Is Whitley Strieber Advocating Implants?

[guruilla]

Spiro: That's an interesting argument and quite multi-layered so I'll get to it as soon as I can. In the meantime, if there's anyone who's sufficiently interested in attending a bout of eso-wrestling (and at the risk of appearing to be selling tickets ), I have posted a more direct challenge at his website, here. (As to why I even give such a damn, I hope to cover that when I answer Spiro.)

[guruilla]

First of all, I would like to commend you, guruilla, for the essay you wrote in 2008. Well done.

Cheers.

It has to do with your analysis of the author then, in 2008, versus where you are headed with your analysis of the discrepancies in the two editions of this particular work, and whether or not you are aware of the irony inherent therein.

Are you sure you know where I'm headed? I'd be impressed if you did, because I sure don't. I am watching this unfold as much as anyone.

The discrepancy, as it were, is one created by the author, and the author alone. That is my opinion

So what, all this is "much ado about nothing"?

There must be some point at which the source is a primary consideration.

Why, or how so? I agree that the source has to be factored in. Castaneda is a very good example, because if, as has been alleged, he went insane in the last few years of his life and created an abusive cult, then that's a fact that needs to be taken into consideration when reading his (pre-insanity) books. At the very least, the experiences he is describing (or the act of writing them) contributed in some way to his ignominious end. (There are actually several hints in the texts themselves of where he was headed.) This alters the eye with which we read the texts, but it doesn't alter the text themselves, not by the dot of a single "i." So if we read Castaneda's books, at one time in our lives, and are impacted by them and consider them true or meaningful works; and then if, however many years later, now aware of Castaneda's end, we read them again and decide they are all a crock - is this because our new-found discernment has opened our eyes and allowed us to see them as they are? Or is it because we are now prejudiced by what we think we know, and have already decided to view them as spurious? Personally speaking, my opinion of Castaneda's books hasn't changed that much, even though my opinion of Castaneda has necessarily undergone a radical reevaluation. The same is true (though perhaps less so) of Strieber. At the end of the day, the books stand alone. (Paul Bowles once said it this way: "No writer exists. He exists in his books, and that's all.")

Exactly. And--and this is an important point--were it not for "the source", The Key would not be in your vocabulary. Talk about mind control! You see, we are all victims. But we can also choose when to call a shovel a shovel

I'm not sure of your point here. The fact that I only read The Key because I knew of Strieber's previous work (i.e., influenced by previous experiences) means I am mind-controlled? The context was that Strieber's followers are servile and that he seems to create and encourage a cult-like environment (as I just pointed out to him at his website). Are you saying that because of that his books must have been designed to this end? The Bible is used to create cultish servitude also, does that mean it was written for that purpose, or only that it's been cynically abused (or even well-intentionally abused)? The interesting thing with Strieber is that he wrote his own "holy book" (he's said he considers it a "scared text"), and now, IMO, he is (perhaps unconsciously) using it to try and "advocate" himself. So it's like he's exploiting his own work, and therefore himself. How often does the messenger get off on being the one to deliver the message? It is everywhere you look: celebrity-whores.

You have rigorously researched much of this work. But if the source is completely full of shit, then what?

Then we have a bona fide mystery, because some of his written works contain profound observations about reality that are possibly unique to literature; if judged by his best works, Strieber is one of the leading creative minds of our time. Yet also profoundly full of shit. . . You don't find that a puzzling fact?

on all of the programs where I have been able to hear his voice (the exchanges with Art Bell, or George Noory, even Pinchbeck), the whole dialog smacks of the intellectual version of professional wresting.

We're probably in full accord here: every time I listen to Strieber, I am struck by how crass and unsophisticated a speaker he is (even when what he says is intelligent, his tone and cadence invariably invalidates it). All that proves to me is that, once again, Strieber the writer and Strieber the public speaker seem totally at odds - almost as if different people (except that his writing fluctuates equally wildly).

I am not a skeptic for skepticisms sake by any means. But Whitley Strieber has done much to evolve my outlook on an issue where, I have to say, I have gone from being a believer and "want to believer" to feeling comfortable in dismissing anything he writes or says as not to be taken seriously. For this much I can thank him, I suppose. I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is a disinfo guy (or bother to give him so much credit), but the result of his work is about the same. By all means consider the information. But by all means, (re)consider the source.

