Lately I have noticed an increase in challenges to my book the Key. These seem to come mostly from people who are troubled by two things: first, that it blames the holocaust for the fact that we are trapped on Earth; second, that it asserts that “sin is denial of the right to thrive.”
The technique used in these attacks is to point out the similarity between my previous work and some of the statements in the book, thus by extension discrediting statements like those above as being just my opinion and therefore lacking the imprimatur of the mysterious.
The fact that there is much in the Key that is reflected in my previous work is true enough and nothing I have ever tried to hide. But there are also things, such as those above, that literally do not appear anywhere else in this world. Similarly, one can find some of the scientific statements made in the Key in the scientific literature of the period. But once again, not all. I’ve discussed some of the specific scientific claims that are novel to the book in my lead-in material in the Tarcher/Penguin edition.
But the two most important things that are novel to the book are the ones stated above, and it is these that are inspiring the renewed attacks.
Racists, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites desperately do not want to see statements that assert things like those that appear in the first pages of the Key given any sort of credibility at all. Many of them, I think, would like to kill Jews even now. And they certainly don’t want to believe that the intelligence of the species was lowered by the Nazi murder program. But you don’t need to be any Master of the Key to see that this must be true. Hundreds of thousands of the most cultured and educated people in Western Europe were killed in the Holocaust. Of course it diminished the intelligence of the species!
Recent political changes in the United States have given encouragement to the very worst sort of racial bigots. Nevertheless, normal people continue to be disgusted by them, with the result that they continue to thrive only along the fringes of the culture.
One of these fringes is the conspiracy community, of which UFO groups continue, unfortunately, to be considered a part. Thus, UFO organizations are prey to contamination from the malignant aspects of the fringe, as was recently seen when the leader of a major UFO organization published an atrocious racist screed on the internet.
The result is that UFO groups, similarly infiltrated, are rushing to dignify and amplify these assertions about the Key. This sort of thing starts with some screed, obviously bizarre, being posted somewhere, then picked up by like-minded places and repeated as fact. Soon it acquires a life of its own and ends up in more mainstream locations, now entirely sanitized and seemingly entirely factual.
Unfortunately, the internet by its very nature anesthetizes our critical facilities. I have often seen people I regard as discriminating taken in by this sort of thing. Once something is accepted as fact, that is what it becomes–even though it remains what it always was, a lie.
I cannot prevent this sort of thing from happening to the Key. It is happening. But I can at least assert my own position, which is that, no matter the origin of the words in the Key, they are still valuable and many of them extraordinarily so.
Associated with hatred of the Key by racists is hatred of and a desire to discredit the statement, “sin is denial of the right to thrive.” The reason for this has to do with the secret of conscience, which is that there is only one conscience, which we all share. We all know the difference between right and wrong, including people who are sick with hate. They know that they are doing wrong, and that phenomenally ethical statement forces them to face, in their own inner selves, the truth: they have allowed themselves to become corrupt. They are sinning every day of their lives with their opinions and whatever acts they may carry out in support of their evil beliefs.
In great part, the Key asks us to face ourselves. The mere fact that it is under attack to me suggests that it does a good job of this. It has real moral force. So, no matter its authorship–which nobody can ever prove one way or the other, not even me–I consider it a precious and unique text, and I commend it to good people everywhere.
After all, “sin is denial of the right to thrive” works both ways. It not only forces people who do evil to face themselves, it also tells a person who is trying to lead a good life where they stand, and offers them a wonderfully clear and simple way to examine their own conscience and find their way forward with love, compassion and humility. I don’t think that there is any other text in the world that does this with the same simplicity and truth. I’ll say it frankly, as I believe that it is true: the Key is a treasure.
Subscribers, to watch the subscriber version of the video, first log in then click on Dreamland Subscriber-Only Video Podcast link.
I had never heard of Whitley
I had never heard of Whitley Strieber. I think it was 2013 when I was aimlessly wandering through a bookstore. On a compulsion i reached BEHIND another book and grabbed the Key. One copy, hidden behind another unrelated book.
Previously, in early 2012, I saw the grays for the first time. I laughed at them and told them they weren’t real. I continued to believe the encounter was meaningless nonsense until the Key lead me to Unknown Country. And I cannot use words to describe what Unknown Country has given me.
What I’m saying is that regardless of what the Key is: My finding of it was one of the most important things I’ve ever done for myself.
I had never heard of Whitley
I had never heard of Whitley Strieber. I think it was 2013 when I was aimlessly wandering through a bookstore. On a compulsion i reached BEHIND another book and grabbed the Key. One copy, hidden behind another unrelated book.
Previously, in early 2012, I saw the grays for the first time. I laughed at them and told them they weren’t real. I continued to believe the encounter was meaningless nonsense until the Key lead me to Unknown Country. And I cannot use words to describe what Unknown Country has given me.
What I’m saying is that regardless of what the Key is: My finding of it was one of the most important things I’ve ever done for myself.
Whitley the Key is a
Whitley the Key is a treasure, I have never read a book with more profound statements, a book that offers the reader a new way to look at and into themselves, and to me has cleared the air on so many unanswered questions. I have shared my copies of the key with close family and friends, feedback has been extraordinary and quite a few have found the same peace and can live their lives with greater focus and clarity. Your work has not been diminished by such people, I am sure some of your subscribers are working behind the scenes… As a side note recently the IT department at my work switched off access to Unknown Country because it falls under their “Spiritual belief” website – “Access denied”…
Whitley the Key is a
Whitley the Key is a treasure, I have never read a book with more profound statements, a book that offers the reader a new way to look at and into themselves, and to me has cleared the air on so many unanswered questions. I have shared my copies of the key with close family and friends, feedback has been extraordinary and quite a few have found the same peace and can live their lives with greater focus and clarity. Your work has not been diminished by such people, I am sure some of your subscribers are working behind the scenes… As a side note recently the IT department at my work switched off access to Unknown Country because it falls under their “Spiritual belief” website – “Access denied”…
Thank-you for writing the
Thank-you for writing the Key. I read it again and again, i gain new insights each time.
Thank-you for writing the
Thank-you for writing the Key. I read it again and again, i gain new insights each time.
Regarding how the Key may
Regarding how the Key may have reflected Whitley’s earlier writing…one thought is that the Master of the Key may in fact have simply been Whitley’s higher self talking to him only, manifested in his memory as a separate individual. Besides, of course Whitley would interpret and transpose his own thoughts into the memoir of the event anyway – as he was working from a hazy memory of the incident. So that is no basis for discrediting the whole thing.
It’s clear – the book hit a nerve with someone and now they want to attack it.
Pssqd, I had had the same
Pssqd, I had had the same thought, that the Master of the Key may have been Whitley’s higher (or future) self.
Regarding how the Key may
Regarding how the Key may have reflected Whitley’s earlier writing…one thought is that the Master of the Key may in fact have simply been Whitley’s higher self talking to him only, manifested in his memory as a separate individual. Besides, of course Whitley would interpret and transpose his own thoughts into the memoir of the event anyway – as he was working from a hazy memory of the incident. So that is no basis for discrediting the whole thing.
It’s clear – the book hit a nerve with someone and now they want to attack it.
Pssqd, I had had the same
Pssqd, I had had the same thought, that the Master of the Key may have been Whitley’s higher (or future) self.
I’m practicing taking the Key
I’m practicing taking the Key to heart, and I keep failing, but, I will also keep trying. The Key is a treasure to this world, and so are all of Whitley’s writings.
I’m practicing taking the Key
I’m practicing taking the Key to heart, and I keep failing, but, I will also keep trying. The Key is a treasure to this world, and so are all of Whitley’s writings.
Looks to me like Whitley’s
Looks to me like Whitley’s deflecting away from real criticisms of his work by confusing it with the anti-Semitic Jeff Rense stuff from years ago. Jeff Rense rags on and on about the Jews, and got upset at The Key when it first came out.
The paper that came out recently on Strieber has got nothing to do with that. I’d like to see him address the paper directly. Like how more than half of what the Master of the Key says has been shown to come from him from years before. And if he’s now walking back his Toronto event above by saying “no matter the origin of the words in the Key”, how was it he could go on for years about this Master of the Key, how the man looked, how the man talked, and all that.
Just because people have real experiences doesn’t mean Whitley Strieber doesn’t just make things up.
Looks to me like Whitley’s
Looks to me like Whitley’s deflecting away from real criticisms of his work by confusing it with the anti-Semitic Jeff Rense stuff from years ago. Jeff Rense rags on and on about the Jews, and got upset at The Key when it first came out.
The paper that came out recently on Strieber has got nothing to do with that. I’d like to see him address the paper directly. Like how more than half of what the Master of the Key says has been shown to come from him from years before. And if he’s now walking back his Toronto event above by saying “no matter the origin of the words in the Key”, how was it he could go on for years about this Master of the Key, how the man looked, how the man talked, and all that.
Just because people have real experiences doesn’t mean Whitley Strieber doesn’t just make things up.
BTW, the author of the
BTW, the author of the Strieber article appears to be Jason Horsley. He’s been a critic of Strieber for years:
http://auticulture.wordpress.com/
He goes under different aliases including Aeolus Kephas. He’s also friends with Daniel Pinchbeck, the one Whitley had a tussle with.
No sign that Horsley is an anti-semite. Could be wrong.
BTW, the author of the
BTW, the author of the Strieber article appears to be Jason Horsley. He’s been a critic of Strieber for years:
http://auticulture.wordpress.com/
He goes under different aliases including Aeolus Kephas. He’s also friends with Daniel Pinchbeck, the one Whitley had a tussle with.
No sign that Horsley is an anti-semite. Could be wrong.
I have read much of Whitley’s
I have read much of Whitley’s work and have always enjoyed it but the Key is special. It is very powerful because deep down you can feel that it is the truth.
The Master of the Key stating that we are stuck because of what was lost in the Holocaust really hit me. How many potential Einsteins, Mozarts and Teslas were lost in that horror ?? The Ashkenazi Jews are some of the most brilliant and well educated people on the planet–that is an easily verifiable fact. Because of blind mindless hatred, generations of these incredible and brilliant people were wiped out and their descendants never were born. Humanity lost so much and everyone needs to stand up against hatred like that whenever it shows its evil face !!
I have read much of Whitley’s
I have read much of Whitley’s work and have always enjoyed it but the Key is special. It is very powerful because deep down you can feel that it is the truth.
The Master of the Key stating that we are stuck because of what was lost in the Holocaust really hit me. How many potential Einsteins, Mozarts and Teslas were lost in that horror ?? The Ashkenazi Jews are some of the most brilliant and well educated people on the planet–that is an easily verifiable fact. Because of blind mindless hatred, generations of these incredible and brilliant people were wiped out and their descendants never were born. Humanity lost so much and everyone needs to stand up against hatred like that whenever it shows its evil face !!
I wrote a big discussion of
I wrote a big discussion of this, but then deleted it all because it boils down to one sentence:
The Key, to function as intended, requires its reader to “make the cut” a la The Super Natural.
I wrote a big discussion of
I wrote a big discussion of this, but then deleted it all because it boils down to one sentence:
The Key, to function as intended, requires its reader to “make the cut” a la The Super Natural.
A message from ‘Heinrich
A message from ‘Heinrich Moltke’:
An Answer to Whitley Strieber
by the author of “Problems with Strieber and The Key”
Recently, I completed an in-depth study of “The Key”. At over three hundred pages, it is a scholarly, comprehensive, and detailed analysis of the book together with the issues surrounding it.
The paper is not a piece of debunking. I am not a debunker. I am someone who followed Strieber’s work for more than two decades, bought his books, and even wrote pieces defending him. I am of the opinion that many people who claim to have had ‘contact’ are neither lying nor hallucinating, and that therefore we have a duty to assist them though we may have no idea what is happening.
I feel I should point out that I’m also not a UFO partisan. I don’t buy the Steven Greer space brothers interpretation. But nor do I think that UFO phenomena are best understood as faerie lore come to life. I suspect that like everything else, UFO phenomena represent something more and different than we realize.
I am not a member of MUFON. I am also not an anti-Semite.
Yesterday, in response to my paper, Whitley Strieber left the following comment on his website:
***
Moltke is not meant as an anagram. It is a reference to a Nazi diplomat who worked in Poland in WWII, and is used by this man, in my opinion, because of sympathies for the Nazi movement. Understand that I know the actual identity of “Heinrich Moltke.” We looked him up because of some of the disturbing comments he left on Unknowncountry in the 6 years he was there. After Jeremy had him blocked, he reappeared under another name for a while, but left on his own.
I believe that this person may suffer from paranoia, among other things. He has been under treatment for mental illness in the past as he admits on the internet under other of his aliases. I also believe him to be a virulent anti-Semite. If I am right, then these two things together–the anti-Semitism and the paranoia–explain the poor creature’s obsession with the Key. I say “poor creature” because of other things I know about him.
Posted by Whitley on 08 Jun 2017 at 09:16
***
Despite the conviction we often hear expressed by Whitley Strieber that he “knows”, nothing in the above comment is true other than that my subscription to unknowncountry.com was canceled after I left sarcastic comments on Jeremy Vaeni’s show page. One of the comments, though it was directed at Vaeni, was re-interpreted as an attack on Anne Strieber. The leaving ‘disturbing’ comments, re-appearing under another name, and so on – all untrue.
It should also go without saying that I have not been “under treatment for mental illness”. If I were (or ever had been) I wouldn’t go bragging about it on the internet. I am also not an anti-Semite. I think the world would be far for the worse if we didn’t have Heifetz or Menuhin, Einstein and Bohr. ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ is my favorite comedy show. (Little known fact: William Shatner is Jewish. How could anyone hate Captain Kirk?)
I would like to stress that the above accusations against me and from Strieber come simply in the context of my writing a paper that patiently, painstakingly, and fairly examines his work. It’s notable that Strieber’s first reaction to this study of his work is to call the author a mentally-ill anti-Semite.
One might conclude that Strieber does not want his fans or paying subscribers reading the paper. This is why in his latest Journal, he both fails to mention the paper directly, instead writing of “attacks”, and confuses the issue completely by mixing in Jeff Rense’s anti-semitic attacks on ‘The Key’ from almost twenty years ago, as well as the completely unrelated issue of a MUFON member who recently posted bigoted remarks on Facebook.
More important, though, in the same Journal is the bigger confusion that Strieber creates as he walks back his claims about the reality of the ‘true encounter’. No, the issue is not that there is a book whose authorship “nobody can ever prove one way or the other, not even me”. The issue is that Strieber has for years been talking about a Master of the Key who looked a certain way, talked a certain way. An event. He also said the text was a “transcription” that was “ninety percent accurate”.
On that score, one can in fact prove that the conversation in “The Key” comes from Strieber. I did it. It took over 300 pages to do. No academically-trained person, especially in literature, can read the analysis done and not conclude that the content of “The Key” comes from Strieber. There is no reason to think any of it came from anybody else. Not only is it demonstrable, it is almost incredible how clearly this can be demonstrated.
Strieber in his Journal falls back on the pithy ‘sin is the denial of the right to thrive’ as proof the Master of the Key wasn’t him. But this fits perfectly into Strieber’s own unique brand of naturalism. Defining sin – one of Strieber’s enduring preoccupations – in terms of life, its impact or cost on life is perfectly consistent with his work. Strieber also cites another point in his Journal – the speculation about the Holocaust and the loss of intelligent genes. Ironically, this is a point I’d accept as quite possibly true. I think probably a good portion of our intelligent numbers were killed off during the Holocaust. Is this something Strieber would never have thought of? For a man who is constantly talking about evolution, physics, populations, Nazis and the Holocaust, it seems like it would come easily.
I won’t re-litigate the issues of the paper here. I will note that there is a kind of depressing irony reading Strieber writing in his Journal about conscience and facing “inner selves”. Because what we see in Strieber in relation to his book “The Key” is a frantic, panicked denial and a willingness to try any argument to avoid having to face what is painfully obvious to everyone else. In just this one Journal, Strieber holds simultaneous positions (the ‘true encounter’ happened/maybe it didn’t but the text still has “moral force”) as he often does with the effect that if you criticize one, he can fall back and say he was advocating the other. He also invokes racism and anti-Semitism as a way of trying to avoid the plain conclusion that “The Key” is a product of his imagination.
People have been having anomalous experiences since the beginning. It’s a sad fact that in our culture, these people don’t get support when as result of them they suffer. But just because these experiences happen doesn’t mean Whitley Strieber doesn’t have a unique and pervasive problem with imagination and confabulation. If he had any intellectual self-respect, he would face the problem squarely instead of blaming “sinister forces”, anti-Semitism, and so on. I think the emotional support system of his website, his fans, should help him.
Heinrich Moltke
http://www.strieberthekey.com
“Heinrich” is not Jason
“Heinrich” is not Jason Horsley. In fact, I found where he was in an argument with Heinrich over Strieber’s work elsewhere on the net. Odd that you’d suspect him, given that.
Are you Heinrich, Srava? Or a friend of his? I don’t recall seeing you on here except to promote Heinrich’s work. Do you have other posts that I missed? Did you really subscribe to a pay website for a man you think is a fraud?
Either way, if “Heinrich Molke” is an alias then we’re just feeding the ego of another anonymous trolling coward who gets off on the attention. Pardon me for being elitist, but I don’t think a NY Times best-selling author has to answer to a nameless PDF file no matter how much that file assures us it is scholarly and the definitive word.
No, I’m Jason Horsley.
Why
No, I’m Jason Horsley.
Why don’t you send an e-mail? It’s on the site: lmhowe_doty42@strieberthekey.com
”
“Heinrich” is not Jason
”
“Heinrich” is not Jason Horsley. In fact, I found where he was in an argument with Heinrich over Strieber’s work elsewhere on the net. Odd that you’d suspect him, given that.
Are you Heinrich, Srava? Or a friend of his? I don’t recall seeing you on here except to promote Heinrich’s work. Do you have other posts that I missed? Did you really subscribe to a pay website for a man you think is a fraud?
Either way, if “Heinrich Molke” is an alias then we’re just feeding the ego of another anonymous trolling coward who gets off on the attention. Pardon me for being elitist, but I don’t think a NY Times best-selling author has to answer to a nameless PDF file no matter how much that file assures us it is scholarly and the definitive word.”
Why all the strawmen? Is this helpful? If you can’t take the critique on its own merits its probably better not to comment. If character flaws reveal themselves within its words then the character of the author legitimately comes into question. If not, character assassination becomes a transparent dodge. I expected more from you Jeremy.
A message from ‘Heinrich
A message from ‘Heinrich Moltke’:
An Answer to Whitley Strieber
by the author of “Problems with Strieber and The Key”
Recently, I completed an in-depth study of “The Key”. At over three hundred pages, it is a scholarly, comprehensive, and detailed analysis of the book together with the issues surrounding it.
The paper is not a piece of debunking. I am not a debunker. I am someone who followed Strieber’s work for more than two decades, bought his books, and even wrote pieces defending him. I am of the opinion that many people who claim to have had ‘contact’ are neither lying nor hallucinating, and that therefore we have a duty to assist them though we may have no idea what is happening.
I feel I should point out that I’m also not a UFO partisan. I don’t buy the Steven Greer space brothers interpretation. But nor do I think that UFO phenomena are best understood as faerie lore come to life. I suspect that like everything else, UFO phenomena represent something more and different than we realize.
I am not a member of MUFON. I am also not an anti-Semite.
Yesterday, in response to my paper, Whitley Strieber left the following comment on his website:
***
Moltke is not meant as an anagram. It is a reference to a Nazi diplomat who worked in Poland in WWII, and is used by this man, in my opinion, because of sympathies for the Nazi movement. Understand that I know the actual identity of “Heinrich Moltke.” We looked him up because of some of the disturbing comments he left on Unknowncountry in the 6 years he was there. After Jeremy had him blocked, he reappeared under another name for a while, but left on his own.
I believe that this person may suffer from paranoia, among other things. He has been under treatment for mental illness in the past as he admits on the internet under other of his aliases. I also believe him to be a virulent anti-Semite. If I am right, then these two things together–the anti-Semitism and the paranoia–explain the poor creature’s obsession with the Key. I say “poor creature” because of other things I know about him.
Posted by Whitley on 08 Jun 2017 at 09:16
***
Despite the conviction we often hear expressed by Whitley Strieber that he “knows”, nothing in the above comment is true other than that my subscription to unknowncountry.com was canceled after I left sarcastic comments on Jeremy Vaeni’s show page. One of the comments, though it was directed at Vaeni, was re-interpreted as an attack on Anne Strieber. The leaving ‘disturbing’ comments, re-appearing under another name, and so on – all untrue.
It should also go without saying that I have not been “under treatment for mental illness”. If I were (or ever had been) I wouldn’t go bragging about it on the internet. I am also not an anti-Semite. I think the world would be far for the worse if we didn’t have Heifetz or Menuhin, Einstein and Bohr. ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ is my favorite comedy show. (Little known fact: William Shatner is Jewish. How could anyone hate Captain Kirk?)
I would like to stress that the above accusations against me and from Strieber come simply in the context of my writing a paper that patiently, painstakingly, and fairly examines his work. It’s notable that Strieber’s first reaction to this study of his work is to call the author a mentally-ill anti-Semite.
One might conclude that Strieber does not want his fans or paying subscribers reading the paper. This is why in his latest Journal, he both fails to mention the paper directly, instead writing of “attacks”, and confuses the issue completely by mixing in Jeff Rense’s anti-semitic attacks on ‘The Key’ from almost twenty years ago, as well as the completely unrelated issue of a MUFON member who recently posted bigoted remarks on Facebook.
More important, though, in the same Journal is the bigger confusion that Strieber creates as he walks back his claims about the reality of the ‘true encounter’. No, the issue is not that there is a book whose authorship “nobody can ever prove one way or the other, not even me”. The issue is that Strieber has for years been talking about a Master of the Key who looked a certain way, talked a certain way. An event. He also said the text was a “transcription” that was “ninety percent accurate”.
On that score, one can in fact prove that the conversation in “The Key” comes from Strieber. I did it. It took over 300 pages to do. No academically-trained person, especially in literature, can read the analysis done and not conclude that the content of “The Key” comes from Strieber. There is no reason to think any of it came from anybody else. Not only is it demonstrable, it is almost incredible how clearly this can be demonstrated.
Strieber in his Journal falls back on the pithy ‘sin is the denial of the right to thrive’ as proof the Master of the Key wasn’t him. But this fits perfectly into Strieber’s own unique brand of naturalism. Defining sin – one of Strieber’s enduring preoccupations – in terms of life, its impact or cost on life is perfectly consistent with his work. Strieber also cites another point in his Journal – the speculation about the Holocaust and the loss of intelligent genes. Ironically, this is a point I’d accept as quite possibly true. I think probably a good portion of our intelligent numbers were killed off during the Holocaust. Is this something Strieber would never have thought of? For a man who is constantly talking about evolution, physics, populations, Nazis and the Holocaust, it seems like it would come easily.
I won’t re-litigate the issues of the paper here. I will note that there is a kind of depressing irony reading Strieber writing in his Journal about conscience and facing “inner selves”. Because what we see in Strieber in relation to his book “The Key” is a frantic, panicked denial and a willingness to try any argument to avoid having to face what is painfully obvious to everyone else. In just this one Journal, Strieber holds simultaneous positions (the ‘true encounter’ happened/maybe it didn’t but the text still has “moral force”) as he often does with the effect that if you criticize one, he can fall back and say he was advocating the other. He also invokes racism and anti-Semitism as a way of trying to avoid the plain conclusion that “The Key” is a product of his imagination.
People have been having anomalous experiences since the beginning. It’s a sad fact that in our culture, these people don’t get support when as result of them they suffer. But just because these experiences happen doesn’t mean Whitley Strieber doesn’t have a unique and pervasive problem with imagination and confabulation. If he had any intellectual self-respect, he would face the problem squarely instead of blaming “sinister forces”, anti-Semitism, and so on. I think the emotional support system of his website, his fans, should help him.
Heinrich Moltke
http://www.strieberthekey.com
“Heinrich” is not Jason
“Heinrich” is not Jason Horsley. In fact, I found where he was in an argument with Heinrich over Strieber’s work elsewhere on the net. Odd that you’d suspect him, given that.
Are you Heinrich, Srava? Or a friend of his? I don’t recall seeing you on here except to promote Heinrich’s work. Do you have other posts that I missed? Did you really subscribe to a pay website for a man you think is a fraud?
Either way, if “Heinrich Molke” is an alias then we’re just feeding the ego of another anonymous trolling coward who gets off on the attention. Pardon me for being elitist, but I don’t think a NY Times best-selling author has to answer to a nameless PDF file no matter how much that file assures us it is scholarly and the definitive word.
No, I’m Jason Horsley.
Why
No, I’m Jason Horsley.
