It is important to understand the manner in which ideologies develop and relate to one another and the Universe in which they exist. In order to establish such an understanding, we will be looking into meta-ideology. We will first take a basic look at dualist pantheism, which provides the underlying approach of my metaphysics, before describing ideologies as they exist within such a Universe, the constituents of those ideologies, and their willingness to transcend the current cultural paradigms in which they are placed. We will conclude with why geo-mutualist panarchism is the most capable of leading such political and economic transcendence.
Dualist Pantheism as Foundation
My philosophy is grounded in a metaphysical approach I call dualist pantheism, the belief that God and the Universe are the same thing, and that this ultimate unity is expressed through polarities. This theological approach, of dualist pantheism, can be understood in ontological terms of neutral monism. Neutral monism suggests that everything consists of a single substance, which is expressed to and understood by humans through two attributes, or properties. This view of neutral monism is further connected to a neutral form of necessitarianism, which suggests that everything can only happen in one way, as determined by the interplay of polar forces, which act in differing manners. The view is also connected with eternalism, which suggests that time is an illusion, and that all points in time exist forever. The position of dualist pantheism is important in understanding the alchemy of how change, from the real to the ideal, occurs in our Universe.
Dualist pantheism, like all forms of pantheism, suggests that God and the Universe are one and the same thing. Under these terms, God may be also understood as “the All” or “Absolute,” “the thing in itself,” “the Source,” “the One,” or “Monad.” The idea behind pantheism is that God is forever present, always exists, and contains everything—good and bad— that happens. A common theme throughout mystical pantheist traditions suggests that the nature of our suffering is disunity with the whole, or the All, and that the cessation of suffering, or happiness, can be gained through unity with the whole. This must be done on various levels.
Neutral monism, the ontological counterpart to dualist pantheism, is the position that everything is united into one substance, but that this substance is understood through human experience by way of two properties or attributes, which represent the real, material, sensory-oriented phenomena, and the ideal, spiritual, and intuition-oriented noumena, that we deal with on a daily basis. In the version I use, the real and ideal are reconciled in the necessary, or the absolute. Everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen is perfect.
The view further suggests necessitarianism, the belief that everything that occurs does so within a chain of necessary occurrences. In other words, there is no way for things to progress, aside from the way they have progressed and will progress. In dualist pantheism, this is associated with the will of God, or the All, which is Supreme. Necessity is beyond, but includes, good and evil, and allows us to see good and evil existing as part of a single, but polarized, spectrum.
While progression is acknowledged as part of our experience, this progression, and our experiences, alike, are understood to be illusions relating to a false perception of time. According to the view of eternalism, all moments in space and time exist permanently, regardless of our ability to access them or not. Our perception of time is an illusion, which is due to our being a portion of, rather than the complete, whole.
Existing within the whole, we have the potential for choice and movement. Though our choices seem complex, as they exist within varying layers, one does not have to look far to see that these choices are all grounded in the dual properties of substance. All choices relate to mental or physical states, and their variations. These states are further oriented along the lines of time, with the mental-ideal oriented toward the future, and the physical-real toward the past. All points in time, however, exist simultaneously, though we don’t perceive them at once.
These positions are a way of reconciling one’s ideology with the world around them, understanding how the two intermingle. Though we may have grand ideas that please us, others are not always so quick to understand, or even to agree. If we are to better understand how to change society, to have ideological success, we must understand how our ideology fits into the world of ideologies and interacts with them. This entails, further, understanding the orientation of ideologies. Further still, it entails understanding changes throughout history as being perfect, and, rather than accepting them as they were, utilizing their principles in new ways to, as Ken Wilber says, “transcend and include” them. At times, it means we were wrong to believe what we did.
Understanding progressions in terms of dualist pantheism allows us to approach ideologies and their holders with more compassion, and to include them and accept them, without rejecting the beliefs of others. Dualist pantheists, as perennialists, believe that all ideologies hold an element of truth, while finding the most interest in the balance of these truths. But balance does not mean stagnation; when it comes to time and progression, balance means gradual change, the synthesis of stagnation and urgent movement. This means rejecting elements of the past (while keeping others) and claiming elements from the future. Those pieces left behind are not to be understood as perishing from the chain of perfect necessity, but only from that piece of perfection we have accessed. Again, not all that is perfectly necessary, in the ways of the Absolute, are currently ideal, though living systems are oriented toward, and we sense perfection through the attainment of, the ideal. The goal of the dualist pantheist is the slow recognition of upcoming truths and the soft rejection of those that are obsolete, which is made possible by understanding their place in perfection. Once ideal, older systems begin to represent the real (already attained), and are to be transcended.