This is the most salient point for me: the fact that you acknowledge Strieber has done you a service by helping you to develop your skepticism. However, to my mind you've taken it too far, at least if, as in the above example I gave about Castaneda, you are now a priori dismissing Strieber's writings because of your distaste for him personally. My interpretation of that would be that you have tossed the baby out with the bath water - for personal and probably partially unconscious reasons. (Stop me before I get you on the couch!)

Here are some thoughts I had after reading your post; I don't want to wind up writing another essay (FAIL), so I’ll try and keep it to the bare bones and if anyone wants me to fill in any gaps, I will try to oblige.

Strieber (like Castaneda) had some profound personal encounters with Imaginal forces. When I read his books (and Castaneda's), the accounts resonated, profoundly, with my own, forgotten or fragmented experiences with the Imaginal. In a word, I recognized "truth" in them (I use "'s because I'm at RI, normally I wouldn't bother).

I am and always have been a very credulous and impressionable person, and as is my wont, I took both these authors' accounts literally, at face value - as they themselves seemed to - even knowing (at least later on) that Imaginal experiences aren’t "literal" so much as metaphorical (but then, so is ordinary reality once we scratch the surface, right?). Point is, Whitley's and Carlos' experiences were filtered through their individual psyches and written out in linear (literal) language, so those are the versions of Imaginal reality which we got “fed.” And then, insofar as we are left-brained and literal-minded creatures, we can only take them at face value, or reject them in the same way. (For the left-brain something is either true or false, it cannot be both/and. First mistake.)

The point is that these writers share their truth, not the Truth, but as readers, if we identify with and relate to the stories (while taking them at face value), we are going to try and make it our truth – more or less in the same way that people who follow gurus try to twist themselves into the right shape to match their guru's truth. If we do this (and it sounds like Spiro did it also, seeing as like me he was not just a believer but a "want to believer"), then sooner or later we are going to get disillusioned – as soon, in fact, as we realize that the other guy’s truth, however good it might have seemed, it’s not gonna be our truth. Why? Because it’s not our experience of the Imaginal, divine, or whatever. Sooner or later, something in there is going to “not fit,” because the only reality that fits us is, you got it, our own. So that’s the test and the opportunity of every “guru” - and every literary genius or rock n’ roll idol or whoever we look up to & whose ideas or work we follow, whose path we wind up trying to walk down or whose “being” we want to emulate. It never works.

The test and the opportunity is to save the baby and toss out the bath water. If, as Spiro did, we wind up rejecting everything about the person, IMO, we’ve missed the opportunity and flunked the test – maybe (I don’t want to impose my version of reality on anyone, but for me that’d be true, though God knows it’s tempting). True skepticism is learning to discern truth from delusion, starting with our heroes or teachers, and ending up with our own. The “believer” swallows the story (aliens, sorcerers, democracy, whatever) whole, gets drunk on it, becomes sick, and then the “skeptic” comes to the rescue and tries to vomit everything back up and swears never to touch the stuff again (but usually he finds another vice). This isn’t skepticism so much as cynicism, overcompensation for feeling like a sucker. It denies whatever is in us (or in Strieber, or whoever) that responded to truth, and focuses only on the part that managed to turn a little bit of truth into a great big delusion. It’s not lies that fool us, IMO, it’s truth taken too literally, or too quickly to heart. It’s truth which we invest in and build a whole edifice of delusion out of.

Drew mentioned the imagination – that’s the key, but not in the way (I think) he cited it, as a polar opposite to reality, so much as what underlies all of our experience. Keats compared the imagination to “Adam’s dream: he awoke and found it truth.” Blake believed the imagination was “not a State: it is the Human existence itself.” These guys weren’t slouches. They were as rigorous as they were intuitive. Personally, I’m willing to take their word on that.

Like Castaneda, Strieber got abducted by his own unconscious, whether it was aliens or elementals, angels or demons or govt mind control operatives. Whatever the agents that “came for him,” that’s not a desirable state of affairs. What’s desirable is for us to venture willingly and open-eyed into our unconscious, exactly like the Poets did.

I admit (I already did) that I’m a credulous person. (That's why I'm an odd fit with RI.) There’s no way to be open-minded without being credulous (or if there is, I haven’t found it). I am susceptible to the spells cast by other people’s convictions - and/or delusions - ask my wife if you don’t believe me (rhetorical suggestion). But the alternative to being credulous isn’t being cynical (which is what most skeptics are, IMO), because that just amounts to being closed-minded. The solution is to learn discernment about what we let all the way in and take to heart, what we take as our own truth, as opposed to what we let flow through us and out again, checking it thoroughly on the way. To quote Keats again: “The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts.” That means to believe without believing, to disbelieve without dismissing, to make up one’s mind about nothing. In the words of Whitley, it means we get to “Learn to live at a high level of uncertainty.” (Bleh)

Who the hell wants to do that? In this world, certainty is power. We’re taught and bred to make up our minds about everything, and dismiss anything we can’t make our minds up about. The trouble is we are also told, subtly, which conclusions to reach (drink Coca Cola), so then, when we make up our minds, we’re really giving them over to someone (or something) else’s influence.

