The War of Ideas: A Guide

For those interested in the trends whereby fundamental ideas are laid out in a simple and easy to follow list of inevitable conflicts about what the world will believe in during the future, I have provided the list below to follow the trends clearly and easily.  The wise would be enlightened by picking the side of the eventual winner to avoid any political embarrassment in their future.

Politics, Political and Moral Philosophy

Man made global warming vs. Global warming denial (Eventual winner: Man made global warming)

Democratic absolutism (Democracy is always right) vs. Democratic relativism (Democracy is only right some of the time)  (Eventual winner:  Democratic relativism)

Absolute Rightism (Human rights are the basis of the highest law) vs. Relative Rightism (Human rights are not the highest law)  (Eventual winner:  Relative Rightism)

Statism (The state secures the people) vs. Antistatism (The people secure themselves)  (Eventual winner: Anti-statism)

Capitalism (The means of production are owned by the owners) vs. Anti-capitalism (The means of production are subject to change by whim of the powers (whoever they may be)).  (Eventual winner: Anti-capitalism)

Communism (Society should be modeled on the basis of the ideal of the commune) vs. Anti-communism (Society is free to choose its own model of cultural development)  (Eventual winner:  Anti-communism)

Collectivism (A group of individuals acting in concert may define the individual through collective agreement) vs. Individualism (An individual is self defined)  (Eventual winner:  Individualism)

Moralism (A group of individuals represented by a state or church institution may use the force of the state or church to repress the rights of the individual to self determination) vs. Libertarianism (The rights to self determination shall not be infringed)  (Eventual winner: Libertariansim)

Absolutism (Definitions are real and absolute) vs. Relativism (No definitions exist) (Eventual winner: Absolutism)

Anarchism (No laws are valid) vs. Legalism (Laws are valid and will be enforced) (Eventual winner: Legalism)

Religion (The institution of thought is regulated by a central regimented body such as a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or school) vs. Thoughtism (All thought is free thought, an institution of learning may not impose regulation upon the mind) (Eventual winner: Thoughtism)

Personal Property (Some property belongs to the individual) vs Collective Property (All property belongs to the collective) (Eventual winner: Personal Property)

Science vs. Anti-Science (Eventual winner: Science)

Metaphysics vs. Realism (Eventual winner: Metaphysics)

Learning vs. Anti-learning (Eventual winner: Learning)

Intellectualization vs. Anti-Intellectualization (Eventual winner: Intellectualization)

Intellectualization vs. Spritualization (Eventual winner: Spiritualization)

Multiculturalism vs. Monoculturalism (Eventual winner:Multiculturalism)

Survivalism (The right to exist) vs. Legalism (Laws are valid and will be enforced) (Eventual winner: Survivalism)  Special proof: Legality cannot include killing as defined by the law and through the law of the absolute.  As a philosophy legalism bases it's foundation upon the notion of justice and divine judgement.  According to this, the idea that killing is invalid is implanted in the law of the highest, that of Love, Good, and Truth itself.  As such survivalism is always valid for the individual.  While the right to exist may be revoked, it cannot be revoked by legalism itself.  Only collectivism (see below) provides the justification, greater survival vs. lesser survival.  Collectivism, however, is not a law but a principle.  However one's life is always worth more in right thinking individuals than any written law for it represents an authority outside one's self deciding one's survival and ultimately fate.  As such one may say that Life is the highest Law under which all Law must give credence.

Survivalism (the right philosophy of Life) then invalidates Legalism (the right of the collective to create rules for others through the rule that the law is valid and will be enforced).   The Law may not invalidate the Highest Law on principle except temporarily which disappoints it's premise of authority automatically and begins a revolution instantly.  Legalists beware!  Honor life or face the consequences.  This is not an argument than can ever be won on the grounds of Legalism.  Legalism offers no protection against revolutionary resistance.

Survivalism (The right to exist) vs Collectivism (A group of individuals acting in concert may define the individual through collective agreement) (Eventual winner: Collectivism)  Special proof: The group is always stronger than the individual.  While the group cannot win the philosophical battle with the right to personal self identification we call Individualism, it can destroy the individual's right to exist by attack.  This is self evident.  While it may be morally wrong depending on the circumstances, history and logic offer proof that the will of the many is greater than the will of the one to survive in the vast majority of cases.  As such, the right to exist may be revoked by the collective at any moment.  This includes the power of the Earth herself as the greater collective to revoke the right of humans to their own survival should they choose to ignore their responsibilities in their environment.  The only exception to this rule is if the individual is stronger than the group and acts first to destroy it.  However as a human question of the political will of hundreds and greater communities, no individual has the power as of yet to challenge such a consensus.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or of the one. - Mr. Spook from Star Trek

