🧵1/21 🚨 WAKE UP THREAD: Three seemingly separate movements are converging to create the most dangerous techno-feudal empire in human history. What I've been warning about for YEARS is happening NOW. Let me break down what they don't want you to see... 2/21 🎭 First, meet GAME~B: Marketed as a "new civilizational operating system" for human flourishing, it's actually a Hegelian dialectic trap. They say Game A (current reality) is "rivalrous" and doomed, so we MUST transition to their collectivist "anti-fragile" utopia

1/21 👀  Please PAY ATTENTION beautiful souls! 🚨 a thread 🧵👇🏻
While you were distracted by the latest political theater, the Trump administration quietly prepared to launch on July 4, 2025 – Independence Day. The symbolism isn't lost on me. They're declaring independence FROM your autonomy.AI.gov 2/21 In just 16 days, the most comprehensive AI surveillance system in U.S. history goes live. This isn't just another government website – it's the digital infrastructure for technocratic control over every aspect of your life.

🚨 The Dark Enlightenment is a toxic stew of elitism, techno-worship, and recycled mysticism—and Nick Land’s obsession with Julius Evola proves it. Let’s unpack why their ideas are a dangerous dead end. 🧵👇 #DarkEnlightenment #Evola #NickLand 1/12 Julius Evola was a 20th-century Italian philosopher who despised modernity, democracy, and equality. His book Revolt Against the Modern World (1934) romanticizes a mythical “Tradition” led by spiritual elites. Sounds lofty, but it’s a blueprint for hierarchical oppression. 🚩amzn.to/4dSpfyF

Clare W. Graves’ Spiral Dynamics is a foundational influence on Ken Wilber’s color chart and Integral Theory, providing a structured model of human development that Wilber adapted and expanded.

Clare Graves and Spiral Dynamics
Clare Graves, a developmental psychologist, proposed a theory in the 1960s and 70s called the “Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory” (ECLET). He argued that human consciousness evolves through distinct levels, driven by the interplay between life conditions (external challenges) and neurological capacities (internal coping mechanisms). These levels aren’t fixed; they emerge as responses to existential problems, forming a dynamic spiral rather than a linear ladder. Each level represents a worldview—a way of thinking, valuing, and behaving—suited to specific circumstances.
After Graves’ death in 1986, his students Don Beck and Christopher Cowan systematized his work into Spiral Dynamics, assigning colors to each level for clarity and accessibility. The colors were arbitrary but became iconic.

Beige (Survival): Instinctive, focused on basic survival—food, shelter, reproduction. Seen in early humans or extreme deprivation.

Purple (Tribal): Animistic, ritualistic, safety-seeking within a kin group. Think clans, superstition, early traditions.
Red (Power): Egocentric, impulsive, dominance-driven. A warrior mindset—raw power and immediate gratification.

Blue (Order): Authoritarian, rule-based, purpose through structure. Traditional societies, religious dogma, duty.

Orange (Achievement): Rational, individualistic, success-oriented. Modern capitalism, science, personal ambition.

Green (Community): Pluralistic, egalitarian, focused on harmony and feelings. Postmodernism, social justice, environmentalism.

Yellow (Integrative): Systemic, flexible, self-aware. “Second-tier” thinking—sees the spiral, integrates prior levels.

Turquoise (Holistic): Global, interconnected, ecological consciousness. Transpersonal, focused on collective evolution.

Graves saw these levels as oscillating between “express-self” (individualistic, e.g., Red, Orange) and “sacrifice-self” (collectivist, e.g., Blue, Green) orientations. The shift to second-tier (Yellow, Turquoise) marks a leap where individuals grasp the entire spiral, transcending the conflicts of first-tier levels.
Influence on Wilber’s Color Chart
Ken Wilber encountered Spiral Dynamics in the late 1990s through Don Beck and integrated it into his Integral Theory, particularly in books like A Theory of Everything (2000). Graves’ spiral provided Wilber with a developmental backbone to map consciousness across his AQAL framework (All Quadrants, All Levels, All Lines, All States).

Wilber initially used Spiral Dynamics’ colors and levels almost verbatim—Beige through Turquoise—as a way to describe stages of psychological and cultural evolution. For example, Orange aligns with modernity, Green with postmodernity, and Yellow with the integrative shift he saw as crucial for humanity’s future.

Graves’ distinction between first-tier (Beige to Green, where each level fights the others) and second-tier (Yellow and beyond, where integration begins) became central to Wilber’s model. He often emphasizes the “mean green meme” (Green’s shadow) and the need to leap to Teal/Yellow for holistic solutions.

