# Tribopoiesis -- Everything begins and ends with The Sociont The ground moves beneath our feet; existence and our society now changes so rapidly that even those who try to stay away and hide eventually are compelled to step out into a world which in essential respects is completely new. The three major megatrends that more than anything else shape the shift to informationalism are *digitalization*, [[Nodalization]] and *globalization.* This entire complex, cohesive process is a result of the interactive revolution (see [[The Global Empire]]). In important aspects this process entails a return to age-old patterns, albeit -- needles to say -- in a powerfully updated version. Digitalization reawakens the sociobiologically preprogrammed [[The Sociont|sociont]] within Man and leads, on the collective level, to what we call *psychological tribalism*. The ensuing nodalization reawakens a passion for the common language and the common history, which in turn constitute the prerequisites for an old-school *sociological nationalism*. This development occurs simultaneously and in parallel with the technological revolution -- which is completely indifferent to every type of national border -- blasting off in the direction of a rapidly stepped-up globalization. World society got what we must regard as a global constitution with the breakthrough of informationalism as early as in the 1980s in the form of *the Internet Protocol,* and the entire phenomenon that we refer to as *technological imperialism*. One could also view this from a different angle: The information society is characterized by a *technoimperialism* at the global level, by a *socionationalism* at the regional level, and by a *psychotribalism* at the local level. And the class structure of the emerging society is quickly shaped according to a corresponding pattern: we can discern a structure with the global netocracy and its *anywheres* atop (see David Goodhart's influential book *The Road to Somewhere*), the regional consumtariat in the middle, and the local consumtariat and its *somewheres* at the bottom. While technology pushes for increased globalization, large population groups -- primarily the old upper class and the new underclass -- understandably react with vociferous demands for intensified isolation and a tougher drawing of boundaries. This is a recurring and wholly logical phenomenon in revolutionary times which is called *impansionism* and in summary it means that every group identifies its interests and makes an effort to promote these with all available means. At the same time as we further ahead see a netocratic elite emerge that need not care about physical geography at all; in the horizon we witness a paradigmatic exodus consisting of *everywheres*. The study of the human original tribe, *the sociont,* a phase of civilization that lasted for at least 60,000 years -- and during which almost all our species-distinguishing genes were shaped -- is called [[Sociontology]]. If the Planck length, named after German physicist Max Planck, is used as the smallest meaningful unit of length within the natural sciences, the same goes for *Dunbar's number*, named after British sociologist Roger Dunbar, within sociontology. This Dunbar's number is usually estimated at 150 -- it simply estimates how many people with whom one single person can maintain lasting social relationships -- although it actually displays a remarkable flexibility in the interval between 100 and 250. And this plasticity is needed for us to be able to explain the differences in terms of the need and capacity to handle strangers within the tribe's inner circuit, its outer circuit, and within the shamanic caste. Within sociontology, social units that comprise a number of people corresponding to Dunbar's number are customarily called *clans*. Several clans then join to form *tribes*, which makes sociontology a theory and study of *tribalism*. The original sociont balances between clan and tribe in size, depending on needs and purposes. It is a question of the number of fellow humans in the social arena that we have the mental equipment to handle in a functional way. Which means that it also is a question of our ability for collective interplay, which in turn means that the individualism that eventually emerges in the wake of humanism should be regarded as nothing but the sociont's neurotic perversion. Rather it is when we humans have no other social archetype to fall back on to structure our collective interaction, it is the sociont and only the sociont that has any relevance whatsoever. Sociontology's development as a computer science entails a radical reckoning with liberalism's [[Individualism]] and socialism's *collectivism*, both of which collapse under pressure from the increasingly expanding digital subcultures. It is rather the case that neither the individual nor the collective has any anchoring whatsoever in the sociobiology that was formed during the sociont's extended existence. Quite the contrary. The sociont shaped Man to a fundamentally tribal creature, where the dividual person and the group in question are the same sort of dividuals, albeit that they appear in different guises and also at different stages of emergence. Thus human existence is most deeply viewed dividualist and tribalist. There really is no further need for the individuals or collectives that the capitalist epoch required and therefore also conjured up from fantasy as part of its ambitious ideology production. What we instead observe is how society goes through an enormous *retribalization* during informationalism. The strongest membrane can once again be found around the sociont itself, what Arabian renaissance philosopher Ibn Khaldun calls *asabiyya*, the internal loyalty within the sociont that defeats all other values. Ibn Khaldun even claims that *asabiyya* generates an even stronger loyalty among the priests within the sociont, not just *vis-à-vis* the sociont itself, but also as the recurring ambition to keep the deepest secret under the lock and the key that is called [[The Barred Absolute]]. This insight explains why even a crass realist such as Niccolò Machiavelli in renaissance Italy, inspired by Khaldun, despite everything prefers the republic to the despot, quite simply because the republic's socioemotional ties are stronger. A system that prioritizes the privileges of old elites above authentic innovation quickly moves toward its demise -- this is only natural. There has long been a tendency among European thinkers such as Slavoj Žižek and Alain Badiou to get mired in the individualist paradigm that arises with humanism, a paradigm where the subject lives in the emptiness that arises after the subject has killed God and instead longs for a party or a political movement to come and fill the void, which never happens. We call this strained predicament *liberal castration*. However there are other ways of orienting oneself in a landscape without God. In his mammoth trilogy *Spheres*, philosopher Peter Sloterdijk builds a spatial rather than a temporal metaphysics, based on the isolated units that Man uses to make existence comprehensible. Sloterdijk converts Man's phenomenological fixations from bubbles via globes to fluffy foam. The fundamental nomadology, the story of Man as a creature in constant motion, greatly concerns these spheres, their relations to each other, and above all how these must be set in motion to remain alive. ## So how do the immune systems of the spheres work; how do they protect themselves and how do they grow strong, in part when they are stationary, in part when they accelerate anew and move through the topography that is at hand? ## How do the spheres react when an external phallus cracks the codes with which they protect themselves against the surrounding world and penetrates through the enclosing membrane? ## And how does this very reaction determine which of all the spheres dominate exactly which paradigm and under which circumstances this can occur? ## What, for instance, causes the powerful historical swings between on the one hand the sphere of the individual and on the other hand the sphere of the collective? The study of the nature of these spheres and their development is called *membranics,* while the study of the shifting life conditions of these spheres is called [[Paradigmatics]]. Or to give Sloterdijk, a sincere Kantian if ever there was one, the sort of Hegelian constructive criticism his stylish *sphereology* deserves: What is interesting in an age obsessed with network dynamics and relationalism