The Secret Guardian (Prisoner of Infinity V)

mitch-whit

“When innocence has been deprived of its entitlement, it becomes a diabolic spirit.”
—J. Grotstein, “Forgery of the Soul”

A life full of holes. A cluster of fragments, swirling, roving, seeking a place to fit, seeking coherence, seeking meaning. A wound in the soul; a psyche in mortal peril. What is Whitley’s secret? And why do I need so badly to uncover it?

I have felt compelled to probe his work again and again throughout my adult life, like a tongue returning to an infected tooth. Whatever Whitley’s secret wound, finding it would mean—would depend on—finding my own. So how do you seek a secret you are keeping from yourself?

“I fought with the only weapon I had: my mind.”

“His mind was a desperate nest of rage and tension.”

“The visitors appeared to be using our distorted perception as a vehicle.”

“You’re chained to the ground.”

“I wondered if mind in its disembodied form is not wise and old but wise and young.”

“I no longer doubted the existence of a soul.”

“There was a strange darkness. I did not want to look; I didn’t even want to be near it.”

“You may be irretrievably lost.”

“An energetic level that is completely detached from the physical.”

“I would have laughed in the face of anybody who claimed contact.”

“Whitty, it’s not all right! It’s not all right!”

“I can imagine no greater honor than to be called human.”

“The vision of the box drew me so powerfully that I literally left my body.”

“This is the trigger for intervention, the destruction of a living world.”

“He would say only that something had gone wrong.”

“Mars was murdered by you.”

“I acquired an effective coping tool: The more frightening they got, the stronger I became.”

“I do not now find the small, gray beings terrible. I find them useful.”

Among the fragments that stand out in the Strieber material are Strieber’s various descriptions of his father. When Whitley is being subjected to strange procedures as a child—whether at the hands of alien beings or human ones or both—his father appears only as a powerless and frightened figure. It’s logical enough, since for Whitley to have been subjected to such traumatic treatments in his childhood, his father must have been remiss, ineffective, or simply absent.

In Communion (p. 62), Strieber describes a memory of being on a train, surrounded by soldiers lying unconscious in beds. He is twelve and his father is there, afraid, and the young Whitley is reassuring him. He tells his father that it’s all right, and his father replies, “Whitty, it’s not all right! It’s not all right!” The picture of a twelve-year-old boy trying to comfort his father puts the son in the role of the father, and vice versa. Later in the book (p. 118), Strieber adds more detail:

There was a sort of confused recollection of my father crouched at the back of an upper berth in our drawing room [on the train], his eyes bulging, his lips twisted back from his teeth. But I’ve always assumed that was a nightmare brought on by the fact that I was so sick on the trip. My illness was violent. I vomited until I thought I would die, and for no apparent reason. Nothing came up but bile, but the spasms simply would not stop.

Elsewhere in the same work, another fragment from Strieber’s childhood describes his father in a similarly terrified (and terrifying) light:

Almost in slow motion [my father’s] face simply broke up. He threw his head back and something like an electric shock seemed to go through him, making him spread his fingers and shake his arms. His eyes bulged and his mouth flew open. Then he was screaming, but I could hear it only faintly, a muffled shrieking, full of terror and despair (p. 126).

13178802

In The Secret School (p. 206), Strieber describes the effect of seeing his father’s terror in starkly visceral terms: “his fear just seemed to pour into me like a freezing torrent.” In Transformation (p. 232), Strieber’s follow-up to Communion, he describes being in a moment of terror and despair: “I wanted to give up, to sink down and just scream, but I couldn’t do that. My little boy was in there and he might wake and he mustn’t see his dad like this.” Here, Strieber is speaking from painful experience.

In Solving the Communion Enigma (p. 25), published twenty-five years later, Strieber recounts a strange memory which also occurred when he was twelve, when he found a photograph of his father lying in a coffin, eyes closed and arms crossed. Young Whitley showed the picture to his father, who tore it up, flushed it down the toilet, and never spoke of it again. As Strieber recounts the incident, the desk in which he finds the photograph had recently been given to him by his father, suggesting Whitley was meant to find the photograph at that precise time. For a boy on the brink of adolescence, seeing his father as a corpse would have had a profound impact on his psyche, an impact that would only have been deepened by his father’s demonstration of the forbidden nature of the image. Totem and taboo.

The earliest memory I have of my father—the only one I have of him while he was still living with us—is when I was around six or seven: he was half naked and unconscious—dead drunk—on the bedroom floor. No doubt the shocking nature of the scene seared itself onto my consciousness, and forever after I associated my father with unconsciousness, powerlessness, and incapacitation (maybe even death, if I didn’t understand what had happened to him). My clearest impression of him, then, was as an absence.13178809

That Strieber was impacted in a similar way, specifically by the photograph, would seem to be confirmed by repeat mentions of coffins, boxes, and confined spaces throughout his writings. He first went public about his traumatic “schooling” experiences in a post at his website titled “The Boy in the Box,” describing memories of being confined in a small space for long periods of time.

