*This essay was originally published on January 21 2026*

It has come to my attention that many religious folk oppose mysticism in any form. Mysticism is defined as direct experience of the divine. Is not the purpose of religion to bring the individual into contact with the divine? As such, why would religious people be opposed to this? In this essay I will be examining these questions and providing my own take on the subject.

But first I feel the need to explain a bit about myself so the reader will have a better understanding of why I hold the positions that I do. As a child I was fascinated by science, and Bill Nye was someone I looked up to. I believed in evolution. However, I was raised Protestant (southern baptist to be precise) and so went to church on a regular basis. Around the age of thirteen I was introduced to young earth creationism. Some readers may be taken aback by this, but there is actually something to creationism that is beyond the stereotypes of low intelligence bible-thumpers. I still hold that creationists have the best critiques of evolution (critique is not a negative, despite many atheists acting as though it is).

At the age of fourteen I began studying psychology. Eventually I stumbled across the field of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is the only field of evolutionary research that produces reliable predictions. I have maintained my interest in psychology throughout my life, although I have never recieved a degree for it. In this essay I will be dealing with psychology as I explain my thoughts on this topic, as well as examine a few theories of mystical experience.

In 2010 I was exposed to what some consider mystical objects, as well as mystical information. This came in the form of Tibetan singing bowls and a small book on the subject of the seven chakras. It astounded me that there was medical information about the internal organs originating thousands of years ago, now handed down through this booklet about the seven chakras. As for the singing bowls it amazed me that they could change their tune in the presence of other bowls being played. It astonished me further that they could tune themselves to the sound of my heartbeat. This encounter with these objects and this information convinced me to look into the occult. I began studying everything I could get my hands on about the occult, metaphysics, the new age, and alternative spirituality.

I had always had paranormal experiences in my life. Most notably, the repeated appearance of orbs in my bedroom during my teen years. For most of these experiences there were perfectly normal scientific explanations for them. But for the orbs I could find none. My studies into the occult were the sole savior of myself from unwanted paranormal experiences. And since beginning my study of the occult I have had many other experiences which cannot be explained by mainstream science.

None of this has turned me away from science, however, and I still enjoy studying science of all sorts. In my view science is the best tool we have for uncovering the true nature of reality. Some have posed the idea that science is not the best and should be discarded in favor of some other investigative technique, however they always either have nothing better to propose or end up proposing philosophy which is a clearly inferior tool. If by some chance a better tool came along, I would be among the first to partake and to promote it.

I have written about science and spirituality before, most notably in my essay "Instinctual Man, Ethnos And Spirituality" and I do not see science and spirituality as opposed or even incompatible. It is my hope that those reading this essay do so with an open and curious mind. And I hope that this essay will inspire others to become more willing to engage in mysticism. Without further ado, let us begin.

Religion And Its Discontents

There are people who believe religion is simply a method of controlling a populace. These people point to the authoritarian measures taken by the Catholic church during the medieval period as proof of this. But this treats Catholicism as if it were the only religion. Obviously this is not the case, and many other religions have been far more libertarian in their treatment of their populations than the Catholic Church was. This also ignores the fact that the Catholic Church has had many periods of liberality over the centuries. During the Renaissance the church actually sanctioned prostitution.

The religion of ancient Rome was quite libertarian. The same is true with ancient Greece. Both were polytheistic and allowed believers to worship whichever deity they pleased. It was not until late into the fall of Rome that the Romans adopted monotheism and this was done by the emperor to cause the citizenry to become more disciplined. Before this, though, Romans and Greeks experienced a great deal of freedom (excluding Sparta which forced every male into military service). So it is clear that these two religions were not established as a method of control.

Max Stirner, the man who formalized egoism in Germany, proclaimed that religion was a "spook" or institute of control. However, Stirner described "spooks" as anything which limits the individual. In this view we can use his own term to describe atheism (or more specifically, anti-theism), which seeks to wipe out all spiritual beliefs, therefore limiting individuals. As I will discuss later in this essay, spiritual beliefs have many benefits and even alter the neurophysiology of believers which in turn creates more neurodiversity among the populace.

The presence of mystical experience (again, direct experience of the divine) poses a problem for any institution which seeks to control its populace, as such an experience removes authority from those at the head of the institution and places it directly on the higher power. And yet, in most religions aside from Christianity mystical experience is integral. So, we cannot say that all religion serves to control the populace when most religions actively put power in the hands of the every day man. The most prominent religion to do this is Hinduism, in which the most basic practices are designed to give every adherent direct experience of God. Another religion centered around providing direct experience with the divine is Wicca, which is proclaimed to be the religion of the witches.

Most of Christianity is bereft of mystical experience, with the exception of eastern orthodox Christians and pentecostals. I am still mostly unfamiliar with eastern orthodoxy, but intend to research it further in the future. I do know that non-mystical Christianity is vastly more common. As for pentecostals, I am unsure if they should properly be classed as mystical given that their trances appear to be entirely performative, with their speaking in tongues being non-linguistic; that is to say that the one product observable from the purported mystical experience of the pentecostals is not what it is claimed to be. So we are left with most Christians carrying on without any direct knowledge of God.

The people speaking against mysticism are exclusively Christians. So this would lend credence to the claim that Christianity in particular was formulated as a system of control. However, as we will see later on, the Bible does not forbid mysticism and even encourages it. So the question becomes why so many Christians are opposed to direct experience of the divine. This will require us to analyze the psychology of those reject such experiences. And so we lead into our next section.

Threat Detection

There have been studies done to show the impact of specific regions of the brain on behavior, beliefs, and perception. There is an entire field of psychology dedicated to this known as neuropsychology, which combines physiology, neurochemistry, and primatology alongside several other fields in order to accomplish its tasks. Neuropsychology is used to diagnose mental issues, generally brain damage. Neuropsychology is a more broad field of study than neurology, which focuses solely on medical applications.

In 2015 there was a study done where electromagnetism was used to reduce activity in the posterior medial frontal cortex, a region in the brain associated with threat detection. When this was done, belief in God was reduced. This study was held up by atheists as proof that religion was simply a result of an overactive brain region, giving rise to dissonant thought. There is something to this, as when this brain region is stimulated more cognitive dissonance arises. However, there is also another effect of this region and that is to activate other regions of the brain in order to solve problems and in doing so learn new things.

So there is a tradeoff between atheism and theism. Atheists suffer less cognitive dissonance yet cannot learn or adapt while theists suffer more dissonance but can learn and adapt to new situations. Threat detection is therefore a complex issue. However, I believe most people will agree that learning and adapting are more important than a minor reduction in dissonant beliefs. After all, it is our extreme ability to adapt that makes humans unique among all the animal species on Earth. For a good discussion about the study that was performed I recommend the video titled "The West Is Shifting Far Right, This Insane Study Explains Why" (formerly titled "This Insane Study Linked Far Right Politics With Belief In God") by the youtube user Uberboyo.

When discussing mysticism, most Christians tend to call it demonic, which indicates a fear response, which in turn indicates a detection of a threat. There was a study done which showed that conservatives care more about those closest to them while caring little about those unrelated to them, while liberals are the opposite of this. The graph of cares has been memed and is frequently used to dismiss leftist arguments. However we could interpret these charts in such a way that it sheds light on our current topic. Given that mysticism has not been integral to most Christianity, nor has even been a part of it, we could say that mysticism is further removed and therefore seen as an "other". This otherness creates a disconnect when discussing the issue at hand.

As I will show in the next section, the Bible itself encourages direct communion with the divine. And yet those who believe in the truth of the Bible are opposed to direct communion with the divine. It is my belief that in order for spirituality to be genuine, it must include mystical experience. As such, it becomes imperative that we learn to open Christians up to the concept of engaging in mysticism. The problem is how to go about doing so.

Biblical Mysticism

The Holy Bible is rife with mysticism and magick. People commune with angels, as well as directly with God. Moses and Aaron both committed several acts of magick which were seen as positives due to them being performed in the name of the God of Israel as opposed to the Egyptians who carried out their acts in the name of themselves and their gods. Moses had personal, direct, contact with God through the appearance of the burning bush. The Ancient Israelites frequently communed with God as he appeared in the temple in a pillar of smoke. The archangel Gabriel was the one who informed Mary of her impending child, who we know of as Christ. Abraham was commanded directly by God to sacrifice his son, Isaac only to then have direct contact with an angel commanding him not to complete the act.

