My drift of argument here, to be brief for a gruesome subject, is that a group of hopeful sufis arrived at the Gold arena in midseventies with a gentile and jewish candidate, destined to be plexus-seed transmitters in a balanced directive. No sooner did this group dismiss, with the field of seeding turned on from outside the school, than the gentile was attacked ripped off, and rendered unable to function on any level. This sent the paranoid suggestion of an attempted jewish take over effect.
This would be silly: a whole group of people become carriers just as bystanders in the group.
The big question is, what are the facts, is there an interpretation of the few facts known, what is the status of this hidden technology, and is there any truth to the usual charges of ‘jewish this, jewish that’ in regard to question of control and domination, this in the context of a jewish ‘guru’ who openly boasted of ‘playing monopoly’ on many levels…
The conclusion here is that we can’t conclude anything, should protest the bungled operations done in secrecy, the manipulation of innocents in the display of ‘baraka’ with its unstated catch-22plus. Sufism is a game of saints and pious hooded hopefuls in the context of a peculiar new style of vallainy making jokes about the dark side surprisingly unfunny and regrettably apt.
As for the jewish domination effect and charge, it is surely paranoia as to something impossible. The seed-plexus phenomenon can surely multiply ad infinitum and is not a limited energy phenomenon, and could in any case be reentered at a thousand points in any number of sufi groups. But the reality I suspect is the rarity of this. Whiy? Xtians I think were the first here (Judaism was always about ‘no soul’) with Jews from Israelites and Xtians to realize this benefit in a true spiritual path. It seems to have died out early and thence to reappear in Islamic sufism. That is the superficial guesswork that is relevant to the tale.
This could end in paranoid recriminations.
Let me note that jews and Xtians have royally fucked up religion and that Islam has no such impediment to realization. I will stop short of judgment, despite these facts.
The general public could go wild over this, and the issue here is the caution to not create spiritual monsters by this method. But to my impression the monsters are real and control this process, so many may elect to stand in reserve here until a new public source is able to realize itself.
In general freaking out for being left out is OK for five minutes, but to a larger perspective it is actually better to just be aware of the mystery, and also to consider moving into the ‘buddhist brain drain’ that takes most efforts to become sufis. Why become a devil controlled by some unknown djinn. Better to move in the circles that honestly lead beyond samsaric adventures.
Our idea of the man with the million pound note shows a way to deal with ‘not having’, as a guide to a potential future for all humans, slowly realizing.
Let me withdraw my two posts on the issue of Hollywood and sacrifice as too vague to be understood, and without the correction evidence. Since the statements given make no accusations and state nothing specific save a few pieces in a larger puzzle, but issue a warning that the students in the New Age world must be very wary of whom they are dealing with. If a guru or sufi suddenly makes a reference to sacrifice, always recoil politely and demand clarification. Never surrender the will to people who use ambiguous or loaded categories and fail to specify (as buddhists always specify) their meaning.
The question of Hollywood here should be cautioned with the suggestion that it was not sacrifice in any sense to do with Hollywood actors in given films, but a play on the surface with embedded messages. But beyond that the whole mini cosmos of Hollywood (and Bollywood) is saturated with a kind of egoic monstrosity effect, and generates a riddle beyond easy understanding. These are very recent enterprises in world history, so perhaps the clues are arriving.
What does this mean? Occultism is so demented we reject its forms. But real occultists do exist. Don’t envy them.
But in general the effect of Hollywood movies is starting to suffer the suspicions of ‘private eyes’ in the spiritual domain, who complain that this medium is anti-meditative with the commercial erotic littering the unconscious with the phantoms of captured vision. It has become a perverted medium with debased credentials for art Well, perhaps it is also the result of hunger in many for information about the world which remains unseen, untraveled. It shows a technology for the voyage into undiscovered country and the first acquaintance with humanity for many.
In any case, I think the world of Aleister Crowley, rubbish plus rubbish, points to a real unseen world of real occultists, those who have reached the dark side, there to prosper briefly and perish in hell. I will name no names but stand by my suspicions.
