The talking heads representing Western culture like to pretend that we’ve got everything squared away. That our ruling class has an accurate perception of the world and where it’s going, and therefore that everything is in good hands. The truth is far from this. Mainstream Western culture actually makes a number of false assumptions.
One of the most prominent is that nationalism is inherently violent. This falsehood is pushed heavily by the globalist interests who own the mainstream media. They have created the impression that nationalism and xenophobic aggression inevitably go together. This impression is reinforced by history channels full of footage of goosestepping German soldiers and snippets of Hitler speeches.
In reality, pro-nationalist sentiments are no more violent than pro-family ones. Nothing about a general attitude of caring for fellow members of one’s own nation is inherently more xenophobic or aggressive than a general attitude of caring for fellow members of one’s own family. In-group favouritism only implies out-group antipathy in a relative sense, not an absolute one.
Related to this is the delusion that democracy is inherently anti-tyranny. As with the previous false assumption, this delusion has resulted from propaganda in World War II and the Cold War. Democracy fought authoritarian national socialism and then authoritarian communism in the Cold War, therefore democracy is considered to naturally oppose tyranny.
In reality, democracy is just as capable of tyranny as any other system. The concept of “the tyranny of the majority” refers to this. New Zealand saw an blatant example of it with the 2020 cannabis referendum, the end result of which was that 48.4% of the population lost the right to use cannabis because 50.7% of the population voted for authoritarianism.
Underpinning democracy in the 21st Century is the false assumption that there is no genetic influence on behaviour. Humans are blank slates, we are told, and all are much the same as any other. Therefore, it’s possible for any number of them to be swapped out for cheap labour from across the world, and for everything to work out just as well.
It’s true that humans are born closer to a blank slate than any other animal is. However, human behavioural outcomes are still highly restricted by what the genes will allow. Intelligence is some 80% heritable by adulthood, which means that some populations will invariably become wealthier than others. Ultimately, society is a racial construct. As such, changing a society’s racial composition inevitably changes that society.
Another major behavioural false assumption states that behaviour is mostly the consequence of schooling. This assumption is commonly heard in reference to the Australian 501 deportees to New Zealand. The logic is that because these deportees are graduates of the Australian school system, their behaviour is Australia’s fault. But a person’s criminal inclinations are wired into place long before they finish (or even start) their schooling.
Erik Erikson accurately described the psychosocial challenges of human development, explaining that the first 24 months of life are the most crucial. Infants who don’t receive a loving and supportive environment in the first 24 months make up a majority of the world’s criminals. Early childhood abuse and neglect are the ultimate causes of most antisocial behaviour. So the parents are to blame far more often than the schooling.
Related to all the false assumptions about human development is the popular globalist falsehood that all human populations are precisely the same intellectually. Evolution, many believe, may have created a variety of different skin colours, hair colours, eye colours, body shapes and musculatures, but at no point did it play any role in shaping the brain, whether neurologically or behaviourally.
In fact, human populations vary greatly in intellectual capacity. Sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70, whereas North East Asians have an average IQ of 105. This is over two standard deviations of difference. National IQs correlate more strongly with national distance from the Equator (supporting the late Richard Lynn’s Cold Winters Theory) than with any social measure. As such, the varying economic outcomes among the different human populations can most accurately be ascribed to different IQ levels.
The same over-agreeable fools who believe that particular false assumption also tend to believe another one: that women are happier having careers than families. This falsehood has been engineered by corporate media interests who want women joining the workplace to increase the labour supply. In truth, as anyone who has worked in an office knows, women are only rarely happy in full-time work outside of the family home.
Gaddafi, in his Green Book, lays out the reality about women in the chapter devoted to that topic. Of course women ought to be free to work and to have careers if they so choose. But their natural function is to bear and to raise children. Therefore, if women are prevented from this function on account of that they are forced to work, then they aren’t free, and can’t be expected to be happy. The assumption that career women are happier than other women is nonsense.
