Politics and the Occult
Noone seems to detect the conspiracy of occult reaction at work, from sources such as Gurdjieff. Study his program carefully, along with the ideas of the rightwing Ouspensky and you will get the gist.
Noone can figure out what hit them in this regard.
Utopian communes, alternative spirituality, and radical political activism. In the minds of many, these social phenomena first burst into being during the cultural ferment of the sixties. But according to author and historian Gary Lachman, the countercultural characteristics usually associated with the mid-twentieth century actually have their deepest roots in a series of mystical and social movements dating back to seventeenth-century Europe. In this interview, EnlightenNext’s Carter Phipps speaks with Lachman about his latest book, Politics and the Occult: The Left, the Right, and the Radically Unseen, and the rich history of the often overlooked intersection between Western esotericism, social change, and politics.
For those who are unfamiliar with Lachman, prepare to be impressed. After gaining notoriety as one of the original bassists for the famous punk band Blondie (which won him induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame), Lachman has since become a leading scholar of Western esoterica and occult spirituality, publishing major works on the “secret history of consciousness” in addition to intimate, humanistic biographies of the renowned mystics Emanuel Swedenborg, Rudolf Steiner, and P.D. Ouspensky. In this fascinating conversation, Lachman takes us on a journey through the history of Western occultism—from the Bohemian Brethren of medieval Europe to the free-loving, vegetarian Swiss community Monte Veritas of the early 1900s, and beyond—describing how such groups helped to significantly shape the social and political thought of their time.
We are critical here of the New Age illusions, but the Darwin/New Atheist group are almost unbelievable in their stances.
Face-Off: Sam Harris and Deepak Chopra on God’s existence
Although debates over ‘god’ are mostly undecidable, the general stance of Chopra should be a warning that the New Atheists are completely naive about New Age issues, incapable of even the simplest consideration of historical Buddhism without fainting spells. The Chopras and New Agers are likely to win out for this reason, the almost incredible shallowness of those trained in scientism. However, Chopra does a disservice here perhaps by taking up a tricky theism. After all the Buddhists were not theistic.
The New Atheists can’t even handle Buddhist atheism!
Mar 24, 2010 09:00 AM in Mind & Brain | 28 comments
Neuroscientists don’t believe in souls–But that doesn’t mean they can’t sell theirs
By John Horgan
Read the rest of this entry »
In the context of Sufism, and Gurdjieffianity, and the vaious Indic traditions, the action of the New Atheists (see previous post) almost seems like a set up.
Especially when you see the way that the ‘big devils’ like Gurdjieff compute their ‘denying force’, sometimes directling it covertly to undermine or confuse their opposition.
With the New Atheists the best thing that could happen to Christians is to be opposed by such a narrow view that must fail in the end, discrediting even secularism. In the context, and grasping the occult methods of these devils (unconscious telepathic action) we can suspect that the New Atheists are being so manipulated: promote your own denying force and then spoil it by turning it into idiocy. When the victims belong to the cult of scientism and don’t even suspect the reality of occult crime and mesmerization the job is a pretty pat swindle.
I picked this up from the Abhinava forum, with its remarkable discussions of Doniger’s book on Hinduism.
Subject: [Abhinavagupta] Wendy Doniger’s “The Hindus, An Alternative History”
Date: 3/23/2010 5:39:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
you’ll note that this Abhinava forum is intended to facilitate constructive dialogue among members of entirely different backgrounds and persuasions, who nevertheless share a common interest in Hindu traditions, Indian culture and their contemporary relevance. Read the rest of this entry »
The benign side of freemasonry, and its connection to the rise of modern democracy, has been covered over with so much junk we have lost something important. I had failed to grasp that this phenomenon was a threat, why??, to many conservative gurus, and we see the anti-democratic counterattack in figures like Gurdjieff.
Correctly assessing freemasonry remains a non-trivial task, but it is important to see that the root source stands beyond t he realm of vulgar occultists who rapidly destroy the seed tradition.
THE MASONIC CONCEPT OF LIBERTY
Freemasonry and the Enlightenment
by W.Bro Alex Davidson
Read the rest of this entry »
I am continuing with another passage from Vol 4 of The Dramatic Universe.
This kind of thinking is unique in its detail, even as it contradicts every assumption of standard evolutionary thought with its teleological metaphysics.
It is actually useful for that purpose in challenging reductionist thought even as it self-destructs from its own shaky foundations.
Read the rest of this entry »
I have a funny feeling that the mysterious gift to modernity, freemasonry, was abused almost from the beginning after a fashion that Kant, in a related context, warned against. His famous Visions of a Ghostseer was actually a veiled diatribe against the famous occultist of his age, and warned correctly of the abuse of metaphysics in such pursuits, not the same as warning of the superstitions of occultism.