is not the spheres in themselves, but the relations within and between them. This is why Hegelian membranics with its studies of the general boundary rules within and between the spheres is so much more interesting than a Kantian sphereology. While time indefatigably grinds on outside and between the spheres, which means that when time collides with the spheres, each of these receives their own paradigmatics, without any other laws than contingence itself prevailing between the paradigmatically controlled spheres. The single sphere that by far is of greatest importance to Man is his own sociont. And the sociont has its own [[Archetypology]] which is developed during a process that goes under the designation *tribal mapping* (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). The inner circuit is the matriarchy. The outer circuit is the patriarchy. [[The Androgynous Caste]] constitutes the sociont's internal intermediaries, a personification of the membranics of the sexes. *The shamanic caste* however lives in the borderland or gray zone between the various tribes, where the belonging to any of them is never one hundred percent. The shamanic caste thus functions as the sociont's external intermediaries, a personification of the sociont's own membranics. We speak of these odd relatives within the sociont as *the shamanoid archetypes*. There is always an *intra muros*, a world inside the walls, that is characterized by intratribalism. However the shamanoid minority moves unconcernedly on both sides of the walls, which thus are permeable to these exceptional people that are difficult to place and who since birth live in an intertribalist world -- for them the walls are only furnished with diplomatic membranes. And since the shamanoids have received the tribe's assignment to manage *the horizontal diplomacy vis-à-vis* the other socionts, they might just as well enjoy a monopoly on *the vertical diplomacy* with the gods and the spirit world too. Strangers are after all just strangers. Thus it is best to allow all sensitive and potentially violent goings-on to occur outside the walls. We call these external border areas *the shamanic colonies,* and it is there and nowhere else that Man has taken the decisive civilizational steps that it entails to erect temples and set up trading posts. It is perfectly possible to apply this figure of thought to modern history; an illuminating example is historian Thaddeus Russell's important book *A Renegade History of The United States*, where the author convincingly revises American history in its entirety from the perspective of the shamanoids. A more solid *exodological* platform for an America heading into the Internet Age is hard to imagine. Here once again it is inculcated that the shamanoid characters really are *outcasts* in the literal sense of the word; whenever the surrounding world appears menacing and hostile, pattern interpretation and explanation is requested, the shamanic caste is called in to interpret the intentions of gods, demons and strangers alike *vis-à-vis* the sociont. But when the intratribal tensions grow in strength and the lynch mobs are stomping down streets or raging in media channels, then it is the blood of the shamanoids one is after, then these outcasts are the ones who are sacrificed as witches and sorcerers at the heretics' stake. Suddenly all the external contacts, just recently exemplarily beneficial, appear basically suspect and turn these notorious outcasts into perfect scapegoats. The one who has sold his own soul to the Devil and has become an *informer* can hardly believe that there are any innocent worshippers left. We express this apocalyptic state as the anojective drenching the hyperjective in the crowd. Life within the sociont does of course largely hinge on people's ability to find their way around the archetypal categories to thereby enable themselves to become the *erchtype* that mimics the corresponding archetype. Philosopher and anthropologist René Girard terms this extensive imitation that arises within the sociont *mimesis*. And this *mimesis* is without a doubt fundamental both for the human drive system and for the entire social theater that arises around it. Man is a mimetic herd animal. Testimony to this is the persistent search for *the lesser gods* -- that is: the erchtypal mimicking of these icons and idols, a conduct that is connected to an intense yearning for the merciful attention and confirmation from these -- with numbing emphasis. It is not even possible to make the conventional division into masters and slaves without first taking the constant mimicry into consideration. Humans imitate each other absolutely all the time, and with good reason: functional behaviors work, and to deviate from the crowd is frightening and can lead to sundry forms of ejection and isolation. Only he who, in this context, can be labeled heroic can create something novel, and if so, it only occurs as an exception. To create something new is fraught with risk and moreover difficult. The slave therefore does nothing but imitate his environment, which is what makes him precisely a slave. And he moreover does so without caring or understanding why. To unreflectively repeat is what appears natural and anything else would therefore be unthinkable. The slave is stuck in this forced repetition; the direct mimicking thus becomes a kind of curse of one's short-term memory. It lacks both history and future, intelligence and transcendence, which is what the hero strives for and attains in his blessed moments. This is also why mimicking eventually becomes a mimicking of desire in itself, what Girard calls *mimetic desire*. And when mimetic desire is stepped up, there is but one exit remaining: the Cybelian lynch mob and its liberating sacrifice of the more or less arbitrarily chosen scapegoat. It is important in this context to understand that all human societies at many different levels -- clans, tribes, nations and empires -- fundamentally are constructed as antagonisms between the inner life of the sociont and its shamanoid *outcasts*. This is the cohesive force, and Girard demonstrates in his work how the process consists of a regularly recurring *abjectification* of the shamanic caste in the outskirts of society. The internal dynamics in society, both within the inner and outer circuits, is created through mimicry and rivalry. But the mimicry and rivalry in turn create enormous and hard-to-manage tensions over time, tensions that ultimately must be channeled and find an outlet through some suitable victim being selected, that this victim is ripped out of the anonymous mass and appointed scapegoat, to then be slaughtered ritually. After this ritual slaughter the victim is transformed and incorporated with the lesser gods that are iconologically available for the herd members' own worship. No victims then work as well as, or are closer at hand than, the shamanoids who happen to find themselves within the sociont's borders. Thus the abjectification of the shamanic caste serves no less than three different purposes simultaneously. First it separates the shamanoids and keeps these at a considerable distance from both the emotionally driven intrigues of the inner circuit and the methodical strategies of the outer circuit. Secondly the abjectification generates a reassuringly strong cohesion and identity within the entire sociont, whose extension and borders become clear only when it defines itself *vis-à-vis* what lies outside and cannot quite be trusted. And thirdly it offers a liberating outlet for the growing pressure that arises within the sociont through mimicry and rivalry, wherefore society -- if only temporarily -- can heave a sigh of relief and recreate the illusion of stability and social normalcy. Albeit soon enough it is time to repeat the same process anew. During the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, individualism and collectivism turned out to be the pair of opposites whose antagonism could develop the energy that supported capitalism. However this was, and is, a purely intellectual construction; Man is neither individualist nor collectivist. At least not more than he is fundamentally neurotic or psychotic -- the two extreme states that Man tries to balance *vis-à-vis* each other to reach a measure of constructive and creative equilibrium. Both liberalism and socialism thus are built on ideologically colored wishful thinking. Man is fundamentally tribal. His world consists of a safe, intratribal sphere that is built around an *axis mundi*, the axis that unites