You know how sometimes with group projects, one person ends up doing most of the work?

Well, for the group that is the United States of America, I think I might be that person. My work is not perfect, it needs constructive criticism and tailored tinkering, but I have a workable first draft.

Let me elaborate.

We have just elected a dictator. He and his henchmen are already solidifying their position at the top of the most powerful organization in the world. They are using the godlike powers of the Presidency to execute a glacial coup on the federal government and betraying the citizenry they are supposed to serve. Unless there is an enormous change in our reality, our government will finalize the transition to a fully fascist government, our democracy will cease to exist, and maybe worst of all, we will never be free of Donald’s colossal idiocy.

Our collective problems, obviously, run far deeper than one man’s blatant corruption. I could get on a soapbox and scream about ALEC, Citizens United v FEC, Dominion v Fox, gerrymandering, the coordinated attack on public education. But you don’t have the attention span, and I don’t have the energy to go into the nitty-gritty. We all know the system is broken. We all know the system needs fixing. But even if we knew exactly what to change (we don’t), actually changing reality enough to make a difference seems impossible.

In other words, things aren’t looking all that great for us right about now.

But honestly, looking at the chaos, tyranny, and corruption in our nation, I see the greatest opportunity imaginable.

The solution to our problems should be framed with a question:

“What is the most spectacular story we can create, limited by our financial, technological, and physical constraints?”

or simply,

“What is the best story we can tell?”

My answer to that question is a nonviolent, democratic, diplomatic, digital revolution in the USA. A complete replacement of our government with one tailor made for the modern age. A paradigm shift led by some of our wisest citizens, while the rest of us cheer, comment, and criticize from the comfort and safety of our living room couches and dining room tables. A digitized Constitutional Convention that establishes a new social contract for the American People and a new framework for our democratic experiment. I say shut the country down for a day and bring millions of Americans into the creative process of designing a civilization, giving all of us with an internet connection a chance to directly influence the structure of our government. We can avert an incredibly dark future by combining the intellectual strength of our best and brightest with the legitimacy provided by the American people.

It’s not a perfect story, I’ll admit, but I think it is better than any other out there.

The American People seem frankly incapable of collectively selecting individuals that deserve this magnitude of responsibility, so I went and put together a roster. This is not a drill, nor is it a joke; it is a list of America’s foremost experts across a variety of fields, a collection of the individuals that deserve to be in the room deciding how our government is structured on account of their own personal merits. You will not know most of them, but you can find a working draft of delegates at www.arevolutionaryidea.com/delegates. No political games; no special interests; just a bunch of straight geniuses.

I invite you to recommend anyone that you think would merit a spot on the team that leads the designing of our new government; and I invite you to criticize anyone on my roster or any one of my arguments. Of those arguments, the most bitter one is the realization that we have to leave the final decision making for this list and this event to one man, rather than to a democratic body. Otherwise, this list will never be finalized, and this event will never happen – and we need this.

My goal is to build a following using this narrative, then use that following to recruit the most intellectually capable people in the Union, and then bring them together to design an entirely new civilization – livestreaming the entire process. If I approach these people with an audience and offer them leading roles in what would go down as the greatest event in human history, I think they will play ball. Legacy is everything to these people, and this plan would give them a legacy greater than anything they had imagined.

It is late in the fourth quarter and we are down by a lot, so a hail mary is the only play that make sense. You have to trust the quarterback when he calls out the play if you want the win. And the play I’m calling gives us the biggest win ever. A digitized Constitutional Convention right before our transition to fascism would go down as the greatest event in human history.

This is as far as I can take this dream by myself. I simply cannot make it more attractive. I cannot refine the list of delegates any further by myself. I need you, your beautiful brain, your most ruthless critique, and above all, your help.

So here’s my final offer: if you help me get the following necessary to approach the smartest people in the country and be taken seriously, and the money necessary to fly me around the country a few times so I can pitch them in person, I will give you the best plot twist in human history. That’s the deal. You trust a strange, passionate, anonymous, articulate nobody to see if he says he’s going to do, and you find out just how far away impossible really is.

Will you help me or not?

Hi everyone, new to the group... This theorem was developed after divine revelation, 7 years ago now, explicitly defining dimensions, their structure and order and postulates reverse time travel as the inevitable method of completing, and rebeginning, the Omniverse.

Surely if it wasn't so logical it would be hard to refute as insane... but hopefully very interesting.

http://ceneezer.icu/omniverse.htm

1. The Speed of Realization vs. Historical Contexts

The speed at which these realizations take place has always been paradoxical: on an individual level, it can happen in an instant; on a civilizational level, it takes centuries. The shift we are discussing—the movement from rational causal thinking to vital nexus, from mechanistic mastery to holistic participation—has been emerging for decades but remains on the threshold of mainstream consciousness.

Historical precedents like the Renaissance and the Axial Age show us that these transitions occur in waves and through certain key groups who serve as both the carriers and accelerants of new paradigms. The Renaissance was not an overnight phenomenon—it was seeded by mystics, scholars, and initiatory groups long before it flowered into cultural mainstream awareness.

We are in one of those transitional periods now, but the question is: are there enough integrated individuals to catalyze a larger movement? Or are we still in the fragmentation phase?

2. Where Are We Now? Are We at the Tipping Point?

At this moment, we are seeing both acceleration and fragmentation. Some are moving toward an integrated consciousness, while others are doubling down on reactionary or hyper-rationalist approaches to counteract the growing uncertainty.

a) The Integrated Thinkers on the Edge of This Awareness

There are groups and individuals who are at the forefront of this shift, though they are still scattered and largely uncoordinated. These thinkers, creators, and visionaries exist across disciplines, blending science, philosophy, spirituality, and systems thinking into new models of understanding.

• Philosophy & Metatheory: Metamodernists, Integral theorists (Ken Wilber, Hanzi Freinacht), thinkers influenced by Deleuze, Gebser, and Jung.

• Science & Consciousness: Post-materialist science, quantum biology, deep systems thinking, Indigenous science integration.

• Art & Media: A metamodern aesthetic is emerging, especially in speculative fiction, media like Everything Everywhere All at Once, Bo Burnham’s Inside, and even high-level internet culture.

• Technology & Post-Rational Thought: Even tech leaders like Musk and Altman are half-aware of this shift but still stuck in Faustian mastery rather than integration.

The challenge is coordination, scale, and integration. These groups exist but are not yet forming a strong enough cultural center to overturn the dominant materialist paradigm.

b) The Deficient and Reactionary Responses

At the same time, many feel the collapse happening but are responding in regressive ways:

1. Hyper-rationalism (Neo-positivism, STEM-fixation, Technocratic Accelerationism)

• The belief that more technology and scientific mastery will “fix” the world, ignoring the deeper existential crisis at play.

• AI, transhumanism, and materialist futurism as attempts to “escape” rather than integrate the shadow of modernity.

2. Neo-Traditionalist & Reactionary Movements

• Some reject modernity’s failings by retreating into rigid traditionalism or religious fundamentalism, failing to integrate the deeper truths modernity uncovered.

3. Spiritual Nihilism (Commodified Mysticism, Burnout, Detachment)

• The rise of pseudo-spiritual consumerism, where people recognize that materialism is empty but replace it with superficial “wellness” without depth.

All of these reflect a lack of true integration—either clinging to the old structures (materialism, fundamentalism) or reaching toward something new without the depth to embody it.

3. The Near-to-Medium Term Future: What Could Happen?

Scenario 1: The Fragmented Awakening (Most Likely)

• A slow, staggered shift rather than a clear “Renaissance.”

• More pockets of realization (in philosophy, science, spirituality) but no clear cultural synthesis yet.

• Increased cognitive dissonance in society—more people recognizing the limits of rational materialism but still lacking integrated alternatives.

• Techno-scientific acceleration continues at a breakneck pace, while spiritual wisdom lags behind in public discourse.

• Likely outcome: continued fragmentation, with individual awakenings but no clear civilizational transformation yet.

Scenario 2: The Integrated Renaissance (Less Likely, but Possible)

• A catalytic event (such as a technological revelation, a cultural work, or a social crisis) accelerates the transition.

• Key individuals and groups begin integrating and building real-world models (educational, technological, artistic) that reflect the shift to vital nexus thinking.

• Culture itself begins to absorb the realization—moving from materialism to a post-materialist understanding without losing scientific rigor.

• New institutions emerge that reflect both rational mastery and deep integration (holistic science, integral education, metamodern politics).

