🧵Thread on Joscha Bach & Evolutionary Dynamics: From AI Visions to Shocking Epstein Ties 🧠🤖💥 1/8 🚨 Breaking: Joscha Bach, ex-MIT Media Lab & Harvard evolutionary dynamics whiz, is back in the spotlight amid explosive Epstein email leaks. With a PhD in cognitive science, Bach’s work probes how minds evolve as computational beasts. His Harvard gig? Modeling evolution in complex systems. Dive into his bio: edge.org/memberbio/josc… 2/8 In his 2015 Edge.org response to "What Do You Think About Machines That Think?", Bach drops a bomb: AI won't just match us—it'll eclipse human intelligence by solving the mind's puzzle piecemeal, scaling far beyond biology's limits. Planes outfly birds; AI will outthink us in speed, accuracy, and scope. Link: edge.org/response-detai…

Michel Foucault, a central figure in post-structuralism, engaged extensively with Neo-Kantian philosophy, which revived and reinterpreted Immanuel Kant's ideas in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emphasizing epistemology, logic, and the construction of knowledge without direct reference to an empirical "thing in itself" (the noumenon or Ding an sich).

His early work, including lectures in the 1950s on Kant's transcendental subject and his 1961 doctoral thesis introduction to Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, critically analyzed Kantian themes like enlightenment, reason, and the limits of human knowledge. Foucault's archaeology of knowledge, as seen in The Order of Things (1966) and The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969) amzn.to/3Jclk59, adopts Neo-Kantian anti-realism—treating objects of knowledge as produced through discursive formations rather than as given realities—drawing indirectly from the Marburg School (e.g., Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp) via French sociology, phenomenology, and thinkers like Ernst Cassirer.

This influence manifests in his concept of the "episteme," a historical a priori structuring what counts as valid knowledge, akin to Neo-Kantian notions of "validity" (Geltung) and the infinite task of producing meaning through regional sciences. Later, Foucault shifted toward genealogy, incorporating Nietzschean power dynamics while retaining Neo-Kantian bracketing of empirical reality.

Foucault's engagement with Neo-Thomist Catholic Scholasticism—a 19th-20th century revival of Thomas Aquinas's medieval philosophy integrated with Catholic theology—is more indirect and methodological. He did not directly critique Neo-Thomism, but his analyses of power, particularly pastoral power in lectures like those in 1975-1976, examine religious institutions and confessional practices as mechanisms of governance, drawing parallels to Scholastic traditions of authority and reason.

Scholars have applied Foucault's historical methodology to Scholastic thought, as in Philipp W. Rosemann's Understanding Scholastic Thought with Foucault (1999) (I'll post a link for that book below 👇), which uses Foucauldian concepts like the "episteme" and the "Outside" to analyze medieval intellectual culture, binaries (e.g., mythos/logos, Christian folly vs. Greek wisdom), and practices like university methods and manuscript transmission.

Jacques Derrida, known for deconstruction, also rooted his work in Neo-Kantian traditions, particularly through indirect influences from the Marburg School via structuralism, phenomenology, and French Neo-Kantians like Léon Brunschvicg. His concept of différance—an originary delay that defers presence and meaning—echoes Cohen's notion of "origin" (Ursprung) as an infinite productive task, banishing ontology in favor of textual constitution of the world. Derrida's grammatology, as a science of writing producing ideal objects, draws from Husserl's Origin of Geometry (interpreted in Neo-Kantian terms) and Saussure's linguistics, reversing speech/writing hierarchies while emphasizing validity independent of empirical context.

This anti-realist stance, where "there is no outside-text," aligns with Marburg's focus on discursive production and ethical intersubjectivity, later extended in his ethics influenced by Levinas and Scheler.
Derrida's ties to Neo-Thomist Catholic Scholasticism are subtler, often through theological and phenomenological lenses rather than direct critique. His work on gift, hospitality, and negative theology engages Christian motifs, positioning him as a "theologian" in some interpretations, with deconstruction challenging metaphysical binaries akin to Scholastic debates on faith and reason.

