Adam Kadmon, Tabula Rasa

The occult origins of social engineering

There is one theme far more consistent than any other in ancient wisdom: we are not God. We can never know God, we cannot even understand God, and for that very reason, we can never know with any certainty if God is even real. Whatever the nature of God, it is beyond the capacity of humans to truly comprehend. This warning has had to be repeated over and over because some people don't listen. Every religion has had its mystics who think that somehow, they can know God, perhaps even become God. Such hubris leads only to destruction, but no matter how many times the mystics of the past have failed, the mystics of the current age somehow think that they will succeed where their predecessors have not. One more piece, they always assert, will be the key to ultimate knowledge. What we are seeing today, the hubristic and destructive measures being implemented in order to bring about a utopian future, are not new.

The tree of life from Kabbalah, formed by the ten spheres, a.k.a. sephiroth. Its significance will become apparent later.

The nature of this subject is such that I'm going to jump all over the timeline, a practise normally frowned upon and rightly so, but to be fair, the cult I'm trying to expose likes to move in circles. Their intent is to immanentise the eschaton in order to restore Eden. For those not fluent in occultist jargon, it means that they want to bring about the end of history in order to get back to the beginning. If this is already dizzying, then maybe go read something else, because it's only going to get worse from here. This article will be the first in which I use the term "neo-gnostic," but before I explain what that means, I need to explain what Gnosticism is.

The three types of people according to the Gnostics

The most concise way to define Gnosticism is that it is the belief that a certain group of people are "the chosen followers of the One True God."  This is an extremely broad definition which could include an awful lot of religions, and to be sure, a lot of religions closely resemble gnostic cults (note lack of capitalisation, this I will explain later). To be more specific about their beliefs, I'll put it in biblical terms: the pneumatics (so-named because ancient peoples tended to believe that air was spirit) are the children of God who have spoken with Him, the psychics are the children of God who have been lost and are thus ignorant of His light, and the hylics are the beast-men from the land of Nod (if you don't believe me, read Genesis 4:16-24 very carefully) who cannot even see the light. There are other ways of expressing this idea, and every gnostic cult has its own signature verbiage.

The Gnostics inferred from the verse "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26) that the physical Adam was created in the image of a spiritual entity also called Adam. - Jewish Virtual Library, "Adam Kadmon"

From the beginning of human civilisation, there have been mystics trying to pursue knowledge not by investigation of the material world, but exploration of the spiritual world, in the hopes that spirits will reveal ultimate knowledge to them. Gnosticism, specifically, is a mystic offshoot of pre-canon Christianity, and via Zoroastrianism can be considered the younger sibling of Hermeticism, which is the worship of Hermes/Thoth/Mercurius, the god of wisdom, the Greek word for which is Σοφία (Sophia). I go into greater detail in an old article about the Gnostic heresies, which, out of all the articles I've linked to so far, is one I most strongly suggest you read before continuing, despite the fact that it has some minor problems.

Finished? Smashing, let's continue. Because Gnostics believe that the material world is the creation of the evil demiurge, then conventional wisdom cannot know anything because the material world is a lie. Their successors were the non-capitalised gnostics, who, unlike the capitalised Gnostics, did not necessarily reject the God of Abraham, but instead branded science as the religion of the demiurge. While the Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers embraced chemistry, astronomy, and empiricism, the gnostics attached themselves to alchemy, astrology, and dialectical materialism. In addition, there was an obvious split within political theory, which I have also written about. It should be pretty obvious by now which ideologies the gnostics have attached themselves to. In "demystifying the dialectic" and pretending to abandon religion altogether, they became the first neo-gnostics, and while they have the same goal as always, there is one slight but important difference in how they plan to achieve it. 

Five modes of production are known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudalist, capitalist, and socialist. – Iosif Stalin, On Dialectical and Historical Materialism (1935)

Quite the jump, isn't it? Well, that's because the mystics of today have managed to cloak their sorcery behind the allegedly scientific veil of Marxism. Personally, I'd call it "scientistic," from the word "scientism," which is a word that means "the belief in the inerrancy of knowledge proclaimed to be scientific." In some ways, this article is a response to one titled Why does anyone believe Marxism? by

Helen Dale

and

Lorenzo Warby

, because for some people, the answer is because they reject the oppressive superstition of the old religions and instead desire a rational or "scientific" society, and as a direct result, they fall for the Marxist graft (it’s way too big to be called a “grift” at this point). Continuing from my last article on the subject, Marxism-Leninism is a form of mysticism, specifically an alchemical synthesis of Hegelian dialectics and Kabbalah, all disguised by scientistic language. It is the social re-engineering of humanity with the intent of bringing about a paradise lost. If the end goal of socialism is communism, then in order to get back to the commune, humanity must embrace its primordial roots; not "return to monkey" as much as resurrecting the divine primordial man...

Adam Kadmon, the primordial man

...and you wonder why I've been saying that creationism and communism are the same thing since before I ever even heard of Adam Kadmon.

