Reddit mentions of Vectors of the Counter-Initiation: The Course and Destiny of Inverted Spirituality

Charles Upton wrote a book on it too (haven't read it yet).

I don't know if counter-initiation is a real thing or not. If it is real I don't know if it is wrong or not. Also, it is unethical to even speak of such things but whatever—this is one of the most important things I study.

It's the reptilians, mythically speaking. And the Greys as well, both the big and small ones. The reptilians, which look like politicians, are those who have given themselves over completely to greed—or something like that—and have bought in to the point of not being able to tell right from wrong at all anymore. At least, that's the most sense I can make of it.

The small greys are the puppetmaster program running your typical snide atheist or analytic philosopher: Since the inception of the modern era (by technology, libraries—>newspapers—>TV, the Great Banishing aka the Reformation, and technoscience), the ego-program has become highly sophisticated—if it wasn't already ultra-sophisticated—to the point where it can perfectly mimic initiation in all its aspects, except one—the nameless quality (feeling, color, love, Dao, etc.). This is Deleuze & Guattari's dialectic of the Face (as Christ). The Face arranges a hierachy of like-me=good to not-like-me=bad of other faces, and it attempts to normalize the network so all faces are like itself or removed from its connections. This is basic tribal politics and this is what the Greys have perfected as the ego-image of modern man (Giacometti's Thin Man, Slenderman...). This cold, calculating intelligence effortlessly facsimiles appearances—images and mimics its opposite—shades of Archon inflitration here—in an attempt to approach The Secret (which is the nameless quality) that can never be reached by such an imagistic, logic-based dialectical intelligence as that of the ego-face-alien. The small greys are the people who have a perfected or nearly-perfected dialectic of soullessness—intensive defenses and body-armor to the point of almost never being touched by a free care—and they are on the way to destruction (see the movie Ink).

The tall greys are who you really have to worry about. Reptilians are just angry little haters, the short greys are annoying but ultimately kindhearted, but the Tall Greys are the creepers who are truly cold, and know it. They live the paradox, and they are either our wise, emaciated masters (gurus) from beyond the stars—or they are some creepy-ass psychopaths who are bent on slowly cutting the heart out of life. Maybe there are both kinds—the individual alignment of such a being may be complex and —well, grey.

These descriptions match the "embronic" and "reptilian" types in the neoGnostic internet scriptures, and they probably also match something Plato said about types of people.

Personally, I think there are good illuminati and bad illuminati—the initiated and the counter-initiated. I've met people whose logic and commitment to evil is deep-rooted and complex—their intelligence is wicked and cruel—you can see the way their know that what they are saying is cruel, that they mock even themselves, as they continue to masquerade as do-gooders. They enjoy watching the microexpressions of me cringing from their microexpressions of cruel avarice as they speak about their cruel plans.

That's an extreme case, but people like that are not uncommon. I think it happens due to a dialectical Ninth Gate-style descent in discussion with the underworld, an attempt to perfect the self through rigorous method and logical perfection—combined with a lack of third factor or will-to-grow. In that crucial moment on the precipice in Mount Doom, do you casually toss away the ring or do you pocket it? (The one who casually tosses it will find another one waiting back at home on his pillow, no strings attached).

In other words I think that it's a choice: becoming initiated or counter-initiated or switching between the two, insofar as they are states and not something much more complex (dialectical positions within a social life narrative?), is possible and in fact pretty easy—all it takes is a choice. The choice to try to love is the same as loving, and giving up on trying to love causes a death of care in the individual, which means the loss of something ephemeral and essential in conscious experience. The philosophical zombie may not quite exist (thank heavens)—but many times I have sat across from the philosophical vampire.

I have just started a book on this topic to begin collecting my thoughts in this area. Mainly I focus on working out the dialectic from the inside and articulating its dimensions, its architecture. Really a book on Christian morality if I'm being honest.