Darren Allen - Self and unself and 33 myths of the system

[Matai]

***The correct Author in the title is meant to be Darren Allen NOT Darren Brown, my apologies ***

Whilst awaiting Laura's new book and reading through the romance novel reading list I have come across an author named Darren Allen who I was originally introduced to via this article on the Sign of the times website from the OffGuardian:

The Myth of Authority -- Sott.net, with a quote of the article below:

Most of this happens [semi] automatically. The system is set up to nullify threat and reward compliance with minimal human interference[1]. Those who tend to its operations do so unconsciously, instinctively or without seriously questioning its values and imperatives. Meanwhile, those at the bottom of the pile look up in wonder at those chosen to lead.

It seems that the typical manager is, at best, an unimpressive human being, and, more usually, skilled in little more than dithering, hiding facts, manipulating information, obfuscating class-relations, rolling over like a puppy when those above him shift their weight and paying lip service to fine qualities and instincts while stamping them out whenever they actually appear.

But these are all precisely the qualities which the system demands. Actual intelligence, competence, originality, human-feeling, generosity and integrity are, if they come into conflict with these core values, instantly and automatically rejected.

I found his writing style engaging and he repeated much of what has been known by the members of this forum for a long time. I then bought his kindle book 33 Myths of the system, the 1st edition of which can be read for free online and the second edition which can be found on his website; 33 MYTHS OF THE SYSTEM | Darren Allen or on Amazon.

This book was very well written and engaging. It covers plenty of what Laura has already very well documented in the past about the system we currently live in. In addition it also details some very interesting ideas from the more "left" and anarchist side of the spectrum whilst providing contributions from authors such as Ivan Illich, without identifying with these "sides" and still critiquing the obvious problems with the far left which has already been extensively documented on this forum by Jordan Peterson and others.

Interestingly he also argues against Jordan Peterson and seems to be able to identify some of his, and his Intellectual dark web allies (Dave Rubin etc) blind spots which have been emphasized recently by their support of Israel and the pfizer vaccine. I highly value Peterson's work but for a while I have been feeling like he has reached a plateau in his understanding and can only explain things to a certain point. I have found myself searching for ways to bridge the more center-right ideas that he preaches with the values of hierarchy and order and the fact that most members of the hierarchy suffer in addition to the inevitable accumulation of wealth and power at the top of the hierarchy. Essentially Peterson admits to having insufficient answers for these macrosocial/economic problems and this is a genuine complaint of the "left" and non bipartisan individuals which Darren Allen seems to better account for.

Like most Authors he does not seem to be aware of the hyperdimensional aspect of things and ascribes most problems to "The system" but not in the sense of "the patriarchy" or "systemic racism. Forumites should be able to read between the lines and still pick up some valuable insights.

I then explored his website and blog which has many interesting articles on a wide range of topics. In the about section he mentions a wide range of inspiring material but in paritcular mentions Krishnamurti, Gurdjieff and Barry Long.

Among the interesting articles I have read include the following:

You Are a Bastard | Darren Allen with an excerpt below:

Because sensations of conscience — shame, guilt, duty and so on — are feelings (or, to put it a little more specifically, emotions), which is to say prior to both thought and to justifying language, you can then describe them any way you like. A twinge in the chest — you could call that guilt, fear, boredom, or indigestion. So of course3 you choose something favourable to yourself. We call this a justification. Then, with your actions, you build more ideas, evidence and incrimination-suppressing actions on your self-justifying description in order to suppress or validate it.

Let’s look at an example. Let’s say 1. deed you have been neglecting someone, a child perhaps, a girlfriend, an old mum who’d love to hear from you, and 2. conscience a sensation of discomfort is building up inside. Not nice, that feeling — but the unpleasentness can’t be coming from you, can it? It can’t be your fault. It must be… hmm, let’s look at the options. It must be 3. justification that you’re bored, in need of some fun. If you 4. suppression-validation go out and get drunk, or have sex maybe, or get lost in an exciting video game, you’ll forget about the guilt, which will prove to you that the problem wasn’t guilt after all, but a completely normal human need to have some fun.