Phenomenology's connections to Neo-Thomism (e.g., via Husserl and Heidegger) inform Derrida's lifelong dialogue with these thinkers, critiquing modernity while echoing Thomist concerns with essence and existence. However, direct engagements are limited, with scholars noting parallels in his political philosophy and critiques of presence that resonate with Catholic intellectual traditions.

Both Foucault and Derrida were instrumental in shaping Continental Philosophy (I previously did a long thread on that which I can link as well plus a substack article on it), a broad tradition encompassing phenomenology, existentialism, structuralism, and post-structuralism, originating in 19th-20th century Europe and emphasizing historical context, subjectivity, and critiques of metaphysics over analytic precision.

Foucault's genealogies of power, knowledge, and institutions (e.g., in Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality) attempted to deconstruct Enlightenment rationality, revealing how discourses produce subjects and norms. Derrida's deconstruction interrogated binary oppositions and logocentrism, influencing literary theory, ethics, and politics by showing how meaning is deferred and contingent. Their Neo-Kantian-inflected anti-realism enhanced Continental Philosophy's focus on historicity, power, and the limits of reason, bridging earlier thinkers like Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, and Heidegger.

Paleo-Conservatism, an American strain of conservatism emphasizing tradition, Christian ethics, nationalism, regionalism, and limited government, draws indirectly from Continental Philosophy's conservative dispositions, which critique Enlightenment universalism and modernity. Originating in the Counter-Enlightenment (e.g., Vico, Herder, de Maistre), this tradition influenced 19th-20th century Continental thought through Romanticism, Lebensphilosophie, and Nietzsche, fostering anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian views in the "conservative revolution" (e.g., Moeller van den Bruck, Jünger).

Foucault and Derrida's postmodern critiques of power, truth, and metaphysics provided tools for challenging liberal managerialism and universal standards, which paleo-conservatives adapted to oppose globalism and cultural relativism. Thinkers like Leo Strauss, influenced by Continental antimodernism (e.g., Heidegger, Schmitt), migrated these ideas to U.S. conservatism, emphasizing human finitude, tradition, and community over individual rights, aligning with paleo-conservative skepticism of neoconservatism and liberal internationalism.

Post-Liberalism, a contemporary critique of liberalism from both left and right, emerges from Continental Philosophy's challenges to universalism, progress, and relativism, advocating rooted communities, custom, and cultural specificity. Its origins trace to the Frankfurt School's Dialectic of Enlightenment (Horkheimer and Adorno), which Foucault and Derrida extended by exposing liberalism's totalitarian tendencies through discursive power and deconstruction of norms. Continental figures like Schmitt (nomos of the earth, friend-enemy distinction), Heidegger (radical conservatism), and the conservative revolution provide frameworks for post-liberal emphases on sovereignty, geopolitics, and anti-legalism, rejecting Kantian imperatives and Enlightenment materialism in favor of spiritual "care for the soul" (Patočka). British post-liberalism draws from these sources, critiquing liberalism's "forgetting" of customary law and promoting value creation over profit, influencing movements like the alt-right and illiberal states. Thus, Foucault and Derrida's contributions to Continental critiques of modernity fueled post-liberalism's renaissance on the right, shifting from left-leaning postmodernism to conservative applications. @ClassicLibera12 @DanBurmawy amzn.to/4qpNsm1

🧵 1/25: 🚨EXPOSED: The "Game B" Conspiracy – A Trojan Horse for Technocracy, Transhumanism, & Elite Control! Funded by Epstein, rooted in eugenics, & amplified by the Intellectual Dark Web. This isn't sci-fi—it's the blueprint for rewriting humanity. Buckle up! #GameB #Epstein #Transhumanism 2/25: It all starts with the Weinstein brothers' "last questions" in 2018 via the Edge Foundation. Bret asks: "Can humans set a non-evolutionary course that's game theoretically stable?"— escape evolutionary traps? Eric: "Does something unprecedented happen when we finally learn our own source code?"— What if we hack our own "source code"? Sounds utopian, but it's a veil for "conscious evolution"—elite-driven redesign of society & biology. 😱

🧵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."