Why don’t you send an e-mail? It’s on the site: lmhowe_doty42@strieberthekey.com
”
“Heinrich” is not Jason
”
“Heinrich” is not Jason Horsley. In fact, I found where he was in an argument with Heinrich over Strieber’s work elsewhere on the net. Odd that you’d suspect him, given that.
Are you Heinrich, Srava? Or a friend of his? I don’t recall seeing you on here except to promote Heinrich’s work. Do you have other posts that I missed? Did you really subscribe to a pay website for a man you think is a fraud?
Either way, if “Heinrich Molke” is an alias then we’re just feeding the ego of another anonymous trolling coward who gets off on the attention. Pardon me for being elitist, but I don’t think a NY Times best-selling author has to answer to a nameless PDF file no matter how much that file assures us it is scholarly and the definitive word.”
Why all the strawmen? Is this helpful? If you can’t take the critique on its own merits its probably better not to comment. If character flaws reveal themselves within its words then the character of the author legitimately comes into question. If not, character assassination becomes a transparent dodge. I expected more from you Jeremy.
As an aside…this probably
As an aside…this probably does not belong posted here – but I thought I raise the issue to Whitley in case he was not aware. I just the other day listened to an audio version of the infamous book by William Cooper- “Behold a Pale Horse.” I was shocked to hear in it, an allegation that Whitley was working as an agent for the CIA/NSA by publishing a fictionalized account of James Forrestal’s memoirs in the novel “Majestic” as a disinformation project.
I am sure Whitley’s has probably addressed this silly allegation elsewhere, but I can’t recall where. Just thought I’d point that out in case he was not aware and wanted to refute it or whatever.
I believe Whitley has made it clear that Majestic was inspired by information he had received from an uncle who was involved with the Roswell case. So, it is in effect a fictionalized account of someone’s experiences and therein is a kernel of truth.
As an aside…this probably
As an aside…this probably does not belong posted here – but I thought I raise the issue to Whitley in case he was not aware. I just the other day listened to an audio version of the infamous book by William Cooper- “Behold a Pale Horse.” I was shocked to hear in it, an allegation that Whitley was working as an agent for the CIA/NSA by publishing a fictionalized account of James Forrestal’s memoirs in the novel “Majestic” as a disinformation project.
I am sure Whitley’s has probably addressed this silly allegation elsewhere, but I can’t recall where. Just thought I’d point that out in case he was not aware and wanted to refute it or whatever.
I believe Whitley has made it clear that Majestic was inspired by information he had received from an uncle who was involved with the Roswell case. So, it is in effect a fictionalized account of someone’s experiences and therein is a kernel of truth.
I am totally puzzled by all
I am totally puzzled by all of this, and trying to figure out this whole thing and why it is going on. I get people who disagree with Whitley, and also paranormal/UFO topics and such. What I don’t get is why, why, why ‘Moltke’, Horsely, and others feel a need to expose the ‘truth’ about Whitley to the members of Unknown Country. I cannot speak for others at Unknown Country, but I have personally been studying (and experiencing) highly strange events my whole life. I have always read and studied all sides of these things in an effort to understand them, as well as myself. As I stated in another thread, how Whitley came up with ‘sin is denial of the right to thrive’, is the one important piece of information that I personally got from the book. I don’t care HOW he got it, the fact is, he stated it beautifully and in a way that resonated with me.
The timing of all of this is interesting, with lots of talk lately regarding disclosure, and the jaw-dropping report on 60 Minutes where a contractor for NASA, Robert Bigelow, talked openly with CBS, about his interest in UFOs. He has been actively involved in paranormal and UFO research for a long time, but working with NASA and expressing his UFOs with mainstream media? THAT is big news. So…why are Horsely and Srava zeroing in on Whitley? If they don’t believe any of it, and if they feel he is a fraud, why not walk away from it with a laugh, and go on down the road?
I can only surmise that all of this has to be a true vendetta, for what purpose is anyone’s guess.
Hiya CL,
Why Why Why? CL,
Hiya CL,
Why Why Why? CL, you know why we are here; most every real subscriber knows why we are here. THEY dont get it.
Firstly, The Key isnt as much of a treasure as Whitley & Anne are…period(IMO).
Secondly, as Jeremy V. put it, “Did you really subscribe to a pay website for a man you think is a fraud?” See, now thats just funny, sad but funny.
Thirdly, penetrating UC to get at the listeners..? Come now, really? There are alot of angles to what is discussed here. Cool part is we get to see these facets polished a little more and a little more. WE ARE HERE because we genuinely like and appreciate
the man for what he has done/is doing for experiencers like us. He stands up and takes the shots where we might get a slap in a public venue.
Those rediculous back-biting comments were obviously knee-jerk reactions. Personally, alot of shakespeare quotes come to mind from Henry the fifth(St. Crispins day speech).
And lastly, and mostly important: I do believe asking the questions is valuable. BUT i wonder if “those people” thought we would abandon Whitley Strieber where as we circled around him to support him as you would family. AND since theres such a hullabaloooooo maybe i need to grab some copies of the Key and pass them around and ask for reviews. HOLY BACKFIRE BATMAN!
Thanks CL for asking Why Why Why. You know, we know. Now, maybe they know.
Rock On UC!
HG
I am totally puzzled by all
I am totally puzzled by all of this, and trying to figure out this whole thing and why it is going on. I get people who disagree with Whitley, and also paranormal/UFO topics and such. What I don’t get is why, why, why ‘Moltke’, Horsely, and others feel a need to expose the ‘truth’ about Whitley to the members of Unknown Country. I cannot speak for others at Unknown Country, but I have personally been studying (and experiencing) highly strange events my whole life. I have always read and studied all sides of these things in an effort to understand them, as well as myself. As I stated in another thread, how Whitley came up with ‘sin is denial of the right to thrive’, is the one important piece of information that I personally got from the book. I don’t care HOW he got it, the fact is, he stated it beautifully and in a way that resonated with me.
The timing of all of this is interesting, with lots of talk lately regarding disclosure, and the jaw-dropping report on 60 Minutes where a contractor for NASA, Robert Bigelow, talked openly with CBS, about his interest in UFOs. He has been actively involved in paranormal and UFO research for a long time, but working with NASA and expressing his UFOs with mainstream media? THAT is big news. So…why are Horsely and Srava zeroing in on Whitley? If they don’t believe any of it, and if they feel he is a fraud, why not walk away from it with a laugh, and go on down the road?
I can only surmise that all of this has to be a true vendetta, for what purpose is anyone’s guess.
Hiya CL,
Why Why Why? CL,
Hiya CL,
Why Why Why? CL, you know why we are here; most every real subscriber knows why we are here. THEY dont get it.
Firstly, The Key isnt as much of a treasure as Whitley & Anne are…period(IMO).
Secondly, as Jeremy V. put it, “Did you really subscribe to a pay website for a man you think is a fraud?” See, now thats just funny, sad but funny.
Thirdly, penetrating UC to get at the listeners..? Come now, really? There are alot of angles to what is discussed here. Cool part is we get to see these facets polished a little more and a little more. WE ARE HERE because we genuinely like and appreciate
the man for what he has done/is doing for experiencers like us. He stands up and takes the shots where we might get a slap in a public venue.
Those rediculous back-biting comments were obviously knee-jerk reactions. Personally, alot of shakespeare quotes come to mind from Henry the fifth(St. Crispins day speech).
And lastly, and mostly important: I do believe asking the questions is valuable. BUT i wonder if “those people” thought we would abandon Whitley Strieber where as we circled around him to support him as you would family. AND since theres such a hullabaloooooo maybe i need to grab some copies of the Key and pass them around and ask for reviews. HOLY BACKFIRE BATMAN!
Thanks CL for asking Why Why Why. You know, we know. Now, maybe they know.
Rock On UC!
HG
As a nutty follow
As a nutty follow up,
vendetta could be simply a weak attempt to discredit as I, a conspiracy nut job, would assume/guess/figure. Take your choice. as CL said, (gonna use another analogy im so famous for) ya know, you thank the guy who brought ya donuts. He didnt have to make em, but he brought em to my door. He might or might not have put them in the box, but he brought em to my door. And they’re some great donuts. (Im such an intellectual)
Point is the donuts.
HG
Harley,
Excellent points from
Harley,
Excellent points from a fellow ‘intellectual’! 🙂
Maybe ‘vendetta’ is not the right term either, in hindsight. If you look at all of the other nonsense going on now just about everywhere, maybe ‘distraction’ is a better word. And we all know that distractions come about to take attention away from the whatever is really important. So maybe all of us should give a collective, noisy ‘raspberries’ to the offensive parties, and walk away from THEM with a laugh. Is anyone else with me on that one? 😉
As a nutty follow
As a nutty follow up,
vendetta could be simply a weak attempt to discredit as I, a conspiracy nut job, would assume/guess/figure. Take your choice. as CL said, (gonna use another analogy im so famous for) ya know, you thank the guy who brought ya donuts. He didnt have to make em, but he brought em to my door. He might or might not have put them in the box, but he brought em to my door. And they’re some great donuts. (Im such an intellectual)
Point is the donuts.
HG
Harley,
Excellent points from
Harley,
Excellent points from a fellow ‘intellectual’! 🙂
Maybe ‘vendetta’ is not the right term either, in hindsight. If you look at all of the other nonsense going on now just about everywhere, maybe ‘distraction’ is a better word. And we all know that distractions come about to take attention away from the whatever is really important. So maybe all of us should give a collective, noisy ‘raspberries’ to the offensive parties, and walk away from THEM with a laugh. Is anyone else with me on that one? 😉
Excellent analogy Harley,
Excellent analogy Harley, this whole debacle definitely boils down to yet another desperate attempt to shoot the messenger, using pedantic nitpicking as an excuse to ignore what’s being said. Regardless of whether Whitley baked these doughnuts himself or not is beside the point: what’s important is what we take away from the experience that he’s relating to us.
Cosmic, I’d go so far as to say that these individuals don’t even warrant a raspberry: we have far more important issues to focus our energies on. I’ve read the introduction page to “Molke’s” paper, and if it’s emblematic of the main body of the article, then it looks like it probably undermines itself with assumptions and leaps of logic.
But, like you said, why would I waste my energies to feed the ego of someone that just intends to troll Whitley and Unknown Country?
From a personal standpoint, I have my own reasons for believing that Whitley’s Key encounter was with an individual other than himself — reasons that I won’t get into here, but I will say that these reasons extend well beyond Whitley’s say-so.
Excellent analogy Harley,
Excellent analogy Harley, this whole debacle definitely boils down to yet another desperate attempt to shoot the messenger, using pedantic nitpicking as an excuse to ignore what’s being said. Regardless of whether Whitley baked these doughnuts himself or not is beside the point: what’s important is what we take away from the experience that he’s relating to us.
Cosmic, I’d go so far as to say that these individuals don’t even warrant a raspberry: we have far more important issues to focus our energies on. I’ve read the introduction page to “Molke’s” paper, and if it’s emblematic of the main body of the article, then it looks like it probably undermines itself with assumptions and leaps of logic.
But, like you said, why would I waste my energies to feed the ego of someone that just intends to troll Whitley and Unknown Country?
From a personal standpoint, I have my own reasons for believing that Whitley’s Key encounter was with an individual other than himself — reasons that I won’t get into here, but I will say that these reasons extend well beyond Whitley’s say-so.
Why indeed Cosmic /HG. I know
Why indeed Cosmic /HG. I know that people tend to criticise others for flaws they actually see in themselves…but only critics know the real reason they shout so loudly, or for so long, to make their point.
As far as these recent distractions go…and let’s face it, that is all it is…is there anything specifically that we should be refocusing our attention on (after a final raspberry blow) I wonder?
All of this has made me want to read ‘The Key’ again and to be honest, I don’t care what the source is…an enigmatic stranger, a furtive imagination, long forgotten musings that have slipped into the unconscious to resurface as a dream…it doesn’t matter to me. What does matter is how I feel when I read it and that the text and ideas contained within it, make me think about the subject matter to a new depth that I would have not been able to reach, had I not read it…and in that regard ‘The Key’ is brilliant and insightful.
…and as HG suggested, I might even buy another copy whilst I’m at it.
Why indeed Cosmic /HG. I know
Why indeed Cosmic /HG. I know that people tend to criticise others for flaws they actually see in themselves…but only critics know the real reason they shout so loudly, or for so long, to make their point.
As far as these recent distractions go…and let’s face it, that is all it is…is there anything specifically that we should be refocusing our attention on (after a final raspberry blow) I wonder?
All of this has made me want to read ‘The Key’ again and to be honest, I don’t care what the source is…an enigmatic stranger, a furtive imagination, long forgotten musings that have slipped into the unconscious to resurface as a dream…it doesn’t matter to me. What does matter is how I feel when I read it and that the text and ideas contained within it, make me think about the subject matter to a new depth that I would have not been able to reach, had I not read it…and in that regard ‘The Key’ is brilliant and insightful.
…and as HG suggested, I might even buy another copy whilst I’m at it.
Matthew,
Oh, yeah…You’re
Matthew,
Oh, yeah…You’re Canadian too, right? Not that there’s anything wrong with that… 🙂
Matthew,
Oh, yeah…You’re
Matthew,
Oh, yeah…You’re Canadian too, right? Not that there’s anything wrong with that… 🙂
With the recent talk of the
With the recent talk of the book, I thought I should give it another read (2nd edition this time). I read the Key when it first came out and it scared the crap out of me. Very hard to take it all in, especially the stuff about ensnaring souls in machines. Hey you out there, afraid of death and loosing your identity. Do we have an immortality solution for you. It has taken me this many years to pick it up again (this time the 2nd edition).
Something that was written in the Key hit home with me and I struggle with it. It is that same thing told to us again and again in one form or another. Whether its in school and church or from friends and family. The message keeps getting repeated over and over. Take care of others less fortunate than yourselves, be good stewards of this earth, don’t piss in your cornflakes, play nice in the sandbox, don’t throw sand at each other. I guess I’m a slow learner; I need constant reminders. The toughest messages for me are that I am a slave owner and I’ve got a pretty big ego. Despite my best intentions of wanting to save the world, I never seem to get around to it. I seem to muster up $50 a month to save a child in the third world. I like to plant trees and tend my garden. Yet, I turn the channel when someone wants my help because kids are starving in Africa. You can’t save everyone you know. There are so many of them and it never seems to end. Why don’t they just use birth control? Or I put down the top on my fast, shiny, gas guzzling V8 car and go for a spin in the countryside. It is old and I brought it back from the grave. I worked hard on it on my own. Look what I did, and besides, I don’t drive it every day, just on those days when I can put the top down and show off. I live in a rural area so my pollution has minimal impact compared to you folks who live in the big city. I’ll just plant another tree. So easy to justify my actions. The book makes me feel guilty Whitley; good on you.
One of my encounter memories sticks with me. In it I approach a gray with an attitude of friendship but am received by thoughts and feelings of loathing and disgust. My response is what did I ever do to you for you to feel that way? The memory is so vivid that I can close my eyes and reach out and touch the shiny black curved wall next to me and see the blackness of his eyes against the gray of his body. I feel hurt and sad at his rejection. A few years back I was pondering this memory and it struck me that maybe this was the way I felt about myself. When I was a child I so wanted to save the world and make a difference, but ended up making half-hearted attempts. I think the key is a heads-up that I am not effectively fulfilling my life’s purpose. It speaks to me. It is a reinforcement of all the previous messages I’ve heard. There is a wonderful saying – The worst enemy I will face during the day is the one staring back at me every morning when I look in the mirror to shave. How true, how true. When I get to the pearly gates I’ve got no one to blame but myself for inaction.
Now I guess I’ll climb down off my soap box and go fire up my car and go for a spin.
I understand that those who have not experienced what others of us have there is the need to really question a lot of what is talked about on this site. I doubt that I would believe me if I hadn’t experienced it. Remember to keep an open mind; but not so much that your brains fall out. I can assure you that mine have fallen out a few times over my lifetime. I just shove it back in and start all over.
Thanks for making me think outside the box Ann and Whitley (and you to Jeremy and friends) and put my experiences into perspective.
Signing off from the true north, strong and free.
Rickety Rick
Ps. I don’t think you know this Whitley, but a person can be Canadian and not pay any taxes. This privilege is granted to First Nations Canadians (aboriginal peoples) who earn their income on reserve. I’ve often wondered if the master of the key was a medicine man. Also, maybe someone with roots to the Templars who arrived pre-Columbian in the Canadian maritimes.
With the recent talk of the
With the recent talk of the book, I thought I should give it another read (2nd edition this time). I read the Key when it first came out and it scared the crap out of me. Very hard to take it all in, especially the stuff about ensnaring souls in machines. Hey you out there, afraid of death and loosing your identity. Do we have an immortality solution for you. It has taken me this many years to pick it up again (this time the 2nd edition).
Something that was written in the Key hit home with me and I struggle with it. It is that same thing told to us again and again in one form or another. Whether its in school and church or from friends and family. The message keeps getting repeated over and over. Take care of others less fortunate than yourselves, be good stewards of this earth, don’t piss in your cornflakes, play nice in the sandbox, don’t throw sand at each other. I guess I’m a slow learner; I need constant reminders. The toughest messages for me are that I am a slave owner and I’ve got a pretty big ego. Despite my best intentions of wanting to save the world, I never seem to get around to it. I seem to muster up $50 a month to save a child in the third world. I like to plant trees and tend my garden. Yet, I turn the channel when someone wants my help because kids are starving in Africa. You can’t save everyone you know. There are so many of them and it never seems to end. Why don’t they just use birth control? Or I put down the top on my fast, shiny, gas guzzling V8 car and go for a spin in the countryside. It is old and I brought it back from the grave. I worked hard on it on my own. Look what I did, and besides, I don’t drive it every day, just on those days when I can put the top down and show off. I live in a rural area so my pollution has minimal impact compared to you folks who live in the big city. I’ll just plant another tree. So easy to justify my actions. The book makes me feel guilty Whitley; good on you.
One of my encounter memories sticks with me. In it I approach a gray with an attitude of friendship but am received by thoughts and feelings of loathing and disgust. My response is what did I ever do to you for you to feel that way? The memory is so vivid that I can close my eyes and reach out and touch the shiny black curved wall next to me and see the blackness of his eyes against the gray of his body. I feel hurt and sad at his rejection. A few years back I was pondering this memory and it struck me that maybe this was the way I felt about myself. When I was a child I so wanted to save the world and make a difference, but ended up making half-hearted attempts. I think the key is a heads-up that I am not effectively fulfilling my life’s purpose. It speaks to me. It is a reinforcement of all the previous messages I’ve heard. There is a wonderful saying – The worst enemy I will face during the day is the one staring back at me every morning when I look in the mirror to shave. How true, how true. When I get to the pearly gates I’ve got no one to blame but myself for inaction.
Now I guess I’ll climb down off my soap box and go fire up my car and go for a spin.
I understand that those who have not experienced what others of us have there is the need to really question a lot of what is talked about on this site. I doubt that I would believe me if I hadn’t experienced it. Remember to keep an open mind; but not so much that your brains fall out. I can assure you that mine have fallen out a few times over my lifetime. I just shove it back in and start all over.
Thanks for making me think outside the box Ann and Whitley (and you to Jeremy and friends) and put my experiences into perspective.
Signing off from the true north, strong and free.
Rickety Rick
Ps. I don’t think you know this Whitley, but a person can be Canadian and not pay any taxes. This privilege is granted to First Nations Canadians (aboriginal peoples) who earn their income on reserve. I’ve often wondered if the master of the key was a medicine man. Also, maybe someone with roots to the Templars who arrived pre-Columbian in the Canadian maritimes.
Steve44, you seem to
Steve44, you seem to misunderstand what’s going on here: Jeremy (and the rest of us) are responding to a character assassin, not a critic, of whom has been trying to discredit Whitley as a fraud for some time now.
Regarding “sin is denial of the right to thrive”, it is meant primarily in regards to someone who is impeding the healthy growth and expression of others, although the concept could be extended to the idea of an individual refusing to live up to his or her potential.
I understand there are
I understand there are personalities involved, but responding in kind isn’t necessarily the way forward. I”ve read about half (~150 pages) of the critique, and while its critical of the claims put forth involving the Key, it isn’t blatantly attacking WS character, as far as that can be separated from criticizing some of his claims. It’s an important difference, and it deserves a fair hearing. If that’s not possible here, I suppose I could understand, but it’s disappointing never the less.
As far as ‘the phrase’ I’ve said my piece, I have no desire to challenge others’ interpretation.
What Matthew Frizzell wrote
What Matthew Frizzell wrote is correct. I’m not responding in kind. I’m trying to figure out if 1 person is trolling us to promote his masterpiece critique and also get Whitley to wrongly pick a fight with Jason Horsley. Based on other things “Heinrich” has written, it’s safe to say he is no mere critic. Let’s take this from his letter of innocence above:
“…my subscription to unknowncountry.com was canceled after I left sarcastic comments on Jeremy Vaeni’s show page.”
Sarcastic comments. Innocent fun. Hey, like the time I had a woman named Emma on and his comment was:
“I like it when somebody mentions the ‘Trickster’ because it indicates the end of intellectual integrity. Is this the same Emma of Emma Woods fame? What should I do with my panties, if so?”
For anyone who forgot, that’s a reference to Emma Woods, a woman who was put under hypnosis by David Jacobs and instructed to send him her underwear and not remember having done so. Anyone here think that’s an appropriate all-in-good-fun comment to leave for me, one of the key people who exposed this fraud, to read?
He then baldly lies or is sick. You decide. “One of the comments, though it was directed at Vaeni, was re-interpreted as an attack on Anne Strieber.”
Re-interpreted. Right. Is THIS something one leaves non-venemously on Whitley and Anne’s site, especially knowing what they were going through? It’s in reference to the Anne Strieber Tribute roundtable episode:
“Is Anne Strieber dead already? Or is this show just anticipating it?”
It’s unfortunate that we live in an age where trolls, cyber stalkers, and critics all get lumped together. But I stand by my statement. You don’t answer to anonymous trolls (if that is not his name) whether you think they have valid points or not anymore than you answer to terrorists because they’ve got valid criticisms of your country. They aren’t writing criticisms to spark debate, put an answer to a mystery, or even raise more questions. They get off on hurting people and grabbing attention.
I’ve dealt with my own cyber stalkers, trolls, and valid critics. I’m pretty good at spotting the valid critic. Heinrich is not one.
From the Great Heinrich
From the Great Heinrich Moltke:
”
I’d like to answer Jeremy Vaeni’s latest comment posted 10 June. He can construe what I will say as an ‘attack’ if he likes, though it’s just pointed language.
First, I’d like to say that whether the fans of Whitley Strieber at UC.com read the paper that’s been written or not is not of major interest to me. It wasn’t written for Whitley’s fans but anyone interested in Strieber’s work. That includes a lot of people who aren’t paid subscribers to his site.
Second, from many of the comments under Whitley’s latest Journal, it seems that what the site is for some people is a soft religion. It’s not a cult – Strieber doesn’t make heavy demands on his followers. But there’s a clear emotional investment in ‘Whitley’ as an authority. A lot of the arguments defending Strieber sound like apologetics. Vaeni comes off like a Defender of the Faith.
Third, as the paper has been out for two months and has been making the rounds online, it’s sort of hard to say that it was written to ‘troll’ Unknown Country. This is Vaeni’s way of discouraging people from reading it. But this was the same with Strieber who alleged that the paper’s author was a mentally ill neo-Nazi and anti-Semite.
Here’s the background of my comments at UC.com:
After 2011, when I realized that Strieber’s claims of censorship about his own book were bunk, and I started to see telltale signs that “The Conversation” in The Key did not come from a joyous elderly man in Toronto in a black turtleneck who did not pay taxes – I started to become disenamored with Strieber’s work. When something particularly galled me – Vaeni didn’t quote a sarcastic comment I left once about Strieber’s Cold War-era politics – I left derisive comments.
One thing that particularly galled me was the decision to bring Jeremy Vaeni onboard to host a show on the site. I’d had interactions with Vaeni in the past that made me have a very sour outlook. I remember on his old site I joined the forum, and on that forum Vaeni went on and on about Krishnamurti and the ego, hammering people over the head with his own sort of badly-worded version of the concepts. Vaeni was also always railing against Steven Greer and the disclosure project. This went on endlessly.
I chimed in and suggested that there were other possible understandings of the ego than Krishnamurti’s. I suggested that even though Steven Greer might be a fraud, the disclosure project might have unexpected results.
The reaction I got – and I’ll never forget the phrase – was that according to Vaeni, I was spreading “seeds of doubt” among his followers. Now, I happened to think that in the UFO world, having that kind of mindset of “seeds of doubt” and thinking of people was followers was dangerous. I left the forum.