Another example. 1. You are madly obsessed with cleanliness. 2. Someone shakes your hand and you immediately take out a wet-wipe to clean yourself. This makes you feel bad (awkward, ridiculous, etc.). 3. But that bad feeling must be because they are dirty, inconsiderate, perhaps even nasty. 4. You get angry at them, purging yourself of the discomfort and, most likely, they’ll react badly, proving to you that they are not a good person.

One more example. 1. You wish to annihilate a country in order to gain access to its oil reserves. 2. Some troublesome pinko discovers that you’ve got shares in a construction company which stands to benefit from the invasion. 3. Feels awful that; must be because your critics are unpatriotic terrorists hell-bent on undoing civilisation. 4. Lock them up or get them fired; gets rid of the problem and makes you feel a satisfying rush of victory at having overcome an enemy.

Okay, okay, one more, a subtler one. 1. You are annoyed by something your partner does; perhaps he doesn’t give you the right kind of attention, or maybe she is unresponsive when you make love. 2. You feel agitated all day, it comes between you both, maybe making sex difficult, or causing you to lash out weirdly over trivial matters. 3. As you’re a bit of a patsy, perhaps into eastern philosophies, you decide well it must be your fault, you’re not sufficiently accepting, enlightened. 4. You feel your emotion, containing it, or you meditate, or go and see a guru, or do some yoga — anything to feel okay with the pain without having to actually do something about it, address the problem, tell your lover they are treating you casually or walk away from this stupid relationship that you are, actually, addicted to.

I could go on listing examples forever. The natural response to doing wrong, to being addicted (to talking, to the internet, to narcotics, to attention, to power, to money, etc.), to neglecting your duty4 (to your children, to your parents, to your body, etc.), to losing your presence (allowing your restless thinking-wanting-not-wanting ego to trample over the present-moment), to obsessions (excessive purity, excessive control, excessive thinking and planning, etc.) and to cowardliness (avoiding necessary confrontations, afraid to let go of the known, backing down from exposure, etc.) is a bad feeling in the body. This is conscience, something which men and women will go to absolutely extraordinary, outrageous, insane (sometimes hilarious) lengths to ignore justify and suppress. It’s no exaggeration to say that conscience is private enemy number one.

Another example of a thought provoking article encompassing gender from all angles is this one (Which I recommend reading fully):

The Tao of Gender | Darren Allen

Below I have included part one of the article and I recommend reading it in its entirety:

1. THE PRIVATISATION OF WOMAN​

‘The problem with media-run “conversations” on gender is not merely the almost total absence of male participants, but the suppression of class. It is tempting to say real politics are missing, too, but bourgeois boundaries and prescriptions are real enough. Thus, gender, like race, can be presented in isolation. Class is a forbidden word; and gender subordinate to class is heresy.’

John Pilger

‘Since the public sphere was seen as liberating, it followed that putting more women into jobs, any jobs, would be liberating. So the female labour force participation rate became a measure of liberation (Sen, 1999). That is fine for middle-class, highly educated women who can anticipate salaried career-oriented employment. But for most women, labouring repetitively on an assembly line, or sewing feverishly in an ill-lit backstreet garment factory, or sitting at a check-out counter for long shifts, jobs are scarcely liberating.’

Guy Standing

Feminism emerged during the nineteenth century, when women were forced into a formal economy which, until then, had been a male enterprise. Before this there had, of course, been a long and shameful history of subjugating, abusing, objectifying and marginalising women (along with sporadic rebellion); but there was still a separation of domains, a sense that some aspects of the world belonged to men and some to women.

In many primal societies (pre-agriculture and pre-conquest) there is no question of gendered inequality or of one sex lording it over another. Men have one approach to reality (and to time and space; with a concomitant set of tools) and women another. Although the divisions between domains may be fluid — certainly not established in law — they are kept separate. This does not lead to conflict but to a complementarity which governed human life for most of its history — and continued to exist in various modified or degraded forms into pre-modern planter and herder societies; if, as Ivan Illich says, ‘its rule was relaxed, this happened only among decadent elites, and then only for short periods.’ (emphasis mine).