Perhaps the most pervasive false assumption of all – so pervasive that even to question it is considered by most people to be tantamount to admitting insanity – is that science has proven materialism. Before Darwin, the common story goes, some people believed that God created everything. But after Darwin, God was disproven.
Scientific proof of evolution is one thing, but scientific proof of consciousness is another. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the brain generates consciousness. This means, logically, that there is no evidence that consciousness ends when the brain dies. It follows, therefore, that consciousness is the prima materia, and not the physical world.
This logic is denied by most. Few people today have avoided falling under at least one of the false assumptions listed above. This is one of the primary reasons why life in the clown world of today is so bizarre, frightening and obscene.
The grand political battlefield of the 21st Century so far is identity. Who am I? Who are we? Such questions used to have obvious answers, but 60-70 years after the first waves of cheap labour imports swept into Western countries, it’s no longer clear. The greatest difficulty comes from the fact that confusion around these issues is deliberately generated by nefarious actors.
Answering the question of Who am I? or Who are we? is hard enough when it’s being asked without interference. The world is a marvellously complex kaleidoscope of human expressions at the simplest of times. But when globalists deliberately muddy the waters in order to promote their own interests, it starts to get tricky.
Globalists have always known one thing: in order to maximise globalist consciousness, all identities relating to groups smaller than the globe have to be destroyed. This is true for every level of organisation from the race down through the nation to the community and the family. These sub-global identities, as competitors to globalist identity, have to be smashed.
When you’re trying to create a One World Government, you need people loyal to the concept of globalism above all else. These people need to be conditioned to think of themselves as humanity first and foremost. They must not be allowed to think of themselves as anything sub-global. All sub-global identities weaken loyalty to the One World Government.
The simplest way to ensure this loyalty is to condition them, through indoctrination at school and propaganda through the television, that all sub-global identities are for low-status people. This is done eagerly by the Marxists in the teachers’ corps, who tell their pupils that nationalism caused the world wars and that racism is the single biggest issue facing the West.
Hollywood assists with a parade of caricatures: moronic rednecks, vampiric Nazis, small-town lowlives, bickering married couples. Each one helps create the impression that only through hate could a person have a sub-global identity, and that those with globalist consciousness always win in the end.
It isn’t just communists on the authoritarian left who wish to destroy all sub-global identities.
Capitalists also seek such destruction, and also encourage globalist consciousness. This they do not for ideological reasons (as the communists), but out of a drive to maximise profit potential – it’s well known that anyone who derives joy and meaning from their family or nation will consume less than an atomised individual.
The common refrain from the corporate media is that families just make your life worse. Extended families, like races and nations, are for rednecks only. The compleat 21st Century person lives as an individual, only to consume. Identity comes not from family, nation or race, but from consumption choice. Thus, it’s not anything important, just a mask that one can put on and take off as needed.
Nations make your life worse as well – they just drag you into wars. Corporate media denies that nations offer individuals a sense of belonging, meaning, culture, history and structure. The impression we’re given is that nations are merely a vehicle by which the ruling class can call you up to die in some overseas adventure. In other words, national ties are burdensome and should be discarded.
Aside from destroying sub-global consciousness, the world’s ruling class also promotes global consciousness.
Brand consciousness is one of the most obvious ways they do this. The forced “Holden vs. Ford” meme is a favourite corporate trick to raise brand awareness and, by necessity therefore, to lower racial, national or familial awareness. Coke vs. Pepsi, Sega vs. Nintendo, McDonald’s vs. KFC are all presented to us as globalist alternatives to sub-global identities.
Franchise sport is one of the subtler ways they do this. Instead of supporting representative teams, which represent real-world phenomena such as provinces and nations, people are induced to support franchise clubs which have no connection to the locale in which they play. Arsenal fans will still support Arsenal even when none of their players are English. They might as well support McDonald’s.
On top of these moves comes the ever-present kumbaya mentality of blank slatism, which claims that all human populations are exactly the same and interchangable. Because all humans are exactly the same, according to this mindset, there’s no point in thinking about sub-global identities. Racial or national identities have no meaning.