From Gordon Wood’s The Empire Of Liberty: this innocent passage from the well-known historian’s new book on American history jolted me from my scoffing impatience with the garbage that has taken over the issue of freemasonry: it is Wood’s simple insight that this social/cultural form with an occult aspect emerged in relation to the emergence of democracy!
No wonder the sufi gangsters and Gurdjieff types have taken over the field and corrupted it with reactionary revisions.
What to say of Idries Shah’s claims of sufi influence, very doubtful.
It might help to restudy the subject in thelight of Wood’s intellient and very plain vanilla approach.
The passage from Wood:
THE INSTITUTION that many Americans believed best embodied
these cosmopolitan ideals of fraternity was Freemasonry. Not only did
Masonry create enduring national icons (like the pyramid and the all-
seeing eye of Providence on the Great Seal of the United States), but it
brought people together in new ways and helped fulfill the republican
dream of reorganizing social relationships. It was a major means by
which thousands of Americans could think of themselves as especially
128. David Ramsay to John Eliot, 11 Aug. 1792, in Robert L. Brunhouse, ed., David
Ramsay, 1749-1815: Selections from His Writings, American Philosophical Society,
Trans., n.s. 55, pt. 4 (1965), 133•
129. Crevecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer, Letter III, 80.
130. Donald J. D’Elia, “Dr. Benjamin Rush and the American Medical Revolution,”
American Philosophical Society, Proc., 110 (1966), 100.
Freemasonry took its modern meaning in Great Britain at the begin-
ning of the eighteenth century. The first Grand Lodge was formed in
London in 1717. By mid-century English Masonry was strong enough to
provide inspiration and example to a worldwide movement. Although
Masonry first appeared in the North American colonies in the 1730S, it
grew slowly until mid-century, when membership suddenly picked up.
By the .eve of the Revolution dozens of lodges existed up and down the
continent. Many of the Revolutionary leaders, including Washington,
Franklin, Samuel Adams, James Otis, Richard Henry Lee, and Hamilton,
were members of the fraternity. 131
Freemasonry was a surrogate religion for enlightened men suspicious
of traditional Christianity. It offered ritual, mystery, and communality
without the enthusiasm and sectarian bigotry of organized religion. But
Masonry was not only an enlightened institution; with the Revolution, it
became a republican one as well. As George Washington said, it was “a
lodge for the virtues.”132 The Masonic lodges had always been places
where men who differed in everyday affairs-politically, socially, even
religiously-could “all meet amicably, and converse sociably together.”
There in the lodges, the Masons told themselves, “we discover no estrange-
ment of behavior, nor alienation of affection.” Masonry had always sought
unity and harmony in a society increasingly diverse and fragmented.
It traditionally had prided itself on being, as one Mason put it, “the Cen-
ter of Union and the means of conciliating friendship among men that
might otherwise have remained at perpetual distance.’U!
Earlier in the eighteenth century the organization had usually been
confined to urban elites noted for their social status and gentility. But in
the decades immediately preceding the Revolution Masonry began broad-
ening its membership and reaching out to small village and country elites
and ambitious urban artisans without abandoning its earlier concern with
genteel refinement. The Revolution disrupted the organization but revi-
talized the movement. In the decades following the Revolution Masonry
exploded in numbers, fed by hosts of new recruits from middling levels of
131. Catherine L. Albanese, Sons of the Fathers: The Civil Religion of the American
Revolution (Philadelphia, 1976), 129-30; J. M. Roberts, The Mythology of the Secret
Societies (St. Albans, UK, 1974), 37; Conrad E. Wright, The Transformation of Charity
in Postrevolutionary New England (Boston, 1992); Steven C. Bullock, Revolutionary
Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order,
1730-1840 (Chapel Hill, 1996).
132. Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood, 139.
133• Charles Brockwell, Brotherly Love Recommended in a Sermon Preached Before the
Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons in Christ-Church,
Boston (Boston, 1750), 14.
the society. There were twenty-one lodges in Massachusetts by 1779; in
the next twenty years fifty new ones were created, reaching out to embrace
even small isolated communities on the frontiers of the state. Everywhere
the same expansion took place. Masonry transformed the social landscape
of the early Republic.
Masonry began emphasizing its role in spreading republican virtue
and civilization. It was, declared some New York Masons in 1795, designed
to wipe “away those narrow and contracted Prejudices which are born in
Darkness, and fostered in the Lap of ignorance.”l34 Freemasonry repudi-
ated the monarchical hierarchy of family and favoritism and created a
new republican order that rested on “real Worth and personal Merit” and
“brotherly affection and sincerity.” At the same time, Masonry offered
some measure of familiarity and personal relationships to a society that
was experiencing greater mobility and increasing numbers of immigrants.