Karl Marx believed that a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat was necessary to "equalise" all classes, at which point the state would wither away and die, because humanity would become a hive-minded "species-being." Vladimir Lenin called this species-being "the New Soviet Man." Marx, Lenin, and Stalin all believed that the Soviet Man was actually humanity's natural state, and all of them had various ways of saying that things like money and property are different types of corrupting influences that alienate humanity from its true nature, the primordial man living in paradise, free of material desires. While all gnostics believe that the material world itself is the corrupting influence, the old gnostics place the blame for society's ills on secular ideas such as humanism, whereas Marx turned that idea on its head and blamed religion, especially Judaism. Forget the "opiate of the masses" quote, this one is far more damning:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other gods may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, the man of money in general.... When huckstering and its conditions are eliminated, the Jew becomes impossible. The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism. - Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question (1843)

Notice that Marx uses the phrase "worldly religion," which should be your first clue that Marx was a gnostic, not an atheist as Marxists love to claim. Likewise, despite the claims of National Socialists, he certainly wasn't a practising Jew either, despite coming from a Jewish family. According to Marx, the Judeo-bourgeoisie are the most corrupted class, and those who have no property, the proletariat, are the least corrupted. Hitler came to a similar conclusion, but via a slightly different path (Hitler's anti-Semitism was racial, rather than religious, and his gnosticism was of an older variety greatly influenced by neo-Wotanism and Theosophy by extension). However, this isn't about Hitler or National Socialism, this is about Marxism and Stakeholder Capitalism. All of these systems promise utopia, or more precisely, to purify a world that has been corrupted by "sin," whatever that may be. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with aspiring to rid oneself of the Seven Deadly Sins, the problem comes with taking it too far, such as conflating all forms of desire with greed or any amount of relaxation with sloth, both of which socialists are known to do. Chastity, one of the Seven Cardinal Virtues and the diametrical opposite of lust, is not a synonym for "celibacy," despite what some puritans will tell you. Furthermore, all forms of socialism, especially Marxism, thrive on one of the sins in particular.

There are two ways that people are drawn into the cult of utopia. One is via envy: those who have little and hate those who have more than them are drawn in by the promise of a fair and just society (gee, where have we heard this one before?). The other is via rationalism: the world is chaotic and irrational, and those who are extremely rule-based (usually autists like yours truly) are drawn in by the promise of a rationally-ordered society, particularly the mantra "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Both are a dishonest bait-and-switch. Those who are drawn in by envy will have to be content having no more than they started with, only in that those who once had more now have nothing. Those who are drawn in by the promise of finding purpose, of replacing superstition with reason, will end up being forced to rationalise pseudoscience. All "scientific" knowledge must be fabricated in such a way to support the "higher truth" of the utopian state, which is why any raw data coming out of one of these ideological one-party dictatorships must be regarded with extreme scepticism. Do the Chinese cook their books? Of course! So did the Soviets. On one hand, this practise can be interpreted as nothing more than a cynical method of holding on to power, but on the other hand, there is a far deeper reason that these regimes need the rest of the world to believe them and adopt their system: instrumentality, or the transformation of humanity into a tool of the state. 

Throughout history, theocracies have always had little to no tolerance for blasphemy. The propagation of the state's religion will be stifled if people are permitted to question its sacred truths. Propagation to the entire world and total devotion is necessary to bring about the theocracy's ultimate goal, which is transcendence. Transcendence can take the form of either ascending to heaven or creating a heaven on Earth, but in either case, the prayer (or spell) to bring it about can be cast only if everyone is of one voice. There cannot be so much as "coughs in a silent crowd," as Yevgeniy Zamyatin once phrased it. Instead...

Rejoice! For henceforth you shall be perfect! Until this day, your own creations - machines - were more perfect than you... Machines have no imagination. Have you ever seen the face of a pump cylinder break into a distant, foolish, dreamy smile while it works? - Yevgeniy Zamyatin, We (1920)

Zamyatin, a former Bolshevik, correctly predicted the rise of Stalin years before the fact. We is his best-known work in the English-speaking world, and it predicts a world far stranger than anything George Orwell came up with, but with a lot of the same themes, particularly dehumanisation. The book is written as a series of diary entries by a man numbered D-503, who is the architect of the starship Integral, which will allow the One State to expand beyond the bounds of Earth. In several of these entries, D-503 copies down what he sees in the state's newspaper, called The One State Gazette, and the excerpt above is one such example. What the One State is pushing here is something called the Great Operation, which is one of the earliest predictions of transhumanism in fiction. 

Some say transhumanism is a fantasy, that humans will never be able to fully interface with computers, and that artificial life will never be cultivated the way it is in science fiction. Whether this is the case or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that this is what the neo-gnostic priests like Klaus Schwab want to do. What they want is to blur the line between man and machine, not just for the cynical short-term goal of creating a new class of serfs, but for the far more grandiose goal of blurring the line between man and God. 