Men and women also lived in different psychological domains. They share some features of each other’s cognitive powers — there is no question that women cannot think as men do and vice versa — but with pronounced emphasis in their own gendered realities. Men, as many cultures have recognised, are naturally cut off, to some extent, from the context and engaged in a mission (from immaturity to maturity) to return to it, while women are more embodied, more sensitive to the context, and therefore more genuinely intelligent (and always more mature.1), with the less intelligent abstracting mind more closely integrated with contextual awareness.

With the advent of civilisation the male domain overtook the female and men began to separate themselves from contextual feminine experience — or perhaps it is more accurate to say that the male self took control of experience and went on to take control of society; but in either case the two processes fed off each other, resulting in a male-dominated elite world built on abstract, compartmentalised male systems of transcendent knowledge and a male experience of time and space. The so-called ‘civilised’ systems of antiquity, the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, the utterly horrific Greek and Roman myths of near constant rape and slaughter and the hyper-abstract (although catastrophically material in its effects) modern market-system, or economy, are all entirely male creations, sprouting from a male mind completely out of contact with reality, context and body, and terrified of anything which cannot be controlled, abstractly understood, possessed or brought to the schizoid light of the fragmented male-mind — such as innocent children, wild nature, darkness, the present moment and sane femininity; which are unconsciously perceived as a threat and either ignored, violently suppressed or eradicated altogether. The entire appalling history of man’s violence towards women, his physical and economic suppression of her spontaneity, intrinsic creativity and generosity, and his systematic, sexualising brainwashing of her—in short, his sexism—originates here.

It is this male world that, in the nineteenth century, women were forced to fully enter; to work, compete and think alongside men and, crucially, as men. Illich again;

‘Women complained that men suddenly ordered them around at work; a totally new experience for them. No matter how much the gender-defined work of women might seem subordinated to that of men, the notion that men could direct women in the work itself had so far been unimaginable. Women resented the loss of domain. Women also complained that, while men had time after working at the rhythm of the plow to relax at the inn, they had to hurry back and forth between the hoe and the kitchen. Envy of a new kind, envy for the other gender’s schedule and rhythm, thus appeared; an envy destined to remain as a central characteristic of modern life, an envy fully ‘justified’ under the assumptions of unisex work but unthinkable under the shield of gender.’

Illich is exaggerating here; men directing women in their work was not ‘unimaginable,’ and the position of women in medieval society was far from enviable. Men had been abusing and subordinating women since the dawn of ‘civilisation’ and the Middle Ages were no different; but with the rise of capitalism women were forced into a domain which radically intensified their exposure to male exploitation and radically deformed their experience, intelligence, sensitivity and even autonomy. This process began, Illich explains, with the codifying of a ‘genderless we’ in the centralised marriage records of the medieval church, the first move to unpick the complementarity of traditional societies, and then massively expanded with the advent of full-blown capitalism, which demanded that women enter the market as ‘equals’. To compete in the insane male world women had to become like insane men — cut off from their bodies, from nature and from the ineffable. In order to fit into the intensely hierarchical, systematised, unreal male market-system woman had to split her psyche and inure herself to the psychological pressure and emotional pain of this split that hitherto only men had dealt with.

This process is analogous to the privatisation of public capital and labour. Just as workers in state-controlled economies passed, during the late industrial revolution, from monarchical forms of subordination to those of the market-system, so women passed from domestic subjugation to capitalist subjugation. The winners and the wannabes of the brave new world of ‘women’s liberation’ denounce — and rightly so — domestic servitude and tyrannical paternalism, but refuse to recognise that some forms of pre-capitalist societies could protect and still (occasionally) do protect women from the far greater depravations of market-servitude. This isn’t to say, of course, that we must return to the vile practice of putting wifey in her place, any more than we must return to the state-protected ‘job for life with pensions and benefits’ fantasy-land that the more subservient of the modern precariat dream of. As with so many conspicuous either-or conflicts, there is a third way, which, unfortunately, the subjugated woman, like the subjugated poor and the subjugated blackfella, fail to perceive.