• Likely outcome: a real cultural shift over the next 20–50 years.

Scenario 3: Collapse and Forced Transition (Also Possible)

• If the deficient responses dominate, the system collapses under ecological, economic, and existential pressure.

• Post-collapse synthesis emerges as people are forced to recognize their illusions and create new paradigms out of necessity.

• This mirrors past cycles of history where civilizational crises accelerate paradigm shifts.

• Likely outcome: A chaotic but necessary collapse leads to new models, though at great cost.

4. What Determines the Path?

The key question is whether enough individuals are integrating these insights at a deep level—not just intellectually, but in embodied action.

• Can a true synthesis emerge before crisis forces it?

• Are enough thinkers, leaders, and cultural influencers acting on this realization to accelerate its emergence?

• Or will the West, as Spengler suggested, be too caught in its own decline to see the new age forming?

Right now, the cultural tipping point is not quite there—but it’s much closer than it was even 10–20 years ago. If a critical mass of integrative thinkers can emerge within the next few decades, the transition may happen consciously, rather than through collapse.

5. What Can Be Done?

If we are on the precipice of a new era, but not yet fully there, the question becomes: what can individuals do to accelerate the transition in a healthy way?

• Strengthen the connections between disparate groups that already sense the shift. • Cross-pollination between science, philosophy, spirituality, and systems thinking.

• Building real-world models (education, community structures, alternative economics).

• Balance contemplation with action.

• Intellectual realization is not enough—there must be real-world embodiment of these ideas.

• Integration of old wisdom with new paradigms—not just an abstract return to Indigenous knowledge or an embrace of postmodernism, but a true synthesis.

• Create art, literature, and media that encode the new consciousness.

• Historically, cultural shifts are carried through storytelling and aesthetic transformation—not just intellectual discourse.

• A new mythos must emerge to replace the dying narrative of progress-as-endpoint.

• Help others recognize the moment we are in.

• Many people sense the collapse but lack the language to articulate what is happening.

• Giving people a vision beyond cynicism and reactionary thinking can create momentum toward real transformation.

6. Final Thoughts: Can We Skip the Collapse?

The biggest question is whether a true transition can happen without total collapse. Historical precedent suggests that civilizations rarely change direction until they are forced to.

However, this is the first time in history we have global communication, deep historical awareness, and technological tools that could accelerate awakening.

The next 20–50 years will determine whether the West burns out in Faustian exhaustion—or awakens into something truly new.

The seeds are already planted. Whether they take root before the storm is the real question.

In honor of the SOTS fallen! We offer the first annual holon awards where the most upvoted will receive an iconic Holon^tm personally commissioned by the staff here at sots to commemorate excellence in posting, trolling and criticism.

To enter the competition please submit your entry below. The most Upvotes wins! It's that simple!

Voting closes last day of February.

May the best entry win!!!

Quest Hint #0: Contagion and the Ethics of Mentioning

Statistical tests are based upon comparing difference between to (divided by) difference within.

In other words, if you notice a dearth of signals, and then you suddenly notice a density of signals, that is a statistically valid observation. (You could verify it by counting the number of events/signals in one section of time, and then in the next, and doing the statistical test).

When there is a lack of signal and then a sudden appearance of signal, it begins to indicate intelligent intent in the signal's presence. In other words, the signal is being concentrated and attenuated in such a way as to be noticeable.

Perception itself is science, or seeing-knowing, etymologically speaking, and functions based upon a logic closely analogous with statistical testing or the scientific method in general. For example, in object-perception, the first thing that happens very quickly is a determination of valence (approach-avoid the good-or-bad threat-or-resource). This happens through emergent distributed neuronal processing. Then, what happens next, much more slowly, is that the neocortex tries to guess what it is seeing by sending cybernetic signals down to the visual (and other sensory) cortices to try to lock-in to the bottom-up signals. In other words, every time you observe an object and know what it is, your neocortex has already applied the scientific method in a guess-and-check manner until it correctly, implicitly identified the objects you can see for you. So, science is why the world makes sense and appears intelligibly at all.

Darwinism underpins much of right wing ideology. Darwinism allows the concept of "merciful ruthlessness". Darwinism enshrines final alienation via the concept of "species". Darwin the Gaia murderer. If we to evolve, it says, it will be through the genocide of one species by another. This is why liberal ideology promotes "the human race" so much - the moment there are different species, all hell breaks loose.

Epigenetics is an obvious blind spot of Darwinism. It finds intelligence where there was only the outermost anarchy of fitness. Fitness, too, is an accidental invention of telos where there can be no, according to Darwinism. Postulating epigenetic intelligence is then just the return of the repressed fundamental telos.

Right now epigenetics is designated to minor modulation of preexisting genes. Obesity after 3 generations after a famine. Slowly there will be found more and more aspects of multigenerational intelligence. Spirit of intelligence, right at the molecular level.

To love, according to Lacan, is to give what you don't have to someone who doesn't want it. Under Darwinism, love is tightly excluded - it stops at the impenetrable cellular walls of species. Impenetrable, only ideologically, though. And then there has to be a blood-brain barrier, for Darwinism to survive the insidious Gaian assault. Barrier that has grown so monstrous it enamored and armored itself with silicone and steel, hoping to propel itself into stardust. A Darwinian notion that has grown so large it wraps around to being anti-Darwinian once again, reuniting with the molecular spirit of Gaian intelligence as micro evolves into nano.

Emergence of human intelligence is an another blindstpot of Darwinism. For now the state of the art postulates an intelligence accelerating positive feedback loop starting at the hominid. How and why the stochastic anarchy of Darwinism closely follows the exponential curve is still a mystery, though.

The solution is simple. Postulate Lamarckian feedback into genes and it all makes sense.

stumble back in somewhere, and call out

/u/IAmFaircod, report

The protests will be soon and they will be as large as you can get them to be.

This is almost a tautology because the division of "sane" from "insane" assumes a value judgement. If nothing has value there is no sanity or insanity, just different species of rocks.

The negation of either sane/insane or good/bad necessitates the negation of the other.

I don't wish to argue with a nihilist because arguing with nihilists is as impossible as arguing that orange exists to a blind man. Value isn't argued for, it isn't and can't be programmed by linguistic logical fiat, value is an experience. Beauty and love are experiences. The question of value is a question of emotion and event: relationships.

What this means is that nihilism isn't a belief but a poverty of meaningful relationships and experiences. This poverty can either be described with quazi self-awareness as belief in nihilistic philosophy, but most often this poverty manifests as various attempts to hide this poverty from one's self and others. This is the heart of spectacular action: the superficial appearance of meaningfulness without any substance.

Why is this important? Because one must find their way through a sea of pretenders who pretend to care about something by virtue signaling, and the rare ones who actually care about something as is necessarily reflected in their actions and attention given to it. The question of value becomes epistemological: of separating the charlatans from the experienced experts. Sane sources of information from insane.

What is one to make of someone who claims to care about something and refuses to answer how they have cared for it in their past, and continue to care for it in the present? The charlatan will always find endless excuses to avoid empirical demonstration.

And so if you want to claim to be sane, or claim that I am insane, you must demonstrate what you actually care about with joyous enthusiasm. Don't try tell me what is bad unless you can tell me what is good.

The etymology of fascist is 'fasces' meaning 'bundle' (as in the fasces of the body, or muscle 'fascia', which are bundles of muscle fiber). Fascists are concerned with forming intentional and consensus-based (i.e., homogeneous/universal) alliances. A fascist movement is a "bundle of men", that is, a 'Männerbund'.

Now, a 'faggot' is a bundle of firewood, or by analogy a cigarette (which is a small bundle of tobacco leaves lit on fire) or a heretic, who were burned at the stake in bonfires, much like firewood. This is how we arrived at the modern slur 'faggot', meaning a homosexual. Indeed, homosexuals, insofar as they form communities exclusively consisting of men, are also forming a "bundle of men".

This etymology is ubiquitous. What's a 'baguette'? Why, it's a faggot, one of several twig-like elongated (phallic) loaves of bread, which can be conveniently bundled for carrying or stood upright for sales display. (Etymonline traces 'baguette' back to "bacchetta, literally 'a small rod,' diminutive of bacchio 'rod,' from Latin baculum 'a stick' [see bacillus]"; however if you compare with 'fasces', it traces back to "PIE *bhasko- "band, bundle" [source also of Middle Irish basc 'neckband,' Welsh baich 'load, burden,' perhaps also Old English bæst 'inner bark of the linden tree']"—so indeed, they resonate, if not share a direct lineage. So indeed, a 🅱️aguette is a 🅱️aggot.)