Among my worst memories, one that has come back to me again and again and again over the course of my life, is of waking up and finding that I am in a coffin. A box. I wake up when I try to move, and my head bounces against the top of the thing. I cannot get out. I’m trapped. The silence is absolute. The air is heavy. Soon, my breathing is agonizing. I’m in torment. But it doesn’t end. It keeps on and on and on. I remain for what seems like hours at the edge of suffocation. I scream, I see demons staring at me, I see angels, I see my grandfather Strieber there, then I see a long horizon, the sun either rising or setting.

In Solving the Communion Enigma, the coffin image recurs in a more cosmic context, when Strieber mentally asks one of the visitors, “What does the universe mean to you?”

Instantly, there appeared in my mind a bright, clear image of a closed coffin. . . . I wondered how anyone could think of our mysterious universe that way? But then I realized that, of course, they have probably reached its limits, or worse, discovered that reality has no limits. I can see the claustrophobia that would attend to the realization that one was trapped in an infinity that could never be escaped. In fact, I can feel it. It’s a little like being in a room you can never leave, or a prison (p. 71).

By what strange logic can infinity be compared to a closed coffin? The logic of trauma, perhaps? It is as if Whitley’s whole universe has become the casket in which his absent father is concealed, and matter the tomb in which the divine is forever buried. Like Kurzweil, Strieber seems to have projected his unhealed trauma onto infinity.

At seven, Strieber’s immune system broke down and he fell ill, after which he was apparently taken out of the secret school (the non-alien one). Strieber’s father was upset and paced the room, but “would say only that something had gone wrong.” If, as this seems to imply, Strieber’s father (and possibly both his parents) had inducted young Whitley (probably at around age four) into the secret school of traumagenesis, how much had he known about what would happen to his son? Strieber has not talked about it much, but he did address the question at his website forum, in February of 2007, in response to a comment about Ty Brown’s research:

Here is what I believe happened, in essence: During the war, my father was involved in a program to prevent US dollars going to Mexico from the Texas German community, where this money would be used to buy gold to send to Germany. Prior to the war, during the great German inflation, he had been participating in doing this himself, but certainly never for the Nazis. After the war, he was approached and his patriotism was appealed to, I was enrolled in this program. He did not know what it involved, except that it was important cold war work. I think that he was the victim of Paperclip scientists, who singled us out because of his war work. He did not know that I was going to be harmed, but the stress was so great that my immune system shut down and I was treated in the autumn and winter of 1952 at Brooke General Hospital with gamma globulin injections. I was isolated from other children at that time.

In his short story “Pain,” Strieber describes the incident with the photograph but fictionalizes it, saying it is a picture of the main character’s uncle. The narrator describes how his uncle lived in Munich in the 1920s, and how the photo is a record of his initiation into the Vril society, a secret occult order behind the Nazis’ rise to power. Strieber speculates how the Vril society performed a magical working to “raise a demon” to possess Adolf Hitler, their ultimate goal being to perform an alchemical ritual called “the death of the white king,” the final end of which was the detonation of the atomic bomb. The death of the white king relates to the semi-historical practice (famously described by James Frazer’s The Golden Bough) of slaying the father in order to replace him. Also known as the myth of Oedipus.

13178816

*

“I call them visitors, but now I am beginning to think that is a misnomer. I have had the impression that they think of themselves as family, and perhaps that is exactly what they are.”
—Whitley Strieber, Transformation

One of the stranger encounters which Strieber recounts in Solving the Communion Enigma (p. 45) is with a weird, feral creature that lived outside his house for several years, chain-smoking cigarettes. As Strieber describes him: “He looked like somebody who had ceased to age before puberty, and was now not a man but a sort of weathered child” (emphasis added). Strieber comes to see the weird man-child as his protector, keeping him safe from hostile (probably human) agencies who wish to harm him. The strange creature seems to live in the forest behind Strieber’s house and to be constantly lurking in the vicinity, keeping an eye on Strieber and his family. Strieber first becomes aware of its presence due to the smell of cigarette smoke, which Strieber is allergic to. He goes to investigate the being but is met with a ferocious look and a guttural growl that discourages him from any further attempts. He eventually comes to refer to the being as “the guardian.”