Rather than demand a return to her own domain (e.g. to be paid and recognised for the independent ‘uneconomic’ shadow-work she had been doing), rather than refuse entry into the nightmarish market-economy, rather than demand that man face the ineffable and learn to experience the feminine source of his own fragmented hyper-rational experience, she instead accepted the capitalist assumptions of the male world and began to fight for ‘equality’ and ‘recognition’ within it. This was the beginning of feminism — an understandable movement (given that women women were denied perfectly ordinary freedoms) but ultimately a useless wrong turn into professional subordination, institutional slavery and democratic irrelevance.2

Some women who call themselves feminists simply want to look after abused women, others are interested in uncovering the neglected history of women, some (so called ‘equity feminists’) are keen, quite reasonably, to ensure that women have the same access to ordinary resources as men or to help them free themselves from their often pathetic dependency on men, others just vaguely ‘support women’ and one or two wish to annihilate men from the face of the earth. Like most words, feminism has a great many meanings, some of them barely articulated, some indeed — referring to the ineffable nature of femininity — nearly impossible to express. There are feminists who would even agree with the analysis above, passionately even; but the feminist movement did not begin with an understanding of domain, a demand for the truth of femininity to be honoured, much of an understanding of the role class plays in the subordination of women, a radical critique of hyper-male insanity or the social and psychological cause and side-effects of ‘women’s liberation’ — namely 50% of the hitherto untaxable workforce entering, with much capitalist delight and encouragement, the workforce. No, feminism began with a reasonable but ultimately misguided demand for fair representation in insane male-made institutions (marriage, law, politics, education, etc.). This was followed, in the 50s, 60s and 70s, by an extensive protest that ‘male language’ (meaning the male variety of language that women were now forced to use), male modes of awareness and ‘male assumptions’ were inherently sexist or loaded with repressive beliefs and feelings about women. Recently, the misguided feminist project has reached its rational end-point; an extended campaign for the complete eradication of gender.

This final insane move is what most people today understand as the culminating point of feminism, a term which, while accepting the exceptions listed above, is, I submit, from core to completion, a kind of madness.

4. CONCLUSION​

Man has been terrified of love for ten thousand years. Woman, more loving than man, has always been the more intelligent, perceptive and, in the very best sense, weirder sex, and so he had to bar her from entering or benefiting from the destructive, iniquitous and oppressively realistic world he created; until it served his interests to let her back in. At which point feminism magically appeared to give woman the ideological foundation she needed for her demands for equal pay, equal rights and the vote. As woman entered more fully into the male system and began to think (i.e. objectify), fight and suppress her natural instincts as the systems-man does, she began to lose her capacity for brilliant discursive thought, her extraordinary physical presence, her enigmatic imminence, her innate irrational generosity and her superior non-abstract intelligence — everything that might have actually made the world she entered better. When it was suggested to her that she was losing her femininity, that there might be something misguided about the whole project, she responded with feminism, the idea that gender does not exist; that it is a social construct. In so doing she lost the power to understand the real reason why man treats woman so badly, why he gets bored of her so quickly, why he tends to either exalt or desire her — but never really to see her, why he is such a poor lover, why he takes himself so seriously, why he gets so easily addicted to porn and to video games, why, despite his manifold problems, and his predictable desires, there is something mysterious and alluring about him and why he created this shitty world in the first place. In denying the existence of gender feminist woman (and society) also lost the power to understand the real reason why woman feels such dreadful self-doubt and lingering depression, why she feels so utterly out of place in male systems, why she feels more subjective well-being and more depression than man, why even the most satisfying sex can leave her feeling needy or irritable, why her heart breaks so agonisingly when a partnership ends, why there is such conflict between how she feels and how she feels she ought to feel and what it really means to be a woman. If you cannot understand gender, if you assume that it is an illusion, or a social-construct, or a result of genetics or the composition of the brain, nothing that happens between men and women makes sense, and no solution to the problems caused by this ignorance will ever work.

