Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Paranormal Smackdown!

I subscribe to Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country newsletter, and in the current issue, is an item about Coast to Coast guest Daniel Pinchbeck. Pinchbeck is author of 2012: the Return of Quetzalcoatl.

In the newsletter, Strieber writes that he got into it with Pinchbeck:
Wow, mild-mannered Whitley gets into a verbal tussle with a guest, and it is INTENSE! Never happened before, in all of his seven years of doing Dreamland, but this one is a corker, as he argues with Daniel Pinchbeck, author of 2012: the Return of Quetzalcoatl.

The argument starts when Daniel suggests that negative views of the future may actually CAUSE negative things to happen. This leads into a fascinating and revealing battle about whether or not Whitley is in league with aliens who do not have the best interests of mankind at heart.

I haven’t heard the interview, so can’t comment on that. But I’ve often wondered about that point made by Pinchbeck: that our negative thoughts, fears, anxieties, acceptance and apathy -- a sort of resignation of the “dismal” future -- doesn’t in fact influence that future.

I think so. The power of “prayer” (and god knows I don’t mean praying to baby jesus, but you all know what I mean) and intent is not to be dismissed so easily.

On the other hand, there’s a danger to this type of thinking. The flip side of this is the happy go lucky, naive, idiots who can’t see or smell the crap that’s flying all around them, they’re so damn happy go lucky New Age little fluff bunnies. That kind drives me crazy.

Oh, back to the “smack down.” Apparently Pinchbeck accused Whitley of being in cahoots with the evil aliens:
Here's an excerpt from the journal: "He accused me of being in league with dark alien forces that do not have the best interests of the human species at heart. He said that I was spreading a dark view of the human future and that, by doing so, I was helping them make it come true."

Whitley defends his relationship with the beings, and once again gives his reasons for what they do what they do:
I have addressed the reasons for the secrecy in these pages a number of times. There are three main ones: first, the visitors would destroy our free will if they exposed us to their knowledge and technology; second, we—in the form of our governments—have reacted to them by doing what we can to hide their presence, and they have respected that; third, the physics of contact are very, very difficult, and unless it is handled by two species who understand its inherent dangers and can cope with them, there is danger that the less-informed species will, essentially, have its access to reality deranged so badly that it will go mad.

That’s his experience, and I can’t, and won’t, deny what he’s been through. I wouldn’t do that to anyone who so willingly shares their personal journey with all this . . . whatever it is.

But several things occur to me and raise questions: for one thing, the “aliens” Whitley’s encountered, whoever, whatever, they may be, are only one of so many types of entities that play with our heads. Or even one manifestation of One Big Thing that presents several variations to humanity.

That part of “free will,” that may be, I dunno. But it’s uncomfortably close -- too damn close for my tastes -- to religion, and a bit more specifically, Catholicism. (Strieber’s a Catholic; coincidence? One thinks not.) It seems these beings -- and I have no doubt at all that these beings are “real” and have been playing with Strieber for a long time -- are “using” him, as they use all of us.

I realize this is easy for me to say; I’m not Strieber, I haven’t experienced what he’s experienced, and I can only offer my unasked for opinion which is pretty much what we all do, so take it with a grain of salt, or, not.

I also question the idea that we’d “go mad” if we knew the truth, I just don’t think we would. Oh, some of us would, no doubt, but that’s not enough to excuse the spindly little beings’ behavior. They’re messing with us, and they need to take responsibility, or get over themselves. Okay, that last bit was over the top, pretty smug on my part. Like they’re going to listen to me. Besides which, they’ll never do any such thing; they’re of the Trickster, and therefore, they’re only doing what they do.

Whitley says, of Pinchbeck’s criticism:
I say in the program that I believe that mankind is going to experience a dieback, and this makes Pinchbeck furious because he fears that just by saying something like that, it will become true. I don’t want to put words in another man’s mouth, but I had the impression that he sees me as a sort of viral particle of negativism, and that my perspective is designed to bring on the destructions of which I warn—presumably, so that my evil alien masters can inherit the ruined planet, I suppose.

Whitley's last line trivializes what I think Pinchbeck was getting at. The point seems to be this: putting out there, almost gleefully in some cases (Major Ed Dames, etc.) the end of world in 2012, etc. can help create such a scenario. Again, this doesn’t mean we are to ignore the horrific situation we’re in now, let alone the future. Forget the future, think about right goddamn now. And then do something about it.

