Archive | Atheism and the God Debates RSS feed for this section

The Aquarian Revolution is Over …

18 Dec

The Aquarian Revolution is Over; Time for a People’s Age to Begin


The Aquarian Revolution is defunct; time for a new, anti-Establishment, People’s Revolution to take on the New World Order.  A Revolution of the 99%, not of the elitists. … And one that actually serves people’s needs, not the desire of oligarchs to use popular movements and activism to serve their own globalist ends.  That’s the real kind of progress we need in the world.  Time for the oligarchy to step aside, and for a new People’s Age to begin that gets us beyond these tired expressions of religionism, elitism, and establishment values.

Totalitarianism isn’t anything new.  It’s the same old Leviathan of Tyranny we faced in the past, just with a new regrown set of heads.  Let’s stop this hydra once and for all, and then maybe a real “new” Age can begin – a new chapter in human history where we’ve set aside the trappings of this so-called ‘godly’ oligarchical order for good.

That’s our real revolution, and the real turning point now in human events.  Will we do it or will we fail?  The future’s in our hands.  It’s just a question now of whether we’re courageous enough to take the next step.

Are we?   You decide! …

New Age Ruins Everything …

17 Dec

New Age Ruins Everything:  The Corrupting Influence of Science Mysticism on Higher Considerations of Science, History, and Philosophy


New Age is problematic.  No sooner than you give it a pass; it co-opts you and your work.  It’s the perfect Capitalism AND Socialism, I guess. You give it an inch, it appropriates and capitalizes (or should I say expropriates?) a mile.  Lucky us! … Anyway, it’s this tendency of the NAM to do this kind of thing that bothers me. Quantum mechanics is a perfectly good branch of science.  Good enough on its own without having to be meddled with.  And, so is the Penrose-Hameroff model (as far as it goes).  But now that Chopra & Co. have appropriated it, and tailored it to their own brand of quantum-science-mysticism, we’re blown out to sea again and caught in this eddy of “quantum-‘consciousness’” talk [and all the metaphysical fluff that goes with it].  I’d much rather have a more solid discussion of the issue-at-hand (via Complexity theory and Psychological theoretical models) than the whole nine yards of Chopra nonsense on the matter.  But guess what, that doesn’t ‘sell’ in today’s day and age.  So, we’re left with Quantum Mechanics ala Chopra, and mainline scientists rightfully are questioning it and the entire basis of the model itself given its current form as theory/science.

I don’t want to see any more good ideas go out the window because of this New Age nonsense.  That’s why I’m as critical as I am of the current discussion going on over at Darwiniana.  Nothing personal against anyone.  But, where the original version of Landon’s Eonic Effect was more agnostic on all these issues, centering in on the open question of Kantian philosophy, now suddenly metaphysics is fine there [not “bunk”, mind you] and “geist is [no longer] bullshit.”

The original version of the Eonic Effect was great and well worth studying; still is.  But I’m afraid John’s work too has been co-opted by New Age and some of its major interests (that are now a major voice in his audience).  Over and above that, his legitimate points on History and Philosophy can’t get a word in edgewise there it seems to me. It’s a shame.

Where are the complexity theorists there?  Where are the historians and sociologists?  Where are the philosophers?  They’ve pretty much picked up shop and moved on by this point, leaving their space empty and ready to be taken up by others in the discussion.  So, in their place, a new age element has emerged and ingratiated itself there at John’s blog.  It’s overshadowing all the good stuff, supplanting “free action scripts” with ruminations on “free will” in the metaphysical sense; Kantian antimony with quasi-Buddhist considerations of “rebirth doctrine” and “mystical enlightenment.” Discussions, frankly, that cater to this NAM audience/element on the blog.

I’ve no problem with that.  It’s John’s blog after all and he can do whatever he likes on it, and court whomever he wants to there.  But I do have a problem when I see that element co-opting and overshadowing all of John’s other material and making hay off of it for the New Age Movement’s own advantage and at the expense of Landon’s prior consideration of World History as a template for thinking about evolutionary change and the critique of evolutionary systems of theory.