In short feminism is patriarchy’s greatest invention. It has fooled woman into being man, in treating love lightly, in reinforcing the insane male-world and in profaning femininity; while fighting for woman’s ‘right’ to degrade herself as thoroughly as man in his system — be it capitalist or socialist. While woman disregards the revolutionary potential of true love, the shattering wisdom of being a real woman and the harmonious nature of complementarity which has stood our species in good stead for hundreds of thousands of years, she will never know true love, she will never know who she really is and she will never be free. She will be as sick and imprisoned as he is.

His overall philosophy can be found in the book SELF & UNSELF | Darren Allen which I have yet to read.

Below is a youtube video of the Author discussing the book and a description from his website:

Who am I? Such an easy question, and yet I keep getting it wrong.​

An original, wide-ranging and accessible philosophy of all and everything, presenting the source and synthesis of metaphysics, science, art, language, sex, gender, character, culture, history, self-knowledge, love and death. Neither optimistic nor pessimistic, neither objective nor subjective, neither theist nor atheist, Self & Unself expresses the unfathomable paradox at the root of all branches of human experience, providing the reader with a new, radical ground of understanding, solving, en route, all the actually important questions of philosophy; who I am, who you are, why we are here and what on earth is going on.

I plan on finishing Self and Unself and commenting more specifically on his overall philosophy and worldview but seeing as his book 33 myths of the system is free online as are the large number of articles on his blog and website it may be interesting for other forum members to read these and determine if this is another author who can provide further important information to help understand the overall puzzle.

 

[Matai]

I have mistakenly Named the Author Darren Brown in the title instead of the correct name Darren Allen. My apologies but I am unsure how to change the name of the title. Am I able to change this? Or is one of the forum moderators perhaps able to change this? Thank you

 

[Joan]

Regarding the "Work". Darren Brown, is one of those mind manipulators, a modern Houdini, if you will, and brings up many issues, regarding the manipulation of the human mind. How the human mind can be manipulated by the PTB. After all, we living with this now, (in your face, blatant messaging).

He presented a spectacular show, on the BBC or some other network MSM show, how a normal individual would be able, to assassinate, RFK, using, hypnosis, and mind control techniques, can't find the video at this time (I wonder why).

As an exercise in mind control, I find it interesting, as to the actual implementation of such an act, using mind control, I found it, to my mind anyway, utterly against anything that can be called human.

So is this the "Work" I think not!

The Work, is about the discovery of oneself, as a sovereign human being.

 

[Matai]

Regarding the "Work". Darren Brown, is one of those mind manipulators, a modern Houdini, if you will, and brings up many issues, regarding the manipulation of the human mind. How the human mind can be manipulated by the PTB. After all, we living with this now, (in your face, blatant messaging).

He presented a spectacular show, on the BBC or some other network MSM show, how a normal individual would be able, to assassinate, RFK, using, hypnosis, and mind control techniques, can't find the video at this time (I wonder why).

As an exercise in mind control, I find it interesting, as to the actual implementation of such an act, using mind control, I found it, to my mind anyway, utterly against anything that can be called human.

So is this the "Work" I think not!

The Work, is about the discovery of oneself, as a sovereign human being.

Hey Joan,

My apologies, I had mistakenly titled this thread with the name Darren Brown but the correct name is in fact Darren Allen who is an entirely different person.

I am sorry about the confusion this has caused and I see that the thread title has now been changed to the correct name.

Shows how easy it is to be mechanical in my thinking and writing, I proof-read the body of the post without reviewing the title! haha.

I encourage you to read the blog post articles/view the youtube video linked above prior to making judgement regarding Darren Allen as he is a vastly different person than Darren Brown.