The solution to these globalist aggressions is whole-hearted embrace of sub-global identities, without the out-group antipathy stereotypical of such actions.
Embrace identifying with your nation, your race, your province, your city or town. Laugh in the faces of those who call you a bigot for this. Refuse to go along with the mindless supremacism of trashy people who happen to share an identity with you.
Go even further than this. Act as the solar energy that returns your race, your nation, your province to the embrace of the divine. Shine above those who would call you immoral for rejecting globalist narratives. Never forget that you are free to decide your own identity.
This article is about how to engage pain appearing at a physical or emotional level. Fortunately, the process is much the same. I will maintain a focus on the inside view of pain, and what we can do about it. I would ask that the reader at least temporarily suspend their beliefs and views about anything theoretical regarding what pain is or where it comes from. It can be easy to rationalise or intellectualise our suffering, and in so doing, we can miss the opportunity to simply meet it on its own terms.
I have had a lot of experience with pain, mostly the emotional variety. I have never broken bones, but I have been through overwhelming grief and trauma. I have found this to be one of the most oppressive forms of pain. Since physical pain can often have a sense of being implacable once we see it is not moving anywhere, we can come to accept it to a certain degree.
Mental or emotional pain is different in that it can be very difficult to accept. We often feel very strongly that it simply shouldn’t be there, or that if we could only just think the right thought or occupy the right philosophical perspective then it could be cast out like a phantom, banished with a perfectly recited magic spell.
I have found that this kind of ongoing vacillation in non-physical suffering is precisely what keeps me tethered to it. It is not only the view that perhaps it should not be happening, that things ought to have developed differently in my life, but also the desperate hope that there may be some kind of salvation by way of a previously unconsidered solution.
We do everything we can think of to try to manage or subdue mental and emotional pain. One person’s meditation practice may be used in the same way that another person uses alcohol. In this case, are the means of escape necessarily better or worse, from an inner perspective? In frustration, we beg to be relieved or numbed in any way possible. I have watched myself go through these cycles of torment many thousands of times, frequently tempting me to at least consider taking the most extreme of measures.
However, I continue to have faith in the value – not of pain, not even of endurance or stoicism – but of our innate capacity to simply wakefully meet what is actually here. I don’t just mean here with me, but also the ‘here’ which you are assigned to experience indefinitely. I would contend that nothing is as important as where you are, here and now. This moment offers every tool for meeting that which it contains. Allow me to unpack this a little further.
We have a bevy of helpful perspectives, and many of them may be quite true, such as ‘pain is temporary’, or ‘we are more than just this form or our experiences’. Relatively true though these things may be, we must examine what the immediate value of such a position is relative to our immediate experience of pain.
Are we employing our confidence in the truth these things point to in order to make what appears here and now seem more bearable, for hopes of a brighter future?
As a seasoned sufferer, I have discovered that the most meaningful invitation in all of this is the invitation to simply stop and stand back. This includes weighing up whether you are a victim, whether there is justice in your suffering, and whether anything will ever get better or worse. I would like people to really take a look for themselves at how all of the psychological methods we have at our disposal for negotiating with this pain are actually ingeniously devised to draw our attention away from experiencing what is present to us emotionally here and now.
This can be a sobering discovery. I have watched myself and others suffer for a very long time, with an intensely keen interest in how and why we experience such pain. I had not learned a single thing of value until I stopped running from this pain it and met it where it sat within me, on its own terms. Easier said than done, to be sure, but here is what I have learned about the process this far.
Every instance of pain has an inside and an outside, and at least a potential narrative attached to it. If it doesn’t have one, the mind is extremely quick in manufacturing one. So, we have a story attached, often an angry story, or maybe a melancholic ‘woe is me’ tale. I don’t want to talk about whether the story is true, but what I do want to address is the simple fact that the application of the story is significant. This application is dysfunctional whether the story being told has a basis in fact or not – it is false in its foundational assumption.