Dualist pantheism, and its associated neutral monism, necessitarianism, and eternalism, explain how change seemingly occurs, by unchanging and eternal laws, through the transition from one pole (be it good or bad, ideal or real, past or future) to another. In this way, we can see the experience of change as existing within an eternal spectrum, within which we may orient ideologies.
(For more on this topic, please see “The Eternally Perfect and Absolutely Necessary ALL.”)
Before continuing, it is necessary to understand the analysis of ideology, as mapped within the conditions put forth by dualist pantheism. After our descriptivist approach is solidified, we will continue forward with prescription, and will discuss the opponents of the future, and their overcoming.
Left and Right Orientations
Right wing ideologies are connected to a sort of nostalgia for the past. For this reason, such ideologies are associated with cultural conservatism and traditionalism. American Republicans, for instance, wish to uphold values relating to negative rights, protecting property rights as the artistocracy of the Romans and Greeks had had, while their more extreme counterpart, the fascists, wished to return to the sort of monarchical and authoritarian approach of the rulers.
Left wing ideologies are connected to a sort of faith in a brighter future. Such ideologies are associated with cultural liberalism and progressivism. American Democrats, for instance, wish to uphold the values relating to positive rights, giving the poor new rights to have their needs met, as has been done in no society to ever exist before, while their more extreme counterpart, the progressive, wished to further democratize society through popular initiative and referendum.
Right wing ideologies are typically connected to a religious or idealist metaphysical view, with Republicans drawn to the exoteric religions, such as Christianity in the United States; and fascists drawn much more to the esoteric traditions, such as those relating to mystical traditions of Hermeticism and Hinduism.
Left wing ideologies are typically connected to an atheistic or materialist worldview, with Democrats drawn to various forms secularism, such as agnosticism and humanism in the United States; and those who really push the boundaries of progress, such as the communists, have been historically strict regarding their position on atheism.
It seems that leftists and rightists, typically but not always, share some kind of balance between idealism and realism.
The rightists appear to approach politics more realistically, looking to the past for their views, but in so doing are also quick to accept traditional worldviews. That is, the right looks into the material past for their political views, but those societies they uphold as strong were highly religious. In accepting the material past as their model for society’s structure, they also accept their metaphysical positions to a great degree.
Leftists, on the other hand, appear to approach politics in a much more idealistic fashion, looking to the potential of the future, but do so on the basis that the Universe does not have a purpose, so we must somehow create one, and look after one another. That is, leftists believe the Universe to be void of objective morality, and see political idealism as a means of temporary happiness.
The leftists believe in cosmic fate and temporary happiness, while the rightists support eternal happiness at the cost of temporary hardship.
Conservative and traditionalist ideologies promote the integrity and responsibility of the individual. They expect individuals to look after their own interests and to take care of themselves, manage their lives in a responsible manner, and to be strong. Fascist economics take this so far as to “weed out” those they feel to be undesirable, firstly in the area of decision-making by taking away power from the citizens, and finally in the area of existence, by way of violence. They believe this will result in happiness by way of purification.
Liberal and progressive ideologies tend to promote social welfare and the provision of the individual’s needs on behalf of society. They believe people to be limited by their surroundings, and to need help from a benevolent state. Communist economics takes this so far as to enforce the provision of societal needs, firstly through the forceful distribution of property, and finally through work camps. They believe this will result in happiness by way of societal provision.
Right wing politics typically reflect the concerns of people from higher class origins, such as aristocrats and the bourgeoisie. The right wing politics of fascism, for instance, are associated with traditionalism and monarchism. These views typically arise in societies which are depressed, and in which the upper and middle classes have been dispossessed in some way. Depressed societies are conducive to hero-worship and are much more easily driven by mythology and charismatic leadership. They also feel themselves to be victimized by an external threat. In the case of fascism and some forms of conservatism, the case has been made for a socio-religious conspiracy on behalf of the Jews, particularly the Jewish bankers. In order to make the case, traditionalist thinkers have looked back into history and the anthropology of religion. The case is made for an external enemy (of the Germans, for instance) reaching from affairs of the past, who must be dealt with through strong and heroic leadership.
Left wing politics typically reflect the concerns of people from lower class origins, such as workers and tenants. The left wing politics of communism, for instance, are associated with social progress and industrial democracy. These views typically arise in societies which are manic-depressive, and in which there is some hope for new models to be put into place by the agents of those who are suffering. These maniacal movements are attributed to some degree of philosophical self-determination, though they are most usually coopted by a leader with a program, though they are privately critical of the program (as understood by the work of Margaret Mead on Soviet society, wherein support was publicly and forcefully demonstrated, and criticism was commonly found in private). These societies often feel themselves to be vicitimized by an internal threat. In the case of communism and some forms of liberalism, the case has been made for a conspiracy on behalf of the corporations. In order to make the case, progressive thinkers have looked to the possibility for society to be arranged in manners that have yet to be done. The case is made for an internal enemy (of the people) which holds them back from their yet reached potential, who must be dealt with through mass action.
