New Age = social control???

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Believing not only that there will be a future, but that it will be in some very real sense superior to the past, is essential to standing strong against both of them.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Wow. <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

DE: if that's a new line of thought you really need to read The Myth of the Eternal Return...it's the ur-text of the analysis starroute outlines above, and quite short also -- well within what you can read in a day. <p></p><i></i>

[wintler]

Much of interest here, will too go off in search of the 'Stargate Conspiracy' book. <br><br>I agree with the criticism that world views of many new agers are politically emasculated and counter-progressive, more so than those of many rusted-on christians and others. I also now agree there is real commonality to 'Thulism' and 'Strongism' (as DE put it), and i thank all for helping me get there.<br><br>They're important arguments, regardless of who dunnit or why; i'm not trying to minimise the latters, am very interested in them, but they're much harder to prove and convey in discussion with others. Wonder if the less-certain who-&-why isn't less important that the fact of, which simple personal observation can verify? Am concious that I sound like a minimiser, truly not my intention.<br><br>If any of y'all have/can put these ideas into <800words of plain text, it would aid their promulgation greatly. i.e. i'm simply too new to this to be confident of doing it justice in other forums. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

I have no answers for you, wintler. It's a tangle to me. I'm trying to get a handle on it. That's what this thread is supposed to be...kinda data/idea gathering. I always assumed that new age thought was simply rather shallow and selfish rip offs of myths and practices from other cultures. But all this stuff about the Nine and Strong and Human Potential Foundation and Remote Viewing and alien abductions and crop circles and on and on ...all with government/intel/Rockefellerish connections...<br><br>What's the objective? Why so elaborate? <br><br>I think that circumventing revolutionary ideals was a part of it.<br><br>Pushing an end times is part of it.<br><br>laying an ideological groundwork for....something...may be part of it.<br><br>What about the fascist connections to some of this thought? <br><br>I can't sort it out. I'll warn you (if warning is needed) that it looks like Stargate comes from the perspective that alien or some other kind of forces have been behind all this..which isn't my working thesis here. But it sounds like it has lots of interesting connections. I'm broke now, so I have to wait awhile to get that book...also Levenda's second book. <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

DE:<br><br>my point of view, on stargate, bloodline conspiracies, and the like, is that generally they seem to be unprovable.<br><br>What I think is more important, than whether the myths, or aliens/demons/reptoids/whatever or merovingians or other such nonsense is true, is that regardless of its truth, there is demonstratable history of the "elites" types believing such things to be true, which helps us to better understand wherein their particular "madness" lies. That is, it gives us the view of the underbelly of reality, of the things in the murky areas which normal folks would never even think about, but "privileged" people seem to have time to dwell intently on.<br><br>Clearly to me, to pick an example, whether Merovee and these supposed folks related to him are descendents of Christ isn't really relevant, except as an intellectual curiousity, as it clearly hasn't made these people "superior" in any way to other people. So it doesn't really matter. What does matter is whether or not these folks think it makes them superior.<br><br>In that sense, I think this topic is a wonderful idea, even if no one can ever agree on which parts of these memes are true or false, as we are all guaranteed to find something useful.<br><br>I think, in a very general sense, that the "rich" elitists are simply attracted to weird things as a result of the desensetization that inevitably results from being able to do anything, and in this regard I draw the attention to the fact that their weird hobbies change with the times, not vice versa. Which means there may be no truth to any of it. We might simply be the victims of really rich and powerful cranks and scam artists. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think, in a very general sense, that the "rich" elitists are simply attracted to weird things as a result of the desensetization that inevitably results from being able to do anything, and in this regard I draw the attention to the fact that their weird hobbies change with the times, not vice versa. Which means there may be no truth to any of it. We might simply be the victims of really rich and powerful cranks and scam artists.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think I have to say that it goes further. I think there's just too much evidence that this stuff is being pushed on us. Whether THEY believe this or not is one question, but either way, they want US to believe it. Or signficant sectors of us. If the New Age stuff is a concerted PR campaign to...whatever the hell, and it is going as planned, then it seems to be aimed at the middle class and even upper middle class. Maybe this is the class they feel it is key to control.<br><br>As for Merovingians, a side note. I thought that the whole Priory of Sion thing was debunked. I mean by people we should listen to. Specifically, I thought they showed the main guy behind it had some rightwing agenda (which makes it relevant here, obviously, but his agenda may have been more personal and idiosyncratic...I can't remember) and were able to demonstrate that some documents were forgeries.<br><br>I don't remember details, though. <p></p><i></i>

