Compassion is a non-sequitur.

If you want to fix humanity:


1. Segregate the ethnic groups -- nationalism is a stronger principle than politics, which is all they have to unite them otherwise.
2.  IQ test everyone. Under-120s get shown the door. You now have 20% of your population (for Caucasians, about 25% for Asians and 5% for Negroes/Mexicans/South Asians/Arabs).
3. Abolish your police force.
4. Take your best people (health, intelligence, character) and make them
 (a) Knights who administer society
 (b) Covert spies who have no official role
5. The Knights run a noble society
6. The spies peer around and find the people of degraded character (criminals, perverts, liars, passive aggressives, bullies, thugs, jerks, creeps) and make them silently disappear.
7. Make a caste system by ability and make it hereditary to bring stability to society

Natural selection returns as does social balance.

The poor would mostly be eradicated under the under-120 rule. Your asshole politicians, bankers, etc. under rule 6. But not all of either group. You would preserve the best and throw out the rest.

The only reason society does not follow this path is the pretense of individuals. They don't want to be seen as socially offensive, not because of fear, but because they want to use idiots as their own stepping stones. Never mind that this is a self-defeating strategy, since it makes idiots essential.

Then again, after the purging above, very few of such dangerous idiots would exist.

Why would you want to fix humanity if not out of compassion??

If you're talking about wanting to create an elite community, I think compassion is still at work if you want it out of a sense of brotherhood, on the other hand if deep down on some repressed level you're just fantasizing about ruling that community with an iron fist or proving yourself to that community, then congratulations you're totally self-centered.

Why do Zen masters laugh?

Why did Hitler love his dog?

Bloody uptight lot, you. But you're young, trying to prove yourselves, so you have any excuse.

Newt Gingrich and Andrea Merkel, not so much.

Maybe they need an enema.

Had I responded to this thread saying "lol man this thread is stupid" then you wouldn't have called me uptight, but the fact is I employ superior vocabulary and sentence structure than that. I am disgruntled you played the Zen card, because I don't see you supporting the cultivation on this forum of any type of awareness that could be described as Zen-like; I hate it when people misappropriate the Zen card, hehe, it's such an easy move!

That I mistook this thread as serious, given the history of your previous posts on this forum, should perhaps tell you something about the practical efficacy of your admittedly well-spirited humour. For example, if I in jest portray myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, I can easily see that you would take me seriously about it, so I refrain from making such jokes. At least I try to, it's possible one or two have slipped through now and then!

Anyways thanks for the enema and *insert satirical liberal rant here*, because apart from tricking people like me I think such is the type of humorous discourse you were hoping to illicit from this thread? Which way do I swing again?

Hmm, I thought you intended this to be an elite discussion forum, not a place for masses. I have been operating under this assumption. Why maintain a discussion forum serving only to entertain the masses? Are you saying you're not striving for an elite discussion forum because you believe such a thing is inherently impossible? What about a mailing list? A few people in a room? Where do you draw the (arguably imaginary) line?

It's going to be published both in english and portuguese, in the main site it will appear in english but with a link to the brazilian site also, where it will be in its translated to portuguese version.

You're one of the few people here who could ask some questions. You can ask about occultism and about what you call the left hand path.

I have no general questions, and if I were to ask specific questions I would need to read his books first, but I don't plan to do that. I think it's great you're interviewing him though.

Trolling has always been a part of how this website expresses its views, I can't believe that people are still surprised/offended by this.

With all due respect, I think believing the posts in question are merely 'trolling' is as illogical as agreeing with the ideas they express.

What is your point of view anyway?

I really couldn't express it summarily. Unless I suppose if I resort to art, here's a poem I'm working on (you asked for it!):

The master of shadows

Hung in daylight a jewel is beautiful,
but hung in darkness, magical.
Never blinded is the closed eye,
the fire of inner sight.
Seek not the light,
to yourself look not,
that destruction of thought,
exploding existence.
Left-hand path master,
spectral phoenix,
what shadow follows thy flight?
And a moonlit soul shines like a star,
resting in peace, the sound of fabric tearing.

I don't agree with the notion expressed that "less wise" people absorb spiritual concepts very poorly. Rather, a lot of the mental "infrastructure" (in terms of learned things, experience) required to appreciate certain discourse is not naturally present, or remains uncultivated, in a portion of the population. If it is possible (and it is) to transmit the discourse, even using specifically crafted language, then some capability to understand must exist. This is more an argument for clarity of communication than for stratification of wisdom, but I do not deny the existence of a divide. They may not be able to appreciate them as easily, but essential truths beg to be expressed and understood.

Perhaps they understand it in a sense, but I find it's like that carnival game where you have a giant hammer and must hit the thing as soon as it pops up from the hole, but then immediately once you've gotten it another one pops up from another hole to take its place. Another excuse, a shift of blame, it doesn't bring any conclusive resolution. And eventually you run out of quarters.

