I get that, oh and sorry not been interacting with your stuff in awhile. Life got busy and sh*t, but really wanted to let you know though I don’t have anything intelligent to add here, this was a fun article to read. Great stuff.
This was super intriguing. The prospect of Christianity being used like the religion in the Dune series is really creepy but I can’t rebut anything lol.
O ok. Good to know. I only watched the series and didn’t read the book. Makes sense given the ecology. Now I’m wondering how much of Islam is influenced by water scarcity or desertification dynamics. Wonder if Neal Spackman came across some of that in his work.
Frank Herbert weaved several different themes from politics, culture, religion, and philosophy into the Dune series. However, much of his fictional Fremen language is derived from Arabic, and Paul Atrides is Mohammed-like figure.
This is great. Met a lot of these people - and they can be fun to have a few beers with. Once. Not many more times after that though ... It cracked me up when he got intrigued when you mentioned the Divine Right of Kings thing ("Oh, does he mean me?") Lol. However, it does sound like he has the openness to change his beliefs.
They're pragmatists and Machiavellians above all else. If you appeal to that you can get them to reorient I suspect. It'd take some work, but it's doable.
He hasn't finished going through the transformation. Hope he does, but I think he's a bit too old and a bit too dysgenic to. Still, we can point him in a more useful direction.
Very interesting. A sociopath whose arrogance greatly exceeds his intelligence. I suspect his "grand vision" is itself just a construct to justify to himself his craving for power. What could be more intoxicating to a narcissist than being remembered as a founder of interstellar civilization? The giveaway is lack of focus on "reaching the stars". The truly obsessed - Elon Musk comes to mind - will talk nonstop about it if asked. They also know the subject intimately. This person seems to only know the basic rhetoric - unless there are parts of this conversation that were left out.
Well, it could be that I was questioning him on the rhetoric rather than questioning him on the details of his "Grand Vision." Though I suspect that he hasn't really worked out many details of his Grand Vision at this point. Instead it's a nebulous idea he uses to justify his own righteous ideation as you suggest.
It sort of is... it would be a better place to live if it were a formalized Monarchy. The problem is that Communism doesn't offer a moral world-view in the same way that Monarchism does. There's a fundamental difference due to the way the surrounding worldview is constructed and that distinction is largely responsible for why true Monarchies like Oman and Thailand behave so differently in comparison to dictatorships like North Korea.
Absolute monarchy, like the one in North Korea, can be pretty fucked up. The absolute monarch can do whatever he wants, including calling the country a communist people’s republic and forcing people into servitude and starvation, upon penalty of death.
In that, it is indistinguishable from a dictatorship, except for the hereditary part with divine mandate given to a mythological ancestor.
Again, North Korea is a dictatorship that operates under the auspice of "the will of the people," and not a monarchy that operates under the auspice of "Divine Right," the way Thailand and Oman and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates do. Claiming that N. Korea is a Monarchy is either false or wholly disingenuous.
It is fundamentally different from a monarchy because of the philosophical principle on which the dictator dictates. Even if it was, claiming that it is a normal monarchy isn't even fair given that there are several nations in the world under monarchies with great industrial and human development.
North Korea is no more a Monarchy than China, Japan, the United Kingdom or Russia. The distinction is in governing method, governing philosophy, and source of government legitimacy. I've written two articles on monarchy you're interested in the distinctions and arguments at play here. Check my catalog.
I appreciate this portrait of a character who might have come out of That Hideous Strength, but it looks like you're just as eager to use people as tool as him. How DO church organizations deal with such people?
They're going to exist whether we want to deal with them or not. Confining them to the betterment of others is necessary one way or the other. I'm aware that I likely exemplify some of said traits (many Avant Garde writers on substack do)... Working within a confined moral system is better than letting lunatics wreak havoc, including ones own impulses.
I've not been a member of the a Church long enough to see one identified and ejected. I believe that the way churches enforce codified conduct, the dangerous sociopath types have a tendency to consider such conduct "beneath" them. They've got such massive craniums that they'll attempt to skip the biblical readings and get straight to the rhetorical project. As community centers, Churches possess the ability to generate networks or eject individuals from those networks.
The most trusted member of the church (the priest or preacher) has spent years studying the text and earning the trust of his peers in the hierarchy. He has to know the material, not merely be capable of formulating good rhetoric. He also has to develop close spiritual/emotional bonds with a large number of people simultaneously... and maintain those for years in order to live in a manner reflective of scripture. Sociopaths are great at developing community bonds, but terrible at maintaining those bonds in the face of community members behaving in an 'unapproved' fashion. Sociopaths are great at rhetoric, and will place themselves at the top of a hierarchy. But falsely maintaining that position over years is extremely taxing and difficult. Especially in strong communities where members freely compare notes. It's not an 'activist' ring, it's a community with numerous unofficial network nodes that share crucial information invisible to the 'leadership'.
