HERE'S THE LAW:
"The 'left wing occult' plays into the hands of the enemy.
We believe in openness and tolerance. As a group, we’re remarkably free of bigotry and the need to dominate others. Heck, we could make a big difference... or we could if it weren’t for the Law of Quantum Failure. Once the psychic powers and golden age fantasies come in, all the wisdom and good intentions in the world can’t help."
-- From Geoff Gilpin's (downloadable) Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Miracles, Quantum Failure. He's also the author of The Maharishi Effect.
HERE'S THE EVIDENCE:
" A new book has caused a stir with its detailed descriptions of White House visits to Hillary Rodham Clinton by a New Age psychologist,...Dr. Jean Houston (above). Two White House meetings with Dr. Houston are described in a new book about the 1996 Presidential campaign by Bob Woodward,...Newsweek magazine, which is also promoting the book, "The Choice" (Simon & Schuster), characterized the visits as seances,..."
-- Francis X. Clines, in the New York Times
"No one had preached this [NewAge] message more effectively, or profitably, than [Marianne] Williamson, who took the initiative to suggest that Hillary and Bill consider getting together with her and,...two lesser-known women on the seminar and lecture circuit whom she thought Hillary would take comfort in talking to in her current state: Mary Catherine Bateson and Jean Houston, who often worked in tandem…
Jean Houston, with her husband, Dr. Robert E. L. Masters (above) was co-director of the Foundation for Mind Research, in Pomona, New York, best known for research into psychedelic drugs, hypnosis, sexual behavior, and 'humanistic psychology.'"
-- From Carl Bernstein’s book, A Woman In Charge, pp 412-7
"Jean Houston became a close advisor of Hillary’s, and on numerous occasions she stayed at the Whine House for days at a time. She worked with Hillary through therapy sessions designed to help the First Lady reach her full human potential. Part of the therapy, often called “channeling,” included guiding Hillary in conversations with the dead—Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi to be precise.
Houston understood firsthand the value of this exercise. In a 1989 conference she told a crowd of 6,000 she had contacted the Hindu goddess Sarasvati while meditating on the Ganges River in India."
-- From Bay Buchanan’s book, Extreme Makeover, pg. 32
HERE'S ONE OF THE (PROJECTED) FANTASIES:
"President Clinton has an impeccable record on race, civil rights and issues that matter to the African-American community, the strongest of any president in our time.”
-- James E. Clyburn (above) the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives (and an undeclared superdelegate from South Carolina who is the Democratic whip in the House) who the New York Times calls "one of the country’s most influential African-American leaders".
AND HERE'S THE FACTUAL RESULT:
"As Clinton performed blackness, real black people got poorer. The poorest African-Americans experienced an absolute decline in income, and they also became poorer relative to the poorest whites. The richest African-Americans saw an increase in income, but even the highest-earning blacks still considerably lagged their white counterparts. Furthermore, the '90s witnessed the continued growth of the significant gap between black and white median wealth."
-- Melissa Harris-Lacewell (above) associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University.
See how well the Law Of Quantum Failure works? (Better than The Secret's Law Of Attraction,that's for sure. Unless, of course, if you're black,...no - wait,...)
Alright, CMC, but this is also in the Gilpin's article (Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Miracles, Quantum Failure):
ReplyDelete"I’d like to reprint a quote that’s received a lot of media attention in the last few years. The speaker is a “White House aide” who is generally believed to be Karl Rove. He is talking to a reporter about the relationship of the press and the Bush administration.
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re
studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s
actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Aside from its overall creepiness, I’m struck by a couple of things in this quote including the New Age language. “You create your own reality” is an axiom among trancechannelers, quantum healers, and my friends in the TM movement. Of course, Rove (or whoever) isn’t talking about quantum consciousness or “energy” or ectoplasm or any other new age window dressing. He’s talking about brutal authority and raw power, but it boils down to the same thing.
The other striking thing about this quote is the occult mentality of the speaker.
*It may seem peculiar to label Rove, Bush, and their neocon ilk as occultists, but the label fits. They operate in secret to advance a utopian agenda in accordance with revealed truths visible only to believers.*
The utopia of the neocons looks a lot like the grim, authoritarian theocracy that Maharishi successfully created out of the TM movement. There’s another parallel.
The neocons came to power during a period when a good chunk of the American public retreated into the kind of subjectivity I remember from the TM movement. Millions of
Americans adopted new age beliefs—meditating, performing healing rituals, “visualizing
world peace”—in the hope of enlightening the planet, just as my friends in the movement had done. Meanwhile, the neocons were promoting their own form of the occult—Biblical literalism, “Intelligent Design,” conspiracy theories. Guess who won?"
(Just remember, I'm only an interested messenger, pointing it out here:).