In Romans 12: 2 it is said "do not conform to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - His good, pleasing and perfect will." Christians are told to transform themselves in order to know and understand the will of God. This is inherently mystical as mysticism seeks to transform the individual through communion with the divine. We have here also hints of gnosticism, or "Knowing" of the divine. The question here becomes how to attain this knowledge of God.

Psalm 46:10 states "be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!". This passage has been interpreted by some as indicating meditative practice. Indeed, some who have tried to create unity between religions have related it to the Hindu practice of Kriya yoga, or yoga of attaining knowledge of God through meditation. Though mainstream Christianity tends to reject this interpretation, it is difficult not to see the similarities and it is very easily accepted that this means some sort of meditative practice, as all other explanations of this verse fall short. Indeed, in some meditative practices various spirits make themselves known. Which leads to the next point.

In Luke 17:20-21 Christ responds to the pharisees inquiry as to when the kingdom of God will arrive, and he says "the kingdom of God is within you" which goes along quite well with the previous verse from proverbs. If the kingdom of God is within the believer, then it only makes sense that the believer should look within to find it and bring it to the exterior. Again, meditation works well for this passage. There is also a hint of gnosticism, as divinity contained within each individual is integral to the gnostic ideology.

In 1 John 4:1-3 believers are compelled to test spirits they encounter, and neither give unearned trust nor unearned distrust. The passage is as follows: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." There is a call not to trust every spirit one comes across, and yet there is also need to test the spirits to see if they are good or evil. This requires the use of one's own discernment. And of course, this passage indicates that believers will undoubtedly encounter many spirits and will interact with them, putting them to use and even taking orders from them.

In John 14:12 Christ says "very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me shall do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father". Christ performed many miracles and in this verse he is saying that believers can do the same, and in fact perform even greater miracles than Christ Himself. In this verse Christ is essentially commanding followers to perform acts of magick in the name of God.

A final verse I must mention is John 10:34. Christ is defending his divinity against the pharisees and he says "is it not written in your law, 'I have said ye are gods'?" Which most Christians write off as merely his defense. However, this was written in the Torah and was the word of God and so must be dealt with more deeply. If we are all gods, then we must all have that spark of divinity within us. So, it stands to reason that self-realization is called for. By realizing the divinity within we can more easily become aligned with the highest divinity, God.

There is one more point about John 10:34 I must cover: that of capitalization. Some Christians try to avoid dealing with the topic of this verse by dismissing it via the fact that the g in "gods" is not capitalized. The problem with this is firstly that Aramaic and Hebrew do not have capital letters, and therefore also do not have lowercase letters. It is entirely the translators who have made these distinctions. Secondly, it must be pointed out that the word "God" never appears in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, it is always an actual name. Thirdly, the Hebrew that Christ quotes actually says "Elohim" which is one of the names of God which is both masculine and feminine as well as plural. This same name for God can be seen in Genesis 1:26 where it says "then Elohim said, 'let us make mankind in our image...'" with both the name of God and the "us" hinting at more than one deity. To make a distinction here in John where there truly is none is simply a coping mechanism and deflection.

There are countless other examples of mysticism and magick in the Bible, however for the scope of this essay I will stick with just these.

Extrabiblical Mysticism

It is often repeated by Christians that only the orthodoxy matters when it comes to the bible. But which orthodoxy is the correct one? The Catholic orthodoxy? The eastern orthodoxy? The Ethiopian orthodoxy? The Protestant orthodoxy? Each is different and unique, and even count different books in their versions of the Bible. This of course is aside from the fact that protestantism was founded on questioning orthodoxy and allowing every believer to read the Bible and decide what is true for themselves.

The Catholic orthodoxy, from which most other Bibles have been formed, chose books to add to the Bible based on what was common to Bibles before the council of Nicea had been established. This means that the Bible as it exists today was created by what is essentially a popularity contest. And as we all know, popularity does not determine what is true. Some Christians like to point to the example of the septuagint, or the story of the translation of the Bible from Hebrew into Greek by 72 groups of translators. But this is a story which was written at least 270 years before the birth of Christ, so it has no bearing on the New Testament; and on top of this it itself contains mysticism as the number 72 is a magickal number in the Kabbalah.

Another manner in which orthodoxy becomes a problem is in the interpretation. A good example can be found in 1 Corinthians 1:2 which says: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:". This verse is interpreted as referring to a special class of believers by the Catholics, while protestants interpret it as calling all believers saints. Both interpretations are orthodox to different groups of Christians and yet each contradicts the other. One is inclusive while the other is exclusive. Deciding which is the true interpretation and therefore the true orthodoxy is essentially a matter of choice left up to believers.

There are many books that are mentioned in the Bible which are not included in the bible. Some of these books appear to be very important and many are not even available to read. I will leave it to my readers to investigate these books for themselves. There are books which were not uncommonly included in pre-Nicea Bibles which are not longer included. Namely, the Shepard of Hermas which provides 11 commandments for Christians to follow, and the book of Enoch. This latter book is often spoken against by Christians because it mentions sexual encounters between humans and angels, and yet those sorts of encounters are also mentioned in the Bible as it is now, specifically in the formation of what are known as the Nephilim.

There are still other books which were written close to the time of Christ which were hidden intentionally, most likely to save them from destruction by closed minded ecclesiastics. There was an entire library of these books which was discovered in 1941 in Nag Hammadi now known as the Nag Hammadi Library. These books are generally considered to be written too long after the death of Christ to be valid testaments, yet most scholars consider them indicative of what Christians believed before the council of Nicea. In these books is contained more mysticism, and even mystical teachings of Christ.

There is yet another issue which is of locality: the entirety of the Bible takes place within a small sphere in a small section of the world, fewer than 300 square miles are written of in the Bible. For a God who created the entire planet, it is strange to think that He only ever interacted with His creation on such a small scale. It seems apparent that a massive God has in fact interacted with other peoples around the planet; the issue here is how different religions interpreted Him and his angels. Some people suggest that other religions are true retellings of events that took place with the angels and demons. With Hinduism it is easy to say that God appeared directly to those of the Indus Valley and revealed many of the same teachings as he did to the Israelites.

There was a book which was discovered in Tibet of a man named Issa who came from a far away land and spoke against the clergy, preaching many of the same things that Christ did. It is interesting to note that Issa is also the name that Muslims call Christ by. This book has been translated and is presented under the title "The Unknown Life Of Jesus Christ", presented by and with commentary from its translator, Nicolas Notovich. This book essentially claims that during the 17 year period which is missing from Christ's life in the Bible, he had journeyed to the east and become enlightened through meditation which he learned there. Unless Christians are able to provide a better explanation for the time gap, this book may very well be taken as truthful.

In the book "The Mystic Christ", Ethan Walter III establishes an alternative hermeneutics for the interpretation of the Bible using both Buddhist teachings as well as books from the Nag Hammadi Library. He creates a compelling view which serves to explain many alleged flaws in the Bible better than fundamentalist apologia has. His work fits well with the modern mind, and makes more sense of the ancient minds responsible for transcribing the Bible into existence. And of course, he shows how the teachings of Christ are mystical in nature, and how following Christ's example leads one to an inherently mystical life.

Lastly I would like to point to the work of Paramahansa Yogananda, who established a series of churches in the United States for the purpose of showing the unity of religions. Yogananda was a Hindu and yet he acknowledged the divinity of Christ. Specifically, he related Christ to Krishna; who if you were told about with a slight abstraction to remove the intrinsic Indian elements, you could easily mistake for being Christ. Yogananda saw Christ and Krishna as being of the same energy, coming from the same place. His church, known as Self Realization Fellowship, teaches the similarities between Hinduism and Christianity, as well as the similarities between the teachings of both Christ and Krishna. One key component to SRF church services is a meditation period, which as we have already discussed is a mystical practice for believers to have personal experience of God.

I do encourage readers to do as was commanded in the Bible and "test the spirit" of other books and interpretations instead of merely rejecting or ignoring them. I hope the readers have had their minds opened, if not from before beginning to read this essay then at least by now because we are going to get into the heavier topics in the next few sections.

Neuropsychology Of Mysticism

Let us begin this section with the simplest and most easily accepted topic: that of meditation. Meditation causes demonstrable changes in the brain. Firstly, meditation changes the electromagnetic waves produced by the brain, lowering the frequency thereof which itself can cause changes in awareness and perception. Secondly, it causes a rise in chemicals in the brain, thus causing changes. Thirdly, meditation causes a reduction in activity in the Default Mode Network. Fourthly and lastly, meditation leads to increased gray matter in certain parts of the brain.