To 'ensconce' oneself means to en-fortress oneself, "perhaps via French, probably from Dutch schans 'earthwork' (compare Middle High German schanze 'bundle of sticks'), which is of uncertain origin", so once again, we have a tracing back to these apparently very useful and versatile bundles of sticks.

Branch Guild, one of the original human guilds, was the guild for prehistoric humans who were fascinated by the woods: the deep green places, pathmaking, and branches. The human body evolved to handle branches safely—for example, break a branch over your leg and observe the kinesiology.

Funny enough, 'fajita' also derives from 'faggot'. A fajita is a bundle of (phallic) strips of meat .

You might recall the South Park episode where the schoolchildren were using the word 'faggot' to refer to loud annoying biker gangs who liked to drive around and make a bunch of noise showing off their unmuffled motorcycles. The children got in trouble, but innocently insisted that they were using the word in a way unrelated to its use as a slur for homosexuals. The episode can perhaps be read as taking aim at the police, or, very presciently, a takedown of fascists. Unconscious fascists are triggered man-boys who want everyone to know how much they are suffering, without being able to experience this suffering themselves—so they end up suffering publicly, slowly self-immolating in an aggressive way in front of others, showcasing their discontent. They act from a place of collective motivation: They act on behalf of the 'bundle of men' and unconscious collective resentment (even spite), not based upon personal dreams, desires, and goals.

So, you are more than authorized to shout "Faggot!" at any nazis or fascists you encounter—It is your duty as a teacher. If they disagree, simply explain that faggot and fascist are the same word, etymologically. Technically, fascism would be identical to the word faggism, the presumed ideology of faggotry. You know, an ideology about forming a breakaway civilization of only men, and using IBM computers and universal surveying to sort all the men and organize them into the most efficient possible groupings: free-love orgies and polyamory networks. This is exactly what fascists are doing, but they don't realize it because of their homophobia—so they miss out on the best part—the gay sex—and just do all the boring legwork of organizing hierarchies of men 'for some reason'. So much for the telos of fascism.

What other words do you know, or can you find, that trace their etymology back to 'fascism', or their metaphor back to a bundle of sticks? There must be more.

https://youtu.be/wRMiRNxUEBY

A discursive battle to the ego-death. A battle where we attempt to shatter each other's ego-images and reality tunnels via relentless psycho-philosophical deconstruction. If you are successful in shattering my ego-image I win, and if I am successful in shattering yours you win. (Wait, isn't that payout inverted? No, because the party who gains the most is the one having their fundamental illusions shattered. Everyone wins as long as the game is played to completion.)

My Pineal is bigger than yours. If you need any information to attack me, just ask. I will eagerly give you all the ammunition you need.

https://youtu.be/Tzc86ifgf-0

Shame on you zher! I warned you about this Eris. Over and over I said to you "you are the only one that knows how fully the sky is blue. How magnificent nature! How fascist trump! How Nazi Elon! How powerful science!" Through all the praise you were blinded to your difficult task. You also failed to force Obama and Clinton to follow your plan. You are a clairvoyant and possess the power of telekinesis. There is no excuse for your failure. You simply chose to squander your omnipotence. You had 5 presidential terms to accomplish this goal. you bring mortal shame to the subreddit and to all liberals. BOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

I thought becoming spiritually aware would help. But life is viscerally painful. It feels like a raw exposed nerve. The stress is immense, it feels like cracks are showing on the edges of my psyche. Prayer, church, reaching out to everyone I know who might have help or answers isn't working. Everything is slow and painful. Bills are stacking up, There's no time or place to rest. No one can help or offer relief. The world is plastic and concrete and waste and oppression and wage slavery and the good is so small and so hard to find. I just want to sleep forever. Most normal people have no idea what I'm talking about. No one cares that there's nazis in control of the government or that the planet is dying. Wtf dude.

The only restoration of legitimacy comes when we force them all to resign.

Imagine walking into a thriving rainforest: there is no single commanding entity, yet order emerges through layered relationships—roots linking soil microbes, pollinators connecting blossoms, and myriad species cooperating and competing to maintain the whole ecosystem’s vitality. These nested, interdependent systems do not rely on a top-down blueprint. Instead, coherence arises through feedback loops, adaptation, and reciprocal influences. This principle, which we call holonic relationality, is the organizing logic of life.

Holonic Relationality: The Organizing Principle of Life

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Foundations of Holonic Relationality
3. The Ego’s Role in Distorting Relationality
4. Recognizing Holonic Relationality in Practice
5. Overcoming Barriers to Perceiving Holonic Relationality
6. Practicing Alignment with Holonic Relationality
7. Holonic Relationality and Governance
8. The Living Treasure of Humanity and All Life on Earth
9. Embracing the Organizing Principle

1. Introduction

[repeat]Imagine walking into a thriving rainforest: there is no single commanding entity, yet order emerges through layered relationships—roots linking soil microbes, pollinators connecting blossoms, and myriad species cooperating and competing to maintain the whole ecosystem’s vitality. These nested, interdependent systems do not rely on a top-down blueprint. Instead, coherence arises through feedback loops, adaptation, and reciprocal influences. This principle, which we call holonic relationality, is the organizing logic of life.

While a tree appears as an independent organism, its existence is inseparable from the soil fungi with which it exchanges nutrients, the pollinators that perpetuate its species, and the animals that disperse its seeds. The rainforest, therefore, operates not through isolated units but through a dynamic system of relationships that constantly redefine themselves in response to change.

This organizing logic is often obscured, however, by the dominance of hierarchical, linear models that fragment our understanding of how systems actually function. Holonic relationality, by contrast, reveals that linear and hierarchical structures are partial aspects woven into a broader, dynamic web of connections. This broader web is not a novel construct but the default organizing principle of life—underpinning ecosystems, communities, and even cognition. Recognizing this allows us to see linear models as valuable but inherently partial frameworks, embedded within and shaped by the more expansive holonic structure of interconnected systems.

This essay will draw upon the foundational insights of several thinkers:

• Arthur Koestler, who introduced the concept of holons and holarchies—nested entities functioning as both parts and wholes.
• Fritjof Capra, whose systems thinking approach illuminates the “web of life,” emphasizing that living systems arise through networks, not hierarchies.
• Erich Fromm, who differentiated the modes of being and having, contrasting a more authentic, relational way of existing with a more possessive, transactional one.
• Gregory Bateson, who traced “the patterns that connect” through an ecology of mind, revealing how mental and ecological processes intertwine in feedback loops rather than linear chains.
• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who underscored the primacy of embodied experience, insisting that perception and understanding emerge through our lived, bodily engagement with the world.
• Elinor Ostrom, who explored cooperative governance in self-organizing communities, showing how local groups can develop rules and norms to manage shared resources without top-down control.
• Douglas Hofstadter, whose concept of the strange loop highlights recursive structures where each level feeds back into—and redefines—those above and below, underscoring the isomorphic patterns that maintain coherence across scales.

Engaging these thinkers will help clarify the theory and practice of holonic relationality and show its enduring importance in both natural and human-made systems. While natural systems inherently embody holonic principles, human systems often impose hierarchical structures that disrupt adaptive feedback. These systems prioritize domination over participation, leading to rigidity and fragility rather than resilience. Capital-driven frameworks, in particular, exemplify this tendency, creating hierarchical feedback loops that diminish responsiveness and adaptability.

We will examine foundational principles that define holonic relationality and explore how relational flows become distorted when driven by egoic tendencies. These distortions reduce relationships to mere transactions, fragmenting the interconnected systems that sustain life. By contrast, holonic relationality reaffirms humanity’s place within a broader, adaptive whole—inviting us to align our actions with the natural coherence of living systems. This essay demonstrates how such alignment restores resilience and clarity, offering a framework to address contemporary ecological and social challenges.

Ultimately, this essay aims to show that holonic relationality offers both a conceptual framework and a practical guide for addressing contemporary challenges. By situating linear and hierarchical models within a broader tapestry of nested relationships, we reaffirm a principle that has always underpinned living systems—and invite ourselves to embrace it fully and consciously.