That structure forms a limiter to their involvement, especially in the high-pace modern world. It's why the Church has taken 10-15 years to respond to woke extremism, but once moving in that direction, it can't be stopped. When an individuals socipathic tendencies get out of hand, the Church can softly eject them from the social/cultural hierarchy in a sufficiently soft way as to not generate waves. Then that individual must build an entirely new network from scratch.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a long response. I'm thinking two things. One is that the line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every man. We can't just pack off all the evil people somewhere and expect society to improve. Two is that, practically, one must protect oneself from evildoers. That necessity becomes very pointed when one is part of a powerful organization, since positions of power attract evil. Past that, I don't know. I would love to hear how, say, the Catholic Church deals with evil. Or the American government. I know in principle, the balance of power sets politicians against each other, so would-be dictators cancel each other out. But it's not a perfect system :)
typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.”
The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull
pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological
realities
This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum,
which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low
emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative
reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity,
but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider
themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.
Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful,
while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of
others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to
retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and
odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality
leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations
upon other people’s intentions.
Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual
world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled
pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived
from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able
to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes
the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may
also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they
have joined.
Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” –i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions
Schizoid+sociopath+narcissist. What a great combo for a "political leader." I'm starting to think that relying on the Church to ordain Kings was the best way to do it.
Given that Leftists consider every one who isn't one of their own a Neo-Nazi, I doubt it would hold any weight.
By their logic that could be a conversation with a libertarian crackhead, Jordan Peterson, or George Lincoln Rockwell. They're all "Neo-Nazis" in the eyes of your average Leftist. Thus it doesn't matter because Leftists are liars by nature and have painted roughly 90% of the population as Neo-Nazis.
Great essay i find commies too nutty to ever discuss with
That's fair, I didn't really intend to get into that conversation but realized it would make a great case study after the fact.
I get that, oh and sorry not been interacting with your stuff in awhile. Life got busy and sh*t, but really wanted to let you know though I don’t have anything intelligent to add here, this was a fun article to read. Great stuff.
Thanks! I'm happy that people enjoy it! Hopefully people can pull useful information out of it for their own lives.
Definitely and np
This was super intriguing. The prospect of Christianity being used like the religion in the Dune series is really creepy but I can’t rebut anything lol.
Frank Herbert modeled the religion in Dune on Islam.
O ok. Good to know. I only watched the series and didn’t read the book. Makes sense given the ecology. Now I’m wondering how much of Islam is influenced by water scarcity or desertification dynamics. Wonder if Neal Spackman came across some of that in his work.
Frank Herbert weaved several different themes from politics, culture, religion, and philosophy into the Dune series. However, much of his fictional Fremen language is derived from Arabic, and Paul Atrides is Mohammed-like figure.
This is great. Met a lot of these people - and they can be fun to have a few beers with. Once. Not many more times after that though ... It cracked me up when he got intrigued when you mentioned the Divine Right of Kings thing ("Oh, does he mean me?") Lol. However, it does sound like he has the openness to change his beliefs.
They're pragmatists and Machiavellians above all else. If you appeal to that you can get them to reorient I suspect. It'd take some work, but it's doable.
Sounds like what I used to believe in college, interesting to discover that there are others who went through similar ideological transformations.
He hasn't finished going through the transformation. Hope he does, but I think he's a bit too old and a bit too dysgenic to. Still, we can point him in a more useful direction.
Very interesting. A sociopath whose arrogance greatly exceeds his intelligence. I suspect his "grand vision" is itself just a construct to justify to himself his craving for power. What could be more intoxicating to a narcissist than being remembered as a founder of interstellar civilization? The giveaway is lack of focus on "reaching the stars". The truly obsessed - Elon Musk comes to mind - will talk nonstop about it if asked. They also know the subject intimately. This person seems to only know the basic rhetoric - unless there are parts of this conversation that were left out.
Well, it could be that I was questioning him on the rhetoric rather than questioning him on the details of his "Grand Vision." Though I suspect that he hasn't really worked out many details of his Grand Vision at this point. Instead it's a nebulous idea he uses to justify his own righteous ideation as you suggest.
Reading this reminded me that there are reasons why North Korea is a hereditary monarchy.
It sort of is... it would be a better place to live if it were a formalized Monarchy. The problem is that Communism doesn't offer a moral world-view in the same way that Monarchism does. There's a fundamental difference due to the way the surrounding worldview is constructed and that distinction is largely responsible for why true Monarchies like Oman and Thailand behave so differently in comparison to dictatorships like North Korea.
Absolute monarchy, like the one in North Korea, can be pretty fucked up. The absolute monarch can do whatever he wants, including calling the country a communist people’s republic and forcing people into servitude and starvation, upon penalty of death.
In that, it is indistinguishable from a dictatorship, except for the hereditary part with divine mandate given to a mythological ancestor.