After that time, every time I saw Vaeni online it was as the UFO jihadi. He was calling for “self-policing” in the UFO world. If some hypnosis was tainted because of leading questions, Vaeni’s response was – throw out all hypnosis! If Budd Hopkins had a case where a woman might have been hoaxing part or all of her experience, throw out all of Budd Hopkins! When it came to David Jacobs, trumpet the case about which there is still some ambiguity – was Jacobs an out-and-out evil pervert or a misguided old man – in order to tear down David Jacobs.
I don’t happen to have a lot invested in Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs, or hypnosis. But having somebody who routinely acted like a blowhard, who picked fights with other podcasts for their lack of UFOlogical ideological purity, who was always battling the sort of straw man of the ETH, who was championing Hansen’s laughably flawed book on the ‘Trickster’ – none of that sat well with me personally.
Sometime around 2012-2013 I started slowly paying much less attention to UC.com. I kept my subscription going in case something new or interesting actually developed. But I paid much less attention.
Now for my awful ‘comments’.
The Emma Woods comment was less about the case than about Jeremy Vaeni as Grand Inquisitor of UFOlogy. Yes, he tries to present himself as Mr. Affable. But in my estimation, and from some limited personal experience, I found him to be a zealot. So the comment was directed at him, nobody else, despite what he might say.
Same for the comment on the Anne Strieber ‘Tribute’ show. The last I heard at the time, Strieber had said that Anne Strieber was taking Omega-3 and trying the ketogenic diet. As in that period I myself had been on the ketogenic diet, taking Omega-3, and experiencing great results – and had become a ‘believer’ reading up on some Paleo Diet books – I was actually of the opinion that she would make a full recovery. To the best of my knowledge at the time, her tumor was not growing. Also, though I can’t recall now if she’d had the stroke at the time, I believe my thought was also that a stroke was recoverable. To be sure these were great challenges. But I didn’t believe she was at death’s door.
So to see a ‘tribute show’ to Anne Strieber struck me as Vaeni being an *ss-kisser before the woman was dead. I thought it was in bad taste and way too premature. Thus my comment.
Immediately, as is the fashion in these forums, it was turned around to ‘shun’ the commenter. Vaeni takes credit above for his triumph in getting me banned. This was Vaeni being a zealot again. The comment wasn’t directed at Anne Strieber. It may have been the wrong thing to write, and may have come off badly. But that’s the simple fact, like it or not. My subscription was ended – which was just as well.
The fact is, I have zero respect for Jeremy Vaeni. I say that with all due respect – which is zero. Looking at the comments under the Journal, he’s sort of gone out of his way to disqualify my work on Strieber from the outset with the usual, calling me a ‘troll’. Not a lot of intellectual integrity. He’s willing to go scorched earth on people like Hopkins and Jacobs because it fits his particular UFO ideological stance. But could Strieber similarly be called out for flaws in his work? No – according to Vaeni, it’s just debunking, it’s a troll, etc.
The above has all been written simply as a statement of my own point of view. There’s no expectation that it’ll be understood. Despite all the proud chest-thumping by some that they’re big on compassion and human understanding, at the first sign of a paper critical of Whitley Strieber, Vaeni and Strieber’s sum statements have been: it’s written by a mentally-ill anti-Semite and neo-Nazi troll who hides behind a pseudonym. And yet somehow, by not using his real name, and for not hawking podcasts and books (Vaeni, Strieber), he’s also in it for the attention. Vaeni is now dredging up old comments of mine and comparing me with being a terrorist. It’s a fine thing to be a racist anti-Semitic neo-Nazi who is also a terrorist – just for doing a bit of critical work on Whitley Strieber.
”
Just as long as it took him
Just as long as it took him to write it, Srava cut and pasted it. And all you have to do to believe this is buy into his context and believe in him. Oh. Wait. Just like “The Key.”
My last word on this in this forum is that if a person who says there’s ambiguity in the Jacobs/Woods case and only some hypnosis is tainted after the work Jeff Ritzmann and I, and Jack Brewer, did to illuminate the actual science involved–not our personal opinions, but university-level research–also says, “I don’t happen to have a lot invested in Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs, or hypnosis….” Mmmm… maybe think before you believe them.
As for this: “The reaction I got – and I’ll never forget the phrase – was that according to Vaeni, I was spreading ‘seeds of doubt’ among his followers. Now, I happened to think that in the UFO world, having that kind of mindset of “seeds of doubt” and thinking of people was followers was dangerous. I left the forum.”
I don’t remember this exchange, but I’d love to see it in its entirety. Not because I don’t think it happened but because it would absolutely show that his recounting of it is BS. I don’t have followers. I don’t want followers. I would never admonish anyone for sowing seeds of doubt among followers. The thought of that is disgusting.
That he defends his indefensible comments and clearly cannot read a criticism of himself without turning it into something it is not… and writes at length upon length… and thinks his context is the fact… but then accuses others of being blowhards and people who cannot see reality outside of their heads… means, to me, that he is talking to himself.
That I am still responding to an anonymous troll coward is also indefensible. I’ll stop now.
Steve44, you seem to
Steve44, you seem to misunderstand what’s going on here: Jeremy (and the rest of us) are responding to a character assassin, not a critic, of whom has been trying to discredit Whitley as a fraud for some time now.
Regarding “sin is denial of the right to thrive”, it is meant primarily in regards to someone who is impeding the healthy growth and expression of others, although the concept could be extended to the idea of an individual refusing to live up to his or her potential.
I understand there are
I understand there are personalities involved, but responding in kind isn’t necessarily the way forward. I”ve read about half (~150 pages) of the critique, and while its critical of the claims put forth involving the Key, it isn’t blatantly attacking WS character, as far as that can be separated from criticizing some of his claims. It’s an important difference, and it deserves a fair hearing. If that’s not possible here, I suppose I could understand, but it’s disappointing never the less.
As far as ‘the phrase’ I’ve said my piece, I have no desire to challenge others’ interpretation.
What Matthew Frizzell wrote
What Matthew Frizzell wrote is correct. I’m not responding in kind. I’m trying to figure out if 1 person is trolling us to promote his masterpiece critique and also get Whitley to wrongly pick a fight with Jason Horsley. Based on other things “Heinrich” has written, it’s safe to say he is no mere critic. Let’s take this from his letter of innocence above:
“…my subscription to unknowncountry.com was canceled after I left sarcastic comments on Jeremy Vaeni’s show page.”
Sarcastic comments. Innocent fun. Hey, like the time I had a woman named Emma on and his comment was:
“I like it when somebody mentions the ‘Trickster’ because it indicates the end of intellectual integrity. Is this the same Emma of Emma Woods fame? What should I do with my panties, if so?”
For anyone who forgot, that’s a reference to Emma Woods, a woman who was put under hypnosis by David Jacobs and instructed to send him her underwear and not remember having done so. Anyone here think that’s an appropriate all-in-good-fun comment to leave for me, one of the key people who exposed this fraud, to read?
He then baldly lies or is sick. You decide. “One of the comments, though it was directed at Vaeni, was re-interpreted as an attack on Anne Strieber.”
Re-interpreted. Right. Is THIS something one leaves non-venemously on Whitley and Anne’s site, especially knowing what they were going through? It’s in reference to the Anne Strieber Tribute roundtable episode:
“Is Anne Strieber dead already? Or is this show just anticipating it?”
It’s unfortunate that we live in an age where trolls, cyber stalkers, and critics all get lumped together. But I stand by my statement. You don’t answer to anonymous trolls (if that is not his name) whether you think they have valid points or not anymore than you answer to terrorists because they’ve got valid criticisms of your country. They aren’t writing criticisms to spark debate, put an answer to a mystery, or even raise more questions. They get off on hurting people and grabbing attention.
I’ve dealt with my own cyber stalkers, trolls, and valid critics. I’m pretty good at spotting the valid critic. Heinrich is not one.
From the Great Heinrich
From the Great Heinrich Moltke:
”
I’d like to answer Jeremy Vaeni’s latest comment posted 10 June. He can construe what I will say as an ‘attack’ if he likes, though it’s just pointed language.
First, I’d like to say that whether the fans of Whitley Strieber at UC.com read the paper that’s been written or not is not of major interest to me. It wasn’t written for Whitley’s fans but anyone interested in Strieber’s work. That includes a lot of people who aren’t paid subscribers to his site.
Second, from many of the comments under Whitley’s latest Journal, it seems that what the site is for some people is a soft religion. It’s not a cult – Strieber doesn’t make heavy demands on his followers. But there’s a clear emotional investment in ‘Whitley’ as an authority. A lot of the arguments defending Strieber sound like apologetics. Vaeni comes off like a Defender of the Faith.
Third, as the paper has been out for two months and has been making the rounds online, it’s sort of hard to say that it was written to ‘troll’ Unknown Country. This is Vaeni’s way of discouraging people from reading it. But this was the same with Strieber who alleged that the paper’s author was a mentally ill neo-Nazi and anti-Semite.
Here’s the background of my comments at UC.com:
After 2011, when I realized that Strieber’s claims of censorship about his own book were bunk, and I started to see telltale signs that “The Conversation” in The Key did not come from a joyous elderly man in Toronto in a black turtleneck who did not pay taxes – I started to become disenamored with Strieber’s work. When something particularly galled me – Vaeni didn’t quote a sarcastic comment I left once about Strieber’s Cold War-era politics – I left derisive comments.
One thing that particularly galled me was the decision to bring Jeremy Vaeni onboard to host a show on the site. I’d had interactions with Vaeni in the past that made me have a very sour outlook. I remember on his old site I joined the forum, and on that forum Vaeni went on and on about Krishnamurti and the ego, hammering people over the head with his own sort of badly-worded version of the concepts. Vaeni was also always railing against Steven Greer and the disclosure project. This went on endlessly.
I chimed in and suggested that there were other possible understandings of the ego than Krishnamurti’s. I suggested that even though Steven Greer might be a fraud, the disclosure project might have unexpected results.
The reaction I got – and I’ll never forget the phrase – was that according to Vaeni, I was spreading “seeds of doubt” among his followers. Now, I happened to think that in the UFO world, having that kind of mindset of “seeds of doubt” and thinking of people was followers was dangerous. I left the forum.
After that time, every time I saw Vaeni online it was as the UFO jihadi. He was calling for “self-policing” in the UFO world. If some hypnosis was tainted because of leading questions, Vaeni’s response was – throw out all hypnosis! If Budd Hopkins had a case where a woman might have been hoaxing part or all of her experience, throw out all of Budd Hopkins! When it came to David Jacobs, trumpet the case about which there is still some ambiguity – was Jacobs an out-and-out evil pervert or a misguided old man – in order to tear down David Jacobs.
I don’t happen to have a lot invested in Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs, or hypnosis. But having somebody who routinely acted like a blowhard, who picked fights with other podcasts for their lack of UFOlogical ideological purity, who was always battling the sort of straw man of the ETH, who was championing Hansen’s laughably flawed book on the ‘Trickster’ – none of that sat well with me personally.
Sometime around 2012-2013 I started slowly paying much less attention to UC.com. I kept my subscription going in case something new or interesting actually developed. But I paid much less attention.
Now for my awful ‘comments’.
The Emma Woods comment was less about the case than about Jeremy Vaeni as Grand Inquisitor of UFOlogy. Yes, he tries to present himself as Mr. Affable. But in my estimation, and from some limited personal experience, I found him to be a zealot. So the comment was directed at him, nobody else, despite what he might say.
Same for the comment on the Anne Strieber ‘Tribute’ show. The last I heard at the time, Strieber had said that Anne Strieber was taking Omega-3 and trying the ketogenic diet. As in that period I myself had been on the ketogenic diet, taking Omega-3, and experiencing great results – and had become a ‘believer’ reading up on some Paleo Diet books – I was actually of the opinion that she would make a full recovery. To the best of my knowledge at the time, her tumor was not growing. Also, though I can’t recall now if she’d had the stroke at the time, I believe my thought was also that a stroke was recoverable. To be sure these were great challenges. But I didn’t believe she was at death’s door.
So to see a ‘tribute show’ to Anne Strieber struck me as Vaeni being an *ss-kisser before the woman was dead. I thought it was in bad taste and way too premature. Thus my comment.
Immediately, as is the fashion in these forums, it was turned around to ‘shun’ the commenter. Vaeni takes credit above for his triumph in getting me banned. This was Vaeni being a zealot again. The comment wasn’t directed at Anne Strieber. It may have been the wrong thing to write, and may have come off badly. But that’s the simple fact, like it or not. My subscription was ended – which was just as well.
The fact is, I have zero respect for Jeremy Vaeni. I say that with all due respect – which is zero. Looking at the comments under the Journal, he’s sort of gone out of his way to disqualify my work on Strieber from the outset with the usual, calling me a ‘troll’. Not a lot of intellectual integrity. He’s willing to go scorched earth on people like Hopkins and Jacobs because it fits his particular UFO ideological stance. But could Strieber similarly be called out for flaws in his work? No – according to Vaeni, it’s just debunking, it’s a troll, etc.
The above has all been written simply as a statement of my own point of view. There’s no expectation that it’ll be understood. Despite all the proud chest-thumping by some that they’re big on compassion and human understanding, at the first sign of a paper critical of Whitley Strieber, Vaeni and Strieber’s sum statements have been: it’s written by a mentally-ill anti-Semite and neo-Nazi troll who hides behind a pseudonym. And yet somehow, by not using his real name, and for not hawking podcasts and books (Vaeni, Strieber), he’s also in it for the attention. Vaeni is now dredging up old comments of mine and comparing me with being a terrorist. It’s a fine thing to be a racist anti-Semitic neo-Nazi who is also a terrorist – just for doing a bit of critical work on Whitley Strieber.
”
Just as long as it took him
Just as long as it took him to write it, Srava cut and pasted it. And all you have to do to believe this is buy into his context and believe in him. Oh. Wait. Just like “The Key.”
My last word on this in this forum is that if a person who says there’s ambiguity in the Jacobs/Woods case and only some hypnosis is tainted after the work Jeff Ritzmann and I, and Jack Brewer, did to illuminate the actual science involved–not our personal opinions, but university-level research–also says, “I don’t happen to have a lot invested in Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs, or hypnosis….” Mmmm… maybe think before you believe them.
As for this: “The reaction I got – and I’ll never forget the phrase – was that according to Vaeni, I was spreading ‘seeds of doubt’ among his followers. Now, I happened to think that in the UFO world, having that kind of mindset of “seeds of doubt” and thinking of people was followers was dangerous. I left the forum.”
I don’t remember this exchange, but I’d love to see it in its entirety. Not because I don’t think it happened but because it would absolutely show that his recounting of it is BS. I don’t have followers. I don’t want followers. I would never admonish anyone for sowing seeds of doubt among followers. The thought of that is disgusting.
That he defends his indefensible comments and clearly cannot read a criticism of himself without turning it into something it is not… and writes at length upon length… and thinks his context is the fact… but then accuses others of being blowhards and people who cannot see reality outside of their heads… means, to me, that he is talking to himself.
That I am still responding to an anonymous troll coward is also indefensible. I’ll stop now.
Well, it seems the
Well, it seems the marketplace of ideas can sometimes become a battlefield.
@Srava I think I understood everything you said in your above post. If you want to know why I don’t agree with much of it, I’ll answer but only if you ask, otherwise I don’t think my single opinion is valuable enough to be published unsought.
I’m not interested in taking sides in a battle in which I had no original part, and to which I can bring no peaceful end. I’ll just say this, to hold an opinion is everyone’s right, but be careful not to let your opinion hold you, and don’t hold the opinions of others against them.
Ciao Steve44!
There is a
Ciao Steve44!
There is a small group of people who have talked about problems with Strieber and his work for some time. If you like to email you can at: lmhowe_doty42@strieberthekey.com.
I am canceling my subscription today so won’t be participating in more comments.
I do not think I am alone in
I do not think I am alone in thinking your opinion here would be interesting to read.
Steve44,
Ditto…
Steve44,
Ditto…
Don’t hold the opinions of
Don’t hold the opinions of others against them? OK, so we shouldn’t hold Hitler’s opinions against him? Stalin’s? No, guess not.
“Don’t hold the opinions of
“Don’t hold the opinions of others against them? OK, so we shouldn’t hold Hitler’s opinions against him? Stalin’s? No, guess not. ”
It’s when opinions as disturbing as theirs become actions that we have a problem, but then we have more work to do than just hold their opinions against them. The very reason I said that is because opinions in and of themselves are harmless. If more people saw it that way I think the world would be a better place. When they cease to be harmless they also cease to be opinions and become actions, where, as in your examples, they must be opposed and overcome.
I may be repulsed by someone holding opinions sympathetic to Hitler and Stalin, but I wouldn’t advocate putting them to death for that fact alone.
Putting them to death? Where
Putting them to death? Where did that come from? Certainly nobody here has advocated such at thing. Of course Hitler and Stalin did it, as did–and do–religious groups.
“Putting them to death? Where
“Putting them to death? Where did that come from? Certainly nobody here has advocated such at thing. Of course Hitler and Stalin did it, as did–and do–religious groups.”
It came from equating their actions with their opinions. If there’s no difference than logically they deserve to be put to death for their opinions. It was you that tied to the two together, not me. I’m not saying you advocated it, but that’s where the logic seemed to go. I tried to demonstrate how I see the fault in that logic.
Well, it seems the
Well, it seems the marketplace of ideas can sometimes become a battlefield.
@Srava I think I understood everything you said in your above post. If you want to know why I don’t agree with much of it, I’ll answer but only if you ask, otherwise I don’t think my single opinion is valuable enough to be published unsought.
I’m not interested in taking sides in a battle in which I had no original part, and to which I can bring no peaceful end. I’ll just say this, to hold an opinion is everyone’s right, but be careful not to let your opinion hold you, and don’t hold the opinions of others against them.
Ciao Steve44!
There is a
Ciao Steve44!
There is a small group of people who have talked about problems with Strieber and his work for some time. If you like to email you can at: lmhowe_doty42@strieberthekey.com.
I am canceling my subscription today so won’t be participating in more comments.
I do not think I am alone in
I do not think I am alone in thinking your opinion here would be interesting to read.
Steve44,
Ditto…
Steve44,
Ditto…
Don’t hold the opinions of
Don’t hold the opinions of others against them? OK, so we shouldn’t hold Hitler’s opinions against him? Stalin’s? No, guess not.
“Don’t hold the opinions of
“Don’t hold the opinions of others against them? OK, so we shouldn’t hold Hitler’s opinions against him? Stalin’s? No, guess not. ”
It’s when opinions as disturbing as theirs become actions that we have a problem, but then we have more work to do than just hold their opinions against them. The very reason I said that is because opinions in and of themselves are harmless. If more people saw it that way I think the world would be a better place. When they cease to be harmless they also cease to be opinions and become actions, where, as in your examples, they must be opposed and overcome.
I may be repulsed by someone holding opinions sympathetic to Hitler and Stalin, but I wouldn’t advocate putting them to death for that fact alone.
Putting them to death? Where
Putting them to death? Where did that come from? Certainly nobody here has advocated such at thing. Of course Hitler and Stalin did it, as did–and do–religious groups.
“Putting them to death? Where
“Putting them to death? Where did that come from? Certainly nobody here has advocated such at thing. Of course Hitler and Stalin did it, as did–and do–religious groups.”
It came from equating their actions with their opinions. If there’s no difference than logically they deserve to be put to death for their opinions. It was you that tied to the two together, not me. I’m not saying you advocated it, but that’s where the logic seemed to go. I tried to demonstrate how I see the fault in that logic.
“sin is denial of the right
“sin is denial of the right to thrive” is a fine phrase, and can be plugged in to a variety of human experience and possibly offer moral guidance in return, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly revelatory. Is the ‘right to thrive’ as fundamental as all that? Is it always and exclusively a moral choice? It’s certainly fundamentally desirable, but it strikes me, at the physical level, as also fundamentally untenable. All physical life eventually dies; where does ‘thriving’ go when one day it means physical health and on another such health becomes an impossibility? If sin is a choice, as I assume the phrase implies, what choice does it leave us then? If the phrase is a treasure like nothing else in this world, why does it seem to come up short when attempting to trade on it in the Economy of the Universe? Maybe I”m just not understanding it. If anyone wants to reply with clarification I’d appreciate it. The phrase may state the problem with admirable impact, but doesn’t seem to provide any similarly impactful solutions distinguishable from any other basic call to morality. The phrase ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ are similar words to live by, but I don’t see those who are married to sin in a panic to erase it from the landscape of ideas. It’s simply there to be used or ignored as the case may be. That being the case, I can’t see a logical justification for accusing those same spouses of sin to be in a hate fueled panic about these more contemporary (and problematic) words of moral power. Words alone do not challenge anyone to be moral, they pose no threat and have no impact in and of themselves. They are carriers of ideas, and have power only in so far as they guide and modify behavior. The resulting behavior may eventually pose a threat, if that behavior clashes with a counter-behavior in a given situation, but that is circumstantial and the words become secondary to it. It’s only logical that the motivation of the critics of The Key lie elsewhere than in the moral turns of phrase contained within it. This is not to justify it, just to say I believe the blame is misplaced. To challenge the critique on those grounds is to attempt to do battle with a shadow.
“sin is denial of the right
“sin is denial of the right to thrive” is a fine phrase, and can be plugged in to a variety of human experience and possibly offer moral guidance in return, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly revelatory. Is the ‘right to thrive’ as fundamental as all that? Is it always and exclusively a moral choice? It’s certainly fundamentally desirable, but it strikes me, at the physical level, as also fundamentally untenable. All physical life eventually dies; where does ‘thriving’ go when one day it means physical health and on another such health becomes an impossibility? If sin is a choice, as I assume the phrase implies, what choice does it leave us then? If the phrase is a treasure like nothing else in this world, why does it seem to come up short when attempting to trade on it in the Economy of the Universe? Maybe I”m just not understanding it. If anyone wants to reply with clarification I’d appreciate it. The phrase may state the problem with admirable impact, but doesn’t seem to provide any similarly impactful solutions distinguishable from any other basic call to morality. The phrase ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ are similar words to live by, but I don’t see those who are married to sin in a panic to erase it from the landscape of ideas. It’s simply there to be used or ignored as the case may be. That being the case, I can’t see a logical justification for accusing those same spouses of sin to be in a hate fueled panic about these more contemporary (and problematic) words of moral power. Words alone do not challenge anyone to be moral, they pose no threat and have no impact in and of themselves. They are carriers of ideas, and have power only in so far as they guide and modify behavior. The resulting behavior may eventually pose a threat, if that behavior clashes with a counter-behavior in a given situation, but that is circumstantial and the words become secondary to it. It’s only logical that the motivation of the critics of The Key lie elsewhere than in the moral turns of phrase contained within it. This is not to justify it, just to say I believe the blame is misplaced. To challenge the critique on those grounds is to attempt to do battle with a shadow.
As a long time student of
As a long time student of Strieber and his work, I found Moltke’s paper to be more than compelling. I will begin to explain why below, but first let me address the identity and motivation of Heinrich Moltke.
Let us assume Heinrich Moltke is a Neo-Nazi. Let us assume he holds to a profoundly anti Semitic and racist world view, and let us assume too he looks upon historical Nazism favourably. Why would this make it impossible for him to critically analyse Strieber’s work?
Consider Operation Paperclip – did the Nazism of Nazi scientists make them incompetent scientists? Did Werhner Von Braun’s complicity with the Third Reich make him an incompetent rocket scientist? No, of course not, the historical record shows otherwise.
Perhaps Heinrich Moltke’s Nazism is obvious in his analysis. I have read the paper several times, and I see no evidence for this. If you argue otherwise, you need to demonstrate this, and demonstrate how it colours his analysis where it can be so readily dismissed out of hand.
Equally, I would like to see demonstration of how his possible insensitivity (and lack of tactful consideration) colours his analysis. Otherwise, we must respect the fact we are dealing with two separate sets of facts, which are not necessarily related. One is Motlke’s personality, and its possible deficiencies. And two Motlke’s argument, and its possible deficiencies.
I notice so far that nobody has actually engaged with anything he has written. Unfortunately, the forum is no longer with us and we cannot research what Heinrich Moltke has previously posted. From what I remember, he struck me as an especially intelligent poster, albeit with acerbic tendencies. He could write well, at length and with no small measure of originality.
And it is these qualities I again found in his paper.
Like many, like Fox Mulder, ‘I want to believe’ and I have long given Whitley Strieber the benefit of the doubt. Now I find myself asking hard questions of my self as I wonder why I was so willing to look past what always has been an intensely (and to me intensely obvious) problematic aspect of TK, and Strieber’s accounts of its creation.
Strieber was a group leader within the Gurdjieff work, and he has claimed he was a member of the New York Foundation for over 12 years. If this is the case, then the central ideas of the Work would form the critical and central architecture of his thinking. On reflection, it is my conviction that the conversation of that June night must have included reference to Gurdjieff, because his ideas are not simply present, but dominant. Read Moltke’s paper. His treatment of the influence of Gurdjieff on TK is comprehensive, and wholly accurate. I say this as someone who personally has a comparable level of experience with the Gurdjieff work and its institutional expression as Whitley Strieber.
