Is King Charles III in the Business of Destroying the British Monarchy and Britain?

 

The eye also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, saying, No eye shall see me: and disguiseth his face. (Job 24:15 KJV)

Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? (Proverbs 5:15-20 KJV)

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. (Proverbs 6:32 KJV)

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish. (Psalm 1 KJV)

 

For months, the world – at least those interested, from whatever perspective, in what’s going on in and with Britain – has become so absorbed with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s contradictory, ruthlessly self-serving and outright scandalous behaviour that less attention was left, given the upcoming coronation, to take a closer look at what the former Prince of Wales and now King Charles III actually is about – not that the world didn’t know, but humans in general, and modern-day public opinion in particular, are notoriously forgetful, aren’t they?

Let’s remember, for a moment, Charles’ difficult and tragic first marriage with Princess Diana. Why was their marriage so difficult, and why did it have to end the way it did? According to some, the course of events showed her as “unfit” for her prospective role as future Queen. But wasn’t it also revealing him, let’s be honest, as a stone-cold egotist, who simply didn’t bother to keep the sacred matrimonial vows he gave to his bride and to the Heavens when he married Diana, in the first place?

The then-Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie: Charles Philip Arthur George, wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, live together after God’s ordinance in the holy state of matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour and keep her in sickness and in health and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto her, so long as you both shall live?

Charles: I will.    

Charles giving his solemn vow: I, Charles Philip Arthur George, take thee, Diana Frances, to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy law; and thereto I give thee my troth.   

Adultery is no small matter, whether for the little man or for a future king, and the fact that so many kings and emperors of the past decided they stood above God’s holy law and could do whatever they wanted, doesn’t change one iota of what’s right and what’s wrong. Whether Charles was solely committed, as he claims, to his marriage until 1986 (when his marriage with Diana was apparently irreparably broken), or had been all the while continuing his affair with his long-time love and confidante, then-Camilla Parker Bowles, née Shand (now Queen Camilla), through all those years, despite his being married to Diana since 1981 and Camilla being married herself as well, is anyone’s guess. The fact remains, however – marriage broken or not (and how did it become broken?) – that he was still a married man after 1986, bound by sacred oath to “love and cherish” his wedded wife in sickness and in health etc. so long as they both should live. When Charles married Diana, he was almost 33, while Diana was only 20. Given the circumstances, it was not a love marriage. Still, especially in light of his high-flying philosophical and metaphysical interests and himself being at the time already a man in his early thirties, Charles should have known that by marrying this very young lady (voluntarily or not so voluntarily), he had taken upon himself the lion’s share of responsibility to make the marriage “work”. Yet, a self-centered, spoilt brat himself, lacking any and every leadership qualities, he didn’t even seriously try. Instead, the world watched – in disbelief! – that infamous BBC interview held on the occasion of the couple’s engagement in February 1981. The interview went rather well at first, although the interviewer and Prince Charles were for the most part talking between each other, excluding Diana. But it ended in disaster. And Charles wasn’t even done with the condescending remark, “I’m amazed that she’s been brave enough to take me on”, which would have been sufficient for other fiancées to walk straight out the door. It got worse when the reporter (needlessly) asked back as a follow-up question, “And I suppose, in love?” to which Diana, all courtesy, gave back, “Of course!”, followed by Charles’ blasé correction, “Whatever ‘in love’ means”. It wasn’t a “mature” statement against superficial love marriages, but a highly immature and completely unnecessary remark. How humiliating it must have been to Diana, and it was! This is not how prospective bridegrooms (even in arranged marriage settings) are supposed to treat their prospective brides, in public! And that’s how it all began.

Diana, who insisted that her rival (and now Queen) never was out of the picture, desperately wanted her husband for herself – which isn’t really a too-exaggerated demand on the part of a rightful wife, is it? But then, the so-called “real world” follows its own laws, and anyone insisting on marriage vows to be kept is viewed as “petty and naïve”, especially in royal circles. Well, as a result of not being honoured by her wedded husband, Princess Diana embarked on an ever-more insane crusade against, first, Charles and his then-mistress Camilla, but increasingly against the British Monarchy as a whole – consumed by jealousy and a growing sense of revenge, which included either senseless or hopeless affairs of her own as well as dangerously self-destructive behaviour –, got formally separated from Charles in 1992 (which then became known, after a series of other catastrophies, as the late Queen’s “annus horribilis”), divorced on August 28, 1996 and finally ended up dead on August 31, 1997, age 36, in an apparent car accident in a road tunnel in Paris. On May 6, 2023, her former rival, married to now-King Charles since 2005, will be crowned Queen.

Also, the scandalous interview presented above made then-Lady Diana look like some accidental commoner, which she wasn’t. She was very much a member of Britain’s aristocratic class herself. She was a Spencer and thus much more of a genuine English aristocrat than the Mountbatten-Windsors, whose real, German, name should be, as it once was, Battenberg/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Diana’s birthplace had been Park House at the Sandringham estate, and she later lived, after her parents’ divorce, along with her father and stepmother (whom she and her siblings hated) on the considerably larger Althorp estate in West Northamptonshire. Diana had always been in the wider orbit of the British Royal Family, but certainly did not grow up under the strictness of a Palace environment. Also, being very young and basically a high school dropout who was working various jobs, including as a nursery teacher’s assistant, Diana had nothing even close to an academic education (also, not only was she the “thick one” in her own family, she and her siblings lost their mother when their parents divorced and their father, John Spencer, won the custody case in his favour; Diana was seven years old). But she learned fast. And things looked very promising at the beginning. Without the extramarital complications, it could have been a very successful marriage.

But, Charles, clearly a narcissist, instead of enjoying having such a marvellously beautiful wife on his side (who sincerely loved him), became jealous of her and hated being increasingly “outshone” by this young, “uneducated” woman, with whom he wasn’t even in love. There is a great example of some twenty-five years earlier of another prominent couple where the issue of immense beauty and, yes, charisma, of the wife was handled very differently: President John F. Kennedy and First Lady, Jackie Kennedy! It is well-known that also Pres. Kennedy’s ego was at times struggling with his wife’s magnetic aura, but then, the President, too much of a gentleman, accepted it and made even fun of himself, such as – famously! – at a reception in Paris in June 1961, when he began his speech saying, “I do not think it altogether inappropriate to introduce myself to this audience. I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, and I have enjoyed it.” Granted, this was Kennedy’s famous dry humour, but it was also his elegance! Isn’t this how men, especially men in the public limelight and in prominent positions, are supposed to treat their wives? Whereas to hold them in contempt for their lack of life experience or school education or to engage in a competition with them for attention, is plain miserable and shows a man who hasn’t yet grown up himself. John F. Kennedy, unlike Charles, had class. But then, he was part of an entirely different generation…  

In a way, a whole family of four was destroyed, and both sons (the younger more than the elder) deeply traumatised, all because of a narcissist’s stubborn egotism.

Diana’s ghost is still haunting the British Royals today. Prince Harry, along with his high priestess, seems to be going down the exact same rabbit hole of revolt and self-destruction, while Prince William displays a lot of Diana’s quasi-democratic attitudes. Everything looks like headed for disintegration and collapse.

And what about the new King himself? Well, he has been for decades, famously, an advocate for organic farming (which isn’t quite a recipe for big produce, but fair enough), homeopathy and all kinds of other manifestations of alternative medicine (from questionable to outright dangerous). He is, overall, a naturalist, enjoying being out in nature, painting – very fine! – water colours, which is admirable. He loves traditional architecture, and only traditional architecture, which shows him as a conservative.  However, on top of all his other nature conservation engagement, he has been for many, many years an ardent believer in and fanatical promoter of the communist lie of anthropogenic global warming (Lenin would have called him a “useful idiot”, unless Charles is a closet communist himself, which seems absurd on the face of it, but given the British Royal Family’s earlier flirtations with totalitarianism, who knows). The clips below are of autumn 2014 and of 2009, respectively. Charles’ alarmism (in 2009, at the COP-15 Climate Conference at Copenhagen, he predicted, the world had “only seven years before we lose the levers of control”, which brings us to 2016: Well, the world is still there in 2023 and quite intact and getting frostier, not warmer…) and his insane call for total decarbonisation of our economies (“net zero”) is truly disturbing, given that since 1998 there has been no rise in the average global atmospheric temperature at all and that the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which bases itself on the long-refuted idea that human CO₂ emissions cause atmospheric warming, is nonsense.