Yea, I know. I've referenced Gilpin's article before, and added the caveat that I don't agree with all of it, but just didn't want to say that every time I mention it. I feel that same way about Chris Locke's Mystic Bourgeoisie: it's a great place to sort out NewAge shit (he was deep into it) but - knowing he's, also, a Lefty - I find his attempts to tie neo-cons into it sorta hit-and-miss. That's not to say I don't learn things, about the Right, fom him - because I do - but he has to strain a bit for credibility on that front.
ReplyDeleteCMC, but you can't pick and choose here, according to your likes and dislikes. (That is, you can, if you want to, of course, but you should not if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself, imo.) So, the Left is cultish, no doubt -- and you go with it because you dislike the Left. But when the cultish thinking is pointed out on the Right, you gotta be able to see it too.
ReplyDeleteI'd say that Gilpin's argument here for the cult-like thinking on the part of Rove&Co. is sound. "Creating our own reality"? For others "to just study"? C'mon, it does not get any more cultish than that. Not to mention the creationism nonsense that these folks worship so. You know, it is part and parcel of the same mindset. Individuals who display proneness to cultish thinking do not just turn it on and off at will, cultivating little pockets of cultism here and there, and remaining of sound minds everywhere else. The tendency to disregard reality in favor of one's preferred myth (agenda) permeates everything these people think, feel and do. There are no miracles (pun intended) or surprises here. We just need to keep our eyes open to see this and not be swayed by our personal likes and dislikes in our judgment.
"CMC, but you can't pick and choose here, according to your likes and dislikes. (That is, you can, if you want to, of course, but you should not if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself, imo.) So, the Left is cultish, no doubt -- and you go with it because you dislike the Left. But when the cultish thinking is pointed out on the Right, you gotta be able to see it too."
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to play favorites, E, that's for sure: it would be intellectually dishonest and, I assure you, I'm sincerely not using cultism as a propaganda tool for my politics or anything else.
I've tried to point out (countless times, to an audience that - no surprise to me - refuses to take it seriously:) there's a massive bias on the Left, making the efforts to bring the charge of cultism to the Right strike me as bogus - like journalists determined to "balance" a story when there's no reason for such balance. In dealing with cultism, Left-wing bias is a problem I have to be able to work with, since most of the people really looking into cultism are former cultists - but, still, committed Leftists. They just haven't been able to cross the bridge of politics.
For instance, I've talked to Chris Locke a few times (over the phone) and he's a dyed-in-the-wool Lefty - and a former Buddhist cultist - so his attempts to nail the Right don't surprise me. Mostly they disappoint, because he tends to "lose the plot" on cultism, and sends us (his readers) down blind alleys that lead nowhere. Not always, but usually. (He's most successful when dealing with the guys that invented the A-bomb and such, rather than neo-cons.) I've tried to get him to focus but to no avail. And, like I said, he has gotten some good stuff, so I can't complain too loudly: I appreciate his scholarship, though, when it comes to the Right, it can sometimes be like talking to Linus Pauling about vitamin C.
As far as Gilpin's charges go, lots of things about Karl Rove & Co. are "widely believed" by the Left - and almost all of them have been proven not true - and, I don't have to tell you, "belief" has always been a sore spot with me. (Watch 60 Minutes, tomorrow, to hear Justice Scalia rip a new hole in the "Bush stole the election" mantra so many have forced down our throats for the last 7 years. They just won't shut up,...) Karl Rove is an atheist (which, as you know, wouldn't be tolerated leading a cult) and - other than a “White House aide” - Gilpin's quote doesn't have an actual name attached to it. And, honestly, it doesn't sound like any Rove quote I've ever heard: he's a pretty straight shooter - not prone to solipsistic, or Rumsfeld-like complexity - and, as you said, "Individuals who display proneness to cultish thinking do not just turn it on and off at will." He would've slipped up more than once so we could lay such thinking, cleanly, at his doorstep.
Also, I haven't heard any Bushies *seriously* pumping creationism, though it is clear many Republicans don't believe in evolution. (I'm not attending Obama's church here: Bush said, in his tortured way, he thinks the schools should educate and - though I'm purposefully twisting his intent - I agree: science teachers should use creationism to show why it's implausible. Being fair, Bush holds the same position as Al Gore, though, it's hardly been treated the same way - which is exactly my point about bias: Gore is portrayed as "Mr. Science", leading a crusade for reason, and Bush a raving lunatic. Except for (sadly) Ben Stein, the strident creationism argument's mostly backed by what I consider yahoos - even the ones associated with government.
Find me leading conservatives who spent the '60's hanging out in ashrams, or doing some of the other mind-numbing crap we find, regularly, on the Left, and we can talk. Find me Bible-thumpers who declare they're God, so right and wrong don't apply to them, as NewAgers think. Find me anything - anything - concrete and I'll cop to it. But, until then, Right-wing cultism is just Left-wing "beliefs" (an attempt to balance the uneven scales or say "we haven't fucked up too bad") and, as far as I'm concerned, should be taken (as the superstitious saying goes) "with a grain of salt" until further notice.