I don’t want to see the Eonic Effect suffer for its being confused with Divine Aeons, and therefore be recast and re-branded as being an Aeonic Effect of metaphysics.  It will only serve to advance the goofiness and perniciousness of New Age, gurus, and the occult while making a mockery of the Eonic Model, and completely gutting anything that was of value there to begin with.  I don’t want to see that happen, and see Landon’s work be completely trashed, dismissed, and shuffled away as a result. … Nobody else wins when that happens; just the Gurdjieff element … Just the occult new agers, whose object I expect is to do exactly that.  Gurdjieff: “1”, Landon’s Eonic Effect: “0” …

I like John for his ideas.  I like his work, and I enjoy and find his material quite useful on historical topics, evolutionary issues, and philosophy. But I don’t trust New Age nor its proponents, some of whom are being given a mouthpiece and a forum on Darwiniana. So for now, I’ll steer clear of it and only occasionally cover its posts from time to time.  They have the floor and they’re on their own there from now on. It’s better that way.  Landon can handle his own audience and its leanings.  I just hope their New Age proclivities and agenda don’t run roughshod over what he’s been attempting to do with his writings on evolution and history.  Maybe I’m wrong about it all, but I have my doubts about all this stuff there lately and where it’s all heading.

New Age ruins everything!  I just pray John’s work here isn’t its latest casualty.

How about making Chopra an “honorary sufi sheik?”

17 Dec

How about Making Chopra an “honorary sufi sheik?”


Fascinating idea. But I have a better idea.  How about making Deepak Chopra (or the Dalai Lama for that matter) “honorary sufi sheik(s)?” … LOL … 

Seems that’s where science/mysticism related work is headed these days anyway with syncretized faith systems and mushy one-world, new-world-order, new age religion.  That’s why it makes better sense to have your leadership on social justice issues and humanitarian-spirituality come from a Gandhi or a King.  They just don’t carry the same sort of silly mumbo-jumbo or New Age-style baggage with them as much as these others.

So where’s a far left-leaning, anti-Establishment, secularist to go in an enlightened revolution of buddha-led progressives?  Not far I guess; which is why you don’t put “enlightened” revolutionaries in charge of left-liberal movements.

It’s a shame, but I think we’re condemned to multiple-leader movements on the Left and in terms of our progressive activism.   The Chomskys, Vidals – they provide the intellectual heft of the total movementHedges, the activist- journalistic angle, and for spirituality: an MLK.

A (Coordinated) Movement-of-movements.  That’s where we need to go to take on the Establishment.



Making Chomsky an honorary sufi sheik? Your move. I am not a sufi myself

Posted in General at 12:28 pm by nemo

The idea of a communist sufism would demand real leadership from someone qualified to do that in an exotic and original way, navigating the dangerous shoals of two complex cultural complexes. I cannot do that myself, becaue I am not a sufi, and am unwelcome in sufi circles. A pity, I know more about sufism than most sufis. But real sufism is quite rare, although, never having been in an Islamic country, I can’t say for sure. Go and read The Gurdjieff Con, and you will see why I won’t be promoting communist sufism any time soon. At the same time, it is possible and right to do that anyway, as a discussion. It is totally unfair for sufism to be hijacked by reactionaries, witness the fascist echoes in Gurdjieff et al.

Making Chomsky an honorary sufi sheik? Terrible idea, no? Uh-oh. But go ahead, and try it. Great. You might destroy Chomsky in the process. The idea was pressed on me by various people who dislike me but like my idea, not wanting me to have anything to do with. Thanks alot. I suggested making Zizek a sufi, half humorously. But it is a dangerous business. My point perhaps was that sufis have deeply penetrated the cultures in that South European zone.  Keep in mind these people are not theists, and would get in trouble forthwith in that culture (as would sufis, who tend to hide behind orthodoxy). As for being a sheik, Chomsky has no knowledge of sufism, nor do most sufis.

Go look at Avatar: the scifi people have rediscovered something sufis appear to know, in a way that they hide deeply. Soul creation, so-called. It has nothing to do with the technology nonsense in the movie. These statements are confusing, because almost all humans on this planet have already experienced some form of soul-creation. Maybe a few holdouts in the Borneo highlands (but they could be more advanced than we are). But the sufi version is mysterious, the lore of the completed man, and constitutes real sufism. I have no real place in any of that. Any sufi sheik needs a deep knowledge to work with people, and it is even harder with non-Moslems. Is the question hopeless? I fear Islamic sufis would peddle a fake to western communists and have a good laugh.