2014:

2009:

One wonders whether Charles (and the rest of the British Royal Family, including the late Queen, whose favourite “expert” in this regard appears to have been naturalist and nature documentary film maker Sir David Attenborough) have never heard of (or else are not interested in) the brave activities of, among others, the recently deceased Baron Lawson of Blaby, Secretary of State for Energy and then Chancellor of the Exchequer under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Baron Lawson co-founded in 2009 (already far into his seventies at the time) the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which seeks to counter the crazy so-called environmental policies that are being implemented around the world today. He and so many others like him, including considerable numbers of serious climatologists, should have been listened to! Instead, the British Royals (not just Charles) have joined the ranks of clearly-Marxist Green Peace, the absolutely non-scientific IPCC and, in fact, the Green Parties everywhere (who are communists)! It’s rather stunning. Below is embedded a serious and totally fact-based 75-Minute documentary made in the U.K. back in 2007, which would have served the Green Prince (now Green King) better than allowing himself to get filled up with the lies promoted in Marxist Al Gore’s propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth. The documentary in question is titled, The Great Global Warming Swindle, and is an excellent starter for everybody willing to deprogramme him- or herself from the falsehoods that have meanwhile been forced upon the populations of the free world!

Those who content themselves with the expectation that Charles’ activist days will now be over, because as King he would have to be non-partisan and non-political, have already been proven wrong: On his official visit to Germany in late March this year, King Charles spelled out his Green credo as unashamedly as if he was still the Prince of Wales! The final word of this speech was, notably, “sustainable”! King Charles’ speech at the ceremonial dinner at Bellevue Castle, Berlin, begins at 1:15:10 of the video. Those parts of the speech spoken by the King in German have no audio translation in this video, so please turn on the text translation instead. 

But the new King isn’t just rabidly “Green”, but also a Renaissance-kind of man, who prefers interfaith dialogue, if not religious fusion, to keeping faiths separate (he has also just agreed, under pressure from leftwing quarters, to the woke idea of examining the British Monarchy’s role in the history of slavery, which will almost certainly result in astronomical payments on the part of Britain to Third-World countries – who in God’s name is “advising” the King?). As for the religious question, this is of course alarming as Charles’ role as monarch includes being the head of the Church of England and not of some Hindu or Muslim or Sikh denomination! Tellingly, he doesn’t see himself as Defender of the Faith, but would rather like to call himself defender of faith, without definite article (or, even more clearly, defender of the faiths), meaning any faith, which is laughable. After all, if you “defend” all, there’s nothing left to defend against! (And then there’s the coronation invitation card, that certainly has a lot of traditional symbolism in it, but nevertheless looks somewhat pagan, given the “little green man” at the bottom.) Whether the King is driven by a New Age belief, by James-Lovelock-inspired Gaia worship, by Jungian psychology (the latter is a given) or a Masonic credo (basically all of the British Royal Family members are Masons, which somewhat contradicts their alleged Christendom), or whether Charles is perhaps a closet Muslim (there have been rumours swirling around to that effect), he is clearly not a great fan of Christendom – but will be the head of the Church of England, which, whether he should indeed have secretly converted to Islam or not, in itself would mark a case of total incompatibility and the reason for a major state crisis.

In this context, there was a magnificent discussion on GB News on April 10, 2023 on the very question of whether there should be other religious faiths present during the coronation at Westminster Abbey, which is supposed to be, by tradition, a strictly and exclusively Anglican ceremony (nobody of the other religious denominations is really desperate to be there, but Charles wants to see a multicultural and multiconfessional Britain represented at his coronation). Two guests were on: A liberal-minded gentleman named Grant Harrold, a former butler to King Charles when he was still the Prince of Wales, supporting the general idea of modernisation, and a lady named Stephanie Takyi, also of GB News and by self-description on her website, “British by nature, Ghanaian by blood”,  who spoke plain and solid truth (at least, as far as the confines of Anglicanism are concerned), God bless her! It seems Britain is now finally waking up from months and months of Prince Harry/Meghan Markle distraction – and is looking concentrated evil right in the eye… 

As Ms. Takyi’s courageous remarks – nay: strong admonitions! – are so wonderful and precious (at times, she is almost in tears!), a full transcript of what she says here is given below (albeit without the rest of the conversation). – While this writer urges all Anglicans: Be on guard! Look what the Second Vatican Council has done to the Roman Catholic Church over the last 60 years! You already had your Reformation five centuries ago. Keep what has been left to you! Keep it as if your life depends on it!

Well, you know, when it comes to this ceremony, it’s about upholding traditional Christian values, and it’s not just about King Charles being anointed as King, it’s about him getting anointed as head of the Church of England church, and by him trying to add multi-faiths, it’s like him making a mockery of tradition that’s been there almost a thousand years in the making. And it’s not just a mockery towards the Church of England church, it’s getting other faiths involved and getting them go against what they believe in. Anglican law says that nobody who doesn’t believe in God, the Holy Spirit, should be involved in such ceremony. So, getting them involved in such things, it’s breaking tradition. I think, you know, in this country we make a big song and dance about, you know, Meghan and Harry trying to take down the monarchy, but I think we need to look a bit more closer to home and see what King Charles is doing! Because by getting rid of thousands of years of tradition, you’re not upholding your values. You know, this is going to be a very special day, a monumental day for history, and the world is watching, and it’s up for King Charles to represent Christian values on that day.

You see, we’re quite accommodating as a country for multi-faiths, but I think if the King wants to add those faiths, maybe he needs to do, like, a separate ceremony with those things, because I think with this ceremony here, it puts a lot of people to become a laughing stock, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who’s already faced so many criticisms towards the Anglican Church, and I think we just need to stick to tradition here.

I think we should [be representing the tapestry of modern-day Britain], but not in this ceremony. I think some things are up for debate, but when it comes between the Crown and the Church, we have to keep it as is. And I think, you know, Britain is fundamentally a Christian country, and I think we’ve been quite accommodating, you know: helping other faiths be introduced into this country, but I think when it comes to events such as the coronation, we need to stick to tradition. This is what the monarchy is built on, and this is what the Royal Family is built on, and I think with King Charles trying to introduce these things, it’s gonna, you know, make the public lose faith in what he’s trying to uphold here.

My problem is that with diversity and inclusion, it’s a big topic and it should be rightly, you know, represented on the day of the coronation, which I think it will be. It just has no place at the ceremony. And the thing is it’s not a tick box exercise, where we just need to make sure that all faiths are featured in the ceremony. The bigger problem for King Charles is making sure he is looking at diversity and inclusion on a longer scale, more than the coronation. It’s not just about trying to show to the world, “Oh yeah, we are an inclusive country,” and then when the camera is off, we are very much a country which is divided. That is the big concern here. And more than anything, you know, on a religious perspective, like the holy oil, which is gonna be used on King Charles, it’s been blessed in Jerusalem, and these are things we should be proud about! These are the things we need to be celebrating on that day. Anything else is a watered-down thing. This is his one time to get it right!

 

         

 

 

 

Postscript: Meanwhile it has been announced that the ever-attention-seeking (yet thin-skinned), monarchy-hating Duchess of Sussex (for how much longer, one is tempted to ask, will she be allowed to carry this title?) is not going to attend the coronation on May 6, an outcome that has given the whole of the United Kingdom a great sense of relief (whether such irritation between the United States and Britain is a good thing, given that the West should be united as never before in the face of a growing threat of world war, is another matter). The Duke of Sussex alias Prince Harry will come on his own and will have to face, without his high priestess, the consequences of his treacherous “tell-all” projects in the last two years, alone. Not only will everyone in the Royal Family be afraid of engaging in any conversation with him (he might turn around and use it for yet another set of “revelations”), but, worse: his overall popularity in the United Kingdom, notoriously, has hit rock-bottom, and rightfully so. So, it’s going to be for him, in all likelihood, something of a highly uncomfortable Walk to Canossa. And yet, as the door between him and the Palace remains open (thank God), another door might, before long, forever close. This writer predicts that the Sussexes will be divorced – at the very latest! – within two years’ time (if the separation hasn’t occurred already).