While Spiral Dynamics stuck with its original colors, Wilber tweaked them to fit a rainbow-like progression (e.g., Infrared for pre-Beige, Magenta for Purple/Red overlap, Teal between Green and Turquoise). This reflected his aim to align with broader developmental and spiritual metaphors, like chakras, though less precisely tied to Graves’ scheme. Graves’ model stops at eight levels, with Turquoise as the horizon of current human potential. Wilber, however, extends it into “third-tier” stages (Indigo, Violet, etc.), drawing from transpersonal psychology and mysticism (e.g., Aurobindo, Buddhism).


This goes beyond Graves’ empirical focus, which was grounded in observable human behavior.

It provides the sequence of developmental stages—survival to holistic awareness—that Wilber maps across quadrants (individual interior, exterior, collective interior, exterior). For instance, Orange thinking manifests as rational science (individual exterior) and capitalist culture (collective interior).
Graves’ idea of a spiral—levels emerging from conditions, not preordained—fits Wilber’s view of consciousness as adaptive and open-ended, avoiding rigid hierarchies.
Wilber uses the spiral to analyze societal tensions (e.g., Red vs. Blue in politics, Green vs. Orange in culture wars), echoing Graves’ focus on how levels clash or harmonize based on life conditions.

Spiral Dynamics gave Wilber a way to synthesize psychological theories (e.g., Piaget, Kohlberg) with cultural evolution, which he then stretched to include spiritual traditions. Graves’ Yellow and Turquoise inspired Wilber’s Teal and Turquoise as gateways to transpersonal states.

Key Differences:
Graves focused on values and psychosocial systems; Wilber aims for a “theory of everything,” including states of consciousness (e.g., meditative experiences) and quadrants beyond Graves’ purview.
Graves rooted his levels in research and observation; Wilber blends this with speculative spiritual heights Graves didn’t explore.
Wilber’s “altitudes” generalize the spiral to apply across all developmental lines (cognitive, moral, etc.), not just Graves’ value systems.

Clare Graves’ Spiral Dynamics gave Wilber a robust, color-coded map of human development that he adapted into his broader Integral framework. It anchors the psychological and cultural stages in his color chart, providing the spiral’s logic and tiered progression, while Wilber stretches it further into spiritual and transpersonal realms Graves didn’t emphasize. It’s the engine under the hood—Wilber just souped it up with a cosmic paint job.

Ken Wilber’s color chart, often referred to as his “altitudes of development,” (inspired by Maslow as well get to in a bit) is a framework within his Integral Theory that maps stages of human consciousness. It draws inspiration from various developmental models, including Spiral Dynamics, and aligns loosely with the traditional chakra system from Eastern spiritual traditions.

Wilber’s color chart assigns colors to different stages of psychological and spiritual development, representing levels of complexity in consciousness. These “altitudes” are not tied to specific content but indicate the depth or height of awareness across various domains (individual, cultural, social). His sequence generally progresses like a rainbow, reflecting increasing integration and transcendence. A simplified version to recap from above ☝️ includes:
Infrared: Archaic, instinctual survival (pre-human or early human consciousness).
Magenta (or Red): Egocentric, impulsive, power-driven (early self-awareness).

Amber: Traditional, rule-based, ethnocentric (conformity to group norms).
Orange: Rational, individualistic, achievement-oriented (modern scientific mindset).

Green: Pluralistic, relativistic, community-focused (postmodern sensitivity).
Teal: Integrative, holistic, systems-thinking (beginning of “second-tier” consciousness).

Turquoise: Transpersonal, global, interconnected (holistic unity).
Indigo (and beyond): Suprapersonal, non-dual, spiritual (transcendent states).
Wilber’s model extends further into “third-tier” stages (e.g., Violet, Ultraviolet), which represent rare, highly evolved states of consciousness, akin to enlightenment, but these are less commonly detailed.

He’s right! Here’s an overview:

Woke Right:
The “Woke Right” is a label sometimes applied to a subset of conservative or populist thinkers who adopt tactics or rhetoric reminiscent of progressive “woke” ideology—identity-based grievances, moral superiority, and a rejection of liberal norms—while redirecting them toward goals like nationalism, traditionalism, theocracy, or monarchical feudalism. This mirrors “woke” leftism’s focus on systemic oppression, just with different oppressors. The term lacks a connotation of the vast scope from which it was seeded and whose roots likely stem from far left & IM movements, but for the purposes of creating clarity in murky 5th Generation Warfare it’s quite helpful. Ultimately it’s a dialectical attack aimed at negating personal sovereignty, and cognitive liberty.

Marxist Conflict Theory and Neo-Marxism
Marxist conflict theory posits that society is shaped by struggles between groups—classically, the bourgeoisie and proletariat—over resources and power. Neo-Marxism, as seen in the Frankfurt School (e.g., Adorno, Marcuse), extends this to cultural and ideological domains, arguing that dominant groups maintain power through cultural “hegemony” (Gramsci) rather than just economics.