It is unacceptable for the world leader of sufis to be dabbling in (sacrificial?) magic. Since we have no full proof we should instead void the authority of all sufi sheiks and move on.
People like Gold don’t have the right given in dementia by crowley to murder people.
Note that you are free of any allegiance to any sufi shiek. I have had it claimed against me that since I spent one week in 1976 with a few sufis I am beholden forever to these gangsters.
You may have to fight you way out of sufism.
Reading this short-lived blog I sensed the immense hurt recoiling on me at the dawning realization all is not well in the Gurdjieff kiddie ride realm. Behind the kiddie rides are a bunch of gangsters. I think I am right in my stark cold-turkey approach to Gurdjieff mesmerization. Look at the New Age Movement as a whole: those who pursued meditation were on track. Those who tried anything with the likes of Gurdjieff have gone nowhere. Get the point.
NOTE/UPDATE:This post shows fragment evidence and makes no charges oraoccusations.
The case of Barry Lyndon was one of the original issues that led to this blog, and the term ‘cold case’ is appropriate for all of it. But the Barry Lyndon case echoed something in the Gold circle, where a few people noted the signatures of ‘sufis’ in Hollywood films. What was all that? Barry Lyndon collated a set of “the one word’ puns on the names of two goldies.The collation of Barry and Lyndon was the signature for some kind of margical ritual.
The case of ‘Grease’ is obscure, but the suspicion is there, and the ‘three volts’/travolta is a curiosity that is passing into history, to be forgotten. I recall suddenly becoming obsessed with electronics (around 1977) and had a funny idea about ‘three volts’. I knew alot about the math of linear systems but was totally ignorant of the technology. I got the classic Radio Shack 99 in 1 kit which allowed making electronic gadgets like radios a simple five minute job (a great toy for its time).
That’s the end of the story. I learned later that Idries Shah was a bit fan of electronics, so maybe I was momentarily picking up a sufi echo. This is as close as you are likely to get to hidden sufism.
I think the answer here is that people were tracking down the reincarnation of Ouspensky, maligned for walking away with Gurdjieff spiritual energy: they ‘sacrificed’ his spiritual energy, and this echoed out into a Hollywood film.
Crazy? That goes without saying. Actuall nothing has been said: the core facts are that people around those sufis often thought they saw sufi magical echoes in Hollywood films.
Cold case file. The case of the movie Grease is less clear. But this might someday flush out some answers.
Moral: don’t trust sufis further than you can spit.
I am surprised someone should feel so hurt by this blog. But this is a failure to see the crisis in new age culture. This is the generation that heard Osho blame the Nazis on buddhists. Everyone has been reeling in (hidden) shock since the seventies here. Really vituperative counter is a result and can’t be challenged with sentimental chitchat about conscious men.
Gurdjieff does deserve defense against Nazi leanings, if the evidence is there. But the whole occult world was in a state of madness in that generation. Gurdjieff, I think, recoiled, but never spoke out. Whether his presence in Paris throughout was an issue is unclear.
Thanks to NK for the link here. This has been sitting out there for several years.
The charge of kidding the disabled is completely ridiculous. This is a ridiculous charge. I used the term ‘spastic’ as a schoolboy along with many others as a term of slang. It has a cartoon type usage in the general culture by people who are unaware of any medical diagnostic association. The idea that this is disrespectful of the disabled is a headscratcher, bizarre.
this blog is called ‘debriefing the Nemo Con’. Wrong word. I could be nuts, but this is not a con. I used the term ‘con’ with Gurdjieff because his work didn’t pan out as the outcome ‘truthfully’ told in advance. It is all filled with lies.
I accept the challenge to the statement that Gurdjieff approved of slavery. I will try to find the Bennett book on that. If Gurdjieff had any liberal sentiments let’s hear them.