Force vs. Thought (Eventual winner: Force)  Special proof: While thought wins out collectively if it survives, force kills the individual potentially.  It is wise to remember that Force is greater than thought.  To ignore Force as a power is unwise.  Force, if backed by will, can erase any thought from the minds of this world temporarily.  While thought is greater if all know it or if the power is on the side of those that know it, it is the force of the thoughtful that makes them equal to the force of the unthouthful.  This is true because the thought itself has no force behind it.  Force fused with thought makes the change successful. Thought without force leaves the thinker unable to realize their objective.

Fascism (The collective have the right of force to enforce conformity of thought through violence) vs. Anti-Fascism (Violence to establish conformity is wrong and must be opposed) (Eventual winner: Anti-Fascism) Special Proof:  Fascism is an end justifies the means philosophy epitomizing ruthlessness for collective action.  A natural enemy of Anarchism and Anti-Fascism alike, it is strong against the later but weak against the former.  At the same time, Fascism always stands on shaky ground even against Anarchism.  Fascism always creates resistance that ends in its downfall.  As such those opposing Anarchism on the basis of Fascism will lose eventually to Anti-Fascism even if they win against Anarchism.

Violence always creates opposition, and if it successfully crushes one opposition must then move to the next and the next until total conformity is reached.  Fascism thus, when Anti-Fascism doesn't exist, tends to end up in war with itself over which brand of Fascism has the most force.  Fascism believes in the absolute value of force over argument.  It tends towards purging intellectuals to control thought.  It doesn't stop once it is formed until all opposition is destroyed.  As such Fascism represents the quintessential philosophy in opposition to humanity.  It must always be opposed by Anti-Fascism because to ignore this duty is to invite destruction upon one's self if one holds Anti-Fascist ideals.

Spiritual and Metaphysical Questions and Related Philosophical Matters

Divine Phasic Monotheistic Dualism (God and Goddess of Light) vs. Divine Nonphasic Monotheistic Dualism (God of Light or Goddess of Light without the other) (Eventual winner: Divine Phasic Monotheistic Dualism)  Special proof:  A spiritual tradition of the light centered on a singular source such as the religions of the West are imbalanced if this source is not paired with an opposite of the opposite polarity.  Without a Goddess of Light, a patriarchy is imbalanced as a philosophical tradition.  The same with a matriarchy if the God of Light is absent.  For what value these traditions offer, they offer more if they have both energies accounted for.

You will notice that I only talk of dualism not singularism.  And you will see why shortly.

Singularism (the idea that there is no polarity, that everything is the same, and it is one) vs. Dualism (the idea that polarity is real and reflected in the world around us) (Eventual winner: Dualism) Special Proof:  Singularism cannot stand in this world.  For proof of the unity of all things into one you cannot both exist in a universe of many faces and forms independent of your own existence and simultaneously claim proof of the unity of all these things into one when that one is not accessible to your consciousness.

Dualism stands in this world as testament to the fact that the other exists and he, she, or it isn't you!  And if that is true in this world, then by definition it is true in all worlds as long as this world exists.  Since denying the existence of this world is impossible, then dualism is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt here, which means it is proved everywhere that here is real. 

Singularism creates the basis for the rejection of the feminine as being part of the masculine.  The feminine and masculine are two distinct phases of existence.  They cannot be the same phase and this is proven without any thought.  But for certain philosophical notions at the heart of an irrational patriarchy, this is common sense to everyone.  Singularism is a waste of time except for its application to the unification principle of wholeism, which allows an individual to exist as an undivided whole within one's own experience.

Singularism is real however, but not in any world or plane.  However proof of singularism cannot exist in any place of separation.  Singularism, or Truth, is a place of no separation where duality is no longer real.  In this world, and in any world or plane of separation, what is real is the dream.  It is the dream that gives rise to duality, and the dream lasts as long as the process lasts and as long as the wheel turn.  It is then, an only then, that one can truly step into permanent singularism for a moment and become all in light for that moment.  But eventually, the being must leave again that state to create a new separate existence in time. 

Dualism always wins, and singularism always loses, but that is only from the point of view of dualism.  Singularism does not have a point of view.  It just is all encompassing of everything that is ultimately real, not apparently real.  This is a very subtle philosophical point because it is made without the experience of singularism to know what it is.  But, it is obvious from the study of existence that the state of singularity exists as a center of experience beyond time, matter, and everything else in the 3-d world and I would argue any other dimensional world (4d, 5d, + to infinity). 