Like so many of Strieber’s encounters, the guardian is an almost spell-binding blend of the mundane with the fantastic. In Strieber’s world, creatures that would seem to belong exclusively to the realm of myth have an unsettlingly profane reality to them: bad smells, dirty ships, cigarette butts. While I was looking over the descriptions of this strange withered child, I found myself considering an even more peculiar possibility than that of an objective being “out there.” What if—like the daimonic guardian described by Kalsched—the creature was an aspect of Strieber himself? Admittedly, Strieber claims that other people saw the being, and that there was the evidence of the cigarette butts (it seems unlikely Strieber could be smoking them himself without his wife noticing). But in Strieber’s world, things are rarely as simple as either/or. Could the creature be an objectively real being (at least some of the time?) while in some strange way being an aspect of Strieber’s psyche? Strieber has suggested something similar about other fantastical beings he has encountered, and he speculates on several occasions that the Master of the Key is his “future self.” So why not the little shriveled guardian which he finds so distasteful? Maybe the answer is in the question?[1]

2-The-Guardian

If Strieber’s own psychological development, by whatever means, was deliberately arrested prior to adolescence as part of an inner-outer “archetypal traumatogenic agenda,” designed to harvest his psychic energy and redirect it down specific channels (towards the creation of a de-eroticized transhumanist scientific religion, say), was this weathered pre-pubescent what his traumatized psyche might have looked like? A lot more than “the Master of the Key,” at any rate?

Towards the end of Solving the Communion Enigma, Strieber describes a kind of “mind-meld” with the being:

His mind was a desperate nest of rage and tension. He could hear thoughts, and at one point we were able to briefly share his experience, which was among the most appalling things that has ever happened to me. . . I could suddenly hear a great number of voices, and they were all roaring and snarling and wailing, partly in words, partly in feelings, and they were primitive in the extreme. They were savage but they were also in a strange way wonderful (p. 199-200).

He then makes a surprising statement—“I have wanted to hold him, to bring him some kind of comfort.” Strange, but if the creature somehow embodied Strieber’s own traumatized inner child, the statement also makes perfect sense. Perhaps the weird creature might best be seen as Strieber’s “alter”? Psychologically speaking (in Kalsched’s model), the “guardian” describes the aspect of the psyche that comes into being in order to protect the conscious mind from re-experiencing the original trauma. It is the way “the secret guards itself.” Part of the individuation process, perhaps even the central goal, entails getting past this defense mechanism and discovering the secret which it exists to protect. Once the secret is exposed, the “guardian” no longer has any reason to exist. In a sense the secret is the guardian, and vice versa. An unconscious mechanism, once it is brought into consciousness, ceases to operate or even to exist. Donald Kalsched describes it this way:

[T]he original traumatic situation posed such a danger to personality survival that it was not retained in memorable personal form but only in daimonic archetypal form. This is the collective or “magical” layer of the unconscious and cannot be assimilated by the ego until it has been “incarnated” in a human interaction [emphasis added]. As archetypal dynamism it “exists” in a form that cannot be recovered by the ego except as an experience of retraumatization. Or, to put it another way, the unconscious repetition of traumatization in the inner world which goes on incessantly must become real traumatization with an object in the world if the inner system is to be “unlocked”[2]

This appears to be the underlying dynamic and drive behind the kind of experiences Strieber describes: an unconscious attempt to translate an archetypal (“screen”) memory of early trauma into more human form, in order to interact with it and recognize its true nature. This interaction is an opportunity to repeat the original trauma in a new way, to bring it all the way into consciousness, thereby dissolving the defense mechanism (that of the false self or “guardian”) created by the early experience of trauma. This can only happen, however, if the individual recognizes the “incarnation” of trauma for what it is, an image from the past personified in the present as a means to be understood and assimilated, dissolved, through exposure to consciousness. Ideally, this is what occurs in the psychotherapeutic process through transference. Transference is when a safe space is created by the analyst for the analysand to re-experience an original trauma with a minimal risk of re-traumatization. Re-traumatization is the result of misattributing the distress that arises during the therapeutic process to a present cause, rather than correctly tracing it back to the past and integrating it.

Truly distressing as the therapeutic process is, most individuals prefer to experience re-traumatization by projecting their autonomy onto the other—whether alien, spouse, or analyst—and attributing both the “transformation” and the trauma to an outside agency. The alternative is to go willingly back into the original trauma and re-experience it with full body awareness, which, by definition, is the most terrifying thing there is. Strieber touches on this in Transformation (p. 37) when he reports his wife’s suggestion that the contact experience, while stemming from an objective reality, is “changed by the filter of our experience.” Expectations distort the ability to see or understand, she says. “More than that, the visitors appeared to her to be using our distorted perception as a vehicle through which they could transmit messages of importance to the inner growth of the individual participant.