Be that as it may – after all, the Montecito show has never been more than just that: a show, if not to say: a ruthless money-grabbing operation –, the real issue before us is of course King Charles’ coronation on May 6. And it is in this regard that this writer just found, again on GB News, a piece of discussion with Royal Historian Dr. David Starkey that marvellously backs up his own analysis given further above. Listen to what Dr. Starkey has to say, and, as always, the good Doctor doesn’t mince words:

Here’s another clear and manly voice criticising King Charles’ lack of manly decisiveness and regal firmness. Royal biographer Tom Bower says, with regard to the upcoming coronation, that the King is losing sight of the plot and is reducing it to the squabbles in his family and to his beloved Camilla who is being constantly promoted as if this was about their marriage rather than about the coronation. Don’t miss this excellent conversation: 

And, finally, here is Nigel Farage’s pinpoint-accurate take on King Charles’ apparent willingness to give in to demands for reparation payments in connection with the slave trade of two hundred and more years ago, for which there has already been made a formal apology 190 years ago. There’s no doubt Britain now has indeed not only a very weak and very confused, but also a highly dangerous monarch, dangerous by his naïve desire to please everybody, stubbornly ignoring the chaotic outcomes his ill-advised moves will inevitably produce. – No good prospects at all…

And yet another one, of April 28, 2023: TalkTV host Kevin O’Sullivan explains, “why no one is excited about the King’s cut-price coronation” (as it’s so brilliant and right to the point, yet another transcript by this author is given further below)…

Kevin O’Sullivan of TalkTV: Let’s get the ball rolling, though, with a few of my thoughts on Meghan and her nemesis, King Charles. – No doubt the King is mightily worried right now because it has been revealed that “Her Majesty” Meghan was less than thrilled with his response to her letter outlining the alleged problem of “unconscious bias” in the Royal Family. Charles’s reply to Meghan’s mean-minded missive from Montecito explaining why her in-laws are “racist”, even though they don’t know it, was, we’re told, “inadequate”. And that’s the main reason that, thank God, the cable-show actress is not coming to the coronation. Phew! Now, we don’t know the precise contents of this trans-atlantic exchange of views, but if Charles told the Duchess of Netflix where to get off, that she could stick her divisive accusations of racism where the sun don’t shine, the British public would have loved it. Sadly, however, as a man who hates confrontation more than anything else, the nice but timid King doesn’t understand that we fervently want our Sovereign to stand up for himself, to stand up for his wife, and for their loved ones Meghan has done so much to undermine. Instead, the desperate monarch posts appeasing pictures of Meghan and Harry in the bosom of the Windsor clan before they bolted to California, as if somehow those happier times can ever happen again. They can’t! An uncheerful Charlie might as well get used to it. Cards on the table: I’m worried about this King. He seems to believe that the way for the Royal Family to survive in the 21st century is to be less royal, to be more normal, smaller, cheaper and far less majestic; to subscribe to the crazed cult of “climate change” like some eco-warrior with a green crown. But while Charles sides with Extinction Rebellion, if he is not careful, he’ll preside over “Extinction Royal Family”. His stewardship at the coronation has been at best questionable, at worst disastrous. Eight thousand dignitaries from all over the world attended his mother’s coronation in 1953. Images of the long procession snaking through a rain-drenched London remained timelessly iconic for his May 6th crowning ceremony. Charles has cut the guest list to two thousand, and the procession from the Palace to Westminster will be considerably shorter. A feeble little shadow of its grandiose predecessor. Apparently, His Majesty has convinced himself that when we see a mere two thousand VIPs crammed into the cathedral, we’ll all real back in amazement at the sheer frugality of the occasion, that we’ll all raise a glass to a monarch who’s struggling with the cost-of-living crisis just like us. Yeah, right. How utterly ridiculous and delusional! The King’s big day will still look exactly like what it is: a lavish, expensive celebration of the ascension to the throne of the nation’s new Sovereign. Since his decision to stage a miniature version of his mother’s breathtaking moment of magnificent majesty, Charles has been spending hours writing letters of apology to all the people he should have invited but now can’t find the room for. What a preposterous predicament he has got himself into: Having to tell Lady Pamela Hicks, daughter of his beloved uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, and a bridesmaid in Elizabeth and Philip’s wedding in 1947, that she didn’t make the grade; snubbing Fergie, the Duchess of York, because, as she explained, she’s divorced from the King’s disgraced brother, Prince Andrew, which doesn’t explain why Queen Camilla’s former husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, will be there in all his divorce from the Queen Glory. It’s a mess, born of Charles’s apparent belief that if the Royal Family doesn’t learn to be less royal, it is doomed. What he needs to learn is that, if anything, we want them to be more royal, more splendid, more exciting to behold! Already, the King’s downbeat approach is paying poor dividends: One year ago, the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee was celebrated across the nation with more than 16,000 joyous street parties! So far, the number of applications to stage street parties to mark the King’s coronation has not even reached the 250 mark. 16,000 – 250: Think about it! Instead of worrying about “climate change”, links to slavery and the opinions of Republican critics, who will always be hostile to him, come what may, Charles should worry about the apathy with which the great British public are greeting his pound-store reign of meager mediocrity. – And that’s what I feel about this guy. I’m really worried, you know. He doesn’t seem to understand what the Royal Family should be about. The clue, then, is in the word “Majesty”! This coronation he’s done his best to remove as much majesty from as possible.                          

 

 

 

© The Contemplative Observer 2023

 

 

“Turned On, Tuned In, Dropped Out” Forever? – The Deadly Legacy of Timothy Leary, The Beatles and All The Rest of Them

l

June 1, 1969, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Queen Elizabeth Hotel, Room No. 1742: John Lennon, Yoko Ono & friends (including Timothy Leary) sing “Give Peace a Chance!” – Click on image to watch video!

l

ll

l

Now that I am here in the West, I would like to speak a few words about East and West. East and West may be taken as the two eyes of the same human body. The present human divisions and distinctions – racial, cultural and linguistic – now barriers to unity, are destined to blot themselves out of the human consciousness when it is flooded with a new Light and Force. This is the inevitable consequence of a new Light that is dawning all over the world. Diversities will be there, and they will be enhanced in fullest measure, but they will not sway the general consciousness. Rather they will be happy and harmonious complements to a unique whole – a true human family in every sense of the term, and in a yet unknown sense. This is a most hopeful streak of light amidst the surrounding of obscurities. This is a moment, not merely of joining hands, but of joining minds, hearts and souls. Across all physical and conventional barriers between East and West, high above national standards, above even individual standards, will fly the supreme banner of Divine Oneness. (This literally Luciferian declaration was not from a Vatican II document, and not made by some Freemasonic lodge, but a message read by later-to-be United-Nations-connected Indian guru Sri Chinmoy [1931 – 2007] on WBAI Radio, New York City, in 1965, months after his initial arrival in the United States. – But then, Chinmoy had come out of the modernist-evolutionist “school” of Sri Aurobindo…)   

l

… Six words: “Turn On! Tune In! Drop Out!” “Turn On!” means: Find meaning within! The only way out is in. “Tune In!” means: Harness up acts of beauty and glory! And “Drop Out!” means: Drop Out! – I mean: Drop out of high school! Drop out of college! Drop out of graduate school! Drop out of junior executive! Drop out of senior executive! Turn on! Tune in! Drop out! (LSD guru Timothy Leary [1920 – 1996] speaking at the “Human Be-In”, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, Jan. 14, 1967) 