Meditation causes lower frequency electromagnetic waves to be produced by the brain. Specifically alpha and theta waves. Alpha waves are associated with relaxation, creativity and daydreaming. An increase of alpha waves creates a mental state in which problem solving becomes easier because of this increase in creativity. Theta waves are linked to increased emotional awareness and intuitive thinking, as well as deeper relaxation and sleep. With raised theta waves self knowledge increases as does positive interpersonal interaction as emotional awareness increases.

With meditation three neurotransmitters are produced in larger quantities than in normal consciousness. Dopamine levels rise, which brings pleasure to the meditator. Serotonin levels rise which brings deeper happiness. Lastly a chemical known as gamma-aminobutyric acid, or GABA, is produced. GABA is a neurochemical which reduces activity in the brain and creates more calmness. These three chemicals in combination cause people to feel more content, which means reduced stress and greater optimism.

Meditation causes a reduction of activity in the Default Mode Network, or DMN. This is a collection of several parts of the brain which are active during mundane consciousness while the rest of the brain is inactive. I have pointed out in the past that this part of the brain appears to be responsible for what we call the ego, as during psychedelic experience when this part of the brain has activity greatly reduced people experience ego dissolution. When meditating, individuals are reducing their egos which helps them to see alternate viewpoints and aids in solving problems. This also causes meditators to engage with others more proactively which creates more beneficial interactions. Meditation also causes decreased activity in the amygdala, which is the source of stress and fear in the brain.

Lastly, meditation causes parts of the brain to grow larger. These parts are the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. The hippocampus is responsible for memory, while the prefrontal cortex is responsible for regulating emotions, actions, and thoughts. Increased gray matter in these regions means better memory and better self control. It also means more capacity for solving problems and coming up with new ideas.

Carl Gustav Jung was one of the founders of psychoanalysis. His variant involved and incorporated occultism. Some may say this discredits him, yet his theories have been shown to be true. He was the first westerner to propose mindfulness meditation as a therapeutic treatment for mental illness, and over the past few decades this practice has been shown to be eight times more effective at treating both bipolar disorder in teenagers as well as post traumatic stress in combat veterans than medication. This means that Jung's proposition is not only effective but extremely effective, and therefore he is proven correct. Jung also had several other ideas inspired by the occult that we will now analyze.

One of Jung's most famous ideas is that of the collective unconscious, wherein archetypes like that of God exist. He proposed that this is hidden very deeply but can rise up through the subconscious and even into the conscious mind, generally through dreams but also through paranormal experiences. He proposed that occultism was a method through which humans can deliberately interact with the collective unconscious and intentionally interact with the archetypes. In doing so, he claims that people can transform themselves in order to alter behaviors and even become more like the archetypes they call upon. This he saw as the true intent behind alchemy: self-transformation.

Timothy Leary created an eight-circuit model of mental activity which was later expounded upon by Robert Anton Wilson. Wilson wrote a book titled "Prometheus Rising" in which he uses this model to encourage people to step outside of what he calls "reality tunnels". These mental circuits extend beyond the individual into the collective, in fact one circuit is explicitly the realm of Jung's archetypes and thusly the collective unconscious. Even further, another circuit extends to all existence and some have proposed that the deepest circuit is the realm of God and the gods (imagine communicating with the entire planet, the entire solar system, or even the entire galaxy, the power with which such consciousnesses would hold).

According to Bill Whitcomb, author of a great almanac of occultism titled "The Magician's Companion", Magic(k) can be said to be simply a set of practices intended to alter consciousness; he then says "However, there has always been a hint of something more." And this certainly appears to be the case to the practitioner. People like Tim Leary, Robert Wilson, and Carl Jung have had experiences which they cannot explain mundanely, and sought to forge proper explanations of these phenomena. Yet only one person has thus far been able to meet scientific criteria for a theory, and this person is Itzhak Bentov, who proposed that consciousness is a field; he also proposed scientific tests for this theory which means it is falsifiable and therefore meets scientific epistemological demands. I came to the conclusion that consciousness is a field before having read his book, "Stalking The Wild Pendulum" which I began reading in 2021 without any foreknowledge about the contents of.

A science progresses, and as more people are thinking about neuroscience and mysticism, it is apparent that more information will be uncovered concerning the effects of mystical experience on the brain. The mere fact that these effects are physiological proves that they are natural, and if they are natural then they were either evolved naturally or were put into place by the Creator. Mysticism cannot be said to be inherently negative if God Himself made mysticism possible.

An Example Of Christian Mysticism

I would here like to recommend a book to the reader, as this book will cover in much greater detail the topics I am going to discuss in this section. And given the size and depth of the book being recommended, it will vastly expand the reader's knowledge. This book is titled "Secrets Of The Magickal Grimoires" by Aaron Leitch, and it is essentially a full textbook of occultism. Specifically the book deals with hermetic occultism of the medieval and Renaissance periods. The majority of the books covered are of a Christian nature; they were written and used by Christians and they were designed to align with the structure of Christianity. Leitch examines many aspects of these texts from multiple angles, and he also displays the history of Christianity and the formation of these grimoires.

Within hermeticism there is a concept known as the acquisition of the conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. This angel is the angel assigned to an individual by God Himself to protect and guide a person throughout their lifetime. This concept is partially carried on in mainstream Catholicism, as there is a common prayer to the Holy Guardian Angel which is often included in Catholic prayer books. There is one very old book in particular which proclaims the method to acquire the conversation of the HGA, and it is known as "The Sacred Magic Of Abramelin The Mage". This book claims to reveal the secret actions taken by biblical prophets and leaders during their time spent in isolation in the desert. A particular ritual which lasts around six months, involving fasting, purification rituals, and prayer as well as seclusion, all of which we know cause alterations of consciousness if done for shorter terms than six months.

Christians should have no problem communing with angels as this was done repeatedly in the Bible, as even Joseph (Spouse of Mary) received communications from an angel. However, communicating with spirits of any sort has been deemed to be a form of "necromancy" by the Catholic church in the past and so this practice is generally discouraged, even by protestants.

There are older grimoires which teach communication with angels as well as demons. The Greater and Lesser Keys of Solomon are both written for a Christian audience and deal with all manner of spirit. The preparatory work involved is largely chanting names of God, purification, fasting, and prayer. However preparation within the context of these books also involves scrying and invoking angels. Only the Lesser Key of Solomon deals with demonic entities and even so it is done within the manner of the Testament Of Solomon; as Lon Milo DuQette puts it in his book "Low Magick", "The formula of Solomonic magick is to take the lesser elements of our nature and put them to work in service of the Great G". DuQette of course does not believe in the literal existence of demons, but rather believes that they are metaphors for aspects of our human nature (he is a Thelemite after all).

If one wishes to create real changes in the world around them, mystical experience allows for this. The tools are all there, it is merely up to the believer whether they are used or not. It is my belief that more people working towards mystical experience will lead to a better world. It is my hope that I have opened the mind of the reader to a new set of experiences. I also hope that I have provided enough information so that the reader will be able to engage in their own spiritual quest, as well as potentially contribute to human understanding of this topic.

In conclusion, these are all important topics to consider. With more people thinking about what takes place in the brain during extraordinary experience we can more easily make advancements in the field of neuroscience and pharmacology. By engaging in mystical practice we can reduce the influence of ego over our lives and act more in accordance with divine Will, and may expand our minds in a somewhat psychedelic manner. And by contemplating the nature of these experiences we may come to a deeper understanding of our world, which may lead to other advancements.

*This essay was originally published on June 10 2025*

Introduction

James Lindsay is a character who is allegedly a representative of the sensible right wing. Some may view him as an honest and intelligent man with good reasoning for his wild claims. This essay will obliterate that view of him.

When I first heard of James Lindsay I became interested in what he had to say, and so listened through a few of his podcasts. I rapidly became disinterested when I realized he had no clue what gnosticism was, and as someone who has studied occultism (with a focus hermeticism and consequently gnosticism) for fifteen years as of 2025 it was apparent to me that his rhetoric was based on a misunderstanding of what gnosticism is.