For me that’s the proof that Strieber’s doing something that’s worth paying attention to: he raises a lot more questions than he provides answers.

That, and I have a big soft spot for the guy.

[LilyPatToo]

Re: the "edits"--my first thought when I read page 1 of this thread was that consideration should also be given to the possibility that Strieber is a multiple (DID) as a result of the terrible things that were done to him as a child in what sound like military mind control program experiments. IOW, a part of his mind could have made alterations in the text of The Key unbeknownst to his "front" personality.

If you hang out at UC long enough, you'll see posts by him that contradict each other and other signs that might point to multiple selves. The thing is, they might also indicate another disorder or might be carelessness or even deliberate inconsistency...there's no way to tell for sure. And his followers tend not to question the contradictions except when couching their questions in very cautious, roundabout terms. As I learned first-hand, people who rock the boat at UC are expelled by one means or another and the folks left tend to be eager to please and to be accepted, so contradictions/inconsistencies tend to stand only until the thread drops off the board.

Which, BTW, happens to any thread there that isn't posted to regularly. Awful system, IMO. That's probably why your posts couldn't be found later, guruilla.

I'm glad you're back--I find your posts interesting enough that length doesn't matter, so have at it. I wasn't aware until you began this thread of how Strieber had turned the implant question on its head. The Key is the book of his that I've read the most times, but only the 1st edition. I'm interested in The Master of the Key, since I met someone who fit his physical description once in France many years ago as I trudged up the long hill to the caves where Mary Magdalen supposedly lived and died. It was a confusing meeting and I inexplicably lost some time (I'm a multiple), so I have an ongoing personal interest in figuring out what's up with Strieber's mysterious master. While I was at UC, I didn't say much about my experience due to concerns about the reaction I would get, but, if I recall correctly, a poster calling himself "Jolly Llama" also believed he'd encountered the same man. Sorry I don't recall the details of his experience, but some UC people also post here, so someone may be willing to share the story.

LilyPat

[justdrew]

[Joe Hillshoist]

I first read the Wolfen in the late 70s or early 80s as pre pubescent kid. And a few other Striber books over the years.

One that I found interesting was Unholy Fire. If that isn't an RI themed book I dunno what is.

Young boy abused by priests goes on to become a priest. At the same time a demon is murdering people in the vicinity.

[Stephen Morgan]

but I thought gnostic/illuminated rappers was the hot new thing?

[justdrew]

http://pot.home.xs4all.nl/scifi/brainsofearth.txt

[82_28]

Holla on the Paris shout out Stephen. One of the most important songs ever conceived. I've been rollin' with Paris for over 20 years. Always good to see somebody but me post him up.

[82_28]

One I've posted here numerous times. Probably more often than needed.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

It has to do with your analysis of the author then, in 2008, versus where you are headed with your analysis of the discrepancies in the two editions of this particular work, and whether or not you are aware of the irony inherent therein.

Are you sure you know where I'm headed? I'd be impressed if you did, because I sure don't. I am watching this unfold as much as anyone.

Good point. Allow me to correct myself: Maybe not "where" but "how."

I am and always have been a very credulous and impressionable person, and as is my wont, I took both these authors' accounts literally, at face value - as they themselves seemed to - even knowing (at least later on) that Imaginal experiences aren’t "literal" so much as metaphorical (but then, so is ordinary reality once we scratch the surface, right?).

Then, the question at the head of this post might better read: Is Whitley Strieber Advocating Metaphorical Implants?

I am susceptible to the spells cast by other people’s convictions - and/or delusions...

That, to me, means that you are susceptible to allowing someone else's reality to become your reality.

But the alternative to being credulous isn’t being cynical...

You got that right. There is a whole spectrum of comprehensive terminology, from gullible to stubborn.

The solution is to learn discernment about what we let all the way in and take to heart, what we take as our own truth, as opposed to what we let flow through us and out again, checking it thoroughly on the way.

When I determine that someone is not credible, I don't tend to let much more of their stuff in.