Critical Theory, rooted in Neo-Marxism, seeks to expose and dismantle power structures perpetuating inequality. The Woke Right could be said to “support” this approach by applying it to their own ends—critiquing liberal institutions as tools of oppression against “the people”, constant critique, “just asking questions” & “questioning everything”, because they’re “just noticing things.

Postmodernism, with its skepticism of grand narratives and truth claims (e.g., Lyotard, Foucault), seems antithetical to right-wing absolutism. Woke Right embrace its deconstructive tactics—dismissing liberal “truths” like universal rights or progress as power plays—while asserting their own narrative (e.g., national destiny, divine order). This selective use mirrors how postmodernism was fused with Critical Theory in leftist “woke” ideology, as outlined extensively by @conceptualJames . On the right, it’s less about rejecting all truth (in fact they are often skilled at paltering) and more about weaponizing relativism against enemies.

Fascism, with its authoritarianism, nationalism, and rejection of liberal democracy, aligns with some Woke Right rhetoric—particularly in calls for strong leadership or a “new founding” to replace constitutional norms (e.g., nods to figures like Franco among integralists).
Anti-Constitutional Integralism
Integralism, a Catholic-inspired framework, seeks a state subordinated to religious principles, often rejecting liberal constitutionalism as secular and atomizing. Many Woke Right allude to or outright frame the Constitution as a tool of oppressive elites (eg. “the founders were all satanic Masons”) advocating instead a moral or communal order—echoing Marxist critiques of bourgeois law but with a theocratic twist or in some cases advocating monarchy.
Alignment with Continental Philosophy
Continental philosophy—spanning Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and beyond—emphasizes historical context, power dynamics, and subjective experience over Anglo-American analytic rigor. It’s the intellectual soil for Marxism, Critical Theory, Postmodernism, and even Fascist-adjacent thought (e.g., Heidegger’s Nazism).

Woke Right:
Adopt Dialectics: Like Hegel or Marx, seeing history as a struggle (e.g., tradition vs. modernity).
Embrace Existentialism: Nietzsche’s will to power or Heidegger’s Being (Dasein) and (“throwness”) might inspire a focus on authentic identity against liberal abstraction.
Mirroring Postmodernism’s distrust of Enlightenment universalism, favoring narrative or myth (e.g., national destiny).

In practice we see:
Rhetoric: Framing liberals as a hegemonic class oppressing “real” citizens, akin to Marxist bourgeoisie vs. proletariat.
Continued 👇🏻 Tactics: Using deconstruction to undermine liberal norms, while pushing illiberal & post liberal alternatives.
Alliances: Praising historical figures or regimes (e.g., Franco, Orban) that blend authoritarianism with anti-liberalism, nodding to Fascist or Integralist ideals.

Most of the “influencers” don’t read Marx or Foucault—their “support” is often pragmatic and self serving, not doctrinal. Traditional conservatives reject this entirely, seeing it as a betrayal of liberty. The Woke Right label misses the larger scope of far left & IM movements likely driving dialectical negation but as mentioned above, for the purposes of creating an identifier and clarity in the midst of 5th gen warfare it’s helpful.

The Woke Right “openly support” these theories by borrowing their critical tools—conflict, power analysis, deconstruction—to attack liberalism, while redirecting them toward nationalist or “traditionalist” (reminiscent of the Middle Ages) ends. This aligns with continental philosophy’s focus on historical struggle and critique of universalism. It’s a cherry-picked, opportunistic blend, not a coherent ideology, driven by political expediency rather than philosophical fidelity. It dovetails nicely with the Dark Enlightenment Neoreactionary movement, currently attempting to invoke Technochracy (see my DE threads for more information on that.

Very IMPORTANT 🧵 The UN wants MORE control over global affairs, and “the Pact for the Future” which is scheduled to be adopted during “the Summit of the Future” that will be held on September 22nd and 23rd will go a long way toward making that a reality.  HARDLY ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT “the Summit of the Future”!!! Enormous decisions that could dramatically affect the future of everyone on the entire planet are about to be made!!

According to the official UN website, the idea for the Summit of the Future was “conceived at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic” four years ago… On the second page of that PDF there is a section called “TRANSFORMING GLOBAL GOVERNANCE”, and it contains some very alarming plans for a far stronger UN than we have today…On the second page of that PDF there is a section called “TRANSFORMING GLOBAL GOVERNANCE”, and it contains some very alarming plans for a far stronger UN than we have today…

A 🧵 thread: The name "Mahatma" was derived from the fact that Gandhi was an inductee of both
Freemasonry and the Theosophical Society. Annie Besant, a Freemason, Fabian Society member & a front runner of the Theosophical Society who conferred the title of
"Mahatma" upon Gandhi. Besant was a leading spokesperson for the Fabian Society. The Fabians were socialists who unlike the Marxists advocating violent revolution they pursued world domination through what both their name (after Fabius Maximus) & their logo the tortoise indicates a "doctrine of inevitability of gradualism."