Sorry again for the mix up.

 

[heinrich]

***The correct Author in the title is meant to be Darren Allen NOT Darren Brown, my apologies ***

Whilst awaiting Laura's new book and reading through the romance novel reading list I have come across an author named Darren Allen who I was originally introduced to via this article on the Sign of the times website from the OffGuardian:

The Myth of Authority -- Sott.net, with a quote of the article below:



I found his writing style engaging and he repeated much of what has been known by the members of this forum for a long time. I then bought his kindle book 33 Myths of the system, the 1st edition of which can be read for free online and the second edition which can be found on his website; 33 MYTHS OF THE SYSTEM | Darren Allen or on Amazon.

This book was very well written and engaging. It covers plenty of what Laura has already very well documented in the past about the system we currently live in. In addition it also details some very interesting ideas from the more "left" and anarchist side of the spectrum whilst providing contributions from authors such as Ivan Illich, without identifying with these "sides" and still critiquing the obvious problems with the far left which has already been extensively documented on this forum by Jordan Peterson and others.

Interestingly he also argues against Jordan Peterson and seems to be able to identify some of his, and his Intellectual dark web allies (Dave Rubin etc) blind spots which have been emphasized recently by their support of Israel and the pfizer vaccine. I highly value Peterson's work but for a while I have been feeling like he has reached a plateau in his understanding and can only explain things to a certain point. I have found myself searching for ways to bridge the more center-right ideas that he preaches with the values of hierarchy and order and the fact that most members of the hierarchy suffer in addition to the inevitable accumulation of wealth and power at the top of the hierarchy. Essentially Peterson admits to having insufficient answers for these macrosocial/economic problems and this is a genuine complaint of the "left" and non bipartisan individuals which Darren Allen seems to better account for.

Like most Authors he does not seem to be aware of the hyperdimensional aspect of things and ascribes most problems to "The system" but not in the sense of "the patriarchy" or "systemic racism. Forumites should be able to read between the lines and still pick up some valuable insights.

I then explored his website and blog which has many interesting articles on a wide range of topics. In the about section he mentions a wide range of inspiring material but in paritcular mentions Krishnamurti, Gurdjieff and Barry Long.

Among the interesting articles I have read include the following:

You Are a Bastard | Darren Allen with an excerpt below:



Another example of a thought provoking article encompassing gender from all angles is this one (Which I recommend reading fully):

The Tao of Gender | Darren Allen

Below I have included part one of the article and I recommend reading it in its entirety:





His overall philosophy can be found in the book SELF & UNSELF | Darren Allen which I have yet to read.

Below is a youtube video of the Author discussing the book and a description from his website:

Who am I? Such an easy question, and yet I keep getting it wrong.​

An original, wide-ranging and accessible philosophy of all and everything, presenting the source and synthesis of metaphysics, science, art, language, sex, gender, character, culture, history, self-knowledge, love and death. Neither optimistic nor pessimistic, neither objective nor subjective, neither theist nor atheist, Self & Unself expresses the unfathomable paradox at the root of all branches of human experience, providing the reader with a new, radical ground of understanding, solving, en route, all the actually important questions of philosophy; who I am, who you are, why we are here and what on earth is going on.

I plan on finishing Self and Unself and commenting more specifically on his overall philosophy and worldview but seeing as his book 33 myths of the system is free online as are the large number of articles on his blog and website it may be interesting for other forum members to read these and determine if this is another author who can provide further important information to help understand the overall puzzle.

thank you very very much for your extensive presentation of darren allen. i discovered him recently, do not recall how, and just received his latest email which i found so much to the point that i wanted to present it to the forum. for this, i copied his post and i paste it below, bold is mine for me:

QUESTION: HOW DO YOU QUOTE A POST??

quote:

expressiveegg@substack.com

Kidulteration, Civilisation is an Infantile Disorder, Nov 30 2023

We are deranged in a manner which reminds us of childhood. For the uncorrupted, uncivilised child there is no past, which is what makes children innocent, as we all once were. The uncivilised child exists out of time; tomorrow has no meaning, it is identical to a thousand years in the future, which is why the civilised infants of our world, unrooted in the present, are so insanely demanding. Everything must happen for them now, because there is only now (or rather its frozen, postmodern image).