Playing in God's domain is like trying to wield Sauron's ring of power, i.e. anyone who tries will only destroy themselves. Centuries before Tolkien was even born, there was an equally poignant rebuttal tangentially connected via alchemy: should you ever manage to create the alkahest (universal solvent), what would you keep it in? Speaking of liquidation, there is a saying that communism is perpetually one mass grave away from utopia. This is no accident, it is by design. Those who are not both willing and able to participate in instrumentality must be destroyed. Communist ideologues will openly admit to some version of selective breeding in order to re-engineer humanity for their purposes. What most of them don't know, especially in the modern day, is what mechanism is actually behind the selective breeding measure. I'll give you a hint: it isn't Darwinian Evolution.

For those of you who have already read my article on creationism and communism, feel free to skip this paragraph and the next (though I do correct a minor error from the aforementioned article). For the rest of you, I'll summarise. Evolution is an inescapable fact of biology, and was known to be since before Charles Darwin was even born, but the driving mechanism, be it natural or supernatural, was hotly debated for over a century. Darwin wasn't even the first to propose such a mechanism, but it was his that has ultimately been vindicated. Modern evolutionary theory combines Darwin's work with Mendelian genetics, and therefore the mechanism may be summarised as "natural selection in concert with genetic drift." However, the first proposed mechanism was "inheritance of acquired characteristics," by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarckism remains, to this day, the only "scientific" basis for blank slate theory, and though the vast majority of evolutionary biologists outright reject it, Lamarckism is still popular among social "scientists."

Karl Marx was a Lamarckist, he believed that evolution was driven primarily by social conditioning, and therefore, evolution could effectively be reversed via conditioning in the opposite direction. When Darwin finally published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Marx flatly rejected it on the basis that it was "Malthusian." I didn't know that at the time I wrote my article on creationism and communism, but it's an important detail to point out to anyone who thinks that Marxism is somehow informed by Darwinism or that it is in any way "scientific." Charles Darwin is easily the most misrepresented scientist in history, and while he didn't get everything right (he proposed panspermia as a possible origin of life itself, which never caught on), his work concerning evolutionary biology has never been falsified. Evolution is inherently divergent, and while some species are "degenerate," in that they have lost traits that their ancestors previously gained (limbs are probably the best example of this), the process not only doesn't work backwards, but it doesn't generate the exact same organism twice. Even in cases of "convergent evolution," in which two species from different lineages end up greatly resembling each other because of their environments, they wouldn't be able to interbreed; e.g. sharks and ichthyosaurs. Though all life has a common ancestor, two genetically incompatible species producing offspring that can in turn produce fertile offspring, depending on how distantly related they are, is about as likely as each of the following series of events during any given tabletop role-playing game: rolling maximum stats during character creation, then proceeding to roll natural twenties on every single turn... without using weighted dice, all while said game is being played on a ship being tossed about with considerable enthusiasm as it attempts to sail through a hurricane. However, that hasn't stopped scientists with questionable motives from trying, and in some cases even succeeding with sufficient jiggery-pokery.

At some level, the neo-gnostics must be aware that they cannot become gods/God by making themselves better, they must instead make the rest of humanity worse. Whether by way of making a chimera of man and machine or simply cheapening the human experience, what separates the old Gnostics/Hermetics and the neo-gnostics is the desire of the latter to eliminate the human soul. I'm not the first to point this out, either. No, that would be a certain profoundly based Russian Imperial Army officer, ex-convict, philosopher, novelist, and most importantly, former socialist:

You know the [socialists'] doctrine; crime is a protest against the abnormality of the social organisation and nothing more; no other causes admitted! ... Everything with them is "the influence of environment," and nothing else. Their favourite phrase! ... Human nature is not taken into account, it is excluded, it's not supposed to exist! ... That's why they instinctively dislike history, "nothing but ugliness and stupidity in it," and they explain it all as stupidity! That's why they so dislike the living process of life; they don't want a living soul! The living soul demands life, won't obey the rules of mechanics, it is an object of suspicion... what they want, though it smells of death and can be made from India-rubber, at least is not alive, has no will, is servile and won't revolt! - Fëdor Dostoevskii, Crime and Punishment (1866)

Another way to phrase it is in the gnostic terms, in order to really drive home the lesson: gnostics of all sects fancy themselves the pneumatics, the lost souls the psychics, and the useless eaters the hylics. Once all the lost souls are found and "enlightened," only pneumatics and hylics remain, at which point the cycle will be completed, the former will ascend as the primordial man, and the latter will be destroyed along with all other material creations of the demiurge. Only one gnostic cult could ever be correct, only one cult may succeed, and for that reason, the gnostic cults have all been in a state of perpetual war with each other and with the people who realise that they are talking bollocks. No, the irony is not lost on me that the neo-gnostics are the ones behind the New World Order, and the very people they call "useless eaters" are also the useful idiots who support them. Genocide, or more precisely, democide, is not merely an inevitable mistake of communism, it is the intended outcome, and so it is with Stakeholder Capitalism. Anyone worried about "Nazis" simply because of their propensity for mass murder might want to park their peepers in the general direction of a certain octogenarian skinhead from Ravensburg who thinks that he can bring about a fourth industrial revolution, just saying. Shalom!