Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by Pauli137 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:13 am

Well, to each his own I guess.

I happen to think (and have experienced) layers of reality that lie beneath (beyond?) what is commonly recognized. I also believe that global elites know a great deal more about this layer than is talked about in common society. I am coming to believe that the "cracks in the great wall" is a real thing, an outcome of the efforts of what Upton is calling the Antichrist (which isn't so much a person as a group or a system).

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by jakell » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:39 am

jakell wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:15 am
****
The phrase "trancendant unity of religions" sounded a small alarm bell for me when I heard it in the OP video. In the Counter Currents interview I posted though he makes it quite clear that he does not mean the Interfaith movement at all and he expands on this by talking of the so-called 'One World Religion' which would ring larger alarm bells with Christians who believe it will be one of the props that the Antichrist will use. The interfaith movement could be said to be the thin end of the wedge here and is the sort of thing that will attract New-Age types.

Prior to studying Islam I was immersing myself in Christiantiy a bit and noted that The Antichrist was said to be a character who will appeal to all men and all religions. The religion part seems pretty hard but religiosity can be said to be the common element which can be worked upon, bringing in new-age types too, the hardest part would be bringing secular types on board, especially hard-headed atheists.
It was posited that the presence/discovery of aliens would be sufficient to catch the imaginations of some secular types and to those who still remain resistant to religiosity, ideas of immortality via tranhumanism are a good hook. As to those who remain, the arrogance and egoism that can result from pride in the intellect can be encouraged into something that is brittle, and then assailed by the lure of postmodernism which does seem to provide an absorbing intellectual challenge, but not in a good way**.
Those who still remain will have to be eliminated or neutralised.

I suspect that a lot of this may be present in Unwin's first book and I'm just unloading some thoughts that the review encouraged in me.


** That "manipulation of language" you mentioned.
****

Pauli137 wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:13 am
jakell wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:12 pm
Pauli137 wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:01 pm


****


Yes? Please go on ...

I mean that literally: the manipulation of language is (or can be) the manipulation of reality. Maybe that is best explored on the "Occult" thread, but it is relevant here because the thinning of the veil to which Upton alludes is brought about by occult means.
I'm not really addressing any deeper reality than that which we co-create as conscious beings, this is such a powerful concept that I regard the quest for any other sort as a side issue most of the time.

I regard religion and 'The Occult' as pretty much the same animal, just that the former is a more user-friendly (ie relatively safe) way of approaching the latter, or keeping it at a distance if one prefers.
Well, to each his own I guess.

I happen to think (and have experienced) layers of reality that lie beneath (beyond?) what is commonly recognized. I also believe that global elites know a great deal more about this layer than is talked about in common society. I am coming to believe that the "cracks in the great wall" is a real thing, an outcome of the efforts of what Upton is calling the Antichrist (which isn't so much a person as a group or a system).
It's as much a matter of practicality as personal preference. I would say that the vast majority of people, occultists included, get by without addressing any ultimate layer of reality. The latter here may have glimpsed/experienced it and decided that its not worth the hassle, that it may be the psychological equivalent of staring into the Sun or not sleeping for days upon end.
Thus we create layers of mysticism (veils?), not to obscure reality but to adequately deal with it, and why I was (sort of) content with Unwin's vague account of his move to Islam as being a mystical experience, to dig deeper doesn't really yield much that is useful.

(it seems the system will only accept four levels of nested quotes before pruning them out, the initial quote here belongs at **** in the nest.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by Pauli137 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:38 pm