phallic heaven and matrichal earth. Life within the sociont constantly wrestles with issues of independence, cohesion and hierarchy. In the book *The Righteous Mind* (2012), American psychologist Jonathan Haidt divides these three categories into six subcategories. *Care* (and its opposite harm) corresponds to intimate independence. *Freedom* (and its opposite oppression) corresponds to distanced independence. *Justice* (and its opposite cheating) corresponds to intimate cohesion. *Loyalty* (and its opposite betrayal) corresponds to distanced cohesion. *Authority* (and its opposite subversion) corresponds to intimate hierarchy. While *Sacredness* (and its opposite humiliation) corresponds to distanced hierarchy. But this relatively idyllic world exists in relation to a challenging and often threatening, external, intertribal world. The six subcategories work because they presume a unifying threat outside the membrane. Inside the membrane the subject flourishes, outside the membrane the abject threatens. Within [[Intratribalism]] Man is safe and secure, within [[Intertribalism]] Man is constantly challenged and threatened (see *Digital Libido -- Sex, Power and Violence in the Network Society*). This means that the intellectual challenge that constituted a real threat to the capitalist paradigm was not as widely assumed *the death of God* -- which on the contrary constituted a prerequisite for and cornerstone of the entire project -- but instead *the death of The World*. The solid, cohesive world had been under attack since the Axial Age, with its torrent of self-absorbed gurus and self-help teachers who constantly oppose an understanding of the world as a whole and instead fill all the gaps that emerge with their own narcissistic delusions. Ever since the printing press had its breakthrough in the form of newspapers, books and pamphlets, the pressure against this entire cohesive conceptual world had been overwhelming. Individualism was realized in North America after the Europeans had been ejected and independence had been declared. Cartesian individualism thus became the cohesive American state religion. If Christianity once largely was an imitation of Judaism, in the same way that Judaism can be said to have been an imitation of Zoroastrianism, then American individualism developed into one big imitation of Christianity and its ideals. Unsurprisingly all the three American religious movements that have arisen since -- Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons and Scientology -- are nothing else but hysterical pathologies that profit from Christianity's built-in self-contradictions. Comparing with the theologically extremely more sophisticated *Silk Road Triad* that arose along the trade routes in Eurasia, we simply refer to these three exclusively American religions as *the Disney World Triad,* and the entire short but intense American history of ideas can be read into these three bizarre iconologies. ## So how do these new religions handle the American landscape that they just have conquered through extensive genocide and wars of extermination? Well, Jehovah's Witnesses constitute the fundamentalist, fully logical interpretation of Christianity's many shortcomings, that is: as *text*. Unsurprisingly, Jehovah's Witnesses get stuck geographically right in the city where the colonists disembark, New York. The Mormons are then the fundamentalist, mythical interpretation of Christianity's shortcomings, that is: as *land*. Therefore the Mormons geographically seek out the most isolated part of the American Midwest to build an American Israel in the area around Salt Lake in Utah. The Disney World Triad is then rounded off with Scientology, as the fundamentalist pathical interpretation of Christianity's shortcomings, that is: as *media*. From now on religion is exclusively about the unabashedly, laceratingly commercialized postmodern market forces' completion of the Christian project. Naturally the Scientologists promise prefabricated paradises that lie on empty, frozen, inhospitable planets and moons far out in space, perfectly in line with the U S Space Program, which confers honor on the relatively young nation and entails an apparent and eager imitation of how Columbus once conquered America. Therefore the space program is allowed to cost astronomical sums, while the genocides on the continent itself are silenced and the entire process of conquest is systematically euphemized in the most vulgar fashion imaginable. As for Scientology it is now no longer even a question of appeasing an autocratic God and milking him for resources to ensure good harvests or prosperity increases in general. No, now the ambition is instead to tame religion as such in order *to milk religion in itself for its resources*. Without the least excuse or further ado. It is therefore perhaps not surprising to anyone that Scientology picks up considerable pace precisely among Hollywood movie stars in California, where one awaits salvation from outer space and where *those who pay the most* constitute *the chosen ones*, a status that continually is confirmed through maximal medial exposure. Scientology is quite simply Cartesian individualism as a cornerstone in the capitalist religion in a surreally caricatured version. The practitioners no longer even pretend to have any genuine relations with each other, or with the Universe, unless these relations first are formulated in financial terms. First there is gobbling (*das Freßen*), as Bertolt Brecht poetically wrote, and only thereafter come morals. ## So what is it that America ultimately perfects if not Christianity's dream of *the transparent society*, where *the barred absolute* has been eliminated for good? All curtains and barriers are removed, there is no longer anything that blocks the believer's direct connection with God! America is the laboratory where European capitalism has succeeded in developing the most vulgar nonsense imaginable into pseudospiritual ecstasy. The religions within the Disney World Triad are rather touchingly illustrative textbook examples of *vulgar eventology* as theological concept. But whatever one thinks of the spiritual ambition, at least one cannot deny the medial creativity, nor the ideological stringency, that expresses itself in some quarters of the United States. It is the Indians and the Americans who on their respective home turfs and continents are the main standard bearers of iconology during informationalism, and make it useful as the people's own religion. In precisely this respect the eventological capitals Persepolis, Jerusalem and Rome do not have much to offer against the nomadological capitals Bollywood and Hollywood (which also receive a measure of fire support from Nigerian Nollywood). At least not when it comes to peddling as many knick-knacks with connection to the lesser gods as possible. Jehovah's Witnesses are the neurotics, the Mormons are the psychotics, and the Scientologists are the perverts in the United States' religious madhouse. But it is undeniable that all three religions hold onto the heritage from Cartesian Gnosticism with an admirably powerful grip. The problem is just that informationalist attentionalism finds no fertile ground in this religious madhouse, wherefore yet another exodus is to be expected. This time it is about leaving what long was the shimmering paradise at the horizon for all migrants: postcapitalist United States. When vertical thinking's cult of innovation is replaced by horizontal thinking's decoration worship, phallus is castrated even in America and progress simply moves somewhere else, as it must. It is toward the phallic heaven and not toward the matrichal earth that we must direct our spiritual energy if we want innovation to pick up pace anew. In a series of books, Korean-German philosopher Byung-Chul Han thoroughly analyzes how Cartesian individualism during late capitalism is developed into an out-and-out, isolationist [[Hypernarcissism]]. This no longer even concerns a creature having been made invisible at the bottom of the societal hierarchy à la the Italian Giorgio Agamben's concept *Homo sacer*, but instead a liberated, atomized and efficiency-optimized *Homo liber* obsessed with [[Autoexploitation]]. We have, as French philosopher Bernhard Stiegler observes, gone from the *biopolitics* of the disciplinary society to the *psychopolitics* of the achievement society. And we have, as Moroccan sociologist Eva Illouz so unerringly expresses the prevailing condition, landed in the midst of *emotional capitalism*. Nowhere is