Shane Eide 2-18-2019
August 2, 2018
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.