The Sociological Bipolar Landscape

A Bit of History

Nazi Germany was an example of a society and culture that formed a Darmarch collective. In contrast, Soviet Russia and Maoist China formed a Soterine collective. Consider:

The Nazis	The Soviets and Maoists (Marxists)
Infatuation
Were infatuated with superiority, a favored mode of domination.	Were infatuated with equity. This is the “leveling” energy of the Soterine.
Authoritarianism
They killed according to racial distinctions and demands for obedience. They killed upwards of 6 million to satisfy their goals.	They killed according to social class and demands for obedience. In the 20th century, Marxists killed upwards of 100 million to satisfy their goals.
The Fundamental Wrong
Their notion of the fundamental wrong pertained to “inferior” racial groups, or subversive religions, all of which they hated.	Their notion of the fundamental wrong pertained to wealth/excellence. As a polar opposite of Nazism, they hate people who are demonstrably successful or accomplished.
The Nation as Parent
Incidentally, as if in alignment to the Darmarch patriarch energy, the Nazis referred to their nation as “the fatherland”.	Incidentally, as if in alignment to the Soterine matriarch energy, the Soviets referred to their nation as “the motherland”.

Still, there exists something of a Yin-Yang duality between fascists and Marxists. The Nazis were obsessed with the arbitrary morality of superiority, and the Marxists were obsessed with the superiority of arbitrary morality. Meanwhile, in accordance with their corrupted innocence, and their mutual hatred of each other, both of these Archonic energies assert their core testimonies:

• The Marxists declared their hatred of fascists and capitalists.
• The Nazis declared their hatred of Marxists and capitalists.

This shared hatred of capitalism is due to the association of capitalism with “natural rights”. For clarity, natural rights deserve its own explanation.

Natural Rights and Maturity

“We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting all capitalism.”

— Adolf Hitler

The Anglo-American Enlightenment advanced a theory of natural rights—the idea that individuals possess inherent rights that do not originate from government. Inherent to natural rights are two dynamics. First, the rights of the individual are above the rights of the state. Indeed, the state serves to protect the rights of the individual - rather than the individual serving the state. Second, and accordingly, the individual has agency embodied as both personal liberty and personal responsibility. In broad terms this philosophy, where individual agency is paramount, favors limited government.

All the aforementioned contrasts with the philosophy of socialism, particularly as practiced by Nazism and Marxism, which intrinsically produces totalitarianism. Note the differences:

Natural Rights (i.e. Limited Government)	Totalitarianism
Freedom of religion	Oversight or control of religion
Freedom of speech	Oversight or control of speech
The right to bear arms	Oversight or prohibition of firearms
Private property	Private property is provisional (Nazis) or doesn’t exist (Marxists)
Free markets (aka “capitalism”)	Directed economy (Nazis) or command economy (Marxists)

The differences indicated above can also be recognized in a different, but familiar form. It is the difference between treating people as adults, or treating people as children. Indeed socialism’s connection to outright parenting of children is striking. Imagine a farm run by a family in the 1800’s:

The Family Farm	Socialism
The older children must work harder on the farm than the younger children.	“From each according to their ability”.
The younger children, or those who are sick, may require significantly more care than the rest.	“To each according to their need”.
All children are given equal clothing and housing. The grades each receives in school do not influence their rewards.	Selective meritocracy (viz. Nazis) or No meritocracy (viz. Marxism).
The parents do not permit children to independently make their own contracts, such as a child trading his fishing rod for a neighbor child’s shoes.	No free markets. The state has oversight of contracts to regulate them, or dictate them outright.
The children’s religion is largely determined by the parents.	Religion is regulated or determined by the state.
A young child should not have access to a gun. Yet if a young child does have a gun, and wounds a sibling with it, the child is not at fault - instead the fault is the gun.	Gun violence is “solved” by the government, by restricting or not allowing guns. If someone does cause gun violence, the fault is the gun.

The Zero Sum Game

The aforementioned family dynamic also explains the “zero sum game” worldview that is inherent in socialism. If three young children have one “favorite toy” between them, all they can do is fight over the toy. For one child to have the toy, this means the other two siblings must “lose”. This is because young children, though endowed with formidable imaginations, generally aren’t endowed with the capacity to create. Said differently, it isn’t likely that a five year-old will manufacture an equivalent “favorite toy”. For a second or third such toy to exist, at least from the perspective of the children, a parent must simply provide either a new toy or the money for such a toy.

In other words the “economy”, from the perspective of children, is normally a closed system - a “zero sum game” - unless a parent intervenes. When this dynamic is brought into politics, it translates into the presumption that the state - acting like a parent - is what magically supplies that which is missing from the closed system.