Byung-Chul Han's *Homo liber* more prominent than in the Californian obsession with *flow* and *healing* to optimize the quantitatively measurable in life and a vapid conception of good health before a true quality of life and depth of thought. American cyberneticist Curtis Yarvin even advocates an American dictatorship built solely on a state-directed optimization of the health of the populace as the solution to all of the network society's strenuous internal conflicts. ## Could the emptiness of Gnosticism possibly become any more obvious than this? It is clear that the development upward and forward ever since the Bronze Age has been technological, while the development within religion only has plunged deeper and deeper down into a massive vulgar popular culture. Man's imitation of technology itself has created the illusion of a religious and spiritual development, when the only thing that has happened is that religion *de facto* has been vulgarized in its quest to make itself popular, and that it has lost every shred of sophistication. If religion once was about the long and difficult path to wisdom, it has with the aid of the increasingly quick and cheap media instead been turned into an easily sold packet of *quick fixes* and *shortcuts*. This is proven by the journey from sophisticated Zoroastrianism in ancient Persia to vulgar-commercial Scientology in the postmodern United States. The difference could not be more glaring. Once a career used to be based on a lifetime of learning, while it is now expected to occur through a moment of magical transformation. Religion about the object has fortunately gone from magic to technology, but this has been carried out at the cost of the religious subject having sped in the opposite direction, from a technology one must deserve through hard work to false promises of easily attained salvation. A development that was launched back in the days of the Manichaean shift from Judaism to Christianity and with the Mazdakian shift from Zoroastrianism to Islam in the Middle East of late antiquity. A major problem confronting this drastic vulgarization of religion is that the world is monist -- not dualist. Everything is dependent upon and interconnected with everything else. This is not a metaphysical assumption, but an observable fact. What exists, exists, and what does not exist, does not exist. There is no in between, and if there were, there would of course be an in between, which would bring us back to strict monism. Our planet is fully conquered, there are no white spots left on the map, at least none of real interest, and outside the planet there is nothing of value to add. Thus humanity approaches a kind of existential claustrophobia, which afflicts us since the horizon has come so close to us. *What you see is what you get*. The infinite world furnished with infinite resources turns out to be an illusion. The world is finite, the boundaries cannot be manipulated. Which at the same time makes the world coherent and internally interconnected. This makes planet Earth a global empire requiring a structured and advanced collaboration between strangers in different places for the empire to even survive, since it faces various threats of devastation. That is: the planet itself will of course survive, it is we humans who along with most animal species risk being wiped out when or if our living conditions become too poor. This being the case is not conditioned by humans having striven or voted for the global empire, but is merely in accordance with technology's own agenda. It is quite simply what is in the cards. ## Then the question is: who has best succeeded in handling the conflict between the coherence of The World and the psychological fragmentation of Man? ## What actually made the original sociont function, when both the capitalism and communism that are built around the false pair of opposites the individual and the collective have failed so spectacularly in handling humanity's basic survival issues? The problem is not primarily, as Sigmund Freud claims, that Man is discontent in culture because it alienates him from his Dionysian drive system, but rather, and at least to a greater extent, that religion has decayed so much that it no longer serves as a compass for those who wish to orient themselves through an increasingly unfathomable existence. There quite simply is no functioning instrument left with which Man can tame himself and the rest of nature to create a culture that gets the job done. We are discontent to no use at all. Thus it is the lack of *authentic religion*, and not some excess production of culture in the form of a civilizational straitjacket, which is humanity's great dilemma when entering informationalism. It is not sufficient, as does Michel Foucault, to advocate that life should be lived as an individual work of art. In an interactive age where Man's dominant state is an aesthetic pathos, life must rather be lived as if *the sociont sees itself as a tribal work of art*. We call this spontaneous expression *tribopoiesis,* and its pathos [[Protopianism]]. Individualism versus collectivism was never more than the false dichotomy of the capitalist paradigm. The individual and the collective are actually completely dependent on each other as concepts, two sides of the same capitalist coin, and none of them -- and certainly no artificial antagonism either -- reflects Man and his prerequisites. What does reflect Man, however, is the concept tribopoiesis and the idea of the tribal singularity as Man's origin and only reasonable identity. We were never either individuals or a collective, we were always tribal and only tribal creatures. And everything we need, as single dividuals, is an archetypology that tells us where on the tribal map each of us belong. What we need is a proper and complete *archetypography*. Freud himself would reasonably agree that a [[Socioanalysis]] is necessary before we can devote ourselves to any meaningful form of *psychoanalysis*. Before we can reform the subject and its struggle in part with itself, in part with its surrounding world, we first must comprehend the surrounding world itself as though it were a world ready to face the psyche. Karl Marx invented the concept *symptomatology* ahead of Freud and his successor Jacques Lacan. But it is Freud and Lacan (and between them the German-Jewish Frankfurt School, which builds on and further develops both Marx and Freud) who from the 1930s and onward excel precisely as symptomatologists. The search for pioneering events within eventology and the search for pathological traumas within traumatology merge in the search for comprehensive and extensive patterns in society as social symptomatology. Psychoanalysis is thereby converted to socioanalysis. And this is where the 21st century Hegelian renaissance comes in. G W F Hegel himself, the predecessor of the Marxist symptomatologist and the Freudian socioanalyst, is the gestalt that personifies the Hegelian *Zeitgeist* of informationalism. Hegel views the insight into the altered state of affairs as a platform for [[Event|the event]], that is: as the foundation on which the trustee of *der Zeitgeist* steps forward and leads the exodus toward the new paradigm or the promised land (both of them work equally well). When Hegel describes Napoleon as he who embodies the *Zeitgeist* in his own age, he finds it hard to rein in his enthusiasm. This is the priest's worship of the chieftain in its most pristine form. It is then Marx with his symptomatology and Freud with his socioanalysis who attempt to repeat the Hegelian turn. Marx does this by searching for early signs of the beloved *proletariat* as a kind of postcapitalist Hebrews who are to leave the factories in odious Egypt, while Freud does it through searching for early signs that the enlightened *analysand* shall rise up from the therapy couch. And it is, interestingly enough, the extrovert Marx who becomes the utopian and the (comparatively) reserved Freud who becomes the dystopian of the twain. The Frankfurt School can, in the crack between the two of them, not really settle as anything else but *critical theory* without any possible intellectual exit, other than through a renaissance for Hegelian dialectics. It is in the encounter between the dialectical deadlock between Marxist utopianism (collectivism) and Freudian dystopianism (individualism) on the one hand, and the digital age's energetic arrival on the other hand, that the Messianic hope of *netocratic protopianism* forges ahead. And this Hegelian concretion is wholly