To make the point as simply as possible – no one involved in the Work (to the extent Strieber claims) would not recognise the origin of the ‘master’s’ ideas. And I find it nonsensical that this would not have been apparent to Strieber when looking at that transcript in the cold light of the following days. By some extraordinary failing of memory and intellectual function, Strieber may have failed to see what I have pointed out. But if someone later pointed the parallels out to him, he should have immediately recognised the obvious.
I did this, and I got no reply.
And I could not help but notice that Strieber has not once ever suggested that this master is a product of the Gurdjieff work, when so much suggests that if he existed, he was the product of a spiritual schooling remarkably similar to Strieber’s own.
*
As such, I am sympathetic to the idea that there could well be problems with TK and the claims made for it. But these ideas need to be demonstrated, with evidence and the application of reason. This discussion here then must continue, and I would implore everyone here to read the paper. Forget about Moltke – but consider his arguments.
double post – deleted
double post – deleted
Jean, thanks for the
Jean, thanks for the clarifications as well as your educated perspective, both are valuable in my opinion.
As a long time student of
As a long time student of Strieber and his work, I found Moltke’s paper to be more than compelling. I will begin to explain why below, but first let me address the identity and motivation of Heinrich Moltke.
Let us assume Heinrich Moltke is a Neo-Nazi. Let us assume he holds to a profoundly anti Semitic and racist world view, and let us assume too he looks upon historical Nazism favourably. Why would this make it impossible for him to critically analyse Strieber’s work?
Consider Operation Paperclip – did the Nazism of Nazi scientists make them incompetent scientists? Did Werhner Von Braun’s complicity with the Third Reich make him an incompetent rocket scientist? No, of course not, the historical record shows otherwise.
Perhaps Heinrich Moltke’s Nazism is obvious in his analysis. I have read the paper several times, and I see no evidence for this. If you argue otherwise, you need to demonstrate this, and demonstrate how it colours his analysis where it can be so readily dismissed out of hand.
Equally, I would like to see demonstration of how his possible insensitivity (and lack of tactful consideration) colours his analysis. Otherwise, we must respect the fact we are dealing with two separate sets of facts, which are not necessarily related. One is Motlke’s personality, and its possible deficiencies. And two Motlke’s argument, and its possible deficiencies.
I notice so far that nobody has actually engaged with anything he has written. Unfortunately, the forum is no longer with us and we cannot research what Heinrich Moltke has previously posted. From what I remember, he struck me as an especially intelligent poster, albeit with acerbic tendencies. He could write well, at length and with no small measure of originality.
And it is these qualities I again found in his paper.
Like many, like Fox Mulder, ‘I want to believe’ and I have long given Whitley Strieber the benefit of the doubt. Now I find myself asking hard questions of my self as I wonder why I was so willing to look past what always has been an intensely (and to me intensely obvious) problematic aspect of TK, and Strieber’s accounts of its creation.
Strieber was a group leader within the Gurdjieff work, and he has claimed he was a member of the New York Foundation for over 12 years. If this is the case, then the central ideas of the Work would form the critical and central architecture of his thinking. On reflection, it is my conviction that the conversation of that June night must have included reference to Gurdjieff, because his ideas are not simply present, but dominant. Read Moltke’s paper. His treatment of the influence of Gurdjieff on TK is comprehensive, and wholly accurate. I say this as someone who personally has a comparable level of experience with the Gurdjieff work and its institutional expression as Whitley Strieber.
To make the point as simply as possible – no one involved in the Work (to the extent Strieber claims) would not recognise the origin of the ‘master’s’ ideas. And I find it nonsensical that this would not have been apparent to Strieber when looking at that transcript in the cold light of the following days. By some extraordinary failing of memory and intellectual function, Strieber may have failed to see what I have pointed out. But if someone later pointed the parallels out to him, he should have immediately recognised the obvious.
I did this, and I got no reply.
And I could not help but notice that Strieber has not once ever suggested that this master is a product of the Gurdjieff work, when so much suggests that if he existed, he was the product of a spiritual schooling remarkably similar to Strieber’s own.
*
As such, I am sympathetic to the idea that there could well be problems with TK and the claims made for it. But these ideas need to be demonstrated, with evidence and the application of reason. This discussion here then must continue, and I would implore everyone here to read the paper. Forget about Moltke – but consider his arguments.
double post – deleted
double post – deleted
Jean, thanks for the
Jean, thanks for the clarifications as well as your educated perspective, both are valuable in my opinion.
That last remark of mine was
That last remark of mine was directed toward Steve 44.
I responded to something he wrote in what I thought was an ‘in line’ manner.
That last remark of mine was
That last remark of mine was directed toward Steve 44.
I responded to something he wrote in what I thought was an ‘in line’ manner.
This is in response to
This is in response to Srava’s post above in which he reproduces the response of ‘Heinrich Moltke’ to current criticisms on this site of his being little more than a troll and therefore of not being worthy to be taken seriously as an intellectual critic. Whether that itself is sound reasoning or not will be left hanging in this response because it would only hold the weight of one man’s opinion and I don’t see it as my task to attempt to resolve the issue for everyone.
What I will address is the main thesis of the post, which is an explanatory, historical re-telling of events which lead to the current stormy climate. There is some confusion as to whether ‘Srava’ is ‘Heinrich Moltke’, but since he used his own account to speak for Moltke, in the latters own words, to avoid confusion this will not be addressed to either directly, but to the post itself, and those who have requested it. I think the unwritten law of the internet allows it and if not, there’s no law against it…
Being that this is a response to a single post, it’s not likely to nor is it meant to resolve the bigger issues at play here. In my original non-response response I said I did not agree with much of it, the issue I have with it is not as historical re-telling, but as the justification which that implies.
It explains much without justifying even a small fraction. In fact, the two seem mutually exclusive from my point of view. The poster repeatedly expresses ‘gall’ at Jeremy Vaeni for holding strong opinions about issues in the UFO field and acting in accordance with them, as well as other things at UC. He seems to feel perfectly justified in this presumably because they are not in line with his own opinions. At the time all this was happening, he seems to have used his frustration with all this to justify behavior he himself admits was less than civil.
It’s really that simple, a misplaced sense of authority over others which in reality exists only in one’s head, and a growing sense of frustration when reality simply points that out.
In an ironic twist I can think of no other phrase that fits the situation more perfectly:
“Sin is denial of the right to thrive”
This is in response to
This is in response to Srava’s post above in which he reproduces the response of ‘Heinrich Moltke’ to current criticisms on this site of his being little more than a troll and therefore of not being worthy to be taken seriously as an intellectual critic. Whether that itself is sound reasoning or not will be left hanging in this response because it would only hold the weight of one man’s opinion and I don’t see it as my task to attempt to resolve the issue for everyone.
What I will address is the main thesis of the post, which is an explanatory, historical re-telling of events which lead to the current stormy climate. There is some confusion as to whether ‘Srava’ is ‘Heinrich Moltke’, but since he used his own account to speak for Moltke, in the latters own words, to avoid confusion this will not be addressed to either directly, but to the post itself, and those who have requested it. I think the unwritten law of the internet allows it and if not, there’s no law against it…
Being that this is a response to a single post, it’s not likely to nor is it meant to resolve the bigger issues at play here. In my original non-response response I said I did not agree with much of it, the issue I have with it is not as historical re-telling, but as the justification which that implies.
It explains much without justifying even a small fraction. In fact, the two seem mutually exclusive from my point of view. The poster repeatedly expresses ‘gall’ at Jeremy Vaeni for holding strong opinions about issues in the UFO field and acting in accordance with them, as well as other things at UC. He seems to feel perfectly justified in this presumably because they are not in line with his own opinions. At the time all this was happening, he seems to have used his frustration with all this to justify behavior he himself admits was less than civil.
It’s really that simple, a misplaced sense of authority over others which in reality exists only in one’s head, and a growing sense of frustration when reality simply points that out.
In an ironic twist I can think of no other phrase that fits the situation more perfectly:
“Sin is denial of the right to thrive”
Thanks for the kind words
Thanks for the kind words Steve.
*
There is a critical issue here that needs to be addressed, and that concerns how we know what we know, and the reason I want to address this issue is to save this discussion from being stalled and stopped by a tendency of people to conclude discussions such as these by proclaiming ‘well, that’s his opinion, and that’s her opinion, so who knows’.
This approach is obvious ridiculous when we discuss what we can empirically demonstrate. Jones says ‘the Earth is round’, Smith says ‘the Earth is flat’. No one can reasonably respond ‘well, Jones thinks it’s round, Smith thinks it’s flat, what shape is the Earth? Who knows!’.
We can show that the Earth is flat. Therefore, we can demonstrate that Jones opinion is superior to Smith’s. Some might object here that I am radically simplifying matters which are complex and often obtuse. But I think this simple approach can clearly establish what should be axiomatic here : that we can actually determine superior opinions, and in this instance we can determine if Moltke’s opinions about the origin and nature of TK are superior to Strieber’s and Vaeni’s.
Now some may object saying it is one thing to establish a hierarchy of understandings about something like the shape of the Earth, it is something else entirely to establish a hierarchy of understanding about something like the meaning of a text. But consider this: Jones says ‘Catcher in the Rye’ is about the psychological forces which underpinned the US Civil War, as evidenced in the life of one Holden Caufield. Smith says ‘Catcher in the Rye’ is about adolescent ennui among the bourgeoisie of the abundantly prosperous post World War Two USA, as evidenced in the life of one Holden Caufield.
Smith’s opinion is obviously superior, because his opinion corresponds best to the facts at hand and what reason then suggests, although Jones’ does contain factual elements. Again, we don’t go down the road of Smith said X, Jones said Y, so who knows…
Let me revisit the key point of my previous post, which if sufficiently established parallels a particular argument of Moltke’s and which perforce must then serve as a demand that the rest of his paper is considered, and considered closely. That is to say, if Moltke is right about one thing, he may be right about others.
In Strieber’s opinion, little if any of TK is owed to Gurdjieff. The ‘master’ is not a product of the G work.
In my opinion, the dominant ideas of TK are originally Gurdjieff’s. The ‘master’ is therefore obviously the product of the work.
Which is the better opinion? Read the section in Moltke’s paper which exhaustively demonstrates the link between the ideas of Gurdjieff and the ideas of TK and decide for yourself.
*
Once, you have done that, you then need to ask the question why has Strieber noticed this relationship before. Answers suggest themselves:
i) He did not know of the relationship. He could not make the link because he knew nothing of Gurdjieff
ii) He knew of the relationship. He did not speak of this relationship for reasons which are unknown.
Which is the better opinion? (i) or (ii) What is the better answer?
To repeat a point I made above, it is literally unbelievable that Strieber did not recognise the ideas when they presented to him. There is no way at all a group leader of the New York Foundation would not have noticed these source of the master’s ideas, either in conversation or on reflection. And once he did, he would have assumed this ‘master’ was a product of the Gurdjieff work.
*
I will stop here for now. I would love to hear other opinions on these points.
I’m in the process of reading
I’m in the process of reading the full critique now so perhaps I’ll have more to say later. Your conclusions seems sound. For some this could lead to implications more far-reaching, but to speculate further is premature at this point. Regardless, I think this is healthy, and perhaps the perfect opportunity for some to exercise our favorite ‘phrase’.
Thanks for the kind words
Thanks for the kind words Steve.
*
There is a critical issue here that needs to be addressed, and that concerns how we know what we know, and the reason I want to address this issue is to save this discussion from being stalled and stopped by a tendency of people to conclude discussions such as these by proclaiming ‘well, that’s his opinion, and that’s her opinion, so who knows’.
This approach is obvious ridiculous when we discuss what we can empirically demonstrate. Jones says ‘the Earth is round’, Smith says ‘the Earth is flat’. No one can reasonably respond ‘well, Jones thinks it’s round, Smith thinks it’s flat, what shape is the Earth? Who knows!’.
We can show that the Earth is flat. Therefore, we can demonstrate that Jones opinion is superior to Smith’s. Some might object here that I am radically simplifying matters which are complex and often obtuse. But I think this simple approach can clearly establish what should be axiomatic here : that we can actually determine superior opinions, and in this instance we can determine if Moltke’s opinions about the origin and nature of TK are superior to Strieber’s and Vaeni’s.
Now some may object saying it is one thing to establish a hierarchy of understandings about something like the shape of the Earth, it is something else entirely to establish a hierarchy of understanding about something like the meaning of a text. But consider this: Jones says ‘Catcher in the Rye’ is about the psychological forces which underpinned the US Civil War, as evidenced in the life of one Holden Caufield. Smith says ‘Catcher in the Rye’ is about adolescent ennui among the bourgeoisie of the abundantly prosperous post World War Two USA, as evidenced in the life of one Holden Caufield.
Smith’s opinion is obviously superior, because his opinion corresponds best to the facts at hand and what reason then suggests, although Jones’ does contain factual elements. Again, we don’t go down the road of Smith said X, Jones said Y, so who knows…
Let me revisit the key point of my previous post, which if sufficiently established parallels a particular argument of Moltke’s and which perforce must then serve as a demand that the rest of his paper is considered, and considered closely. That is to say, if Moltke is right about one thing, he may be right about others.
In Strieber’s opinion, little if any of TK is owed to Gurdjieff. The ‘master’ is not a product of the G work.
In my opinion, the dominant ideas of TK are originally Gurdjieff’s. The ‘master’ is therefore obviously the product of the work.
Which is the better opinion? Read the section in Moltke’s paper which exhaustively demonstrates the link between the ideas of Gurdjieff and the ideas of TK and decide for yourself.
*
Once, you have done that, you then need to ask the question why has Strieber noticed this relationship before. Answers suggest themselves:
i) He did not know of the relationship. He could not make the link because he knew nothing of Gurdjieff
ii) He knew of the relationship. He did not speak of this relationship for reasons which are unknown.
Which is the better opinion? (i) or (ii) What is the better answer?
To repeat a point I made above, it is literally unbelievable that Strieber did not recognise the ideas when they presented to him. There is no way at all a group leader of the New York Foundation would not have noticed these source of the master’s ideas, either in conversation or on reflection. And once he did, he would have assumed this ‘master’ was a product of the Gurdjieff work.
*
I will stop here for now. I would love to hear other opinions on these points.
I’m in the process of reading
I’m in the process of reading the full critique now so perhaps I’ll have more to say later. Your conclusions seems sound. For some this could lead to implications more far-reaching, but to speculate further is premature at this point. Regardless, I think this is healthy, and perhaps the perfect opportunity for some to exercise our favorite ‘phrase’.
From the Great Heinrich
From the Great Heinrich Moltke:
”
Before my sister-in-law’s subscription is fully canceled:
@CosmicLibrarian: I received your e-mail this morning and sent an answer. But there’s a problem with your reply-to address. My e-mail was bounced back. Didn’t want to be accused of not answering.
@Steve44: Sorry you feel that way about my explanation for my lack of civility in years past. First, the explanation was meant to answer Vaeni’s false claim that I am some random anonymous troll who just wants to disrupt UC.com and am just leaving trolling comments. There’s a context for everything, and that’s what I was getting at. Whether you’d behave the same way or not is a different matter. My own point of view is that all of these things being raised – whether I use a pseudonym, whether I left unfriendly comments in the past – are irrelevant. Even the framing of the paper as an ‘attack’ – it’s not an attack, this is just UFO ghetto mentality – is simply a way of shooting the messenger. To my mind, the things pointed out in the paper are undeniable, even if written by a mean-spirited troll. Just one example:
*
What is compassion?
Finding what others need the most and giving it to them. (61, The Key 2001)
I saw the true meaning of compassion: that it is the courage to give what is most needed, no matter how much it hurts. (Breakthrough, 1995)
*
I hate to have to point out that with ‘The Key’, Strieber’s not writing a non-fiction book in which he builds on his previous ideas and formulations. He’s writing what he has said is a “transcription” of a conversation with a very real man, a transcription that is “easily ninety percent accurate”. When you can find more than fifty (50+) instances where Strieber has the Master of the Key talking Strieber-speak back at him, you have to conclude the conversation didn’t really happen as it was transcribed. If the Master of the Key were another human being, he’d have his own ideas, opinions, attitudes, turns of phrase, and subtle linguistic markers all his own.
More than that, the important thing to realize that’s easily missed is that while the MOTK is speaking Strieber at ‘Whitley’ – Strieber never reacts as if it were so. Any author who had somebody crash his hotel room in the middle of the night and start saying things to him that were verbatim in his own books might conclude this was a deranged fan. The ‘Whitley’ in the book never reacts. He never seems to notice that the MOTK is a true-blue Gurdjieffian. He never notices when the MOTK says ‘be as little children’ or ‘surrender’ or ‘return to the forest’ just as Strieber himself has done in past books, articles, and interviews. He never notices all the unique motifs specific to his own work: ecstasy, superposition and psychic ability, the destruction of souls, conscious machines, the story of the pig, conscious energy, and so on. Wicca, Meister Eckhart, what happened inside the gas chamber. So it’s a two-part fiction: one, the MOTK gives Strieber his own ideas, sometimes verbatim; two, ‘Whitley’ doesn’t notice.
When you demonstrate the conversation didn’t happen as described, obvious questions appear that Strieber won’t be able to answer. He’ll try, and he’ll be slippery about it, but they’re unanswerable. How can you maintain in interview after interview that the ideas of the MOTK were “breathtakingly new”? How can you talk on and on about the “joyousness” of the man, the way he talked, the twinkle in his eye – along with the mundane things like what clothing he wore – when the conversation didn’t probably happen?
What did happen? When you look at the 1998 descriptions of the event – I found five, there may be more – they’re all over the map. The MOTK is 4.5 feet tall, he gets up and leaves in the middle of it, he says all sorts of things that don’t appear in the book, he tells Strieber the name of the book, he tells Strieber the date and time of his death, he talks about Michael Cremo’s book, etc.
So the ‘true encounter’ was something very dream-like and fragmentary, even though Strieber himself has always maintained – simultaneously – the opposite: that it was a “straightforward meeting” and that he was able to successfully transcribe the words two years later from a page of “indecipherable” notes.
All of these observations stand on their own – even if I were an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi troll who’d been under treatment in the past for mental illness.
Likewise, whether or not ‘Heinrich Moltke’ is my real name is a distraction. I’m not a whistleblower, and I’m also not testifying in a court of law. So who cares? I wonder: is Steve44 a real name? Is Cosmic Librarian? You might forgive somebody for not using a real name in the UFO world when writing a paper earns you the title of ‘anti-Semitic neo-Nazi’ nutcase. And on that point: it’s well known that in years past, Whitley Strieber himself used to post on some online forums under a false name, and even posted a few times in the UC.com forum under that name.
Again, for what it’s worth, the paper was not written as an ‘attack’ on Whitley Strieber. This paper is not about ‘taking down’ Whitley Strieber. It’s about telling the truth. Strieber will keep on doing exactly what he’s doing, telling his fans he knows this or that about things when he doesn’t until the end of his days. Nothing is going to change. However, Strieber’s work does offer a unique set of intellectual challenges that might appeal to some people. The man himself is confused and confusing and this makes it all a very complicated puzzle. Anyone who writes an academic-style paper ought to be intending to tell us something true that we didn’t know before in order to save time for the next people who come along. That was my goal: to confront his complexity as well as his confusion and inconsistencies in a way that makes sense. Not as a debunker or as somebody who puts up a few blog posts and thinks he’s therefore solved the mystery of Whitley Strieber. The paper highlights the tendencies of the man based on his own words, and you can use this to sort out the wheat from the chaff in his accounts. It’s not my problem if he’s been subject to unfair ‘attacks’ in the past in the UFO world or if there are a dozen mean-spirited blog posts online ‘nit-picking’ him to death by doing trivial, superficial analysis. That’s got nothing to do with me.
@Jean Vaysse – Is that a pseudonym? If so, maybe we shouldn’t listen to anything you say!
In all seriousness: I’m interested in the fact that you say you have had experience with working with the Gurdjieff people. One of the dispiriting and eye-opening things for me in relation to ‘The Key’ was the extent to which Gurdjieff is present. The more I read and learned about the ‘work’, the more it was obvious. That would be fine if it weren’t all passed over in silence by Strieber, presented as “breathtakingly new” information. I hope you’re able to share some your experiences here. Alternately, you can contact me at the e-mail given on the strieberthekey.com website.
Cheers.
”
“What is compassion?
Finding
“What is compassion?
Finding what others need the most and giving it to them. (61, The Key 2001)”
Just a passing comment about this, which is similar to my comment about ‘the phrase’: fine statement, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly revelatory.
If I were asked to define compassion I would say something like (my own words):
‘Total identification with another and total transcendence in the very same instant.’
or
‘To experience our own existence deep in the heart of another’
Rather than implying a physical act, it implies an act of consciousness. It seems to me the original phrase describes but does not define. While the description is a possible result of compassion, how could a physical act define what in any case is clearly a state of being or mind? If one considers it a definition, then it is only an objective definition, a definition from afar, and not a subjective one, a definition from within the reality itself.
What do words like
What do words like “identification” and “transcendence” mean? Do they have any universal definition that does not draw its meaning from one’s personal emotional state? I think not.
The definition in the Key is very simple and clear. It’s possible to actually do. You don’t need to be in any sort of transcendent state to find another person’s needs, or your own.
This is true, they are
This is true, they are subjective, and thus fall short for a general definition. Good point.
Srava,
I got the response
Srava,
I got the response from Heinrich, and have replied back to him…
This is an eloquent example
This is an eloquent example of what I am talking about in my journal–profoundly distorted and, frankly, sick with paranoia and hatred. It is the work, in my opinion, of a racist who hates the Key because of the truths about the holocaust.
I cannot imagine why the fact that much of the Key is reflected in my previous work discredits it. Why? Are the ideas bad? Not unless you live in a world of hate. And as far as the Gurdjieff references are concerned, I have been in the Work for more than 50 years. At that time, it was closing in on 30. Of course it is reflected there. But more importantly, there are deep Masonic references, which led me to explore the possibility that the man who came to my room was perhaps a member of the Templar group in Canada.
I did not knowingly write the Key at all. I struggled for 2 years with whether or not to go ahead with it, precisely because of the unsureness I felt and feel to this day about the MOTK. I did my best to repeat his words in the book, without knowing whether he is me or not. I had no choice, obviously.
From the Great Heinrich
From the Great Heinrich Moltke:
”
Before my sister-in-law’s subscription is fully canceled:
@CosmicLibrarian: I received your e-mail this morning and sent an answer. But there’s a problem with your reply-to address. My e-mail was bounced back. Didn’t want to be accused of not answering.
@Steve44: Sorry you feel that way about my explanation for my lack of civility in years past. First, the explanation was meant to answer Vaeni’s false claim that I am some random anonymous troll who just wants to disrupt UC.com and am just leaving trolling comments. There’s a context for everything, and that’s what I was getting at. Whether you’d behave the same way or not is a different matter. My own point of view is that all of these things being raised – whether I use a pseudonym, whether I left unfriendly comments in the past – are irrelevant. Even the framing of the paper as an ‘attack’ – it’s not an attack, this is just UFO ghetto mentality – is simply a way of shooting the messenger. To my mind, the things pointed out in the paper are undeniable, even if written by a mean-spirited troll. Just one example:
*
What is compassion?
Finding what others need the most and giving it to them. (61, The Key 2001)
I saw the true meaning of compassion: that it is the courage to give what is most needed, no matter how much it hurts. (Breakthrough, 1995)
*
I hate to have to point out that with ‘The Key’, Strieber’s not writing a non-fiction book in which he builds on his previous ideas and formulations. He’s writing what he has said is a “transcription” of a conversation with a very real man, a transcription that is “easily ninety percent accurate”. When you can find more than fifty (50+) instances where Strieber has the Master of the Key talking Strieber-speak back at him, you have to conclude the conversation didn’t really happen as it was transcribed. If the Master of the Key were another human being, he’d have his own ideas, opinions, attitudes, turns of phrase, and subtle linguistic markers all his own.
More than that, the important thing to realize that’s easily missed is that while the MOTK is speaking Strieber at ‘Whitley’ – Strieber never reacts as if it were so. Any author who had somebody crash his hotel room in the middle of the night and start saying things to him that were verbatim in his own books might conclude this was a deranged fan. The ‘Whitley’ in the book never reacts. He never seems to notice that the MOTK is a true-blue Gurdjieffian. He never notices when the MOTK says ‘be as little children’ or ‘surrender’ or ‘return to the forest’ just as Strieber himself has done in past books, articles, and interviews. He never notices all the unique motifs specific to his own work: ecstasy, superposition and psychic ability, the destruction of souls, conscious machines, the story of the pig, conscious energy, and so on. Wicca, Meister Eckhart, what happened inside the gas chamber. So it’s a two-part fiction: one, the MOTK gives Strieber his own ideas, sometimes verbatim; two, ‘Whitley’ doesn’t notice.