[starroute]

I'm a product of the 1960's, when it was fashionable to debunk the idea of progress, and nobody was more surprised than me when what started as merely a rap on the history of end-times thought turned into a ringing defense of the necessity of progress as a basis for positive social change.<br><br>But the more I think about it, the more I like the idea.<br><br>During the original heyday of Progress, in the late 19th century, it was tied to a fair number of unsavory correlates. One was the racist assumption that certain nations were more "advanced" than others and the use of this to justify colonialism. Another was a sort of shallow ameliorationism, the expectation that things would just keep getting better on their own, so it wasn't necessary to actually do anything. So it was probably a good thing for the old linear concept of progress to get knocked down for a time -- and we can only hope that a revised, systems theory-based version will be less arrogant and less deterministic.<br><br>When the 19th century faith in Progress began to fade, it was largely as the result of observing that people over the course of history hadn't visibly become any happier or wiser or even particularly nicer. Although the roots of that disillusionment go back at least to the 1890's (think H.G. Wells), World War I was what really drove it home. The loss of faith in Progress was what made possible the rise of fascism in the 1920's, since people were getting nervous about the sweeping changes brought about by modernism and were starting to think longingly of a past Golden Age, of traditional verities, of a more structured and predictable way of life.<br><br>That loss of faith was far more intense in Europe than in the United States, which held onto to a belief that even if *people* weren't getting any better, the quality of life was improving all the time. That more materialistic version of progress was the ruling creed of the 1950's and early 60's -- but even that's been knocked on its ass in the past few decades. This is the primary reason for the decline of the Democratic Party, which was organized around that belief.<br><br>A few days ago, I was tentatively suggesting that I saw "New Age" as something different from the hippie occultism of the 1960's and as having come on strong only around 1979, as part of the conservative counter-revolution that was being brought into play all across American society. I still think that's true, and that one of the defining characteristics of New Age thought is its belief in a "perenniel philosophy" which can never be added to or improved. In other words, it's anti-progress, whereas the hippie expectation (fueled in large part by LSD) was that the sort of esoteric understanding that had been exclusive to a tiny handful of the elect could be generalized to the entire population, and that this would have an enormous impact on society.<br><br>However, New Age thought may be only one side of it. If I were an evil mastermind who was trying to systematically beat down any faith in progress, there are certain things I would do:<br><br>- Continually lower incomes and standards of living so as to deprive people of any personal hope of a better future for themselves and their children.<br><br>- Either instigate or at the very least hype to the hills any epidemics, natural disasters, and other threats to public health and well-being so as to disabuse people of the notion that social progress is making them more comfortable or secure.<br><br>- Promote torture and other forms of extreme brutality so as to undercut any remnants of the old 19th century perception that society is advancing towards more civilized norms of behavior.<br><br>Are these things being done with conscious forethought? Beats me. I think it's just as possible that those who hate and fear progress because it threatens their dominance will instinctively do anything they can to prove to themselves and others that progress is an illusion. (Similarly, singling out the people who invented civilization to beat back to the stone age may be a useful by-product rather than a primary motivation.) But it doesn't matter, since the end result is the same.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

the modern PdS was indeed, debunked.<br><br>What cannot be debunked is the reality that this belief has been present in European royalty for many years, at least hundreds. This was even on the History Channel.<br><br>The "modern" PdS has nothing to do with the veracity of the merovingian claims, as these claims are older than modern times, I'm saying.<br><br>Not to mention the Cathars and/or Templar Knights who are undoubtedly connected to both this meme and several other gnostic trends.<br><br>"debuking" the PdS is something which is irrelevant to the discussion of merovee, etc. If someone led you to believe otherwise, their knowledge of deep weirdness across history is lacking, as this meme didn't appear in the 20th century, like PdS did, it is much much older.<br><br>That, and PdS is a registered medieval organization, as in registered with Holy Mother church.<br><br>There is always a difference between debunking a modern organization and the elimination of the ideas upon which it is based, we should be careful not to confuse the two. The "Jesus had a family in France" meme is older than the New Testament, which is demonstratable. That Piere Plantard and his buddies made up a group to capitalize on their minimal connections to this theme is irrelevant to whether or not the meme has any basis in reality.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[jenz]

sorry to interject belatedly, glub could you expand/explain the aside (penultimate para of post 11/8/05) about near death experiences related to totemism, ritual-human sacrifice-abuse-attempts to access totems via controllable proxies? I think I grasp your meaning but amnot sure. <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