based upon the return of the sociont in the history of ideas. A prerequisite for this necessary reconnection with Hegel is an even more comprehensive and profound reconnection with Zoroaster. This entails that it becomes necessary to revise the Western self-image by returning to -- and settling the account with the entire tenacious myth of -- the so fervently cherished period that Karl Jaspers has labeled *the Axial Age*. It is true that the Eurasian landmass entered a new era, colored by new forms of communication (software) in interplay with new metals (hardware) around 800 BC, and it is true that this new era was characterized by unusually long periods of peace, robust economic surpluses, and a dramatic population increase, and that this applies from Europe and North Africa in the West to China and Japan in the East. Naturally a result of this was also extensive production of both art and ideas, which overall entailed a veritable golden age for a flourishing, expansive culture. The quantitative increase is remarkable and indisputable; it is however by no means clarified that this culture also would be qualitatively superior to earlier periods in history. The major theories for how empires and nations shall be conducted had already been developed and practiced in Asia and the Middle East. So that this culture also would be qualitatively superior to earlier periods in history is extremely doubtful. Rather, the Axial Age merely contributed with increasingly self-absorbed navel-gazing and decadence, and hampered the priestly work of creating peace, trade and prosperity. Balance is always desirable. Just as an overview and afterthought, strategy and purposefulness. One-sidedness, extremism and wishful thinking are, on the other hand, detrimental. Which is only natural. But in a situation where society has everything to gain by stimulating the outer circuit to contribute maximally to the progress of the entire sociont, the intellectual arena has been captured by a bizarre set of Gnostic and unworldly theories that mindlessly identify with the woman, the child and above all the narcissistic pillar-saint. Matrichal myths such as pacifism, vegetarianism and reincarnation have gradually become all the rage. The alpha males can supposedly to some extent still mate -- it is only possible to violate biology to a certain extent -- but otherwise one would rather put them in the doghouse than use them for what they are really good at: expanding a society's resources and defending it against external threats. The inner circuit despises the outer circuit and speaks of "toxic masculinity" instead of devoting much thought to future deliveries of protection and provision. This really does not bode well. What is important to understand is that Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and Platonism all are products of the Axial Age. In varying degrees -- and for better or worse -- they place the woman, the child and the pillar-saint at the center of things. The problem is that the authentic phallus is lacking in all such models, wherefore it all tends to develop into a Gnosticism that becomes entrenched in the presexual or the asexual. It is about a figure of thought that aggressively opposes phallus itself, which in turn leads to ideologies that consistently are driven by [[The Peter Pan Syndrome]], the eagerness to acquire all the advantages of the adult phallus, without having to affirm the phallic energy and ambition. Buddhism rejects the libido and desire itself; it creates ideology out of contempt and denial. One strives to abandon nomadological circularity, which only the self-glorifying pillar-saint can manage, wherefore the pillar-saint's virtues are highlighted and praised. The idealization of the extinguished libido made mortido so strong that Buddhism irremediably was split into two different branches: the Hinayana Buddhists' obstinate embrace of the Buddha's refusal to compromise as regards the extinguished desire, which leads to an indifference at Man's actual suffering in existence, compelled an exodus to Mahayana Buddhism, which enabled one to accept and even welcome warmth and compassion within religion. Thereby one could at least complement the ascetic pillar-saint with a nurturing mother figure. Christianity follows precisely the same track by explicitly rejecting sexuality and anything at all that is associated with the corporeal, which expresses itself in a constant willingness to try to sweep sexuality's enormous power under the rug by paying tribute to the savior who dies on the cross precisely for the sake of our sins, and who himself is the eternal virgin and the only scapegoat that ever will be needed. It is in no way a coincidence that a sorry multitude of the saints that the Catholic Church initially produces are more or less psychotic young women with severe eating disorders as they are imbued with a glowing hatred of their own bodies. Taoism makes the same phallus-dodging maneuver by describing existence as a constant dance between phallus and matrix, but without concerning itself with the bothersome discordant exception that sexuality constitutes and that the priest personifies by being he who separates phallus and matrix. Sexuality is of course no idyllic picnic and the idea of a harmonious paradise existence during earthly life is a prime example of existential illusion being manufactured. The dialectics between logos and mythos is constantly disturbed by a third narrative in the form of *pathos*, which of course makes its presence felt precisely when *yang* and *yin* seem to interact optimally. Platonism refuses to recognize the split phallus at all and instead separates reason from the body with the purpose of placing the former above the latter, which naturally makes all the world's Gnostic pillar-saints cheer and spurs them on to compete to death in asceticism. This entire figure of thought is basically hostile to life. A society really has no reason to celebrate that the asexual pillar-saint is allowed to believe himself to be a more elevated creature than all the warriors and hunters that have protected and provided for the sociont over the course of history, and who therefore also have taken center stage over millennia of nomadological rituals. It is only a society that has attained significant material prosperity and that has had the luxury of avoiding war over a longer period of time that even can indulge in playing with this sort of infantile fantasies, which of course always idealize the immature boy on the pillar, an actor who intoxicates himself on his own vainglory but who cannot manage either the chieftain's or the priest's ungrateful toil in the outer circuit's patriarchy. It is thus a case of a psychosocial luxury disease that no society can afford when survival is at stake, a kind of occupational therapy for inadequately stimulated chatterboxes without burdensome knowledge in either history or psychology. Or religion! It is, moreover, always time to be vigilant whenever pacifism and vegetarianism are trending on the opinion stock market. This does of course not entail that violence and war are bad habits that are about to be eradicated, but it means that violence and war are eliminated from religion and placed far below religion as if it were a case of some sort of waste products from toxic masculinity. In fact, war is of course, as Carl von Clausewitz observes, "merely a continuation of politics by other means". And indeed: eventually they sit there, the fancy pillar-saints, spread out across deserts and in the wilderness, warring with each other via armies of ideological *know-it-alls*. In this way Gnosticism acquires its most powerful expression when the Mazdakites, whom the monist Zoroastrians frenetically fight within the confines of the Persian Sassanid Empire, return in Arabic form under an Islamic banner in the early 7th century. ## For what is Islam if not a bunch of pillar-saints spread out across deserts and mountainous regions who whack soldiers on the head with decrees and proceed to bait them against each other in a single long *jihad* without any end in sight? Where the only remaining difference between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam is that Sunni Islam demands that the soldiers shall read the Quran and submit to the scripture in the same way that the pillar-saint does, while Shia Islam demands the the soldiers shall submit to the pillar-saint's own private interpretation of the Quran -- a variant of the same conflict (that is no less bloody) as that between Catholicism and