When you demonstrate the conversation didn’t happen as described, obvious questions appear that Strieber won’t be able to answer. He’ll try, and he’ll be slippery about it, but they’re unanswerable. How can you maintain in interview after interview that the ideas of the MOTK were “breathtakingly new”? How can you talk on and on about the “joyousness” of the man, the way he talked, the twinkle in his eye – along with the mundane things like what clothing he wore – when the conversation didn’t probably happen?
What did happen? When you look at the 1998 descriptions of the event – I found five, there may be more – they’re all over the map. The MOTK is 4.5 feet tall, he gets up and leaves in the middle of it, he says all sorts of things that don’t appear in the book, he tells Strieber the name of the book, he tells Strieber the date and time of his death, he talks about Michael Cremo’s book, etc.
So the ‘true encounter’ was something very dream-like and fragmentary, even though Strieber himself has always maintained – simultaneously – the opposite: that it was a “straightforward meeting” and that he was able to successfully transcribe the words two years later from a page of “indecipherable” notes.
All of these observations stand on their own – even if I were an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi troll who’d been under treatment in the past for mental illness.
Likewise, whether or not ‘Heinrich Moltke’ is my real name is a distraction. I’m not a whistleblower, and I’m also not testifying in a court of law. So who cares? I wonder: is Steve44 a real name? Is Cosmic Librarian? You might forgive somebody for not using a real name in the UFO world when writing a paper earns you the title of ‘anti-Semitic neo-Nazi’ nutcase. And on that point: it’s well known that in years past, Whitley Strieber himself used to post on some online forums under a false name, and even posted a few times in the UC.com forum under that name.
Again, for what it’s worth, the paper was not written as an ‘attack’ on Whitley Strieber. This paper is not about ‘taking down’ Whitley Strieber. It’s about telling the truth. Strieber will keep on doing exactly what he’s doing, telling his fans he knows this or that about things when he doesn’t until the end of his days. Nothing is going to change. However, Strieber’s work does offer a unique set of intellectual challenges that might appeal to some people. The man himself is confused and confusing and this makes it all a very complicated puzzle. Anyone who writes an academic-style paper ought to be intending to tell us something true that we didn’t know before in order to save time for the next people who come along. That was my goal: to confront his complexity as well as his confusion and inconsistencies in a way that makes sense. Not as a debunker or as somebody who puts up a few blog posts and thinks he’s therefore solved the mystery of Whitley Strieber. The paper highlights the tendencies of the man based on his own words, and you can use this to sort out the wheat from the chaff in his accounts. It’s not my problem if he’s been subject to unfair ‘attacks’ in the past in the UFO world or if there are a dozen mean-spirited blog posts online ‘nit-picking’ him to death by doing trivial, superficial analysis. That’s got nothing to do with me.
@Jean Vaysse – Is that a pseudonym? If so, maybe we shouldn’t listen to anything you say!
In all seriousness: I’m interested in the fact that you say you have had experience with working with the Gurdjieff people. One of the dispiriting and eye-opening things for me in relation to ‘The Key’ was the extent to which Gurdjieff is present. The more I read and learned about the ‘work’, the more it was obvious. That would be fine if it weren’t all passed over in silence by Strieber, presented as “breathtakingly new” information. I hope you’re able to share some your experiences here. Alternately, you can contact me at the e-mail given on the strieberthekey.com website.
Cheers.
”
“What is compassion?
Finding
“What is compassion?
Finding what others need the most and giving it to them. (61, The Key 2001)”
Just a passing comment about this, which is similar to my comment about ‘the phrase’: fine statement, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly revelatory.
If I were asked to define compassion I would say something like (my own words):
‘Total identification with another and total transcendence in the very same instant.’
or
‘To experience our own existence deep in the heart of another’
Rather than implying a physical act, it implies an act of consciousness. It seems to me the original phrase describes but does not define. While the description is a possible result of compassion, how could a physical act define what in any case is clearly a state of being or mind? If one considers it a definition, then it is only an objective definition, a definition from afar, and not a subjective one, a definition from within the reality itself.
What do words like
What do words like “identification” and “transcendence” mean? Do they have any universal definition that does not draw its meaning from one’s personal emotional state? I think not.
The definition in the Key is very simple and clear. It’s possible to actually do. You don’t need to be in any sort of transcendent state to find another person’s needs, or your own.
This is true, they are
This is true, they are subjective, and thus fall short for a general definition. Good point.
Srava,
I got the response
Srava,
I got the response from Heinrich, and have replied back to him…
This is an eloquent example
This is an eloquent example of what I am talking about in my journal–profoundly distorted and, frankly, sick with paranoia and hatred. It is the work, in my opinion, of a racist who hates the Key because of the truths about the holocaust.
I cannot imagine why the fact that much of the Key is reflected in my previous work discredits it. Why? Are the ideas bad? Not unless you live in a world of hate. And as far as the Gurdjieff references are concerned, I have been in the Work for more than 50 years. At that time, it was closing in on 30. Of course it is reflected there. But more importantly, there are deep Masonic references, which led me to explore the possibility that the man who came to my room was perhaps a member of the Templar group in Canada.
I did not knowingly write the Key at all. I struggled for 2 years with whether or not to go ahead with it, precisely because of the unsureness I felt and feel to this day about the MOTK. I did my best to repeat his words in the book, without knowing whether he is me or not. I had no choice, obviously.
To Steve, Moltke, whatever
To Steve, Moltke, whatever your name is, so you are not trying to “attack” or “take down” Whitley by spending the time to create an attack website and writing a paper that attempts to refute much of his work and label him as a fraud and that he is plagiarizing Gurdjieff ?? To boot you do it on HIS site and in the comments to HIS journal. First of all, it is obvious that you have an axe to grind and your jealousy of Whitley shines through like a beacon. What have YOU ever written that was published ?? What original ideas have YOU put forward in the paranormal field ??
It’s very easy to cut others down but it is another thing to have the guts to use your real name and publicly stand up and state your beliefs and then take all of the criticism of it, which Whitley has done for years and while you hide behind aliases.
I am no fan boy, indeed I disagree with some of Whitley’s conclusions and some of his political opinions. That said, he has personally brought ideas to the Visitor phenomena that no one else has. If it wasn’t for him, we would still be stuck in the “alien scientist” theory. Whitley with his work has pushed the envelope greatly on our understanding of this phenomena and has inspired others to do the same. For his trouble, he has been mocked and ridiculed. There are many in the UFO community who won’t even talk to him or debate his ideas yet go to any UFO conference and you will hear the most outlandish theories and tales yet no one attacks these people. Might it be that Whitley is getting close to the truth and this truth threatens other people’s theories ??
Finally regarding the Key and any supernatural encounter, these encounters whether with the Visitors or the Master of the Key mostly happen in the experiencer’s mind. If 5 people saw the same thing, each would have a different experience because they perceived it differently based on their knowledge, experience and beliefs. Whitley experienced a visitation with the Master of the Key and then wrote about it later. Thus HIS experiences and knowledge would influence the memory and since he had years of studying Gurdjieff, of course there were influences in his mind when he was writing about it –so what !! Does any of that change the message ?? Does any of that change the truth of what was said ??
Whitley is getting on in years and Ann has passed over to the other side and it bothers me that people are still attacking him now. If you think that he is a fraud then why go to all of this trouble, why not just move on ??
If you’re referring to me, I
If you’re referring to me, I can assure you I’m not Moltke, or Srava, but you’re free to believe what you like. My statements speak for themselves. If you see them as ‘attacks’ that is your prerogative, but they are not meant that way; Whitley has put his material out in public for public consumption, thus I think subjecting them to public comment is appropriate. If such comment does not invariably take the form of unblemished praise, I think that’s only natural and can even be expected, if you feel differently about them, my opinion need not influence yours, but to shutter mine because they disagree with yours, or accuse them of being groundless ‘attacks’ for the same reason, seems purely specious, but again, you’re free to take that tack if it suits you.
To Steve, Moltke, whatever
To Steve, Moltke, whatever your name is, so you are not trying to “attack” or “take down” Whitley by spending the time to create an attack website and writing a paper that attempts to refute much of his work and label him as a fraud and that he is plagiarizing Gurdjieff ?? To boot you do it on HIS site and in the comments to HIS journal. First of all, it is obvious that you have an axe to grind and your jealousy of Whitley shines through like a beacon. What have YOU ever written that was published ?? What original ideas have YOU put forward in the paranormal field ??
It’s very easy to cut others down but it is another thing to have the guts to use your real name and publicly stand up and state your beliefs and then take all of the criticism of it, which Whitley has done for years and while you hide behind aliases.
I am no fan boy, indeed I disagree with some of Whitley’s conclusions and some of his political opinions. That said, he has personally brought ideas to the Visitor phenomena that no one else has. If it wasn’t for him, we would still be stuck in the “alien scientist” theory. Whitley with his work has pushed the envelope greatly on our understanding of this phenomena and has inspired others to do the same. For his trouble, he has been mocked and ridiculed. There are many in the UFO community who won’t even talk to him or debate his ideas yet go to any UFO conference and you will hear the most outlandish theories and tales yet no one attacks these people. Might it be that Whitley is getting close to the truth and this truth threatens other people’s theories ??
Finally regarding the Key and any supernatural encounter, these encounters whether with the Visitors or the Master of the Key mostly happen in the experiencer’s mind. If 5 people saw the same thing, each would have a different experience because they perceived it differently based on their knowledge, experience and beliefs. Whitley experienced a visitation with the Master of the Key and then wrote about it later. Thus HIS experiences and knowledge would influence the memory and since he had years of studying Gurdjieff, of course there were influences in his mind when he was writing about it –so what !! Does any of that change the message ?? Does any of that change the truth of what was said ??
Whitley is getting on in years and Ann has passed over to the other side and it bothers me that people are still attacking him now. If you think that he is a fraud then why go to all of this trouble, why not just move on ??
If you’re referring to me, I
If you’re referring to me, I can assure you I’m not Moltke, or Srava, but you’re free to believe what you like. My statements speak for themselves. If you see them as ‘attacks’ that is your prerogative, but they are not meant that way; Whitley has put his material out in public for public consumption, thus I think subjecting them to public comment is appropriate. If such comment does not invariably take the form of unblemished praise, I think that’s only natural and can even be expected, if you feel differently about them, my opinion need not influence yours, but to shutter mine because they disagree with yours, or accuse them of being groundless ‘attacks’ for the same reason, seems purely specious, but again, you’re free to take that tack if it suits you.
Somewhere above, there is a
Somewhere above, there is a question about William Cooper’s comments about me in Behold a Pale Horse.
William Cooper is an example of the sort of person I’m referring to in this journal entry. He was a paranoid who made statements that were not true, but which he himself believed. I based Majestic on things I had read and on what my uncle Mickey and General Exon told me about the project. General Exon’s primary contribution was that the CIA had stepped in and covered the whole business in a cloak of national security.
I think that there is more than a kernel of truth in Majestic. Not that it’s all true, word for word. It’s a novel. But that kernel–that the Air Force kept the matter secret because of the obvious threat to the 509th Bomb Wing in Roswell, then the CIA stepped in and extended the secrecy–probably is true.
Incidentally, that “memo” from John Alexander “activating” and Dick Hoagland that Cooper bandied about was also faked. Alexander was not a colonel at the time the memo was allegedly written, among other problems with it.
There is nothing wrong with what I have done with my life, nothing sinister and nothing hidden.
Whitley,
For those of us who
Whitley,
For those of us who have been reading your books all these years, and subscribing and listening to ‘Dreamland’ and other offerings at Unknown Country, I feel that there is no need for you to explain anything. We know that much of it is open to question, while also realizing the sincerity and honesty that you offer up in the best way possible under some highly unusual circumstances and events. We get it, and we’ve been there.
Somewhere above, there is a
Somewhere above, there is a question about William Cooper’s comments about me in Behold a Pale Horse.
William Cooper is an example of the sort of person I’m referring to in this journal entry. He was a paranoid who made statements that were not true, but which he himself believed. I based Majestic on things I had read and on what my uncle Mickey and General Exon told me about the project. General Exon’s primary contribution was that the CIA had stepped in and covered the whole business in a cloak of national security.
I think that there is more than a kernel of truth in Majestic. Not that it’s all true, word for word. It’s a novel. But that kernel–that the Air Force kept the matter secret because of the obvious threat to the 509th Bomb Wing in Roswell, then the CIA stepped in and extended the secrecy–probably is true.
Incidentally, that “memo” from John Alexander “activating” and Dick Hoagland that Cooper bandied about was also faked. Alexander was not a colonel at the time the memo was allegedly written, among other problems with it.
There is nothing wrong with what I have done with my life, nothing sinister and nothing hidden.
Whitley,
For those of us who
Whitley,
For those of us who have been reading your books all these years, and subscribing and listening to ‘Dreamland’ and other offerings at Unknown Country, I feel that there is no need for you to explain anything. We know that much of it is open to question, while also realizing the sincerity and honesty that you offer up in the best way possible under some highly unusual circumstances and events. We get it, and we’ve been there.
Heinrich Moltke is not
Heinrich Moltke is not anonymous to me. Remember that. I can well understand his dislike of “sin is denial of the right to thrive,” given that he is a troll on many different levels. In fact, it’s what he does–deny the right to thrive.
Regarding the Key, in his effort to discredit it (and preserve his own conscience from the truth about himself) he tries to pretend that I have relentlessly advocated for the idea that the MOTK was separate from me. In the Tarcher edition, I say this, “As I look back now more than ten years to that night, I cannot truthfully say that I am certain that this man who has so profoundly influenced my life was a real, physical person. However, at this point I can also say with some authority that he was not simply a figment of my imagination, which is why I’m publishing this book to a general audience now.”
I go on to discuss why I continue to think that it was an unusual experience of some kind.
Years ago, my wife said to me, “I think it was you from the future.” I wish she was here now to say exactly why she believed that, because her reasoning was similar to that of “Mr. Moltke,” absent the personal problems he brings to the table.
Heinrich Moltke is not
Heinrich Moltke is not anonymous to me. Remember that. I can well understand his dislike of “sin is denial of the right to thrive,” given that he is a troll on many different levels. In fact, it’s what he does–deny the right to thrive.
Regarding the Key, in his effort to discredit it (and preserve his own conscience from the truth about himself) he tries to pretend that I have relentlessly advocated for the idea that the MOTK was separate from me. In the Tarcher edition, I say this, “As I look back now more than ten years to that night, I cannot truthfully say that I am certain that this man who has so profoundly influenced my life was a real, physical person. However, at this point I can also say with some authority that he was not simply a figment of my imagination, which is why I’m publishing this book to a general audience now.”
I go on to discuss why I continue to think that it was an unusual experience of some kind.
Years ago, my wife said to me, “I think it was you from the future.” I wish she was here now to say exactly why she believed that, because her reasoning was similar to that of “Mr. Moltke,” absent the personal problems he brings to the table.
And regarding Jeremy: he
And regarding Jeremy: he brings a very fresh vision with him, one that is as much needed in this world as those of some of Molke’s heroes are not.
I chose Jeremy to host a show on this website precisely because he is a questioner, not a believer. We need more of those and fewer of the hucksters and liars that make this whole field such a dreadful mess and keep it away from the mainstream of culture and thought.
And regarding Jeremy: he
And regarding Jeremy: he brings a very fresh vision with him, one that is as much needed in this world as those of some of Molke’s heroes are not.
I chose Jeremy to host a show on this website precisely because he is a questioner, not a believer. We need more of those and fewer of the hucksters and liars that make this whole field such a dreadful mess and keep it away from the mainstream of culture and thought.
Whitley,
I TOTALLY agree
Whitley,
I TOTALLY agree with Cosmic…….
Thank you both so much! It is
Thank you both so much! It is a terribly difficult thing to do, in significant part because people just plain hate ambiguity. They want yea or nay, so they don’t have to think or worse, examine their own beliefs.
Whitley,
I TOTALLY agree
Whitley,
I TOTALLY agree with Cosmic…….
Thank you both so much! It is
Thank you both so much! It is a terribly difficult thing to do, in significant part because people just plain hate ambiguity. They want yea or nay, so they don’t have to think or worse, examine their own beliefs.
@Steve44,
Of course this is
@Steve44,
Of course this is not true in every case but I would suggest that some opinions, can quickly become a dangerous intention to action, if those opinions are not challenged early on. So there is not generally an immediate shift from opinion to action. Surely it goes from opinion, to intention to action, and then to action?
Over here in the UK we have had a recent resurgence of terrorist activity perpetrated against the innocent public…of course their innocence was not acknowledged by whomever perpetrated those terrible crimes and therefore the shift from opinion, to intention to action, was made all the easier to justify…culminating in the final actions.
In hindsight, those early opinions mattered greatly and would have benefited from being addressed at the source…before potentially shifting into a dangerous phase; Although those particular opinions where not necessarily dangerous in and of themselves, they could quickly become so, if left unchecked.
”
@Steve44,
Of course this is
”
@Steve44,
Of course this is not true in every case but I would suggest that some opinions, can quickly become a dangerous intention to action, if those opinions are not challenged early on. So there is not generally an immediate shift from opinion to action. Surely it goes from opinion, to intention to action, and then to action?
Over here in the UK we have had a recent resurgence of terrorist activity perpetrated against the innocent public…of course their innocence was not acknowledged by whomever perpetrated those terrible crimes and therefore the shift from opinion, to intention to action, was made all the easier to justify…culminating in the final actions.
In hindsight, those early opinions mattered greatly and would have benefited from being addressed at the source…before potentially shifting into a dangerous phase; Although those particular opinions where not necessarily dangerous in and of themselves, they could quickly become so, if left unchecked.
Posted by Sherbet UFO on 12 Jun 2017 at 21:11 ”
Yes, I agree, it’s a fundamentally human problem, but it’s made more difficult, not less, by those who do not allow a separation of the person from his opinion. Those poor innocent people were killed because the perpetrators did not see them as people, but as representatives of a hostile ideology. The perpetrators themselves couldn’t see any value in themselves other than as representatives of an ideology.
I’m not claiming to have any kind of solution, but it seems to me, on the hopefully more fortunate interpersonal levels if our day to day life, we can find a little more room for tolerance. This doesn’t mean we tolerate monsters, but if toleration were more widely distributed in the atmosphere, if may give some who would become monsters an alternative they might not see in the modern world.
@Steve44,
Of course this is
@Steve44,
Of course this is not true in every case but I would suggest that some opinions, can quickly become a dangerous intention to action, if those opinions are not challenged early on. So there is not generally an immediate shift from opinion to action. Surely it goes from opinion, to intention to action, and then to action?
Over here in the UK we have had a recent resurgence of terrorist activity perpetrated against the innocent public…of course their innocence was not acknowledged by whomever perpetrated those terrible crimes and therefore the shift from opinion, to intention to action, was made all the easier to justify…culminating in the final actions.
In hindsight, those early opinions mattered greatly and would have benefited from being addressed at the source…before potentially shifting into a dangerous phase; Although those particular opinions where not necessarily dangerous in and of themselves, they could quickly become so, if left unchecked.
”
@Steve44,
Of course this is
”
@Steve44,
Of course this is not true in every case but I would suggest that some opinions, can quickly become a dangerous intention to action, if those opinions are not challenged early on. So there is not generally an immediate shift from opinion to action. Surely it goes from opinion, to intention to action, and then to action?
Over here in the UK we have had a recent resurgence of terrorist activity perpetrated against the innocent public…of course their innocence was not acknowledged by whomever perpetrated those terrible crimes and therefore the shift from opinion, to intention to action, was made all the easier to justify…culminating in the final actions.
In hindsight, those early opinions mattered greatly and would have benefited from being addressed at the source…before potentially shifting into a dangerous phase; Although those particular opinions where not necessarily dangerous in and of themselves, they could quickly become so, if left unchecked.
Posted by Sherbet UFO on 12 Jun 2017 at 21:11 ”
Yes, I agree, it’s a fundamentally human problem, but it’s made more difficult, not less, by those who do not allow a separation of the person from his opinion. Those poor innocent people were killed because the perpetrators did not see them as people, but as representatives of a hostile ideology. The perpetrators themselves couldn’t see any value in themselves other than as representatives of an ideology.
I’m not claiming to have any kind of solution, but it seems to me, on the hopefully more fortunate interpersonal levels if our day to day life, we can find a little more room for tolerance. This doesn’t mean we tolerate monsters, but if toleration were more widely distributed in the atmosphere, if may give some who would become monsters an alternative they might not see in the modern world.
I recommend taking a time out
I recommend taking a time out from feeding the troll claiming not to be a troll. Posing as a concerned Strieber fan, “Srava” comes on and shills for “Heinrich’s” work. Next thing you know, we’re in a battle of words cut and pasted to this site from Heinrich’s through Srava. Srava also suggests that s/he has figured out the real identity of Heinrich and it’s Jason Horsley. I doubt that because a simple google search shows them at odds with one another on another forum many moons ago. So, it seems Srava is trying to invoke a battle with one of “Heinrich’s” “rivals.” (Gosh, all these quotation marks. Is anyone real here?) And that rival has similar problems with Strieber, so what kind of a cluster bomb would that be if we all drew Jason into this at Srava’s suggestion?
Then again, Srava also says that, “There is a small group of people who have talked about problems with Strieber and his work for some time” and implores those interested to find out more by emailing the website where the article is posted–the same email addy s/he told me to email to see if Heinrich is Jason. In other words, I should email Heinrich and ask him if he’s Jason. Wha-? And there’s this group of other people who talk about problems with Strieber’s work and you can join it… by emailing Heinrich.
Perhaps Jason and “Heinrich” have kissed and made up and he’s a part of that group. Perhaps Srava is unaware of the people in this group and the whole group has no clue who “Heinrich” is, although he’s the head of it.
But wait! Heinrich now says Srava is his sister-in-law. Surely his sister-in-law would remember whether or not Heinrich is Jason Horsley. There would be no guess work. Odd, right?
And now here comes “Jean Vaysse” talking about the Gurdjieff connection. And if you google search that name you find out Jeane Vaysse is a deceased author whose books drew heavily on Gurdjieff’s work.
“Srava”, “Jean Vaysse” and “Heinrich” all mysteriously write like exactly the same person. And now, funny enough, Heinrich is interested in what Jean Vaysse has to say. He’s not sure if that’s a pseudonym or not. I guess The Great Heinrich isn’t great at google searching.
Or perhaps he is tossing the ball to himself to further his voice at UC once he closes the “Srava” account. In fact, to use the tone of pronouncement he is fond of, if you follow the evidence, this IS what he’s doing. These are all him or writings coming from him through other people to pretend there’s a dialogue going on. There isn’t. So you can no longer believe he is not trolling you through dummy accounts no matter how he denies it next, for I say it is so.
Also, because it’s all him, whether a coordinated effort through a small group of people or not. The irony thickens.
I agree on a break, though I
I agree on a break, though I feel there should be no reason not to have honest discussion, I can see it going where the majority don’t want it to go. I just want to let everyone know, I’m really not Srava or any of the other identities and I wasn’t trying to do anything but discuss ideas.
Steve44 – I believe you, for
Steve44 – I believe you, for whatever it’s worth.
I recommend taking a time out
I recommend taking a time out from feeding the troll claiming not to be a troll. Posing as a concerned Strieber fan, “Srava” comes on and shills for “Heinrich’s” work. Next thing you know, we’re in a battle of words cut and pasted to this site from Heinrich’s through Srava. Srava also suggests that s/he has figured out the real identity of Heinrich and it’s Jason Horsley. I doubt that because a simple google search shows them at odds with one another on another forum many moons ago. So, it seems Srava is trying to invoke a battle with one of “Heinrich’s” “rivals.” (Gosh, all these quotation marks. Is anyone real here?) And that rival has similar problems with Strieber, so what kind of a cluster bomb would that be if we all drew Jason into this at Srava’s suggestion?
Then again, Srava also says that, “There is a small group of people who have talked about problems with Strieber and his work for some time” and implores those interested to find out more by emailing the website where the article is posted–the same email addy s/he told me to email to see if Heinrich is Jason. In other words, I should email Heinrich and ask him if he’s Jason. Wha-? And there’s this group of other people who talk about problems with Strieber’s work and you can join it… by emailing Heinrich.
Perhaps Jason and “Heinrich” have kissed and made up and he’s a part of that group. Perhaps Srava is unaware of the people in this group and the whole group has no clue who “Heinrich” is, although he’s the head of it.
But wait! Heinrich now says Srava is his sister-in-law. Surely his sister-in-law would remember whether or not Heinrich is Jason Horsley. There would be no guess work. Odd, right?