My point was that there is absolutely no reason why sufism can’t be a radicalism in motion, even along the lines of marxism. Marxism has been denounced by reactionary sufis, but they have no grounds for such an attitude. As I have noted, original buddhism was a revolutionary movement, though not in the sense we use the term now. But marxism is unnecesary cast in the form of atheism and materialism, which throws religionists out of whack. It has nothing to do necessarily with the economic critique of Marx.

Leftists might forget about ‘sufism’ and simply work with Moslems and sufis. At the right moment the sufi epiphany might come.

New Age Mystical Experiences. MK-Ultra?

14 Dec

New Age Mystical Experiences. MK-Ultra Mind Control?

I’m a secularist.  I don’t go in for the more far fetched of conspiracy theory, but there’s reason for thinking the spiritual phenomena of new age spirituality and mysticism are hallucinatory and the products of induced-mass psychosis.  What glibly has been called “Mind Control” in conspiracy theory circles.

Nothing secretive or special about it; these states can be incubated and fertilized through the most ordinary and innocuous of means – TV, music, etc. – and we’re chocked full of such stimuli in today’s society.

So are New Age mystical experiences the product of MKUltra -style mind control by the CIA and the Illuminati?  Who knows?

I’m not sure they are and, really, I don’t think they are.  But they may not need to be to work their effect on people and society.   All that’s needed is for there to be enough of this stimuli in the mix of the public discourse to bring on these kinds of experiences and precipitate such phenomena; no puppet-masters pulling strings required.

Mission Priority: Defusing the Metaphysics Bomb

12 Dec

Our A-1 Mission Priority:  Defusing the Metaphysics Bomb


Don’t get me wrong, I like John Landon’s work ala the Eonic Effect, Darwiniana, and The Gurdjieff Con.  The material’s first rate and John’s done a stupendous job tying in world history to evolution and critiquing the gurus.  My beef: … and it’s my own personal beef about it, it’s ended up giving a pass to the New Age I don’t believe is justified. Exempting some rare breed of ‘enlightened’ buddhas from the guru critique isn’t helping matters when it’s this very metaphysics of buddhahood/guru mysticism that’s created the problem to begin with; and the gurus are making wind off this very phenomenon with their hi jinx.  Enough already.  This fluff is where the gurus are drawing their power in reserve.  Cut it off at the source; admit some other agency for your ‘enlightenment’ or risk exposing your flank to the Chopra-magic nonsense.

Maybe its psychological-noumenal, maybe it’s something else – a metaphorical expression, a philosophical analogy, or pointing to some natural agency we’re not quite familiar with yet (but with a common connection to matter and physics) – but understand – if you say it’s metaphysical or soul-related <in a mystical sense> , this opens you up to fairy tale scenarios about the world (i.e., Santa Claus, elves dancing on the lawn) … Where’s the line drawn?  What’s the criterion for distinguishing the world of fractals from the world of fantasy?  …

The gurus are making mint off this stuff, … and it’s time we defused their metaphysics bomb before it blows up in our faces.  That’s all I want us to do – get clear on what it is we’re talking about here with Buddhism and philosophical considerations of natural phenomena/noumenal principles.  Because, if we don’t – the damage from this is going to be significant.

The Reality:  people aren’t going to know “up” from “down” once this “quantum consciousness/ mysticism” train crashes at the station.  Guru psy-ops has done its dirty work.  The runaway train of magical metaphysics is bearing down on that of an equally questionable instrumentalist science, and the effect on a clear human understanding of the world is going to be catastrophic in terms of legitimate scientific inquiry and philosophical discourse. …  (It’s already in the cross-hairs, and we’re nearing impact!) …

It’s time we cleaned up the mess … What do we mean by “soul” in the buddhist context and “noumena” in philosophy in a world of quarks, gluons, and photons?  That’s what I’m asking here.

Answer that, and we’re halfway there to defusing the Metaphysics Bomb of the gurus and gurudom.