In early 2022 I discussed politics with a friend and James was mentioned, at which point my friend claimed James was "clearly a white supremacist". I didn't think this was the case, and to this day there is nothing to support that conclusion. It wasn't long afterwards that I bought "Counter Wokecraft" by James Lindsay and Charles Pincourt. This book appears to adopt subversive tactics from marxists who do not practice openly but prefer to obscure their actions.

In this essay i will show how James came to misrepresent gnosticism, how he has misled the Christian community, and how he fails to actually address arguments. I will also show how James has outright lied about several topics and how his brand of liberalism is not only not right wing, but is not liberal whatsoever.

And before James decides to call me woke right allow me to explain a bit about myself. I am a classical liberal. I believe in the importance of the United States' Constitution. I am also someone who lusts after knowledge above most things. As such, I am a bibliophile. I am absolutely certain none of this will matter to James and he will label me as woke right anyway, and I will devote a section of this essay explaining why.

The Gnostic Claim

James only really uses two sources for his understanding of gnosticism. And he misrepresents these sources as I will explain in this section. Most of James' claims rest on the notion that gnosticism is a parasitic ideology that can come in many forms and so if he is wrong about this then his other claims also must be questioned.

The first source is the writings of Joachim of Flora. Joachim presented the idea of ages of man which were based on his interpretation of the book of revelations in the Bible. The first age was the age of the Father, which was before Christ. The second age was the age of the Son, or the age after Christ arrived on Earth. And the third age was the age of the Holy Spirit.

Joachim also describes a seven stage progression of time but because James never mentions this it is not important for this essay. Instead we will turn to what Joachim says about the third age and what James has said about this. Joachim states that the third age will bring about a caste of Christian monks who hold most things in common. James claims that Joachim says everyone will be in a state of communal holding of property, or communism. In reality, this "holding in common" actually refers to uniformity of presentation and not communal property.

James appears to have gained his understanding of Joachim from one book which was The New Science Of Politics: An Introduction by Eric Voegelin who attempted to relate Joachim's ideas to modern politics. Voegelin wrote his book in 1952 which means the book is rather outdated, as there are more recent books covering Joachim. The book also presents a good deal of speculation which means it is not the best source for obtaining objective facts. However even Voegelin does not say the same things that James has said which means that James is in fact deliberately misrepresenting both Voegelin as well as Joachim.

The second source is Voegelin's writings themselves. As already mentioned, Voegelin's works are heavily outdated and deal greatly with speculation. Furthermore, his understanding of gnosticism came from third hand sources which makes Voegelin a fourth hand source. Everyone knows what happens along a grapevine, and this is no different with academic work. A fourth hand source is removed from the facts by three magnitudes and therefore is completely unusable.

Given that Voegelin was published before most of the gnostic texts were translated, it is clear that he could not have had a clear view of what gnosticism was. Newer books are written after studying multiple translations of each text so as to provide the most precise understanding of what each text actually says. Why would James use such a terrible source? I will explain this in a later section.

The best way to get a good understanding of gnosticism is to read the gnostic texts themselves. The second best way is to read second hand sources which compile the information within the gnostic texts, and preferably written by someone who actually considers themselves a gnostic (or at least gnostic adjacent, such as a hermeticist). Academic integrity requires us to read the most up to date sources and the most well researched sources and who better to research the topic than someone who has a genuine interest and belief in it?

For more details about this I recommend checking two videos from the YouTube channel called "veritas et caritas". The first video is titled "TIK History Is Wrong About Nazis & Gnosticism" and the second is titled "TIK Didn't Check His Sources On Gnosticism". Though both are directed towards a historian who is unrelated to James Lindsay, it is made clear that TIK received his entire understanding of these topics from James, and so these videos can be easily thought of as a takedown of James. If a well-read historian can be lead astray by James then just about anyone can, so it is forgivable if any reader fell for his claims.

James Lindsay Is A Tribalist

James is an avowed liberal, specifically a classical liberal. However, his particular brand of classical liberalism is different from mine, and is different from the classical liberalism of the founding fathers of the United States. His liberalism rejects collectivism in any form (allegedly; I will show how this is not actually the case) and it also rejects nationalism. His brand of liberalism praises nearly unlimited immigration. And of course his liberalism includes support for Israel. Let us cover a few of these points to explain why liberalism is not incompatible with the opposite of James' stances.

Collectivism is, depending on how strictly one defines it, the norm for humans as a species. People collectivize at all levels. Liberalism is capable of recognizing this fact while still recognizing individual rights. The liberalism of the founding fathers actually featured collectivism in the form of white solidarity. Non whites have been mentioned by the founders and are almost always collectivized, most notably in the Declaration of Independence where Native Americans are labeled "savages". As for liberal philosophy, Locke clearly presented and favored a system which collectivized based on a shared religion, Christianity; James Lindsay would call Locke "Woke Right" based solely on this fact.

Individuals can collectivize based on shared goals, such as a workers' union. In a case such as this, when you are dealing with the representative of the union, the representative being chosen by the collective to best ensure the demands of the union be met, you are speaking both with an individual and with a collective. This is because the individual carries the complaints of the other members of the collective, and blends them into one homomorphous delivery. When a wealthy individual under criminal accusation hires a team of legal professionals to handle his case for him the legal team is generally seen and treated as one entity, perhaps with one spokesman. The legal team operates as a collective and is recognized as such. Collectives are formed every day, simply because the individual is the most basic unit of society does not mean collectives do not exist.

Unlimited immigration has always been understood to be incompatible with a functioning nation, at least by every liberal philosopher I am aware of. It is simply that liberals have different views on how immigration should be handled. A Hoppean anarcho-capitalist, which is still a form of liberal, would support the maintenence of borders being strictly controlled by property owners. A libertarian minarchist may support government regulation of the border. Disagreeing on how to organize does not make either illiberal. James was one of the biggest voices in favor of expanding immigration from India during the new year season, expanding an already easily abused system (H1B visas are being issued to people using loopholes instead of actual merit). And he called anyone who disagreed with his stance on immigration "Woke Right".

Liberalism has historically been nationalistic, at least in the civic sense, although often in an ethnocentric manner, as we have already discussed. James has specifically targeted those who support nationalism, labeling such people as "Woke Right". James in doing so is softly admitting he is an internationalist, which means he disagrees with the founding fathers as well as enlightenment liberalism. Internationalism is recognized by almost all right wingers (including liberals) as a cause of many modern problems and James has undoubtedly seen others explaining why.

As nationalism is compatible with liberalism, so is cutting funding to Israel. There are few liberal arguments for why we should be backing Israel, and there are many liberal arguments as to why we should not be doing so. James is an admitted zionist and most of the people he labels "Woke Right" are against zionism (using American tax dollars to fund Israel). Putting our own nation first is entirely a liberal thing to do, in the sense of the tradition of enlightenment philosophy; and economically speaking it leads to better outcomes for the citizenry.

James is not actually an individualist. He demands a collective be formed, comprised of people with identical stances to himself. His actions and accusations show that this is the case. James collectivizes those who disagree with him as "Woke Right" and refuses to engage in honest intellectual discourse with them, which would be treating them as individuals. As such, James is being dishonest when he proclaims individualism is all there actually is.

James Proposes Lysenkoism

There is a sort of trope I've noticed where people will say an institution has been infiltrated and taken over by the enemy, and yet one whole branch of that institution is completely clean and free from subversion. Once I spoke with a man who believed wholeheartedly that evolution was a false idea (despite the fact that it is held as true by almost every scientist) and yet when it came to Covid, this man refused to question the scientists at all.

One of James' main points is that academia has been taken over by wokeness and yet he unquestioningly posits the same Marxist Lysenkoist concepts of race as academia does. Lysenko was a Lamarckian who denied the existence and influence of genes. In doing so, he actually caused several famines and killed millions of people. It is of note that even one of James' friends, with whom he recently did a podcast about the "Woke Right", Jordan Peterson has said many times that genes determine at least 50% of behavior.

James stated recently on X that racial intelligence differences can be solved using nutrition and novelty in childhood. He said specifically that the differences would disappear with a good amount of healthy fats and intellect-nourishing experiences. While I am a believer in nutrition as well as novelty as tools for the intelligent to expand their minds, there is only so much that this can achieve given that at least 50% of our being is controlled by genetics.