Quote from: §Transcix

isn't it perfectly plausible to hypothesize those who are the wisest often have the least success coping with modern society and thus develop the gravest psychological ailments and appear for all intents and purposes to be some of the least wise?

That's quite a series of hypotheses! Let's see. Those who are wisest often have the least success coping with modern society: Debateable, I would question a definition of wisdom that allowed for inability to cope with society. That must be an element of wisdom.
Those who have little success in coping with society develop psychological ailments: Credible, but what do you mean by psychological ailments specifically?
People who have little success in coping with society appear to be less wise: See first.

I'm speaking in terms of the depth which one sees, the extent to which one recognizes the world around them as the wretched wasteland it truly is. If you don't see what's wrong, if you're blissfully ignorant, then it's fairly easy to bear. But with wisdom may come increased capacity for adaptability, the question is if this increase is outpaced by another increase that also comes with wisdom, the increase in clarity of vision of the surrounding world around you in all its gaping faults.

Is a quality of actual wisdom itself also passed on in a person's heredity, except not through their genetic heredity but their spiritual heredity (I know many posters on this forum subscribe to the notion of reincarnation)? As elements of wisdom have provable hereditary links, a base level of potential is certainly hereditary. Beyond this, the link is tenuous. Even in strictly biological terms, expression of genetic factors is often a consequence of environment. What do you mean by spiritual heredity? An essential quality passed down directly from biological ancestors or the spiritual awareness present within one's culture/heritage?

For what I mean here, think of supposed 'indigo children' for example. The awareness cultivated throughout previous reincarnations, or whatever their identity was when they chose to come to earth in reincarnation from wherever they were living before (other astral worlds, etc), is this a form of heredity whereby not all humans start out the same way? Some have different types of spirit, soul, energetic bodies, or whatever you want to call it. Also the question arises, do they then naturally reincarnate into a body with superior genes?

Neither. It is a hereditary matter.

Genetic heredity, or some type of non-physical heredity? I seem to recall you talking about Hinduism on this forum in the past... would that not factor in?

A real psychonaut does not stop at the half-measures mentioned in this thread. Practice abstinence from defecating, maybe then I'll give you a golden star for realizing you're full of shit.

People IRL often point out how smart I am, and in effect admit they're not as smart. Often I try to correct their perception, pointing out that intellectual intelligence is hardly the sole measure of a person's virtue, for example there's physical intelligence (athletes, martial artists, etc), emotional intelligence, social intelligence (good with people / can read people), sense of humor, determination, passion, patience, compassion, intuition, courageousness, honesty, creativity, etc, all sorts of other positive attributes. But I say this for their benefit, and what I don't mention is that overall I believe wisdom encompasses and transcends all these things, and I think it's crucial to distinguish between intelligence and wisdom.

I believe the roots of wisdom are a great mystery, perhaps more evident when wisdom is highly manifest in a person--I consider myself wise and understand the nature of wisdom--but less evident in terms of the nature of the disconnect or separation between the potential of wisdom and the state of severe lack of wisdom present in so many people. Spiritual understanding through the ages does much to clarify the nature of wisdom per se, but the nature of its lacking seems far more ambiguous, as exemplified in the popular notion that advanced spiritual discourse can be understood by less-wise people only very poorly, and when seeking to impart wisdom to these people then the language and style of writing used must be formulated very specifically, perhaps being one of the finest and most delicate arts there is. To navigate the other person's ego so masterfully that the words you choose are indeed the perfect ones to hit the other person precisely behind the elaborate maze of their ego's defenses.

One of the most puzzling questions I encounter is what made me special so that I could realize this state of awareness I have; like when soldiers come home from war and ask themselves why were they spared. Was it sheer luck? I know I only truly existed once I attained self-realization, everything before then was an incomplete circle, fundamentally different on so many levels. It was not at all a steady, linear progression, there was most certainly a series of--or perhaps for clarity's sake a singular--instance of a singularity, black hole, that which does not conform and cannot possibly be expressed with previous terms or previous concepts. I continue to search for the best way to express this transcendent element of the human experience in terms and concepts understandable to others, and while I believe I've made progress it remains a challenge.

I know the importance of philosophical awareness is championed on this forum, but I wonder to what extent this includes spiritual awareness in terms of actual wisdom (some posters subscribe to Hindu spiritual views I believe)? For example, how can it be said that some people are genetically inferior, if we do not understand the link between the state of wisdom and the state of lack of wisdom? Considering intellectual intelligence and all the other positive attributes I mentioned before, what combination of these qualities are necessarily required, if any, in order for the possibility of ever attaining spiritual wisdom to be honestly realistic? Is a quality of actual wisdom itself also passed on in a person's heredity, except not through their genetic heredity but their spiritual heredity (I know many posters on this forum subscribe to the notion of reincarnation)? Or how, whether or not wisdom is inherited or acquired in life or both, how does this wisdom manifest in modern times--isn't it perfectly plausible to hypothesize those who are the wisest often have the least success coping with modern society and thus develop the gravest psychological ailments and appear for all intents and purposes to be some of the least wise?