Strieber continues to explain their (the aliens) intentions:
What is so silly about this is the idea that they would want our planet, our bodies, our souls, our genes or anything we have. Are you ready to run off to the Congo to get their cassava? I don’t think so. But you might be moved to go there to help relieve their suffering, even if they have nothing to give you in return.

Many adepts, esoteric researchers, and so on have suggested that “they” are indeed some type of soul eater, or collector; anyway, how in hell can anyone say what “they” want? Simply because these beings say a thing, doesn’t make it so. Putting that mantle of altruism, no matter how harsh it may seem to us lowly poor ignorant humans, again reeks of the religious, and namely, Catholicism.

But then Whitley goes into denial, or some kind of contradiction (or, maybe it’s me; I’m just not getting quite getting it.)
The history of intelligent life in the universe is not a history of magic. It is not about god-beings and mysterious galactic superminds playing in the lives of their wretched planetary underlings. Our gods are in our minds.

Rather, it is a history of what it is like to live in a place that is by the nature of its structure, damn dangerous.

Many intelligent species have become extinct simply because their planet has taken a hit at the wrong moment, or their star has burped a little too forcefully. Just at random. They’ve gone down, no doubt, calling on their gods and cursing their gods, and begging forgiveness for sins that never mattered at all.

One of the great problems that our present visitors face is that they have attained something close to absolute knowledge, and so they know, in advance, where most of these accidents are going to happen. They also know that they can prevent some of them. They live with a terrific ethical quandary: should they? If a species is ugly and probably going to kill itself off anyway, should they just let some cosmic accident happen, or should they quietly intervene, in the deep of space, and redirect that asteroid, or quiet the turmoil in a star?

I don’t know. Really, I don’t. It just sounds so damn . . . Space Brother- ish, really. More articulate, better presented, but still, much of it is the same old god comes down from above and saves us all story. We're telling the story better, but it seems we need to rewrite the stories entirely, not just retell them.

Whitley speaks of a “bell curve” and this is why he believes what he believes, as far as the end of the world coming:
Pinchbeck is right about me in one respect. I do think that there’s going to be a dieback of the human species, and I do not think that anything can be done to avoid it. Certainly, it can be ameliorated and even, to an extent, controlled, but it is going to happen.

The reason that I’m sure of this could not be more simple. In nature, there is a formation called a bell curve. When the ascending shoulder of a bell curve develops, the descending shoulder follows. Nothing goes up for ever. Entropy always sets in. It must. That’s the way that physics works. I said it on the show—at least, I think I did—and it’s worth repeating here. Nature is numbers. It’s math, pure and simple.

Strieber gets even more religious, and I’m not attacking him for that; I just disagree with the interpretation and what I perceive as an ultimately naive view of things. For example, he discusses Mother Teresa, who, as readers probably know, struggled with the question of “God,” of her faith, etc. I don’t see what the issue is; maybe it’s because, being raised partly in a Jewish tradition, “wrestling with god” is to be expected. Questioning, asking, arguing, debating, wondering, -- it’s only logical. I don’t find it disturbing in the least a religious or spiritual person would “struggle” -- I would hope they would.

In this respect, it doesn't matter I haven’t heard the interview, for the questions and points raised by these juxtapositions of negative thought vs. positive thought, naivety, belief, faith, trust in the messenger, as well as the message, are important ones. They’re vital to our future, as well as our present.

9 comments:

mister ecks said...

I take the Keelian stance that everything the "aliens" (or whatever they ultimately are) say is to be taken with a huge grain of salt, if not ignored entirely.

While I believe Strieber is sincere, his and other contactees' apocalypticism has always irked me.

Lesley said...

I agree more with Pinchbeck. When you put forth nothing but negative scenarios it has a negative effect. Dames is an excellent example. However, I do believe in his case their is enough people who don't believe in and who "pray" he is wrong to counteract his negativity and keep it to a minimum.

Aliens, or whatever they are, without a doubt are tricksters of a sort. To take any doom and gloom predictions they make seriously or their promises of saving mankind, is just foolish.

Eyaj said...

"I don’t know. Really, I don’t. It just sounds so damn . . . Space Brother- ish, really... but it seems we need to rewrite the stories entirely, not just retell them."