How this zero sum game plays out is handled differently by Darmarch and Soterine energies. To the Darmarch, the zero sum game battle is conceptually between multiple competing families. This is why the Nazis pitted race, with the intent to exterminate, against other races. To the Soterine, the zero sum game battle is instead internal to one giant family - usually seen through the lens of social class. Thus Marxists aren’t interested in exterminating other races or nations - but instead Marxism wishes to absorb them. In alignment with immature feminine energy, this is the “devouring mother”.

In Short: Peers and Equality

The reason that capitalism is hated by socialists, whether fascists or Marxists, is because it represents the broader freedom of natural rights - which is a model that treats people as though they are adults who can make their own decisions.

“As socialists, we are opponents of the Jews, because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism”

— Joseph Goebbels

“I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must.”

— Joseph Goebbels

The immature Rebis, anchored in “arrested development”, cannot see the world beyond the framework of “parent and child”. Indeed toxic shame, the core energy of arrested development, results in dividing everyone into three categories: those who are inferior (e.g. like children), those who are superior (e.g. like a parent), and those who are enemies. In the realm of such arrested development, there is little room for the notion of a “peer”. And when people who share such arrested development collectivize, it leads towards a movement or form of government which mimics this model. Such a movement that lacks a concept of “peers”, is a movement that is incapable of equality - no matter its claims to the contrary. Said in reverse, only emotionally mature adults are capable of achieving a harmonious society.

Self-Sabotage

When collectivized, both the Darmarch and Soterine seek their own version of utopia. However, it is not possible to create a beautiful, healed, or enlightened society based on immaturity and absolutism - no less the resentments each embody. Thus these collectivized energies always result in dystopia.

Long before the Nazis were defeated, they had already created a nightmare dystopia. Yet if the Nazis had defeated the Allied Powers, their pursuit of the alleged Aryan superior race would eventually have resulted in a dystopian end-game: they would start to “eat themselves” by distinguishing between superior and inferior Aryans. Again, an example of an incapacity to conceptualize “peers” in a mature fashion. Their quest for Darmarch dominance would never be quenched, because they still would never have resolved the original inner wound of toxic shame.

Likewise Marxists have their own unique self-defeating pattern. Driven by Soterine energy, they are typically possessed by a Savior Complex. Accordingly they are obsessed with a mission to save the world, through anti-dominance “leveling” of any and all perceived disparities. Every people-group that “has less” is automatically deemed innocent and in need of salvation, and every people-group that “has more”…or more precisely “has the most”…is automatically evil and must be destroyed. This attitude inherently requires intense divisiveness and thus, as with the Darmarch, this eventually also leads to “eating themselves”. No matter how much “saving” the Soterine allegedly achieves, it is a thirst that is never satisfied. Always a new “has more” enemy must be identified, in a never-ending loop. In sum, it is still the poison of a “zero sum game”.

The State of Humanity

The fact that entire nations of people become possessed of these energies is testament to how common they are. Having an immature Rebis, resulting in a bipolar disorder of Darmarch and/or Soterine, is not rare. Rather, it is a common state for much of the teaming masses of humanity. Granted, maturity and immaturity is not a binary. It is more of a spectrum. Indeed if maturity were a scale of 1 to 10, likely 95% of humanity is “slotted” at one of the positions between 1 through 7. And, more soberly, easily 85% of humanity likely exists between 1 through 5. Thus the wide “base of the triangle” for the Rebis isn’t just a reflection of bi-polar positions, but also the expanse of where most of humanity fits.

This observation can be approached in reverse. A fully mature Rebis is nothing short of an enlightened person. And the number of truly enlightened people - a Rebis maturity of “10” - is an exceedingly tiny fraction of the global population. It would be easier to represent as a count, rather than a percentage.

Ironically, however, those who are embroiled in the Archonic evil - the deepest entanglement with immaturity - are the most likely to see themselves as having a superior moral or existential stance. The Nazis would be quick to tell you that they have a vision too sublime for inferior people to accept. Likewise the Marxists see themselves as having the highest form of moral existence - all others are deplorable. In short, the immature Rebis has neither the maturity nor humility to self-reflect upon inward flaws. And the greater the immaturity, ironically, the higher is the confidence “my way is the only way of truth or righteousness”.

Ascension and Blindness

The fundamental path of the mature Rebis, as stated previously, is the “union of opposites”. It is an incremental path of ascension which integrates the divine masculine and divine feminine - without extinguishing or minimizing either. It is also the path of maturation where childish ways, bit by bit, are left behind. Thus indeed the way of “natural rights” can be viewed as a societal-level step, however imperfect, towards ascension.