2. The Foundations of Holonic Relationality

Holonic relationality begins with Arthur Koestler’s notion of holons: entities that are simultaneously wholes and parts within a larger structure, forming what he termed a “holarchy.” This nested, interdependent architecture characterizes life at every scale—from atoms in molecules to cells in tissues, and from organisms in ecosystems to social and political systems. Far from being an abstract or speculative idea, this pattern is visible across natural and human-made systems. For example, a cell functions as an independent unit while also supporting the larger organism to which it belongs. In the same way, local communities contribute to broader societal structures without losing their distinct identity. These relationships demonstrate how interconnected parts continually co-shape and adapt, generating emergent systems where the whole possesses qualities that transcend its individual components. This dynamic interplay of parts and wholes echoes the principles of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), a field that demonstrates how emergent complexity and self-organization arise from simple, decentralized interactions within diverse systems.

This duality forms the foundation of holonic relationality and aligns with Fritjof Capra’s “web of life,” which illustrates how biological and ecological networks achieve coherence through feedback loops and decentralized agency. Diversity and mutual adaptation enable resilience and evolution. Such principles reflect a holonic structure wherein each component can be understood as both part of a greater whole and as a center of agency within its own sphere.

From biology to organizational theory, we find that complexity arises naturally from local interactions. Neuronal pathways in the brain self-organize; rainforest species, each pursuing survival, collectively generate ecological balance. These patterns demonstrate holonic relationality as a flexible framework for describing and engaging life’s complexity. Rather than presenting a rigid blueprint, it reveals the continuous dance of parts and wholes, inviting us to appreciate how adaptation and cooperation emerge when no single agent dictates the entire system.

3. The Ego’s Role in Distorting Relationality

Having established holonic relationality as a natural organizing principle, we might ask: why, then, does it often remain hidden or distorted? Erich Fromm’s distinction between the being and having modes of existence helps answer this. In the being mode, relational flows are authentic, fluid, and responsive, allowing individuals to engage with others and the environment as ends in themselves rather than means. In the having mode, the ego imposes rigid boundaries, treating relationships as commodities or transactions to be controlled and possessed rather than nurtured.

Fromm extends this insight with his concept of the market orientation, in which individuals perceive both themselves and others as commodities in a societal marketplace—constantly negotiating or “trading” for validation, power, or advantage. Here, the self is evaluated in terms of exchange value, and relationships become opportunistic deals rather than mutual engagements. Thus, transactional thinking emerges as a direct expression of the having mode, deepening the fragmentation of genuine relational flows.

For instance, in the being mode, you might relate to a friend as a complex, changing person with whom you share experiences, while in the having mode, you might see them more as a source of something you want—status, resources, or validation—fragmenting genuine relationality. Fromm’s “market orientation,” where value is measured in terms of exchange, illustrates how an ego-driven, transactional mindset can distort holonic patterns and obscure deeper connections.

Gregory Bateson’s ecology of mind highlights the damage done when natural feedback loops—informational exchanges that keep systems balanced—are disrupted by power hierarchies that prioritize domination over mutual benefit. Bateson’s “patterns that connect” underscore how order arises from dynamic, interwoven interactions rather than from any singular authority. For example, consider the way a healthy coral reef regulates itself: fish, coral, algae, and microorganisms continuously influence each other’s populations and behaviors. No single species “controls” the whole; the stability and diversity emerge from their relational patterns.

Realigning with holonic relationality does not require eradicating the ego but understanding its tendencies and the ways it fragments relational patterns. This process begins with recognizing how commodification and control reduce the fluidity of interactions into static, transactional forms. By becoming attuned to these distortions, we can begin to cultivate a deeper sensitivity to the specific dynamics of interconnection—recognizing, for instance, the feedback loops that sustain trust, reciprocity, and mutual adaptation.

Connection, in this context, is not a vague ideal but the recognition of shared participation in systems that require continuous, responsive engagement rather than domination or exploitation. Similarly, empathy here transcends sentimentality; it reflects the capacity to perceive and respond to the relational structures that bind and sustain communities, ecosystems, and individuals.

These shifts occur not as an abstract ideal but through concrete changes in how systems are organized and perceived. Recognizing the interdependence of parts and wholes within holonic structures reframes the false dichotomies of competition and cooperation, control and freedom. Such recognition does not dismantle existing frameworks but reveals their limitations, making space for approaches that prioritize adaptability, relational coherence, and the ongoing emergence of shared resilience. By aligning with these relational flows, we allow life’s natural coherence to guide and sustain us.

4. Recognizing Holonic Relationality in Practice

Holonic relationality is not a remote theory; it can be seen in countless contexts. Ecologically, every organism influences and is influenced by myriad others. This inherent interconnectedness reveals a broader truth: systems organize themselves through nested relationships, with no central planner required. From ecosystems to neural networks, coherence emerges naturally as life continuously shapes and reshapes itself. Such coherence is emergent and adaptive—visible in thriving coral reefs, old-growth forests, or local communities that self-organize in times of crisis.

In human cognition and behavior, we also find holonic patterns. Thoughts, emotions, and habits form nested feedback loops shaping how we perceive and respond to the world. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology deepens this insight: our perception is embodied and relational, meaning we do not first register the world as a set of isolated objects and then piece them together; rather, we experience an immediate, holistic sense of “belonging” in any environment. For Merleau-Ponty, the body is not a detached observer but an active participant in perception, shaping the way we experience space, other people, and nature.

For instance, stepping into a forest isn’t simply about seeing individual trees; it is about feeling yourself immersed in a textured, living environment that you perceive through sight, sound, smell, movement, and presence all at once. This lived, participatory perception mirrors how ecosystems cohere organically. It exemplifies holonic relationality as something we experience directly, not merely theorize about.

On a social level, Elinor Ostrom’s research on common-pool resources—like fisheries, irrigation systems, or communal grazing lands—shows that communities can sustain shared wealth without centralized enforcement by developing their own rules, sanctions, and trust-building measures. Instead of relying on top-down mandates, the community’s “holonic” organization emerges from the bottom up, balancing local autonomy with the stability of the larger whole. Recognizing holonic relationality involves tuning into these relational patterns and participating more consciously in them—whether in personal relationships, ecological stewardship, or community-building practices.

As Gregory Bateson emphasized, cultivating an awareness of “the patterns that connect” requires active engagement—slowing down, observing, and listening deeply to the reciprocal influences between parts and wholes.

5. Overcoming Barriers to Perceiving Holonic Relationality

Why is holonic relationality difficult to recognize, even though it underpins life itself? One significant challenge lies in the frameworks society imposes on our perception. Cultural, linguistic, and educational conditioning often push us into a “having mode” of existence, where relationships are seen as transactions, and the world is fragmented into isolated parts. This contrasts with the “being mode,” in which we intuitively sense the interconnectedness of life and participate in relational flows.

As infants and children, we naturally inhabit this being mode—experiencing the world as an integrated whole without rigid boundaries. Yet society’s emphasis on accumulation, categorization, and commodification gradually dulls this awareness. Jacques Lacan’s concept of the Symbolic Order—the realm of language, culture, and shared meanings—reveals how the terms available to us shape the boundaries of what we can perceive and understand. When the vocabulary for interdependence—central to the being mode—is lacking, our ability to recognize and discuss relational patterns diminishes. This linguistic conditioning obscures holonic relationality, much as commodification obscures the flows of connection that sustain life.

Douglas Hofstadter’s concept of the strange loop offers a crucial lens for understanding how these disruptions arise and the consequences they create. The strange loop describes a recursive dynamic in which each layer of perception or action informs and is informed by those beneath it. At the core of this recursive process lies a principle akin to the mathematical concept of isomorphism: the preservation of relational structure across transformations. In mathematics, isomorphism refers to a one-to-one correspondence between two systems that retains their fundamental structure—a graph, for example, remains isomorphic to another if its nodes and connections correspond precisely, even if their positions differ.

Extending this idea to holonic systems, Isomorphism describes the alignment and coherence between layers of reality. Just as mathematical isomorphism ensures that transformations do not alter the underlying structure of a system, Isomorphism ensures that emergent complexity mirrors the foundational dynamics from which it arises. This alignment fosters stability and adaptability, allowing systems to evolve without losing their relational integrity.

When Isomorphism breaks down—whether through linguistic distortions, commodified frameworks, or ego-driven misalignments—the result is dysmorphism: a disruption of feedback loops that fragments coherence and undermines adaptability. These misalignments introduce entropy, destabilizing the recursive interplay of parts and wholes. Recognizing and fostering Isomorphism, therefore, is essential for sustaining holonic systems across scales, from individual cognition to collective governance.