l

Picture yourself in a boat on a river / With tangerine trees and marmalade skies / Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly / A girl with kaleidoscope eyes / Cellophane flowers of yellow and green / Towering over your head / Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes / And she’s gone / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, ahh / Follow her down to a bridge by a fountain / Where rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies / Everyone smiles as you drift past the flowers / That grow so incredibly high / Newspaper taxis appear on the shore / Waiting to take you away / Climb in the back with your head in the clouds / And you’re gone / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, ahh / Picture yourself on a train in a station / With plasticine porters with looking glass ties / Suddenly someone is there at the turnstile / The girl with kaleidoscope eyes / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, ahh / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, ahh / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds / Lucy in the sky. (The Beatles [1940 – 1980 / * 1942 / 1943 – 2001 / * 1940], Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, 1967)

l

I think San Francisco is the Holy City. I think it’s going to be the Mecca of the West. And, what I’m going to propose in January – although I don’t know about the ethical propriety of it – is that Allen Ginsberg run for Mayor of San Francisco. (Ron Thelin [ca. 1938 – 1996], co-owner of the shortlived, 1966/67 “Psychedelic Shop” in San Francisco’s then-super-hip Haight-Ashbury district)

l

We are dealing with a dialectic of liberation – actually redundant, because I believe that all dialectic is liberation – and not only liberation in an intellectual sense, but liberation involving the mind and the body, liberation involving the entire human existence. Think of Plato: the liberation from the existence in the cave. Think of Hegel: liberation in the sense of progress and freedom on an historical scale. Think of Marx … Now as to today and our own situation. I think we are faced with a novel situation in history, because today we have to be liberated from a relatively well-functioning, rich, powerful society. I am speaking here about liberation from the affluent society, that is to say, the advanced industrial societies. The problem we are facing is the need for liberation not from a poor society, not from a disintegrating society, not even in most cases from a terroristic society, but from a society which develops to a great extent the material and even cultural needs of man – a society which, to use a slogan, delivers the goods to an ever larger part of the population. And that implies, we are facing liberation from a society where liberation is apparently without a mass basis … Here we are faced with the question: is liberation from the affluent society identical with the transition from capitalism to socialism? The answer I suggest is: It is not identical, if socialism is defined merely as the planned development of the productive forces, and the rationalization of resources (although this remains a precondition for all liberation). It is identical with the transition from capitalism to socialism, if socialism is defined in its most Utopian terms: namely, among others, the abolition of labour, the termination of the struggle for existence – that is to say, life as an end in itself and no longer as a means to an end – and the liberation of human sensibility and sensitivity, not as a private factor, but as a force for transformation of human existence and of its environment. To give sensitivity and sensibility their own right is, I think, one of the basic goals of integral socialism. These are the qualitatively different features of a free society. They presuppose, as you may already have seen, a total trans-valuation of values, a new anthropology. They presuppose a type of man who rejects the performance principles governing the established societies; a type of man who has rid himself of the aggressiveness and brutality that are inherent in the organization of established society, and in their hypocritical, puritan morality; a type of man who is biologically incapable of fighting wars and creating suffering; a type of man who has a good conscience of joy and pleasure, and who works, collectively and individually, for a social and natural environment in which such an existence becomes possible. (Herbert Marcuse. Liberation From the Affluent Society. Dialectics of Liberation conference, Roundhouse, London, U.K., July 28, 1967)   

l

Q: Now, as a poet, what is the greatest influence on your particular work? — A: The revolutionary consciousness of other poets and saints who turned me on to psychedelic experience, with drugs and without drugs, that have given me the gift to see that our society’s completely mad and our government’s crazy, and is going to destroy the planet unless we regain control of our own bodies and our own consciousness and begin treating each other like human beings again and begin treating the Earth like Mama Nature again. (Allen Ginsberg [1926 – 1997], interviewed by Dorcas Speer, Iowa State University, 1968)

l

We’ve combined youth, music, sex, drugs and rebellion with treason – and that’s a combination hard to beat. (Jerry Rubin [1938 – 1994] “Do It! – Scenarios of the Revolution”, 1970)

l

I don’t think it will be possible this time to send the women back home again. The first wave [of feminism] – they won the legal rights on paper – had not really changed the expectations and the behaviour and the possibilities of life for the great majority of women. But this time it has. I mean, the expectations of my daughter and her generation, and my own generation, and the generation in between, are all different, and the possibilities of life are different, and you can’t turn it off! You can’t even send the women home again from the jobs they hold outside the home, or the economy would collapse, and you can’t send the women back again from the definition of themselves as people. (Betty Friedan [1921 – 2006], Some American Feminists documentary, filmed 1975/76, released 1977) 

l l l

But as far as not speaking to a man and not walking down the street with him, and the reason that attracted so much attention at the time, was not that what I was doing was so peculiar, but what everybody else was doing was so peculiar, that is: they were saying men are the enemy, and they were associating with them constantly. So it became, “Isn’t that strange? She doesn’t speak or associate with men! Wow!” But there was really nothing at all strange about that position because that was the rhetorical position taken by radical feminists at the time. It was just there was a gap between the rhetoric and the actuality … I think one thing that’s interesting as far as the role that lesbianism has played as an issue in terms of feminism, is how many issues such as for example what’s called separatism, has appeared, or has come together, for example the notion of separatism and separating all from men in order to define ourselves, in my own head came about through radical feminism which for me was almost synonymous with political lesbianism or the notion of the autonomous woman, which had really nothing to do with sexuality in the terms of a genital sex, it had to do with women finding themselves so that they could then bond together as a strong force to change things. (Ti-Grace Atkinson [* Nov. 9, 1938, coincidentally the day of the “Reichskristallnacht” pogromes in National-Socialist Germany], Some American Feminists documentary, filmed 1975/76, released 1977)

l

I think it is hardly necessary to say that we are living in a time of world crisis, when all values are breaking down and new ones are very urgently being brought to the consciousness of the people in general. And definitely, I think, that this is a particularly sensitive and significant place to discuss the possibilities ahead for mankind, for during the last ten years much has happened here [in and around San Francisco], which has spread through the whole world and has now initiated here new developments of one kind or another. Now, when a culture or a society is facing a crisis of transformation, because it has reached a point in its total development when such a crisis is possible, it becomes also possible for an ever larger number of individuals to enter upon the path of self-transformation. And it is this possibility that we want to discuss here tonight. Now, the possibility is not merely the possibility of becoming a bigger and better man, woman, freer woman, but to become, really, what I say, more than man, to reach a trans-human state of evolution, which is ahead of us and which we can reach if we are willing to do what is necessary to do it. (Theosophist and Godfather of “Transpersonal Astrology”, Dane Rudhyar [1895 – 1985], speaking on June 22, 1975 at U.C. Berkeley on the topic of Astrology and The Transpersonal Life.)

l

I have been a misfit [and a Tantric venomous snake, pseudo-spiritual communist and criminal!] my whole life – in my family, in my religion, in my country – and I have enjoyed it all the way. Because to be a misfit is to be an individual. To fit with the existing, established order is to lose your individuality. And that’s your whole world: The moment you compromise and lose your individuality, you have lost everything. You have committed suicide. The people who are fit in the world are people who have destroyed themselves. Certainly it needs courage, a tremendously strong sense for freedom, otherwise you cannot stand alone against the whole world. But to stand against the whole world is the beginning of such great rejoicing and blessing that those who have never been misfits cannot understand. All the great names in the history of man were just misfits in their society. All the people who have contributed to the happiness of man and the beauty of art, have been misfits. To be a misfit is a tremendously valuable quality. Never compromise on any point! The very compromise is the beginning of your destruction. I do not mean that you have to be stubborn. If you see something is right, go along with it, but the moment you realise that something is not right, then even if the whole world feels it is right, it is not right for you. And then stick to your position! That will give you stamina. strength, a certain integrity. (Cult leader and “prophet” of free sex, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, later Osho [1931 – 1990]. Be A Misfit! Never Compromise!, 1980s)

