Jump to content
The Education Forum
Wade Frazier

Orthodoxy, the Fringes, Structuralism, Conspiracism, Materialism, Mysticism, etc.

Recommended Posts

Hi:

This post starts a new thread titled: “Orthodoxy, the Fringes, Structuralism, Conspiracism, Materialism, Mysticism, Sociality, Enlightenment, and Comprehensive Thinking.”  All of these topics are covered in my work, usually in a great deal of depth, but I’ll be bringing it all together in a way that I have not quite done yet.  I suppose that working on Ed’s bio project helped inspire it, along with being regularly approached by people with lopsided perspectives, as they grind their particular axes.  Developing a comprehensive perspective that will be useful for this Epochal task cannot omit any of those issues: each forms part of the whole for the big picture perspective that is vitally important for an effort like mine.  

Long ago, I wrote an essay on orthodoxy, alternatives, and the layman’s quandary.  Orthodoxy has its virtues and limitations, just as the fringes do.  It takes honesty, a willingness to lay aside what we think we know, keen discernment, and a lot of work to navigate those areas.  

This section of an older essay, on structuralism and conspiracism, is what brought Brian back into my life after our disaster of an NEM experience.  In my big essay, I touched on the materialistic perspective of orthodox science, and how the greatest scientists did not buy it, and I write plenty on mystical perspectives.  I have written at length on sociality and the pursuit of free energy.  There are some very enlightened materialists, but theirs is a difficult walk.  I found that materialist perspectives usually prevented the “smart” from seeing the big picture.

So, this series of posts is going to wind all of those topics into a whole, in a way that I have not quite done before.  This will take some time, as I will likely go deep on some topics in a way that I have not done before.  

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

Scientists have discovered that social animals can develop cultures, which means local ways of doing things, via innovation and social learning.  Culture is not the sole province of humanity; primates, cetaceans, birds and other animals have produced cultures.  The culture that produced those distinctive stone “axes” you could say had orthodox production.  That “orthodoxy” lasted more than one million years.  The first orthodox practices had to arise because they worked.  Worked for whom?  First Epoch societies likely had dominance hierarchies, which went back to the beginnings of simians, and orthodoxy had to serve the dominants, at minimum.  Among chimps, orthodoxy was partly about dominant males getting all of the mating opportunities, and slaughtering one’s neighbors and taking their land and choice females was SOP among chimp societies.

When humans became hunter-gatherers that spread across Africa and Eurasia, which began with Homo erectus, the human line likely created a managed egalitarianism, which I have recently seen described as “coalitions of losers,” to prevent any man from dominating the society.  Psychopathic genes have likely been culled from humanity’s gene pool.  Those dynamics likely lasted all the way until the Neolithic Revolution, when agriculture was invented.  Some anthropologists argue that the ascendance of women predated the Neolithic Revolution, but I have my doubts.  Orthodox practice likely changed in the Neolithic, men began leaving their natal groups to mate, and one of the human journey’s most peaceful times began.  Also, during the short-lived Golden Age of the Hunter Gatherer, while the easy meat lasted, life was easy and violence was likely rare, particularly between bands.  It was peace and plenty, for a time, until the easy energy ran out.

Anthropologists have identified many prehistoric cultures, as evidenced by the artifacts that they left behind, those stone tools are the earliest preserved evidence, and stone technology became increasingly sophisticated over the many thousands of generations.  Those artifacts provided evidence of the prevailing orthodoxies, which obviously extended far beyond stone tools.  Without orthodoxy, there would have not been any intelligible language.  

So, the development of culture and orthodoxy were key aspects of the human journey, without which we would not be here today.  The rise of civilization was obviously a great watershed in the human journey, Third Epoch societies have been the subject of avid investigation by anthropologists, and we also have recorded history to help them out.  With the rise of civilization came elites, which was something new in the human journey.  Scholars have stated that the history of human thought was really the history of elite thought, and I see their point.  Writing was originally used by elites, and they increasingly defined what was orthodox and what wasn’t.  