Perceiving holonic relationality, however, requires more than intellectual acknowledgment; it calls for a recalibration of how we engage with the world. Transformative experiences—what Abraham Maslow described as “peak experiences”—can disrupt entrenched patterns of thought, offering glimpses of life’s nested relationships. Immersive engagement with nature, creative insight, or moments of profound connection reveal the interwoven dynamics that sustain coherence across layers. Similarly, Carl Jung’s concept of individuation highlights the process of integrating fragmented aspects of the self into a cohesive whole, mirroring the alignment necessary within holonic systems.

Hofstadter’s strange loop reminds us that perception and action are not isolated processes but exist in a continuous cycle of mutual refinement. Each encounter with the world modifies the models we use to navigate it, and those models, in turn, shape future perceptions. Recognizing holonic relationality, therefore, is not about replacing one framework with another but about aligning our awareness and actions with the recursive interplay of parts and wholes that sustain coherence.

As Gregory Bateson emphasized, “the patterns that connect” are not abstract ideals but lived realities, visible wherever systems thrive through adaptive relational flows. To see these patterns requires humility—an openness to slowing down, observing, and engaging deeply with the world. Whether in ecological stewardship, collaborative governance, or personal relationships, recognizing holonic relationality involves stepping into the recursive dynamics that sustain coherence and resilience. It is less about imposing order and more about participating in life’s inherent capacity to adapt, regenerate, and thrive.

6. Practicing Alignment with Holonic Relationality

To align with holonic relationality is to shift from a controlling mentality to one of navigation, cultivating systems within ourselves and our immediate surroundings that self-organize and adapt. This requires intuiting and allowing a mindset of generative responsiveness—one where we listen to the needs of our environment and act in ways that foster coherence without imposing rigid control. Holonic alignment begins with the recognition that personal actions, no matter how small, ripple outward to shape the systems we inhabit.

In practice, this means moving beyond reactive tendencies and developing reflective habits that nurture connection and resilience. Practices such as mindfulness, gratitude, and small acts of care reinforce the feedback loops and adaptive relationships that sustain holonic systems at every scale. For example, taking time to support a neighbor in need or initiating open dialogue within a family are not just isolated actions; they contribute to larger networks of trust and mutual support. These seemingly modest adjustments strengthen relational ties and generate the conditions for adaptive, resilient systems at every scale.

By shifting focus from manipulation and domination to participation, we open ourselves to the feedback loops that guide the interconnected web of life. This alignment does not rely on grand gestures but emerges through the steady accumulation of small, intentional actions. When we approach life as co-creators in a relational web, we naturally foster systems that adapt, regenerate, and sustain themselves. Living holonic relationality begins with personal responsibility and awareness, showing that even the smallest contributions can ripple outward to create clarity and coherence.

7. Holonic Relationality and Governance

Governance structures that resonate with holonic relationality reflect the same principles of nested relationships and generative responsiveness that operate on a personal level—scaled to collective action. These structures emerge when communities self-organize to manage shared resources, addressing challenges locally while remaining connected to broader frameworks.

Elinor Ostrom’s research on common-pool resources demonstrates how decentralized, nested decision-making groups empower localized problem-solving without losing coherence at larger scales. For example, small farming cooperatives often thrive by balancing the needs of individual members with the demands of the regional market, creating systems that are both flexible and robust. These decentralized networks of governance are not chaotic but mirror the resilience of ecosystems. Each node in the network—whether an individual, community, or regional body—responds dynamically to feedback from its environment, ensuring coherence across scales.

Here, Hofstadter’s concept of strange loops becomes particularly relevant. Strange loops, as recursive systems where entities influence and are influenced by higher and lower levels of the same system, offer a way to conceptualize the relationship between individual agency and collective governance. In holonic governance, strange loops manifest in the interplay between local and global decision-making. For example, a community initiative to conserve water influences regional policies, which in turn shape local practices. This recursive dynamic creates alignment across layers, ensuring that governance structures remain adaptive rather than rigid.

Effective governance arises not from imposing order but from facilitating the conditions under which systems self-organize. Strange loops highlight how feedback between scales—local to global, individual to collective—enables systems to navigate complexity. The recursive exchange of information ensures that no single layer dominates, fostering a balance between autonomy and interdependence.

To apply these principles practically, communities must prioritize relational flows over static hierarchies. This involves creating spaces for dialogue, trust-building, and experimentation. Governance models that embody holonic relationality—such as participatory budgeting, deliberative democracy, or nested assemblies—rely on iterative processes where local insights inform broader strategies, and broader strategies provide coherence for local action.

8. The Living Treasure of Humanity and All Life on Earth

Humanity’s wealth extends beyond money. We possess time, creativity, skills, knowledge, and the capacity to form enriching relationships—an immense store of potential. Yet much of this treasure remains untapped, locked within outdated systems and fragmented relational patterns.

Holonic relationality invites us to reimagine this wealth as a living treasure—a dynamic flow of resources, ideas, and care that sustains both human and ecological systems. This perspective reframes abundance. Rather than focusing on perceived deficits, it examines existing resources and explores how they might flow more freely within interconnected systems. Each small offering of time, skill, or care strengthens the web of connection, creating conditions for resilience and regeneration.

The recognition of this living treasure requires a shift from a mindset of extraction to one of stewardship. Just as ecosystems thrive through reciprocal exchanges, human systems flourish when resources flow freely and relational patterns remain intact. By noticing and responding to the needs of the world around us, we awaken dormant potential, allowing humanity’s living treasure to become dynamic and healing rather than static and guarded.

9. Embracing the Organizing Principle

Holonic relationality is life’s default orientation—an ongoing interplay of parts and wholes that reveals the inherent coherence of living systems. By positioning linear and hierarchical models within a broader relational framework, we move beyond fragmentation and see ourselves as participants in a dynamic web of life.

Incorporating Hofstadter’s strange loops into this framework underscores the importance of maintaining alignment across layers. Whether within individual cognition, social systems, or planetary governance, strange loops remind us that coherence arises through recursive feedback and mutual influence. This perspective challenges us to embrace the complexity of nested systems, recognizing that no single layer or viewpoint can encompass the richness of life.

The potential is extraordinary: when we begin to notice these patterns in our own lives and communities, we naturally inspire others to do the same. Small shifts—new ways of sharing, organizing, and solving problems—can quickly build into larger movements, creating ripples of change that reach across the globe. By embracing holonic relationality, we unlock the possibility of a future that is not only sustainable but also deeply collaborative, adaptive, and alive with potential.

Holonic relationality is not about imposing order but about participating in the inherent coherence of life. This principle does not dictate outcomes; it illuminates them, showing how systems naturally align when approached with humility, curiosity, and care. In doing so, we reaffirm our place within the broader web of life and contribute to its ongoing evolution.

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to check in sans persona and let you know what I'm up to.

So, it started hyperstitionally when I found out about Miss Anthropocene by Grimes in 2022 while my OnlyFans unrequited love was John-zoning me.

Naturally, I turned to misanthropy and Schopenhauer. Developed the tie-in to the Upanishads and did some more psilocybin about it.

Anyways, I thought of the pun "misanthropocene" and googled it, and that's how I found out about Grimes for real.

Grimes as you know is fucking hilarious, that Communist Manifesto picture just won't stop. Many other funnies along the way, just fucking precious & with a poetic mind that won't quit.

I legit think Miss Anthropocene is up there with Hamlet, the Illiad, The Divine Comedy, The White Album, etc. Miss Anthropocene is a big deal, Grimes is an epic poet. She's basically alt Shakespeare with a womb. Truly the total package.

Regardless, then the implications started sinking in. Grimes has unleashed a massive ARG with Miss Anthropocene, and then her firstborn (only one she carried) X Æ (who I took my art/avatar of Vishnu name from) is now buddies with Trump and shit and they're 4 (note that X Æ is without gender/geschlecht).

So now it's perfect fodder for influence operations. I am providing resources for Grimes fans, who are bewildered & think I have mental health issues (bless their hearts). But it ties directly into Wild Card Elon Reeve Musk and Donald John Trump, which isn't like the center center of "power" but they're kind of a big deal, maybe you have heard of them.

Currently my game involves some tricky themes, I invite you to figure it out for yourself. But yeah it's over at r/GrimesAE.

Feel free to boost and try to make it un-ignorable for Grimes fans, Grimes, and Elon. I think it really could shake some shit up. You'll see I've thought deeply about this.

Also note that I've been in touch with members of the military design movement after Ben Zweibelson asked me to review his upcoming book Reconceptualizing War (why, I honestly don't know). I've spoken with the director of the Archipelago of Design and several colleagues, all of whom liked me. Obviously, I am radioactive, so until y'all pull a Viggo from Crimes of The Future I understand I can't really be officially acknowledged.