Here goes (I'm a tad out of my element but here's what I was aiming at):<br><br>Shamans traditionally gained their 'supernatural powers' by allying themselves with spirits they met 'across the veil'; 'crossing the veil' isn't that hard -- taking the right drugs, meditating the right way, etc., can push one at least partway through -- but that does no more than transport you to a location where you have no real influence or stature...it seems analogous to being a poor tourist in a foreign city -- you may attract a little attention and get a little help volunteered your way, but you're basically a powerless unknown nobody. Shamans, on the other hand, are for whatever reason 'picked out' by spirits that they then align with -- these would be their totems if I'm not misusing the term -- and the typical process goes something like this:<br>i) after meeting, the spirit 'tries to kill' the would-be shaman ( a nasty fever or disease is most common )...whether this is malicious or simply a necessary evil is something I don't know the answer to <br>ii) when the shaman survives the attempt on his life, he winds up sort of 'bound' to the spirit, and to some extent the 'spirit' to it; I've never seen a clear definition of the exact nature of this relationship, but it seems like each party can extract favors from the other...and each party can cause discomfort or worse to the other when those favors aren't performed<br><br>In a nutshell, then, that's what 'supernaturally empowered' shamans have to go through to gain those powers; I brought it up mainly because it's an example of how a formerly powerful concept's been watered down by new-agey stuff...if you look in older ethnological works this depiction of what the shaman has to undergo is pretty standard.<br><br>---<br><br>For the tie-in to ritual abuse/etc., here's the leaps I was making:<br><br>a) Why does the spirit try to kill its potential partner? Who knows. Given that 'tries to kill' generally means 'a week or two later the shaman comes down with a ridiculous fever' I suspect the answer may be something like this: the state created in the shaman ( feverish -- confused, delerious, not really the 'I saw a white light, tunnel, and angels' sort of 'near-death' experience ) may have something to do with establishing the conditions for binding to take place.<br><br>With that -- that as a working hypothesis to obtain 'supernatural powers' you have to bond with something from 'across the veil' and that that bonding process is unpleasant, to say the least, and also leaves you partially beholden to the bound spirit -- we make the jump straight to the ritual abuse/mind control side of things:<br><br>Whatever else the purpose of SRA/MC, it would certainly seem like a good chunk of it appears from the outside to be aimed at artificially creating scenarios in which spirits can be bound to the abused -- this way the (mind-controlled and dissociated) abused can be used to get access to and influence over spirits -- and thus acquire bound spirits without the hassle ( and personal cost -- you don't come out of it the same person that went into it ) by shunting off the difficult part to a controllable proxy.<br><br>IE, instead of becoming a shaman directly, one acquires a bunch of MC slaves, puts them through all kinds of traumatic experiences, dissociates the part of them bound to the spirits from their daily personalities, and then when one needs work performed one then switches them into the bound personality and has them get it done, meanwhile letting the spirit take whatever revenge it needs on the MC slave.<br><br>Or, in short: 'gaming' the system by 'supernatural powers' were obtained by the shamans of old so as to take advantage of those powers while shunting all the negative aspects off onto controlled proxies; the kind of DID in use seems to both keep the proxies from knowing what's goin on with themselves/tapping into their 'gifts' and as a way of keeping them controllable.<br><br>----<br><br>All of the above is about 90% speculation / hopefully-partially-rigorous intuition based on speculatively tieing together a few solid observations with a whole lot of intuiting and following chains of thought. I should have kept putting scare quotes around all the terms in the above so as to keep it clear that the words are intended more metaphorically than literally in most places -- mainly b/c I don't know what to make of such things other than that the phenomena behave in ways appropriate to their names -- but that was what I was trying to get across. I also doubt it's the whole picture, but I suspect it's a significant part of the 'why' -- both the 'why do such things' and 'why do those things in particular'. <p></p><i></i>