we both know the answer is: "Yes... if you smell it."
https://riclexel.substack.com/p/sole-of-america?r=bcx26
so on spot here - cant wait to read more - here's my take
Thank you for the kind words, Ric! I look forward to checking out your article :D If this resonates with you, too, then I know I am on the right track here.
Man, my mind immediately went to TOOL upon seeing that "gladhands" comment. I hovered my cursor on the link, and uh, imagine my shock! https://youtu.be/72KbeqN7pZ4?feature=shared Was genuinely elated :D
I've already uttered the "nOt mUcH of a TrUmP fAn" catechism, so I'll spare my ramblings on that front--I'm definitely pessimistic that all the meaningful stuff is already left up to the Powers That Be (Dat We'll Neva See 𝄞), but that also prevents me from being adversely affected by the election outcome. Right about now is when people would say I did a racism/sexism, but if anything, the Don's outward abrasiveness is actually a bit refreshing (and congruent!) in comparison to people who'll speak beautifully but sanction the most depraved acts.
Your note on the Dems and their increased preoccupation with Archetypal Feminine is quite interesting in that sense. When it comes to self-actualization, I think spurning the masculine or the feminine can be quite detrimental, and it's best to *integrate* them--both archetypes are avenues through which one can act (im)morally, after all. Yet, instead of organically desiring candidates who do have more theoretically altruistic visions (e.g. I wish Bernie didn't capitulate to the DNC every single time), many self-avowed progressives sought to just offend themselves out of competency or free expression, which created a vacuum for the GOP to be the "edgy" Archetypal Masculine. But that deserves another article on how the "gender war" largely appears to be a symptom of Manichean times. And on that note...
So you're saying that I should partake in underage drinking?! How daaaaaaaare you?!
But all of this is besides the point! I have no doubts that even if the Trump presidency significantly improves the country, there will be a cohort that'll lament him having committed a "trans genocide" or something--even if nothing happens, he'll have built Gilead. When it comes to choosing between self-preservation and ego defense, there are many (on both "sidez!") who are inclined towards the latter.
Of course, it's also possible that Trump could be so disastrous that voting for a woman might've been less stupid by comparison (I stole that from Bill Burr ;). In that case, uh, see you down in Arizona Bay! In either case, great piece--just some mediocre (Ahmad's comment stung ;-;) musings!
Haha! That PJW "shocked" compilation was great. (https://memes.yarn.co/yarn-clip/8176b1ca-1b5d-461d-bea9-9882b10ba797)
I am blessed to have such great comments like yours and Amel's below. They greatly improve on the ideas I'm floating, and make up for all the Newmanoids who rush to hamfist out some incoherent nonsense demonstrating their complete unwillingess/inability to read and think.
I have always loved the term "glad-hand" since I learned from Maynard haha, and I too have rarely heard it since, so if I can help get it out there into the logosphere then I am happy to say that: https://memes.yarn.co/yarn-clip/0daf5dce-d0d3-4df0-99d2-bf2e14397f99
But yeah, all well said: I too lament Comrade Bernie bending the knee, am skeptical to what degree "the world of Caesar" (as Neville Goddard would call it) operates free from the secret hand of some eminence gris, concur Donnie can't win with some people even if the madlad does a decent job after all, love the Handmaid's reference and the Bill Burr line haha... all great stuff. Not sure who Ahmad is but if he suggested your musings are mediocre than he has only advertised his own stupidity.
The Archetypal Feminine/Masculine framing is something I've been thinking about for a while now, and you're quite right that it warrants (several) of its own articles. I strongly agree that the key, especially in a society, is balance, and trying to maintain their respecitve "light" forms and minimizing their "shadow" forms. Our entire system seems to be fundamentally flawed in deliberately pitting the two forces against each other and insisting we schizoprenia ourselves in choosing one (often the most corrupted shadow of the two) to the deleterious exclusion of the other. If we tip toward overly Masculine/Shadow Masculine structures we get the Bush/Cheney Rep side of the Uniparty with its "vulgar displays of power" and Dick(Cheney)-measuring contests of violence and military strength, even further in that direction gets us to literal warlords who rule with the sheer physical brutality and savagery of super-sized, apotheosized ego: might ascendant, rape, murder, savagery... a Darwinian nightmare like a Chaos ending in a MegaTen game (ironic since I don't disagree with Lobster Pete about Feminine=Chaos/Masculine=Order in terms of general metaphysical alignment, but how that manifest in the "lower" forms of dimensional experience is also its own artilce or three haha). Too far in the Feminine gets us the current Democrat Party side of the Uniparty with its emotional savagery of compulsion, manipulated consensus, ostracization, and psycho-reputational assassination. Even further gets deeper into Nurse Ratched/Headmaster Umbridge nightmare states... whew, it's a lot to unpack!