A good book explaining racial differences is "Race, Evolution and Behavior" by Phillip Rushton. Rushton provides a meta-analysis of racial data and shows differences between the three primary races (blacks, whites, and east asians) across sixty criteria. Biological Anthropology is quite literally the study of humans as animals. This field of science provides predictive models of human behavior. According to James' belief there should be no biological differences between the races, and there should be little to no biological drive for human behavior. And yet both of these are abundantly obvious facts of human existence.

From what I understand, the first person to deny race was an anthropologist by the name of Franz Boas. Boas died in 1942, but expressed praise more than once for both the Soviet Union and also Trofim Lysenko. As mentioned before, Lysenko was a Lamarckian who denied genetics. Lysenko came up with a counter-theory which caused famine which in turn caused the deaths of millions of people. Coming from my 2005 cultural anthropology textbook, the argument for race denialism is that there is more variation between individuals than there are between groups. Unfortunately, my textbook does not state what criteria is being judged. There are two problems with this argument.

Firstly, depending on the criteria used we could use this same logic to create a vastly more ridiculous sounding yet still true argument. If they are using genetics as their criteria (which appears to be the most likely case), then we could push this to an even more extreme claim: "species does not exist because there is more variation between individuals than between groups". Many species share over 90% of their genetic makeup with humans and yet there is still plentiful variation across individuals. Using the same logic intended to deny race, we can blur and even erase the barrier between humans and chimpanzees (with 99% of our genetics being identical). Since species obviously exist and are different groups which can be classified as groups we know that this is not the case. The same holds true for race.

The second problem is that even this argument admits there are groups, it simply claims individualism exists. There simply is no way around this basic fact: groups exist. Individuals exist as well, however they are influenced by their biology and that means they are influenced by the biological group they are a part of. The problem with liberalism becomes how to deal with racial differences. The argument I am sure most are familiar with is actually free market based; that we should simply be laissez faire and allow everyone to naturally fall into a place which is optimal for them. This would, however, require the absence of policies implemented by different kinds of liberals, namely affirmative action and DEI. James actually happens to support one of these race based policies, specifically the expansion of H1B visas as we have already discussed.

James' race denialism is rooted in marxist thought. The ideas put forth by adherents to race denialism have already been disastrously implemented. And even in the modern day, the logic behind race denial is extremely faulty. In order to create a more optimized system, we must recognize our differences and try to figure out how to use our differences to our mutual advantage, as ignoring differences will and has only led to more problems.

James Lindsay's Use of "Woke Right"

When James first began using the term "Woke Right" he admitted on camera that he had not properly defined it yet. He has since defined it and there are a few problems with his definition. His definition of woke right involves anyone using identity politics as a right winger. Which means this term actually applies to anyone who is not a classical liberal, as technically speaking anyone who expresses belief in collectivism is engaging in identity politics. James also defines anyone using Marxist tactics or philosophy as "Woke Right". This means also that he believes all marxists are "Woke" which does not appear to be the case.

Conservatism is a political philosophy based on collectivism and preservation of institutions and traditions. This means that the term "conservative" could be applied to leftists as well as right wingers. Edmund Burke was very far from anything we would call woke and yet he was also a conservative. According to James, one of the founders of conservatism would be "Woke Right". James has been actively involved in attempting to control conservatives by firstly telling them what they are supposed to believe in, and then labeling anyone actually expressing conservative views as "Woke Right". In this way, James is actively using Marxist tactics to attempt to control what others believe. This is subversion and must be called out for what it is.

James has claimed that he is not trying to cancel anyone by labeling them as "Woke Right". He also claims he is not trying to associate anyone with National Socialism by labeling them with this term. Despite this, we can view for ourselves how he uses the term. He very obviously tries to associate normal conservatives with National Socialism, and he refuses to engage with anyone who he labels with the term. Actions speak louder than words and these actions clearly communicate the fact that he is trying to cancel people he disagrees with by giving them the label. He even admitted on Twitter/X that he wants to see the ideologies he disagrees with canceled, which is not a far cry from seeing the people giving voice to those ideologies canceled.

Carl Benjamin is one of the most vocal opponents to James Lindsay. Carl claims to be conservative yet I personally have only ever seen him express liberal stances. He has acknowledged conservative criticism of liberalism as valid, yet still appears to hold liberal views. James has labeled Carl as "Woke Right" simply because Carl recognizes the fact that there are legitimate criticisms of liberalism. Carl is well known for engaging in rational discourse with people he disagrees with, and is also known for changing his mind when proven wrong. Yet, James refuses to engage in discourse with Carl and simply brands him with the label. Here we see how James is actually irrational.

James Lindsay is using demonization tactics straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals", which is a marxist tactical text. He obviously wants to shut down all discussion that is not identical to his particular brand of classical liberalism. He attempts to limit the variety of acceptable discussion by using these tactics. According to his own definition, James Lindsay is "Woke Right". Yet I have the feeling he will label me as such simply for having pointed this out.

The reason why James chose such a terrible source for his understanding of gnosticism becomes clear: he seeks to dismiss anyone he disagrees with by describing their beliefs in the least charitable manner so more people will refuse to engage with the ideas presented. This tactic shuts down discussion and actually prevents minds from being changed. We have seen the Woke left use this sort of tactic for over a decade now, and it is one of the most common gripes right wingers have about the Woke left.

James Lindsay Rejects Materialism

Apparently, James' understanding of idealism is heavily flawed. Idealism is a philosophy based around the idea that we do not have direct access to the world around us, instead we only experience reality through our perceptions (also known as ideas of the world). James appears to believe that idealism is quite literally the belief that reality is comprised of ideas. Which means he very clearly misunderstands those people who propose this philosophy. In Philosophy Of Mind, idealism is comparable to Epiphenomenalism and is in fact a valid and viable theory.

Materialism, as I understand it, is the belief that matter is all that exists. This is the belief as presented by Marx, Stalin and Mao and also is often presented as factual by a great many scientists. James claims to be a materialist yet never defines this clearly except in opposition to idealism so I shall use this definition of materialism. As I have already shown, James denies the material science of genetics. Yet there are other ways in which James denies materialism.

For starters, James obviously believes in moral realism. This is actually incredibly common for liberals (it is almost intrinsic to the human being in fact). While he never outright states he believes in morality or moralism, it is clear through his actions and repeated rabid defense of liberalism that he believes his personally chosen system is the most moral. Again, actions speak louder than words. If James were not a moral realist, he would not be acting as though he had access to the one true moral system; he would not act as if this were a fact which enables him to shut down all other moral systems. Morality is not a material object.

Let us not once again cover the fact that James believes upbringing has an effect on behavior and intelligence. He does not believe in beating or sexually controlling children, which means that he believes socially pressuring children will change their material circumstances. Social pressure is not a material object and so according to materialism should have no effect on the human being. If matter is all that exists, then the only parenting that should be able to change the very being of a child should be physical contact. If social pressure exists and has an impact on matter, then material is not all that exists and therefore materialism is bunk.

James Lindsay would have you believe he is perfectly in line with science, and he would have you believe that science is purely materialistic. Yet even mainstream science is not purely materialistic. Fields are a popular topic among physicists, and are taken to be factual by almost all scientists. Fields are immaterial and infinite. There are many fields and each has their own set of specialists who focus on their particular chosen field to study. The electromagnetic field, the field of spacetime, the Higgs field. Most of modern science and technology would not exist without understanding of these immaterial things. So we can say that James also does not understand science.

James Lindsay Hates Christianity

James claims to be a friend to Christians and often tries to appear to be a supporter of the Christian faith. In observable reality he despises Christianity. There are three main points I must make here. Firstly is his obvious actions towards the Christian community. Second is his stepdaughter's own words about his style of upbringing. Third is his own lack of faith.

James' actions towards the Christian community alone show that he despises Christianity. This is made apparent by his consistent blocking of Christian political moves. Every attempt to further Christian end goals in society is labeled as "Woke Right" by James. According to James, all Christians must act in accordance with his own brand of classical liberalism otherwise they are engaging in some kind of alternative religion unrelated to Christianity. According to James Lindsay Europe was not Christian during the medieval period because they were not Classical Liberals (he never said this, but if he believes liberalism and Christianity are inseparable then this is the logical conclusion).