A key hypothesis among anthropologists is that when the Domestication Revolution began, people not only domesticated plants and animals, but themselves.  Also, the rise of elites was the rise of the psychopaths, as they had their day in the sun once more.  The GCs are psychopathy on a global scale, and call me impressed with the GCs’ bag of tricks.  Psychopaths on their payroll were sicced on us (1, 2, 3), and they were very good at what they did.  I witnessed their expert manipulations of people, preying on their greed, fear, and naïveté.  It was quite an education, the kind that you can’t buy.  

IMO, Steven Pinker is an imperial hack, hailing from the seat of the liberal establishment (and Ian Morris’s imperial work hails from the other “liberal” coast).  However, in his The Blank Slate (which I did not think was all that good), he discussed humanity’s “follow the crowd” predilections, and argued that such herd behavior was an evolutionary adaption to make societies operate more efficiently.  I think that there is something to that.  However, that same trait can also be highly maladaptive on individual and societal levels.  I have watched people embrace certain death rather than question their conditioning.  The lemming stampedes are something to behold, and may well lead to humanity’s demise.  As I see it, the primary issues for righting humanity’s ship are those of integrity and sentience, not technology, as the technological means for the Fifth Epoch were achieved long ago.  

So, orthodoxy has had its purposes, but it can also be very maladaptive, as it is in many ways today.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

Orthodoxy serves those who profit by it.  Ideally, that would mean all of a society’s members, but in practice, its utility in serving elite interests has been the primary criterion for orthodoxy’s reign in Third and Fourth Epoch societies.  Orthodoxy is rarely where innovation hails from.  Innovation generally comes from the fringes, just as most biological innovation likely sprang from marginal creatures.  With the rise of classes (a Third Epoch phenomenon), orthodoxy has increasingly served the dominant class at the expense of the others.

Today’s global rackets all work via rigidly enforced orthodoxies, and all attempts to innovate from the fringes are ruthlessly crushed (or stolen, if they can be used in the rackets – all of Mr. Mentor’s inventions were either stolen or suppressed).  The GCs are the popes of the rackets, enforcing the orthodoxies from their hidden thrones.  It is easy to blame them for the current situation, but virtually everybody plays along, giving their power away, shuffling along with the herd, embracing certain death rather than questioning their conditioning, cheering the slaughter of helpless enemies, campaigning against family members who are being attacked by the media, and so on.  For the herd’s size, the shepherd’s task is surprisingly easy, and most of the racketeering is done in the name of protecting the public, which is the greatest protection racket on Earth, as it enforces the orthodoxies.  And almost nobody on Earth writes about these subjects with any knowledge, interest, or the realization that we all own a piece of this situation.  There really aren’t any victims in this dark dance, and we can change it.  In fact, if we act like victims, we are guaranteed to not change anything.  

Of course, there are technologies on Earth today that make several of the rackets immediately obsolete.  Free energy technology is very real, which would not only end the energy industry as we know it, but it would be the engine of abundance, and the idea of war would become meaningless.  Economic exchange would also become meaningless, so there go the banks, too, and none too soon.  The idea of economic racketeering would no longer make sense, and the other rackets would quickly disintegrate, as they are all founded on scarcity.  End scarcity, and so go the rackets, as the very reason for their existence vanishes.  Of course, the GCs know that too, so they strive mightily to keep free energy, alternative medicine, and other racket-wrecking innovations at bay, and the public aids and abets them, in their semi-sentient state.  