And it is tricky because if you don't really lay it all out at once you get the deluge of Newmanoids on both "sidez" shrieking misogony/misandry or claiming personal attacks or what not when I am not asserting these cosmic principles should be used as justification for small minds or petty rulers to constrain the expression of any one soveriegn individual; I'm trying to look at this though Ephesian eyes, i.e., "... we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Plus, it's just interesting and fun to think about regardless of how right it is :D I've realized that, unlike me haha, lot of people--even supposed "intellectuals" **cough Sam Harris cough cough** really DO NOT like or enjoy just discussing crazy ideas for the sheer joy of it. Cést la vie! They can learn to swim ;)
Haha, it is I who is blessed to encounter a thoughtful writer such as yourself! That mediocrity comment was just one of the responses to your restack (so kind, thank you!) of my indictment of Freud-wannabes--still stings, though I probably had it coming for my verbosity... and now I'm going to be guilty of it once again >_<
With regards to the feminine/masculine framing in society, here's an inchoate hypothesis I've had for a while now:
I think the mainstream scene has been somewhat, er, “de-dudeified”, haha--if I try to list who’s on the radio today (e.g. Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish), it’d be almost all women (apart from a few rappers). Then the question that arises is, who are the big names trying to appeal to? I don’t mind if someone has a mostly female audience or anything like that, but most are just rephrasing Twilight in the effort to stay relevant, and in some way creating a gendered echo chamber. Plus, given the insular nature of many internet spaces (think both red-pill spaces and 'GirlStack), society's not inclined towards balance.
Once again, I'm inclined to cite a Maynard interview (though I think we're suffering from the flip side--I will never forgive the "haha you like the Joker, Drive, or a piece of media that appeals to guys?! What an incel!" idiocy): https://youtu.be/9-Np2ZWOLfs?feature=shared Speaking of which, that MTV scene in the '90s* included both talented men (even the '90s left-ish outfits like RATM, Pearl Jam, or NIN weren't full on "Sorry that I'm a dude") and women, which I think created for a more balanced gender polarity (add to that the lack of screens). But hey, it's a bloody behemoth, bucko!
*Inb4 the Newmanoids: Fully concur that part of the reason why I vicariously romanticize the '90s is because I wasn't around back then (nine days till I turn 19, and then two more years until I can't make that underage drinking joke anymore ;-;). Still, I think there's a value to looking back at recent developments and figuring out what to keep, leave, and retrieve from the past.