I understand this statement to mean that the visitors were drawing Strieber into forms of interaction that would allow him to see his own distortions. Strieber is attributing “messages” to the visitors, but the nature of the therapeutic process is that all such messages must finally be seen as coming from the patient’s own psyche and not from any external source. Without this realization, the projected distortion remains in place, and instead of unlocking the defense system and reintegrating past trauma, there is an experience of retraumatization without any resulting breakthrough. New layers of trauma are then added to old, and the guardian becomes a prison guard.

1-Mitch's-Whit

****

Accompanying audios from 2013 (download links): “The Unreliable Narrator,” “Puer Aeternus,” and “Absent Dads.”

[1] In Communion, Strieber describes his feelings for the female being represented on the cover as similar to how he might feel about “my own anima” (p. 105). He wonders, “Can anything other than a part of oneself know one so well?” (p. 106). On an audio he aired in Feb 2005, “Unpublished Close Encounters, Part 2,” he implies that his “guardian” resembled the Master of the Key! http://www.unknowncountry.com/whitleysroom/unpublished-close-encounters-part-2

[2] P.26. Semantically, I would question Kalsched’s use of the term “re-traumatization” here, as I think a re-experiencing of trauma is a more accurate description of the desired outcome, while re-traumatization is what must be avoided.

 

 

 

23 thoughts on “The Secret Guardian (Prisoner of Infinity V)

  1. Dear Jasun,

    I found your blog about a month ago and have been reading, avidly, as time permits.

    Your research is fascinating and especially compelling as you make potential connections to your own history.

  2. I watched the old 1962 version of The Manchurian Candidate the other day and as i watched the early scene where the GIs are being ” paraded ” before the assembled soviet and chinese generals , the part where the GIs saw the audience as ladies at a flower show in new jersey got me thinking . What if instead of flower arranging ladies , the victims could be programmed to see their tormentors as ” aliens” ?? The head scientist commented that this had taken three days to achieve , i imagine they have refined their technique since then .
    The last few days i have been studying the various online debates between the christian versus leftist view of aliens . Coincidentally an ABC news broadcast came on with a leftie scientist describing how ” the thought that there is life out there gives people hope and inspiration “, sounds an awful lot like a new religion to me . He then went on to denounce religion in no uncertain terms as ” full of arrogance and hubris ” . Do the social engineers of all stripes recognise the need to provide the massed chimps with some type of spiritual fodder lest they , ” heaven forbid” run off and invent their own ??

  3. Inventing religions is what “they” do. (it’s easy…as Patrick Harpur brilliantly points out, and James Joyce illustrated with extreme genius, human consciousness is structured with myth, which is synonymous in many ways with religion/identity) USA is a religion. Empire of England is a religion. But yes they need a global religion for the masses and it needs to be ‘scientific’ to reflect the times. Check out “The Stargate Conspiracy”. It’s all there. I have kids and I can tell you there has scarcely been a kids movie or TV show that does not contain aliens. Huge numbers of adult movies and TV shows contain aliens. It’s impossible to look up at the night sky and not think about aliens now. Yet it’s mostly bullshit except as Harpur points out- as a daimonic reality. Which is not bullshit. Aliens are what leprecauns have become. Literalizing myths and daimons is what religions do. Artists make art out of them. Madmen make religions because you can get kontrol. Kontrol is satanic. I think we are dealing with satanists. But maybe not! Check Harpur’s “The Philosopher’s Secret Fire”. Strieber stories are a lot like the old stories of the fairies or “good people”.

    It’s all too complicated for a comment. But yes “they” are destroying the old religions and social structures to engineer a New World Order. They need a new religion, not just a new economic and political structure (largely completed). National borders cannot be erased until we all more or less believe the same things. And the closer to the old Egyptian religion the better.

    Jason I think it’s just that you are getting into the realm of what is ultimate reality, not political reality, and that becomes less interesting as something to comment on, because it is impossible to know, unless you have your own visionary experiences to share. Because “everything you can think of is true, the dish ran away with the spoon”.

    Also I bet a lot of these UFO spacecraft are secret military projects.

    Also haven’t some mind control victims stated that they were used to do “alien theater” instead of sex slavery espionage etc.?

    • I think it’s just that you are getting into the realm of what is ultimate reality, not political reality, and that becomes less interesting as something to comment on, because it is impossible to know, unless you have your own visionary experiences to share.

      The correlation between knowing ultimate reality and visionary experiences is an interesting one. If we came to know ultimate realty, I imagine it would not seem a visionary experience but an ultimately real one. Yet communicating it to those who have not made their own discovery of UR without it seeming as such, that’s the rub…

      Also interesting is the apparent line between political or mundane reality and ultimate. The latter includes the former, surely. so the line only exists until we have crossed over to the other side of it. At which time, it would be apparent that it never did (exist), or so I imagine.

  4. Excellent comment- I just went to the link!

    Hey Jasun- why not interview Picknett or Prince (Stargate Conspiracy) or Patrick Harpur? You and Patrick could have a grand chat. He is very suspiciously conspiracy free, but really brilliant.