But just because orthodoxy is unbelievably corrupt does not automatically confer validity or virtue to the fringes.  Charlatans, the deluded, and the incompetent riddle the fringes, too.  In the end, it comes down to my journey’s primary lesson: personal integrity is the world’s scarcest commodity, and that fact explains what we see.  No need to blame any “bad guys,” as they are just masters of a game that virtually all humans play.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

The term structuralism is found in many fields of inquiry, but is generally concerned with how things work.  It looks at interrelationships and dynamics.  A related and even synonymous term is functionalism.  Back when I was still a teenager, after my mystical awakening and during my collegiate scientific studies, I saw the battles between Biblical “intelligent design” advocates and evolutionists/materialists.  It seemed to be a battle between two fundamentalist camps, and those battles continue to this day.

Uncle Ed’s Propaganda Model is a structural model of how the American media works.  In discussing it, Ed noted that we cannot know what the thinking is of the media personnel and mavens (we are generally not mind-readers), and Ed contended that what they thought was unknown and unknowable, and was irrelevant to how the model worked.  Ed did not deny that some knew what they were doing and some didn’t (and just followed the herd of mainstream assumptions and reporting), and that elites could directly intervene when their interests were threatened, but that what they thought was “unknowable and irrelevant.”  In his The Myth of the Liberal Media, Ed went into great detail on what the Propaganda Model was.  Intent was just not part of the model, even though he acknowledged that the model did not preclude elite intent and intervention.  These distinctions can be subtle and tricky.

When Barbara McClintock picked up her Nobel Prize, she challenged scientists to discover how organisms directed their evolution, which to this day flies in the face of materialist thought, in which everything is one big accident and evolution is driven by DNA replication errors.  In the sciences, especially human studies, there is a school of structuralist thought.  Heck, my epochal framework can be a called a structuralist model, and I would not mind the label too much, but I also will not say that people are automatons, with their minds straightjacketed by the economic (energetic) realities of their Epochs.  Some could rise above those limitations, even spectacularly, although few ever did.  Those structural constraints were powerful coercive forces over how people thought and behaved.  Try to find an agrarian civilization in which women were not denigrated, were supposed to “know their place,” etc.  That did not change until industrialization and the related demographic transition, and humanity’s transition into the Fourth Epoch is far from complete.

Structuralist models are helpful for understanding how things work, but there has also been the tendency to argue that anything outside of the model’s field of inquiry did not exist, and that is arguably the greatest failing of structuralist and functionalist approaches.  Those approaches became the foundation of the Fourth Epoch religion known as materialism.  Because intent is not “known or knowable,” there has been a tendency to act as if it does not exist, and enlightened scientists have pointed out that lapse of logic, from Schroedinger to Knoll to Ruddiman, but it has not stopped the onslaught of materialist thought that issues from the “skeptics” and others.

It took me many years to begin to understand what was driving both camps, and it really began coming clear when I resumed my studies in 2003, after finishing the 2002 version of my site, and I articulated the issue in my “Conspiracism and Structuralism” section of my 2007 essay that brought Brian back into my life.  The conspiracist framework is generally about how elites act in concert to achieve their desired outcomes, at the expense of the rest of us.  I am the last person who will deny their machinations, but I always argue that it is what the rest of us do that is vastly more important.  Yes, the masses have abdicated their responsibility for the state of affairs as they play the victim, and both conspiracists and structuralists have done that.  The victim mentality won’t get us anywhere.  We need to think and act like creators if we want to make a dent (that combined positive intention that Brian wrote of), and creators create with love.  

Before this thread is finished, I am going to get into the structuralist versus conspiracist perspectives on issues such as the JFK hit and the free energy/ET cover-ups.  They are all related, especially with what E. Howard Hunt told Doug Caddy.  A comprehensive perspective takes in both the structuralist and conspiracist perspectives, sees them as parts of the whole, and acknowledges that both have their virtues and limitations.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