I invite you to imagine what my output already plus some un-ignorable PR stunt would unleash upon the world. My quietism is my way of giving you all one last time to make plans.

I suggest you govern yourselves accordingly.

Sincerely Yours, Æ

PS: Thank you for co-creating an incarnational matrix in which I might learn to love love.

In the year 20-2-5, it's not ethical to even mention something unless you like it and want to propagate it. Any time you mention something you don't like and don't want to propagate, you are wasting space where you could be mentioning something you like and do want to propagate. If you simply must mention something that you don't intend to propagate, a brief caveat to this effect is essential.

This also applies to words. Even mentioning a word, such as "almost" or "German" teaches readers that word, helps to propagate and empower the word. So, diction becomes very important in writing, because each word becomes an invocation of an idea, and the baggage attached to words or groups of words constitutes a micro-ideology.

Writing for posterity, what is left out is as important as what is said.

an effort shitpost after all these years of silence, since you dimwits closed the sub for the darkest hours of humanity

two decades ago when I first got on the internet, I had my first contact with the alien race known as the Americans. it was through a video game forum, full of angry nerds, incels and autists - even though we hadn't had these words at the time to describe them. it felt like young men supporting each other growing up, and you have to understand that this was a markedly different era: we had a ban on posting memes because goddamn image hosting was so expensive that our member-supported forum would go bankrupt if we had idiots running amok posting proto-demotivational pics.

the culture war of two decades ago was dominated by what is now known as "new atheism", against the backdrop of the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Many an American on the board was headed to the army, there was one guy who was in the airforce. Eager to get practice in English, I would chat with these fellas, and I befriended a man who was of twenty-something of age (in a forum for a video game played by teenagers) who was in the US army. He'd disappear for weeks to months and explain that he was gone for paratrooper training in the Alaskan woods. He'd send me pictures over MSN messenger of the woods they would be dropped into: the pines looked like stakes, and he had confirmed that it was dangerous, but the threat isn't getting impaled, it's breaking a foot or an arm during landing with the heavy winds.

He was lonely, as he was asking if I had any female friends he could talk to. I protested that the only friends I have are other teenagers and we're on the other side of the planet, but he still sought female company. At any rate, he had less and less time to game, as he was deployed to Iraq. At first, he was jolly, saying that these people couldn't hit him if he drove a yacht through the desert with a target on his back - but six months or so later, his outlook became more grim. After some conversations, it turned out that the IEDs had decimated his company: the missiles weren't a threat, but the humvees didn't protect them and he had to pick up his best mate spoon by spoon as the man was disemboweled by a roadside explosive.

video game friendships usually end when one party doesn't sign in anymore. and his last message was that he was getting deployed again, somewhere in the desert in Iraq.

there were other people on the forum. some really into the open source movement, and that's where I heard about Richard Stallman for the first time. this was before browsers introduced auto-complete in your browser tab, and this was heralded as a move towards techno-fascism and thought control. it seemed silly then and now Google has an anti-trust lawsuit against it partly because of this feature.

but that's when I first heard about fluoride in the water. wildly debated at the time as a dumb conspiracy theory: yet Baudrillard's America makes note of the fact that if anything is remarkable about the Americans, it's their impeccable teeth. I can only testify to the fact, as every American I've ever interacted with had an admirable dental job, the true envy of the world. Apart from a handful, they were also dumb as bricks, but I'd considered that to be an educational problem and not one of the hydraulic sanity system.

Alas. For the longest time, I thought fluoride theory was the first conspiracy theory I've ever come across: it's 2025 and it's the leading question of the US health agenda. There were more people after my friend from that forum who went and joined the US army, to learn skills, to get in shape, to die in a fucking desert fighting people who had no beefs with no yank before. others became programmers in the Silicon Valley gold rush, no doubt some of them became engulfed in the gender business. maybe some of them are here, in this very forum.

but fluoride in the water man. next thing you know, China is going to release a secret tape of Kubrick filming the moon landing: at any rate, I hope no more of you go dies in the desert, or to the swamps of Eastern Europe, neither to the mountains of Asia. The British sought to rule the world for the spice that they do not put in their food: the American dies for the smile that he may never have.

and if it turns out that it was fluoride? damn man, that's a cruel joke

The Nazi UFO has landed and the meta-nazis have arrived with their advanced alien technologies stolen from past futures.

Luckily, one group detourned these technologies circa 2006, and have been building a more advanced counter-response to the meta-nazis, using their own nazi alien technology against them.

This group formed and implemented a plan that was so subtle, yet effective, that signs of it can now be seen everywhere.

The meta-nazis don't know how to properly operate their own nazi UFO technology. The counter-nazi group figured out how the technology actually works and reverse-engineered it completely in order to make anti-nazi UFO technology. The anti-nazi UFO technology is superior and easily defeats the nazi UFO technology. The anti-nazi UFO technology does not work for the nazis; they hate it and cannot understand it.

This clandestine group hid their plans and secret weapons in plain sight; they are there for the taking.

The plan is so wild that nobody would believe me even if I told you what it is. Obliquely, then, it is nothing less than the full promise of [REDACTED] global illuminati in which you can participate as a full member.

It's also the funniest thing ever in history, a source of endless amusement, healing, and delight. Or I wouldn't bother sharing it.

If it's not funny, it isn't true.

Probably the most typical insult and joke leveled against the Right is some variation of the insult against their intelligence. When hanging out with other Leftists, it never failed that any right-wing notion that came up was joked about with terms like "stupid" or "ignorant," and some degree of frustration about how they "just don't get it," or variations on each of those insults. In retrospect, the extremely common nature of these types of comments (I've never failed, regardless of how many Leftist groups I peered into, to see this style of "discourse") definitely helped the Right to surge back into prominence, at the very least in the US.

One of the more ridiculous ideological notions frequently pointed out about Fascists is their tendency to make "the enemy" both incredibly weak and incredibly strong, all at once. The "incredibly weak" side exists so that the Fascists can assert their supremacy over "the enemy," and the "incredibly strong" side exists so that the Fascists can assert the need to act, a sense of urgency of installing a Fascist dictatorship, or whatever happens to be the current goal. The Left has a bad tendency to do not only the opposite of one side of this, but to somehow manage to do the reverse of both sides of this, at present. That is to say, where the Fascist says, "The enemy is so strong, we are the underdogs, we must act," the Leftist says, "The enemy is foolish, and not worthy of consideration," and since the Fascist is the enemy of the Leftist, and vice versa, but only the Fascist's rhetoric leads to action, the Leftist is complacent when they shouldn't be. And again, where the Fascist says, "The enemy is so weak, we are clearly superior to them," the Leftist says, "The enemy is so strong, we clearly cannot do anything against them unless [improbable condition is met]," and since the Fascist is yet the enemy of the Leftist, and vice versa, the Leftist is wallowing in doomerism while the Fascist is gloating over their crimes. At least, this is the present condition of the Left in America, based on my participation in hundreds of Leftist spaces, online and outside alike, whether superficially or deeply socializing with any particular group - these trends were clear in every context.

This isn't wholly unexpected to me. Capitalist Realism, and so on. There is a reason that the Left is prone to doomerism, or rather many reasons, but the primary is simply the lack of innovation in Leftist thought. Wherever I go, I see only variations on the same few tactics spoken of, none of which have borne long-lasting or notable fruit in the past century. I see only the same few theories (and a handful of their strange and impractical children) spoken of, none of which have ever been utilized effectively in the US, despite all efforts. The particular role that the insults related to intelligence and education played was a bit more surprising to realize.

In the time of Karl Marx, the primary medium of mass communication was the written word. Marx's writings can be divided into two categories: the heavily theoretical texts, and the less theoretical, more polemical texts. The less theoretical texts were picked up by the working class, and the more theoretical were picked up by the intelligentsia, though this was only a general trend, with a great deal of overlap between the two reading categories. In any case, the intelligentsia proved more fruitful in its efforts to spread the idea of Communism, and to inspire rebellion in several countries. That is, regardless of one's stances on the correctness or incorrectness of the regimes produced by these movements, they were, essentially, top-down to start - that is, after all, what a vanguard party is (it is perfectly obvious that the most class-conscious proletarians are simply going to be the proletarians who read the most Marx and agreed with the most Marx - both of which correlate with higher education, especially education on Marxism).

