War Of The Future Worlds: Daniel Pinchbeck Vs. Whitley Strieber

by Joseph Matheny on September 17, 2007

in Conspiracy/Fascism

War Of The Future Worlds

Daniel Pinchbeck Vs. Whitley Strieber

Jason Lubyk

The other week I was driving around the city in the afternoon with a friend, feeling mellow, killing some time. Regrettably I had introduced him to conspiracy theories a few years ago and he was going off on some new security camera that had been put up down the street from him. Soon enough the conversation predictably turned to the popular Austin-based conspiracy radio host Alex Jones.

grey-alien.jpg

“He’s the enemy.” I said. “He states that he is fighting for freedom, but all he does is terrorize everyone with frightening tales of a super-powerful Satanic New World Order or whatever he calls it. If our thoughts create our reality what kind of reality is he creating? One of fear, terror and powerlessness. Bush and Alex are two sides of the same coin. Both use fear mongering to increase their power and wealth. Bush’s elite class gets wealthier off Bush’s phony war on terror and Alex gets richer pushing his DVDs and Berkey water filters. They’re both the same.”

My friend admitted that conspiracies did make it seem hopeless to do anything. That it killed his creative drive.

“Yeah. The only people who benefit from them are those who use it to move product. That’s it.”

So it was interesting to hear alien contactee Whitley Strieber interview psychedelic philosopher and writer Daniel Pinchbeck – both of whose latest books deal with 2012 – on Whitley’s Dreamland radio show recently. The interview became quite heated – unusual for paranormal radio – because Daniel objected to Whitley’s negative prognostications about a planetary die off, among other things. The gist of Daniel’s argument is that one can never know for sure what is going to happen in the future, and our thoughts create reality, so that promoting negative future scenarios instead of more healthy and positive ones is irresponsible, especially when one has a platform that reaches as many as Whitley’s. Of course it deteriorated from there, with Daniel speculating that Whitley had come under the negative influence of the Grey aliens and Whitley hurt and claiming that he never would be Daniel’s friend etc. The full interview can be found below and Daniel’s and Whitley’s post-interview responses can be found respectively here and here.

I have to admit I tend to agree with Daniel on this one. We are limited beings and how much we can really know about the world, the universe, reality is going to be incomplete and potentially wrong. We can do the best to try and map our universes in order to help guide our way through them, but since we aren’t omniscient the future is always going to be unexpected and unseen. To state with certainty that a future is going to happen – like Strieber does – has more to do with projection than any objective reality. History is littered with unborn futures based upon the dogma of the day, and our current cherished worldviews and prognostications are no more immune and important. The only was we can really know the future is to live through it.

The idea that reality proceeds from our thoughts I also tend to agree with. While it is empirically difficult to prove, I have had enough curious experiences over my life of high weirdness that make me believe that the barriers between objective and subjective realities is not as solid as we typically believe, and that what we desire – either consciously or unconsciously – tends to manifest in the world. And if that is true, why not desire a positive outcome for yourself and reality? Even if that idea is wrongheaded and delusional, at the very worst you’re going to feel optimistic and relaxed thinking that you can successfully manifest your will, instead of anxious and depressed that you are helpless and powerless. Although I strongly suspect that there is more to it that just that.

But what about the idea that Whitley has came under the influence of “alien entities that do not have the best interests of the human species at heart?” I’m going to remain agnostic on that one, although reading over Whitley’s post-interview comments I can’t help but come to the conclusion that his views on reality and the future are extremely negative and focused on our limitations, entropy and decay rather than joy and overcoming.

And why is that? Is “Strieber 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?” Or is he unconsciously deluded? Consciously deceptive? Or maybe he is right and we’re all fucked for eternity? I really don’t know.

Although there is one thing I’m pretty sure of.

You will never go broke playing upon the anxieties and fears of us silly apes, afeared and traumatized by history, nature, each other.

{ 16 comments }

Elisha Grey September 17, 2007 at 3:14 pm

The wise take the middle pillar. Gads I miss R.A.W., he was truly a voice of reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgTSVIX3bcw

Dayv September 17, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Your page design makes it too hard to read the actual content.  Why is that image at the top actually hanging over the text?  The text is supposed to be the important part.

By next week, you’ll probably have added flash-only up and down scrolling and made the text an image file instead of using browser-rendered fonts.

nekospecial September 17, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Dayv: run a resolution higher than 640×480. If you can’t do that, get Opera, which allows you to zoom in and out of webpages.