The effect of this is to upgrade pain to what we call suffering. This is sustained pain in its unexamined and therefore potentiated form. The story allows it to breath like a fire, drawing in more oxygen making itself larger and more powerful.
All life must involve some degree of pain, but we have a massive influence over the degree to which pain becomes suffering. If you allow the pain to filter through your mind, it seems as if your entire field, your ‘am-ness’, your Self, is flooded with pain. Everything in the value of being in this moment is then hidden from view, occluded like a total lunar eclipse.
So, you do not allow it to filter through the mind. Instead, you occupy the witness state.
The story isn’t always easy to drop. What I would recommend you focus upon, again, based on my own experience, is not trying to drop the story. This effort can result in very little headway, and tends to also accompany frustration and self-punitive thoughts. Rather, direct your effort of attention to understanding the story.
By understanding, I also mean seeing through the story. To understand it means to step back and see where your pain fits in. Illusion is always transparent from some angle; it is usually just a case of rotating the object of our attention enough to get a clear view of its insubstantial nature. Why is this human pain there, what are the conditions of it? Do other people also have it? For what reasons? What was misunderstood?
So, I put it that it is critical to understand, not to renounce or revoke. You will not progress by renouncing or avoiding your feelings, no matter how upset you are, and no matter how justified or unjustified you think those feelings are. We are so used to meeting things we don’t want in the world with push-back – what happens inside us has a totally different dynamic that you will begin to see after a while if you spend enough time in there. Resistance will trap you, but acceptance and understanding will free you.
I will give an example of how a story can be sustained by ignorance and then challenged through inquiry. Remember that this story, being a narrative as accompanying the pain, while not necessarily causing the entirety of the pain, is what nonetheless promotes and sustains it, thereby elevating the pain to the status of suffering.
Here is an important inquiry rule which i have found indispensable. If there is suffering within you, then there is always something false that has been invested with your belief. In my thousands of hours of self-inquiry, this rule has proven true. I invite you to test this for yourself. The discovery, if you happen upon it, will possibly spark an inner revolution, but this cannot have value as a second-hand insight, you really need to see it for yourself in order for it to yield any effect. This gives you an important method for distinguishing pain from suffering and truth from falsehood.
I will provide some examples.
Say you value a relationship, and that relationship ends for whatever reason. There will in most instances be some form of pain, to a greater or lesser degree. Suffering may take root in a pronounced way when stories about this break-up begin to play in repeat. Common examples of the kinds of thoughts you may find yourself investing and believing in: I was not good enough to love. I was not worthy. No one will ever love me. I am a failure. I am not worthy of love from anyone else. I am ugly.
These can go on as far as the imagination will allow.
This tendency to problematise our pain must be present very early on. I remember being a child and doing this myself from as soon as I was capable of thought. I remember having arguments with my parents and wanting the pain to escalate into bittersweet suffering. Although it was completely uncalled for and totally unnecessary, I would take simple situations of not being permitted to do something, and then berating my mother with accusations such as “You wish you had an abortion”, “You wish you never had me”, and “You wish you gave me away for adoption”.
It is relatively easy to see as an adult how immature and baseless these reactive forms of lashing out are. It is a far more demanding task to see how the very same energies behind those immature reactions have insinuated themselves into our long-term thoughts and behaviours. The same energy feeds various manifestations of spite, resentment and acts of microaggression. In my adult life, I found that same energy translated into throttling my emotional availability to people based on whether I was in a good mood, or whether they were acceptable to me based on their looks, their behaviour, attitude towards me or what they could do for me. This is no way to live.
I didn’t know it at the time of childhood, because it was shrouded in darkness, but what I was really doing in this exercise was worshipping pain in order to allow it to become suffering, like someone thirsty for destruction throwing petrol onto a fire. It was of course completely unnecessary, because if I had known the fundamentals of experiencing human energy, I could have simply dealt with the pain of having my wants and desires thwarted without complicating the process and creating further turmoil for my family.