And now here comes “Jean Vaysse” talking about the Gurdjieff connection. And if you google search that name you find out Jeane Vaysse is a deceased author whose books drew heavily on Gurdjieff’s work.
“Srava”, “Jean Vaysse” and “Heinrich” all mysteriously write like exactly the same person. And now, funny enough, Heinrich is interested in what Jean Vaysse has to say. He’s not sure if that’s a pseudonym or not. I guess The Great Heinrich isn’t great at google searching.
Or perhaps he is tossing the ball to himself to further his voice at UC once he closes the “Srava” account. In fact, to use the tone of pronouncement he is fond of, if you follow the evidence, this IS what he’s doing. These are all him or writings coming from him through other people to pretend there’s a dialogue going on. There isn’t. So you can no longer believe he is not trolling you through dummy accounts no matter how he denies it next, for I say it is so.
Also, because it’s all him, whether a coordinated effort through a small group of people or not. The irony thickens.
I agree on a break, though I
I agree on a break, though I feel there should be no reason not to have honest discussion, I can see it going where the majority don’t want it to go. I just want to let everyone know, I’m really not Srava or any of the other identities and I wasn’t trying to do anything but discuss ideas.
Steve44 – I believe you, for
Steve44 – I believe you, for whatever it’s worth.
I’ve got to say, this is the
I’ve got to say, this is the first sockpuppet show I’ve ever been too…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
…when is he back on?
I’ve got to say, this is the
I’ve got to say, this is the first sockpuppet show I’ve ever been too…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
…when is he back on?
I thought it might be helpful
I thought it might be helpful to directly quote the paper.
This is from page 334:
“…The ideas the Master of the Key presented Strieber with were “totally
new and original”, [9] “deeply, profoundly new”(6), and “breathtakingly
new”(5). There was a “soaring sense of newness”(79) to the
ideas which according to Strieber were “unlike anything I had heard
before”.[10] The ideas involved a “completely new view of man and
God”,[11] a “new image of God” (6,7) that “lifted the veil between life
and death”(7) by explaining “what the soul actually is and how death
works”.[12]…”
*
And no, I am not Heinrich Moltke. I use a pseudonym to protect my anonymity and hopefully my livelihood.
I thought it might be helpful
I thought it might be helpful to directly quote the paper.
This is from page 334:
“…The ideas the Master of the Key presented Strieber with were “totally
new and original”, [9] “deeply, profoundly new”(6), and “breathtakingly
new”(5). There was a “soaring sense of newness”(79) to the
ideas which according to Strieber were “unlike anything I had heard
before”.[10] The ideas involved a “completely new view of man and
God”,[11] a “new image of God” (6,7) that “lifted the veil between life
and death”(7) by explaining “what the soul actually is and how death
works”.[12]…”
*
And no, I am not Heinrich Moltke. I use a pseudonym to protect my anonymity and hopefully my livelihood.
I find it hard to believe
I find it hard to believe that Whitley’s integrity can seriously be challenged after all these years. I’ve listened closely to the man, often reading and re-reading his work, and find it self-evident that in matters big and small he is pathologically honest and seemingly compelled by his nature to be fully transparent.
I find it hard to believe
I find it hard to believe that Whitley’s integrity can seriously be challenged after all these years. I’ve listened closely to the man, often reading and re-reading his work, and find it self-evident that in matters big and small he is pathologically honest and seemingly compelled by his nature to be fully transparent.
Too true, Sergio, if Whitley
Too true, Sergio, if Whitley had come up with the conversation in The Key himself, he would have just presented it as fiction to begin with.
Anyhow, against my better judgment, here’s a cursory analysis of “Problems with Strieber and The Key”:
In all honesty, I tried to read the article, but I only made it through the first 18 pages. Once the author began injecting him/herself into the narrative, it became apparent that it was going to degenerate into a vanity piece. I know, it’s not entirely fair to judge the piece on just a small portion of the text, but if the introduction on the host webpage and the first 18 pages were emblematic of the remaining 300-some-odd pages (and I’m still stymied that someone would waste that much time on it), then I definitely had better — and more coherent — things to waste my time on.
But before I reached that point, a flaw fatal to the author’s premise quickly became apparent: their approach was from the assumption that Whitley had written the Key as fiction presented as fact, with the expectation that it would follow the more solid continuity and language that fictional dialogues take. And from that biased angle, it’s easy to pick the book apart.
But if The Key is taken as an after-the-fact reconstruction of an actual two-hour conversation, the inconsistencies make much more sense — something that at no point appears to have occurred to the article’s author. The author also tries to nitpick inconsistencies in Whitley’s interviews and Journal entries, positing that subjective inconsistencies and lapses in decade-old memories are evidence of fabrication. As it is, I’d imagine Whitley’s task of not only remembering the entirety of the conversation, years after the fact, but also arranging it in a format that would make sense to a reader was a daunting task.
As it is, it’s apparent that the article’s author is reading not only way too much into the text of The Key, he/she is also reading what they want into it. So, no, this article cannot be the basis of an “honest discussion”, unless we address the author’s bias, and resulting cognitive dissonance, first.
And I would consider it a courtesy if no-one were to mistake that as an invitation for such a discussion: as it is, I had to think long and hard as to whether or not I should wade this far into the manure pile. As it is, I’ve had to deal with far too many crises that were genuinely traumatic to the people I care about over the past few years, to the point where I have little tolerance for dealing with trivial, imaginary issues like this. And the author’s issues with Whitley are, as Anne would so eloquently put it, “bullshit”.
As for that excerpt from page 334, if those quotes are taken as absolutes, then yes, Whitley appears to have oversold what the book is about. But once again, the article’s author is reading what they want into it, and not realizing that at no point do those quotes refer to The Key in its entirety. Yes, many of the ideas in the book weren’t necessarily new, and probably not even exclusive to students of Gurdjieff either, but the ones that were new were definitely bombshells.
Too true, Sergio, if Whitley
Too true, Sergio, if Whitley had come up with the conversation in The Key himself, he would have just presented it as fiction to begin with.
Anyhow, against my better judgment, here’s a cursory analysis of “Problems with Strieber and The Key”:
In all honesty, I tried to read the article, but I only made it through the first 18 pages. Once the author began injecting him/herself into the narrative, it became apparent that it was going to degenerate into a vanity piece. I know, it’s not entirely fair to judge the piece on just a small portion of the text, but if the introduction on the host webpage and the first 18 pages were emblematic of the remaining 300-some-odd pages (and I’m still stymied that someone would waste that much time on it), then I definitely had better — and more coherent — things to waste my time on.
But before I reached that point, a flaw fatal to the author’s premise quickly became apparent: their approach was from the assumption that Whitley had written the Key as fiction presented as fact, with the expectation that it would follow the more solid continuity and language that fictional dialogues take. And from that biased angle, it’s easy to pick the book apart.
But if The Key is taken as an after-the-fact reconstruction of an actual two-hour conversation, the inconsistencies make much more sense — something that at no point appears to have occurred to the article’s author. The author also tries to nitpick inconsistencies in Whitley’s interviews and Journal entries, positing that subjective inconsistencies and lapses in decade-old memories are evidence of fabrication. As it is, I’d imagine Whitley’s task of not only remembering the entirety of the conversation, years after the fact, but also arranging it in a format that would make sense to a reader was a daunting task.
As it is, it’s apparent that the article’s author is reading not only way too much into the text of The Key, he/she is also reading what they want into it. So, no, this article cannot be the basis of an “honest discussion”, unless we address the author’s bias, and resulting cognitive dissonance, first.
And I would consider it a courtesy if no-one were to mistake that as an invitation for such a discussion: as it is, I had to think long and hard as to whether or not I should wade this far into the manure pile. As it is, I’ve had to deal with far too many crises that were genuinely traumatic to the people I care about over the past few years, to the point where I have little tolerance for dealing with trivial, imaginary issues like this. And the author’s issues with Whitley are, as Anne would so eloquently put it, “bullshit”.
As for that excerpt from page 334, if those quotes are taken as absolutes, then yes, Whitley appears to have oversold what the book is about. But once again, the article’s author is reading what they want into it, and not realizing that at no point do those quotes refer to The Key in its entirety. Yes, many of the ideas in the book weren’t necessarily new, and probably not even exclusive to students of Gurdjieff either, but the ones that were new were definitely bombshells.
From Heinrich Moltke:
”
Frank
From Heinrich Moltke:
”
Frank Lloyd Wright was once asked whether he participated in the great long tradition of American showmen, whether given his flamboyance he wasn’t a bit of a “charlatan”.
Wright responded (paraphrasing): I’ve only been a charlatan to the extent that I’ve had to get my work before the public.
Let’s be honest about what is happening here, the situation we’re seeing unfold. This website, as reflected in many of these comments, is a co-dependency relationship. Whitley Strieber, under the cloak of the natural ambiguity of many otherworldly experiences – some of which he’s had – dreams up in addition to the real ones a variety of unreal experiences in his imagination. There are always self-serving aspects subtly embedded in these imaginary experiences. His implant ‘protects’ him from mind control. He’s the recipient of world-historical messages. The higher levels all care about his childhood memories, what books he’s reading, the state of his soul after he dies. He describes these – invented – experiences that nobody has experienced anything like in great detail, though the details shift and spin like they would when they are imagined and re-imagined. In 1998, for example, The Master of the Key was 4.5 feet tall in a military-style uniform; he got up in the middle of the conversation and walked out. He also told Strieber the name of the book he should write, told Strieber the date and time of his death, and so on, all of which fell away from later accounts in which he sharpened and improved his imaginary scenario.
Of course, all this is true and more. But then there are fans who enable him. In a true co-dependent fashion, they applaud and cheer on ‘Whitley’. They accept intellectually bankrupt defenses of his, saying ‘We love you anyway, Whitley’. This is what this website – and these comments – are about. For some, it’s enough to repeat whatever the Great Man says in the hopes of a pat on the head like a puppy. They love Whitley. And Whitley loves them. Which is why over the course of the last twenty years, Strieber’s work has become a weaker and weaker distillation into one’s man’s plea to be loved. Whatever the confusion. Everyone else is to blame for the problems with his work, says Whitley. It was South Park’s rectal probe joke that sank his books sales – not his participating with Art Bell in the Hale Bopp fiasco. Bad reviews on Strieber’s later novels? Social engineering. Differences between the two editions of ‘The Key’? Sinister forces. Not a confused author who can’t tell what he revised and what he didn’t.
There is no real difference between this site, its main figures (Strieber, Vaeni) along with some of its fans – and the worst in UFOlogy. For all of the self-love that this site tries to stir up in its own heart about how open-minded it is, how it loves to live in the question, the true colors of its participants have been shown and are now on display for the world to see. What’s the response after all to a solid research paper? Strieber advances in his usual quasi-hysterical fashion that he ‘knows’ the author to be an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi treated for mental illness. Vaeni, defender of the faith, throws sand in the eyes of everyone by insisting it’s a troll – don’t even bother reading it, says Vaeni. Matthew Frizzell, who works for the site and is therefore certainly objective, read just enough until he found there was a reason he could plausibly cite to quit reading: the author used the first-person pronoun ‘I’ in giving background on his involvement in the book’s censorship fiasco in 2011.
The extent that I have ‘trolled’ here is precisely the extent to which this site – and many of its fans – is a hostile venue, committed to irrationality. It’s plain for the world to see. Not only am I called a neo-Nazi for daring to question Strieber who oozes innuendo but who – to be fair – is often confused and captivated by lurid notions – but then there’s a witchhunt as to who ‘Heinrich Moltke’ is. JimmyPx declares Steve44 to be a Heinrich sockpuppet. Jeremy Vaeni declares Jean Vaysse a Heinrich sockpuppet.
Here’s an insight: you’re trolling yourselves. Jeremy Vaeni was the one to bring up trolling. And now, because this is an irrational environment heavily invested in ‘Whitley’, willing to rationalize its own biases and to accept his, there’s a high degree of hysterical butthurt.
As for Strieber, his defense(s) so far wouldn’t impress anyone outside this website. Quoting the 2011 Tarcher, he’s able to point to a caveat about the reality of the encounter. But here’s a thought: if over 12 years in books, Journals, and interviews, you write about: a) how the man entered the room; b) what he looked like; c) what he said; d) how he talked; e) how he made you feel; f) how he left the room – and all of that can be shown as a vehicle for your own literary exploration – just because you add a caveat about your imagination doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem with imagination.
One needn’t really look further than the two accounts of the Whitman shooting Strieber gave (1983 and 1985) to see confabulation in action. Strieber said he saw a little boy on a bicycle who got his head blown off. But the youngest male victim was Mark Gabour, aged 16, who died inside the building. Strieber’s mother, according to Ed Conroy, said he was in Austin that day but not at the scene of the shooting.
You can try to frame this as an us-vs-them, black-vs-white debate as much as you like. My interpretation of Strieber’s work doesn’t suggest he’s a conscious liar or run of the mill fraud. Rather, just like he’s complained in almost all of his non-fiction, he has a chronic problem with confabulation, and it’s often done in the service of his own ego. Take a look at the prophecy in The Secret School (p 522-524 in the paper) where Strieber says in a memory of a past life in an antediluvial civilization that he knew – whereas our current age did not – that the core of the earth was a giant single crystal, and that the earth vibrates when struck (e.g. meteor). One finds in the New York Times published the same year Strieber was writing The Secret School a story about a scientist who believed the core of the earth was a giant single crystal and that the earth vibrates when struck.
We know Strieber is always poring over the science news in NYT and other periodicals because he quotes from them constantly. What would possess someone to re-purpose a science article in the NYT as one of his own visions? Well, look at the way it functions: to paint a picture of him as some with inside knowledge or special insight. This has been Strieber from the beginning. The sudden climate change scenario in ‘The Key’ is lifted in its entirety from the piece “The Great Climate Flip-flop” by William H. Calvin in The Atlantic Monthly. Strieber cites this as something he found ‘after’ the fact, but this is how it works. He reads all this material, has an experience he needs to support, then tells himself he’s only discovered it post facto. Look at the claim by the Master of the Key about nitrous oxide as a gas that will ‘bear memory’. Strieber got the name wrong: *nitric* oxide is a gas widely publicized in the ’90s as having an important role in human memory. It’s diffuse in the nervous system and holds memory in a ‘non-local’ way. People were doing simulations called ‘gas nets’ studying the behavior of nitric oxide and its role in memory and cognition. So nitric oxide will ‘bear memory’.
This is why the paper is over 300+ pages. It’s a patient chronicle of the confusion. And here’s something: no one else among his devoted fans bothered to put in the work. Jeremy Vaeni certainly didn’t. With each attempt here at character assassination, all the cheap smears, the refusal to engage with what is an unanswerable case, certain people are just making themselves look bad. They are digging themselves in deeper, further establishing this Strieber universe as a ghetto of the mind. I, for one, find it hard to believe that – as Strieber has said – he saw strange trades in the lead-up to 9/11, knew when the first plane struck that morning that the building was going to come down, knew that Building 7 would come down that very morning because of CIA presence there. I don’t accept that he was awakened in the early morning hours to see the ‘drones’, heard the booms from the sky (two occasions), saw his ‘first’ cattle mutilations two separate times (see the quotes). I also don’t accept that a man who spoke with the voice of God showed up in 1998 in the middle of the night to give Strieber sharpened, more concise versions of his own ideas and that Strieber never noticed.
There is a difference between sincerity and honesty. Strieber is depressingly sincere, and everything he says is in brutal earnest. But this doesn’t mean he’s honest. An examination of his work shows he’s far from it. His work is shot through with the same human BS that all of us suffer from (and inflict on others).
My hope is that some of his fans will read the paper and benefit from seeing Strieber’s work, such as it is, put in an objective light. Not this soft religion where just because Strieber sounds very sincere, and just because some people have real experiences, we must overlook all of his self-serving BS.
Best of luck.
”
From Heinrich Moltke:
”
Frank
From Heinrich Moltke:
”
Frank Lloyd Wright was once asked whether he participated in the great long tradition of American showmen, whether given his flamboyance he wasn’t a bit of a “charlatan”.
Wright responded (paraphrasing): I’ve only been a charlatan to the extent that I’ve had to get my work before the public.
Let’s be honest about what is happening here, the situation we’re seeing unfold. This website, as reflected in many of these comments, is a co-dependency relationship. Whitley Strieber, under the cloak of the natural ambiguity of many otherworldly experiences – some of which he’s had – dreams up in addition to the real ones a variety of unreal experiences in his imagination. There are always self-serving aspects subtly embedded in these imaginary experiences. His implant ‘protects’ him from mind control. He’s the recipient of world-historical messages. The higher levels all care about his childhood memories, what books he’s reading, the state of his soul after he dies. He describes these – invented – experiences that nobody has experienced anything like in great detail, though the details shift and spin like they would when they are imagined and re-imagined. In 1998, for example, The Master of the Key was 4.5 feet tall in a military-style uniform; he got up in the middle of the conversation and walked out. He also told Strieber the name of the book he should write, told Strieber the date and time of his death, and so on, all of which fell away from later accounts in which he sharpened and improved his imaginary scenario.
Of course, all this is true and more. But then there are fans who enable him. In a true co-dependent fashion, they applaud and cheer on ‘Whitley’. They accept intellectually bankrupt defenses of his, saying ‘We love you anyway, Whitley’. This is what this website – and these comments – are about. For some, it’s enough to repeat whatever the Great Man says in the hopes of a pat on the head like a puppy. They love Whitley. And Whitley loves them. Which is why over the course of the last twenty years, Strieber’s work has become a weaker and weaker distillation into one’s man’s plea to be loved. Whatever the confusion. Everyone else is to blame for the problems with his work, says Whitley. It was South Park’s rectal probe joke that sank his books sales – not his participating with Art Bell in the Hale Bopp fiasco. Bad reviews on Strieber’s later novels? Social engineering. Differences between the two editions of ‘The Key’? Sinister forces. Not a confused author who can’t tell what he revised and what he didn’t.
There is no real difference between this site, its main figures (Strieber, Vaeni) along with some of its fans – and the worst in UFOlogy. For all of the self-love that this site tries to stir up in its own heart about how open-minded it is, how it loves to live in the question, the true colors of its participants have been shown and are now on display for the world to see. What’s the response after all to a solid research paper? Strieber advances in his usual quasi-hysterical fashion that he ‘knows’ the author to be an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi treated for mental illness. Vaeni, defender of the faith, throws sand in the eyes of everyone by insisting it’s a troll – don’t even bother reading it, says Vaeni. Matthew Frizzell, who works for the site and is therefore certainly objective, read just enough until he found there was a reason he could plausibly cite to quit reading: the author used the first-person pronoun ‘I’ in giving background on his involvement in the book’s censorship fiasco in 2011.
The extent that I have ‘trolled’ here is precisely the extent to which this site – and many of its fans – is a hostile venue, committed to irrationality. It’s plain for the world to see. Not only am I called a neo-Nazi for daring to question Strieber who oozes innuendo but who – to be fair – is often confused and captivated by lurid notions – but then there’s a witchhunt as to who ‘Heinrich Moltke’ is. JimmyPx declares Steve44 to be a Heinrich sockpuppet. Jeremy Vaeni declares Jean Vaysse a Heinrich sockpuppet.
Here’s an insight: you’re trolling yourselves. Jeremy Vaeni was the one to bring up trolling. And now, because this is an irrational environment heavily invested in ‘Whitley’, willing to rationalize its own biases and to accept his, there’s a high degree of hysterical butthurt.
As for Strieber, his defense(s) so far wouldn’t impress anyone outside this website. Quoting the 2011 Tarcher, he’s able to point to a caveat about the reality of the encounter. But here’s a thought: if over 12 years in books, Journals, and interviews, you write about: a) how the man entered the room; b) what he looked like; c) what he said; d) how he talked; e) how he made you feel; f) how he left the room – and all of that can be shown as a vehicle for your own literary exploration – just because you add a caveat about your imagination doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem with imagination.
One needn’t really look further than the two accounts of the Whitman shooting Strieber gave (1983 and 1985) to see confabulation in action. Strieber said he saw a little boy on a bicycle who got his head blown off. But the youngest male victim was Mark Gabour, aged 16, who died inside the building. Strieber’s mother, according to Ed Conroy, said he was in Austin that day but not at the scene of the shooting.
You can try to frame this as an us-vs-them, black-vs-white debate as much as you like. My interpretation of Strieber’s work doesn’t suggest he’s a conscious liar or run of the mill fraud. Rather, just like he’s complained in almost all of his non-fiction, he has a chronic problem with confabulation, and it’s often done in the service of his own ego. Take a look at the prophecy in The Secret School (p 522-524 in the paper) where Strieber says in a memory of a past life in an antediluvial civilization that he knew – whereas our current age did not – that the core of the earth was a giant single crystal, and that the earth vibrates when struck (e.g. meteor). One finds in the New York Times published the same year Strieber was writing The Secret School a story about a scientist who believed the core of the earth was a giant single crystal and that the earth vibrates when struck.
We know Strieber is always poring over the science news in NYT and other periodicals because he quotes from them constantly. What would possess someone to re-purpose a science article in the NYT as one of his own visions? Well, look at the way it functions: to paint a picture of him as some with inside knowledge or special insight. This has been Strieber from the beginning. The sudden climate change scenario in ‘The Key’ is lifted in its entirety from the piece “The Great Climate Flip-flop” by William H. Calvin in The Atlantic Monthly. Strieber cites this as something he found ‘after’ the fact, but this is how it works. He reads all this material, has an experience he needs to support, then tells himself he’s only discovered it post facto. Look at the claim by the Master of the Key about nitrous oxide as a gas that will ‘bear memory’. Strieber got the name wrong: *nitric* oxide is a gas widely publicized in the ’90s as having an important role in human memory. It’s diffuse in the nervous system and holds memory in a ‘non-local’ way. People were doing simulations called ‘gas nets’ studying the behavior of nitric oxide and its role in memory and cognition. So nitric oxide will ‘bear memory’.
This is why the paper is over 300+ pages. It’s a patient chronicle of the confusion. And here’s something: no one else among his devoted fans bothered to put in the work. Jeremy Vaeni certainly didn’t. With each attempt here at character assassination, all the cheap smears, the refusal to engage with what is an unanswerable case, certain people are just making themselves look bad. They are digging themselves in deeper, further establishing this Strieber universe as a ghetto of the mind. I, for one, find it hard to believe that – as Strieber has said – he saw strange trades in the lead-up to 9/11, knew when the first plane struck that morning that the building was going to come down, knew that Building 7 would come down that very morning because of CIA presence there. I don’t accept that he was awakened in the early morning hours to see the ‘drones’, heard the booms from the sky (two occasions), saw his ‘first’ cattle mutilations two separate times (see the quotes). I also don’t accept that a man who spoke with the voice of God showed up in 1998 in the middle of the night to give Strieber sharpened, more concise versions of his own ideas and that Strieber never noticed.
There is a difference between sincerity and honesty. Strieber is depressingly sincere, and everything he says is in brutal earnest. But this doesn’t mean he’s honest. An examination of his work shows he’s far from it. His work is shot through with the same human BS that all of us suffer from (and inflict on others).
My hope is that some of his fans will read the paper and benefit from seeing Strieber’s work, such as it is, put in an objective light. Not this soft religion where just because Strieber sounds very sincere, and just because some people have real experiences, we must overlook all of his self-serving BS.
Best of luck.
”
@Srava
Do you work with the
@Srava
Do you work with the government or some agency that is trying to direct attention away from such tremendous insights noted throughout The Key? I cannot understand why anyone would spend so much time to debunk The Key and discredit Whitley unless there was a specific motive, i.e. you are getting paid to discredit his work??
Whitley has always left open the question of who the Master of The Key was and the same applies to the Visitors and everything else Whitley has discussed ever since Communion was published. Open minds…
I suspect we at U.C. are hitting upon some very real Super-Natural matters, Super-Natural matters that certain individuals / institutions do not want the larger community to be involved with. Why? because we here at U.C. are empowered and do not subscribe to the garbage being forced down our throats by such individuals / institutions…many at this site have had similar experiences so I think you are barking up the wrong tree…
@Srava
Do you work with the
@Srava
Do you work with the government or some agency that is trying to direct attention away from such tremendous insights noted throughout The Key? I cannot understand why anyone would spend so much time to debunk The Key and discredit Whitley unless there was a specific motive, i.e. you are getting paid to discredit his work??
Whitley has always left open the question of who the Master of The Key was and the same applies to the Visitors and everything else Whitley has discussed ever since Communion was published. Open minds…
I suspect we at U.C. are hitting upon some very real Super-Natural matters, Super-Natural matters that certain individuals / institutions do not want the larger community to be involved with. Why? because we here at U.C. are empowered and do not subscribe to the garbage being forced down our throats by such individuals / institutions…many at this site have had similar experiences so I think you are barking up the wrong tree…
From Heinrich Moltke:
”
I
From Heinrich Moltke:
”
I have a few confessions to make. I make them now because my time is short. This whole sick, sad operation is being folded up, and rather than getting the rewards I was promised, I’ve learned I may not make it through the week.
