Dream’s End Archive

Many of you who are following this series are probably waiting for the posts which start to flesh out the extent to which and the means by which SRI and a small circle of related scientists and spooks “injected” (to use their own word) a “new” religion into Western society. Please don’t worry…those posts are coming.

In fact, as you patiently trudge through a couple more articles of preliminary analysis of exactly what game it is the authors of Changing Images are playing, I’ll give you a little diversion. It’s called “Think Like Dream’s End.” Here’s how it works. I’m going to give you two names and your job, if you’d like to play along, is to be the first to say how they are connected. The dates don’t QUITE match up, but I think you’ll agree that the connection is significant if you can discover it before I write about it in detail.

Okay, name one is Richard Price, cofounder of the Esalen Institute. From what I read about the guy, I found him to be an honest seeker and also a man who had a pretty good bullshit detector, rejecting both Oscar Ichazo and the Bhagwan after brief stints with both. He died in 1985 under what I would have to say are mysterious circumstances. Lots of untimely deaths there at Esalen. More on that later.

Second name is Bill Thetford. I’ll go ahead an reveal the wiki level info…he headed an MKULTRA project in the seventies and also just happened to be the guy “helping” Helen Schucman “channel” Jesus to create the “Course in Miracles” texts. That’s the easy stuff. Go find the connection between the two men if you can. I’ll reveal it in a future post as we begin introducing the Esalen Institute.

Okay, I hope you enjoy your web sleuthing. I wanted to discuss a bit more about the political purpose of the SRI effort, and I think it is pretty clear. Chapter three makes it even clearer with the discussion of “Economic Images of Man.”

I’ve suggested that we might want to rethink our condescending attitude toward those on the Christian right who look at Changing Images and other such efforts as signs of attempts to create a one-world, socialist government. If you read chapter three of the text, you’ll see that this is very much what it looks like they are up to. However, it won’t take too much digging to see that, as I’ve said before, the agenda being pushed here is not socialist at all. This is an important distinction not just because those on the right are missing the point but because those on the left who embrace socialism or at least are vaguely aware of the harms capitalism has wrought, might also mistake this sort of thinking for something progressive. It is not. Despite changing “mankind” to “humankind” in the re-issue of the book and similar sorts of “liberal window dressing”, there is really nothing progressive in the text whatsoever.

Chapter three is a look at what’s wrong with the “economic image of man” that predominates today. Once again, we have the weird sort of logic that it is the economic “image” of man that preceded or somehow influenced the economic structure of society rather than the reverse. That’s not to say that “images” and ideas don’t have power, as they certainly do. But suggesting that the industrial revolution came about due to some new image of humanity just makes no sense. It’s quite common, you see, for society’s elites to try to idealize the facts on the ground as representative of the way things “ought to be” so that people won’t get too upset when they noticed that they are getting screwed. Thus, when we read, for example, British leaders of the nineteenth century speaking of the duty of the Empire to bring Christianity and civilization to various “savage nations,” we don’t actually BELIEVE that this was the cause of imperialism. Well, most of us don’t, anyway.

Chapter three sometimes seems to acknowledge this cart and horse issue, in fact, but ultimately makes it clear that it is the ideology that created the industrial revolution and not the reverse.

That aside, we find that the authors are concerned about several elements about this “economic image of man.” The first item on the agenda is “rationalism.” While I am sympathetic to the idea that rational thought has some limits, I grow concerned when I see an overall attack on the idea of rationalism in general:

“(During the Enlightenment period)…there developed an invidious distinction between reason and emotion.” (p. 46)

Invidious? I had to look the word up to make sure I understood what they were saying. Sure enough, it meant what I thought it meant: “calculated to create ill will.” This confirmed for me something I’d begun suspecting when I first started looking at this material, which is that one goal of this movement is to undermine rationality. At the time I called it “sapping” which was the practice during Medieval sieges of undermining the foundations of city walls until the eventually collapse. Such, I feared, is what the “New Age” is doing to intellectual life in our country. Rationality is not perfect, but it is sometimes the only weapon we have against…well…IRRATIONALITY.

Next comes an indictment of individualism. But if you think the authors are presenting the evils of individualism as counterpoint to enlightened socialist actions, think again. It’s not the Paris communes they hold up for our admiration, but the “collectivist image” of….

Medieval Europe?