  5. I do plan to talk to Patrick later in the month; Picknett or Prince don’t strike me as liminal-thinkers but I could always try. I wouldn’t say “it’s all there” in Stargate Conspiracy, by any means (no mention of MKULTRA, as far as I recall?). Yes they did some major dot-joining but overall I found it less than persuasive, maybe too broad a brushstroke, not enough nuance or contextualizing of info?

    Kutuman: the social engineers are in the business of manufacturing hope, as what keeps the wheels of capitalism moving. Now the good old days of mindless slaves (willing to row the oars for nothing but food and exemption from the whip) are over, post-century of the self, heaven is too abstract a carrot, & it’s almost as if science has become the opium of the masses.

    [Edit: Correction: MKULTRA is mentioned in the book, about 3 pages of material that isn’t woven into the rest of the narrative.]

  6. Boy in The Box

    Michelangelo Antonioni’s “Zabriskie Point” has been fascinating me as of late. It was greatly panned in its day – people didn’t get it. Like directors such as Kubrick or Hitchcock, Antonioni weaved a story in which the film is outwardly one thing but inwardly something quite different.

    There’s a scene where Daria Halprin’s character visits a ghost town named Ballister. It’s kind of an eerie scene and there are multiple overt as well as hidden references to child abuse.

    There is no actual town named Ballister – the scene was shot in Vidal, California.

    And yes, that is a reference to Gore Vidal. Vidal had been hanging around with Fellini (and by that association, one would guess Antonioni as well) during the mid sixties to early seventies. And when he was in Rome, Vidal really did as the romans did, if you catch my drift.

    Besides being the place where Wyatt Earp settled down to mine the local hills, Vidal, California, is well known for one other thing than being a setting in Antonioni’s film. It was for a while owned and operated by the members of a cult which lived on a nearby ranch. In the summer of 1969, the cult became involved in the famous “Boy in the Box” case.

    Wiki has the following:

    “Charges were filed against 13 members of the Solar Lodge secret society after their ranch near Vidal was raided by deputies of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department on July 26, 1969.

    When the deputy sheriffs arrived at Solar Ranch, they found 6-year-old Saul Gibbons sitting inside a six-foot by six-foot box with a chain padlocked to his left leg and attached to a heavy metal plate.

    It was alleged that between May 31 and July 26, 1969, the boy was kept chained up in the box and left exposed to the heat of the Sonoran Desert. He was not allowed to leave the box during those 56 days.

    However, the doctor who immediately examined the child testified that he was “a normal six-year-old boy, perhaps a bit dirty, but not suffering from malnutrition or dehydration.” This statement is not consistent with the general accusations of prolonged confinement over many days.

    The police arrested 13 members at the Vidal compound. Four were convicted of a felony, receiving six months in jail, five were convicted of a misdemeanor, receiving three months in jail, and four had their charges dismissed at the Indio branch of the Riverside County Superior Court.

    Jean Brayton, her husband, the boy’s father, and three other members left California before they could be arrested, going on the run from the authorities. Three years later they all surrendered in court, but none were forced to serve a sentence in jail because it was determined that the circumstances surrounding their charges were subject to entrapment laws. Jean Brayton pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years probation and a $500 fine. Her husband, Richard Brayton, had his charges dismissed. Frater Dys, who had actually chained the boy for no more than 10 hours, pleaded guilty and received probation. Other members had their charges dismissed due to lack of evidence.”

    The date is only two weeks before the famous Tate-LaBianca killings. No-one seems to be able to connect Charlie Manson to the Vidal ranch – but a few have tried. The Manson “family” were stationed up in Death Valley at the time of the “Boy in the Box” case.

    The connections are actually way deeper than I’m letting on here.

    Really oddly, Antonioni, seems to make reference to Manson in the Ballister scene. Even more oddly, if you watch the scene, you’ll see some pretty obvious references to the “Boy in the Box” case. What makes it odd is that by the time the “Boy in the Box” case and Charlie Manson murders occurred, Antonioni was supposedly back in Italy having already finished shooting the film in May, 1969.

    • This is eminently fascinating & bears some further investigation (not to mention hearing more of what you are not letting on: don’t hold back on my account). I have never seen ZP all the way through, tho the Jungian therapist mentioned in this exploration bought me a copy for my birthday once, which I no longer have. It’s one of those art films that I have enormous difficulty paying attention throughout. Have you got a minute mark for the relevant scene so I can skip to it once I find a download? There does seem to be a cluster of crucial correspondences here.

      • Sorry I haven’t responded to your request for more information on the Ballister scene in Zabriskie Point.

        I’ll make a quick note here.