How do I discern this? Well, when there are unknown factors involved (is he telling the truth or is he not) I have to--as in absolutely must--weigh his assertions in both lights. I cannot ignore the possibility that he is lying. As evidence mounts (contradictions, changes in story) it is more likely that my judgment will be increasingly from the "he is lying" perspective. I may continue to consider what he is saying, how and why he is saying it, but that should not automatically lend credibility to his newest version of events. Nor should it suddenly lend more credibility to his older version of events.

At one time, shortly after making a name for himself as an author of fiction, Strieber made a name for himself as an abductee. Since that time, he has expanded on those "experiences" and continues to be a relatively successful author of both fiction and nonfiction. (I found your equal assessment 2012 to be interesting, considering it is, as he makes clear, a work of fiction.)

Along the way, the author has built a dianetic-like following (more Hubbard than Castaneda). It was only a matter of time before we would find out that he was a mind-control subject as well. And, ironically enough, for those who are wont to not not believe what he has to say, this lends him even more credibility: "Why, this revelation would logically lead many to see his abduction experiences in this new light, as being the result of mind-control by humans, not involving extraterrestrials at all. His "honesty" regarding the government mind-control makes him even more believable."

guruilla: In your essay in 2008 you mention Strieber's support for the Anglican war in Iraq, as well as the president pushing for it, and his subsequent change of heart. If I had not already found his nonfiction accounts lacking in credibility, that alone would have made him about as believable as Hillary Clinton. If she came out tomorrow and said that she had been abducted by aliens, I would certainly listen to what she had to say. But it is important to note: I cannot remember the last time I believed anything she said. This does not preclude the possibility that she might tell the truth some day. But the fact that she'd be telling an abduction story would not alone make it credible. And if she continued to talk about it long enough, eventually I would stop listening.

When I said that his interactions with various radio personalities struck me as intellectual pro-wrestling, I meant that the exchanges in question come off as complete bullshit. Being radio, their winks to each other were almost deafening. You apparently have reason to believe otherwise. So in good faith I wish you luck with where (and how) you are headed.

Reads to me like Whitley Strieber is, as usual, advocating Whitley Strieber.

[guruilla]

Re: the "edits"--my first thought when I read page 1 of this thread was that consideration should also be given to the possibility that Strieber is a multiple (DID) as a result of the terrible things that were done to him as a child in what sound like military mind control program experiments. IOW, a part of his mind could have made alterations in the text of The Key unbeknownst to his "front" personality.

If you hang out at UC long enough, you'll see posts by him that contradict each other and other signs that might point to multiple selves.

Hi LilyPat. If you read the piece I did in 2008, then you'll know that was my over-arching thesis regarding Strieber's many written contradictions. I certainly considered it in regard to this current "controversy", but I haven't brought it up at UC because I already know how touchy Whitley is about it (& why wouldn't he be). It's also untestable. But he does seem to be a kind of "sleeper" agent, poor guy.

And his followers tend not to question the contradictions except when couching their questions in very cautious, roundabout terms. As I learned first-hand, people who rock the boat at UC are expelled by one means or another and the folks left tend to be eager to please and to be accepted, so contradictions/inconsistencies tend to stand only until the thread drops off the board.

UC runs itself in a cult-like fashion, then? What sort of means are used to expel people? (Fore-warned is fore-armed.) I've tried twice now to join the message board, but basically get ignored.

Which, BTW, happens to any thread there that isn't posted to regularly. Awful system, IMO. That's probably why your posts couldn't be found later, guruilla.

That would explain it in a less "sinister" fashion.

I'm interested in The Master of the Key, since I met someone who fit his physical description once in France many years ago as I trudged up the long hill to the caves where Mary Magdalen supposedly lived and died. It was a confusing meeting and I inexplicably lost some time (I'm a multiple), so I have an ongoing personal interest in figuring out what's up with Strieber's mysterious master.

I'm glad to encounter someone at RI who doesn't simply assume it's all a Strieber stunt. At the risk of repeating myself, that "easy" "explanation" (for me at least) only confuses matters more (ditto with the theory that Castaneda made his experiences up). The requirement of explanations is that they not only be credible, but that they explain the facts which we do have. "Literary invention" only works as an explanation of these accounts for those people who have already dismissed their "philosophical" content (or simply haven't read them).

Sorry I don't recall the details of his experience, but some UC people also post here, so someone may be willing to share the story.

So there's a significant overlap between RI & UC? I hadn't expected that. Good to know (fore-warned is forearmed.)