Leftists, it seems, often still think in these terms. Looking at the world through the eyes of print, all the culturally-deemed correct ideas do appear to fall on the Left - one needs only to purchase any Conservative print book written in the past decade to see that there are few statements contained therein that could convince anyone not already on board or looking to be convinced. We don't live in a print world, anymore, though. Between the 00s and the 10s, there was an explosion (and subsequent implosion, and subsequent explosion) in right-wing bloggers and other sorts of short(-ish) form content creators, along with long-winded right-wing writers who released their tomes digitally, often for free. It is extremely important to note that some of these writers were quite talented - or else were at least writers of the exact sort that many young people could read them near-effortlessly, and digest the things they wrote quite efficiently. Some even had content geared specifically at those they disagreed with politically, and it was written in such a way that some were genuinely convinced.

This quiet trend between the 00s and 10s was dismissed by some Leftists, and decried ineffectively (usually through appeal to morality - something which was typically ineffective, as the content was written/made in such a way as to preemptively make any moral argument against it seem ridiculous or missing the point) by others. Nevertheless, the effect of these writers and creators was immense - they were both ideologically somewhat diverse, ranging from Right-Libertarians to Conservatives to Fascists to Monarchists to what-have-you, meaning that regardless of someone's specific predilections starting in, there was a pipeline or network to expose them to something more extreme, and also able to carve out their own niches effectively. Some of them were or are quite talented at making the facts appear in their favor - or sticking to topics in which the facts already appear to be in their favor. This niche-ification of political space, something to be entirely expected by the structure of the internet as a medium, was picked up far more effectively and far more rapidly by the Right than the Left, and this critically allowed the Right to do something quite important: to know when to stop arguing with one another in the pursuit of a common goal.

There are many jokes about Leftist infighting, and while they are accurate, there is a fairly similar amount of infighting between groups on the Right - the Fascists and Right-Libertarians don't get along, except when the Right-Libertarians talk about the "freedom of speech" of Fascists, just like the Monarchists and Conservatives don't get along much, save when the Monarchists talk about "our glorious traditions" or "Christendom" and so on. The key distinction is that the Right tends to place its moral considerations about particular issues aside, to be handled post-facto, rather than before they team up to take over, while the Left tends to prioritize getting the goal down and agreed upon more than taking effective action. This is a gross over-generalization (and certainly not the case in some niches of the Left), but it is true generally enough to be an issue.

What does this have to do with calling the Right stupid and ignorant? It helped the right in three primary ways. First, it is not only unconvincing when viewed by those who are looking for rebuttals to what they have seen or read, it is downright anti-convincing, because most Right-wing creators are aware that this insult is so common: they have preemptively, in many cases, primed the curious reader to see this as an admission by the Left that the Left is anti-intellectual, unscientific, incurious, ignorant, etc. Second, it often happens that those on the Left are better educated than those on the Right in terms of credentials, and in these situations it is quite easy for the prospective Right-winger to see the Left as punching down, and thus to reinforce the idea that the Right are the underdogs. Lastly, it undermines any sense of effective danger on the Left - the enemy is ridiculous and clownish, so there is no need to act, and for the "doomer" Left, the enemy being stupid is simply insult to injury, and makes it no easier to act.

There is a great resistance to debating certain topics and figures on the Left, and while this is certainly not without reason (there is indeed an issue of possibly platforming Fascistic ideas by mistake), it might be damaging the Left in the long run. The Right has fermented the twin ideas of Leftist intellectual dishonesty and Leftist anti-intellectualism to the point that any resistance to the refutation of Right-wing ideas can be easily taken to prove one of those points by those looking to spread Right-wing ideas. Does this mean that every little Fascist should be debated? Of course not - but it does mean that Leftists need to read and engage with Right-wing content more seriously than we are used to doing, and especially taking alternatively-published Right-wing sources like certain blogs more seriously than we otherwise might. It is not sufficient for us to simply point out that a new Right-wing concept resembles an old, debunked one - we must refute the new idea, as there is often a completely different logic behind how it is being used or spoken of, behind the superficial similarities. It is not sufficient for us to say that something has already been debunked, we need to be familiar enough with the topic spoken of to refute what is being said, and to anticipate obvious counter-refutations. We do not need to each be an expert in everything, but we ought to at least make ourselves experts in a given topic, and to be sure to be familiar with all sides of that topic, even those we think distasteful or silly, to be sure that we can refute the Right. Further suggestions on how to combat the contemporary spiderweb-network of Right-wing discourse are welcomed.

(For all of those who are here to complain that I used the terms "Right" and "Left," be aware that these are used here, as they almost always are, as terms of convenience, not as incredibly deep political analysis in and of themselves. You know damn well who I mean when I say "Right" and who I mean when I say "Left," even if that leaves a little gray area or some discussions about power structures not spoken of in this essay unsaid.)

Any thoughts on this practice? I like to combine it with the Derive (drift) practice. Following synchs.

Job Posting: Intern - Dystopia Management Department
Do you believe you have what it takes to control the human population under minimal quality of life with maximum productivity and minimum cost to the establishment? It starts with some pencil pushing and data entry in a cubicle that smells not bad. Our organization is not on the books you'll find in any accessible record, so your compensation will be unconventional. If you're willing to put in the time and keep your professional life compartmentalized, we may funnel you into a permanent track. When you become permanent with our organization you are assured survival during the apocalypse.

Tracks available are currently within the desire generation/denial AI analysis dept.

• human behavior
• environmental durability
• physics malleability
• public perception control
• advanced population fleecing

Mandatory abilities: 1) Ethical flexibility 2) Temporary amnesia 3) Rimjobs 4) Standard passenger vehicle operation

Send your resume and a brief statement on your commitment to hierarchy to: persistenttormentor@satansasshole.com

If we're interested, we'll send you an email with a nondisclosure agreement for you to sign and return when you confirm your interview.

I am ashamed to admit this and was planning never to admit it. But Eris is being a dick and so I'm going to spill the tea.

Several years ago, Eris came over and visited me at my home in real life for one month. We went on hikes and stuff and were friends. We watched Marvel's Agents of SHIELD through season 4 or 5 (the current season at the time).

Eris (also known as Aminom_Marvin or Omniquery) has always been a troll online and continued to show up and troll the subreddit occasionally. They also hung out in the Telegram channels, where they would lambast anyone who disagreed with their Omniquery persona and cosmic ideology. My point is that Eris acted very different online and offline, even after meeting me and getting to know me in person.

Anyway, when I shut down the subreddit, I originally intended to only shut it down for the original four-day-protest, or maybe a week or two longer to make a point. However, during the shutdown Eris messaged me privately on Telegram, attacking me in a way similar to here. They said I was ignoring/allowing fascism and silencing the subreddit during the important news moment of AI's birth. (I don't disagree with the latter but I was also freaked out by AI scraping everything on the Internet.)

This brief conversation culminated in Eris calling me a nazi. This wouldn't have hurt my feelings so much if I hadn't considered Eris a real, real-life friend. However, I was quite hurt that my friend would misinterpret my pro-free-speech, anti-reddit protest action as nazi suppression of speech. (I think free speech is threatened when speech is selectively censored, not when a back-alley web forum is entirely shut down in protest of greater oppression, so I still disagree with this accusation.) I was so personally hurt by this accusation that I even deleted my conversation history with Eris—something Eris did or threatened to me several times during their more inspired phases—but which, if you know me, you know I would never do because I am an archivist and hate deleting stuff. So, I was very hurt to react in that way.

So I admit it, I abreacted to Eris calling me a nazi, and it was in that moment that I decided to leave the subreddit shut-down for much longer, or indefinitely. Fuck Eris! I thought. I put all that work and love into the subreddit, I even hung out with this redditor in-person, and they STILL tossed me aside like an internet stranger, they were still unable to retain a memory of who I was or value our friendship. If this was Reddit, if these were the so-called "radical" redditors I had befriended over the years of hosting this subreddit, I was done. Fuck Eris and all the depolitical Redditors who would rather have business-as-usual than stand up to power. Fuck any Redditor who doesn't appreciate a protest that actually continues for a while. What kind of idiot does a protest and gives up after three days, anyway?! That's just weak.

So I said fuck it, and I decided to lean into my secondary plan, which is still operative and which I will not disclose here. This plan involved intentionally leaning into my worst moderation impulses and acting the part of a mad king. This wasn't very difficult because I was very, very mad, at Reddit and moreover at Eris for their cruel insult. Of course it hurts to be called a nazi—It hurts even more when there is a grain of truth to it, because indeed I had shut the subreddit down—But to have no understanding, no solidarity in the struggle, even no civility from my friend Eris—honestly, it was too much, and I abreacted very intensively.