Protestantism. It has been fortunate for the rest of the world that it is fundamentally impossible for Islam to unite under one single pillar-saint. Allah can never be anything other than vague in his leadership under such conditions. The illiterate Muhammad may be his only prophet and mouthpiece, but the pillar-saints are many and in deep disagreement. Admittedly Islam, in contrast to Christianity, does not sweep the violence and sex under the rug with dogmatic brooms; Islam does of course have a totalitarian ambition whose aim is to color every fiber in society and control both politics and markets as well as private life in minute detail. But since Islam proclaims an aggressively Gnostic view of violence and sex, Islamic culture becomes strongest and most vital exactly when the religion's total grip on culture and society is weakened. When the Quran embraces all of society with an iron fist, all oxygen quickly disappears; the level of enculturation drops and there is a general dumbing down of discussions. The four important religions from the Middle East must be understood in the following way: Since Zoroastrianism worships the military phallus, Islam can never be anything other than *the imitation of the worshipping of the military phallus*. And since Judaism worships the priestly phallus, Christianity can never be anything other than *the imitation of the worshipping of the priestly phallus*. Thus it appears wholly reasonable that Islam is founded by and constantly refers back to a military by the name of Muhammad, while Christianity is founded by and constantly refers back to a priest by the name of Peter. This becomes possible through the Gnostic maneuver to blow up the door to the barred absolute and reshape the barred religions of the militaries and the priests to more easily digestible messages tailored to the masses. It is precisely this maneuver that must be reversed for eventological religion to deserve a new historical opportunity. What is needed is a new worldview: that we understand *the West* as the territory west of the Gobi Desert and the Hindu Kush where the hope of the phallic event was developed -- Europe is merely a recent phenomenon propelled by printing presses and gunboats in the northwestern corner of the Western world -- a development which radically breaks with the nomadology that was dominant in the East. And from this perspective, the Persian-Jewish renaissance is completely decisive. Zoroastrianism and Judaism were after all built as religions for *the adults of God*, while Christianity and Islam attract *the children of God* with free access to God, who in this context is reduced to one big [[Mamilla]]. At the same time as the East's obsession with *samsara* -- the only thing that exists is the eternal recurrence of the same -- only can end with the yearning for *mahamudra* -- the return to matrix, the fusion of all divisions in history, and thus the annihilation of everything -- where death and only death is the single and closing event. Because if phallus never arrives, culture is invariably turned inward against itself and its own demise. What happens during the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age is that the old social ties within the sociont are torn apart. Sedentary life has now established such a high degree of social complexity that old nomadological structures such as clans and tribes do not suffice to keep a territorially and population-wise constantly expanding society together. The new eventological narratives speak of greater social units, and dreams of empires and nations are stirred to life. This is very clear from the Bronze Age's two best-known narratives, imperialist Zoroastrianism and nationalist Judaism. However this expansion also entails that [[The Shamanic Caste]] is pushed out and away and ends up at an increasing distance from the center of society. The shamanoids leave the densely populated river valleys and seek out desolate mountainous areas where they soon establish what the ancient Persians call *castag* -- a phenomenon explored in detail by Panamanian anthropologist Pablo Vazquez -- that is: monasteries, orders and other institutions for precursors to later monks and nuns. The shamanoids also seek distance from the densely populated river valleys to secluded oases, distant port cities and other more or less insignificant places along the new, expanding trade routes, both on land and at sea, where they soon operate the local inns, public baths, night clubs and brothels. Seeking out the shaman in the forest for spiritual or sexual adventures, or seeking out the shaman in the forest for therapeutic contacts with the gods in heaven and the underworld, or ritual contacts with the strangers from the terrifying and partly unfamiliar surrounding world, now acquires completely new meanings. But it is still a tribal map with the same women from the inner circuit, the same men from the outer circuit, and the same *outcasts* from the shamanic caste. The only difference is that the map has grown considerably, in step with the sociont having expanded from clans and tribes to empires and nations. And thus the separation between on the one hand the two main circuits that harbor the majority of the population and, on the other hand, the shamanic caste outside and the minority that can be found there, becomes dramatically magnified. The walls' smooth permeability is lost. The monasteries in the mountains, the oases in the deserts, and the trading cities at the river mouths take over the sociocultural role that the cult sites and trading posts outside the walls, administered by the shamanic caste, had served during the sociont's heyday. That this is the case is evident for Zoroaster when he around 1700 BC in his text *Gathas* formulates Zoroastrian eventology as a pervasive reformation of the nomadology of the Indo-Iranian tribes. Zoroaster is uncompromising in his criticism of the shamanoids, when they as early as the Bronze Age venture so far away from the sociont that they lose the sense of their vital role within the same, as the sociont's cohesive outsiders, as the particular within the universal that *de facto* makes the universal identity possible. This explains why Zoroastrianism to this day does not recognize any monk or nun orders outside society's internal order. But when the Iron Age commences, the boundaries are widened to such a large extent that a panoply of doctrines of worlds outside the world arise. The Eurasian landmass enters an era of increasingly longer periods of peace and burgeoning prosperity. Around the corner awaits the Axial Age. Soon societies from China in the East to Rome in the West are filled with one new philosophy after the other. Intellectual life enters a completely new phase. And what unites these actually incompatible doctrines is the new, suddenly arisen interest in precisely the shaman's separation from the sociont and all the new existentialist fantasies that gain nourishment from this. If there is anyone that deserves to be called an *individual,* if it actually had been possible to imagine such a character, it is *the shaman*. The shamans do of course *de facto* live in the outskirts of the tightly cohesive sociont, they are excluded from many social contexts, so view them from the outside, perhaps not always without a certain yearning. But it is only if the sociont is afflicted with loosening and dissolution tendencies and the social extremes are emphasized as exemplary, that it is possible to peddle individualism as some sort of universal religion. And precisely this happens in Europe, where reading and writing proficiency starts to take effect broadly and create pervasive societal changes during the 17th century. As the answer to all the questions that arise in the field of tension between Descartes' atomism, Spinoza's pantheism and Leibniz's relativism, the Kantian subject, which quickly sets a precedent and acquires influence, is launched. It is no coincidence or the result of some abstract academic wars of words -- this subject is precisely what the new nation-states with their institutions and military machines request. Soldiers and citizens alike must be able to read and write in order to absorb the orders issued and the propaganda that drives and regulates the entire machinery. Authorities and bureaucracies dictate existing regulations in writing. The entire social inheritance from Napoleon is based on the single individual that personally can be held responsible for his or her actions. As an immediate collectivist reaction, there ensues the