Gurus Still Won’t Save Us (But Maybe a Gandhi Will)

11 Dec

Revolutionary Buddhas and the Holy Grail of Enlightenment:  Gurus Still Won’t Save Us (But Maybe a Gandhi Will)


“We had a pingback from Luke’s blog commenting on our buddha post, which I will comment on further. I welcome a challenge to this idea, which was intended as provocative. I think Luke has missed the point. Noone has been more critical of gurus than me/us here. At the same time, although criticizing gurus (check out The Gurdjieff Con), I have praised and exempted known enlightened men from this critique. ”

Actually, I don’t think I have “missed the point.”  The point … The “real” point … is that searching for an enlightened buddha is nigh-on impossible, and not even just “unlikely” at this point.  So, don’t go looking for enlightened buddhas; you’ll only end up being shafted by huckster gurus with their new age nonsense.  If you must, be your own buddha and avoid all other sufi-types and guru-groupies like the plague when they start peddling their metaphysics on you.  You don’t even need to accept the metaphysics they hock in mysticism circles to be this kind of a ‘buddha’ we want.  All you need to do is open your eyes, and open your ears, to the world around you.  That’s all.

Metaphysically-defined, -geared “enlightenment” is a farce.   New Age mysticism is a farce.  Might as well be some New World Order con job on people to re-accept magical thinking about the world and Old World religions, dumbing people down and putting them to sleep [thus subjugating them as docile sheep to the Establishment, globalist elites, and Illuminati hacks] … as all it does, is end up muddying clear thinking about reality on legitimate scientific, humanitarian-humanistic, and philosophical grounds.  It’s a control mechanism, and people don’t need controlling.  They need to be able to think for themselves and on their own terms, not those of gurus, so-called ‘enlightened’ monks, priests, swamis, and/or any other such sectarian agency of the ruling class.  People don’t need to be ruled by this oligarchy, either through its secular organs or via its religious functionaries; they don’t need to be dominated by those who believe they’re acting on behalf of a ‘godly order’ [which is what in fact the Oligarchical Principle constitutes in the world](to reference the term used by the LaRouche movement for the Globalist Establishment and its functions in history). They need to be free of it, and be able to act independently of such institutions in society, and collectively for the betterment of human affairs.

A “New Age”/”Great Awakening”-type religious revival? … We don’t need that in today’s world [or in modern life anymore].  We need real solutions to the world’s problems and the real leaders in the moral sense to help point us in that direction (i.e., the right direction moving forward for society).  Real Leaders:  MLK, Malcolm X, Gandhi; not these guru-magicians masquerading as “buddhas” and burning people all along the way.  I’m sorry, but I’ll take the spiritual leadership of a Gandhi, a King, or a Malcolm over that of a Rajneesh/Osho [or any such guru-type] any day.  These gurus:  they just don’t have a good track record in life and in the history of human experience; go figure.

Walk the coals, ‘Drink the Kool-Aid’reap the results … That’s not the path to change.  Follow in the steps of King, et al, and you’ll be on the real road to change.

Not to give offense to Buddhists or others from Eastern faiths … But I too have a ‘bad feeling’ … a bad feeling about the New Age movement and its project(s) in the contemporary world.  And I believe I have as much a right to my own bad feelings on it for its current play on ‘science mysticism’ as others would over reductionist scientism and the secular humanist enterprise.  Apologies if I’m getting the movement wrong, but it all smacks of a ploy → repackage the old occult religions so moderns will blithely accept them and eventually accept the oligarchical structure that lies behind them (and in fact all religionism in the world).

I’m sorry, but that’s not what we need.  We need the ‘enlightenment’ of modern humanists and humanitarians.  And the sooner we get it the better. Climate change, nuclear proliferation … we’re on the countdown to real trouble in the world.  Through the leadership of a Mandela-type or others, we have a chance to stem the tide of such calamities before they wreak utter devastation on us.  We’re not going to get that from the Chopra crowd.  Not even close.  We don’t need to just “imagine” the world to be a better place, so that it might “magically appear” as we wished it to be … We need to work for that change to make such a future happen.

Sorry Deepak, “quantum consciousness” isn’t going to cut it.  We’re going to need a movement of the 99% walking together and behind a King or a Gandhi to enact this change.  No guru or mystic man from any ashram praying against it will hold back this tide.  But people working together will do it.  That way, we really will “be the change we wish to see in the world.” (Popular quote attributed to Gandhi)

That’s the “change” we need and the “enlightenment” we need.  All else is nonsense, damnable nonsense, and we’re pretty close to damning ourselves with it, by our own hand.