l

Q: Have you ever come close to getting married? — A: No. Never. I’m against marriage from the very beginning, because that means cutting down your freedom, getting attached legally to a woman or to a man. No. Freedom to me is the ultimate value. There is nothing higher than freedom. It was difficult, because I was fighting from the very beginning. My parents were in difficulty, my family was in difficulty, but I told them absolutely clearly that I’m not going to be married. They were perfectly happy if I was going to be a celibate monk. I said No. I’m not going to be a celibate monk either. That was their trouble. If I was going to be a celibate monk, they were happy, in fact they would have felt proud that their son has become a great monk. I said No. Both are ditches. I’m going to walk just in the middle on the razor’s edge. And I have enjoyed the walk. Tremendously. — Q: So what would you say now to all the people in the world who are married. Should they all get divorced? — A: Everybody should get divorced; without exception! And people should meet and love each other, occasionally, as opportunity comes. There should be no ugly state when a wife has to make love to a man whom she does not love anymore. But she is fulfilling her duty; the husband is fulfilling his duty. While he is making love to the woman, he may be thinking of some other woman, she may be thinking of some other man. What kind of neurotic society have you created? If you don’t love each other, at least be human and tell frankly that it was beautiful to be together, but now it is finished. Say goodbye! I would like marriage to disappear completely from the world. With marriage will disappear divorce. With marriage will disappear prostitution. With marriage will disappear most of the work of the priest. With marriage almost 99% of the jobs of psychoanalysts, therapists, psychiatrists, will disappear. It is marriage that is creating all kinds of psychological perversions, repressions, guilt. It is simply human: You see a beautiful woman, and you would like to have some time with her. It need not have any god’s permission for it. Even your God committed rape with the Virgin Mary – without her consent. — Q: Do you believe that story? — A: I just believe that story because it proves that your God is a rapist. Otherwise, I don’t believe in that story. Jesus must be a bastard! It is certain he was not the son of Joseph. And just to cover up the whole thing, that great story has been invented. — OBJECTION: God did do the job. — A: They say God is a Trinity: God, the Holy Ghost, and the Son. The Holy Ghost did it. But he is part of God! It is just like my hand is part of me. And your genitals are part of you. The Holy Ghost is part of God. Perhaps it is his genitals. Otherwise, how could he manage to make a virgin girl pregnant? — Q: What about family responsIbilities, the married partners’ responsibility for their children, for a start? — A: The children should be the responsibility of the commune, not of the family. It is the family which creates tremendous problems in the children’s minds. It gives them all their sickness, all their superstitions, all their stupid ideas, theologies, religion, political parties – it enforces on the child. The child has to be freed from the family! If you want a new man, then the family is an ugly institution. Its time is over. It should be replaced by the commune. And then it is very easy: The commune takes care of all the children. There will be the father, the mother; they can meet the child, the child can come to them. But basically the responsibility is of the commune to take care of the children. The children will have many uncles and many aunts. and they will have more opportunity of human contact with different types of people. They will be immensely enriched. Our children are very impoverished. They only know one man, one woman. And they know the constant quarrel between the two. The woman is nagging the husband; the husband is beating the woman. And this is what you are training them for: Your boy will repeat you! He will be your carbon copy, knowingly or unknowingly. Your daughter will repeat your wife, knowingly or unknowingly. And that’s why no son can ever forgive his father, and no daughter can ever forgive her mother. They destroyed their lives. And it is an absolutely psychologically proved phenomenon. But if the commune takes care, then they will have experiences of so many different kinds of people. It is my experience that every person is so unique that the more contacts, intimacies, love affairs you have, the richer you will be. (Free sex “prophet”, abortion and depopulation advocate Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, later Osho, answering critical questions by an outsider about marriage and children, 1980s)                                       

l

l

l

This article is intended to be “grief work”; heavy grief work over what not a particular person, already deceased or still alive, but an entire generation – including particularly its destructive “philosophers”, cult leaders and gurus – has done to the world.

l

We are of course talking about the hippies; flower children; drugged-up, Hare-Krishna-chanting modern savages and other self-styled neo-Hindus; anarchistic eco-primitivists; deluded peaceniks; “sexually liberated” fornicators; rock musicians aimed at bewitching and corrupting the young; unhinged feminists; Marxist radicals; and wild panthers of whatever complexion, of the sixties and early seventies (raging rebels, all of them), who in so many cases haven’t let go of their rose-coloured idée fixe of a (godless) communist paradise on earth to this day, stubbornly ignoring the brutal historical facts of more than a century of “really existing socialism” (and there will never come to pass any other).

l

At the same time, this presentation will make it clear, at least to those who either know enough about Catholicism and/or are Catholic enough themselves, that there is a mysterious (arguably causal) connection between the chaos that befell Western societies from the mid 1960s, on the one hand, and that crucial, revolutionary event known as the Second Vatican Council, on the other, which took place in Rome from October 1962 until December 1965 and opened the door to the effective auto-destruction of the Church. That auto-destruction of the Roman Catholic Church in turn created a huge cultural and spiritual vacuum in the West (that had already been building prior to the sixties), and – as quick as a flash! – all those myriads of questionable Indian gurus (as well as Buddhist masters, shamans, and Sufi Shaykhs) suddenly arrived in the West (and home-made “Western gurus” popped up out of nowhere), seducing, like Biblical serpents (Shaivist cobras!), especially the West’s disoriented youth with all kinds of sweet and powerful promises, all the way from supposed perfect inner peace to tantrically enhanced “orgasmic explosions” to virtual “express-enlightenment”. Typically, even the most “traditional”-sounding of these Indian teachers (some of whom presented themselves as “avatars”, i.e., as so-called incarnations of the Divine) were viewing the West, arrogantly, as a “patient” that needed to be cured, as if there had never been a strong Christian tradition – and civilisation! – and just as if the West was now supposed to adopt Indian philosophy and lifestyle, hook, line and sinker (tellingly, post-1958, Catholic missionaries in India, who were no longer expected to “proselytise”, were gradually turning into Hindus themselves, the case of the late Mother Teresa being only the most prominent one).

l

America’s earliest direct contact with Hinduism (although the Hindu-influenced Theosophical Society had already been established in New York City back in 1875) may have been with Swami Vivekananda (1863 – 1902) in 1893, when the guru attended the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago (organised by Swedenborgians, i.e., first-generation “New Age” occultists). Exceptionally handsome Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895 – 1986), already the son of one of the first Theosophists in India, was adopted in 1910 by English Theosophists at the young age of 15 and, quite laughably, proclaimed by them as the new “World Teacher” (a role so absurd that he finally broke free from it in 1929, however not without continuing for the rest of his life as a “spiritual teacher”, nonetheless). Paramahansa Yogananda (1893 – 1952) arrived in America in 1920, by invitation of Theosophist-internationalist circles and immediately founded his so-called Self-Realization Fellowship, that is based in Los Angeles; Yogananda was henceforth living in the U.S. till his death in 1952. Otherwise there was of course one Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869 – 1948) – later to be religiously venerated as a “Mahatma”, meaning a great soul, God knows why – an ambitious Indian lawyer and socialistic revolutionary, who put himself at the forefront of the Indian Independence Movement, hypocritically refusing the socialist label, although his political protégé Jawaharlal Nehru, once in power in 1947 and following Gandhi’s death in 1948, rigorously nationalised India’s economy along Soviet lines, which arrested India’s economic development for decades to come. Gandhi, by no means a traditional Hindu, had studied law in Britain and frequented (again!) Theosophist circles, where he was given his first Bhagavad Gita to read, albeit in an English translation. Also, his famed non-violent approach to revolution known as “ahimsa” (later copied by Martin Luther King Jr. and others) represented little more than a highly efficient method of political blackmail against British colonial rule (he also was using the weapon of strict non-cooperation). The fact that Gandhi was assassinated (by a Hindu nationalist opposing the partition of India) further contributed to his status, not just as the father of independent India, but as the country’s patron saint. 

