Shane Eide 2-18-2019
December 25, 2017
Some will, perhaps, see it quite an unfortunate event that the mythic element of life should return in such a guise as occult politics but it is perhaps a necessary form for now. It embodies, not only a true metaphysical clash between the sacred and the secular which is not directly susceptible to the exoteric narrative of any one particular religious dogma, but presents a challenge to mankind to scale the mountain of gradation-but to scale the mountain, one must know where it is to begin with. It inspires in man a transcendent height to be reached, but also instills in him a concomitant immanence which is ever moved toward this plain, perhaps even closing an eschatological circle. Perhaps it is only an embracement of some dark Hegelianism on crack.
But let's face it-more than all of this poetic/mythic dressing, it is a game, a sport, much in the way I described conspiracy theory. However, perhaps one can bring to this game a new level of rigor and precision, careful to leave alone that which will initiate some harm, while exploring those active features of the world which reoccur and repattern without visible explanation.
Far more than secret societies, occult political theory is interested in what secrets secret societies themselves cannot touch.
Occult political theory sees the phenomena of the hidden rather in the manner that the Greeks viewed their gods: the gods were indifferent and impersonal, performing their functions as was needed, governing the order of the world without direct interference. Occult political theory, seeing even laws as contingencies, treats memes, currents and forces, not as synonymous with the various cabals and coos which embody them and carry them out, but rather, as metaphysical realities which will diminish when their time is due and perhaps rise again in a new form one day.
Does one combat such an understanding of the world or does one accept it? It depends entirely on what these terms mean. The best form of combat may be accepting it, while to combat it may be simply a way of validating it. There are those who are swept up in the activity that comes with these forces-those involved in cabals and coos. On the other hand, there are simply everyday people, objects in a top-down regulated structural force without being much aware of it. In any event, the only thing to really do is to accumulate a higher degree of awareness. Does one ride this or that current or denounce it all? The answer to this question can only be arrived at through one's apprehension of one's path and its position within the world.
One can only begin to ascertain the nature of occult politics when one understands that it is merely one inevitably hidden domain of life among many.
It is a matter of indifference as to whether or not might is right. However, one has taken a great misstep if one assumes that might is simply physical strength. Might is also cunningness. Cunningness operates most thoroughly where there is a loud enough, bombastic enough theater to keep the audience watching.
The west has always been secular at heart. But the secular is not any true abrogation of the sacred; such is to be found within the bounds of religion in the realm of a certain set of sequential, theological evolutions. Rather, secularism hides its true divinity in the most uncanny of places, letting it percolate only through ideologies which are as self-perpetuating as they are contagious. Secularism denies itself the ritual equipment which would provide its own functional self-critique. In other words, it is actively deactivating, which can, in the end, only feed back into its opposite. Secularism is Manichean. Conspiracy theory is a hyper-extension of this secular Manichaeism, in which phenomena is not studied on its own terms, but rather, in which something akin to a wicked apostolic succession is traced in order to distinguish the world as belonging to the devil, thus re-sacralizing what is beyond the world. Conspiracy theory tries to reclaim the esoteric after the exoteric has been destroyed, but it uses so many disparate parts whose memes are entirely dependent on a good vs. evil scheme.
Another difference between a Machiavellian approach and a Lao Tzuian approach might even be the difference between a modern engagement and an antiquated engagement with occult politics. Machiavelli may represent the modern consensus of information: an accretion of techniques gathered through observation, thus allowing one to redistribute the role of consensus, while Lao Tzu's antiquation (having become antiquated through an act of vanishing or becoming diffuse) would be, rather, an accretion of experience itself and not just experience but a direct appropriation of non-being.
Occult political theory, more than strictly a political science, is the scientific method applied to politics in its totality; not isolated to a few provincial economic structures and trending cultural memes. Most people define their personal political positions according to a very limited set of features by which the current day have defined them. One person focuses on the textbook, historical definition of a position, another focuses on the economic system they would most favor, while another has an entirely mythic, romantic vision which transcends the actual history of their position.
That which is hidden in politics is not simply hidden by way of some formal or ideological overlay (at least, not always). Often, there is a gravital center into which observable phenomena falls. One could consider this the form of a structure or situation. It is mindless, even if it appears to have a will. Those who act as its agents are not at the top, as much as they appear to be. They are themselves dupes in a self-perpetuating myth that is constantly telling them and us anew. This is what separates occult politics from conspiracy theory, or rather, why occult politics goes beyond conspiracy theory: it recognizes mechanisms of control only as results, much like the babble of the talking cure is only the result of the subconscious. Conspiracy, deep state, the military industrial complex-these are all convenient masks to a set of drives determined through an ontological register which is so hidden as to be synonymous with the very nature of the hidden itself. But is this surprising? Can it even be said that we know and understand ourselves, much less events?
Lao Tzu and Machiavelli represent opposite poles of the same phenomenon. Machiavelli understands the true nature of force and aggression, hidden within the voluntary transactions and the convenient social gestures which comprise political activity. Lao Tzu, on the other hand, recognizes that order can take care of itself, often with the sovereign making only those minor adjustments meant to maintain harmony. Lao Tzu's sovereign works from the bottom up; Machiavelli's from the top down. Machiavellian politics is personal but works best if the personal is masked by the social. Lao Tzu's politics are impersonal, but are most efficient when masked by the personal. There are many Machiavelli's in the world, some of whom are discoverable, some of whom are more cunning and harder to find. The Lao Tzu's are harder to discover, since their place in the chain of cause and effect is not determined through the progression that extends from the individual to the community-rather, the Lao Tzu's of this world have absorbed both as passive features of an internalized process and objectify both. One needs only the right information to discover the intentions of a Machiavelli. One, however, must become a Lao Tzu if one wishes to discover the intentions of a Lao Tzu.
That which announces itself outright is the excreta of that which is not announced. It is hidden by that very announcement. The theater of history is plagued as much by the lust of event as it is by the open interpretation of parties which most benefit from being either benefactors of enunciated events or victims.
It is with terrible haste and concision that culture, with the help of the internet, has been able to reach singularity concerning those anthropomorphic centers of hermeticism.