There are considered to be centrist ideologies, as represented by liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, democratic socialists, and social libertarians. These are economically centrist, but are not politically so. In terms of political authority, there are two poles which can be imagined. The first is the side of dictatorial statism, wherein leadership is concentrated into one individual. The second is the side of chaotic anarchism, wherein leadership is entirely lacking, and though a state is not established, it is because the widespread expression of force keeps it this way. In other words, there is classical government and there is chaos. Between these can be found more populist ideologies relating to civil government (such as Georgism) as well as classical forms of anarchism, which are not chaotic, and which do not hold as their goal the abolition of law, but social participation in its creation and acceptance. Geo-mutualist panarchism, for this reason, provides a positive model for both an economically and politically centrist ideology, which balances the economic forces of left and right, and the political forces of crime and government.
Toward the Cosmic Center
As humans, we perceive time as constantly moving forward. This being the case, we can anticipate that leftist and anarchist ideologies, which are oriented in the future, are teleologically pre-determined. However, we must also recognize that, if this is so, they have been pre-determined throughout the entirety of history, and still there are events leading up to this climax. This being realized, we must recognize further that the proper steps must be taken if we are to bring our ideal reality into being. We cannot just jump into anarchist communism. The proper steps must be taken, which reconciles such an ideal future with the statist capitalism of existing reality. The future, as Ken Wilber suggests, always “transcends and includes” the past. This being so, if anarchists wish to be successful, they must find ways of evolving into the future society, as if societies exist on a gradient, rather than being black and white. This entails “grandfathering in” some of the previous ways of life. By retaining values of individualism, and making socialism meet its terms, as well as by allowing societies to practice whatever system they wish— capitalist, communist, statist, anarchist, etc.—, internal to their boundaries, geo-mutualism does just this.
Geo-mutualism does not only synthesize values and relegate them to their proper spheres of importance in the general sense, it allows these values to play out separately and to their fullest extent in the more specific sense. This effectivey “grandfathers in” the behaviors of previous societies. This is beneficial because it makes the new society much less of a threat, and because it provides a common purpose for a wide range of ideologies which are not homogenous, but who would all benefit from being allowed to play out their own value systems to the fullest extent (at their own expense). In other words, because monocentric law naturally means that ideologies must compromise, not only on the general but also on the specifics, all ideologies have a stake in uniting for the sake of expressing their differences in the area of the specifics. Republicans and Democrats, communists and fascists, today have to compromise under the terms of monocultural centralism. Though they are different, they have a combined interest in dissolving this monocultural centrism, if uniting for the general means freeing the specifics. If by uniting, both Democrats and Republicans could have their own countries, they may be willing to establish a federal body for this purpose.
In my essay, “Spiraling Into Our Future,” I describe my philosophy of change, which I refer to as “neutral dialectics,” representing its grounding in neutral monism. In it, I describe the ideal as always existing outside of the present. As an ideal is approached, it loses its value as ideal and becomes circumstance, with a new ideal being generated. In the case of our society, we exist in the realm of republican capitalism, with our transcendent ideal being stateless communism. In order for stateless communism to be reached, we must establish an ideal beyond it, but in order to establish an ideal beyond stateless communism, we must reach an ideal that reaches toward, but stops short, of stateless communism, such as libertarian socialism, which is most realistically exemplified in geo-mutual panarchism.
Those who would hold too nostalgically to the past, or too confidently to the future, would find themselves the enemies of geo-mutualism. While communism may be the goal, for such a goal to meet the terms of the individualist past, as it naturally must for the two to be bridged, all would have to share in an equivalent amount of virtue. This is simply not the case, and to treat it as otherwise is dangerous. While fascism may touch on some important aspects of human purification, its attempts to cleanse humanity have resulted in horrible atrocities. Where communism treats the unworthy as equals, fascism ignores their limitations and treats them unfairly. Instead, geo-mutualism suggests that those of equal stature should act communistically amongst one another. Differences play out in the market, while common affairs are managed in the commune. Not all are equally skilled in baking, building, or writing, but we all share a common human essence. This being so, geo-mutualists support a henocentric confederacy built on principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.
