Thursday, September 20, 2007

The United States Is In Trouble: The Clintons And Their Love Of New Age Cults

O.K., it's all becoming clear now:

It has been said that Ken Wilber (above) is a cult leader. Some say a destructive cult leader. He counts Bill and Hillary Clinton as followers. Bill Clinton has quoted him. Hillary responded enthusiastically, when asked if she was trying to find Wilber's Theory of Everything, “That’s right, that’s exactly right!”

Ken Wilber has said he admires Adi Da or Free John (above) and the Clinton's admire Ken Wilber.

And Hillary Clinton is the front runner for the presidency of the United States.

America, we're in big, big, trouble.


  1. Actually, Ken revised his position regarding Da quite strongly in 1996. See these two links:

    And regarding Ken's work in the political realm, check out this link:

  2. I said:

    "Ken Wilber has said he admires Adi Da or Free John and the Clinton's admire Ken Wilber."

    A true statement.

    Nor do you refute Wilber's cult status, or that the Clinton's seem to have a very-real weakness for the "teachings" of new age hustlers (like Wilber, Tony Robbins, Jean Houston, etc.) moral relativism, and the corruption that comes along with it.

    At the very least, for Bill Clinton not to have rejected Tony Robbins and his "fire-walking" routine - instead of joining him in a money-making excercise - shows an incredible lack of morals and a gullibility that's off the charts.

  3. Tell me, what exactly makes you think Ken is a "cult leader"?! Having known Ken personally for years, and been professionally involved with his work for just as long, there is absolutely no justification for accusing him of being a cult leader. I understand when people become skeptical of anyone in today's world who talks about the word "spirituality" without reducing the word to either Christian fundamentalism or suicide bombers--but having such a kneejerk reaction as calling him a "cult leader" or even a "new age hustler" is just a weak-minded attempt to dismiss an entire field of human inquiry simply because you are uncomfortable with the topic. Poor scholarship.

    As a curiosity, did you bother watching the Integral Politics video that Eric linked to? Do you have a response to the ideas conveyed in that video, without resorting to ad hominem attacks?

    "Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, and small minds talk about people." ~Eleanor Roosevelt

  4. You're, willingly, ignoring those huge qualifiers ("has said" and "some say") and the thrust of the post - Wilber's influence over the Clintons - choosing to defend Wilber instead. That's cultish behavior, if you ask me. And I'm not "uncomfortable with the topic" but with my country's leaders being infatuated with him/it as well as many other new age hustlers who promote nonsense.

    And why must I "have a response" to Wilber's ideas? I have no interest in Ken Wilber or any other "spiritual" teacher (I'm an atheist) and especially one who can't - immediately - see through the likes of kooky Free John. That fact, alone, doesn't speak well for Wilber's "scholarship" - or yours.

    Sorry but "I calls 'em as I sees 'em" and the man's as bogus as they come. And I find it hilarious (but typical) that criticism of him bothers his followers so much:

    He's a grown man, out in the public sphere, kids.

    Let him defend himself if he's so smart. Or are you scared his big brain will be forced into screaming "Suck My Dick!" again?

  5. Wow. It's good to know that certain manifestations of extremist closed-mindedness are so easy to identify.

    Delete my comment if you wish. It's your domain and your right. But I want to point out that your tone and selective reasoning aren't very convincing to most people who I would think you're interested in convincing - namely, independent thinkers who aren't sure what their stance is towards Wilber and his theories.

    This kind of twisted polemic doesn't even touch on what I would consider valid criticisms of Wilber. At least Kheper's site makes me feel like I'm getting a fair background of the debate around Wilber and his crew.

  6. Topher,

    If you think of "followers" as "independent thinkers" then that's your right, but, as you've noticed, they/you "aren't sure what their stance is" while we are:

    Ken Wilber is a con artist.

    And, as far as "extremist closed-mindedness" goes, thank you:

    This, my friend, is The Macho Response - not your Trying To Be "Open-Minded" NewAge Weasle Worded Wishy-Washy Corner.

    Wilber (and other charlatans like him) are the scourge of our times, and we're saying so. If you're dumb enough to "follow" him, them welcome to The Idiot Club. You won't be alone.

    BTW - hasn't all that "enlightenment" the Clinton's got done wonders for the country? Why Bill's reputation as a serial adulterer (and how "enlightened" is that?) was worth the price of admission. As Hillary said, "There are worse things,.."

    Yea: We guess he should've killed Monica.

  7. I enjoy reading this blog! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your article to check out the latest stuff you post.23jj

  8. Hi, listen, I'm pretty new on this blogosphere and Internet thing, so I don't know if there's a sort of "subscription" method that I can use in order to receive notifications of your new entries...? Thing is I enjoy reading your blog a lot and I'd like to be up to date with your posts!

  9. I've read a few of his books a while back and much of what Wilbur says makes sense.

    Ken Wilber is a con artist.

    Dude, you beat them straw men. Beat em good.

  10. In,

    No wonder you think Wilber "makes sense," because you're slow enough to, clearly, have no idea what a straw man even is. There is no context for that comment to emerge here. You're just trying to sound intelligent - and failing miserably.

    You may enjoy Wilber's books but no one can point to anything this supposedly-brilliant man has done beyond get rich off of a flock of famous adulterers (Bill Clinton and Brad Pitt immediately come to mind) while changing nothing of substance for anyone else. He's a faker, and so are you:

    I know the stupid when I read 'em and you fit the bill perfectly.