In line with the theme of this thread’s first post, the next dyad to discuss is materialism and mysticism.  As with the rest of them, it really pivots on the integrity issue.  Materialism is a very seductive faith, especially for the “smart,” and virtually all of my fellow free energy travelers were being steeped in that religion, as scientists or scientists-in-training, when we had our mystical awakenings.  Brian was a relatively old man, not having his awakening until he was nearly 40.  The rest of us had ours by our early 20s, and usually as teenagers or earlier.  Once we had our mystical awakenings, we could never again sit in those materialistic pews.  Before Brian awoke, his peers’ favorite activity was ridiculing the paranormal, and if they were honest about it, they would admit that they were defending their faith as they sipped their sherry.  Once Brian woke up, he realized that he no longer belonged and began his exit from the Establishment.  I’ll allow that materialism is the religion of younger souls, who have little interest or talent in pursuing the inward journey.  It seems to be a phase that all souls go through, and since the Fourth Epoch is the Epoch of Young Souls, that religion is appropriate (while they deny that is a religion :) ).  The greatest scientists saw through the game and acknowledged its irrationality, but it has not stopped the priest class of materialism from arising, it is just another criminal enterprise, and they easily dupe the credulous, just like in all fields.

When we had our mystical awakenings, we began exploring those realms, but with the discernment of scientists.  As with everything else, we encountered the genuine and the bogus, and in my case, I came of age during the rise of the New Age in Southern California, and had seen it all by age 30, when I had my big awakening, the one that radicalized me.  As with all other areas of endeavor, in a world of scarcity and fear, personal integrity is the world’s scarcest commodity.  The New Age scene was full of “gurus” whose primary predilection was getting, as I colorfully put it, “paid and laid,” and the suckers lined up, usually New Age housewives seeking enlightened men.  

I was driven from my home by a hippie cult whose theme was “love,” visited other “intentional communities” that were usually cults of one kind or another, led by some guru who sampled the fruits, and it was kind of a standard racket.  A saw endless charlatanry.  Not so much that they faked their abilities, although some certainly did, but they used their talents to get paid and laid, attracting a flock to be fleeced, and the rest of that tawdry spectacle.  On one hand, I can see the casual observer being repulsed by it, and anybody who is looking for an excuse to dismiss the mystical by the scandalous behavior of those in the field does not have to work very hard.  On the other, their behavior was not so different from the criminal “skeptics,” the historians who sold their souls to the winds of wealth and power, the academics who assailed Noam and Ed, the media whores, the doctors who kill off their patients with the “approved” treatments, “experts” who sold industrial waste as medicine, and so on.  So, picking on the charlatanry of Sai Baba or Love Israel is easy to do, and examples like them can be held up in all of the rackets.

Again, it is always an issue of the bogus versus the genuine, and the search is not easy.  For the serious seeker, there is more than enough meat to sink one’s teeth into, but it is also easy to lose one’s footing and float off into realms of delusion.  People need to have their feet firmly planted on the ground to navigate these realms, and there are many casualties to be found along the way.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

Sociality and enlightenment are two very different things, and I see them confused all of the time.  Sociality is an evolutionary adaptation that allows members of a species to come together and enhance their chances of survival.  Because humans are social animals, sociality is a constant theme.  Seeking and maintaining acceptance by one’s in-group drives a great deal of human interaction, and the threat of ostracism is one of humanity’s greatest fears.  Ostracism used to be a death sentence, so the fear of ostracism and the desire for in-group acceptance are powerful motivations for people, but all that it does is help people survive via their in-group status, and the out-group can go to hell, especially when they are vying for scarce resources, and energy most of all.  The golden ages of the human journey were when energy was relatively plentiful.  

It might feel good to be socially accepted, but that has got nothing to do with enlightenment or love.  People continually advocate the social approach to free energy, when it has never gotten anywhere, nor will it, as sociality is based on fear and survival, and the GCs are the masters of that game, as they use people’s greed and fear against them, especially in a nation in which greed is a virtue.  Sociality is ultimately egocentric, never looking beyond the in-group’s welfare, as a way to ensure one’s own.  Sociality is no way to achieve the Fifth Epoch, and plays into the free energy field’s state of arrested development.  We have to aim far higher than that if we want to make a dent.