It created an “artificial consanguinity,” declared DeWitt Clinton of New
York in 1793, that operated “with as much force and effect, as the natural
relationship of blood.”l35
Despite its later reputation for exclusivity, Freemasonry became a way
for American males of diverse origins and ranks to be brought together in
republican fraternity, including, at least in Boston, free blacks.P” That
strangers, removed from their families and neighbors, could come
together in such brotherly love seemed a vindication of the enlightened
hope that the force of love might indeed be made to flow outward from
the self. A Mason found himself “belonging, not to one particular place
only, but to places without number, and in almost every quarter of the
globe; to whom, by a kind of universal language, he can make himself
known -and from whom we can, if in distress, be sure to receive relief
and protection.” This was the enlightened dream of people throughout
the world being gently bound together through benevolence and fellow-
feeling. And it seemed to many Americans that the nation now responsi-
ble for fulfilling that dream was the new United States.!”
134. Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood, 48.
135. Ann Lipson, Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, 1789-1832 (Princeton, 1977), 40;
Josiah Bartlett, A Discourse on the Origin, Progress and Design of Free Masonry (Boston,
1793),15; DeWitt Clinton, quoted in Steven C. Bullock, “A Pure and Sublime System:
The Appeal of Post-Revolutionary Freemasonry,” ]ER, 9 (1989), 37l.
136. Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood, 109-33-
137. John Andrews, A Sermon on the Importance of Mutual Kindness (Philadelphia,
I am often surprised at the presumption shown to the Gurdjieff name by those who are lulled into overconfidence by the writiings of someone else, Ouspensky.
In fact, Gurdjieff has no real positive recommendations from men of knowledge or spiritual achievement. The nature of Gurdjieff’s life must, of course, remain unknown, but that in itself is part of the problem. Why not simply be honest with the public and state your history/bio out in the open. The idea of hidden esoteric wisdom is highly suspect, and is the excuse for a fraudulent spirituality.
The point here is that Gurdjieffianity is evidence of religion in decline, not of some magical new ‘path’.
The crooks arrive and rewrite the subject as a kind of rigged casino operation.
Comment on G’s malevolence
I did not say G was disturbed, but I did imply that, since he himself called himself Beelzebub, a repulsive and truly malevolent devil, G was malevolent.
An idiot such as yourself who has never had contact with the G gang is all too easily induced to defend the spiritual innocence of an Ouspenskyized brand of gurdjieffianity. Your naivete does a disservice to those whose trust has led them into circumstances of evil.
In any case, this blog has issued a warning, and has been a great success in warning the vulnerable not to enter the zone of malevolence unaware of who they are dealing with.
Whistleblower: working for Scientology
Paul Sims speaks to Marc Headley, the Scientology escapee now revealing what life is really like on the inside
If David Miscavige, the head of the Church of Scientology, had delivered a Christmas Day speech he might have described 2009 as an annus horribilis for his organisation. In October, a French court convicted the Church of fraud, following a trial over allegations by two women that they were conned into paying tens of thousands of Euros for Scientology training materials; and a bookshop belonging to the organisation was fined 600,000 Euros. A month later in Sydney, an independent senator, Nick Xenophon, stood up in the Australian parliament and denounced Scientology as a criminal organisation that “coerces its followers into having abortions” and one “that defrauds, that blackmails, that falsely imprisons”. He then called for a parliamentary investigation into the tax-exempt status enjoyed by Scientology in Australia.
Marrs on the fourth reich
I finished reading Marrs’ book, and my opinion at the end is indeterminate. Because Marrs’ Crossfire on the JFK assassination is well done I give him a temporary benefit of doubt, to the extent of reading his book (s).
I am not sure how far I go with him on the issue raised by his title, thence the purported main theme of his book: on one level however his thesis is, if not obvious, then a referral to some important hidden strains of post-fascism fascism.
But as you read the text something else happpens, it is so packed with secondary issues, and mini-research findings that you are left gaping. A good example is the suggestion that the Nazis actually did produce a nuclear weapon, and that the uranium used by the Los Alamos team was in part produced in Germany by Nazis, brought to the USA near the end of the war.
The book is filled with ‘hypotheses’ like this, which are hard to assess.
In general, I find the book of interest for the way a ‘conspiracy theory’ thesis comes into being willynilly, on the basis of the stark contradictions emerging at many points in twentieth century history in general and the post-JFK legacy in particular.
More on this later. If you can follow the maxim, read all, believe nought, the book is well worth reading.
I was looking quickly at: The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America
This book (which I haven’t yet read) is of interest because its author wrote Crossfire, one of the best factual explorations of the JFK assassinations. I think he deserves a read through of his other books, although I am wincing a little bit at the content, here secret socities, and also the history of secrecy, and the issue of alien life.
But, well, c’est la vie. We can add this to the already considerable confusion here.
Marrs nailed the JFK assassination, so I can’t reject his other insights sight unseen. We shall see.
In general, the issue, as Sillykitty noted several times, of intelligence orgs, mind control and the Gurdjieff legacy as intertwined has to be faced. And thus Marrs book is directly relevant in the way it braids the issue of fascism, and American intelligence histories to that of various occult traditions.
My problem is that noone can get the issues here straight.
But, we will see.