Fully agreed on the shadows, and especially how the Dems turned themselves into a daycare-esque safe space (and again, letting the GOP espouse a monopoly on edginess, despite claiming to be the "party of family / Christian values"). Although, even the dysfunction's a mix of the shadows of both archetypes! The enthusiasm with which the Dems embraced Dick Cheney (that play on words with the measuring contest is one of the best things I've witnessed on this place ... along with the Pantera reference!) or tried to get people to overlook the US's aiding and abetting of Israel's actions in Gaza is a weird collusion of war acceptance and desire to maintain social harmony ("hey, we can’t *have* bleeding hearts, we’ll get some bleeding-" okay, I won’t finish the rest of that sentence, it's too crass). Even the "Woke Right" is using good old social manipulation to forbid criticism of the war effort ("tsk tsk tsk, wouldn't wanna be antisemitic now"), as if Anita Sarkeesian didn't inoculate us all to this. I think we're entitled to a little vaccine injury compensation now ;)
Interesting to see that both the shadow feminine and masculine undermine individual sovereignty in favor of some unnatural and yet quite chaotic order. On another note, it's why I'm quite skeptical when I see a tradwife-esque "feminism ruined everything by teaching women to act like men! Back in the day their smoldering gaze could get them to rule the world!" type of Note, because there's value to not having people be subject to extremely stratified gender norms--excessive stratification can lead to unintended value judgments that enable the cultivation of a shadow (of either archetype!). I suspect that we ought to strive to incorporate the Good, *regardless* of where it fits within a schema--may we all be as courageously righteous as the "Knights of Cydonia", and as caring as "Nettie"! :D
And agreed on the unwillingness of many self-avowed intellectuals to discuss crazy ideas for the hell of it! I think most of the stuff that we find to be correct stem from *pretty* kooky sources, and in either case, it's worth engaging with ideas at their most primordial. Yet, often, when intellectuals do entertain those topics, often they'll jump to a "you asked if I believe in God; define "do", define "you", define "believe" type of linguistic linguine. Fortunately, I'm neither an intellectual nor intelligent, just anti-semantic ;)
Great read, my friend. It is maddening to think about and I can maybe understand from my own point of view. Crash is a perfect example of Moral vs Morale. That dynamic is what we also see with the new adminsitration coming in, we have two sides of the same coin. Trump is a product of what they once bred. They created him and it is an interesting reflection of who they are.
You know, for me under the Biden Administration, things were bad and I was to the point where I wanted to leave this country. But I remember having a conversation with you and I realized that no, this is MY country. I served, I put time and blood in and why should I leave? Held onto hope and faith and his staff picks are amazing. He could make everyone millionaires and those who hate him will say why couldn't they have been billionaires.
I don't know. It is pretty funny and seeing those who are quick to flee the country after the election. These people don'f know what it means to be patriotic.
Thank you very much for the read and the reply. I could not agree more with your sentiments here. There are so many great points! "Moral vs. Morale" is a great framing. Trump is certainly a product of the society and a mirror they refuse to look in. The "fight or flight" dilemma is real here, and it can be challenging to want to stay and defend your country when a small group of fanatics hijacks key institutions to present the illusion of a majority and cultural hegemony, but I concur that is YOUR country, OUR country, the nation of all peoples who love and uphold its values and principles, and thankfully you are still here and we are righting this ship. (Cue "Captain Phillips" meme haha)
One last thing, I loved the line: "He could make everyone millionaires and those who hate him will say why couldn't they have been billionaires." I say this all the time haha, but it is very true. For me a lot of Trump detractors get upset at that assertion, but they need to realize that--though they may be one of the rare cases, who do exists, of individuals who can levy rational and reasoned critique or The Don relatively objectively--there is an enormous contigent of the Dem Faithful who truly would respond the way you describe. As I often say, if Donne cured cancer (Didn't Joey promise he was going to do that, btw?), they'd write paeans to melanoma. That is exactly what I was looking at this article, when you allow your hatred for something or someone to control you and your life, your views. It is an interesting phenomenon!
Thanks again for the time and for the thoughtful response, my friend. I sincerely appreciate it.
Only time will tell. Trump says a lot of stuff. All politicians do since they don't have any real power so there's no need to take responsibility for anything they say or do.
More or less like a five year old. A very dangerous one.
Holding Biden responsible for all the maladies this country is experiencing is pretty naive. This is a long game and anything that people see visibily happen has been years in the making. Some for decades and centuries.
Before anyone freaks, I support no politicians or political parties. They are puppet shows for children and I don't find them interesting.
As far as allowing Trump to pull me out of a burning car, sure. And I'd be grateful for the help.
I appreciate the read and the reply. Just a couple quick things in response:
>Holding Biden responsible for all the maladies this country is experiencing is pretty naive.
From my article above: "Also, I should note, I am not saying that the outgoing regime is solely responsible for this whole Pandora’s Box of politics, nor am I saying that the incoming regime is going to magically solve all of these things."
> All politicians do since they don't have any real power...
> More or less like a five year old. A very dangerous one.
The powerless are not dangerous.
That movie sucked.