[guruilla]

I am susceptible to the spells cast by other people’s convictions - and/or delusions...

That, to me, means that you are susceptible to allowing someone else's reality to become your reality.

Yep. Anyone here gonna claim any different? I just had a crash course in recognizing this tendency in myself. Had you asked me a year or two ago, I'd have said I was a lot less susceptible than most.

When I determine that someone is not credible, I don't tend to let much more of their stuff in.

Comprendo; it makes sense that, having made up your mind about someone (heh heh), you would no longer be interested in hearing what they have to say. I'm the same way with, say, Alex Jones. Still, if I heard from a source I respected that Jones had done something worth checking out, I'd still give it a look. As Katherine Hepburn said in The Philadelphia Story: "The time to make up your mind about people is never." In the present example, aren't you at a bit of a disadvantage if you haven't read the book under discussion and your argument for not doing so is that Strieber isn't credible? That's a bit like Christians demanding a movie be boycotted and then, when asked if they've seen it, say that they don't need to because they already know it's sinful.

I cannot ignore the possibility that he is lying. As evidence mounts (contradictions, changes in story) it is more likely that my judgment will be increasingly from the "he is lying" perspective.

You use the word "lying" as if it were a simple & straightforward matter. We all lie, and a lot of the time we do it without knowing it. I am 90% convinced that - most of the time - Strieber doesn't consciously or deliberately lie or fabricate (though he certainly embellishes, which is another fuzzy area you aren't allowing for). I'm even more sure that he is deluded about some fundamental aspects of his experience.

All story-tellers "lie," and in a sense all writers (including non-fiction, an imaginary category as Charles Fort said*) do too. If they didn't, they couldn't do their job.

Bringing up the idea of lying as if it's a cut and dried thing means that you believe the truth is something that's fixed and knowable, in some absolute sense. Granted, I might be splitting hairs now if the subject was, say, rigged elections, but when it's a question of contact with non-physical and/or enlightened beings, this question comes to the fore: what IS truth, anyway?

Thomas Anderson found out that his whole life had been a lie - ie, a fiction - meaning that everything he had ever said or done was a lie too. Isn't that quite likely how someone who got abducted by their unconscious would feel?

I may continue to consider what he is saying, how and why he is saying it, but that should not automatically lend credibility to his newest version of events. Nor should it suddenly lend more credibility to his older version of events.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this or with the Hilary Clinton example. It seems to me that any story or account can be taken "fresh," and judged on its own merit, separate from the credibility of the witness. This latter can then be considered as part of the larger context, sure; but the story in the end still stands or falls on its own value/meaning. Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day, and even a chronic liar occasionally speaks the truth. (Also, every time you flip a coin, the odds are still 50/50 for heads, regardless of whether the last thousand flips have been tails or not.)

At one time, shortly after making a name for himself as an author of fiction, Strieber made a name for himself as an abductee. Since that time, he has expanded on those "experiences" and continues to be a relatively successful author of both fiction and nonfiction. (I found your equal assessment 2012 to be interesting, considering it is, as he makes clear, a work of fiction.)

What do you mean by my "equal assessment"?

To my mind, the truth can surface through any media at all and from any source. An insane drunk in a bar may be ranting nonsense 95% of the time, but he also might just come up with something of profound meaning that we wouldn't have got anywhere else. As long as we're at the bar with him, we may as well pay attention. So whatever Strieber thinks he's doing - even if he is consciously lying - that doesn't mean truth isn't coming through him. Since the subjects Strieber writes about interest me (i.e., he rants at one of the bars I happen to frequent), I continue to pay close attention to him.

Along the way, the author has built a dianetic-like following (more Hubbard than Castaneda). It was only a matter of time before we would find out that he was a mind-control subject as well.

Interesting choice of phrase. So the expectations were already in place, waiting to be confirmed?

And, ironically enough, for those who are wont to not not believe what he has to say, this lends him even more credibility: "Why, this revelation would logically lead many to see his abduction experiences in this new light, as being the result of mind-control by humans, not involving extraterrestrials at all. His "honesty" regarding the government mind-control makes him even more believable."

Your logic seems to be tying itself in knots here - either that or it is too clever for me. Is your point that Strieber himself probably believes what he writes about, even if he is being used by intelligences other than those he claims to represent (tho he's anything but consistent there)?

Has anyone at RI ever discussed the possibility that Strieber (as many sci-fi writers have been reputed) belongs to an intellectual elite fraternity, and that he's more of a front-man by which it gets across ideas? This might account for a lot.