jakell wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:39 am
It's as much a matter of practicality as personal preference. I would say that the vast majority of people, occultists included, get by without addressing any ultimate layer of reality. The latter here may have glimpsed/experienced it and decided that its not worth the hassle, that it may be the psychological equivalent of staring into the Sun or not sleeping for days upon end.
Thus we create layers of mysticism (veils?), not to obscure reality but to adequately deal with it, and why I was (sort of) content with Unwin's vague account of his move to Islam as being a mystical experience, to dig deeper doesn't really yield much that is useful.
I think it may be Upton's point that it is a matter of practicality not to ignore these layers. At the mundane layer of reality, the shared narrative is that we are building a "progressive" technological society that is always bringing us closer to a science fiction utopia not unlike Star Trek. (Never mind that the Star Trek world seems sterile and totalitarian, never mind that the sociological, environmental, and macroeconomic data say that we're moving closer to a dystopia, but collective cognitive dissonance keeps people from juxtaposing the narrative with the actual data.) If you keep to the mundane level, it's hard to see why the promises of utopia never arrive. The standard interpretation is that humans are error-prone and thus the unintended consequences of our technocratic programs always seem to negate the benefits. But why? OK, I guess there is the standard, next-level-down conspiracy-theory interpretation that globalists are managing society for their own narrow economic benefit. I don't think that interpretation sufficiently explains some of the weirder aspects of what we see in the world. At least one more level down is required, and I think that is where Upton is trying to go.

Also, from a practical perspective, the response of the common man to the depressing, dehumanizing trajectory of the globalist program is found at the occult level. Jesus is an occult technology (you yourself have said that there is little distinction to be made between religion and the "occult"). I won't claim that Christianity is the One True Faith, but it's at least one of a handful of good ones.

I hear what you're saying here:
The latter here may have glimpsed/experienced it and decided that its not worth the hassle, that it may be the psychological equivalent of staring into the Sun or not sleeping for days upon end.
For example, there's a guy on Reddit who has analyzed some of the gematria and geomancy related to the Las Vegas shooting. I'm impressed with the number of synchronicities, but his style of delivery is manic in a way that illustrates the dangers of delving in too deeply without proper grounding. Recently Christopher Knowles has done a bunch of analysis of the same event, he seems a little bit more capable of navigating the craziness, but then he's been doing it for years (and he suffers some health problems that I personally think could be related to his research). The point being that the cutting edge of occult research is very dangerous. That should actually tell us something.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by C_D » Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:17 pm

Pauli said:
I happen to think (and have experienced) layers of reality that lie beneath (beyond?) what is commonly recognized.
Can you elaborate on this?

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by jakell » Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:13 pm

Pauli137 wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:38 pm
jakell wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:39 am
It's as much a matter of practicality as personal preference. I would say that the vast majority of people, occultists included, get by without addressing any ultimate layer of reality. The latter here may have glimpsed/experienced it and decided that its not worth the hassle, that it may be the psychological equivalent of staring into the Sun or not sleeping for days upon end.
Thus we create layers of mysticism (veils?), not to obscure reality but to adequately deal with it, and why I was (sort of) content with Unwin's vague account of his move to Islam as being a mystical experience, to dig deeper doesn't really yield much that is useful.
I think it may be Upton's point that it is a matter of practicality not to ignore these layers. At the mundane layer of reality, the shared narrative is that we are building a "progressive" technological society that is always bringing us closer to a science fiction utopia not unlike Star Trek. (Never mind that the Star Trek world seems sterile and totalitarian, never mind that the sociological, environmental, and macroeconomic data say that we're moving closer to a dystopia, but collective cognitive dissonance keeps people from juxtaposing the narrative with the actual data.) If you keep to the mundane level, it's hard to see why the promises of utopia never arrive. The standard interpretation is that humans are error-prone and thus the unintended consequences of our technocratic programs always seem to negate the benefits. But why? OK, I guess there is the standard, next-level-down conspiracy-theory interpretation that globalists are managing society for their own narrow economic benefit. I don't think that interpretation sufficiently explains some of the weirder aspects of what we see in the world. At least one more level down is required, and I think that is where Upton is trying to go.
I'm not sure of Upton's mindset at the time he wrote those books you cited but going by his 'letter' in the OP he doesn't seem to be some sort of independant occultist. I tend to make the assumption that if someone chooses to operate within the bounds of a particular religion (even the mystical end of one in this case) then that becomes their interface with any ultimate reality, ie they choose not to interface with it directly as an independent occultist might. I haven't seen any of Upton's writings on the Occult, so this is all an assumption.
As to the yearnings for a "progressive technological society", there is a chance that that is starting to break down on it's own. A large part of John Michael Greer's writings in the Archdruid Report address this very issue, so much so that it's hard to give a specific example.. his "Three Heads" essay is but one approach to this. **
Also, from a practical perspective, the response of the common man to the depressing, dehumanizing trajectory of the globalist program is found at the occult level. Jesus is an occult technology (you yourself have said that there is little distinction to be made between religion and the "occult"). I won't claim that Christianity is the One True Faith, but it's at least one of a handful of good ones.
Hence my wondering why Upton chose Islam. I'm passingly familiar with how Christianity interfaces with the Occult, but not Islam. He's not very forthcoming about this but he does give a clue in the Counter Currents interview by saying that, in Christianity, the secrets are hidden in plain sight (and gives an example of how some Iraqi Mystics remain pissed off that Jesus put these out in the open).. maybe it's a bit different in Islam.
I hear what you're saying here:
The latter here may have glimpsed/experienced it and decided that its not worth the hassle, that it may be the psychological equivalent of staring into the Sun or not sleeping for days upon end.
For example, there's a guy on Reddit who has analyzed some of the gematria and geomancy related to the Las Vegas shooting. I'm impressed with the number of synchronicities, but his style of delivery is manic in a way that illustrates the dangers of delving in too deeply without proper grounding. Recently Christopher Knowles has done a bunch of analysis of the same event, he seems a little bit more capable of navigating the craziness, but then he's been doing it for years (and he suffers some health problems that I personally think could be related to his research). The point being that the cutting edge of occult research is very dangerous. That should actually tell us something.
This is what I meant by practicality. If something makes you obsessive and/or clouds your thinking, then perhaps an initiatory path is more sensible.