l

But as we look at what went on in the 1960s, the whole Eastern mysticism thing suddenly peaked into a virtual tidal wave dangerously flooding (if not burying) the hitherto-Christian world (also, much of the sixties’ revolution was massively pushed and directed out of Moscow, lest we forget, which means that all these gurus were, wittingly or unwittingly, doing the dirty work for Moscow, undermining and destabilising the societies of the West). The above-quoted Sri Chinmoy (1931 – 2007) arrived in America in 1964. Prabuphada (1896 – 1977), the Bhakti monk who shortly after established ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), first came to the U.S. in 1965. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (1931 – 1990), widely known as the “sex guru”, who had already been a constant trouble-maker as an academic on campus in India, began around 1966, still in India, as a kind of spiritual therapist (despite being a declared atheist), but increasingly attracted Western followers so that he moved from Bombay to Pune (a.k.a. Poona), Maharashtra (inland of the Western Ghats and less than a hundred miles away from Bombay), where he founded his first ashram, which still exists today. Rajneesh – constantly attacking traditional society, Hindu or other – stirred ever more controversy in his highly traditional home country and thus moved his commune to the U.S. state of Oregon in 1981, where it basically collapsed in scandal four years later (the many Rajneesh/Osho communes around the world are still there today). Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1918 – 2008) had already introduced his bogus technique of TM (Transcendental Meditation) to America in 1959, but was only catapulted to world fame after the Beatles became interested in his teachings in 1967. Mysterious Haidakhan Babaji (? – 1984) gained notoriety in the West in the 1970s; to this day, there remain centres dedicated to his teachings around the world. Sathya Sai Baba (1926 – 2011), perhaps the most ridiculous guru of them all (and also a self-announced “avatar”), set up his ashram in his birth place in the south of Andra Pradesh in 1950, age 24, but went truly global in 1965 (even though he only once travelled abroad, which was to East Africa) when he founded his Sri Sathya Sai International Organization (he famously “materialised” Rolex watches as well as “sacred ash” to impress people, fooling not only gullible Westerners, but also Indian VIPs; there were as well allegations of sexual abuse of minors, which are being swept under the rug to this day). Japanese Zen master Shunryu Suzuki Roshi (1904 – 1971) arrived in San Francisco in 1959 and established the San Francisco Zen Center in 1962; he kept living there till his death in 1971. Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama (* 1935), whose Kingdom of Tibet was annexed by Red China in 1950, fled to India in 1959 to avoid arrest, following that year’s turbulent Tibetan uprising. Ever since, the Dalai Lama has not only been fighting – quite unsuccessfully – for the rights of Tibet out of his Indian exile and on his many foreign travels, but has over time become an international rock star popularising Tibetan Buddhism all over the place and promoting “world peace”, greatly in cahoots with the (Soviet-inspired) United Nations and supported by such figures as South-Tyrolean mountaineer Reinhold Messner (who was for a while an EMP for the European so-called Greens) or Hollywood actor Richard Gere (whose wonderful “devotion” just doesn’t seem solid enough to really have an effect on his personal life – what can one say: actors…).

l

In addition, soon to be known as the New Age Movement, an ever greater number of home-grown “prophets” emerged, telling people – day in, day out – how two thousand years of Christendom had been essentially nothing but a mistake and a dead-end road from the outset. These new “sages” preach an entirely new “gospel” (or new gospels, plural): They speak of either self-realisation, or self-liberation, or sometimes of self-empowerment, or even becoming “co-creators” (after all, who needs God as creator anymore?). With so much enlightenment and deep insight and emancipation going on, one might think the world would have taken a “great leap forward” (to paraphrase Mao Zedong), but the opposite took place. All those confused teachings from distant shores (not to mention the “all-wise” so-named Perennialists who are so immeasurably elevated, so they believe, that they easily stand above all religious denominations, to begin with: the top caste of them all – on par with the “equally wise”, and equally arrogant, Theosophists and Anthroposophists!), none of it has increased – by any standards! – peace or happiness or well-being, or clarity of mind, for that matter. Instead, we’ve descended into a syncretistic and confused no-man’s land, where everything seems possible (and where everything is now permitted), where everyone appears to have experimented him- or herself down into complete self-disintegration and moral breakdown, rather than “self-realisation”! Sure enough, there are plenty of red flags with these new, self-declared “prophets”: While traditional religions all share an instinctual enmity towards all forms of revolution (after all, religions preserve the heritage of old, while the revolution brutally destroys it), these new teachings love the revolution (Red or Brown)! New Agers who are conservatives simply do not exist! They may coyly speak of “evolution” rather than revolution, but like the most raging revolutionaries, they want: change! (In this context, one might view Barack Obama, back in 2008, as having been, not just a Marxist candidate, but a New Age candidate, as well!) But, change for the better? How would they know, being preachers of upside-down non-gospels! Either way, change to them is a must, if not to say: an end in itself. Essentially, the New Age is but an extension, or continuation, of the Theosophist/Anthroposophist (declaredly Gnostic-Luciferian) “teachings” of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and later Rudolf Steiner (ironically, New Agers, who sometimes term their amorphous cult movement the “Mind Sciences”, are actually bringing about a general situation of mindlessness!). In the end, it all brings us right to the dark sphere of magic and a quite prominent, but toxic name, which New Agers don’t refer to that willingly: Aleister Crowley (1875 – 1947), the infamous and incredibly influential English occultist – or Satanist, call him whatever you want.

l

Crowley was fascinated by tantrically inspired sex magic (he called it “Magick”) – and film director Stanley Kubrick (1928 – 1999), in his final and greatly instructive 1999 movie Eyes Wide Shut (essentially an updated, 1990s’ New York version of Austrian author Arthur Schnitzler’s 1926 Dream Novel, which played in Fin de Siècle Vienna) made a number of mostly unexplained references to the genre of such occult practices and their Eastern origin, an element that Schnitzler’s original, more Freudian story hadn’t contained: The day after Bill and Alice Harford’s invitation to top elitist Victor Ziegler’s ball, where Bill spots on the podium a piano player who had once been a colleague of his at medical school, Harford, thrown into emotional chaos the following day by shocking revelations on the part of his wife and anyway called by the daughter of a patient who had just died, takes off into the night and ends up in the very jazz café where his former colleague plays. The piano player tells him about yet another gig later in the night, where he always plays blindfolded and alludes to sexual things going on. Bill Harford manages to extract both the address and the password from him, gets himself, in the middle of the night, a costume and a mask at a costume rental named Rainbow Fashions and goes to the exclusive countryside estate on his own, by taxi. That jazz café where the two talk to each other has on the walls, lightings in the exact shape of Tibetan ritual crowns (clearly, a hint to Tantrism).

l

l

The scene that then shows the occult congregation at the mansion was filmed at Elveden Hall, an ancient castle, initially a monastery, in Suffolk, England, that was purchased in 1863 by a former Indian Maharajah, who renovated it in a mixed Italian/Mughal style.

l

l

The orgy that follows the Satanic ritual, is accompanied by steamy Indian ritualistic music, taken from Hindu-Tantric practice. The writer over at The Vigilant Citizen even realised that the ever increasing sexual tension throughout the film in itself symbolises a well-known theme in tantric practice: the rising of the so-called Kundalini energy (the other elements such as rainbows, Ishtar symbols, mirrors, point to a more diverse amalgam of aspects and influences, including, allegedly, MK-Ultra programming). So, Eyes Wide Shut discreetly unveils an occult underworld (which is apparently real and is said to consist of segments of the great and the good fallen into total decadence and apostasy) where such syncretistic magical rituals, that combine Western Satanism and Eastern Tantrism, are practised. If one looks at the immense influence Aleister Crowley has had, not only on certain Western secret societies, but then also on the whole of rock music (which may or may not have been pushed forward and promoted by secret society forces), one might even say we are living in the age of Crowley (who liked to quip, “My name is Crowley, because I’m holy!” and who is reported to have frivolously exclaimed on his death-bed, just before he passed: “I’m perplexed!”).

