LilyPatToo wrote:One of the reasons I was pleased to see a thread on him is that I see him as a prime subject for RI to discuss, given that his story (whatever its accuracy) touches upon alien abduction, paranormal experiences, mind control programs and guru status among a group of passionate followers.
Yet considering the hundreds of post-ers here, most RI folk don't seem to want to touch Whitley with tweezers.
LilyPatToo wrote:During MKULTRA, Gottlieb sent out a memo telling his operatives to look for (I think it was) "gypsies, psychics and children" to be exploited as test subjects. There was a reason for this focus on likely high dissociators and I think it had to do with some of the "woo" that the program was trying to weaponize. It was the Cold War and all of us seem to have had some psy abilities. I had one handler who tested me and eventually switched off my precognitive ability with a totally undisguised post-hypnotic suggestion done in public, then disappeared. With other survivors, those abilities appear to have been left "on" and some of them seem to be doing real shamanic stuff. Figuring out what's imagination and what's contact is one thorny thicket, since, as I believe was already said here, imagination is much more than most people assume it is and it seems to me to manifest quite strikingly in people who've been subjected to a lot of systematized abuse early on.
For me this is the thicket that's worth venturing into to see what's on the other side, and maybe what many folk here (and everywhere) find too thorny to want to get close to. IMO, discussing Strieber's experiences, and the man himself, in terms of either/or
(either charlatan or shaman, deluded or inspired, puppet or prophet) rather than both/and
isn't going to get us anywhere. Likewise the wider topic of whether "alien abductions" are "really" "mind control operations," etc, when once again, if the one leads to the other and back again and it's clearly both/and, our challenge is to try and map the existing lines between the two, and discern the ways in which they overlap (i.e., how maybe there are
no dividing lines). For me, the means to approach that puzzle is to keep in mind that whatever's happening is a reflection and expression, not only of the individual psyche involved, but of the collective psyche. Arguing that Strieber's full of s*** then becomes irrelevant, as irrelevant as saying that Manson or Hitler were full of s***: the point is they existed, and since they caught the collective imagination for a time they are worth understanding. Some of the craziest and most fragmented dreams are also the richest for analysis because they emerge from deeper levels of the unconscious. On the other hand, the mundane, down-to-earth, coherent ones may not provide so much "data" about the "system." So it is with our crazy "prophets" and leaders.
In a less literal fashion, this may also be what happens when the "alien" - the non-(or post-/pre-?) human portion of our collective psyche and life-force - tries to assume a more familiar form in order to interface with us (in the hopes of integration), using the rags of our own disowned psychic material to do so. Cue nightmare abduction scenario! One example of this (suggested to me by a friend - Cary McCoy - on an early Stormy Weather podcast) is that the Imaginal "beings," if they were trying to birth us into a new consciousness, could be naively reenacting our own birth experiences to do so, thinking, "Well shit, this is how they do it here," not realizing - or caring - how nightmarish and traumatic our (hospital) births were for us!? Of course, I am using the terms - "us" and "them" for convenience: this would be a psychological process occurring in which all players were aspects of a single psyche: Earth/greater humanity (inc. alien elementals.)
Whoa. I need to think on that...
It would be nice if someone
had some thoughts on it, because it's not an interpretation model I have heard much about elsewhere.
Someone was finally explaining the UFO I saw years ago and my lifetime of "missing time" and making me feel I'd finally found my "family"
That's a very powerful "pull," maybe the strongest there is. Perhaps that's what Whitley wants for himself also? It seems likely that he is trying
to help others like him, and believes that he is doing so by providing a space for them, however much his own neuroses (the "handles" by which he is being intelligence-controlled, if he is) are undermining his best-laid plans. That would make it a tragic tale, for sure.
LilyPatToo wrote:Just my theory, but it makes sense if you've ever interacted with the sort of human monster who exploits children. There's very little expense and effort they won't go to in order to preserve their public facades and hang onto their power and status.
I don't know enough about this to comment, but it sounds plausible.
peartreed wrote:Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) could explain some of it, particularly the frequent self-contradictory versions of his changing stories in his writings and broadcasts. His blending of his highly creative imaginal realm with his writings and broadcasts may also illustrate a very thin veil in his perceptive partitions of realities. But the most undermining aspect of his credibility is his seemingly very fragile form of magalomania, the supersensitive ego positioning itself to be the ultimate intermediary between mankind, the aliens and our collectively chaotic future.
Hi peartreed, glad you joined the discussion.