** I've been pleased to discover that the entire Archdruid Report has been archived here, so I can download the few that I've missed for my own archive. I'll think I'll continue to use the Data Dump here though whenever I reference something from it.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by Pauli137 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:35 pm

C_D wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:17 pm
Pauli said:
I happen to think (and have experienced) layers of reality that lie beneath (beyond?) what is commonly recognized.
Can you elaborate on this?
Well, beyond the usual paranormal stuff that most people experience (but considerably fewer take seriously, same re: synchronicity), I've done some experimentation with magickal systems, mostly chaos. (No evocation/invocation, just sigil manipulation, requiring very little investment in resources.) I am convinced enough that the fabric of reality can be manipulated this way that I take it seriously, so seriously that I won't use it for anything other than protection shields for myself and family. It's not so much a moral position per se (I think that this is a native, God-given power of the human mind) but rather it requires a great deal of wisdom to deploy in a manner that is both safe and benevolent.

However, given that this is my experience, I am utterly certain that people with vast resources and access to ancient libraries are interested in using these same powers. Not necessarily benevolently or safely.

User avatar
C_D
Site Admin
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by C_D » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:10 pm

I am convinced enough that the fabric of reality can be manipulated this way that I take it seriously, so seriously that I won't use it for anything other than protection shields for myself and family.
It's all about intention. The less violence in your soul, the more powerful it is. Equally, the more violence in your soul, the more powerful. I use the term 'soul' loosely, to describe someones spirit, karma or 'radiance'. Jeez, I sound like a new-ager. Never thought it would happen to me. Chris over at SecretSun blog wrote a piece called 'Until it happened to me' a while ago which summed realisation up rather nicely.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by jakell » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:21 pm

jakell wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:53 am
Still looking for a 'way in' to Charles Upton's mindset, the Bannon thing here is a massive misdirection (he sort of owns up to this in his other Alex Jones titled video), so that's a non-starter and going past that I reckon that a look at his transition from Catholicism to Sufism is the best angle (for me).

Digging around his other stuff I find he is often vague about this, but sort of describes it as a mystical revelation, so 'sort of vagueness' goes with the territory. I've found a Counter Currents interview with him and Greg Johnson and, possibly because of his ideological leanings, Johnson doesn't mind pressing him on why he didn't plug back into Christian spirituality and went to Islam instead (@12:25).

Link to Counter Currents interview

Again he is a little vague, after all he denies that Christianity has become spiritually barren, but cites a quote (source?) where Mohammed claims that he is here to ".. repeat and renew what is said in the Torah and Gospel. I would say that this statement would be contended by all of the Abrahamic religions, but less so by Islam because it makes for great optics.
Shortly afterwards he is talking about how Islam was stopped (by the Crusades) from civilising Europe after the Dark Ages, but Johnson seems to hold back at that point, and seems to be dwelling on Islam's alleged 'Golden Age', something that Bill Warner has done quite a good job of demystifying.