On January 29 2025 Twitter/X user @britabongwater wrote two posts of note. Keep in mind that this social media account is owned and operated by James Lindsay's stepdaughter. She writes "When I was in high school, I told my parents I wanted to be a Christian and my stepdad said he was going to sit with me each night and read the Bible to me to show me why it was a made up and evil book. I listened to him talk every day about how stupid Christians are." This is testimony from a family member, in case you forgot. She continues in another tweet: "I am not a Christian and it was just a phase. But I'm shocked to see how many Christians follow him and believe he has their best interest at heart. Unless something has changed and he believes the Bible now."

Given that we have already observed how James currently treats Christians we can assume that his stepdaughter is not making things up and also that James' opinion has not changed. In case anyone was wondering about James' parenting skills, his stepdaughter has an onlyfans.

James Lindsay, in spite of his alleged support of Christians and Christianity, lacks belief in Christianity and makes no claim to hold any such belief. Why should Christians be governed by the opinion of someone who doesn't believe as they believe? It only makes sense, logically that Christianity should be determined and directed by those who are within the group, and not those who are outside of the group. Yet a sizeable portion of Christians apparently seek exactly the latter. Anyone who dislikes this situation is branded "Woke Right".

I would like to point out that I myself am not a Christian. However, I support the right to self-determination and as such I support Christians' right to decide for themselves how they are to be.

The Finale

The individual is the most basic unit of society. This does not mean that collectives do not exist. In the past, everyone, including liberals, understood that collectivism was inevitable in some form or another. Some fairly recent history of Britain (say, the period between the 1400s and the 1900s) shows us the effectiveness of cultural collectivism (collectivism based on adherence to a particular culture) in optimizing a civilization. Britain had actively destroyed racial animosity at a certain point, and everyone in Britain was part of the same culture.

People (both liberals and conservatives alike) say that immigrants must assimilate to the dominant culture. And yet, there is nothing to assimilate to. There are too many cultures and subcultures within the United States to point to any one thing as the one to assimilate into. This can be shown to be the cause of many problems faced by our society very easily. If everyone adhered to the same moral system, we wouldn't have the type of political violence we see today as everyone would understand we are trying to solve the same problems. Differences of opinion would be recognized as simply alternate solutions, and this understanding would create more respect among individuals.

James Lindsay wants you to believe science and philosophy have advanced to a point where they cannot advance anymore. This belief in positive stagnation is quite literally the belief in the Hegelian "End Of History" which was posited to be liberalism by Francis Fukuyama back in the 90s. According to James, anyone who believes in Hegelian philosophy is a gnostic idealist, which in turn means James is Woke or Woke Right by his own definitions. There isn't actually an end to history, as history is just the record of human action. As long as humans are doing things there will be history to be written.

James wants to limit the depth and variety of acceptable discussion. He wants to control what other people think and do. He is not your friend, he is a megalomaniac. However, he should not be given negative treatment, especially not if he works towards changing his behavior. Unfortunately, I view this as extremely unlikely. James has become rabid against dissent and this is often indicative of obsession.

James both agrees with and employs the tactics of marxists. This does not make him bad, but does make him a hypocrite. James Lindsay is obviously a progressive in favor of essentially open borders. As I have shown in this essay, James Lindsay is on all points indistinguishable from a woke Marxist. Which, given his landing on the right side of the political spectrum, makes him Woke Right according to his own definition. James Lindsay is everything he tells you he is against. And every day James says more things that dig himself deeper into this hole.

*This essay was originally published on September 10 2024*

Preface

The goal of this article is to explore ancient history, consciousness, spirituality, ethnic practices and how these relate to each other for the purpose of moving toward a new system which could then be installed to great affect in the modern west. Western nations at one point in the not too distant past had an ethnos but this has been broken down through various implemented political policies as well as through radical liberal education and mass immigration. It is a point of note that social cohesion is imperative in establishing and maintaining a peaceful civilization, and the abolition thereof can only instill chaos and tension.

We have the opportunity to do something rare: to create a new ethnos. Creating a new ethnos is more beneficial than returning to an older point because we can remove flaws from the system we form. It is an important thing to note that anyone who seeks to return to an older ethnos is already attempting to create a new one since they are not accounting for many changes that are not dealt with by their chosen system; older systems did not exist alongside the technology we currently have and so will be different in expression than their original form.

But before we can move into the true content of this article I must explain a few things about myself and my worldview, so that the reader may be more understanding of the manner in which I present concepts. There are three points of note which require expression before we may continue with the article.

Firstly I am a firm believer in science. Studying the history of science it becomes clear that it is a combination of three independent philosophies; those being rationalism, empiricism and epistemology. The combination of the three creates a balance which is as close to perfection as humanity has ever reached. It is my personal opinion that science transcends each of the three philosophies and so should be considered separate and distinct from philosophy itself. 

Yet I still see the need for philosophy itself. Philosophy provides us with ways of interpreting data which are not revealed by the data itself. It also allows us to think in complex forms about things not covered by science such as the meaning of life or about morality. Philosophy sharpens the thought processes of individuals and allows deep exploration of even the most shallow of topics.

Since its inception science has had a spiritual element to it; having its roots with the sufi Muslims who believed the study of God's design was one of the highest spiritual practices. Science requires the subversion of ego, which is a key component of almost all spiritual systems. It also establishes new neural connections in the brain through revelation of novel information. In these two functions, the suppression of ego and the creation of novelty in the brain, it resembles the same functions that psychedelics perform in the brain.

Psychedelics have been studied using neural imaging techniques such as fMRI and have been revealed to reduce activity in the Default Mode Network, a collection of 4 or 5 substructures in the brain which appear to be responsible for mundane consciousness. This seems to explain the reduction of ego whilst intoxicated on these substances. They also engage more overall neural connectivity, wherein parts of the brain which do not normally communicate do so greatly; and this seems to explain the hallucinogenic effects such as synesthesia. Psychedelics have been linked to a greater sense of spirituality as well.

Science combined with philosophy is perhaps the greatest powerhouse of functional information unveiling. Together they may create a more complete system of knowledge as well as a more whole individual. Science combined with philosophy makes for a truly psychedelic experience without the usage of substances.

The second point is that I am a pragmatist, and I view eclecticism as integral to pragmatism. Pragmatism focuses on that which is useful, and what is useful may be sparse between different systems. Pragmatism does not necessarily deal solely with truth as art itself can be both untrue as well as useful. Since William James published his work "Pragmatism" in 1907 pragmatism has been highly adaptable and wide ranging since it does not deal exclusively with the material.

Many people do not deal with the world pragmatically. Most tend to deal with the world through an ideological basis, using a chosen system to interpret and interact. I personally view this as damaging. We must seek to solve problems first, and build our system based on the solutions we find work best. Looking to pre-established conceptualizations it is best to pick and choose which portions we integrate.

The third and final point is that I consider myself to be a libertarian. This entails a desire for minimal force and therefore minimal governance. So when I am putting forth ideas, I do attempt to implement as little authority as possible. This appears to me to be necessary for maintaining peace among a populace and the rights of individuals.

This does not mean, however, that I am entirely against force. There are absolutely some instances where force is necessary, such as in safety regulations which prevent harm to consumers. Another instance would be the prevention of child abuse and neglect. I am absolutely against Rothbardianism.

With these made clear, let us continue to the meat of the article.

The Dawn Of Civilization

In 1987 Riane Eisler published a book entitled "The Chalice and The Blade" in which she examines archeological data to uncover an ancient civilization which did not have a hierarchy. She posits that hierarchy came about through a distorted masculine impulse which manifested itself as a conquering culture. Her claim is that the society without hierarchy was overcome by the conquerer culture. She also claims that the egalitarian society was the basic form for all human culture at one point in the distant past.

But is she correct in her claims? 

There are several problems with her analysis. First is that Eisler performed third-hand analysis; that is to say that she received her information from second-hand sources. If even one of those second-hand accounts was misinformed or made a mistake in interpreting the evidence they viewed, her entire argument would be tainted. Generally, the longer the chain of interpreters before it reaches the final source, the more chance there is for false information to arise. After all, the grapevine is a very real issue with humans.

The second issue with Eisler's analysis is that it was inspired by both the theosophist notion of a golden age as well as the Marxist notion of primitive communism. The theosophists were outed as frauds in the 1800s when their seances were revealed to be mere parlor tricks. Using dishonesty in any form in any portion of one's practice calls into question the entirety of the ideology. As for the marxists, their anthropology has been disproven many times, as even the most primitive tribes have been shown to have unequal distribution of wealth.