In 2007, I was fresh out of NYU with an M.A. in comparative literature. I was offered what I thought was an incredibly strange job by a man and a woman who approached me at the graduation ceremony. Before I was even able to find my parents in the crowd, they cornered me, and the way they looked at me and talked, it pinned me to the spot.
They said they wanted me help them in a project. It was part literary analysis – my speciality – and part technology. They wanted me to analyze and write papers for them on the works of a certain famous author (they wouldn’t say who), but at the same time, do field research as a kind of anthropologist by participating on that author’s website, its online forum, etc.
There’s something you should know about me that explains my keen reluctance to participate in all this. My parents and grandparents are all German. My paternal grandfather was a Silesian and a National Socialist. My grandmother was the head nurse and at the height of the war, superintendant at Beelitz, the German Army hospital. While my parents, having been raised in the US, had disavowed all National Socialist connections, in my time at NYU I’d re-discovered my heritage, unlearning all of the propaganda about Hitler and the Third Reich (history is always written by the victors). I was very sympathetic to the idea of eugenics and selective breeding – why wouldn’t you want humanity to succeed? – and this was especially true when I looked around me at NYU and saw a number of bi-racial, half-bred mongrels with their dreadlocks and their drug use and their desecration of white girls, destroying their virtue.
I did not want to work for the corrupt US government. I did not want to be a pawn of Israel and of the Jews. I begged off the offer. But a month or so later, into July, I was walking back home one afternoon. There they were again – this same woman and man – on the steps of the brownstone. Now, this is a neighborhood where at the wrong time of day, if you looked like a cop you might get shot at or at least shouted at. But they didn’t seem to care. They stood out like sore thumbs.
I went inside – and I let them in. I don’t know why. But it’s what you do when somebody’s will is stronger than yours. I’ll never forget it, but the man in this duo, I’ll never forget – he just laughed at my apartment. The way he laughed at it, I think somehow it set the scene for what followed.
The woman started going on about my student loans. She knew the balance, knew the interest. She knew my monthly payments. She knew how much it would cost over years just to pay down the interest, let alone the principal. This weirded me out. But more than that, she had figures as to just how much a job would have to pay me in order for me to be able to cover the payments and keep living in the city.
It was ridiculous. I wouldn’t be able to pay it. I started to wonder how anybody could. She told me they knew all about my politics, my worldview, and to them – it was irrelevant. They flattered my vanity by saying they wanted my skills, and said my national socialist views would be a bonus: it meant that I’d remain an objective outsider to what was happening on the site where I’d spend my time.
To this day, I don’t know why, I accepted.
So starting in 2007, I began following the work of Whitley Strieber with real interest. I started combing through his provocative and challenging books. They were, I’ll admit, like nothing I’d ever read. Here was a man who was plainly sincere, beset on all sides by people trying to tear him down. Clearly he had had real experiences. It was only the short-sightedness of our sick society – its fearfulness and cowardliness – that people would not accept the evident truth of what he was writing. I’d read a lot of philosophers – Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche – but none of them had the foresight, and frankly the strength of character that this humble, modest writer possessed.
I dug into Strieber’s work in real earnest. I also participated at the UC.com forum under my real name. I was instructed to do so. After my job began, the woman who had initially convinced me to sign on disappeared and I only had contact with the man.
He was a real *sshole. He wanted reports on the UC.com forum 2-3 times weekly. The reports I wrote – very well-written ones I’d add – were never satisfactory. Sometimes the reports were totally unnecessary. Why not just read the forum? I sometimes asked him. He didn’t like this kind of questioning.
Over the next 2-3 years, I also wrote reports on Strieber’s books. I started at the very beginning with The Wolfen – a fine, tautly written thriller – that I could tell was packed under the surface with deep insight. These reports were an awful challenge. Even though I was a good writer, they didn’t seem to want nuanced interpretation of the sort I’d been trained in my department to provide. They wanted bureaucratic-style reports with a lot of repetition and redundancy. Very frequently reports of mine would get sent back to me, with the man telling me to revise them and to repeat a certain sentence multiple times. Why repeat the same sentence over and over? It was baffling.
My work continued, and I got decent pay. Certainly not enough to get rich. But student loans were – incredibly – no longer a heavy burden. That part just amazed me. I don’t mind admitting it felt just wonderful.
But all this took a turn in 2011. I was on the verge of getting to ‘The Key’ anyway – I think by that point I’d only just barely made it through ‘Breakthrough’ and may have been revising the report. Anyway, when the 2011 Tarcher came out, I happened upon it in a bookstore, and doing something I never did with Strieber’s books, I flipped through it there at the B&N. Then I saw the comments about the Holocaust.
This enraged me. Not only did the Holocaust never even happen, far fewer were killed in it than the Zionists and their agents claim. Worse, more German Army soldiers were killed in camps after the war ended than any Jews were ever killed – by far.
My admiration for Strieber now felt cheap. I always thought he was a man apart, a man who alone had been chosen by the Greys – who I thought may actually have been the Master race from the future given their perfect mastery and their perfect genetics – to gently lead mankind to contact. Now it was clear he was just a shill and an agent of Israel.
So I developed a hatred for Strieber. I began studying ‘The Key’ in earnest. I spent all my spare time picking it apart. My handler at first passed on his bosses’ severe disapproval at me having skipped the Global Superstorm book. But very quickly, his attitude changed, he dropped the disapproval, and was suddenly urging me to continue. He encouraged me.
I found a variety of places where there were echoes of Strieber’s past work. Clearly, since Strieber had the inside track on what was going on with God, the soul, the grays, the Master of the Key when he showed up would be speaking Strieber’s language. Still, these parallels could all be used to discredit Strieber.
One day I saw online that someone had brought to Strieber’s attention that there were differences between the two editions of ‘The Key’. I was puzzled, and put this to my handler. He only smiled and advised me they had ‘taken care of it’. He said that along with my forum participation, I should consider writing a few essays online about the subject to ‘gauge’ (the word he used) how the UC.com online community would react. I did so.
From 2011 to 2016, the focus of my work on Strieber has been ‘The Key’. I couldn’t forgive Strieber for his ties to Israel. But I do recognize ‘The Key’ – apart from its Hebrew subtext – as a superlative masterpiece. I composed the most crushing critique I could. In March 2017, it was released online. I objected to it being under my real name. But my handler reassured me and said I had no choice.
It’s been ten years since I started this strange work. I’m no longer a post-grad. I’m a grown-up. And what’s happened since March has sort of horrified me so that I no longer want any part of this.
Two days after the paper went online that I’d spent a year writing, there was a knock at my door. It was my handler, just as I thought. But he was accompanied by three young women. These women were attractive, in their early twenties, blond and blue-eyed. They didn’t speak.
I was sort of shocked to see my handler produce out of nowhere a Ouija board and lay it out on the table. It was just like any cheap, department store Ouija board you could find. I could bus to Wal-mart and pick one up probably that was identical.
He also brought out a yellow legal pad and a ball-point pen. He told me that the girls were to assist in my using the Ouija board. He set the paper and pen off to the side. The girls put their hands on the planchette. I thought this was all absurd. And I was startled for a split-second when I realized that one of the girls looked just like my mother at a young age. I knew that she had been chosen just for this reason.
I put my hands on the planchette. And the instant I did, my handler said: ‘You’re contacting Anne Strieber.’
This was unbelievable. But our hands were in motion. I liked the soft touch of the girls’ fingers encircling mine. I wouldn’t be able to say no.
Sure enough, in almost no time, meaningful complete sentences came through the board. There was no way to tell whether this was Anne Strieber or not. But after each complete sentence was spelled out, the handler would interrupt, break off the communication and force me to get up and go over to the legal pad and write down the message. I said to him: why don’t we just record it? I had an iPhone. He said no. I said: at least let me type it. He got angry. I stopped challenging him.
After about twenty minutes of wild, hectic gripping of this planchette, the communication stopped. I don’t recall now whether the handler said that was enough first or whether she just stopped coming through. But the whole thing ended of its own accord.
The handler tore off the page, and the girls got up and with him made an exit. Not one of them said goodbye or even looked at me.
For probably an hour I was baffled. But then I realized that even though he’d taken the page, and the pen was nowhere to be found, the pad was still there. So I did the old trick of rubbing a pencil lead on it. You didn’t really need to as the writing was clear enough.
Here is what it said:
“This is Anne.
Whitley, why did you restart my diary? Why are you putting your own words in my mouth?
You know you’ve written about human life being a ‘living tapestry’ many times. Why did you say that I called human life a ‘living carpet’?
Why are you filling my diary up with Gurdjieff?
Why are you telling our fans that I sound so much wiser now – now that I sound like you?
Don’t the fans know I’m not co-hosting Dreamland with you?
What do people think of you using me as a mouthpiece for your own ideas now that I’m dead? Don’t they realize it’s your imagination?
This is Anne, signing off.”
That was the way the communication ended.
Since that time, I’ve felt a deep sense of dread. I can’t get in touch with my handler. I am being followed by people I don’t recognize.
All I can say for penance and to make amends is that I’m sorry. Sorry to Whitley, sorry to Unknowncountry. The fires of my conscience are destroying me. I’ve developed skin rashes and I’ve been spitting up bile.
I know my life is almost ended. I feel nothing but the blackness of my own anguish and regret. All I can say is: listen to Dreamland every week. And that like Whitley, I think each episode is literally the most important Dreamland he’s ever done.
”
Just sayin!
Chinese
Just sayin!
Chinese Proverb
“The longer the explanation, the bigger the lie.”
From Heinrich Moltke:
”
I
From Heinrich Moltke:
”
I have a few confessions to make. I make them now because my time is short. This whole sick, sad operation is being folded up, and rather than getting the rewards I was promised, I’ve learned I may not make it through the week.
In 2007, I was fresh out of NYU with an M.A. in comparative literature. I was offered what I thought was an incredibly strange job by a man and a woman who approached me at the graduation ceremony. Before I was even able to find my parents in the crowd, they cornered me, and the way they looked at me and talked, it pinned me to the spot.
They said they wanted me help them in a project. It was part literary analysis – my speciality – and part technology. They wanted me to analyze and write papers for them on the works of a certain famous author (they wouldn’t say who), but at the same time, do field research as a kind of anthropologist by participating on that author’s website, its online forum, etc.
There’s something you should know about me that explains my keen reluctance to participate in all this. My parents and grandparents are all German. My paternal grandfather was a Silesian and a National Socialist. My grandmother was the head nurse and at the height of the war, superintendant at Beelitz, the German Army hospital. While my parents, having been raised in the US, had disavowed all National Socialist connections, in my time at NYU I’d re-discovered my heritage, unlearning all of the propaganda about Hitler and the Third Reich (history is always written by the victors). I was very sympathetic to the idea of eugenics and selective breeding – why wouldn’t you want humanity to succeed? – and this was especially true when I looked around me at NYU and saw a number of bi-racial, half-bred mongrels with their dreadlocks and their drug use and their desecration of white girls, destroying their virtue.
I did not want to work for the corrupt US government. I did not want to be a pawn of Israel and of the Jews. I begged off the offer. But a month or so later, into July, I was walking back home one afternoon. There they were again – this same woman and man – on the steps of the brownstone. Now, this is a neighborhood where at the wrong time of day, if you looked like a cop you might get shot at or at least shouted at. But they didn’t seem to care. They stood out like sore thumbs.
I went inside – and I let them in. I don’t know why. But it’s what you do when somebody’s will is stronger than yours. I’ll never forget it, but the man in this duo, I’ll never forget – he just laughed at my apartment. The way he laughed at it, I think somehow it set the scene for what followed.
The woman started going on about my student loans. She knew the balance, knew the interest. She knew my monthly payments. She knew how much it would cost over years just to pay down the interest, let alone the principal. This weirded me out. But more than that, she had figures as to just how much a job would have to pay me in order for me to be able to cover the payments and keep living in the city.
It was ridiculous. I wouldn’t be able to pay it. I started to wonder how anybody could. She told me they knew all about my politics, my worldview, and to them – it was irrelevant. They flattered my vanity by saying they wanted my skills, and said my national socialist views would be a bonus: it meant that I’d remain an objective outsider to what was happening on the site where I’d spend my time.
To this day, I don’t know why, I accepted.
So starting in 2007, I began following the work of Whitley Strieber with real interest. I started combing through his provocative and challenging books. They were, I’ll admit, like nothing I’d ever read. Here was a man who was plainly sincere, beset on all sides by people trying to tear him down. Clearly he had had real experiences. It was only the short-sightedness of our sick society – its fearfulness and cowardliness – that people would not accept the evident truth of what he was writing. I’d read a lot of philosophers – Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche – but none of them had the foresight, and frankly the strength of character that this humble, modest writer possessed.
I dug into Strieber’s work in real earnest. I also participated at the UC.com forum under my real name. I was instructed to do so. After my job began, the woman who had initially convinced me to sign on disappeared and I only had contact with the man.
He was a real *sshole. He wanted reports on the UC.com forum 2-3 times weekly. The reports I wrote – very well-written ones I’d add – were never satisfactory. Sometimes the reports were totally unnecessary. Why not just read the forum? I sometimes asked him. He didn’t like this kind of questioning.
Over the next 2-3 years, I also wrote reports on Strieber’s books. I started at the very beginning with The Wolfen – a fine, tautly written thriller – that I could tell was packed under the surface with deep insight. These reports were an awful challenge. Even though I was a good writer, they didn’t seem to want nuanced interpretation of the sort I’d been trained in my department to provide. They wanted bureaucratic-style reports with a lot of repetition and redundancy. Very frequently reports of mine would get sent back to me, with the man telling me to revise them and to repeat a certain sentence multiple times. Why repeat the same sentence over and over? It was baffling.
My work continued, and I got decent pay. Certainly not enough to get rich. But student loans were – incredibly – no longer a heavy burden. That part just amazed me. I don’t mind admitting it felt just wonderful.
But all this took a turn in 2011. I was on the verge of getting to ‘The Key’ anyway – I think by that point I’d only just barely made it through ‘Breakthrough’ and may have been revising the report. Anyway, when the 2011 Tarcher came out, I happened upon it in a bookstore, and doing something I never did with Strieber’s books, I flipped through it there at the B&N. Then I saw the comments about the Holocaust.
This enraged me. Not only did the Holocaust never even happen, far fewer were killed in it than the Zionists and their agents claim. Worse, more German Army soldiers were killed in camps after the war ended than any Jews were ever killed – by far.
My admiration for Strieber now felt cheap. I always thought he was a man apart, a man who alone had been chosen by the Greys – who I thought may actually have been the Master race from the future given their perfect mastery and their perfect genetics – to gently lead mankind to contact. Now it was clear he was just a shill and an agent of Israel.
So I developed a hatred for Strieber. I began studying ‘The Key’ in earnest. I spent all my spare time picking it apart. My handler at first passed on his bosses’ severe disapproval at me having skipped the Global Superstorm book. But very quickly, his attitude changed, he dropped the disapproval, and was suddenly urging me to continue. He encouraged me.
I found a variety of places where there were echoes of Strieber’s past work. Clearly, since Strieber had the inside track on what was going on with God, the soul, the grays, the Master of the Key when he showed up would be speaking Strieber’s language. Still, these parallels could all be used to discredit Strieber.
One day I saw online that someone had brought to Strieber’s attention that there were differences between the two editions of ‘The Key’. I was puzzled, and put this to my handler. He only smiled and advised me they had ‘taken care of it’. He said that along with my forum participation, I should consider writing a few essays online about the subject to ‘gauge’ (the word he used) how the UC.com online community would react. I did so.
From 2011 to 2016, the focus of my work on Strieber has been ‘The Key’. I couldn’t forgive Strieber for his ties to Israel. But I do recognize ‘The Key’ – apart from its Hebrew subtext – as a superlative masterpiece. I composed the most crushing critique I could. In March 2017, it was released online. I objected to it being under my real name. But my handler reassured me and said I had no choice.
It’s been ten years since I started this strange work. I’m no longer a post-grad. I’m a grown-up. And what’s happened since March has sort of horrified me so that I no longer want any part of this.
Two days after the paper went online that I’d spent a year writing, there was a knock at my door. It was my handler, just as I thought. But he was accompanied by three young women. These women were attractive, in their early twenties, blond and blue-eyed. They didn’t speak.
I was sort of shocked to see my handler produce out of nowhere a Ouija board and lay it out on the table. It was just like any cheap, department store Ouija board you could find. I could bus to Wal-mart and pick one up probably that was identical.
He also brought out a yellow legal pad and a ball-point pen. He told me that the girls were to assist in my using the Ouija board. He set the paper and pen off to the side. The girls put their hands on the planchette. I thought this was all absurd. And I was startled for a split-second when I realized that one of the girls looked just like my mother at a young age. I knew that she had been chosen just for this reason.
I put my hands on the planchette. And the instant I did, my handler said: ‘You’re contacting Anne Strieber.’
This was unbelievable. But our hands were in motion. I liked the soft touch of the girls’ fingers encircling mine. I wouldn’t be able to say no.
Sure enough, in almost no time, meaningful complete sentences came through the board. There was no way to tell whether this was Anne Strieber or not. But after each complete sentence was spelled out, the handler would interrupt, break off the communication and force me to get up and go over to the legal pad and write down the message. I said to him: why don’t we just record it? I had an iPhone. He said no. I said: at least let me type it. He got angry. I stopped challenging him.
After about twenty minutes of wild, hectic gripping of this planchette, the communication stopped. I don’t recall now whether the handler said that was enough first or whether she just stopped coming through. But the whole thing ended of its own accord.
The handler tore off the page, and the girls got up and with him made an exit. Not one of them said goodbye or even looked at me.
For probably an hour I was baffled. But then I realized that even though he’d taken the page, and the pen was nowhere to be found, the pad was still there. So I did the old trick of rubbing a pencil lead on it. You didn’t really need to as the writing was clear enough.
Here is what it said:
“This is Anne.
Whitley, why did you restart my diary? Why are you putting your own words in my mouth?
You know you’ve written about human life being a ‘living tapestry’ many times. Why did you say that I called human life a ‘living carpet’?
Why are you filling my diary up with Gurdjieff?
Why are you telling our fans that I sound so much wiser now – now that I sound like you?
Don’t the fans know I’m not co-hosting Dreamland with you?
What do people think of you using me as a mouthpiece for your own ideas now that I’m dead? Don’t they realize it’s your imagination?
This is Anne, signing off.”
That was the way the communication ended.
Since that time, I’ve felt a deep sense of dread. I can’t get in touch with my handler. I am being followed by people I don’t recognize.
All I can say for penance and to make amends is that I’m sorry. Sorry to Whitley, sorry to Unknowncountry. The fires of my conscience are destroying me. I’ve developed skin rashes and I’ve been spitting up bile.
I know my life is almost ended. I feel nothing but the blackness of my own anguish and regret. All I can say is: listen to Dreamland every week. And that like Whitley, I think each episode is literally the most important Dreamland he’s ever done.
”
Just sayin!
Chinese
Just sayin!
Chinese Proverb
“The longer the explanation, the bigger the lie.”
Ha HA Ha, Srava/Moltke,
Ha HA Ha, Srava/Moltke, Whatever…
Guess you thought the last laugh would be yours. I hope to G-d, nobody reads that last post and believes a word of it. Guess you saw that nobody was listening to your plea to read your 300-page self-serving treatise tearing down Whitley; so you’d give the fans what they want – a “confession” of your involvement with the dark side in a similar style to one of Whitley’s own stories with a good old Lovecraftian doom-ridden ending.
I think, in all truth, you are just someone who came to UC looking for answers and meaning, and heard the opposite of what you wanted or needed. It is you who are looking for a soft religion, not the loyal readers of this site who have varied interests and reasons for being here. It is you who wants a purpose to your existence and maybe you just didn’t get it here. Or maybe you did, and just don’t like the answer.
So you attack that which failed to live up to your expectations. Which is a shame because when we set our expectations too high, we always fall.
Do us a favor – sign off and use your considerable writing skills to create your own answers through fiction or fact. Tell the world your stories, your thoughts, your dreams – not attack someone else’s. Don’t block Whitley’s right to thrive – but find a way for you to thrive. In the end, act with love and not fear. We will all benefit from this.
Thanks.
Ha HA Ha, Srava/Moltke,
Ha HA Ha, Srava/Moltke, Whatever…
Guess you thought the last laugh would be yours. I hope to G-d, nobody reads that last post and believes a word of it. Guess you saw that nobody was listening to your plea to read your 300-page self-serving treatise tearing down Whitley; so you’d give the fans what they want – a “confession” of your involvement with the dark side in a similar style to one of Whitley’s own stories with a good old Lovecraftian doom-ridden ending.
I think, in all truth, you are just someone who came to UC looking for answers and meaning, and heard the opposite of what you wanted or needed. It is you who are looking for a soft religion, not the loyal readers of this site who have varied interests and reasons for being here. It is you who wants a purpose to your existence and maybe you just didn’t get it here. Or maybe you did, and just don’t like the answer.
So you attack that which failed to live up to your expectations. Which is a shame because when we set our expectations too high, we always fall.
Do us a favor – sign off and use your considerable writing skills to create your own answers through fiction or fact. Tell the world your stories, your thoughts, your dreams – not attack someone else’s. Don’t block Whitley’s right to thrive – but find a way for you to thrive. In the end, act with love and not fear. We will all benefit from this.
Thanks.
I know that I shouldn’t feed
I know that I shouldn’t feed a troll but I must say this.
Anyone denying the Holocaust instantly loses all credibility. The evidence that it happened is overwhelming and it is indeed a fact. Second, “Heinrich Moltke” really needs some help from a mental health professional.
I also have no doubt that certain groups do NOT want Whitley’s ideas about the afterlife and death being related to the Visitors to come out !! That does not fit into their World view and how would people change their actions if they knew without a shadow of a doubt that our souls live forever and our actions in this life have consequences ??
Finally “Heinrich Moltke”, how dare you try to besmirch Anne and Whitley’s connection to her !! I know several people whose soul mates passed over and they were still in contact with them. You are a pathetic individual and just need to go away.
I know that I shouldn’t feed
I know that I shouldn’t feed a troll but I must say this.
Anyone denying the Holocaust instantly loses all credibility. The evidence that it happened is overwhelming and it is indeed a fact. Second, “Heinrich Moltke” really needs some help from a mental health professional.
I also have no doubt that certain groups do NOT want Whitley’s ideas about the afterlife and death being related to the Visitors to come out !! That does not fit into their World view and how would people change their actions if they knew without a shadow of a doubt that our souls live forever and our actions in this life have consequences ??
Finally “Heinrich Moltke”, how dare you try to besmirch Anne and Whitley’s connection to her !! I know several people whose soul mates passed over and they were still in contact with them. You are a pathetic individual and just need to go away.
@Srava-
Should your
@Srava-
Should your confession be true, remember the words of the Key (paraphrased) “Forgiveness is everywhere”. This is true no matter what the archons and prevaricating spirits will want you and the rest of humanity to believe.
@Srava-
Should your
@Srava-
Should your confession be true, remember the words of the Key (paraphrased) “Forgiveness is everywhere”. This is true no matter what the archons and prevaricating spirits will want you and the rest of humanity to believe.
Yes, that was certainly a
Yes, that was certainly a 180º change in tact. But considering the constant disingenuine (and insultive) ranting that led up to it, and that the narrative of the story sounds like what someone would expect that our community wants to hear… I’m going to remain skeptical.
If the story were true, then I seriously doubt that that was Anne. Either way, the Ouija message is verifiable, as Anne has a code-phrase that Whitley can verify, something they set up to help ensure that someone isn’t misrepresenting her.
As Damon said, it’s not a matter of us blindly following Whitley, as many of us have had similar experiences to his, often involving the same secretive individuals. I’m one of those experiencers, and I’m far from alone here.
This isn’t a cult –although if Herr Moltke’s genuinely interested in taking down an actual predatory cult, I have a list of some notorious ones. I’ve visited cults, attended cult meetings, and made friends with members belonging to cults. I know the psychology. There’s some hero worship going on amongst some of Whit’s readers, that’s inevitable with such an accomplished author. And come to think of it, the few that have fallen into a cult-like mentality tend to leave, since they can’t bear the rest of the community’s reminder to keep an open mind…
Rather, Unknown Country is a community that Whitley and Anne had the foresight to found, after they came to the unexpected realization that people with similar experiences were legion — albeit segregated by a silence forced on them by a society too terrified to address the possibilities that their experiences implied.