l

On the “home front”, one major New Age figure of the 1960s and especially 1970s was David Spangler (* 1945; he is still around today). He, too, comes out of the Theosophist stream, in this case from the school of thought of Alice Bailey (1880 – 1949), who was also a quite political figure greatly involved in the early United Nations. Spangler’s “Aquarian” star began to rise in 1964/65 – he was just about 20 years old at the time – when he began giving lectures about his supposed clairvoyant mystical experiences to metaphysical groups in L.A. rather than continuing with his biochemistry studies at Arizona State University. From 1970 till 1973, Spangler was part of the Findhorn community in Scotland, which had already begun forming in 1962, basically a futuristic, New Age eco-village, that has also strong ties with the United Nations (the UN appears to be the place where communism and the New Age work together like nowhere else). Much “free love”, much talk of “The Christ Within” and “I Am God”, of extraterrestrials, and like with the hippies of the sixties: a bringing in of Eastern mysticism – whether Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Sufism – all of course intermingled with socialist-utopian ideas. To illustrate how dangerously anti-Christian these people are, here is an anyway famous (and absolutely shocking) quote taken from David Spangler’s 1977 book, Reflections On The Christ (bold print added): 

l

Lucifer, then, is neither good nor bad in his true essence. He is completely neutral. He is an agent of God’s love acting through evolution. The energies he provides for our use are neutral. We can use them, the energies of experience and of consciousness, to draw to ourselves things that help us to grow or we can draw to ourselves limitation by refusing to grow (p. 41). –– Lucifer prepares man in all ways for the experience of Christhood and the Christ prepares man for the experience of God. Jesus said, “As the Christ, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man goes to the Father but through me.” This is true. The avenue out of microcosmic limitation into macrocosmic wholeness, universal consciousness and attunement is through the Christ. But the light that reveals to us the presence of the Christ, the light that reveals to us the path to the Christ comes from Lucifer. He is the light giver. He is aptly named the Morning Star because it is his light that heralds for man the dawn of a greater consciousness. He is present when that dawn is realized. He stands no longer as the tester or the tempter but as the great initiator, the one who hands the soul over to the Christ and from the Christ on into even greater realms (pp. 43, 44). – At some point each of us faces the presence of Lucifer. We either fear it when we come to grips with what we term ancient evil or the spirit of darkness, or we move through it and realize that we are each of us light and dark. Until we accept the fact and realize that through the experience of light and dark we gain the perception of the greater light behind both of them, we will remain caught between the polarities, between the forces of struggle and opposition. When we do accept it, we can emerge into the radiance of our inner light, the light that can never be extinguished, the light and presence of God wholly active within the microcosm, therefore wholly uniting that microsocm with all that extends beyond. And at that point, that individual is well on the way to moving beyond the human kingdom into the superhuman kingdom of mastery, of adeptship, or whatever you wish to call it, or simply the kingdom of the consciousness that is at one with itself, with its past, with its future, one with God (pp. 44, 45). – Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it then he is free and we are free. That is the Luciferic initiation. It is one that many people now, and in the days ahead, will be facing, for it is an initiation into the New Age. It is an initiation of leaving the past and moving into the new, shedding our guilts and fears, our anxieties, our needs, our temptations, and becoming whole and at peace because we have recognized our inner light and the light that enfolds us, the light of God. In the new age consciousness there is not good and evil. There is light and the manifestation thereof, either skilfully or not so skilfully. There is the presence of God and the manifestation thereof. There is oneness, wholeness and the manifestation thereof. As the light-giver of man’s microcosmic kingdom has kindled that flame to where it can unite with the light of the whole, so man and God may now become one and go forth from there (pp. 45).

l

This author has already written, way back in 2010, a piece titled, Theosophy and New Age: Satanism In Disguise (one might include Marxism-Leninism in this category). There you find names such as the above-portrayed Mr. Spangler (* 1945); a former high-ranking UN official of Belgian origin named Robert Muller, the self-styled UN’s “prophet” (1923 – 2010); you find the inevitable, meanwhile deceased leftwing Democrat politician and New Age futurist indeed named, true to her name, Barbara Marx Hubbard (1929 – 2019); Shirley MacLaine’s duplicitous “spiritual teacher” and self-acclaimed “visionary”, Chris Griscom (* 1942); a German New Age guru – in fact, a biographically highly damaged individual – who goes under the name Eckhart Tolle (* 1948; the bold choice of first name is a reference to the medieval mystic Eckhart von Hochheim a.k.a. Master Eckhart while Tolle’s real first name is simply Ulrich, not Eckhart); Tolle lives in Vancouver, Canada, and is a superstar in the American New Age (although he has been living in the English-speaking world ever since the late 1960s, Tolle’s English is still horrible: watch an appearance of his along with another New Age icon, the late Ram Dass alias Richard Alpert, here).

l

Of course, the entire New Age movement is at least as heterogeneous and diverse as the field of Marxist-revolutionary activism – and populated with, literally, myriads of people, some more, others less prominent. But it has become an ever stronger, and ever more omnipresent, anti-Christian underbelly that is now firmly established throughout the societies of the West – worse: it has worked itself, over the years, and very successfully so, into all kinds of religious denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, which has, notoriously, been speaking out of both sides of her mouth ever since that dreadful Second Vatican Council of the sixties. The milieus of the Left and of the New Age overlap, and they seem to be inspiring and supporting each other (even though plain Marxists, as dialectical materialists, will never believe in the existence of a soul and thus stay away from New Agers as far as they can throw them).

l

And still, communism may well be – and indeed is! – present in all these phenomena. After all, the Revolution makes sure that it has a foot in the door everywhere, right? Talk about the Gramsci dimension: Antonio Gramsci, co-founder of the Communist Party of Italy and its General Secretary from 1924 to 1927, as well as strategic theoretician – he was locked up in prison under Mussolini’s rule – turned classical Marxism on its head by argueing that first a targeted society would have to be so thoroughly corrupted and undermined that it could eventually be knocked over with a feather. No big, dramatic revolutionary overthrow at the beginning of the process, but instead a technical “cropping” of a country that cannot defend itself anymore, at its end. So-called Cultural Marxism, dismissed by the Left as paranoid, rightwing propaganda, is real. Just read, beside his other writings, Gramsci’s famous Prison Notebooks, written in the years 1929 to 1935 (Gramsci’s approach was later, post-Stalin, meticulously studied in Moscow and integrated in their overall revolutionary thought), even though the language seems innocuous:

l

In my opinion, the most reasonable and concrete thing that can be said about the ethical State, the cultural State, is this: every State is ethical in as much as one of its most important functions is to raise the great mass of the population to a particular cultural and moral level, a level (or type) which corresponds to the needs of the productive forces for development, and hence to the interests of the ruling classes. The school as a positive educative function, and the courts as a repressive and negative educative function, are the most important State activities in this sense: but, in reality, a multitude of other so-called private initiatives and activities tend to the same end – initiatives and activities which form the apparatus of the political and cultural hegemony of the ruling classes. Hegel’s conception belongs to a period in which the spreading development of the bourgeoisie could seem limitless, so that its ethicity or universality could be asserted: all mankind will be bourgeois. But, in reality, only the social group that poses the end of the State and its own end as the target to be achieved can create an ethical State – i.e. one which tends to put an end to the internal divisions of the ruled, etc., and to create a technically and morally unitary social organism. [1931-1932] (Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Noel Smith, ed. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers, 1971. pp. 258)      

l

And isn’t it interesting that so many of those social groups working towards such “technically and morally unitary social organism”, from Second Wave feminism to the gay movement to NAMBLA to BLM to the environmentalists and so many more, indeed had, and still have, communists as their founders and leaders? As for (anyway revolutionary) rock ‘n’ roll, also pop and folk music, a 1974 book titled, The Marxist Minstrels: A Handbook of Communist Subversion of Music, is extremely informative too! Here is a quote taken from the book’s preface:

l

In July 1946 a cultural front congress was held in Moscow. Norman Corwin, American writer and radio commentator, was the “honored guest.” He presented the Moscow International Convention with two recordings from the American-Soviet Music Society, on which were reproduced special messages from the Red leaders in the United States to the Soviet heads. In this same year the Communists established a number of recording companies here in the United States, aimed not only at proletariatizing our culture, but also seeking to make a generation of our youth mentally ill. This program will be examined in detail in this work.