Another problem with her claim is that she does not fully explain how the dominator culture began. It is almost hand waved and expected to be taken as a given. Without a proper understanding of how the dominator culture came into being, we cannot say for certain that the dominator culture arose after the egalitarian society, instead of having always existed.

So this must mean that Eisler's "chalice" culture never existed, right?

In "The Birth Of The Gods And The Origins Of Agriculture", Jacques Cauvin analyzes the late Paleolithic period up to the late Neolithic period in the Levant. He shows precisely at what point agriculture began, as well as the cultural changes that took place in conjunction with the development thereof. There were both subtle and drastic changes which took place during the Neolithic period.

In the late Paleolithic period we see round housing structures and a female deity with no male deity present. We do see a much more equal distribution of goods among the population. The female deity found in the levant at this time is not the fat "venus" many are accustomed to seeing when the ancient past is being discussed, but a relatively slender figure who is shown to tower over the people of the village.

The equal distribution of goods does not necessarily indicate a truly egalitarian society as our evidence may be incomplete. However the housing found does indicate a much more egalitarian disposition, however flimsy a link that is.

At the very beginning of agriculture we see a rapid shift towards rectangular housing. We also see the first instance of a male deity. The first agricultural civilization also coincides with the first domesticated animals. The changes in culture, the shift in housing design and the presence of a male deity seem to be a direct result of the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

Psychologically, we can analyze the Paleolithic as the same chalice culture that Riane Eisler wrote about. The round houses were built minimalistically and signify a more direct connection with nature. The roundness represents a more natural setting and so these structures are more in tune with nature. A man living in such a building is more psychologically aware that he is a part of nature.

The female deity appears as a maiden or younger woman and so could represent fertility and an embracing nature. Those under such a deity would most certainly feel more as a part of nature, and would undoubtedly express more egalitarianism.

Once agriculture developed we see the rapid shift to rectangular structures and the presence of a male deity. This most likely signifies man's control over nature as opposed to merely being part of it. Dominance over plants and animals expresses itself in a masculine manner, and with unnatural geometry.

It is a point of note that this change happened internally, and was not forced via external forces. This means that Eisler was wrong in her claim that dominator culture came through a conquering group.

What we can draw from this is that the masculine and feminine express themselves differently, and give way to entirely different cultures with different structures. We can conclude that we have had almost nothing but masculine dominator cultures since the start of the Neolithic period. We can also arrive at a sense of longing for a feminine egalitarian culture.

I would propose that unless we radically change our building style and religious tendencies, we cannot enter into a true egalitarian society. Instead, I posit that a balance might be struck between the masculine and feminine. It is desirable to seek a more egalitarian system, as we are only as strong as our weakest link and therefore should ensure that the least well off people in our society are more well off than they are at present. However, it is also important to recognize the potency and efficiency that comes with a hierarchical system.

Gerald Gardner, the founder of Wicca, provided a belief system with both a female and a male deity. This represents a balance between the masculine and feminine, the egalitarian and the hierarchical. If we are to create a new ethnos centered around balance, and which seeks to take human instincts into account, this is the basic form of spirituality we must take as a foundation.

The Ethnos

Here we begin with a look at the Greeks. A civilization beginning in 1600 BC, the Greeks are known for their philosophy and their maintenance of their ethnos. Greek culture is consistently looked back upon for insight into modern problems. Ancient Greece may seem fairly recent in spite of what we have already looked at but I assure you there is good reason to see what the Greeks have to offer.

In 1976 a book was published by the author Julian Jaynes. In this book it is posited that humanity had a weaker connection between the two hemispheres of the brain, and that this caused voices to be audibly heard. Jaynes posits that the Greeks themselves experienced this voice, and claims that this was the Logos which "went out" once civilization had become more thoroughly established. Jaynes notes that early Greeks had a deity for every household, and that the "empty-eyed design" of the familial deity most likely attracted the split consciousness of the individuals within the household.

In order to take Jaynes' claims as a whole we must embrace the notion that the corpus collosum, the part of the brain connecting the left and right hemispheres, was not fully formed until after the Greeks had already become distinct in their culture. This is a large leap in logic and does not make much sense when we account for the slow drive of evolution. However, we may take Jaynes' theory as reasonable if we assume that early man was much more easily able to alter his consciousness.

If we take Jaynes seriously, without necessarily taking everything that he said as absolute truth, we inevitably come to the conclusion that the early Greeks were more in tune with natural instincts than modern man is. There are several further conclusions we arrive at from this supposition, however for the time being we will deal with only one of them (until later in this section). We must first deal with the consequences of this assumption in the realm of consciousness.

Robert Anton Wilson was deeply involved in altering consciousness. Inspired by a system first proposed by the Harvard psychologist Timothy Leary, he wrote a book titled "Prometheus Rising" which expounds upon the concept of eight mental circuits which can be interacted with, altered, and imprinted upon. The first four of these correspond with the Freudian stages of psychological development, and every adult has experience with these. The next four are not experienced by everyone as they generally require active participation.

Of note here is circuit five, which is known as the neurosomatic circuit. This stage of consciousness is marked by a greater feeling of connection to the world around one's self and, in the deeper end of this consciousness, auditory and visual hallucinations. In modern man, this circuit is accessed through ecstatic practice, intense sensuality, and certain substances, particularly cannabis.

It is possible, and I posit that in ancient times, humans were much more readily able to access this fifth circuit of consciousness than modern day man. If this were truly the case, this would explain why humans in general recorded more spiritual experiences such as hearing the voices of deities and receiving information in such a manner. Could it be that the ancient Greeks were hearing their instincts personified in the familial diety?

Let us now examine what actions the Greeks took and what practices they kept in order to form and maintain unity among their people.

Guillaume Durocher created perhaps the best collection of Greek ethnic practices when he wrote his book "The Ancient Ethnostate". In this book Durocher covers every tie binding the Greeks, examining every Greek text from Herodotus, through Pindar, all the way through to Plato.

The first points of note for this essay in particular come from the records concerning the laws set down by Lycurgus, for the sake of governing the Spartans. The Spartans were to be raised by a state functionary from the age of seven until the age of twenty-nine; they were to be thoroughly trained in everything required to be a citizen of Sparta as well as a warrior and survivalist. This standardized training was not liberal by any standard, and provided a unifying basis for the whole of the citizenry.

The Spartans ate their food in communal dining halls, which created a sense of community and belonging. Psychologically speaking, communal dining is sharing intimacy with those around one's self. This practice in particular aligns with the desire for a more stable ethnos without the use of force.

We next look at Athens and its methods. The Athenians held a belief that the land of Athens itself gave birth to the Athenian people. It is a belief such as this which ties people together in a more primal manner. When you believe all your neighbors are special in the same way you are, you are more likely to care for them similarly to the way you care for your own family.

The Athenian populace also held many festivals which created bonding moments for the citizens. It is important to note that these festivals encouraged more interpersonal interactions than modern, officiated gatherings. Modern events often offer spectacle and consumerism and not much in the way of interpersonal activity. Games, communal song, dance, ritual, and feasting all encourage more interactions between citizens.

It is well known that each Greek Polis had its own patron deity. Having a singular ruling deity is another binding trait. A singular and central deity provides an archetype to strive towards and emulate. A standardized belief system with a centralized figurehead unifies and guides a population in a uniform manner. When everyone shares the same beliefs, it is more difficult to be divided by theology.

It is not right to mention these ethnic practices without also mentioning the eugenic practices of the Greeks. There were both positive and negative eugenics implemented by the Greek city-states. Most notably in the realm of negative eugenics, the Spartans engaged in child murder when a newborn was malformed. Most notably in the realm of positive eugenics, both the Spartans and the Athenians chose the healthiest mates to bear offspring with.

To conclude this section I will note that eugenics is the natural outcome of choosing the best possible mate, which is what everyone tries to do. Standardized eugenic practice is not necessary for an overall healthy population as individuals can be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves, especially when the culture and education encourage wise decision making.

A Useful Practice

A man by the name of Jim Penman wrote two books with similar names; that being "Biohistory" and "Biohistory: The Decline And Fall Of The West". Admittedly I have only read the latter, which is shorter and purportedly contains less evidence than the former. Still, this book was thoroughly convincing in its evidence and claims.

Penman claims that to properly understand why the cycles of history exist as they do, we must first understand biology and its impact on the psyche of the masses. He proposes two primary factors which he calls C and V, or the Civilizing factor and Vigor. C is formed when food supplies become stable enough to regularly feed a population, and is maintained via intermittent fasting. V on the other hand comes about through a great lack of food.