Conservative and traditionalist thought, under geo-mutualism, will be maintained as far as some of the values upheld, which are conducive to unity and flourishing, and as far as historical analysis, but will be moved far past in terms of harsh social organization, as elements such as democracy creep into the present from our communist future. Family values will be upheld through economic and political equilibrium, without need for a dictator, having participatory structures in their stead.
Geo-mutualist panarchism resolves the need for violence between different ideologies, by properly managing political economy. Those ideologies which are incapable of existing alongside others, and infringe on them, will naturally be eliminated, not offensively, but defensively. Conditions of defensive action will include the fair access of the offending party to resources, and equal treatment under the principle of fair regard. It is only if an offense is made after access to resources and fair treatment is extended, that an individual or group will be considered the offending party. This being the case, it is the hopes of geo-mutualist panarchism that fair treatment and economic equilibrium will end the utility for intersocietal aggression.
Deniers of Truth
While it is unfortunate, there are those who will deny the need for societal change and further transcendence to ends of justice. These individuals are the deniers of truth, believers and promoters of lies. Some of them are ignorant and closed off, willingly stupefied. Others have been tricked by those, still more, who have purposefully constructed falsities in order to seize power, and to satisfy their subjective opinion of that which is good at the expense of others. Being that those who are ignorant and closed off, and those who are tricked, depend firstly on the existence of those spreading lies, it is this latter which shall be considered the enemy of gradualism. In what manner do these express themselves?
The extremes already spoken of, communism and liberalism, fascism and conservatism, these are the ideologies of they who are tricked and who accept, willingly closed off from alternatives, reality as it is given to them by others. These others? Well, they are the spreaders of lies, the perpetuators of faction. In one sense, they are the most of enlightened, and yet, in another, they are the least. They are the most enlightened in that they have gotten to information before anyone else, but they are less enlightened because of what they have decided to do with it. The Freemasons, of which I speak, has ushered in republicanism and capitalism, both favorable to the prior feudalism and monarchy, but has stopped short of the Kingdom of God. It is this that will be its unraveling. Rather than sharing its findings with all of humanity, it has kept secret the deepest wanderings of the mind, and has used this knowledge to separate others and to dominate them.
The Freemasons have come to understand the nature of the Universe, but are unwilling to share it with humanity. This does not keep our common existence from being unraveled by others. It is clear from the work of those more than willing to share, if one is willing to put the effort forward to find it, that we live in a Universe of neutral monism. That is, we live in a Universe which is composed of a single substance that is expressed as two properties, mental and physical. Freemasonry is quite aware of this fact, but does not promote it. Instead, it has used the properties of the Universe in efforts of confusion, suggesting one property to govern another, or to compose the nature of substance, that which properties are naturally expressions of, and not vice versa.
The tactics of the elite include “divide and conquer,” Trojan horse and “package-deal” strategies, and scapegoating.
“Divide and conquer” is quite a prominent tool, as they divide the population into left and rights of various degrees, according to the properties of the Universe, without ever touching on its substance in public. In order to divide the population, the illuminists point to very real distinctions that exist around us, but magnify their importance. They have, for instance, pointed to the problems of capitalism and employers, helping to spread ideologies such as Marxism, funding Lenin and Trotsky. They have also pointed to the problem of bureaucracy, helping along vulgar libertarians, such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman. They have ensured that these two very valid interpretations of the problem never meet eye to eye, and always appear to be irreconcilable. In doing so, they conquer. When an individual or group at the top can divide a population, they can turn them against one another, using one side at a time as a scapegoat. After conflicts are manufactured, they can be resolved by the authority, demonstrating their “necessity.”
Trojan horse strategies, such as the “freedom to elect our leaders” are also used quite a bit. What a deliciously poisoned apple! After all, it is always an agent of the Masonry that gets elected. They’d be in control anyway, but, with the magic of elections, they gain the esteemed support of those they administer their authority to, where it would otherwise be lacking. Many like to believe that we live in a truly democratic republic, where the people, by way of their agents, really do run the show; but this couldn’t be further from the truth.
If we look back into history, we see that the United States was founded by freemasons. It was the masonic lodge led by Joseph Warren, the American leader who would die on bunker hill, that carried out the Boston Tea Party, after being planned at the Green Dragon. A large portion of the founding fathers are known to have been freemasons. With others, they rallied a small portion of the population, and overthrew the British. This was carried out under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our current constitution. The Articles allowed every white, protestant, land-owning, male (the same aristocratic class allowed in the freemasonry of the time) to vote, but none other. Eventually, farmers, such as Daniel Shays, became tired of the conditions under the Articles, and started to revolt. This scared aristocratic landlords, such as James Madison, who rallied with the federalists to create a new constitution to prevent threats foreign and, especially, domestic. The new constitution further centralized the federal government, allowing for more taxation and control, and extended a vote to the population. This was a Trojan horse strategy that gave a new air of freedom, while taking it further away.