And so, we’re here. Whitley’s here. And we ain’t goin’ nowhere, the community that Unknown Country is far to important to those of like experience: if it were to fold, it would mean the end of the last real refuge for experiencers like us, and also for those those seeking to expand their horizons. The Striebers might be the hub of this community, but this community considers them to be one of *us*.
Whitley’s true accomplishment here is that he stuck his neck out to communicate what he experienced — and then kept going after he learned the true viciousness that comes from a society that desperately doesn’t want to face what might really be going on. The publishing of Communion let countless thousands of experiencers realize that they weren’t alone.
So I do believe that I should thank Herr Moltke for his (or her) attempts at agitation: it almost seems like an orchestration conducted by our Visitors, aimed at reminding the members of Unknown Country about who we really are…
Yes, the sentiment is not new, but Whit’s prose puts it beautifully: “Remember that the air is never so sweet, nor thy wife so comely, nor thy child so beautiful, as after the battle won. We depend upon our enemy for the sweetness of our lives. Love your enemy, for he is your best friend. Without the darkness, you would never know the glory of the firmament.”
Yes, that was certainly a
Yes, that was certainly a 180º change in tact. But considering the constant disingenuine (and insultive) ranting that led up to it, and that the narrative of the story sounds like what someone would expect that our community wants to hear… I’m going to remain skeptical.
If the story were true, then I seriously doubt that that was Anne. Either way, the Ouija message is verifiable, as Anne has a code-phrase that Whitley can verify, something they set up to help ensure that someone isn’t misrepresenting her.
As Damon said, it’s not a matter of us blindly following Whitley, as many of us have had similar experiences to his, often involving the same secretive individuals. I’m one of those experiencers, and I’m far from alone here.
This isn’t a cult –although if Herr Moltke’s genuinely interested in taking down an actual predatory cult, I have a list of some notorious ones. I’ve visited cults, attended cult meetings, and made friends with members belonging to cults. I know the psychology. There’s some hero worship going on amongst some of Whit’s readers, that’s inevitable with such an accomplished author. And come to think of it, the few that have fallen into a cult-like mentality tend to leave, since they can’t bear the rest of the community’s reminder to keep an open mind…
Rather, Unknown Country is a community that Whitley and Anne had the foresight to found, after they came to the unexpected realization that people with similar experiences were legion — albeit segregated by a silence forced on them by a society too terrified to address the possibilities that their experiences implied.
And so, we’re here. Whitley’s here. And we ain’t goin’ nowhere, the community that Unknown Country is far to important to those of like experience: if it were to fold, it would mean the end of the last real refuge for experiencers like us, and also for those those seeking to expand their horizons. The Striebers might be the hub of this community, but this community considers them to be one of *us*.
Whitley’s true accomplishment here is that he stuck his neck out to communicate what he experienced — and then kept going after he learned the true viciousness that comes from a society that desperately doesn’t want to face what might really be going on. The publishing of Communion let countless thousands of experiencers realize that they weren’t alone.
So I do believe that I should thank Herr Moltke for his (or her) attempts at agitation: it almost seems like an orchestration conducted by our Visitors, aimed at reminding the members of Unknown Country about who we really are…
Yes, the sentiment is not new, but Whit’s prose puts it beautifully: “Remember that the air is never so sweet, nor thy wife so comely, nor thy child so beautiful, as after the battle won. We depend upon our enemy for the sweetness of our lives. Love your enemy, for he is your best friend. Without the darkness, you would never know the glory of the firmament.”
As briefly as I can write
As briefly as I can write this: Any reasonably intelligent, honest and fair minded reader of Whitley’s material as well as followers of this website know that WS has consistently and faithfully made it abundantly clear that separating hard fact from perception and misperception is a challenge. This whole “matter” is being miscast as a battle between someone perpetrating a fraud and on the other side that every word must be literally true. In fact, WS has gone to great pains to establish his long standing position that the Visitor Experience is intertwined with all sort of psychological/emotional/spiritual aspects that make it hard for him/us/anyone to definitively say that this is where the material originated. Painting with the broad brush of alleged fraud is absurd. I am not a sheeple, I have a logical, well developed mind, with a fairly good BS meter. At no point do I feel Whitley is being dishonest and attacks to that effect are baseless.
Whitley, as hard as it is, just ignore this nonsense. You deserve so much better than this crap.
Lou
As briefly as I can write
As briefly as I can write this: Any reasonably intelligent, honest and fair minded reader of Whitley’s material as well as followers of this website know that WS has consistently and faithfully made it abundantly clear that separating hard fact from perception and misperception is a challenge. This whole “matter” is being miscast as a battle between someone perpetrating a fraud and on the other side that every word must be literally true. In fact, WS has gone to great pains to establish his long standing position that the Visitor Experience is intertwined with all sort of psychological/emotional/spiritual aspects that make it hard for him/us/anyone to definitively say that this is where the material originated. Painting with the broad brush of alleged fraud is absurd. I am not a sheeple, I have a logical, well developed mind, with a fairly good BS meter. At no point do I feel Whitley is being dishonest and attacks to that effect are baseless.
Whitley, as hard as it is, just ignore this nonsense. You deserve so much better than this crap.
Lou
Heinrich-
That was one of the
Heinrich-
That was one of the cruelest things I’ve ever read on the internet. When you are done patting yourself on the back for your elite trolling skills, and your self-satisfied smile finally fades, I hope you take the time to consider that the people you converse with online are actual human beings.
I’ve had my own doubts about the UC people and the stories they tell, but the one thing that I could never doubt was the depth of the Striebers’ relationship. At the few conferences I attended, I saw them interact with each other and hoped that my own relationship would someday grow into something so rich and deep. I’m very fortunate to be able to say that we seem to be heading in that direction, and I can’t even begin to imagine the anguish I’m going to feel someday if i eventually lose her to illness in the twilight of our shared life.
You would be very lucky if you were to someday have the kind of life experiences that would teach you how cruel your current behavior is. Very lucky.
Is what you are doing worth it? Is the pleasure of trolling the credulous worth the level of cynicism you have to maintain in order to write something like that? Are you really willing to put so much careful effort and skill into something designed to deeply hurt a single person?
I see your post has been deleted now, and I sincerely hope that you felt a twinge of guilt, consulted your conscience, and deleted it yourself. But I doubt it.
Heinrich-
That was one of the
Heinrich-
That was one of the cruelest things I’ve ever read on the internet. When you are done patting yourself on the back for your elite trolling skills, and your self-satisfied smile finally fades, I hope you take the time to consider that the people you converse with online are actual human beings.
I’ve had my own doubts about the UC people and the stories they tell, but the one thing that I could never doubt was the depth of the Striebers’ relationship. At the few conferences I attended, I saw them interact with each other and hoped that my own relationship would someday grow into something so rich and deep. I’m very fortunate to be able to say that we seem to be heading in that direction, and I can’t even begin to imagine the anguish I’m going to feel someday if i eventually lose her to illness in the twilight of our shared life.
You would be very lucky if you were to someday have the kind of life experiences that would teach you how cruel your current behavior is. Very lucky.
Is what you are doing worth it? Is the pleasure of trolling the credulous worth the level of cynicism you have to maintain in order to write something like that? Are you really willing to put so much careful effort and skill into something designed to deeply hurt a single person?
I see your post has been deleted now, and I sincerely hope that you felt a twinge of guilt, consulted your conscience, and deleted it yourself. But I doubt it.
Okay, that’s bizarre.
All the
Okay, that’s bizarre.
All the posts by srava/Motlke have been deleted. So now, anyone reading this forum in the future will have no idea what the fuss was all about and the context of so many of the comments will be lost including those directed at the final “confession”.
One last trick by our notorious “trickster” element or did UC remove the posts when the subscription ended?
Anyway – it did get us all energized. I guess that is what the dark side is good at doing.
There is an old saying: “Comfort the disturbed but disturb the comfortable.” Well, maybe the actions of Heinrich, et al were needed to “disturb” us for some cosmic reason.
Okay, that’s bizarre.
All the
Okay, that’s bizarre.
All the posts by srava/Motlke have been deleted. So now, anyone reading this forum in the future will have no idea what the fuss was all about and the context of so many of the comments will be lost including those directed at the final “confession”.
One last trick by our notorious “trickster” element or did UC remove the posts when the subscription ended?
Anyway – it did get us all energized. I guess that is what the dark side is good at doing.
There is an old saying: “Comfort the disturbed but disturb the comfortable.” Well, maybe the actions of Heinrich, et al were needed to “disturb” us for some cosmic reason.
Some of my thoughts about the
Some of my thoughts about the Key:
– I have read Whitley’s original version but not the second version (Tarcher edition). I know some changes have been made. I was wondering if it is worthwhile to pick up the latest edition and re-read it.
– I strongly believe that this is and will remain Whitley’s most important work because it compelled us to look at ourselves instead of the Visitors. The question was turned around. I’ve said before that we’ll never know who the Visitors are until we first know who we are, and when we do, the question about who the Visitors are will be irrelevant.
– I always felt that the Master of the Key was a sort of bodhisattva, someone who has ascended but has elected to penetrate back into the physical in order to help out on matters for the good. No real mystery. But here’s a good one: Maybe he IS Whitley, a future one, who has come back to tell him all these words of wisdom. Or maybe he’s Anne?
Some of my thoughts about the
Some of my thoughts about the Key:
– I have read Whitley’s original version but not the second version (Tarcher edition). I know some changes have been made. I was wondering if it is worthwhile to pick up the latest edition and re-read it.
– I strongly believe that this is and will remain Whitley’s most important work because it compelled us to look at ourselves instead of the Visitors. The question was turned around. I’ve said before that we’ll never know who the Visitors are until we first know who we are, and when we do, the question about who the Visitors are will be irrelevant.
– I always felt that the Master of the Key was a sort of bodhisattva, someone who has ascended but has elected to penetrate back into the physical in order to help out on matters for the good. No real mystery. But here’s a good one: Maybe he IS Whitley, a future one, who has come back to tell him all these words of wisdom. Or maybe he’s Anne?
Whitley, it looks like you’ve
Whitley, it looks like you’ve got plenty of subscriber’s on your side, including myself. The Key has literally changed my life and I am forever grateful that you finally wrote it. I was so excited about the book, I bought it for 3 others and recommended it to another who bought it herself.
We all need to remember that we were given free will. Each of us may have an opinion that is radically different from another, yet we all are one (different sides of the same coin, you might say). The negativity embraced by some really doesn’t diminish the value of that, that they try degrade because to those that cherish it, it will always be valuable. What resonates for one may not resonate for another. So, brush off your hurt feelings at the disdain of some and look to see what this catalyst is trying to teach you. You may be surprised at what you discover.
Whitley, it looks like you’ve
Whitley, it looks like you’ve got plenty of subscriber’s on your side, including myself. The Key has literally changed my life and I am forever grateful that you finally wrote it. I was so excited about the book, I bought it for 3 others and recommended it to another who bought it herself.
We all need to remember that we were given free will. Each of us may have an opinion that is radically different from another, yet we all are one (different sides of the same coin, you might say). The negativity embraced by some really doesn’t diminish the value of that, that they try degrade because to those that cherish it, it will always be valuable. What resonates for one may not resonate for another. So, brush off your hurt feelings at the disdain of some and look to see what this catalyst is trying to teach you. You may be surprised at what you discover.
When I sat back for the
When I sat back for the continuing sockpuppet show, I can honestly say, I didn’t expect it to end like that! What a scintillatingly ironic performance.
Seriously though, I suspect the mind expressing one of its many facets, this one named ‘Heinrich’, has a real personality disorder that needs attention from a professional and it is quite sad to see it play out here. If so, then God bless him and I hope he seeks and gains help.
Conversely, it could be that he knew exactly what he was doing and this was an attempt at spinning a fantastical yarn that fed directly into the suggestion of being paid for his services, folded into a psy-ops version of ‘Munchausen by Internet’, followed by some serious bridge-burning; Altogether an outpouring of bullsh1t of the highest order.
Either way, this final, clearly offensive, acerbic comment from ‘Heinrich’ has no place here and although I am glad it has been removed on one level, I also think leaving it would have been useful to have left in place, if nothing other than to leave a historical trace, and to give context to the remaining comments. I also think this whole thing may not be over yet…I suspect the ball has been passed to another ‘personality’, who has yet to reveal their current position on the matter.
Just as a slight aside, when I was a youngster, I remember reading ‘Hansel and Gretel’ and had the most sick, dark feeling inside, when imagining those children being led into a trap by the old Hag…it is a pretty Grimm tale, after all!…but that same feeling…I got it whilst reading ‘Heinrich’s’ ‘confession’ (and to a lesser degree his previous comments)…when all else fails, listen to your gut right?
After reading it, I felt quite unsettled, to be honest…but I was lucky enough to be able to get out of the house with close family, to enjoy some beachside air and meet up with old friends…that put things in perspective; There is more to life than entertaining jokers.
When I sat back for the
When I sat back for the continuing sockpuppet show, I can honestly say, I didn’t expect it to end like that! What a scintillatingly ironic performance.
Seriously though, I suspect the mind expressing one of its many facets, this one named ‘Heinrich’, has a real personality disorder that needs attention from a professional and it is quite sad to see it play out here. If so, then God bless him and I hope he seeks and gains help.
Conversely, it could be that he knew exactly what he was doing and this was an attempt at spinning a fantastical yarn that fed directly into the suggestion of being paid for his services, folded into a psy-ops version of ‘Munchausen by Internet’, followed by some serious bridge-burning; Altogether an outpouring of bullsh1t of the highest order.
Either way, this final, clearly offensive, acerbic comment from ‘Heinrich’ has no place here and although I am glad it has been removed on one level, I also think leaving it would have been useful to have left in place, if nothing other than to leave a historical trace, and to give context to the remaining comments. I also think this whole thing may not be over yet…I suspect the ball has been passed to another ‘personality’, who has yet to reveal their current position on the matter.
Just as a slight aside, when I was a youngster, I remember reading ‘Hansel and Gretel’ and had the most sick, dark feeling inside, when imagining those children being led into a trap by the old Hag…it is a pretty Grimm tale, after all!…but that same feeling…I got it whilst reading ‘Heinrich’s’ ‘confession’ (and to a lesser degree his previous comments)…when all else fails, listen to your gut right?
After reading it, I felt quite unsettled, to be honest…but I was lucky enough to be able to get out of the house with close family, to enjoy some beachside air and meet up with old friends…that put things in perspective; There is more to life than entertaining jokers.
This was all very strange and
This was all very strange and sad. There isn’t much to comment on regarding the Heinrich person. Funny, if his confession was real, Whitley, you had him pegged for the Nazi sympathizer he claimed to be.
His reasoning style seemed very similar to my ex-wife who was an anti-social borderline personality. It was awful dealing with her so many years.
I read Heinrich’s well written ‘critique/expose’ till I just didn’t care. I couldn’t see what difference any of his points made, either to the message in the Key or to Whitley’s integrity. I’ve always felt clear that Whitley said he was unsure of the happenings that night and has made plain the different scenarios. Once again, so what?
It is an example of attacking the menu to discredit the chef, when the meal is where the value and substance is located.
Being unfamiliar with Gurdjief, I didn’t know that Gurdjief’s teachings were so well expressed in the Key.
I do have some 15 years in the Western Mystery Traditions and I always felt the teachings (Rosicrucian, Masonic, Templar, Martinist) are very on par with what I find in the Key. In fact, Martinism is very much the three religions of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism combined, without much of the cultural trappings. The journeys of reintegration and Illumination will be all similar, excluding cultural flavors, as long as the human vehicle remains as it does.
It seems that meetings with Ascended Masters and Angels often seem to accompany obfuscation and accusations of charlatanism. Check out Blavatsky, P.F. Case, Crowely, founders of the Golden Dawn, Eliphas Levi, Caligostro, the list goes on. Why should Whitley’s experience be different?
Whitley, you have quite a voluntary support group here at UC that love and trust you. And frankly, I’m ready to get back to the business of exploring the Unknown Country.
Maybe not quite all “is vanity, saith the Rabbi”, because if Heinrich did nothing else, he’s presented a really good start at an index of Whitley’s work.
Caritas!
This was all very strange and
This was all very strange and sad. There isn’t much to comment on regarding the Heinrich person. Funny, if his confession was real, Whitley, you had him pegged for the Nazi sympathizer he claimed to be.
His reasoning style seemed very similar to my ex-wife who was an anti-social borderline personality. It was awful dealing with her so many years.
I read Heinrich’s well written ‘critique/expose’ till I just didn’t care. I couldn’t see what difference any of his points made, either to the message in the Key or to Whitley’s integrity. I’ve always felt clear that Whitley said he was unsure of the happenings that night and has made plain the different scenarios. Once again, so what?
It is an example of attacking the menu to discredit the chef, when the meal is where the value and substance is located.
Being unfamiliar with Gurdjief, I didn’t know that Gurdjief’s teachings were so well expressed in the Key.
I do have some 15 years in the Western Mystery Traditions and I always felt the teachings (Rosicrucian, Masonic, Templar, Martinist) are very on par with what I find in the Key. In fact, Martinism is very much the three religions of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism combined, without much of the cultural trappings. The journeys of reintegration and Illumination will be all similar, excluding cultural flavors, as long as the human vehicle remains as it does.
It seems that meetings with Ascended Masters and Angels often seem to accompany obfuscation and accusations of charlatanism. Check out Blavatsky, P.F. Case, Crowely, founders of the Golden Dawn, Eliphas Levi, Caligostro, the list goes on. Why should Whitley’s experience be different?
Whitley, you have quite a voluntary support group here at UC that love and trust you. And frankly, I’m ready to get back to the business of exploring the Unknown Country.
Maybe not quite all “is vanity, saith the Rabbi”, because if Heinrich did nothing else, he’s presented a really good start at an index of Whitley’s work.
Caritas!
Oh, and by the way Whitley, I
Oh, and by the way Whitley, I can’t wait to hear of your experience at the alchemist’s castle! Yes!
Oh, and by the way Whitley, I
Oh, and by the way Whitley, I can’t wait to hear of your experience at the alchemist’s castle! Yes!
I have to admit I wish I knew
I have to admit I wish I knew what was said, apparently something very offensive and self-defeating, which is strange but perhaps not out of character considering his superior attitude towards Jeremy in the past. Perhaps an indication of his real priorities despite his claim of having the mental-moral upper hand with regards to the Key.
I have to admit I wish I knew
I have to admit I wish I knew what was said, apparently something very offensive and self-defeating, which is strange but perhaps not out of character considering his superior attitude towards Jeremy in the past. Perhaps an indication of his real priorities despite his claim of having the mental-moral upper hand with regards to the Key.
In short, Herr Moltke made up
In short, Herr Moltke made up a story claiming that Anne contacted him, saying that Whitley was lying about what she was saying — this was the cruelty Misteracidic was referring to. Moltke’s self destructive attitude was apparent up until that point, but as soon as he messed with Anne, Whitley dropped the hammer.
And I can’t say that I’ll miss him in the slightest.
Sherbet: I had the same gut reaction throughout, and I felt like I needed a shower after reading only partway through one of his rants. It might only be conveyed through text, but Moltke’s psychic ickyness oozed right through…
I’d say that’s a good example
I’d say that’s a good example of self-inflicted character assassination. You threw yourself off your own high horse, Moltke, you want my advice, don’t climb back on.
In short, Herr Moltke made up
In short, Herr Moltke made up a story claiming that Anne contacted him, saying that Whitley was lying about what she was saying — this was the cruelty Misteracidic was referring to. Moltke’s self destructive attitude was apparent up until that point, but as soon as he messed with Anne, Whitley dropped the hammer.
And I can’t say that I’ll miss him in the slightest.
Sherbet: I had the same gut reaction throughout, and I felt like I needed a shower after reading only partway through one of his rants. It might only be conveyed through text, but Moltke’s psychic ickyness oozed right through…
I’d say that’s a good example
I’d say that’s a good example of self-inflicted character assassination. You threw yourself off your own high horse, Moltke, you want my advice, don’t climb back on.
I have read the MOTK almost
I have read the MOTK almost like a tableside bible re-reading it and seeing the predictions not coming true. The concise statements abound like: sin is the denial of the right to thrive…..belief impedes release….etc….are almost otherworldly in their succinct ability to cut through the goo-goo here on planet earth… I only wish he would return to Whitley again ….
I have read the MOTK almost
I have read the MOTK almost like a tableside bible re-reading it and seeing the predictions not coming true. The concise statements abound like: sin is the denial of the right to thrive…..belief impedes release….etc….are almost otherworldly in their succinct ability to cut through the goo-goo here on planet earth… I only wish he would return to Whitley again ….
I think that the attack on my
I think that the attack on my wife, saying she called me a liar, etc., comes from a misapprehension of something she probably did say and always maintained, which was that she thought the MOTK was me from the future. She held this opinion because the Key is a combination of ideas I already had before I put pen to paper, and numerous and often quite startling ones that I did not have, including some of the unusual scientific claims that I discuss in detail in the Tarcher edition.
Somebody who believes that I have maintained that the MOTK was definitely not me, even though this has never been my position, could conclude that she was contradicting me and therefore calling me a liar when, in fact, she was expressing an opinion that I was open to and found quite fascinating, because it does explain the way the Key is an assembly of things I have said before and things I’ve never thought of in my life–at least, not yet.
An individual suffering from an excess of intellectual rigidity might have difficulty with ambiguities like the ones that underlie not just the Key, but all of my work. It is actually about the ambiguities of perception and experience, not claims to final knowledge.
I think that the attack on my
I think that the attack on my wife, saying she called me a liar, etc., comes from a misapprehension of something she probably did say and always maintained, which was that she thought the MOTK was me from the future. She held this opinion because the Key is a combination of ideas I already had before I put pen to paper, and numerous and often quite startling ones that I did not have, including some of the unusual scientific claims that I discuss in detail in the Tarcher edition.
Somebody who believes that I have maintained that the MOTK was definitely not me, even though this has never been my position, could conclude that she was contradicting me and therefore calling me a liar when, in fact, she was expressing an opinion that I was open to and found quite fascinating, because it does explain the way the Key is an assembly of things I have said before and things I’ve never thought of in my life–at least, not yet.
An individual suffering from an excess of intellectual rigidity might have difficulty with ambiguities like the ones that underlie not just the Key, but all of my work. It is actually about the ambiguities of perception and experience, not claims to final knowledge.
Can anyone explain how
Can anyone explain how someone with not 10 or 15 but 30 years experience in the work would not be immediately familiar with the following ideas:
Can anyone explain how
Can anyone explain how someone with not 10 or 15 but 30 years experience in the work would not be immediately familiar with the following ideas:
Law of 3
Law of
Law of 3
Law of 7
Triads
Taste
Essence
Sensation
Double arrow of attention
Ancient Egyptian origins of Christianity
Ancient roots of Eucharist
Typical life as machine like
Absence of soul in typical life
Double arrow of attention
Life as organ of planet
Fourth dimension
Four levels of consciousness
Law of 3
Law of
Law of 3
Law of 7
Triads
Taste
Essence
Sensation
Double arrow of attention
Ancient Egyptian origins of Christianity
Ancient roots of Eucharist
Typical life as machine like
Absence of soul in typical life
Double arrow of attention
Life as organ of planet
Fourth dimension
Four levels of consciousness
As a latecomer to the thread,
As a latecomer to the thread, I’m going to attempt to make what I hope is a helpful observation: I long ago made the decision to never engage with people whose entire body of work attacks a singular person, group or idea. This applies twice as firmly in the realm of conspiracy theory, and triple when on the internet.
As a lifestyle choice, I’ve never had cause to regret it. This site and this community has always been a wonderful place for discussion and commentary, and I applaud any action that keeps UC as such, especially in the face of obvious character attacks masquerading as ‘debate.’ This community is very open and very affirming, but it also knows BS when it sees it. As a latecomer, I may be beating a dead horse at this point, but I humbly request that we stop feeding the trolls… when you wrestle a pig, the pig loves it but you just get dirty.
As a latecomer to the thread,
As a latecomer to the thread, I’m going to attempt to make what I hope is a helpful observation: I long ago made the decision to never engage with people whose entire body of work attacks a singular person, group or idea. This applies twice as firmly in the realm of conspiracy theory, and triple when on the internet.
As a lifestyle choice, I’ve never had cause to regret it. This site and this community has always been a wonderful place for discussion and commentary, and I applaud any action that keeps UC as such, especially in the face of obvious character attacks masquerading as ‘debate.’ This community is very open and very affirming, but it also knows BS when it sees it. As a latecomer, I may be beating a dead horse at this point, but I humbly request that we stop feeding the trolls… when you wrestle a pig, the pig loves it but you just get dirty.
Is The Key Whitley Strieber’s
Is The Key Whitley Strieber’s very own legominism?
Is The Key Whitley Strieber’s
Is The Key Whitley Strieber’s very own legominism?