Just indulge me and follow my digressions; while this is about the Aeolus Kephas piece on Streiber in Stuart Miller's Alien Worlds magazine, the article caused me to go off on my own little tangents concerning the rejection of the "dark side" by UFO researchers as well as witnesses, the "block" within concerning UFO/alien experiences and the paranoia some have concerning appearing too paranoid.
Stuart Miller very kindly sent me this issue of his new magazine Alien Worlds. I'm very late in responding, but I want to say that the issue is great. (And when I'm able I do plan to subscribe!) One article in particular that really sent me over the edge, (a good thing) is the mysterious Aeolus Kephas's piece on Whitley Streiber: Through a Fractured Glass, Darkly: Will the Real Whitley Strieber Please STand Up? Excellent! I don't agree with everything Kephas has to say but that's hardly the point.
As I mentioned yesterday in my Sunday post, the more I explore and study UFOs, including my own experiences, the more I realize the UFO phenomenon is not just one thing, that we simply cannot ignore the stranger aspects, and that includes the Contactees, Reptilians,Billy Meier, the Raelians, Betty Andreasson, the changing appearance of UFOs, Bigfoot, telepathy, skeptibunkies, -- all of it. UFO researchers, writers investigators, what have you, need to stop whining that UFOlogy is a "circus" or a "carnival" -- well, it is a circus and a carnival but that isn't a problem. But I'm digressing here.
Back to Kephas and Streiber. I think most of us agree that Streiber the man, as well as his experiences, are complicated and often contradictory. Does this mean Whitley is full of crap? Not for a minute. Is he telling the truth? Is that even a question?
There's so much in this article that I can't do it justice; besides, Kephas is an excellent writer and I feel silly trying to get the gist of his piece across. One thing he wrote that I liked has to do with those who ignore or trivialize the higher strangeness, esoteric side of the UFO experience. In contrasting fairy lore and other similar narratives with our current UFO/alien experience, including the "dark" side of such experiences, Kephas writes:
The dark edge comes less from the phenomenon itself than from a distortion that occurs once it is filtered through the minds of individual researchers and experiencers. F. . . UFO lore. . .tends to be heavy, oppressive, and laced with despair. There is a soulless one might even say sickly quality to it. that results when writers and researchers suck all the magical essence out of t e Imaginal by imposing their own rigid land neurotic personalities onto it. This usually happens without their even being aware of doing so, which is basically the problem; it is an unconscious distortion, and it is unconscious that distorts.
I had a conversation the other day with someone involved in a local disclosure UFO study group. We were brainstorming on possible speakers presenting in the area; he said he didn't want anything "negative." I was reminded of another group, years ago, that put was putting on UFO presentations here in Eugene. At one meeting the M.C. read letters from UFO witnesses, including mine. Mine, he didn't finish reading, tossing it to the side, stating that they weren't here to "be negative" or go into a dark place. What did I say that was so offensive? Simply that I suspect a lot of manipulation going on, not all of it good, by both human (government) forces, as well as "alien." I wasn't questioning the reality of UFOs or aliens (or what we call aliens) or the experiences of witnesses-- myself included. I was questioning motivation and interpretation.
A third experience, that I've mentioned here in the past, involved a different UFO group in the area. One member told me he didn't want to be around me because he couldn't believe I was "that negative" when I shared my opinion that I suspect manipulation;on the part going on by both human and non-human forces. How dare I criticize our government?
I find it astounding that people still think like this. In the case of the most recent conversation, I found myself fumbling around and defensive when he said he didn't want to get "negative." I felt somehow attacked, although I know the person wasn't attacking me, and I felt somehow ashamed. Somewhere, I felt, I should know better, be better, be all open and shout "Yes! I AM an abductee! I love the aliens, and they love me! YES!" or whatever. Why don't I remember what happened during my missing time episodes? Why don't I have a conscious recall of seeing aliens? It must be me; I'm too closed, "not ready," etc. Screw that New Age quasi-Christian Space Brother crap.
But I do believe I've digressed again.
Back to Kephas:
The best ufo commentators - Jung, John Keel, Jacques Vallee, Robert Anton Wilson, Terence McKenna, Kenneth Grant -- have been aware of this pitfall, and so managed mostly to avoid it. Freely acknowledging the unfixed, mythical nature of the UFO beast, they have treated it accordingly, allowing i it to remain dan essentially unknown, possibly even an unknowable, quality Yet as a general rule (McKenna possibly and Grant being partial exceptions) these writers have not been recounting their own personal experiences but simply interpreting data provided by others, hence they had had the luxury of distance.
We can all learn from each other; my only quibble is with the idea the witness or experiencer herself is incapable of being objective, or more true, than anyone else.
There is so much more to this piece. One section of the article deals with mind control -- not by the aliens, but by the CIA and other government agencies. MK Ultra, and more, manipulations of the mind that are still occurring. Streiber suspects he was a victim -- going back to childhood -- of these heinous experiments. I wouldn't doubt it. This has been theorized before, but it seems to get little attention. (Like the apathy surrounding UFOs over weapons sites and such, this disinterest in these aspects of the UFO experience is just weird.)
If it's true that Whitley was messed with by some sick psy ops project, it explains quite a lot, as Kephas points out. Researchers, as well as the sketpics, would do UFOlogy a huge favor by considering the idea of mind control seriously. Unfortunately, it's still a minority, fringe topic, even among researchers. It's considered kook stuff and conspiracy nonsense, and it's what, in part, gives UFOology a "bad name" according to some UFO researchers. (The skeptics, sigh, well, we simply don't expect them to go there at all, being the apologist shills they are.)
If it's true that Streiber was a victim of mind control, that doesn't exclude the reality of "the grays" or some type of alien and UFO reality. It certainly messes things up; but doesn't "prove" that aliens/UFOs don't exist, or that Whitley is a liar. It just isn't that simple.
In my opinion, cases like Whitley, like the Contactees, Billy Meirer, etc. need to be really explored, not just blindly accepted as some new kind of savior, nor dismissed as cranks and kooks.
Kephas has a website: Stormy Weather.