How about this then......as I said I think they are here for a game, and I believe we are dealing with one of the grandest manipulation schemes ever. I'm not sure which ufologist said it, but indeed that ufologist said it best when it was said that "the reason we don't know for a fact with undeniable proof (ufo's landing somewhere in establishing contact) is because the et doesn't want us to know". The fact that we sometimes see them or recall an abduction isn't so much that they are throwing mixed signals, I don't think they care if we see them so long as the official line is that they don't exist. For the longest time I wondered if this were a game why allow us to become so advanced, but ignorantly later realizing our advancements are on a mircoscale, while the cell phone is far more powerful now then the first computers we still use the same outdated technology to go into space. Our society is by far easier to control now that we are in a techno stage. Again I believe it is a game, if the ancient gods are one and the same as the humanoid ets today, then this game has many parts. The first being "playing god physically" in which small populations of humans are established and employed to work and tend to the needs of et. As the population began to explode and becomes "unmanageable" (mythological history is filled with the many efforts of the gods trying to destroy man due to overpopulation, again it becomes physically impossible to manage) the next phase or part of the game is lets play monotheism (now GOD in the abstract form) and see who has the greatest control over this game. The last phase is preparation and destruction for the game to begin again, systematically collecting dna to later repopulate the human race, and manipulating and directing the human race toward a point of self destruction or more likely vulnerable to a system collapse. Any survivors (not many) would retreat back into the forest and et would start over with a fresh new group of home grown humans in a non populated or sparsely populated area.

BRANT DAVID McLAUGHLIN said...

Why is the whole discussion about Whitley's own foibles? Pinchbeck spiritualizes everything, which is just as off-base as Streiber's pseudo-fundamentalism.

Your thoughts positive or negative do influence and bring about things in your own life, but your actions matter for a lot, too, and while there is significantly less randomness in what comes into ur lives than most want to think about, there still IS randomness, and events that come upon one from without, regardless of creative visualizatin done for fun and profit; and you can't use it to make friends and influence people, either (that's character, and their willingness, does that).

What's more, you can't just ignore bad news, "creatively visualize good news", and poof away something wicked this way coming. Life's bigger than that, and it's way bigger than you personally.

If Pinchbeck believes what he does about Whitley, then all he has to do is create thought-forms of shields against the aliens--or, better yet, visualize them disappearing. His notions naturally lend themselves to absurd reductionism.

Besides, let's be real (that is, objective): are the members of mankind throughout the world becoming illuminated? Mostly, no. This is not a time of great global illumination (if such a thing can ever be). It's just a time there's faster communications around the world (for good or for the ill of misinformation), and the few and the proud who are being illuminated are typically being more illuminated than they could have been in the past. That's it. You can't creatively visualize mankind out of a disaster. It can work for you on a personal level, however--but keep in mind, nothing's perfect in its workings.

R. Lee said...

Brant, thanks for your comments.

Why is the whole discussion about Whitley's own foibles?

Because it’s my thoughts, my blog. Seriously though, I found the whole thing interesting, and I personally believe that we can influence the future; create it, even, by our thoughts. Constantly projecting negative thoughts out there towards the future, “hoping for” or agreeing with the negative future scenario, -- in other words, our intent concerning such -- will help to bring it about. That’s my opinion.

Pinchbeck
spiritualizes everything, which is just as off-base as Streiber's
pseudo-fundamentalism.


I personally don’t see anything wrong at all with “spiritualizing” things. And I often like Strieber’s take on things; his mystical stance. Sometimes it’s too “pseudo-fundie” for me as well, as I pointed out in this piece. But that’s our opinion, and he’s enttiled to his. HIs experience, his response, his interpretation. But, since he puts it out there for all of us to also experience, we can comment on it as well.


Your thoughts positive or negative do influence
and bring about things in your own life, but your actions matter for a
lot, too, and while there is significantly less randomness in what
comes into ur lives than most want to think about, there still IS
randomness, and events that come upon one from without, regardless of
creative visualizatin done for fun and profit; and you can't use it to
make friends and influence people, either (that's character, and their
willingness, does that).


I agree, action counts for a hell of a lot. Anyone who’s read my blogs for any length of time knows that. No argument there. I also agree there’s randomness; we can’t control that either. We can be responsible though, both in thought and action, for what we put out there.

What's more, you can't just ignore bad
news, "creatively visualize good news", and poof away something wicked
this way coming.


I beleive I said that. You can’t ignore “bad news,” well, you can, lots of people do, most unfortunately. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My point wasn’t that there isn’t really bad stuff happening, and will continue to happen if we don’t take action -- my point was, our thoughts can and do influence things.