Where it becomes suffering, at least psychologically, I have discovered that it always relates to what is illusory, that which is false. What is false can always be subjected to the scrutiny of self-inquiry. In my childhood, I didn’t need to go to war with my ignorance and my false belief. If anything, I needed to see through the falsity of my claims, to make the falsehood transparent before my psyche. That would have resulted in understanding, and therefore relief of suffering.
I had no discipline at this stage of life, of course, but even so, occasionally there would be merciful spontaneous insights that resulted in the occasional relief of suffering. The availability of the promise of wisdom was never far away, even when all seemed encompassed in a pall of darkness.
These lessons of childhood are repeated for us in many similar ways in our adult lives with all of our relationships. I expected to grow into an adult one day and magically become a functional human being, but this isn’t how it works, as anyone with an interior life will have discovered for themselves. It usually takes a will, directed attention and a desire to understand our encounters that leads to wisdom.
It is possible to face the same situations over and over and react in precisely the same dysfunctional way indefinitely. This would lead to misery, because the failure to embrace understanding and wisdom is therefore, by the same movement, the welcoming of illusion and falsehood and therefore suffering.
As a child, in my situation, ideally, I could have applied a simple measure of self-inquiry in the following manner: why is it so important that I always get what I think I want? Does that rest on some universal truth, or is it something about my mind that is making demands of the world? Who else should be in pain because I do not get what I want? These are always relevant questions.
If we look again at the situation in which a person may have experienced grief from a relationship break up, the very same sobering questions can lead to understanding, even if it is only seeing how were stuck in the same patterns that repeat over and over. Remember, it is always falsehood that leads us to believe anything that causes us undue psychological torment. You will see this is if you look close enough. Bringing the power of this inquiry to bear is then like a healing balm to our pain.
For example, instead of berating myself for how dysfunctional or ugly or unworthy I am that may have led me to being abandoned by a partner, I could ask the following questions honestly of myself: under what conditions would I leave a partner? Does that mean that this other person is never capable of change? Does it mean that just because I have my own reasons for leaving them that they are inherently unlovable, unworthy, or permanently incapable of change? What is the part of me that needs to be loved or approved of by another in order to feel loved and worthy? If I really messed things up and I am indeed personally responsible, is there any universal law that forbids me from not only learning from my mistakes, but forgiving myself for the pain I caused myself and others? Was my love for that person the one thing that gave them value, or is there something else of value in them? So what about me?
There are many other forms of inquiry possible, but these are simply a few that strike at the heart of how and why suffering may be experienced, and introducing a sense of calm, honest objectivity to what can very often be emotionally reactive, volatile and subjective. This is impossible without your will. As we know, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. The wisest teachers in all of history can do nothing for a person who does not have the will to look for themselves.
When you are experiencing pain, as we all do, it is important to remember that we do not need to banish the pain. We do not need to get rid of our feelings, however painful they happen to be in the moment. What does benefit us is the wisdom inquiry brings. The expectation that our spiritual practice will banish our pain I have found to not be a reasonable or mature expectation. Oddly enough, we don’t even need to arrive at answers most of the time. Often simply asking the pertinent questions can be enough to bring a sober sense of wakefulness to a pattern of reactivity or entrenched self-involvement.
*
Simon P Murphy is a Nelson-based esotericist and philosopher, and author of His Master’s Wretched Organ, an astonishing and surreal collection of weird fiction stories.
If one divides the world’s major religious traditions into Dharmic, a Taoic and an Abrahamic blocs, some patterns start to appear. If one defines the Dharmic religions as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, and the Abrahamic religions as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, then differences from across the Mithraic Ladder become evident.
Some of the differences are entirely physical, such as the fact that the Dharmic religions originated in the Indian subcontinent, while the Abrahamic religions originated in the Middle East.
Another mundane difference exists when it comes to rituals. The Dharmic religions have many rituals, including bathing in holy rivers, prayer cycles, meditation, yoga, festivals, and pilgrimage. The Abrahamic religions also have specific practices like prayer, charity, fasting, and pilgrimage, but not as many or complex as in Dharmic religions.