In your essay in 2008 you mention Strieber's support for the Anglican war in Iraq, as well as the president pushing for it, and his subsequent change of heart. If I had not already found his nonfiction accounts lacking in credibility, that alone would have made him about as believable as Hillary Clinton.

If you're suggesting that he was a mouth-piece for TPTB (powers that be) then why did he later recant? Bizarre as some of his politically naive (not to say reactionary) statements have been in the context of his other experiences and perceptions, the ways in which he keeps hopping from one position to another seem too erratic to indicate a deliberate disinformational design. It looks to me more like someone who really has a very tenuous grasp on reality, and therefore on his own sense of what's true - someone who admits this on the one hand, but who then continues to act, speak, and proselytize as if he knows exactly what he is talking about. That could make Strieber a dangerously deluded individual, but I think the danger would be most of all to himself.

Being radio, their winks to each other were almost deafening. You apparently have reason to believe otherwise. So in good faith I wish you luck with where (and how) you are headed.

If all I had to go on were Strieber's radio appearances, I'd never have lasted this long (or even past one show). But there's a lot more to go on. Homo Serpiens (the book I published last year) is full of quotes from Strieber which I used because they were useful quotes. It wasn't that I wanted to advocate his "message," per se, but because many of the things he said added nuance or context to my own "message." (About which I currently have plenty of doubts, BTW, along with everything else.)

* 'But I am so obviously offering everything in this book, as fiction. That is, if there is fiction. But this book is fiction in the sense that Pickwick Papers, and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and Uncle Tom's Cabin, Newton's Principia, Darwin's Origin of Species, Genesis, Gulliver's Travels, and mathematical theorems, and every history of the United States, and all other histories, are fictions. A library-myth that irritates me most is the classification of books under "fiction" and "non-fiction." Charles Fort, from the introduction to Wild Talents '

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Along the way, the author has built a dianetic-like following (more Hubbard than Castaneda). It was only a matter of time before we would find out that he was a mind-control subject as well.

Interesting choice of phrase. So the expectations were already in place, waiting to be confirmed?

No. Like Hubbard, it was his m.o. "It was only a matter of time" is another way of saying that "it should be no surprise."

And, ironically enough, for those who are wont to not not believe what he has to say, this lends him even more credibility: "Why, this revelation would logically lead many to see his abduction experiences in this new light, as being the result of mind-control by humans, not involving extraterrestrials at all. His "honesty" regarding the government mind-control makes him even more believable."

Your logic seems to be tying itself in knots here - either that or it is too clever for me. Is your point that Strieber himself probably believes what he writes about, even if he is being used by intelligences other than those he claims to represent (tho he's anything but consistent there)?

No. The quotation marks around the two sentences (now bolded for emphasis) were meant to represent the voice of one who will look for excuses for someone with a truth problem, rather than recognize that person's piling it on.

In your essay in 2008 you mention Strieber's support for the Anglican war in Iraq, as well as the president pushing for it, and his subsequent change of heart. If I had not already found his nonfiction accounts lacking in credibility, that alone would have made him about as believable as Hillary Clinton.

If you're suggesting that he was a mouth-piece for TPTB (powers that be) then why did he later recant?

No. You're trying too hard. Perhaps my moniker has led you astray? All I am saying is that his position mirrored that of the former senator from New York. Speaking of "reading worthwhile information that is available" -- neither one of them read the intelligence report before reaching their conclusions.


You seem to think throughout reading my criticism that I am implying things between the lines. If you'll give me the same credit that you did Strieber at the beginning of your relationship to his work--that is, taking me at face value--then I think you'll find most of the quotes above that you've just responded to a bit easier to understand. I see no PTB in any of this. Just a lot of folks seeking attention. There is nothing more common amongst our species. As to the other species which might be out there.... That's anyone's guess. Which brings me to:

To my mind, the truth can surface through any media at all and from any source. An insane drunk in a bar may be ranting nonsense 95% of the time, but he also might just come up with something of profound meaning that we wouldn't have got anywhere else. As long as we're at the bar with him, we may as well pay attention. So whatever Strieber thinks he's doing - even if he is consciously lying - that doesn't mean truth isn't coming through him. Since the subjects Strieber writes about interest me (i.e., he rants at one of the bars I happen to frequent), I continue to pay close attention to him.

Fair enough. By I don't drink, and when I stop for a ginger ale, it is not in the bar where one would find Whitley Strieber.