But I think that what I am saying is true in the same way it is true of Nietzsche, sort of. Anyone proceeding down the exile path of the Whites to escape the revolution is a dead ringer. Gurdjieff was among the reactionaries. In general these people use the thematic of the ‘masters’ without the slaves after it. Disciples is far more comforting. The overall verdict is not doubt murky, but it is clear that he was content for the Russian peasant to be as he was. C’mon. That’s just grotesque. But you are right: he could do a dialectic and was actually critical of Ouspensky’s support of Indian cast law. The latter is one of the gross evils of the G movement. How could Ouspensky have fallen for such putrid horrors.
All these new age gurus are having a hard time with modernity, but it is a strategic error that will bring down the new age movement.
Students of Gurdjieff should be exceedingly wary they don’t become slaves of the master, to use the correct ugly phrase. One you have agreed to surrender he will find you in your next life, and attempt control without your awareness. A dreadful plight. Never surrender to such people.
Enlightened buddhas are different: they must finally help you to reach enlightenment (maybe). Figures like Gurdjieff can wish to control a whole flock of slaves over many lifetimes. They have no enlightenment to offer, and must hoarde the energy of ‘consciousness’ they extract from their ‘slaves in the work’.
Osho was very cagy here: he saw that spiritual movements had to drop the past and he tried to cast his gaze on modernity at many points.
I think that World History and the Eonic Effect has had a lot more readers than you might think: people forget the world of books is passing: free books online accumulate a huge readership, surpassing swiftly that of printed books. The net total for WHEE probably surpasses already that of Ouspensky/G. WHEE has had vastly more readers than most scholarly books, the right comparison.
You forget that critics of darwinism are supercensored in the current intellectual environment.
Gurdjieff was one of the first new age gurus to keep his mouth shut on the evolution question.
Ouspensky was clearly a critic of darwinism, but said little.
These are peripheral issues. Obsessing over this shows you are worried. A shrug is right. The key issues noone deals with.
The success of Ouspensky’s book is misleading. Ouspensky and Gurdjieff are undermining Christianity more even than secularists. Who wants to replace Jesus with sufi devils. Don’t fall for it. Beelzebub walks straight through the church and Sweet Jesus wasn’t there to help.
Why would anyone point this out?
WHEE is not about new age subjects. It is a study of world history and it makes a strong defense of modernity. Figures like Gurdjieff are caught up in the anti-modern reaction and it has vitiated all their efforts.
Aha, a critic…finally. The issue of style was not answered right: it is true nonetheless that every writer should be wary of occult attempts to shape his message. The case of T.S.Eliot was sad.
But the poor style in a lot of my writing is an issue. Actually, I found that a copy editor couldn’t help: the concepts were too strange. And the style, which isn’t really that bad, keeps people from fluid bullshit interpretations. The concepts are strange and that is what makes the style seem strange. The book requires a lot of study and is a reminder that we can’t visualize world history without a lot of study, a lot, and more than that balanced study: the neolithic, egypt/sumer, five areas in the Axial, the modern transition and all the areas in between. How about agriculture in Sumer in the centuries before 3000 BCE? A thousand books isn’t enough. So the model given is hard to use. But it has a framework that can be helpful. We are at a crisis of information processing…for the lone reader and scholar, not the computers doing Big Data.
We are still in the world of the Old Testament, a very meagre history, obviously.
Thanks to NK for this link. I appear to be the object of an attack. Read the post before this. I was/am actually a Gurdjieff work celeb. Not done. I want no further with a sufi devil scheme. A period of rage is needed to make that clear. These readers think I am simply nuts. Maybe. But as you see they are desperate for a sufi sheik. I turned them down flat.
The anger you see here comes from attempted invultuation of the unconscious by dead forms, read Gurdjieff/ghost, I guess. The spiritual path for people like Gurdjieff is filled with so much suffering they repel people who suddenly taste it. You see that here.
My mood is rough but it can warn you to steer clear of rogue sufis. What more can I say. Look at the enneagram question. It is pure bullshit. This is peddled to confuse a whole generation and these people don’t care.
Buddhism is superior in this respect.
I don’t know why it is that sufis are so dishonest.