There's a lot to unpick here, this is just a few instances (I'm only half-way through). As Charles' passage to Islam is via largely mystical experience, I'm not expecting too much detail, but it seems to me that he was as much pushed in that direction (by dark experiences?) as well as there being an attraction.

There's a second part to this Counter Currents interview that I missed the first time around.

Here Charles talks again of the Interfaith movement and how its high sounding ideal of 'unity' rests on assumptions that diversity tends towards enmity, something that doesn't necessarily follow.. an appeal to a childish yearning for simplicity (or rather enforced simplicity) that has echoes in the world of politics and certain ideologies. He's trying to tread a fine line here and mentions that Sufism tends to be seen (by organisations such as the Council for Foreign Relations) as a moderate 'handle' on Islam that can be worked with.. tempting as this is he tries to resist it, calling it a "vector of control" citing that Sufism tends to avoid political ideologies (as Jesus tried to do too).
A thought that occurs to me is that nowadays it seems very difficult to avoid having an ideology thrust upon oneself (followed shortly by the accompanying opprobium). Possibly this has always been the case but maybe religion can bring some immunity.

There's plenty more in the interview, but I'll leave that for folks who like to listen (as I do). One snippet that jumped out at me though (@16:40) was where a the difference between religion and magic is mused upon, where the former is about making one's will accept reality and the latter is about trying to impose one's will upon reality. This strikes me as very similar to the delineation John Michael Greer made between theurgy and thaumaturgy which I touched lightly upon in the 'Occult' thread. I must try to get back to that at some point.

Regarding getting around to things, or rather about prioritising them. I find some issues far more pressing than others. For instance, Upton's angle on Islam seems like a good alternative way of studying it than what I've been doing so far, the trouble is that it fades into insignificance (in my view) next to the immediate armoured elephant that is Political Islam (I initially attributed this expression to Bill Warner, But Maajid Nawaz** uses it too in the Rubin interview on page 1 here), and I would love to be given some motivation to bring it closer to the front of the queue.
The same goes for occult stuff in general.. utterly fascinating until the material world starts to rudely intrude on a regular basis.

** He was (according to Rubin) also the one who coined the term 'Regressive Left'.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by jakell » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:16 pm

This thread booted off with a look at the more spiritual version of Islam. My response was that this is all very nice, but seems likely to lose the battle in this world and this informs my priorities.

-------------------------------------

Now that the Truck Of Peace**, after criss-crossing Europe several times, has made a debut in America, it will be interesting to note how similar the apologetics for Islam are to the now-familiar ones in the old continent.
I'm not just talking about responses from Muslims which are going to be motivated by their faith and therefore mostly heartfelt and uncomplicated . The ones that interest me more are the acrobatic virtue-signaling ones from secular types and possibly some Christians too, the folks who believe they know more about Islam than Muslims do, the ones whose window on of Islam is that which only seems to thrive in liberal democracies, the ones who believe that The West can make Islam more humane and equitable (Western Chauvinism, supremacy even)

There are several varieties of these of responses, but the one that seems to appeal to politically minded folks most is claiming that all these attacks are a result of wars and occupations in Muslim countries. This is appealing to secular types as it fits a nice tit-for-tat equation as well as speaking to the concept of white/colonial guilt. Anyone who has taken a closer look at ISIS and their unsentimental espousing of Islamic Doctrines will know that this equation isn't their motivation, although they mention it as a component.
From Dabiq 15 'Why we fight you and why we hate you' - page 30 (this is a biggish pdf to download so if you can find a copy of just this article, well done)
...snip...

(end of article) ...What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the An example of the perversion the West seeks to spread reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

What’s equally if not more important to understand is that we fight you, not simply to punish and deter you, but to bring you true freedom in this life and salvation in the Hereafter, freedom from being enslaved to your whims and desires as well as those of your clergy and legislatures, and salvation by worshiping your Creator alone and following His messenger. We fight you in order to bring you out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of Islam, and to liberate you from the constraints of living for the sake of the worldly life alone so that you may enjoy both the blessings of the worldly life and the bliss of the Hereafter.