Man also had a collectivist image of the person during the Middle Ages: “Each citizen, serf or priest or knight, knew his place in the hierarchy of church and feudalism; and all emotions were channeled in community and religious ceremonies” (the text is here quoting Rollo May). (p. 47)

The text goes on to say that the Renaissance led to a “new confidence” in the individual’s ability “to overcome problems and forge a life of his own” but lest you be confused about where their sympathy really lies, notice the description of the collectivist spirit found in the Middle Ages and also in Greece (?).

In earlier societies, humans perceived themselves as inseparable components of the seamless web of being which extended throughout their natural and social environments. (pp. 46 – 47)

In the Middle Ages, something like 98% of the population were serfs and peasants. In Greece, at one point, the number of slaves in Athens outnumbered the “free” men. While many may have felt resigned to their fate, this does not suggest that these folks sat around waxing mystical about their sacred place in the web of life. And there were certainly rebellions along the way in both societies.

The evocation of the ideal of a tri-partite culture of peasant, priest and warrior, should be disturbing. This image of a warrior caste protecting the priestly caste as the rest of us toil happily in the fields (except Frodo, who had to destroy the Ring, of course) is profoundly reactionary. (While I like to think of Sauron and his orcs as fascist overlords seeking world domination and thus allow myself to enjoy the LOTR films, it’s hard not to notice that all the bad guy soldiers are dark-skinned or dressed like Arabs and that the film (and the book, of course) promotes this very same vision of a sacred elect who go about the business of ruling the world while the rest of us grow cabbages. Sadly, much of fantasy and sci-fi literature is rife with this sort of reactionary or even fascist ideology. )

Other concerns in the text are images of “man as master” of nature. Once again, this is laid at the feet of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I believe it was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the clearcutters, for they harvest efficiently.”

A larger section is focused on “materialism.” And here we become a bit confused. For Christianity, which was just credited for giving all those miserable serfs satisfaction with the mystical role of serfdom, is now blamed for just the opposite. Now it is the Christians who are driving the rise of materialism:

Where in the past the acquisition of wealth had been disdainfully regarded, at least theoretically, it now (under Calvinism) was strongly favored. (p. 48)

Perhaps it is fair to say that Calvin was advocating the idea of acquisition of wealth via personal effort and not simply by inheritance. In any event, he EMBRACED the changes that emerging capitalism was bringing to society, he did not CAUSE them.

Why the bad socio-historical analysis? Well, because the authors need us to accept the idea that our problem in the U.S. is that we have too MUCH wealth. We have, in their words, a “poverty of abundance”. No one denies that the crass materialism foisted upon us by the masters of marketing leaves many of us with an emptiness and disquiet. But given the previous discussion idealizing feudalism, one shudders to predict where this line of thinking will lead our image-changers.

One place it leads is to a great big, “Nevermind!” For, despite suggesting that an overabundance of wealth has led to our society’s spiritual ennui (while acknowledging that we do have many living in poverty who have not yet learned to accept their role in the web of life), the authors remind us again that this is merely temporary. Surely, very soon, an economic collapse is bound to occur. Perhaps it will be due to diminishing stockpiles of food or energy resources. Perhaps it will be due to overpopulation. Perhaps it will be due to the fact that our economic system is based on innumerable short term decisions made without any centralized concern regarding long term consequences. Or perhaps it will be due to the fact that the increasing complexity of our system means that no central agency CAN oversee these processes and that any misstep in one sector can lead ultimately to collapse of the whole system.

Whatever the cause, rest assured: the bad times are coming. And our “economic image of man” is in no position to handle it. And what’s worse, there are only two things we can do about it. One, is to let the big corporations continue on their path and simply adapt our “images” to fit that dynamic.

The other possibility is that the “industrial state dynamic” is either “self-limiting” or else can be controlled by society in some way according to a new “image of man.” Unfortunately, the ways of controlling the industrial state dynamic do not include, according to chapter seven, taking on the power of global capital. In chapter eight, where the details of what this new society ought to look like are spelled out, we are told that the industrial dynamic can be dealt with in two ways. One, the “new socialism” would involve nationalizing certain industries and regulating multinationals more heavily. I’m not sure what’s “new” about that sort of socialism but the authors prefer “new privatism.” This is the idea that huge multinational corporations can be led toward more socially responsible policies by the granting or withdrawing of “legitimacy” by various stakeholders, such as stockholders, employees (whose interests always match those of the stockholders, natch) and society at large. No government intervention needed!