There are many many drunks in many many bars out there. We cannot all be in all of the bars all of the time listening to every one of the insane drunks we encounter. But I certainly don't mind your slipping away occasionally and dropping a dime in the pay phone to inform us of this one's latest rant. Though I am pretty sure he is far from insane.

I am susceptible to the spells cast by other people’s convictions - and/or delusions...

That, to me, means that you are susceptible to allowing someone else's reality to become your reality.

Yep. Anyone here gonna claim any different? I just had a crash course in recognizing this tendency in myself. Had you asked me a year or two ago, I'd have said I was a lot less susceptible than most.

Be careful out there.

'But I am so obviously offering everything in this book, as fiction. That is, if there is fiction. But this book is fiction in the sense that Pickwick Papers, and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and Uncle Tom's Cabin, Newton's Principia, Darwin's Origin of Species, Genesis, Gulliver's Travels, and mathematical theorems, and every history of the United States, and all other histories, are fictions. A library-myth that irritates me most is the classification of books under "fiction" and "non-fiction."'

Whitley would sell his soul to have talent that wild. Wait... a... minute! You don't suppose? (sorry, I couldn't resist)

[LilyPatToo]

If you're suggesting that he was a mouth-piece for TPTB (powers that be) then why did he later recant? Bizarre as some of his politically naive (not to say reactionary) statements have been in the context of his other experiences and perceptions, the ways in which he keeps hopping from one position to another seem too erratic to indicate a deliberate disinformational design. It looks to me more like someone who really has a very tenuous grasp on reality, and therefore on his own sense of what's true - someone who admits this on the one hand, but who then continues to act, speak, and proselytize as if he knows exactly what he is talking about. That could make Strieber a dangerously deluded individual, but I think the danger would be most of all to himself.

This is exactly where I am right now--over the years, I've seen so many inconsistencies in his statements regarding mind control that the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that he's dissociating a lot and into separate personalities. And since I'm DID myself, this is not in any way meant to sound snarky or superior or judgmental. It's just that he's exhibited many classic signs of the disorder, plus occasional episodes of really painful-to-watch paranoia--all typical in a survivor of extreme abuse and trauma dealt out by sociopathic human beings. He's unlikely to ever believe it (or care), but I have compassion for him for the terrible things he's survived and admiration for the way he's transmuted his pain into fiction. He has a way with words that I admire.

And:

If all I had to go on were Strieber's radio appearances, I'd never have lasted this long (or even past one show). But there's a lot more to go on. Homo Serpiens (the book I published last year) is full of quotes from Strieber which I used because they were useful quotes. It wasn't that I wanted to advocate his "message," per se, but because many of the things he said added nuance or context to my own "message." (About which I currently have plenty of doubts, BTW, along with everything else.)

I see it as a "baby/bathwater" thing--his mind may be compartmentalized, but it's still highly intelligent and creative. His preferred method of explaining away some of the horror of having had humans exploit him (with the permission of his parents) may be "alien abduction" with a strong dose of horror added in, but that doesn't make him unworthy of attention. And I'm not at all sure that non-human intelligence doesn't exist and I'm positive we don't yet understand the complexity of Reality. So he may well have been "abducted by his unconscious" great turn of phrase!) and may be in touch now and then with Other. I for one am interested in what he reports, even if I keep an industrial-sized salt shaker close at hand.

Has anyone at RI ever discussed the possibility that Strieber (as many sci-fi writers have been reputed) belongs to an intellectual elite fraternity, and that he's more of a front-man by which it gets across ideas? This might account for a lot.

Well, if we haven't, then it's high time we did.

Along the way, the author has built a dianetic-like following (more Hubbard than Castaneda). It was only a matter of time before we would find out that he was a mind-control subject as well.

As a former follower, I'd have to disagree. It's far more Castaneda than Hubbard when seen from the inside, but with less of the deliberate con-game mentality of either, IMHO. You're coming across here as placing his admitted personal history (read his journal entry "The Boy in the Box" for starters) into the fictionalized category when in fact it's precisely in line with the personal histories of many, many people who survived MKULTRA and its kin. The reason his website is such an effective honeypot is that he's accurately reflecting the traumatic pattern of events that many of his followers have also survived.

LilyPat

[guruilla]

Thanks for the cautioning, Spiro. Well-aimed and well-timed. "Reading between the lines" is an Aspergerian trait, BTW - I do it all the time.