The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality. As much as some liberal journalist would like you to believe that we do what we do because we’re simply monsters with no logic behind our course of action, the fact is that we continue to wage – and escalate – a calculated war that the West thought it had ended several years ago. We continue dragging you further and further into a swamp you thought you’d already escaped only to realize that you’re stuck even deeper within its murky waters... And we do so while offering you a way out on our terms. So you can continue to believe that those “despicable terrorists” hate you because of your lattes and your Timberlands, and continue spending ridiculous amounts of money to try to prevail in an unwinnable war, or you can accept reality and recognize that we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam, and will never stop fighting you until you’re ready to leave the swamp of warfare and terrorism through the exits we provide, the very exits put forth by our Lord for the People of the Scripture: Islam, jizyah, or – as a last means of fleeting respite – a temporary truce.
http://clarionproject.org/factsheets-fi ... -cross.pdf

The bolded part above might mollify even 'moderate' Muslims who might be ok with Christians and Jews having the status of Dhimmis, although the "hatred" part might be a bit sour for such as Charles Upton. ISIS' downfall (or rather their dissipation) is probably due to them not practicing what they preach here.
For anyone who hasn't seen this magazine, or its counterpart 'Rome', it's worth a look just to appreciate the technical savvy plus writing and editing skills involved, these people (or rather their 'helpers') are no cave-dwellers.

One reason I appreciate David Wood's perspective is that it is a religious one and therefore is likely to look past the more secular ones that grasp at straws of reason and logic (the ones that produce the tit-for-tat explanations). It remains to be seen whether, as he predicts, positive American interest in Islam increases instead of recedes due to this attack (plus the others), but his argument (from the second post here) is persuasive in spite of the assertion being counter-intuitive.


** This sort of got evoked in spirit by those who were very keen to label the Charlottesville death as 'terrorism', now it's actually arrived and it's more real.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by jakell » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:35 pm

In spite of Erdogan's recent crackdowns at home and peevish comments regarding the treament of muslims in other countries, Turkey can hardly be called a hardline Islamic regime and yet he criticises Saudi Arabia for recent changes there regarding the activities of women.
The idea of ‘moderate Islam’ was invented by the West and is being used to weaken the ancient religion, Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan has said in reference to Saudi Arabia’s reforms, while also lashing out at the EU’s “discrimination” of Muslims.

Last month, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, vowed to restore “moderate” Islam to the kingdom considered to be "home" of the religion. The Gulf monarchy currently follows a Salafist or Wahhabi version of Islam that is often described as being "ultraconservative" and administered through Islamic Sharia law. In what appears to be a direct reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Erdogan denounced a “moderate” interpretation of Islam in a speech delivered at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Women’s Advisory Council on Friday.

“The term ‘moderate Islam’ is being lathered up again. The patent of moderate Islam belongs to the West. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam; Islam is one. The aim of using such terms is to weaken Islam,” Erdogan said in Ankara...
https://www.rt.com/news/409532-erdogan- ... ate-islam/

It's difficult to see how Erdogan is positioning himself here. His present trajectory seems headed towards a Saddam Hussein model where power and political ends take precedence over Islamic concerns, although this is not a particularly overt arrangement. It seems that he feels that he can use fundamental Islam as a piece on his chess board but I reckon it would be very hard to ride that tiger. If a power vacuum is created due to him playing footsie like this, then movements such as ISIS are prepared to move immediately into that.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Open Letter to Steve Bannon

Post by jakell » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:01 pm

Milo can be pretty shallow and sometimes it's difficult to see how he holds things together. Here though he is displaying good knowledge of Islam plus an understanding of how to use that knowledge without getting sidetracked, his introduction of abrogation here is well-timed and he keeps the discourse well-paced in spite of it seeming impromptu.

The 'pwnage' nature of the title here is very misleading and would usually put me off, I gave it a go though because it is Milo, and it is short. The 'Muslim' here retains her composure in spite of losing on nearly every point, so I would give her credit for that, this leads me to believe that she does have a measure of religiosity, even if she is very confused about it.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jakell and 1 guest