In fact, without irony as far as I can tell, the authors state:

It may seem wildly utopian in 1974 to think of the multinational corporations as potentially among our most effective mechanisms for husbanding the earth’s resources and optimizing their use for human benefits — the current popular image of the corporation tends to be more that of the spoiler and exploiter. But the power of legitimation is strong, as discussed in chapter 7 and the concept is growing that business must “derive its just powers from the consent of those affected by its actions.” (p. 196)

I guess that didn’t work out too well.

In the later chapters of the book, as we’ll see, the authors adopt a sort of good cop/bad cop routine. Bad times are coming, they say, and so we can accept harsh, overt authoritarianism or this “evolutionary transformation” approach. As we’ll see, sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between the two. In fact, one footnote from a good natured critic named David Cahoon notes that the “bad cop” scenario of “friendly fascism” seemed already to be with us in 1974 and finds little comfort in Changing Images :

I wish I could see this whole thing more positively and creatively, but so far I can’t, and your discussion just seems to reinforce my pessimism, though I’m certain the opposite is your intent! (p. 179, footnote A).

I agree with Cahoon. Even the “good cop” scenario is problematic. Economic bad times are coming and even the good cop scenario suggests a period of authoritarianism will be needed to get us through the “turbulent” period ahead. Meanwhile, resistance to the “industrial state dynamic” is futile, and the best approach is not to directly confront the obscene level of control these multinationals exercise in the world but engage in some vaguely defined withdrawal of “legitimacy” to the worst offenders.

In short, it’s clear to me that much of this plan for transformation was a direct response to more revolutionary movements springing up all over, both violent and nonviolent. Somehow, these movements needed to be co-opted and/or redirected. Charles Reich, author of The Greening of America, said it best:

The meaning of liberation is that the individual is free to build his own philosophy and values, his own life-style, and his own culture from a new beginning.

I found this quote in The Upstart Spring, by Walter Truett Anderson, which is a history of Esalen from which I will draw heavily in the future. Anderson had this comment about the Reich philosophy:

If you thought about it, this was a lot easier than participating in some social transition, in which you had to work with others, take into account their visions of the future and build it a brick or two at a time.

Anderson further quotes Reich;

There is nobody whatever on the other side. Nobody wants war except the machine. And even businessmen, once liberated, would like to roll in the grass and lie in the sun. There is no need to fight any group of people in America…There is no reason to fight the machine. (Anderson, p. 232)

And this is why Changing Images is a bit of a parlor trick. It adopts many of the concerns and even some of the language of the various social movements of the late sixties and somehow twists it all about so the only movement that matters is the one of self-actualization, or, to put it bluntly, navel gazing. Meanwhile, it subtly reminds us that concern for our own material well being is, for lack of a better word, materialistic. Those who fight for economic causes are unenlightened and stuck in an old and dying paradigm. Don’t fight the machine.

It would be one thing if the ideas in this book were just tossed out there like ideas in other books. But these ideas were “injected,” to use the authors’ own words, into our culture in a calculated, coordinated and sophisticated way. Whether by experimenting with the new idea of “networking” via Ira Einhorn, for example, or new methods of psychological manipulation via various therapy groups such as est, or by, quite literally, dosing as many potential leaders as possible with LSD and other hallucinogens, or even engaging in direct mind control techniques as were likely employed on various “channelers” who brought us messages from aliens and from Jesus, the overall effect was to manipulate a sizable and important segment of society away from social action and toward introspection.

And I’m afraid the agenda goes a bit further than rendering potential revolutionaries ineffectual. As we’ve noted already, the particular system of thought being promoted so often tracks back directly to theosophy, Freemasonry and similar strains of the Western occult tradition. And while one could speculate about longer running, more deeply seated “conspiracies”, and we won’t shy away from that speculation even though it leads us into more minefields than I care to think about, there’s at least one other reason for this emphasis.

The Western occult tradition that this strain of thought draws from: Blavatsky/theosophy, Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, Gurdfieff’s teachings, etc, despite their rhetoric of directly accessing the cosmic realm, are extremely hierarchical and elitist. The masters of the universe themselves, or their representatives here on earth, make direct contact with only a very few teachers who then may pass this knowledge on as they see fit. And there aren’t that many teachers out there. I mean did YOU get invited to attend a “secret school”? So where does that leave the rest of us?

Growing cabbages, of course.