Actually, the sentence in the first paragraph should read:
ReplyDeleteIn dealing with cultism, Left-wing bias is a problem I have to be able to work with, since MANY of the people really looking into cultism are former cultists - but, still, committed Leftists.
There's been a lot of good work on NewAge cultism done by Christians,...
OK, CMC, let's leave it "until further notice" then.
ReplyDeleteJust want to point out one thing. You say "Karl Rove is an atheist (which, as you know, wouldn't be tolerated leading a cult)."
I'd say that the absence of religious beliefs of any kind does not necessarily preclude cultish thinking. Staunch atheists may be as prone to cultish thinking as dewy-eyed religious nuts.
I consider cultishness to be a rigid and/or impenetrable system of thought that is based on sustaining some dogma, which itself is (largely) incompatible with reality. Dedicated communists, whom I remember personally from my younger days, for example, took pride in their atheism while displaying a stunning disregard for reality in other aspects of life, along with worshipful attitudes toward their "idols" (Marx, Lenin, etc.)
I think no political system is immune to cultish leanings, whether or not the system itself is associated with any religious beliefs. Political beliefs by themselves can and do fulfill the role of the dogma for many, so no additional idolatry is needed (other than worshiping the political leaders who represent the same belief system). One becomes so enamored with one's political convictions that it effectively distorts one's perceptions of the world, as well as feelings and thoughts, making reality inconsequential -- or consequential only as much as it conforms to those rigid beliefs (and the rest of it is to be changed or destroyed by whatever means are deemed appropriate, whether ideological, military, economic -- or all of the above). Cultish thinking, in my view, is the triumph of ideology over reality -- and as such, it can be found on any end of the political spectrum (the further from the center, the more likely).
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I think you're missing my point:
We're not disagreeing on what a cult is - or if atheists can form/join one - but on whether it's a phenomena of this administration. As I pointed out, with the fanaticism inherent to cultism, the Bushies can't possibly hold a Right-wing religious cult because Rove wouldn't be allowed to take the lead in it. His atheism would disqualify him, just as my conservatism disqualifies me to most (cultish) liberals, whether I'm trying to be of service or not. And notice that Joe Lieberman's disagreement on one issue - the war - was enough for the Left to viciously attack him, even though he agrees with them on virtually everything else. On the other hand, despite disagreeing on everything but the war, the Right has embraced Lieberman. Why? Because conservatism is a coalition, not a cult, with a fanatical make-or-break litmus test for an ideology.
The charge of Right-wing cultism speaks mostly to wishful-thinking, attempts to find a way out of the charge of Left-wing cognitive dissonance (through projection), and ignorance surrounding how conservatives think. The Left believes the Right functions as it does - which would scare anybody. But the Left openly sneers at concepts the Right takes seriously; accepting it's own view that, because they don't take such positions seriously, the Right must not either.
I'm reminded of something Carol Platt Liebau said, comparing how Hillary Clinton's campaign recklessly spends money with how they did so in the (religious Right-wing) John Ashcroft's:
"When I worked on the,...Ashcroft campaigns, it was always made very clear even to senior campaign staff that expenses were to be carefully watched -- not just because it's hard to raise money, but because that money wasn't really ours . .. "
It's just a whole other way of looking at things. Especially other people - which the Left has way-too-little respect for (thinking of Leiberman again - a guy who always supported Left-wing causes - but was, immediately hung out to dry. The Clinton's did the same thing to their supporters regularly as well.). As Obama (thinking he was talking in private) recently proved, the NewAge Left will shit over others - even those they want to support them - in favor of that all-important ass-backwards ideology. And that blatant disregard for considering others as you would yourself, my friend, is a major element of NewAge cultism.
I did miss your point there indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe Left believes the Right functions as it does - which would scare anybody. But the Left openly sneers at concepts the Right takes seriously; accepting it's own view that, because they don't take such positions seriously, the Right must not either.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml
God put Bush in charge, says the general hunting bin Laden
By David Rennie
Last Updated: 1:11am BST 17/10/2003
The general leading the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has publicly declared that the Christian God is "bigger" than Allah, who is a false "idol", and believes the war on terrorism is a fight with Satan, it emerged yesterday.
Investigative reporters from the Los Angeles Times and NBC television have dug up two years' worth of seemingly incendiary comments from Lt Gen William "Jerry" Boykin, the newly promoted deputy undersecretary of state of defence for intelligence.
Gen Boykin has repeatedly told Christian groups and prayer meetings that President George W Bush was chosen by God to lead the global fight against Satan.
advertisement
He told one gathering: "Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
In January, he told Baptists in Florida about a victory over a Muslim warlord in Somalia, who had boasted that Allah would protect him from American capture. "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real god and his was an idol," Gen Boykin said.
He also emerged from the conflict with a photograph of the Somalian capital Mogadishu bearing a strange dark mark. He has said this showed "the principalities of darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy"....
Gen Boykin told NBC that he would be curtailing his speeches to religious groups. "I don't want to come across as a Right-wing radical," he said.