unrealistic fantasy that wafted through Europe like a cursed ghost: *communism*. In this equally fictive and pointless dichotomy between individual and collective much of the political discussion became mired, while the really interesting issue in this context -- the dialectics of subject and substance -- garnered no attention whatsoever and slowly dropped beneath the horizon. But what is at issue is how the ego arises and defines itself *vis-à-vis* the world as part of the world, where the ego, as Johann Gottlieb Fichte points out, is limited while the world is unlimited. We call this *the eternalist subject*. Please observe that the subject apprehends itself as stable and immutable, while the surrounding world appears chaotic and mutable. The neurotic illusion that both subject and world can be eternal and immutable results in unmanageable delusions of grandeur. The psychotic illusion that the subject in no way takes root in, nor can establish a meaningful relation with a chaotic and mutable world, is the other side of the same coin. The psychosis thus creates a worldview where the subconscious devours consciousness and the ego experience disappears in a chaotic collapse of unsorted impressions without a mutual hierarchy. From this follows -- naturally -- that the eternalist subject by no means is tasked to experience the world as it actually is, without culling and structuring, arranging and prioritizing, so that the world opens up and becomes navigable. It is no truth producer, but merely a hypothesis machine that continually corrects itself when needed. The eternalist subject invents and processes problems, creates and solves riddles, by building value hierarchies. Subjectivity thus arises in conjunction with the trade-off between various alternatives in a choice situation. And subjectivity as such makes itself known and allows itself to be experienced when a problem must be put aside and be saved for future processing, quite simply because the perception apparatus and the attached interpretation must be oriented toward something else, a more important and/or more acute problem that has surfaced. ## The classical question of the possible existence of a *free will* is thus incorrectly posed and uninteresting (see [[The Body Machines]]) -- free in relation to what? ## And who or which agency would exercise this possible freedom now that the individual and the ego have proven to be fictions? The interesting question one could pose instead is whether free choice, without any speculations about who or what, if so, it is that chooses the one or the other, exists. ## Does even the choice option, that is the foundational prerequisite for the eternalist subject, exist? Here we can glimpse the distinction between Zoroastrian ethics and Abrahamic moralism. Will is of course nothing other than a question of access to libidinal energy. ## So is there a libidinal will at all that has access to several options, and where the chosen option (or the postponement of the same) entails a possibility of renewed and updated self-identification? It is absolutely vital here to understand how self-awareness arises. Self-awareness is in itself a consequence of shortcomings and limitations, or it would not have arisen at all. Thinking is the activation of the failure to intuitively understand and interact with the surrounding world. No one understands or investigates this better than Hegel, who builds his theory of the subject as a constant failure on a constantly ongoing antagonism, which in turn drives all of the arisen subject's dialectical reasoning. Here Hegel sides with Zoroastrianism and Protestantism in contrast to Taoism and Catholicism. There is no logical or mythical order and structure in this process that instead is clearly pathical, disharmonious and unbalanced. Instability is right from the start built into the Hegelian synthesis, and it is then released in the form of internal antagonisms. And it is precisely this which, according to Hegel, makes *the subject the strongest expression of the substance*. Just as his predecessors David Hume and Immanuel Kant, Hegel attacks the Cartesian subject that has been the norm since the mid-17th century. However they handle the issue in different ways and come to different conclusions. Hume settles for a stable subject that tries to relate to a mobile world, Kant, on his part, gets stuck with a mobile subject that is encapsulated in a fixed world (which in theory it would be able to experience directly if it were not for the subject's own limitations), while only Hegel succeeds in handling constant movement at all levels of the complex. No person and no thing is fixed. Both substance and subject are relations that consist of other relations where relata only constitute temporarily surfacing byproducts connected to the ongoing processes. The pathical subject pulsates and vibrates ambivalently behind both logos and mythos. Hegel's argument *vis-à-vis* Kant is that the latter demystifies the subject in a way that nevertheless is fundamentally mystifying. Kant works with a psychology for the soul, a cosmology for the world, and a theology for God. Psychology for the soul is a Kantian pathos. Cosmology for the world is a Kantian logos. And theology about God is a Kantian mythos. All these three quantities are foregone conclusions in an unclear manner, according to Kant. Hegel's revolt against Kant is a battle for *a narratological liberation*. The Hegelian subject is namely liberated from all forms of preordained psychologies, cosmologies and theologies; it has to settle for its own internal dialectics. This speculative [[Pandialecticism]] is *the Hegelian absolute*. All metanarratives -- logos, mythos and pathos -- are fundamentally dialectical, according to Hegel. It is not even possible to speak of a psychology, cosmology or even a theology as something other than dialectical phenomena in Hegel, and definitely not as any preordained eternalizations, as in Kant. Thanks to Hegelian pandialecticism, which affirms and handles movement in all of being's dimensions, it becomes possible to take the path of thinking toward *radical relationalism*. In Zoroastrian terms we would express this as though the *ameretat* our generation longs for already lies inherent in our worldview and lies ready to pathically explode as the next generation's *haurvatat*. Where what is important is that the subject is *pathical* and neither logical nor mythical. The dividual identity sprouts from the sociont and its history as the barred absolute. In front of this barred absolute, dividuality is awakened as the embodiment of an actual archetype in the form of *the mimicking erchtype*. The subject's primary function is to entwine [[The Great Trauma]] in the form of an abandonment of mamilla with *the great event* in the form of the yearning for phallus. Mamilla is the barred absolute from the past, phallus is the barred absolute in the future. The path backward is however barred forever. The subject can therefore only hope to become the agent who carries out his [[Truth-As-An-Act]] by submitting to phallus. This irrefutable demand for submission is the strength of phallus as *the concrete absolute*. However monotheist phallus worship does not suffice. The sociont does not merely need a vision and a direction, but moreover a strategy, and a strategy one can only build on knowledge. Or to use a more solemn word: wisdom. Therefore religion's origin is every bit as much an issue of *mana* as an issue of [[Phallus]]. Romanian anthropologist Mircea Eliade traces the *mana* to the theological shift from the ancestors to the gods. At the same moment that the ancestors, in the capacity of the symbolic vessels for and intermediaries of the transmitted wisdom within the sociont, are depersonified and universalized -- that is: when it no longer matters who within the sociont is offspring to which primordial father or primordial mother, when the entire tribe has been accorded the same common primordial father and primordial mother -- the ancestors are converted into the lesser gods. It is this conversion that is called *metaphysical reification,* and it can only be applied to the already dead (there is always something vulgar and dubious about statues and other memorials of people who are still alive). The function is the *mana*, a kind of impersonal but constantly present force that humanity must struggle with in all situations. It is thus on top of this *mana* that the priest names the gods to concretize what sacrifices the gods require from the faithful. For the