Major differences also exist when it comes to holy books. The Dharmic religions have multiple holy books like the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Tripitaka, Guru Granth Sahib, etc. The Abrahamic religions have one primary holy book, which is the Torah for Judaism, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) for Christianity, and the Quran for Islam.
The content of those holy books is also different. Abrahamic books tend to focus on hatred of outsiders, emphasising how non-believers need to be destroyed. They exalt their followers and emphasise the supremacy of Yahweh. Dharmic books tend to reveal spiritual and philosophical secrets.
Furthermore, the attitude towards those books is different. In the Dharmic religions, it’s acknowledged that wisdom can be found outside of any one particular book. In the Abrahamic religions, the one primary holy book is frequently declared to be the only valid source of wisdom. Wisdom from other books is usually dismissed as worthless.
Related to the above is the differing historical example. The Abrahamic religions spread by violence and trickery, and destroyed all other religious or spiritual traditions by murdering their priests and desecrating their holy sites. Dharmic religions were different – they tended to spread by word of mouth.
Yet another difference relates to prophets and messengers. The Dharmic religions do not necessarily believe in the concept of prophets and messengers like the Abrahamic religions. However, Buddhism acknowledges Buddha as an enlightened teacher, and the Jains have 24 Tirthankaras who are not prophets per se but rather role models.
The main reason for this difference is that the Dharmic religions believe that it’s possible for any person, being an expression of the divine, to reconnect with the divine. Therefore, no prophets or messengers are necessary. The Abrahamic religions, being political in nature, believe that people must go through an intermediary in order to make such a reconnection. Truth is outside of oneself and therefore one needs guidance from religious authorities.
As such, the Abrahamic religions have numerous prophets and messengers such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Their teachings are considered superior to anything any one person could come up with themselves. As with holy books, anyone who questions any of these prophets is considered evil and fit to be destroyed.
The theological differences between Dharmic religions and Abrahamic religions are numerous, but there are two major ones.
The first relates to the belief in God. The Dharmic religions do not necessarily require belief in one supreme God but acknowledge multiple gods and goddesses or non-theistic philosophies like Buddhism and Jainism. Some, like Hinduism, are henotheistic, meaning that the multiple gods are both considered real and considered expressions of God (this is also similar to the Elementalists beliefs described in Elemental Elementalism).
The Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, believe in one supreme God. Anyone believing in gods is a heretic and must be destroyed. This has the ultimate effect of reducing conceptions of God down to the crudest, lowest-resolution savagery. People become afraid to even speak of God lest they attract punishment.
The second major theological difference relates to the concept of an afterlife. The Dharmic religions believe in reincarnation and karma, where one’s actions in this life determine their future lives. The Abrahamic religions believe in a judgment day when God will judge humankind based on their deeds and grant Heaven or Hell accordingly.
The doctrine that a person might have only one incarnation on this Earth – after which one earns either eternal Heaven or eternal Hell – creates an enormous amount of fear in those who believe it. But that fear is precisely the purpose. Like other Abrahamic doctrines, the purpose is to induce submission, to reduce the population to spiritual slavery.
All of these differences reflect the single largest and profoundest difference between the two religious families: the Dharmic religions are natural, while the Abrahamic religions are unnatural.
The Dharmic religions are those spiritual practices that arise naturally, inspired by the connections that people inherently have with their own souls. Being natural, they involve the use of any and all spiritual sacraments found in the nearby physical environment. This is why cannabis has been used by the Vedic and Hindu traditions, and magic mushrooms by several mystery schools, of which the Eleusinian Mysteries are the foremost.
The Abrahamic religions, by contrast, are a form of spiritual terrorism that originated in ancient Babylon, or perhaps even before then, and which have sought to separate people from their own souls. They are unnatural creations, which is why Abrahamic cultists have to put so much effort into forcing them on other people and winning converts from the spiritually lost.