This is exactly where I am right now--over the years, I've seen so many inconsistencies in his statements regarding mind control that the explanation that makes the most sense to me is that he's dissociating a lot and into separate personalities. And since I'm DID myself, this is not in any way meant to sound snarky or superior or judgmental. It's just that he's exhibited many classic signs of the disorder, plus occasional episodes of really painful-to-watch paranoia--all typical in a survivor of extreme abuse and trauma dealt out by sociopathic human beings. He's unlikely to ever believe it (or care), but I have compassion for him for the terrible things he's survived and admiration for the way he's transmuted his pain into fiction. He has a way with words that I admire.

But don't you find that many of the accounts in Communion and Transformation have a genuine whiff of the otherworldly to them? For me that "whiff" makes it very hard to believe that the experiences are simply invented or mis-interpreted experiences of human intervention disguised as "contact." I mean really hard. It could be that the books impacted me at a time when I myself was open (a lot more gullible than I am now), and so now I can't get an impartial "read" on them. (This would be similar to how songs we listened to while growing up sound great to us decades later, even when we "know" they suck. I still enjoy listening to David Cassidy, for Cripe's sake.*)

On the occasions when Strieber has come clean about the possibility of intelligence/mind control involvement in his past, he's made a fairly good case for it co-existing with the "alien" presence. I know the more "rigorous" (less intuitive?) types consider the presence of mind control sufficient to invalidate all claims of otherworldly intelligence, and so the case is closed for them. But that reductionist approach doesn't work with me: just because an explanation can be used to explain (away) everything, doesn't mean it should be.

My assumption from day one (even before I heard about the mind control stuff) was that these alien/inorganic/elemental agents of the unconscious work with human agents of government, etc - however that came about - and that while the latter believe they have learned to "harness" the former, what seems more likely is that the reverse is really occurring.

I think I suggested this in the article, but if Strieber fell into the hands of sociopathic intel. operatives while very young, "learning to dissociate" and "taking refuge in the Imaginal" may be two ways of describing the same process: and maybe, just maybe, he found some very real Imaginal friends there? That may have been part of the intention behind abusing these children: using their psyches as a way to access the Imaginal realms and lure the "inhabitants" over to this side. (It would be similar to how a magician uses a young child as a medium.)

I see it as a "baby/bathwater" thing--his mind may be compartmentalized, but it's still highly intelligent and creative. His preferred method of explaining away some of the horror of having had humans exploit him (with the permission of his parents) may be "alien abduction" with a strong dose of horror added in, but that doesn't make him unworthy of attention. And I'm not at all sure that non-human intelligence doesn't exist and I'm positive we don't yet understand the complexity of Reality. So he may well have been "abducted by his unconscious" great turn of phrase!) and may be in touch now and then with Other. I for one am interested in what he reports, even if I keep an industrial-sized salt shaker close at hand.

As I said in the article, this may be one of the most valuable aspects of his writing. Strieber is unconsciously describing his own processes of dissociation/fragmentation, which both allowed for and resulted from his being initiated into/abducted by (a bit of both) the "shamanic" agents of the collective unconscious. The human agencies involved in this evolutionary process may be the result of a kind of "buffering" occurring in the collective psyche, a way for us to become conscious of what's underneath the surface of our conscious minds in a compartmentalized and rationalized fashion. We would literally be "humanizing" it, but, ironically, making it much darker and more destructive as a result. How many times does the psyche do harm to itself by trying to protect itself? That's what fragmentation is.

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.)

Has anyone at RI ever discussed the possibility that Strieber (as many sci-fi writers have been reputed) belongs to an intellectual elite fraternity, and that he's more of a front-man by which it gets across ideas? This might account for a lot.

Well, if we haven't, then it's high time we did.

So far my only "evidence" is a highly vivid dream about it. One relevant question would be why, besides his possibly being a "mulitiple," is the quality of Strieber's writing so inconsistent? (The Grays and 2012 came out almost back to back; the former I thought was quite sloppy writing; the latter anything but.)

It's far more Castaneda than Hubbard when seen from the inside, but with less of the deliberate con-game mentality of either, IMHO. You're coming across here as placing his admitted personal history (read his journal entry "The Boy in the Box" for starters) into the fictionalized category when in fact it's precisely in line with the personal histories of many, many people who survived MKULTRA and its kin. The reason his website is such an effective honeypot is that he's accurately reflecting the traumatic pattern of events that many of his followers have also survived.

"Honeypot" usually refers to a set-up that lures someone in in order to frame them. I can see the lure of UC for "survivors" and/or "abductees." But what's the frame up? I presume you are saying it's a way to keep taps on such people - is there something more to it than observation, do you think?

* I trust this information will not be used against me in future.