In a way, sociality is on the other end of the spectrum from enlightenment, and I’ll agree that the pinnacle of enlightenment is what Michael says that the Infinite Spirit attains; its message is that we are all one, and that the Great Goal of all sentient species is attaining love, which is the energy of Creation.  That is not the love of self that dark pathers attain, but the love of others, which spiritual masters attain.  The only path to the Fifth Epoch with a prayer in today’s environment is combined positive intention, which Brian advocated, and when people are focused on a goal, social jockeying becomes meaningless.  

It takes a comprehensive perspective to winnow the wheat from the chaff, see the forest from the trees, and aim for the root instead of hack at branches.  I am going to present some case studies of comprehensive thinking, to show what I mean, but nothing that I ever write will surpass my big essay, as far as comprehensive thought goes, and my site as a whole is an exercise in comprehensive thought, which is an Old Artisan undertaking if there ever was one.   

Time to begin my busy day.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

Orwell called orthodox thinking a form of unconsciousness, and wrote (in his censored preface to Animal Farm) that trading one flavor of Kool-Aid for another was not exactly “progress.”  The mind-boggling part of that is that the so-called “smart” are often the most trapped in their ideological cages.  I saw it many times with Level 3s, and it has really been something to study for Ed’s biography project, as I will likely be doing for years.  In The Political Economy of Human Rights, which was a prelude to Manufacturing Consent, Noam and Ed were crystal clear on how the propaganda system works, and the response to their work proved their point.  Initially, their work was censored, in one of the most outrageous instances of censorship in the 20th century.  That did not work, and The Political Economy of Human Rights was their censored version beefed up by nearly an order of magnitude.  

Their thesis and support for it were undeniable, so their critics completely ignored the thrust of their work and tried to twist it into their being apologists for Pol Pot, which was the furthest thing from what their work was about.  Noam and Ed knew it was coming and tried to forestall that attack, but it was a futile effort, as the propaganda barrage overwhelmed their arguments in the public eye.  Ed’s current Wikipedia bio is Exhibit A on how the propaganda system works, and we’ll see how my upcoming battle with the hacks goes.  Academics and professors led the attacks on Noam and Ed, incredibly.  A five-year-old could see how irrational their attacks were.  But all manner of pundit attacked Noam and Ed with outright lies and obfuscations, and never addressed their thesis or evidence, as they tried mightily to twist their work into something unrecognizable to those familiar with Noam and Ed’s work.  It was beyond insane, but as Ed and Noam wrote, those irrational pundits were usually not intentionally lying (although many did), but were incapable of being rational when their self-serving faith was challenged.  While that may seem to absolve them of responsibility, it also brings up Brian’s question: are we a sentient species?  It is just more proof of my journey’s primary lesson, which I learned 30 years ago.  Dennis was arrested 30 years ago this month, and then my nightmare truly began.  When the dust settled a couple of years later, I had been radicalized and would never see the world the same way again, and it prepared me for work such as Noam and Ed’s.

This insanity can be seen in all manner of ideological addiction, and as Noam stated many times, a good propaganda system will have the appearance of rigorous debate, but only within the narrow confines of self-serving assumptions (that are clearly false, to anybody not drinking the Kool-Aid).  As the Nazis did, the American pundits, virtually without exception, framed our evil activities in Southeast Asia as “tragic errors” and “blundering attempts to do good,” when the facts (always suppressed or ignored) show that that was the furthest thing from the motivation of the war planners and others.  Imperialism has always been, and always will be, evil in its motivation.  It is all about conquering, plundering, and exterminating distant peoples for the benefit of the imperial capital and the “settlers.”  Academics such as Ian Morris argue that those evil activities have made the world safer and more prosperous, as Morris cheers on the empire from his cushy berth.  What an argument to make, and what a prescription for the future (shudder).  There is a different path to take, but time is short.  

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×