        I think the main material being referenced in the scene is from the movie “Boys Town”, an MGM production from 1938, directed by Norman Taurog and starring Spencer Tracy and Mickey Rooney. Though given a real Hollywood bent, “Boys Town” was based on the history of Father Edward Flanagan who established a home in Omaha, Nebraska, for orphaned and wayward boys in 1917. The home soon was sponsoring hundreds of boys and Flanagan moved it to a farm just west of Omaha. Flanagan died in 1948 and the responsibilities of maintaining the home were passed on to other Catholic clergy.

        In 1936, Father Flanagan started to establish ties with J. Edgar Hoover – seems they shared the same views on juvenile delinquency. Perhaps it was Hoover’s influence that got Flanagan’s story into film. The movie made “Flanagan” a household name. After the second world war, heads of state (including the likes of General Douglas MacArthur) were sending Flanagan to Korea, Japan and Germany so that he could observe the state of care of children and make suggestions on how to improve it.

        In 1938, Father Flanagan invited the Congregation of Christian Brothers to help teach at Boys Town. I think he later ousted them for being a bit too harsh in their methods of discipline. The Christian Brothers are famous on Canadian soil for the alleged sexual and physical abuse of more than 300 former pupils at the Mount Cashel Orphanage in Newfoundland (wiki).

        In 1949, under new leadership, Charles Manson paid a visit to Boys Town. He was ordered by a judge to go to Boys Town – there are newspaper clippings of the event.

        Manson left Boys Town after four days. His criminal career which had been petty before became serious after. I’d like to find out what happened to him there – of course, maybe he simply noticed there were no fences at Boys Town and just walked off.

        In 1968, about the time that Antonioni started to film Zabriskie Point, Lawrence King moved to Omaha and began work at the Franklin Credit Union. King, of course, was later alleged to have orchestrated a large child trafficking ring which supplied children apparently all the way to pedophiles in the White House. The children being trafficked were associated with Boys Town. The case is famous and there’s a lot of information out there on the web. What interests me is that a former director of Boys Town has come forward seeking help from the defense attorney John DeCamp. Apparently the director had knowledge of sexual abuse within Boys Town dating before Lawrence King’s involvement.

        So, yah…Catholic Priests, FBI, white house, Manson, child abuse, trafficking…

        And Antonioni, within the same scene, references the “boy in the box”/Solar Lodge cult case, Gore Vidal, Tennessee Williams, etc..

        And, oh yah, Taurog couldn’t pass up an opportunity to put in a little jab about what was probably common knowledge in 1938 as well as now in regard to Catholic priests and young boys:


        What’s going on here?
        ———————————————————
        But now something relating more directly to Whitley Strieber…

        I’m pretty sure that Whitley Strieber, whether consciously or unconsciously, flavoured his “London Odyssey” with bits and pieces of an Antonioni film from 1975, “The Passenger”.

        “The Passenger” stars Jack Nicholson and Maria Schneider. Jack Nicholson’s character, reporter David Locke, assumes the identity of an arms dealer, David Robertson, who has died in a hotel in Africa at which both are staying. They look sort of similar. He finds Robertson’s calendar and decides to keep the scheduled meetings listed therein. On his travels he hooks up with a woman (Maria Schneider), whose name is never given in the film, and they travel together until his/Robertson’s, by then, questioning and unsatisfied clients kill him in a hotel in Spain.

        Of course, that’s a way too simplified synopsis of the film – there are a lot of question marks.

        Strieber mentions in his “London Odyssey” going to Rome, visiting a cathedral in Strasbourg, changing course to Port Bou and Barcelona and then taking a journey to an African desert, probably the Sahara.

        Rome is not part of “The Passenger” but it was Antonioni’s home. It was from Rome that Antonioni went to London to film the first of three Carlo Ponti/MGM films, “Blow Up”. (“Zabriskie Point” and “The Passenger” were the other two.) The film was released in late 1966 and, I would guess, had been shot earlier that year. But, considering its popularity, the filming would still have been creating a bit of a buzz by the time Strieber arrived in London. In “The Passenger”, David Locke (posing as David Robertson and (almost ridiculously) disguised in a mustache) returns to his home in London to fetch some money from his lock box while his wife is away. On the way to his house he encounters “the girl”, they exchange looks but nothing happens between them at this time. As part of Robertson’s itinerary, Locke next goes to Munich. He eventually happens upon a cathedral where a marriage is occurring. Strieber went to the German/French border city of Strasbourg and goes to see a cathedral.

        Locke’s next meeting is in Barcelona. His former life is starting to catch up with him so he goes into hiding. His hotel is in the Ramblas area. Strieber went into hiding in the Ramblas area.

        Locke meets “the girl” again after he escapes into a Gaudi designed building. This time they connect a little more. Locke will find her again later on the rooftop of another Gaudi building. There they plan his escape. The scene gets seared into a person’s brain because of the Gaudi designed rooftop – which includes, I would guess, a few chimneys. Strieber escaped the Process Church from rooftop to rooftop where he remembers seeing chimney pots.

        A lot of what follows in “The Passenger” was shot in the Almeria area of Spain – which is interesting in itself given you’re an Eastwood fan.

        The beginning of “The Passenger” was shot in the desert near Djanet, Algeria. (Funny you should mention the hijacked plane in Rome being re-routed to Algiers.) Having seen the photos that have come back from the Rovers on Mars, Locke, as he walks through the desert with his guide, might as well be walking on Mars. Strieber did his weird trip to the Sahara, identifying it with Mars.

        I’m thinking Strieber might have got some of his “schtick” from Antonioni.

    • Recently, the Secret Sun blog had a post referencing Kyle Odom’s shooting of Pastor Tim Remington. Odom believed Remington was a (or, at least, an agent of a) reptilian Martian. Odom believed reptilian Martians came to earth thousands of years ago and were rejected after many times trying to live among humans. They developed an animosity towards humans and now use them as sex toys. The martians are to eventually destroy the Earth just like they destroyed Mars.

      I started looking into the story and there are many interesting correlations to what you’ve been presenting in the POI series.

      But something of interest that I found in regard to the comment I made above:

      Odom had a Facebook page that has been taken down. Before it was taken down some of the people that were able to view the page noticed that a youtube video had been posted on it. Being posted on his Facebook page, possibly Odom really identified with the video. The video, however, turned out to be just a “lame” country music video.

      I had to have a peek.

      What I saw was classic “boy in the box.”

  7. I see that Picknett has written a big book on UFOs. I’d like to know where they stand now. Or Coppens. I’m really excited about your talk with Harpur. And I still can’t figure out why the CIA wants us all to be shamans! Unless it makes it easier to hypnotize us.

    The only credible UFO story I believe is from the Amazon when a vegetalista I met claimed to see them over a certain field when under the influence. And they are replete in the paintings of Pablo Amaringo. http://www.imagekind.com/Llullun-Llaki-Supai_art?IMID=e2287f82-5a29-41eb-8495-22c6005685cb

    But nuts and bolts? gimme a break

    • IMO, the CIA aren’t trying to turn anyone into shamans but a select controllable few into psychic warriors & cultural spokesmen; as for the rest of us, it seems to have to do with expanding our minds by fragmenting them, so that we never come all the way into our bodies, where wisdom-knowing happens. A fractured mind is an expanded mind, and an expanded mind is a great way to keep consciousness dissociated, i.e., imprisoned without it ever knowing. A prisoner of “infinity.” In my father’s house there are many mansions. An image-nation.

  8. I ended up at this post although i was really just trying to check out your latest one. Maybe I’ve been here before, but this time it has triggered me to tell you something about my twin brother, who died in 2012. In his later years he was very much like Whitley’s feral guardian — smoking constantly and living the indoor equivalent of a backyard life, chained to his computer 24/7 (he even slept next to it), and deeply involved in some endless conversation with himself which he would sometimes voice in the form of an uninterrupted monologue on a wide range of topics. Physically, he just wasted away, and in the end began going to hospitals where they tried various procedures on him, exotic scans, and the like. After one of these procedures (for which he was sent to a McGill hospital) they gave him a memory-easing drug, mentioning it to him only afterwards, as he was leaving. That really enraged him. They said it was to erase his memory of the traumatic procedure (one of those up-the-penis scans that are excruciatingly painful). I was not there, and that was about a month before he died — and during that month he seemed to lose all interest in the world around him, including food, and even his best friend, the computer. It was terrible to watch. He had clearly got caught in some loop inside his mind, with no exit. Anyway, that’s more than I intended to write, describing him.

    My subject is really the Box. Or coffin. Come to think of it, I had him cremated so there was no coffin, just a very small box. This is becoming a bit macabre, sorry — We scattered his ashes in the St Laurence on a very windy day, which happened to be the same day Katherine Tekakwitha was sanctified in Rome, i.e. became a saint, and as her grave was just across the river from where we scattered my brother’s ashes (illegally i might add) I felt that day was a great blessing and a fitting end to a very creative but also sad life. In which there was early childhood torture — not by our parents, but by MKULTRA scientists at McGill — at least that’s my firm belief.

    After he died, i saw him in dreams. In the next world, I saw he was getting talk therapy, in the company of friends and relatives who had got there ahead of him. Finally, he was beginning to speak about his early childhood trauma, which was the cause of everything that went wrong in his adult life. One of the scenes he was able to describe (in the next world, where I was an eavesdropper) was an experiment he was in, at age 4 or 5, at McGill. This would have been the time, I think, that we were both put into the gifted kids program, which was probably similar to the one Whitley was in. (My brother, by the way, sometimes spoke of alien encounters, and I think he read COMMUNION and felt it spoke to him).