C without intermittent fasts gives rise to an abundance of testosterone, which itself gives way to more criminal behavior and hypersexuality. This in turn leads to behaviors which give way to food shortages, which then give rise to V. V then leads to a stable system which encourages C, but does not guarantee it. V after all allows more tolerance for hardships and brutal dictatorships in particular.

I would like to step aside for a short moment and explain about testosterone's negative impacts. This is not to say that testosterone in and of itself is a negative, but rather that too much of anything is a bad thing. The link between testosterone and criminal behavior as well as with hypersexuality has been well established for decades. A simple Google search reveals dozens of scientific studies spanning at least 40 years proving the link.

Penman explains that there are practices which promote V. He lists the catholic practice of Lent, as well as the Muslim practice of Ramadan as V promoters. If I am forced to choose one of these as the better, I would choose Ramadan as it seems to me to be more potent in promoting V. Ramadan simulates famine conditions by disallowing food for the entirety of daylight timing for an entire month.

This is similar to the practice of nomadic peoples who only eat after sundown and spend the day traveling and performing other tasks. The nomadic tribes are often idolized for their accomplishments and lifestyle.

It is possible to adhere to a belief without holding on to any illusions about it. Richard Weaver, often lauded as the founder of modern conservatism, supported socialism. Yet he did not support socialism because he believed it would bring about more prosperous conditions; rather, he believed it would create hardships which would build character. He believed that capitalism was the cause of decadence which would inevitably cause the collapse of civilization. For anyone interested in reading Weaver for themselves I recommend his 1948 book "Ideas Have Consequences".

As I have said previously, I seek solutions without force. As such, it is preferable to my tastes that we instill the practice of Ramadan among the populace instead of forcing famine conditions through policy. Doing so will lead to a healthier and more resilient society, and will also create more well developed characters among the people. This will aid in stabilizing our civilization as well. Spirituality

It is well documented that there are benefits to religion. Studies have shown that children raised with religion have a thicker cortex which means better communication, a stronger imagination, and less depression later in life (even after losing religion). The largest list of psychological benefits of religion that I am aware of is a book called "Triune Brain, Triune Mind, Triune Worldview" by William Klemm (W. R. Klemm).

Most of these studies are done on Christians and even then, usually protestants. It is generally accepted that Christian morality is ideal. Monogamous societies are vastly less internally violent than polyamorous ones. Murder, theft and rape are all lower under societies dominated by Christian belief.

Yet there are problems with Christianity. For starters most Christian sects do not believe in prophecy. In fact anyone claiming to be a prophet or a diviner is cast off as an agent of the devil. It may seem strange but most Christians believe that true prophecy was common at one point but then suddenly disappeared around 2000 years ago.

On top of this most Christians are skeptical of any paranormal occurrence or miracle worker. Again these are characterized by Christians as deceptions created by the devil to lead believers away from the true faith. Yet they believe that miracles were worked often thousands of years ago.

There has been a shift away from Christianity over the past decade or so, even on the right wing of the political spectrum. This is due mainly to the fact that people seek power over their lives, and Christianity offers no power. In fact, Christianity explicitly commands followers to tolerate whatever circumstances they are forced to live under, and obey anyone who is in authority over them.

There is also the fact that most Christianity does not have a gender balance in its divine expression. The catholics are an exception to this rule and in fact the catholics do little to hide their polytheist practice. Prayers to the saints are very much polytheism, thinly veiled as intercessory. You really have to pray to someone who is not omnipresent in order to reach someone who is omnipresent?

A more clear alternative to Christianity is paganism, which embraces the divine masculine as well as the divine feminine. Paganism offers power over one's life and embraces prophecy and miracles. The question arises as to which form of paganism is best.

Of all the pagan belief systems, perhaps the most technical is Hinduism. Hindu theology provided an age of the universe which is almost identical to the accepted scientific age of the universe. It also has detailed descriptions of the spiritual hierarchy which are suitable for polytheists and monotheists alike. It is not faustian in the spenglerian sense, though it does push up against that boundary.

Hindu theology is not purely polytheist or monotheist. There is said to be one God who dreams the universe, and all other deities are merely emanations of that one God. Technically speaking, we are all part of that one God; however instead of praising one's self we are commanded to subvert the ego and serve the divine and the community. It is of note that Hindu culture is the oldest continuous culture on earth that we have record of.

Still another system which draws intrigue is chaos magick. Personally, this system draws my attention because it is focused on altering the psyche of the practitioner. Altering consciousness and worldview is important for creating novel ideas and empathizing with others. Chaos magick is a spiritual system which encourages and aids problem solving.

Chaos magick resembles radical liberalism in its use of religious relativism. It is more akin to a sort of spiritual mixed martial arts; which is to say that it seeks practices and techniques which are useful regardless of their system of origin. Though it has practicality in its direct effects, I maintain that its most potent trait is that it rapidly alters the consciousness of the practitioner and therefore can be used to quickly adapt to new circumstances and issues.

The most primitive form of spirituality documented by mankind is that of shamanism. Thus, it can be seen as the most instinctual form of spirituality. The book "Secrets Of Shamanism" by Jose and Lena Stevens describes shamanism as a system which alters consciousness through various techniques including monotonous drumming which lulls the mind so that the subconscious can more easily commune with the conscious mind.

In this book is described the shamanic web of life, which exists in the space between matter. This "nothingness" carries the information of all existence and particularly the knowledge pertaining to the formation of living beings. This notion bears great resemblance to Rupert Sheldrake's concept of morphogenetic fields. Is it possible that consciousness itself is a field?

Fields are immaterial things which are accepted and embraced by science. They are "nothing" which are demonstrably real. The Buddhist concept of mind is "void" or nothingness. If consciousness lies in the nothingness, then it is very likely that consciousness is itself a field, or the result of a field.

Itzhak Bentov proposed in his book "Stalking The Wild Pendulum" that consciousness is a field. In his book he provides an experiment to test his claim, which means his theory is in fact a scientific one. If consciousness is a field then this would explain much about it, such as the fact that humans can remain conscious with much of the brain removed.

In "The Mind And The Brain" by Jeffrey M. Schwartz he describes how humans have a great level of control over their brains. He himself used Buddhist mindfulness meditation as the basis for a novel OCD treatment which had a greater success rate than the behaviorist model which was popular at the time. Another point Schwartz makes is how stroke sufferers are able to regain control over their paralyzed limbs using what amounts to sheer willpower. If we have control over what happens in our brains, where does the controlling factor come from?

If consciousness is a field then this would explain the anomalous experiences such as psychic foresight or clairvoyance, which though rare, do happen and end up documented. The United States itself recorded great success with remote viewers for twenty years, and only spoke down upon the results after the program had become public information; contradicting their own documentation.

If consciousness is a field then it would be pertinent to get as many minds on the same wavelength as possible, creating unity and power among the people. Mass shifts in technology and culture become more likely when this is done. We can more easily connect at the level of consciousness by sharing in kind the same spiritual belief system.

If we are to create a new ethnos we will need to create a new spiritual system which has adapted so as to maximize the benefits. A morality which optimizes society, belief which encourages community and stability, practices which encourage new ideas; all the while bearing in mind that we are united at both the physical and immaterial levels.

Conclusion

Roger Scruton is famous for emphasizing the true, the good and the beautiful. These seem like good ideals, however what is true is not always good or beautiful, what is good is not always true, and what is beautiful is not always true. Human beings require mythology to be human. The placebo effect is well documented.

If we are to bind our people together under a new ethnos we most likely will require a new mythological basis. We will need to establish balance and uniformity. And if we want to ensure consistent new ideas, we will also want to instill a sufficient amount of variety.

Our world is indeed in danger, not only from civilizational collapse but also from a lack of good ideas. There is no real unity among nations and the spiritual health of the populace is in decline. Culture is fragmented and because of this most people are lost.

Building off of the instincts of man we can create a more stable system which achieves our end goals. We find ourselves looking for the new in the most ancient of times. The ancients had wisdom and experience us moderns can only begin to speculate on. But in our workings we may recreate the experiences and therefore draw on the same wisdom.

I hope my article has inspired people. I hope to open a new set of dialogues about this subject. If you would like to contact me I am easily reached on my Twitter/X account @MDuqaine.