It’s time we “woke up”, and changed the world for the better.  For then and only then will our “enlightenment” count for anything.  “Enlightenment” under any other pretenses is a pipe-dream. We don’t need dreams that fade away with the dawn.  We need “dreams” we can make a “reality.”

That’s our mission.  That’s the real “revolution” before us.  It’s time that revolution emerged and shook the GLOBAL ESTABLISHMENT to its knees.

Gurus Won’t Save US …

6 Dec

Guru’s Won’t Save US; Real Leaders (with Real Leadership) Will


Help Wanted: enlightened buddha, ultra far left: communist Posted in General at 3:01 pm by nemo

“The invisible spiritual domain is getting desperate. Look at the situation: the entire political class can’t even discuss global warming.   This link series records a series of garbled noise band intimations I have been getting for over a year. The whale theme is, well, disinfo, charming, but what does it mean?:

I never figured out what it meant.  I think they were checking me out, but I am too old and feckless. Or else simply a message link. We have posted on a potential Xtian ultra left religious communism, but Xtians are too stuck in their confusions here.  I have never considered a similar idea for buddhists, because buddhism is almost defunct, and controlled by reactionaries, and in America the danger is real, after Rajneesh, of assassination and a movement that has nearly done away with enlightenment.  But some mysterious spiritual force is looking for American born ultra radicals very close to enlightenment. You can see the idea emerging in Rajneesh.  American buddhists might start by dropping out of organizational links, going into mega-meditation sessions (but skip forced methods like gautama’s vow to not rise til…), (or else the ‘lazy man’s guide to enlightenment method, doing nothing, no rules apply), and a novel, intelligent, non-dogmatic, notion of spiritual communism, social, cultural, or revolutionary political. The Rajneesh commune is a starting idea. But I think what is wanted is a political movement, working with communist, neo-communist cadres. That is to say a revolutionary buddha. Very few people near enlightenment would dare to do that. Needs a spiritually advanced hothead. Tibetan Buddhists will try to stop you,so this is not ‘buddhism’, but the way to a new religion.  We may be out of time for this. Too bad. It needs to happen now. Start to explore the whale theme, and see if anything arrives. And check out five, ten, twelve hour meditations, or, via the lazy man’s guide to enlightenment, intelligent couch potato indirect approaches. You can also just jump in an help.”


No, an “enlightened buddha” isn’t going to help us get out of this mess.  Can’t do it, won’t do it.

The most we’re going to get out of the business is a Deepak Chopra, new age hucksters selling their wares, and an all-too-unsettling realization that gurus of any stripe will only muddy the discourse for change and what we need to do to bring it about.

To our more temporary readers here on DIANOILOGOS: please see, and for further background and information on this issue.

Gurus aren’t going to cut it here. …  So what will?  Who will?  … Real leaders who understand the crisis and who can provide real leadership on the matter, not just metaphysicalisms for us to reassure- ourselves-by through the trouble.  And, by real leadership, I mean from people who understand both the greater ‘spiritual’ dimensions of the problem and its more practical implications.

Who are these leaders?  Not Chopra.  Not the gurus.  But social activists and humanitarian leaders who by their personal examples show us the way forward on environmental affairs, social issues, and the like.  So, who do we draw from here? … People like Gandhi, Mandela, and King, and others like A. Philip Randolph and Malcolm X, to name a few, their students and/or others in their tradition of social advocacy … That is to say, anyone and everyone with enough personal gravitas, practical wisdom, and social understanding to push for change, and who understands it both for the difference it makes in peoples lives as well as its deeper, more spiritual aspects as a driving engine of human experience.

You don’t need a professional Guru to do this; you need a Gandhi. That’s what is going to carry this revolutionary movement ahead.  Not “spiritualistic” platitudes and mystical nonsense, but honest to goodness leadership on the issues that matter.

Anything else only ingratiates the gurus in question, and leaves change unaccomplished.  We don’t need that in today’s world.  We need Progress, we need Change, and we need it from the people who will pull it out from us in society.  I don’t see a Deepak Chopra doing that for us.  I don’t see a Tony Robbins  doing that for us.  You only get burnedby these guru-types, or left in a kind of limbo through all their talk about “quantum consciousness” and the like.

We need a Gandhi.  And, then, maybe we’ll have the momentum to carry this program for change forward.