Yet the fractal of singularity, the light at the center of all, egoless and unseparate, exists as the ultimate state of being.  It's existence hinted at as the destination of all journeys into duality and separation.  What is it?  No one can know until they find it.  But for the rest of eternity, separation plagues the mortals of all worlds for the wheel of life must turn, and the work must be done forever.  Though for the vast majority, this is not a matter of concern and they are at peace with who they are.

Reincarnation vs. Non-Reincarnation (Eventual winner: Reincarnation)

Islam/Christianity/Judaism vs. Anti-Islam/Anti-Christianity/Anti-Judaism (Eventual winner: Islam/Christianity/Judaism)  Special Proof: As core arguments of principle each of these major religions will simply evolve to any series of arguments used against them until they eventually fuse into a single religion with time or a single mysticism with time.  Atheism will be the key opposition here but other ideas will also emerge questioning their essential practical value.  Eventually the historicity of these three religions is the greatest argument for their permanent mention in human history and as a continual spiritual argument through new advanced perspectives.  The anti positions will always lose because they will fuel the pro positions.

The militancy of the believers of these three religions means that every time they are challenged a pro-active pre-emption on their part will always keep them alive until the appropriate spiritual solution is found dealing with the fundamental questions they raise.

Pantheism (the worship of nature) vs. Realist Atheism (the rejection of all theism and by extension all non physical spiritual beliefs) (Eventual winner: Pantheism)  Special Proof:  General or Realist Atheism argues that there is no fundamental spiritual truth that can be found outside of the physical perspective of realism.  While highly practical in its focus on this world, it lacks appreciation for larger themes of creation.  It also must assume no reincarnation with a single life that begins and ends with your personal experience.  Ideas such as ecospirituality thus would be rejected by atheism as being sentimental and not real.  Because Atheism limits the experience of people in this regard, it cannot have a eternal appeal for the people of the planet.

The worship of nature will become increasingly popular with time as an outlet for people's desire to be part of something more than a purely realist physicality as supported by realist Atheism.  As such Atheism is doomed to die by the hand of a million artists who will make these future Pantheistic practices part of the day to day life of the deep time future (see my Prophecy for suggested thoughts concerning this matter).  But this will take, in my guesstimate, approximately 2200 years or so based on the idea that the Age of Aquarius is the Age of Realist Atheism.

Metaphysics vs Realism (Eventual winner: Metaphysics)  Special proof:  Realism's best argument is the idea that the cosmos is infinite and everlasting.  A creation event cannot be described in a non-infinite and everlasting cosmos without referencing a higher dimensional property which created it.  While such a property could be considered scientific in 4th and higher dimensional math, realists base their argument on the idea that this universe is the only place that exists in the whole of reality.

In the event that we live in an infinite and everlasting cosmos, realism runs into another problem in that the argument for reincarnation as a form of soul justice is unquestionable in an extended analysis of what constitutes justice in the divine sense, especially for those who did not fulfill the expectations of their lives.  Metaphysics thus becomes a dominant idea because of this concept of spiritual rights that goes beyond what we experience in any individual life.  Reincarnation then leads to other ideas that have to be considered.

Static Cosmos vs. Expanding Cosmos (Eventual winner: Expanding Cosmos) Special Proof: If the cosmos is static, then everything that exists is constrained by the problem of timing.  As beings grow over time their desires expand, so there is a constant need for new souls to provide the context for that experience.  If no new souls are created, then the eternal recycling of existing souls must keep the balance, but then this violates the principle of evolution and the principle of divine relationship.

For instance a being that is far more advanced than another will not go down in evolution to become that other beings pet chihuahua.  Instead it is far more likely that a new soul will rise up to take that place.  Because it would logically be a desire of beings in the cosmos to see the generation of new souls through new evolution, it is clear that the divine desire here favors an expanding cosmos of one type or another as part of the justice for desire.  This idea should not be confused with the idea of the electron and it's expansion in the universe.


The Big Bang vs. Anti Big Bang (Eventual winner: Anti-Big Bang)  Special Proof:  I have written the Core Essay exploring this question but others have written on the problems of the Big Bang cosmology extensively including Mark McCutcheon who I reference often.

Standard Quantum Physics vs. Expansion Pressure Physics (Eventual winner: Expansion Pressure Physics)  Special Proof: Again, see the Core Essay and read The Final Theory by Mark McCutcheon.