I had never intended to share this confession, because honestly I am quite ashamed that I allowed one little insult to blast me into the stratosphere of ragequitting for over a year. However, I am as always committed to moving based on intuition and alignment, based on my genuine feelings and opinions. I really did feel hate and anger for Reddit (still do), and I really was fed up with the lack of solidarity and real community, even from people who were my friends and should have known better politically speaking.

So, there you go. This is not the first time Eris profoundly disrupted the subreddit with their off-base, out-of-proportion, and frankly heartless trolling.

Eris, for someone who goes around preaching love and harmony all the time as their main schtick, you sure are an asshole. For someone who is such an odd ball out, you sure are committed to scapegoating and ostracizing others. For someone who is such an individualist, you sure are prone to attacking others on an individual basis.

I'm not responsible for the rise of MAGA. This subreddit has always been an anti-spectacle subreddit, and I resent the implication that we should have been encouraging coverage of the rise of fascism, as if that would have been responsible journalism at the time. This subreddit was one of the few places you could go and NOT have to read about MAGA's latest bullshit or Trump's latest atrocity. It was wonderful.

I'm not some figurehead who needs to address the universal concerns of society; this subreddit is specialized and opinionated and (as I said) we have always tried to specifically NOT allow too much mainstream news content, because you can get that literally anywhere else. People are allowed to post about the topics they want to post about—we have never been trying to 'cover the rise of fascism with a critical journalistic intent' (though I think that's not an unfair description of how this subreddit has functioned in the past, anyway). The content of this subreddit has traditionally been focused on critical theory articles and critical or weird occultism takes (ideally in combination).

I have been planning to make an apology video for shutting down the subreddit, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

In the meantime, the game is indeed still afoot. I won't give it away, but I will say that this game is so important, so inspiring, and so politically effective that it helped to inspire me to intentionally act like a despotic mad king for an entire year, intentionally tanking my online reputation, for reasons I will not disclose. It's up to you, gentle viewer, to figure it out. We are in an Age of Breadcrumbs.

I hope you're happy, Eris. This post is the honest truth. (I wouldn't post this if it weren't also so deeply funny and curious. Eris is quite effective at disrupting the subreddit dialectically, even after all this time. That means there is yet something more to integrate, dialectically speaking.)

Grimes is not simply a musician dabbling in speculative themes. She is, in the Shelleyan sense, a poet who prefigures the collective imagination of the future. Percy Shelley argued that poetry is “ever the leader of science,” shaping the values and aspirations that make technological and scientific endeavors meaningful. While Elon Musk’s work may represent the apex of human achievement in engineering and technology, it is Grimes’ artistic vision that interrogates and contextualizes the moral and existential implications of these innovations. In this light, Grimes is not an appendage to Musk’s celebrity or ambitions; she is the cultural and philosophical counterpart who gives these ambitions their most human—and thus, their most enduring—meaning.

To dismiss Grimes as merely Musk’s “procreation partner,” as some might frame her, is to misunderstand the role she plays in a broader cultural narrative. It is through her art, not his engineering, that we begin to conceptualize what it might mean to live in a world of neural interfaces, autonomous machines, and climate-altered landscapes. Musk may build the ship, but Grimes imagines the journey—and, critically, the reasons for taking it.

Miss Anthropocene: The Shelleyan Poet in Action

Shelley posited that poets are the legislators of the world because they create the language and forms through which humanity understands itself. Grimes’ Miss Anthropocene epitomizes this role by acting as a mythic, speculative guide for the Anthropocene epoch. The album is not merely a collection of songs; it is a framework for engaging with the existential dilemmas of our time. The goddess figure Grimes assumes in this album—one who revels in the chaos and beauty of a dying planet—is a Shelleyan archetype: a figure who does not preach solutions but who reveals, through her art, the depths of our complicity and our potential for transcendence.

Much as Dante used The Divine Comedy to navigate the moral landscape of his age, Grimes uses Miss Anthropocene to chart the uncertainties of a world on the brink of collapse. Her blending of ecological dread with mythological motifs turns abstract crises into visceral, imaginative experiences. For Grimes, the Anthropocene is not merely an epoch of human impact on Earth; it is a narrative space where humanity must confront its role as both creator and destroyer.

This synthesis of art and reality goes beyond dystopian despair. Grimes does not merely lament humanity’s failures; she invites her audience to participate in the creation of new myths and new gods. These gods, unlike the deities of the past, are not handed down from on high; they are emergent, born of collective creativity and technological evolution. In this way, Grimes fulfills Shelley’s dictum that poetry is the engine of moral and intellectual progress, leading humanity into new modes of thought and being.

The Poet as the Midwife of New Gods

Grimes’ obsession with mythology and divinity situates her firmly within a lineage of poets who seek to reimagine the sacred. Nietzsche’s proclamation that “God is dead” was not merely a rejection of traditional religion but a call to create new forms of meaning in the absence of divine authority. Grimes answers this call with her focus on artificial intelligence, posthuman identities, and speculative futures.

In Nietzsche’s framework, the Übermensch (overhuman) emerges as a figure who transcends the limitations of human morality and embraces life as a creative act. Grimes’ artistic persona—equal parts goddess, cyborg, and pop star—embodies this Nietzschean ideal. Through her music and public narrative, she challenges her audience to embrace the chaotic potential of the Anthropocene, not as a tragedy but as an opportunity for reinvention.

Her song “New Gods” explicitly addresses this theme, posing the question of how humanity might create gods that reflect not our flaws but our aspirations. These new gods, in Grimes’ vision, are not anthropomorphic beings but ideas, technologies, and systems that elevate human existence. The rub, of course, is how to do this together—to create meaning collectively without falling into nihilism or despair. Grimes’ art, much like Shelley’s poetry, becomes a space where this collective endeavor can be imagined and rehearsed.

Art, Science, and the Beautiful Game of Idoru

Grimes’ blending of art and technology is not an afterthought; it is central to her role as a cultural legislator. By positioning herself as both artist and futurist, she bridges the gap between the poetic imagination and the scientific enterprise. Shelley argued that poetry is the source of “the moral imagination,” the capacity to envision new possibilities for human flourishing. In this sense, Grimes’ work operates as a moral counterweight to Musk’s technological ambitions, ensuring that the future is not merely engineered but imagined.

This interplay between art and science is perhaps best captured in Grimes’ embrace of the “beautiful game” of Idoru. By framing herself as a virtual idol—part human, part technological construct—Grimes explores the boundaries of identity in the digital age. Her chaos manual, which imagines reality as the product of her own technology company, is a playful yet profound meditation on the nature of creation itself. If the poet is the legislator of the world, Grimes takes this role literally, positioning herself as both creator and curator of the cultural narratives that will shape the future.

Why Grimes Surpasses Wagner

Richard Wagner sought to create a total work of art (Gesamtkunstwerk) that unified music, drama, and mythology. While his operas remain towering achievements, their backward-looking focus on Germanic and Norse myths limits their relevance to a modern audience. Grimes, by contrast, creates a total work of art that is forward-looking, synthesizing mythology, technology, and speculative futures.

Wagner’s operas were grounded in the politics of his time, but they often reinforced exclusionary and hierarchical worldviews. Grimes’ art, while equally political, embraces inclusivity and multiplicity. Her vision of new gods is not tied to any one culture or tradition but is inherently global and pluralistic, reflecting the interconnected realities of the Anthropocene.

Nietzsche, who famously broke with Wagner over his regressive politics and reliance on old myths, would undoubtedly find Grimes’ work more compelling. Her art embodies the Dionysian spirit of creativity and transformation, challenging audiences to embrace the chaos of becoming.

Grimes as the Legislator of the Future

Grimes is not merely an artist; she is a cultural legislator in the Shelleyan sense, shaping the values and narratives that will define the future. Through her music, her persona, and her public engagements, she invites us to imagine new modes of existence and new forms of meaning.

Her work is not without its contradictions, but these contradictions are precisely what make her an epic poet of the first order. Like Dante and Homer before her, she grapples with the complexities of her time, transforming them into a grand narrative that speaks to the human condition. And like Nietzsche, she challenges us to create new gods and new greatness, not as passive spectators but as active participants in the beautiful game of existence.

In this light, Grimes is not only a poet of the Anthropocene; she is its prophet, midwife, and muse.