Again, North Korea is a dictatorship that operates under the auspice of "the will of the people," and not a monarchy that operates under the auspice of "Divine Right," the way Thailand and Oman and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates do. Claiming that N. Korea is a Monarchy is either false or wholly disingenuous.
It is fundamentally different from a monarchy because of the philosophical principle on which the dictator dictates. Even if it was, claiming that it is a normal monarchy isn't even fair given that there are several nations in the world under monarchies with great industrial and human development.
North Korea is no more a Monarchy than China, Japan, the United Kingdom or Russia. The distinction is in governing method, governing philosophy, and source of government legitimacy. I've written two articles on monarchy you're interested in the distinctions and arguments at play here. Check my catalog.
Fair enough. Cheers.
https://substack.com/@eperytos/note/c-116974710?utm_source=notes-share-action
I appreciate this portrait of a character who might have come out of That Hideous Strength, but it looks like you're just as eager to use people as tool as him. How DO church organizations deal with such people?
They're going to exist whether we want to deal with them or not. Confining them to the betterment of others is necessary one way or the other. I'm aware that I likely exemplify some of said traits (many Avant Garde writers on substack do)... Working within a confined moral system is better than letting lunatics wreak havoc, including ones own impulses.
I've not been a member of the a Church long enough to see one identified and ejected. I believe that the way churches enforce codified conduct, the dangerous sociopath types have a tendency to consider such conduct "beneath" them. They've got such massive craniums that they'll attempt to skip the biblical readings and get straight to the rhetorical project. As community centers, Churches possess the ability to generate networks or eject individuals from those networks.
The most trusted member of the church (the priest or preacher) has spent years studying the text and earning the trust of his peers in the hierarchy. He has to know the material, not merely be capable of formulating good rhetoric. He also has to develop close spiritual/emotional bonds with a large number of people simultaneously... and maintain those for years in order to live in a manner reflective of scripture. Sociopaths are great at developing community bonds, but terrible at maintaining those bonds in the face of community members behaving in an 'unapproved' fashion. Sociopaths are great at rhetoric, and will place themselves at the top of a hierarchy. But falsely maintaining that position over years is extremely taxing and difficult. Especially in strong communities where members freely compare notes. It's not an 'activist' ring, it's a community with numerous unofficial network nodes that share crucial information invisible to the 'leadership'.
That structure forms a limiter to their involvement, especially in the high-pace modern world. It's why the Church has taken 10-15 years to respond to woke extremism, but once moving in that direction, it can't be stopped. When an individuals socipathic tendencies get out of hand, the Church can softly eject them from the social/cultural hierarchy in a sufficiently soft way as to not generate waves. Then that individual must build an entirely new network from scratch.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a long response. I'm thinking two things. One is that the line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every man. We can't just pack off all the evil people somewhere and expect society to improve. Two is that, practically, one must protect oneself from evildoers. That necessity becomes very pointed when one is part of a powerful organization, since positions of power attract evil. Past that, I don't know. I would love to hear how, say, the Catholic Church deals with evil. Or the American government. I know in principle, the balance of power sets politicians against each other, so would-be dictators cancel each other out. But it's not a perfect system :)
Generally the Church doesn't exactly eject them, but cuts off their opportunities to gain influence, causing them to eject themselves.
More insight into this phenomena would be appreciated. I'm aware it happens, but I'm not fully clear on how.
Yes, me too. I'm curious.
I guess, a "schizoid"
typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.”
The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull
pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological
realities
This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum,
which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low
emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative
reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity,
but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider
themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.
Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful,
while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of
others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to
retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and
odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality
leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations
upon other people’s intentions.
Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual
world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled
pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived
from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able
to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes
the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may
also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they
have joined.
Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” –i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions
into bad results.
Schizoid+sociopath+narcissist. What a great combo for a "political leader." I'm starting to think that relying on the Church to ordain Kings was the best way to do it.
Thinking of "monarchy" does not ring wrong lol - after all those crazy guys.
Not very good undergraduate fiction.
Unfortunately it isn't fiction :c
Well, I was being polite. The more accurate term would be paranoid lies.
Yeah, not that either. It's a lived experience.
So you say.
I once had a conversation with a neo Nazi. Shall I compare him with you?
Given that Leftists consider every one who isn't one of their own a Neo-Nazi, I doubt it would hold any weight.
By their logic that could be a conversation with a libertarian crackhead, Jordan Peterson, or George Lincoln Rockwell. They're all "Neo-Nazis" in the eyes of your average Leftist. Thus it doesn't matter because Leftists are liars by nature and have painted roughly 90% of the population as Neo-Nazis.
Complete and utter subjective ranting.
Interesting idea, but I still want nothing to do with these idiots.
Well done
Tremendous essay, sir. Subscribed and bingeing as of now!
What a megagamma.
So he wants power and God help everyone under him if he gets it.
Communism tends to attract those types.
A lot of people understandably agree with you.