l

Sidney Finkelstein, “the cultural spokesman for the Communist conspiracy” in the United States, in his book How Music Expresses Ideas, made Lenin’s “rework culture” speech the heart of his work. Finkelstein called for breaking down the barrier between classical music and “popular” music. He termed this barrier chauvinistic, and proposed to smash it by inundating the American public with the “music of the Negro people.” One can be sure Mr. Finkelstein was not referring to “Negro spirituals” but rather to African “beat” music. His proposed method of eliminating the barrier seems to be quite successful since America is presently submerged in jungle “beats” and “noises.”

l

Even Time magazine’s article on rock ‘n’ roll more than substantiated Finkelstein’s fondest dreams. Finkelstein concludes, “works will come forth which will inspire the American people in their collective struggles for peaceful progress, express their solidarity with all other struggling peoples and be a historic contribution to world culture.”

l

And now Jerry Rubin in his modern day “Communist Manifesto” Do It! admits that “rock ‘n’ roll marked the beginning of the revolution.” He says, “We see sex, rock ‘n’ roll and dope as part of a Communist plot to take over Amerika.” And concludes, “We’ve combined youth, music, sex, drugs and rebellion with treason – and that’s a combination hard to beat.”

l

Perhaps this is why Alfred G. Aronowitz commented, “If the establishment knew what today’s popular music really is saying, not what the words are saying, but what the music itself is saying, then they wouldn’t just turn thumbs down on it. They’d ban it, they’d smash all the records and they’d arrest anyone who tried to play it.” Or again, “While American radio kept busy trying to keep its turntable clean of records that dealt with sex and drugs, American songwriters kept busy outwitting the censors with lyrics that had double, triple and sometimes multiple meanings. America’s new generation was creating its own culture and as part of that culture it was creating its own music and its own language.”

l

A perfect example of such “breaking down the barriers” between bourgeois classical music and revolutionary rock music (and there were many other bands, of course, who did this kind of classic/rock fusion, such as Emerson Lake & Palmer) is the 1971 studio album Gemini Suite by Jon Lord (1941 – 2012), the keyboardist of the English hard-rock band Deep Purple. Jon Lord, who also had a solid background in classical music, created an admittedly impressive piece of classical/rock fusion, that at times rivals, by its elegance, some of the finest film music by John Williams. The score is written for two vocals (rock/pop singer Yvonne Elimann, who famously sang the part of Mary Magdalene on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s blasphemous 1970 album musical, Jesus Christ Superstar; and rock musician and singer, Tony Ashton), piano/organ (Jon Lord himself), guitar (rock guitarist Albert Lee), bass (Roger Glover of Deep Purple), drums (Ian Paice of Deep Purple), and symphonic orchestra (the London Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Malcolm Arnold).

l

Listen to Jon Lord’s Gemini Suite here!

l

Five of the six movements are solely instrumental; the part that includes singers, titled “Vocals”, then, reveals, somewhat vaguely, a psychedelic message, in tune with the revolutionary spirit of the time:

l

All the words that a world can use / Come to naught, / Easy to abuse “fellowship”, / And “the right to choose”, / And “to make a foe your friend”, “beginning” / And “the end”, / “Let us kneel and pray”, / “One more day”, / “Charity”, “human kindness”, / “family”, human blindness”, / “open mind”, “lend a helping hand”, / “Fight for peace”, “Make love, not war”, / “What are we fighting for?” / Strange, the things we say. / Games we play. / The words will never be the same. / It doesn’t mean we’re not to blame. / Stand up and shout your name! / Who knows – it could all change! / You sit down on your comfy old ass; / The moment comes you say, “I pass”; / You nod your heads and reach for the grass / To float away. / There’s no crime in humanity; / It’s no sin to delay. / But you’ve got to know where you’re going. / Give us time, there’s a lot to do. / Make it rhyme, make the dream come true! / Give it life – life to dream! / But, to dream – is it all a dream?

l

And here is Emerson Lake & Palmer’s legendary 1971 live album, Pictures at an Exhibition, a doubtlessly sophisticated and artful adaptation of Modest Mussorgsky’s orginal:

l

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7NAGTq_IJQ&t=21s

l

But anti-bourgeois proletarianisation by way of “fusion” didn’t only happen in the realm of classical music, but also in the formerly relatively elevated jazz genre. Also here, the revolution broke in with full force during the sixties, opening jazz up to rock ‘n’ roll, R & B, all kinds of ethnic music (Indian, African, Latin, Arabic), and so eventually became “world music”, along the propagandistic lines of “We Are One!” One pioneer in this regard was Austro-American jazz keyboardist and founder of the band Weather Report, Joe Zawinul, who just loved to, once in a while, perform together with his old Vienna friend Friedrich Gulda, a concert pianist with a soft spot for jazz. Both were non-conformists (if not to say: leftists). Gulda, despite his magnificent career in the world of classical music, couldn’t help, now and then, to shock his audiences by turning up for his concerts in rugged jeans and hippiesque oriental caps; his programmes were sometimes titled, in communist fashion, “Bach For the People” and the like; and of course he gave jazz concerts or mixed concerts, as well. There really was a great deal of rebellion inside this artist. As a consequence, when Zawinul (& band) plus Gulda played together, it was always a strong revolutionary statement: Zawinul, who had “democratised” jazz, and Gulda, who was delightedly tearing down the bastions of classical elitism. – Suitably, this concert took place in Salzburg in the summer of 1988, the year before communist Eastern Europe took down its Iron Curtain and began flooding the West. For Comrades Zawinul & Gulda (and so many more of their ilk), it must have felt like, “Mission accomplished.”

l

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v43zT9t-p0&t=4479s

l

Another piece of jazz-rock fusion, from the year 1973, that blows the mind: Billy Cobham’s Stratus. Billy Cobham is of course one of the leading jazz drummers in the world, even today, but listen to what he is doing here; it’s enormous, enormously grooving (and enormously psychedelic, as well):

l

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm2kJSr86Fs&t=11s

l

But not only jazz and classical music were being revolutionised, but also folk music. In the American context – given the many different musical influences and the fact that the American society isn’t necessarily a class society, and not a strictly traditional, or even “tribal”, society either – a look across the “pond” over to “old Europe” may be instructive. In most European countries (just take Ireland!), there is still alive a strong folk music tradition. The Revolution naturally targeted that area of music as well. However, revolutionising traditional folk music, that in many places is still closely linked with the religious traditions of old, is a challenge of a different order. The progressive trend found a clever solution by more or less replacing – or at least marginalising – the old, genuine folk music with some kind of folk-world music fusion that actually rocks! Here is a marvellous case in point: Music that goes really deep, and yet follows the new, revolutionary “paradigm”:

l

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvaqDNEppwQ&t=10s

l

And so we’ve been, step by step, turned on; we all too readily tuned in; and in so many ways, we actually dropped out! Out of our religious tradition, first of all, which had given our ancestors orientation, stability and meaning! Out of our inherited cultural norms, conduct, and morality! We don’t bother to court any more. Marriage has been, first, hollowed out, and is now being torn apart completely. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was far ahead of his time. He was indeed a visionary! A visionary from hell! No more family, no more hierarchy, no more understanding of anything, especially of history. Instead: Total “liberation”! But that so-called liberation was a lie. We haven’t come out of all these revolutionary transformations, enriched, but disastrously impoverished. Which is the programme of communism: Take everything away! Reduce man to a completely dependent and degraded animal! Don’t civilise, but brutalise him! Paganise him! Atomise him! Annihilate him! No more God! No more man! Only the glorious vanguard Party – ruling over an earth turned into a wasteland…

l

Posted on Good Friday of 2023. – Suitable for Easter, and as an uplifting antidote after dealing with so much poison, listen, if you like and provided you have enough time, to Johann Sebastian Bach’s fabulous St. Matthew Passion – in full! – in a recording with the just as fabulous Netherlands Bach Society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwVW1ttVhuQ&t=18s

l

Happy Easter!

l

Cosimo Rosselli: The Crucifixion with the Madonna and Mary Magdalene, and Saints Andrew, John the Baptist and Francis (Florence, commissioned in 1503)

l

                

l

l ()

l

ll

l

l

l

© The Contemplative Observer 2023

l

l