Just to be 100% clear here, I play multiple roles in this community, both as a participant and as a moderator. The “God Mode” voice you speak of is my Mod voice – but even that wasn’t left purely to 3rd-person language, as I added plenty of “I think” and “I see” statements in order to own my own perspective. These are my perspectives, as moderator of this community. For example, I didn’t say “these are your patterns, own them.” I said “These are the patterns I see you falling into.” Could my perspective be off? Sure. But I am also managing this space, which does give my perspective more weight, for better or worse (“God Mode”, as you say) — which is why I do my best to be careful, skillful, considerate, but also strong whenever I am wearing that hat. (As a conservative, I’m sure you can appreciate the need to project strength when protecting your house 
)
the incredible alignment between “Far Left” politics and the Integral Community
See, this is kind of what I am talking about. I have spent many, many hours trying to help you achieve a better understanding of the integral approach, and have even offered you a free course to help you ramp up. I’ve talked endlessly how integral seeks to include perspectives from both the right and the left as a typology that goes up and down the spiral of development, and expressed differently from different stages of cognitive/moral/values development. I’ve talked at length about how integral rejects both the extreme left and the extreme right (in fact, I am pretty sure we have more material on this site criticizing “wokeness” and and things like CRT, than we do criticizing MAGA/Q on the right, but we certainly do both.) I’ve repeated over and over again how integral seeks to include all stages of development, but govern from the highest stage available.
The problem as I see it (notice the 1st-person!) is that a) you seem to believe that including anything that is not strictly limited to your own conservative ideology should therefore be rejected by integral, and b) you seem to think anything to the left of Stephen Miller represents the “far left”. Support social programs? Far left. Think it’s a good idea for billionaires to pay more taxes? Far left. Think it’s possible for “individualism” to become pathological? Far left. Support renewable energies? Far left. I think this is why you continue to make what I see as caricatures and straw men out of what we actually believe, and the kinds of individual and social transformation we would like to see.
Again, these are all polarities, and it is our desire as integralists to make those polarities as healthy as we possibly can. As I’ve said many times in the past, I personally think we’ve swung too far left in the cultural sphere, and too far right in the economic sphere, and I believe we need to push the pendulum in the opposite direction in each of those domains.
“You might consider perhaps applying with the same verve and vigor “Integral” analyses of your favored positions, political parties, organizations, economic policies that you apply to positions you deem as “Lower Altitude” - but that’s completely up to you.”
We do that, very often. And of course, it’s also plugged into a larger historical context. I am rethinking my own preferred positions, parties, policies, etc. ALL THE TIME, and criticize them frequently. I talk all the time about those aspects of the left that drive me up the wall, and that may be exerting a toxic influence on our society. Yet you keep making statements like “you guys think Biden is so integral”, which as far as I can tell, is a claim none of us have ever made. This is where my perception of bad faith comes from.
Here are the challenges I think you might face. In its purest form, integral seeks to include both the left and the right. And we all are figuring out how to mesh with that framework from our own unique perspectives, political allegiances, and kosmic addresses. You need to find a way to be comfortable with that in your own way, without calling us “Maoists” every time we want to include a social program or two.
Integral also seeks to include the green altitude, while also placing guard rails around it so we can be protected from its worst excesses. Just as green seeks to put guard rails around orange, and orange around amber. However, much/most of conservative media is hostile to the green altitude altogether – largely because the left got there first, and staked it out. But as I keep saying, we need to see more green conservatism now more than ever. I think it would be a beautiful thing, a genuinely conservative approach to something like environmentalism that can accept the actual existential threats here, is willing to constrain the worst excesses of orange, and can carry it’s own Christian compassion, rooted in amber, to a genuinely world centric stage. Real “steward of the earth” type stuff.
We can have integral conservatives. But not if they don’t grow through green first. Because there is no skipping stages — there is no path to integral from amber/orange that skips green.
To the right, all they have is a hammer so everything is a nail. To the left, all they have is a screwdriver so everything is a screw. To an integralist, we just want as many tools in our belt as we can find, and to use the right tool for the right job.
And as members of this community, we all need to break out of the black and white tribal politics and find new ways to enfold multiple perspectives across multiple political typologies and spectrums.
Because when that doesn’t happen, it creates tension and then conflict and then lapses into sanctimonious insults and name-calling. And that drives people away. I think @LaWanna makes an exceptionally important point here — I’ve heard from multiple people who have said they prefer not to post in this space, because they do not have energy to deal with the dismissive or even hostile responses they think they will likely receive. The come and visit the community, and see all the accusations of people being “Maoist collectivist Stalin lovers”, and they are immediately exhausted and go somewhere else. Which is why I keep trying to remind you to be mindful of both the quantity and quality of your posts.
To put it crudely, this is a house that I built and manage, and you are my loudest and most active tenant. And I very much want to transcend and include your voice, in order to keep you in the house. But if it’s actively driving people away from the house, then I need to find ways to negate your voice in order to preserve the community. I’d much rather do so through conversation than through censorship, which is why we are having this discussion right now. I hope you take it all with the good will and good faith that I am actively extending to you.