Civilisation infantilises by domesticating. Domesticated animals are retarded, gelded, soft, pliant, needy and sense-dimmed. They retain juvenile forms; floppy ears, round heads, childlike mewling and other neotenous traits. Humans likewise, after years, centuries, millennia of domestication, start to look and behave like children. The body becomes weaker, more frail and sickly, hairless, the eyes and head grow larger, all qualities which become more desirable, until, at the end of the civilising process, men desire smooth, pubescent baby-women and women delicate, doe-eyed man-boys; although, being children themselves, men also desire enormous round breasts and women, when they are ovulating, a degree of heavy-jawed apishness.

The child-people of civilisation, particularly late-civilisation, demonstrate sexual monomorphism; the sexes begin to resemble each other, as they do when children are young. The ideal becomes pre-pubescent sexlessness. The trend towards homosexuality and transsexualism, seen in other caged animals, is also an expression of juvenile asexuality, as are childish experiments with other-sex identities and same-sex pairings, which increasingly become part of the fixed adult self in late civilisation, all strenuously defended as ‘natural’.

The chthonic techno-womb is civilisation’s terminus, a world of fat babies suckling on a steel tit.

Childish games are played for longer by civilised adult-children, and far more seriously. Highly domesticated adults can spend their entire lives playing games, particularly video games, and sports; running races and throwing things and the like. ‘Sportswear’—child’s wear—becomes common, as does ‘cosplay’, wearing the uniforms of children’s stories. Children’s stories themselves are enormously popular amongst domesticants; superhero stories and other forms of infantile wish-fulfilment.

Thus we find physical neotony is concomitant with cultural neotony. Culturally, the eternal juveniles of civilisation are struck dumb. They cannot speak fluently and they are unable to engage with their culture through the written word, preferring the symbolic image (the meme, the video, etc.). Indeed, they see themselves as images, maniacally sorted and graded from ‘cool’ to ‘not cool’ (or somesuch other childish tag).

Attachment to the image is attended by fear of the dark, or absence of image, which reveals a furiously suppressed unconscious, the result of the years of abuse that all civilised children undergo; being ignored, confined, poisoned and prevented from selfless communion with their own nature. This leads to fear of the dark which, like fear of death, results from the rampant egoism of the sick and corrupted child, which views the entire universe as an enemy or as an extension of itself (hence the childish need to blame objects for one’s problems; it is the hammer’s fault I banged my finger). Anything which even suggests the reality of the other is a source of frustration, fear or dread.

The egoism of the corrupted child cuts off both subjective and objective routes to the other. Subjectively, the infantile mind is self-absorbed, unable to experience a conscious stillness that reaches beyond my self. Objectively, all experience is translated into what I want or don’t want; no fact, no limit can intrude upon the rampant desires of the retarded self, the inevitable consequences of which being 1) a mania for specialness (the obsessively curated opposite of generous uniqueness) 2) an inability to empathically experience other people and things (and therefore; immorality), 3) either common-or-garden stupidity or the forceful void of mere intellect and 4) constant contention; the arguments of children, in which experience is replaced with mere emphasis; a series of egoic assertions more or less cleverly concealed or, if none of that works, spite, sarcasm and sadism.

Pathological egoism demands total stasis; an unchanging (albeit, to satisfy egoic restlessness, ever novel) state of total, numbed, security. This is why the civilised child-mind depends on parental surrogates—professionals, celebrities, authorities—and yearns to return to the womb, imagined as a technosphere in which all needs are immediately met and in which no threats—above all no responsibility—can ever intrude. This, the chthonic techno-matrix of the foetal-mind, is civilisation’s terminus.

unquote.

i suggest you visit his site