Supposing Whitley isn't aware of "positioning himself" but believes he has been "chosen"? He may even be buckling under the pressure of that (self-generated?) delusion (assuming it is a delusion). In Communion
he reports how one of the beings tells him he's their chosen one and he reacts angrily by saying it's a "crock." (He believes they are trying to manipulate him by flattery.) Somewhere along the way, Whitley seems to have forgotten this and started to believe in his own prophet/messiah status, hence his frustration and indignation at the world's indifference to his planet-saving mission. It may seem to many here that such megalomania is uncool and drearily "unoriginal" and that only a sap would fall for it. But until we've actually had a taste of the kind of rollercoaster ride which Whitley's been on since 1986, I don't think we are in a position to judge. This kind of messianic delusion is something the brightest minds fall prey too - presenting here for the jury's consideration: Daniel Pinchbeck, Castaneda, John de Ruiter, John Lennon, uh, David Icke - OK so maybe not necessarily the brightest, but the point is that it's a universal sort of disorder that's easy enough to avoid (provided we don't have a complete schizophrenic episode) so long as our life-circumstances don't conspire to feed
that delusion, as in the case of Whiltey and the other names cited above.
(Bit of a digression there, sorry.)
peartreed wrote:The main point I wanted to make was that Whitley Strieber epitomizes a continuing, monitored social experiment in the peripheries of the paranormal.
It's looking more and more that way. One question I'd ask, then, is how much is this inevitably going to be the case with any
leading figure within the alternate perceptions community? The intel-boys & girls are nothing if not thorough: isn't it likely, inevitable even, that anyone who is pioneering in the field (enough to attract a "following") is going to be monitored and, if possible, handled? At the risk of breaking one of Jeff's rules, how do we know that RI isn't "a continuing, monitored social experiment in the peripheries of the paranormal"? And if we can't ever be really sure if we're entering into a honey pot or not, what then? Stay away from everything? Maybe it's all
one big honey pot, and the whole "us & them" POV is no longer relevant - if it ever was? I don't know, just tossing ideas out there.
pegcarter wrote:I found the example I read some months ago. It had been linked in the Facebook wall of Christopher Knowles. I made a comment then as to how he appeared to be totally brainwashed into a false mainstream point of view. And had a tone in this writing of a know-it-all, and of someone who is above all questioning. Even though I knew what he was saying was total false-narrative bullshit and telling people what was to come....programming.
I was chastised by Knowles for criticizing Streiber:
As others have a positive reaction and want to like him and believe him.
Hi Peg, welcome to RI.
If your antipathy to Strieber is based solely on reading his political/social commentary, I don't wonder. With another writer, you'd probably be fairly safe reaching a judgment (at least a tentative one) by reading a random sample or two of their writing. But if you believe that works with Strieber, then you've not only missed the whole point of the debate, you've unwittingly proved it, too.
For example of his blindness to reality: Wikileaks... Streiber talks about Wikileaks as though Assange is a real "whistleblower"http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/w
... s-and-ufos lol
I won't even go near that one, it's a thread-hijack waiting to happen.
Nor do I want to get into a debate about how on or off the ball Strieber's essay on Western Civilization may be, since I haven't read it and it also smells a bit like herring. I don't think anyone here's debating the fact that Strieber talks a lot of crap sometimes. But what does that prove except that he talks a lot of crap sometimes? It certainly doesn't prove that everything he writes is crap. This line of reasoning that says, "Once caught in a lie, stay away from him," or "If he talks crap some of the time, he must talk crap all of the time", again misses the whole point of this discussion, which is that Strieber is not what he appears to be - neither to his fans nor to his detractors. Both are equally wrong, IMO, and equally drastically. (And both are right, too.)
pegcarter wrote:The most stunning thing about Streiber is not his truly stunning idiocy, but that he has someone as brilliant as Kephas as his follower and advocate.
Is that what they call a back-handed compliment? I don't know where you got the (one-dimensioned) idea that I am advocating Strieber, much less a follower of his. Has anyone else got this impression? (I even qualify myself above by stating that I don't want to appear to be advocating him.) Your "reasoning" is quite emotional throughout your post, a fact which, ironically, makes it similar to Strieber's style of reasoning; and as is often the case with emotional reasoning, there's not much room for nuance, yours or anyone else's. Just because I take Strieber seriously and respect some of his writings doesn't mean I am blindly defending him or ignoring his loopier ideas, any more than having a "soft spot" for him, and feeling empathy for his confusion, makes me "enamored." Maybe you could take a closer look at some of the writings which I do admire before lumping it all together (and me too) in your "doofus" file?
pegcarter wrote:From the statement above I assume, Strieber is, at least, a closet trans-humanist. I don't know enough about him to figure if he's formally "out-ed" himself.
This is worth exploring, there certainly seems to be an emerging meme in his writing, starting with The Grays
and now leaking into into the new version of The Key
, that suggests technology as the means to our "ascension." This is a meme I regard with utmost suspicion, but lots of "respectable" thinkers these days give lip service to it, so what do I know?
pegcarter wrote:Does this guy give off the faint aroma of fascism or what?! Come ON.
Again, what's with the grandstanding? And come on where, exactly? Grab our pitchforks and burn Whitley at the stake? Boycott his website? Ban his books from the local library?
What's interesting to me is, if Strieber gives of "a faint aroma of fascism" - where did he pick up the scent, where's it leading him and his followers, and how aware is he (and they) of it - if at all?
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.