Those who are elected are always freemasons and illuminists. They appear to be on differing sides, Democrats and Republicans, but this is only their exoteric public presence. If you remember, Bush and Kerry were both members of Skull and Bones, a secret society, behind the scenes. It was here that the real deals were being made. Teammates such as these take upon themselves to project polarized personalities to the public, representing two extremes from which to choose. This is a strategy that has likely been passed down through the ages, in cults such as the Roman Cult of Mithras. If one takes a look at Raphael’s famous painting, The School of Athens, for instance, one will find that the political polarities of today are represented dead center, expressed in Aristotle’s materialism and Plato’s idealism. These two aspects, both very existent properties of our Universe, have been used throughout time to polarize and divide people.
“Package-deals” are commonly presented by these elected illuminists; that is, legislation that sounds good on the outside, promising to resolve a common concern, while coming attached with the problems of the future. With such a bill, the popular portions are made public by the media, while those less acceptable are simply ignored. These extra provisions are often known as “riders.”
When problems do arise, and become potentially unmanageable for the ruling class, they scapegoat one of their previously polarized subsidiaries, such as the communists or the fascists. While governments of the world appear to be states, they are merely cantons in comparison to the established statehood of the Freemasons. These illuminists stay one top by “playing both sides.” They keep both sides of opposition bound by terms of loyalty, and create spite between them, by playing them one against the other. When things escalate to a point that one side comes close to figuring it out, the illuminist steps in as the Great Mediator Sent by God, without which things would surely be terrible (or would they?).
Geo-mutualist panarchism and the Freemasons share a similar understanding of polarity, but we are working toward differing ends. The Freemasons wish to privatize and hold secret the laws of the Universe, while geo-mutualist panarchists wish to share the truth to the masses by way of dualist pantheism. In effect, the illuminists use their knowledge of polarity to divide, and to increase entropy; while the panists—pantheist panarchists— use their knowledge to unite, and to increase syntropy.
All living things tend toward goals of happiness, which increase their syntropy. The illuminists are not acting outside of the confines of human nature, but are expressing its id in its most enabled form. They too want good to occur; for themselves. Solipsists, they believe the Universe to be theirs for the taking. They too are products of their conditions, and they too will fight to maintain those conditions. They are, however, working against the flow of time, wishing to hold, or even push, it back. They are keen to promoting authoritarian movements associated with traditionalism, and coopting progressive movements of workers and tenant-farmers. They fund communists and fascists alike, creating loyalty, and pit them one against the other, keeping the focus off of themselves. In so doing, the illuminists are fighting uphill, and will ultimately lose in the struggle upstream, as they are moving against the currents of life. Living things move in a general trend toward syntropy, and not the other way around, except in an exceptional sense. This being the case (but also having created further unity and justice in the transition from feudal monarchy to capitalist republics) the Freemason attempt to stifle progress beyond their own control, through current attempts of division, is destined to fail.
Instead, geo-mutualism, informed by dualist pantheism, works with the Tao, following the path of virtue, toward higher unity. That which is left behind is the obsolete, half-truths taken for the full report. Every change is driven by a truth surrounded in lies, layers of which must be shed as new truths enter and combine. Geo-mutualism “transcends and includes” the truths of the past, shedding those false assumptions taken for truth, the kind often promoted by the illuminists for the sake of maintaining power (as the Pharaoh convinced his subjects, through prediction, that he caused the eclipse, and therefor controlled the Sun itself; empowering knowledge has always been used by the elite to maintain control). In other words, in moving toward higher being, or toward being itself, geo-mutualism sheds only lies, the element of which never existed in the first place, leaving behind fresh green growth. The essence of a lie is the absence of truth, and the absence of truth is the absence of being (for more on onto-epistemology, see “On Truth and Economy”). Where the illuminists have spread lies, and have used already-existing confusion to their advantage, geo-mutualist panarchism, informed by dualist pantheism, will enlighten the masses to compatibilism, showing how their pieces of the truth fit together, rather than compete, with the others. This transition will take place as an illusion within the great chain of perfect and eternal necessity.
 Societal change in general is due to facing hardships. Hardships are naturally depressing, but there are three ways to react to them. Hardships can result in a more critical and sticking form of depression, attributed to fatalism and the externalization of a society’s own value onto others; they can result in a more maniacal expression of the depression, attributed to societal solipsism and the pressing of its values onto others; but a society can also get through hardships in a more balanced manner, which does not result in such critical forms of critical societal mania and depression.