Uncle Humpasaur September 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm

^^”Bulletproof Web Design” is a dope book on how to make sites that transition from fancy macs to shitty public library PCs to mobile phones and still maintain clear formatting. I’m running 1024 x 768 and it’s still cramped. The content here is gold, it should be less cluttered.

This was a really good read, you brought up a lot of brain food and milked the issue perfectly. I did think it was funny that Daniel had such a specific reason for Strieber’s pessimism, too…that’s a classic in the annals of intellectual insults.

“Ahriman-lover.”

jamescurcio September 20, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Personally, I’ve tested the layout on more than a dozen machines, operating systems, and browsers, and since I pushed for a redesign of the top bar (we made it smaller about a month and a half ago) I really see absolutely no cramping/clutter.

z December 11, 2007 at 10:49 am

Elisha Grey -

who is R.A.W. and do you have another video link? cause that one is dead.

-z

Elisha Grey December 11, 2007 at 1:12 pm

The late, great Robert Anton Wilson. Couldn’t find the same video, I think it was a interview with him from Disinformation TV Series (w/Richard Metzger). He was basically saying that one should think critically about Conspiracy theories.

Here is a similar clip of him on the same subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZjfYKV8C6g

Jonus January 6, 2008 at 7:17 am

They are both doing the same thing essentially, the same thing thats been done for thousands of years. You have Whitley preaching essentially the bad parts of Revelations. Meanwhile Pinchbeck is telling us that it will be OK because right before everything goes to shit humans will magically evolve super-quickly, this is essentially the “Yeah but right before everything goes to hell Jesus will fly in on a cloud and rescue us.”

Its the same shit just wrapped in new paper. Its nothing but the new christianity, except instead of Prayer they say “our thoughts create reality.” I was really hoping this bullshit was close to over, hoping that we had a chance to move beyond some crazy fiction story as the basis for our moral code, thoughts of the afterlife, and how we interact with our world. Total Bullshit.

aeolus kephas February 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Pinchbeck definitely came off better than poor Whitley, who wound up sounding like a petulant teenager. And yet PB did go in for the kill for no apparent reason, and frankly, WS’s argument is a helluva lot more persuasive, or would have been if he’d kept his head. My question is, why is a dieback necessarily a “negative” thing anyway? This is such a humancentric POV, and unworthy of a supposed cosmic culture prophet such as PB. I think WS nailed him as much as he got nailed: PB is running scared.

palerider February 8, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I think what Daniel was angered by, but didn’t articulate well, maybe because he was angered, is the sad truth that people like Strieber use fear and fear mongering tactics to manipulate people. I have to say, I agree.
That being said, yes, he should have kept his cool. I suspect that it’s a issue that has personal resonance for Daniel, so I understand his emotional response. Emotions aren’t all bad. ;) They show humanity exists in most cases.
A little dieback would indeed be a positive thing, in the big picture. The problem is, it’s hard to find volunteers for the first wave. :)

aeolus kephas February 12, 2008 at 8:04 am

the irony being that behind the frantic clinging to life at any cost is a deep-seated death wish and despair that is destroying the planet. Strieber has this much right and i supect that Pinchbeck underestimates just how deep the despair goes in most of us. The ironic paradox of a “voluntary dieback” is that it’s those most willing to sacrifice themselves to save the planet that the Earth will be most inclined to “save”! Put another way, the more we cling to life, and our way of life, the worse our odds of surviving become.

zman3000 August 8, 2008 at 12:26 am

whitley completely blew him away. daniel p. (with that annoying valley boy inflection in his voice) totally lost his cool, and then, when he was dressed down by whitley stumbled, tried to apologize, and finally went back to more of his new age mumbo jumbo. whitney came off miles above him with class, manners and intelligence. anyone who doesn’t see dangerous times ahead needs to stop meditating, taking drugs and open their eyes.

nekospecial August 8, 2008 at 7:04 pm

“Annoying valley boy inflection”? Well, that just completely disarms your argument. If you can’t get over that, you can’t possibly form an objective opinion.

zman3000 August 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm

why does it? it’s just an observation that others are afraid to note. if whitley spoke like that i’d clock him too.

zman3000 August 12, 2008 at 12:29 pm

anyone who doesn’t find valley speak annoying probably talks like that themselves, or is a blinded pinchbeck groupie. whitley went out of his way to be gracious, and praise pinchbeck’s book, and plug his website, and in return, the rude, egoist pinchbeck snapped at him like a doberman pinscher with distemper.

botchoa February 18, 2009 at 2:03 am

I LOL heartily.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: