Alien Dreamtime: My Fight With Whitley Strieber
A few days ago I picked up Who Cares?!, a book by Ramesh S. Balsekar, an Indian sage known for his blunt, cutting, almost nasty approach to the quest for enlightenment. Ramesh’s perspective is that the individual self is an illusion and “doing” is an illusion - we find ourselves in a reality-movie where God is playing all the parts. The actions of our individual “body-mind organism” are determined by the source, the universal consciousness that creates and occasionally dissolves our egos in order to continue lila, the divine play. For Ramesh, enlightenment is the extinction of personality, the annihilation of the illusion of self and doer-ship.
When I first read Ramesh, I was shocked by a philosophy that left no place for individual choice, meaning, or agency. We in the West are obsessed with free will - with individuality - but Ramesh negates this entirely. Over time, I stopped being depressed by this, and began to find his Vedantic view oddly liberating. While free will on an individual egoic level is not possible (because all of our thoughts and actions are based on past conditioning), there is absolute freedom on the level of the singular consciousness - the “one without a second” - that exists within and beyond all relative manifestation. When we identify with the unlimited Source, rather than our individual story or ego-game, we participate in that absolute and unconditional freedom.
This is a long-winded preamble to a post on my fight, during a taped radio interview that will be aired this weekend, with the bestselling author of alien abduction memoirs and science fiction novels, and Dreamtime radio host, Whitley Strieber. Both Strieber and I were surprised by the virulence of this verbal battle - he said that I had assaulted him in his very being, and that we were no longer friends - but actually it was quite predictable based on my analysis of his work and the alien abduction phenomenon in “2012″.
The fight began as I explained my hypothesis about 2012, noting aspects of our current world that are unsustainable and will have to change drastically if we are going thrive, or even survive, as a species. I found that Strieber kept harping on the negative aspects of the situation, proclaiming that the Internet was about to be overtaken by corporate interests, and so on. He also stated that there was going to be a huge “die-off” of the human species in the immediate future. He reiterated that this was “definitely going to happen,” and that he “believed” it.
I argued that nobody knows what is going to happen in the future, that at the moment the earth is managing to support the human population, and if we utilized our resources better, incorporating new techniques and alternative energy technologies, we might not have to experience a massive, traumatic die off at all. Strieber continued to assert that this “die-off” was a fact – that he had done the math, and there was no way around it. As far as I know, Strieber is not trained as an evolutionary biologist, and even if he was, experts are continually proven wrong. Personally, I have experienced a series of miracles in my life, beginning with the improbable fact of my birth into this body with 100 trillion cells and as many synaptic connections as there are stars in the universe, so I stick by the perspective that anything is possible. Also, according to the thesis I develop in 2012, we are now learning that consciousness and intention have actual effects on physical reality. Therefore, if we focus our intention on negative outcomes, we may actually help bring those outcomes into manifestation. Since Strieber ultimately has no basis to proclaim that a massive die off is imminent, since none of us are given to know the future ahead of us, he is acting as a “prophet of doom” when he proclaims this. He is projecting the negative shadow aspects of his own psyche into the collective consciousness of his audience, on a daily basis.
The discussion then turned in a different direction. I noted that from my reading of Strieber’s work, I suspected that Strieber had been influenced by the force that the visionary philosopher Rudolf Steiner called “Ahriman,” the evil spirit who pulls humanity down into minerality, materiality, sterile technology, and extinction. As I also noted in 2012, I told Strieber that I thought he had been manipulated by alien entities who do not have the best interests of the human species at heart. Communion is ultimately the story of Strieber’s seduction by those entities he calls the “visitors” but are also known as the Grays. He notes that he was going to call the book “body terror,” but changed the name to “Communion” when one of them spoke through his wife, while she slept. He also describes how they were able to make him drink a bitter substance, by feeding it to him at different junctures over time. As anyone knows who has studied fairytales and fables, to drink the potion of the other world is to become entranced and enchanted by the beings who inhabit it.
On a subliminal or subconscious level, Strieber appears to have made a Faustian pact with these entities, and he is helping disseminate their negative and destructive frequency into human culture and consciousness, at this point in time.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
My compliments. If I may interject a slight (but crucial) precision. You write: “For Ramesh, enlightenment is the extinction of personality,” My understanding is that he, and his master, refer more precisely to the DIS-IDENTIFICATION with the ego, and ” the annihilation of the illusion of self and doer-ship.”
I share your perspective regarding the views of “prophets of doom”. There are an infinite number of realities, and quantum mechanics hints as to how our choices will determine which one “we” will experience. Our projections, determined by our memories and the fields of experience we have identified with, will be our “reality”. Unless we choose to not buy into them. This includes the collective memories and fields pertaining to the astral frequencies, such as the “Ahrimans”. They are surely real, but only within the context of the illusion we call “reality”.
Maybe “our” only freedom of choice resides in either accepting (or choosing) consciousness’ gradual re-integration with the source, with the state of non-duality that Ramesh, Nisargadatta etc. talk about, or letting consciousness be absorbed in the enthropy of the unfolding meta-algorythm. Gee that sounds abstract. Consciousness that is trapped in matter (the unfolding creation) and dilutes, gets further and further from it’s origin, unity. I guess when/if “I” get closer to that re-integration or loss of illusion or whatever, I’ll be able to express it more clearly. I have just discover your writing, and again, my compliments.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Daniel….
props on the way you handled Streiber!!! …and thak-you for mentoning the book by Ramesh, it is outstanding! like you, i was first a little offended. (No free-will???!!?)
Anyhow, i just wanted to thank-you for all your hard work and incredible insight!
September 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Daniel - yes, positive change is where it’s at and you are right on to put WS in his place. I built a whole internet around the positive change concept 7thWaveNetwork.com - and was inspired by the dark trappings of Coast/Art Bell to create a upbeat alternative.
Perhaps you would like to be a guest on some of the channel’s shows?
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I find that those who feel cornered by the truth behind their fears will most likely attempt to self protect.
In the flavor of self protection exhibited by Whitley, his fear of loss seams connected to his source of personal power. We all build our comfortable reality constructs based on familiarity, and this can take any form, be it a belief, a way of living, or a radio show.
During the interview, Whitley’s power spot, his show, books, and experiences, were threatened by what to him is a radical and dangerous shift in our way of looking at our future, and this angle of perception is held by too many.
Whitley believes what he stood by in this argument, and Daniel respected him with more patience than he deserved. The basic understanding and repeated points were needed for the simple fact of there importance, and anger and frustration were the honest and most useful emotions to provide the energy to Daniel at that point in time.
After all, why would anyone want to project more fear into the many one of our collective at this point in the cycle?
What would help Whitley to let all of it go and reassess his past experiences?
He has a voice that many listen too and believe. If he were to find his power to move his assemblage point, his intent would transform from fear to love, or so I hope.
There is no need for Whitley to change his beliefs or the format of his media sense, and if he is concerned about our “die off”, then his intent would shift towards averting or lessoning the possibility, if for no other reason then to save his own behind. He would then be projecting a positive message by taking responsibility for his influence on his listeners’ fears as well.
This would be my words for Whitley. That he looks inward and yet again reassess his experiences and projections towards the positive, if for only a trial period. That he turns his influence outward to other writers and speakers who would expand their positivistic messages through their media outlets as well.
I want to understand fear in this world as a study because I see its effects on our evolution.
The submersive experience provided by certain sacraments can certainly show us how to shift our assemblage point, but this need not be the only method. The answer to this issue, and it remains an issue as long as the negative dark energy is being fed, is to do something about it.
Every one who is able to type a short message, or pick up the phone and call in during his show can get this done.
The approach should be based on love and care, with a message of respect and empathy, positive power and control of ego. Daniel worked hard to help him see this basic point, and in the process was the primer for the beginning of those ever important cracks in Whitley’s head, so let’s pry them open with strong intent and with strong love.
We should approach everyone we meet and know who projects negativity into the pubic mindset and apply the same approach, or any approach that works.
I will write him after this post.
Darren Jones
September 28th, 2007 at 7:00 am
yo… second that… i think. As some dude once said, a long time ago, objects and subjects are not as real as we like to think they are, but neither are they totally not real… the paradox of relativity (philosophical, not necessarily Einsteinian) is that our experience of reality arises dependently, on subjects (perceivers), objects (of perception)… and the space that seperates the “two”. The realisation that ‘ultimately’ everything is lacking any Real reality in and of its own, doesn’t necessarily collapse our experience of relative reality… although perhaps we come to see that our perception of self (the infamous Ego) is not quite as important as we once thought.