Nevertheless, it is safe to suggest that no society or large community has ever achieved the fully mature Rebis. Instead, the most enlightened society that has ever existed (with or without “natural rights”) likely found itself perhaps somewhere beneath the half-way mark of the Rebis. This presumed “still not enlightened”, and nevertheless “most mature” societal example, is called the mesolucent society.

Yet to complicate matters, any collective that exists substantially as either Darmarch or Soterine has no ability to recognize the mesolucent society, no less a truly enlightened society. Thus any community that exists outside of the Darmarch “corner” will be viewed as evil - according to the Darmarchs. Likewise, any community that exists anywhere outside the Soterine “corner” will be viewed as evil, according to the Soterines. For example, notice the red shading of “evil” below, as understood by Soterines.

Using Marxists as a case study of the Soterine, this is why Marxists hate both fascists and capitalists; Capitalism belongs to “natural rights” where, in turn, natural rights belong to a mesolucent society. Yet to the Soterine, it’s all the same evil. Indeed Marxists are unable to recognize the difference between fascism and capitalism (viz. natural rights). Nor do they care to understand the difference. In fact, usually Marxists will assert and argue ad nauseum that the Nazis were capitalists or that, in general, fascists are capitalists. And of course the Nazis, as a case study of the Darmarch, had the identical but reverse myopic problem.

“Capitalism and Bolshevism (Marxism) are the two sides of the same international Jewish coin.”

— Adolf Hitler

The Darmarch and Soterine have this blindness due to a lack of abstract thinking. And once again, the absence of abstract thinking is caused by the immaturity of “arrested development”.

The Mature Rebis

The mature Rebis does not destroy the evil energies of the Darmarch and Soterine. Indeed it doesn’t even diminish them. Instead it transmutes and integrates them. Thus someone reflecting a mature Rebis will still exercise “domination”, as that is an attribute of the divine masculine, but it is a domination that no longer originates from narcissism, zero-sum-game, or exclusionism. Furthermore, in alignment with Yin-Yang ethos, a person attaining a mature Rebis has simultaneously incorporated the “leveling” of the Soterine. That is, the “leveling” now becomes harmony rather than reflexive hatred of anything that exhibits dominion or excellence.

The immature Rebis, which does not think through a lens of abstraction, is not capable of processing this vision of transmutation. For example, excellence in mathematics or music theory is a non-exclusionary form of dominance. Such pursuits are mature. Yet, for example, cultural Marxists are quick to identify such forms of excellence as acts of oppression. Indeed, to cultural Marxists these constitute “white supremacy”. This pejorative is partly a result of the Soterine inability to distinguish genuine evil versus genuine good, and partly because the Soterine believes itself to have “supreme” virtue…a supremacy that is then shadow projected.

Now contrast the above Soterine view with the famous speech of Martin Luther King Junior. King said “I have a dream that [my children] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Unfortunately, to cultural Marxists, even the color-blind words of this speech constitute “white supremacy”.

Collectivism/Nationalism

Incidentally, it is not collectivism itself that is evil. Likewise, it is not nationalism itself that is evil. Consider what each of these are:

• Collectivism: The group, whether family, community, class, or nation, is considered the fundamental unit - generally for the purpose of support or self-promotion.
• Nationalism: support for and promotion of the political independence of a nation or people.

The “long civil rights” movement of the United States, with goals of achieving full legal, political, and economic citizenship for Black Americans, was an example of a positive outcome from behavior that was collectivist and/or nationalist in nature. What makes either collectivism or nationalism “evil”, is when it exhibits or promotes immaturity in general or malignant narcissism in particular. In that case, such movements go beyond “self-help” and thereafter bring harm to others - whether implicitly or intentionally.

The Nazis were an example of such malignant narcissism, and thus rather than calling them “nationalists” - a more helpful term might be “ultra-nationalists”. Said concretely, they weren’t satisfied merely with giving Germans or Aryans a better life; they simultaneously wished to disenfranchise or crush others.

Furthermore, a collectivism or nationalism that started out good - can later become evil. For example, after the long civil rights movement which culminated in 1965, there came a 1960’s “post–civil rights” era that drifted into ultra-nationalism. Similarly, the original “homophile” movement (roughly 1960’s to 1980’s) began as merely “nationalistic”. Eventually however, political forces incrementally sought to hijack the movement, growing it into the “LGBTQIA” ultra-nationalist movement - particularly from the 2010’s onward. In this latest manifestation, such queer ultra-nationalism is used as a cudgel to destroy anything standing in the way of the Soterine ethos.