masculine subject, this displacement and radical self-identification occurs through *the subject submitting to culture as logos*. For the feminine subject, the same process occurs through *the subject submitting to nature as mythos*. This means that *the law* is introduced to organize the outer circuit, while the inner circuit is free to act precisely as it wishes, since it still only can act within the confines of the consequences of the law being upheld in the outer circuit. This explains why all the world's prisons are full of heterosexual men and a few lesbians, but not of heterosexual women or homosexual men. *The law* is thus the name of the phallic religion that makes it possible to expand the sizes of clans and tribes further toward city states, nations and entire empires. And no religion carries this out more naturally than Judaism, with its unique union between the nation and religion under the same roof. Antisemitism is not just like any racism, antisemitism is deep down [[Nation Envy]]. The balance between logos, mythos and pathos is maintained through the narrative constantly reiterating the importance of Zoroastrian ethics through [[The Phallic Principle of Tribal Contribution]]. The question of what the tribe can do for you is the child's question, while the question of what you can do for the tribe is the adult's question. Every time someone demands a freedom or a right without conveying something of value in return, we are in practice seeing a little child who vociferously tries to cry its way to even more breast milk. And this, of course, we would rather not have to see grown-up people do, just like this applies to subservient beggars and infuriated demonstrators alike, both of whom give rise to virtually the same unease. A proud adult who takes responsibility for themselves and their own, who finds joy in contributing to the common good, is however beautiful, not least in their own eyes. From The Frankfurt School to Betty Friedan in *The Feminine Mystique*: the totalitarian Platonism of the Western left is underpinned by a total ignorance of, or an equally total disinterest in Man's pathical tribalism. One instead chooses to focus on a logical conflict between individual and collective that then is attacked via Platonist theories of *false consciousness*. Please note that the demand that is directed from the subservient beggar or the infuriated demonstrator always is a demand without discernible direction or final destination. There is no point where the demand is satisfied and where the beggar or the demonstrator is done demanding, has taken their responsibility as an adult and fully-fledged member of the community by starting to do their part for the common good. These are mouths that never become satiated. The revenue from begging and the benefits one, if applicable, has succeeded in hassling one's way to receiving, are usually spent in the form of immediate consumption rather than as investments in a future where the little child's dependence on an offering mamilla would be but a memory. The childishly demanding position is not conceived as a transitory phase. The extended paper cup outside the supermarket entrance and the indignant list of demands from the allegedly aggrieved group will never disappear. It is a question of compensation for supposed injustices in the past and certainly no help for self-help. The stern and demand-ridden gaze of the self-pitying child will never be tempered. It is no passing phase but a permanent scenario. What we are witnessing here is the development of *the permanent dependence on mamilla*, a dependence that is seen as a given by all the narcissists who by pure principle refrain from growing up and taking their own responsibility. In the postcapitalist society even the slaves are no longer working. The workers have, in Jean Baudrillard's words, been turned into *work mannequins*. Not because there necessarily is a lack of tasks, but because these for various reasons can be claimed to be humiliating to carry out. Hence all these reproachful gazes and angry accusations, all these hungry mouths in all these rich societies, mouths that never can be satiated, demands that never are met. Whenever it is possible to score political points on claimed injustices, the rulers get out their tax tables and start to outline changes that are aimed at leveling. This is a principle that tends to dominate in systems where politicians primarily strive to become re-elected and only thereafter may consider achieving something of value. The money one pulls in from working people as if by magic becomes common funds and the state coffers become one big mamilla squirting out breast milk to all who ask for it, and even to many others for the sake of re-electability. One for instance doles out child allowance to everyone, as if the idea that parents themselves should support their children were completely absurd. In such a society matrichal magic knocks out phallic technology, mythos is decoupled from logos, ideas of cause and effect are denied and ridiculed. The entrepreneurs become fewer in step with bureaucrats increasing their numbers, and the struggle for provision increasingly turns into a struggle for privileges. One distributes a shrinking pie instead of primarily ensuring that the overall pie is growing. When the phallic principle of tribal contribution is weakened, society loses momentum and prosperity-creating dynamics. Increasing numbers consider themselves belonging to so-called weak groups to be propped up by a dwindling few. With increased poverty comes increasing anarchy: different factions that demand benefits from each other. Furthermore the phallic principle of tribal contribution applies equally for social groups relative to larger entities as it applies to the single dividual. We can view two popular subcultures from late capitalism that appear to survive and develop even in the Internet Age, namely *feminism* and *androgynism*. Both these movements arose during late capitalism as matrichal reactions to the catastrophes that contributed to ending the golden age of the phalluses, with concrete phallic failures such as Hitler and Stalin and abstract phallic threats such as the atomic bomb and environmental pollution. Feminism further harvested public opinion success when it proudly emphasized women's shouldering responsibility for half of society and demanded matching remuneration from the state and the market for this contribution. Androgynism also succeeded when it proudly emphasized the androgynous caste's contribution to society as a mediating vessel between the male-dominated outer circuit and the female-dominated inner circuit in society. The androgynous person does of course not become an adult by developing from a boy to a man, or from a girl to a woman, but attains their adulthood through blending a cocktail of both the man and the woman. It is precisely in the role as the one who moves across boundaries that the androgynous person discovers their adulthood, precisely through personifying the phallic principle of tribal contribution as the sociont's own internal *go-between*. Thus far all this is excellent. A society that is not constantly questioned stagnates, and sustainable ideas can withstand criticism. The problem is that both feminism and androgynism developed diverse sects and cults marked by infantile internarcissism. The principle of tribal contribution that generates pride and strength was eventually replaced by *the eternal accusation* that can only generate bitterness and greed. When Western feminism and androgynism in practice had finished triumphing and should have closed down their activism in the form of a becoming matricide -- or perhaps better yet should have migrated to other more needy parts of the world -- the movements were instead usurped by state-financed funeral wailers who constantly hunt increasingly absurd renderings of alleged crimes to keep alive the eternal production of accusations that never can be compensated for. And as long as there is no demand for a stated final destination from these movements, they will gladly milk the phallus via the state apparatus for a constantly snowballing compensation for old, increasingly fabricated injustices. If there is a system to exploit, it will be exploited. That is: until a Messianic project arrives that reinstates the sociont and its integrity. For the phallic principle of tribal contribution will return with full power the moment society is presented with a complete and authentic archetypology for humanity. We are working on it.