    The scene my brother described (in that post-humous session in the clouds) went like this: he was put in a box, at McGill, and given a sword. A real one, sharp. He was four or five at the time. And he was told by the scientists to defend himself if anyone attacked the box. Then they closed the lid. Then they brought in another child, likely an orphan, and told him to rip apart the box from the outside, which he did, and my brother jumped out and killed the other boy with the sword.

    After that they sent him home. At some point, it appeared, or so I recall, that my brother was dropped or demoted — he developed a ‘lazy eye’ for which he needed glasses. And later he had a cut over one eye, from having them broken, somehow, and the scar over his eyebrow never really healed.

    After that, I was promoted. I was the one on whom the scientists focused their interest. This is what I have pieced together from comments my parents and grandmother made, at the time. I took my twin brother’s place, while he retreated into the shadows — actually he became very musical at around age 6. And I was somewhat resented. At the end of his life, my brother told me I had always been a ‘malignant’ force in his life — I’d had no real idea, but I think it was true. I think I resented him, too, for letting me down, and withdrawing into his own, safe little world — because in many ways he was a narcissist,never doing anything that didnt interest him personally. He didn’t have pets, for that reason — he would just ignore them.

    So that was my brother, in that box for life. A few weeks after that post-humous conversation about that McGill experiment, i stumbled across David Icke’s two-hour interview with MK survivor Arizona WIlder. You might think it’s all about reptilians and the royal family, but that’s just the first hour and three-quarters. In the last few minutes, Arizona gets into her experience with Dr, Wilder Penfield, whose name she later adopted, perhaps as a way to expose him. Wilder Penfield was a famous McGill neneurologist, and had CIA clearance during the MKULTRA years (1953-64) at McGill. He’s also a hero of medicine who experimented on children. In the final minutes of that wild interview, Arizona describes the experiment she witnessed, which was called the Jack-in-the-Box… in which a child was placed in a box and given a sword…

    I believe the trauma of murdering another child, and then forgetting all about it, was what slowly destroyed my brother. I think it was the reason he was so silent for the first 30 years of his life, and such a compulsive and circular talker for the rest of it.

    I can’t read about the Visitors, without seeing white-coated doctors standing around, staring down at those little children, whose parents are elsewhere, waiting to pick them up from the hospital and bring them home.

    • That’s a very disturbing account. The sword rings a bell, not sure why, except of course for fitting so well with Strieber’s symbolic (& literal) narrative. Then there’s the claim about lazy eye being a physical symptom of psychopathology, which i guess you know about (maybe I heard it from you)?

      Can’t help but think of Elvis and PK Dick, with their dead twins and connection to the other side…

  9. Yes, so disturbing I haven’t been able to bring myself to write about it. I didnt know that about lazy eye — but my bro was the opposite of a psychopath. A narcissist, yes, in the sense of turning inward — and a resourceful procrastinator — but also oversensitive, over-caring, vulnerable, socially defenseless. The usual pack of contradictions. The trauma was deeply buried but gradually strangled him like some invisible cord that only he could feel. There seemed to be “no cause.’

    The box: it comes up everywhere in survivor accounts, but you must know that. They put many children into boxes: Skinner boxes, from B,F. Skinner, the pioneer of behavioural psychology, who raised his own daughter in one. I think it’s Carol Rutz who describes being given a shot of curare, and put in a box at McGill, along with snakes and spiders — that scenario comes up often in MKULTRA stories.

    I wrote a story (mid-80s) about being a twin, the psychic connection. It was called “Snakebite” and includes a dream I had at age 5 of seeing my mother after she’s been by a poisonous snake in our living room, and an inner voice telling me “Do not enter the box.”

    It occurred to me that they must have tried various dissociative tricks and ways of deceiving chilldren. Early they dressed as witches and clowns so the children would not be believed. But as the ‘alien’ theme evolved through the 1960s, wouldn’t it have been simpler for the scientist to put on ET masks or goggles to fool little children who would also be drugged not to remember much —

    My brother did see a UFO at age 19 and claimed it was a life-changing spiritual encounter – but he was on LSD at the time, ca. 1970, when drugs were everywhere.

  10. My puter gulps words but I really should proofread before posting. I just googled ‘lazy eye’ aka “droopy eye” – a sign of sociopathy and also trauma-based mind control. My brother’s eye “wandered’ — i think it was the left eye and they gave him funny-looking glasses to correct it, but I don’t remember him wearing them after age 6 or so. He was always very shy. There are things so terrible that we can only absorb them when we’re no longer in the visible world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s