Life's bigger than that, and it's way bigger than you
personally.


Yep, and you, and all of us.

If Pinchbeck believes what he does about Whitley, then all
he has to do is create thought-forms of shields against the aliens--or,
better yet, visualize them disappearing.


Hmm, I think that’s a little harsh, a bit over the top. Actually though, there’s been some interesting studies on doing just that; various abductess experimenting with techniques to keep them at bay. I’ve had some personal experience with that as well.


His notions naturally lend
themselves to absurd reductionism.Besides, let's be real (that is,
objective): are the members of mankind throughout the world becoming
illuminated?


We can always strive to be objective, but I maintain that, when it comes to human perception and experience, there is no such thing at all as true, pure objectiveness.

But, I do agree with you, our technology has made great leaps. while the rest of us haven’t. We haven’t kept up on emotional, spiritual or psychologicl levels with our own technology.

Mostly, no. This is not a time of great global
illumination (if such a thing can ever be). It's just a time there's
faster communications around the world (for good or for the ill of
misinformation), and the few and the proud who are being illuminated
are typically being more illuminated than they could have been in the
past. That's it. You can't creatively visualize mankind out of a
disaster. It can work for you on a personal level, however--but keep in
mind, nothing's perfect in its workings.


I don't think anything is perfect. Of course, I guess that could lead us into a philosophical question of defining "perfect." Sort of like "happiness." But, I digress. . .

Again, my point wasn’t that we can just be happy go lucky Pollyannas and wish away all the Big Bad Nasty Meanies of the world with our happy joy joy thoughts. Not at all. As I’ve said, and said many times in other places, I get extremely frustrated with those types.

But there is something to be said for taking responsibility for intent and for what both your actions and thoughts say, and they do (in my opinion) affect what’s around us, as well as the future.

As well as what we choose to believe in, and accept. I say, "Question the messenger, the message, the whole damn thing." Whitley buys into (so it seems) what "they" tell him. I find that incredibly interesting, as I do all abductess, Contactess and experiencers of aliens, visitors, etc. --- just because "they" said a thing, or show us a thing, doesn' mean it's real, or true.

R. Lee said...

Mister Ecks,
I agree that Strieber is sincere, in my opinion. But I also often find his responses/beliefs "irksome." I think we should remember though that it is his experiences, and his interpretations, and his . . . well, life. He needs to do what he needs to do, and go through the journey and process the way he needs to. As we all do.

R. Lee said...

Eyaj, you said:
"the reason we don't know for a fact with undeniable proof (ufo's landing somewhere in establishing contact) is because the et doesn't want us to know". The fact that we sometimes see them or recall an abduction isn't so much that they are throwing mixed signals, I don't think they care if we see them so long as the official line is that they don't exist.

I agree with that completely; obviously, after all these years, and I mean thousands of years, 'they" would have done a lot more in terms of showing us who and what they are, and what they're up to, etc. by now. That's why I am so firmly convinced much of this is Trickster --- it's what Trickster does: confuse, lie, play tricks, invert, turn things upside down, and so on. Everything but easy, simple and obvious things, like telling the truth, being open, and so on. Also, Trickster is often all about humor, though often a sick perverted twisted sense of humor, which explains things like the aliens behavior, and so on.

middleworld said...

Anyone read "The Stargate Conspiracy"? Whitley gets exposed as a disinfo agent. NWO types are fomenting an alien cult- manipulating sincere, fearful gullible types looking for salvation through the aliens' higher knowlege, or seeking human unity through bonding together to fight an alien invasion. Either way the NWO types get global. Most UFO sightings are defense technology. Ever wonder why almost all of them are after WW2? Whitley Streiber is a lying asshole. I can't believe Pinchbeck would stoop so low as to go on his show. Streiber is a fear monger, and a book seller. Snake oil, baby, don't buy it.

R. Lee said...

middleworld,

I haven't read Stargate Conspiracy but, as with all things, because it says a thing, doesn't make it true. WS may be a disinfo agent; that rumor's been around for a long time. He may not be. We'll never know. There's no proof what he says are lies; none. All we have to go on are our instincts, our own experiences, etc.

My opinion is, in this context, is if he's a liar or not -- the negative view he has vs. the views of Pinchbeck is interesting and Pinchbeck has a good point.