Dark Oasis: 7 Years a Slave to this Book, Finally Released from my Contract Today!

full-cover-cleaned-up + borders (alt subtitle)2

11/11/17, almost exactly seven years after the Emperor-spell broke and the investigation into his invisible robes began, the book is finally available. I don’t know for how long, however, so if you are interested in a copy, get it now while stocks last. The first three quarters of the book is serialized at this blog; the remaining quarter won’t be available online.

If you aren’t interested ~ what’s the matter with you?! Here’s a recent exchange with Darren Westlund (who isn’t interested either) that will change your mind. Or not. (I haven’t got . . . the faintest ideaaa…)

Darren wrote: About Dark Oasis… I’ve been reading your John de Ruiter blog posts and they’re (of course!) very interesting and well-written, but every goddamn time I read a new one I found myself wondering why YOU, of all people—Jasun Horsley, the man with the super-powerful intellect and a firm grasp of all things psycho-spiritual and/or mystical—would have gone skulking after a guru. I just don’t get it, because I’ve never felt the same impulse. 

This probably sounds a bit hypocritical coming from a guy who paid a Jungian analyst $120 an hour for eight years so I could go on a Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride through my own psyche—but I would argue that that’s different.

 

So I’m not sure if I’m up for having a 400+ page experience of asking myself, on every page, “What the fuck was Jasun thinking?” while I read Dark OasisI think that book might be more of a niche product, best suited for de Ruiter’s crowd of brainwashed cultists, or those susceptible to guru worship in general. It’s just not my thing. No offense, but I think I’d rather read the new books on Kubrick and Strieber. At least those two have created movies and texts that interest me. The gurus? They tend not to be creators—although I’ll admit that Gurdjieff and Osho said some pretty trippy things that I found amusing. Everything you’ve written about de Ruiter just makes me think he was an obfuscating, 4X4-driving spiritual con artist and I would have seen right through him from Day 1. Fuck that guy….

It’s like Wm. Burroughs said: “…the con man needs the Mark — The Mark does not need the con man.” Burroughs, of all people, would know.

My response: The short answer to “What the fuck was Jasun thinking?” is: father issues. Everyone has them, and whether they come out in over-dependence/interest/gullibility towards father figures or excessive aversion to them isn’t necessarily an indication of how strong they are (or should I say, how unconscious).

You dislike gurus (so did I, btw) but admire novelists & filmmakers (and psychologists). So then there’s a different level of discernment at work. There’s definitely a difference between psychotherapy and spiritual discipleship; but as to whether one is more autonomous or, for that matter, effective, than the other, I suppose that would have to be taken on a case by case basis… I “followed” JdR for a little under two years & it cost me less than psychotherapy would have. I am certainly better off for having gone through the whole thing, even if I’m not thanking Mr dR for it. [Or if I am, in a very unorthodox fashion, by publishing this book.]

I think you want to separate that chapter of my experience from the rest of my output; yet my relationship with JdR, for better or worse, my run-in with him, says as much about me as anything else I’ve written (at least till the 2nd part of Seen & Not Seen and Occult Yorkshire). One thing it says is: a super-honed intellect is no defense against “con-men.” Maybe you were hoping that a “super-powerful intellect and a firm grasp of all things psycho-spiritual and/or mystical” would be enough to navigate the labyrinth of trauma-patterns? In fact ~ ironically ~ a super-powerful intellect is probably itself symptomatic of trauma  and so constructed in just such a way as to be completely useless when it comes time to going into those patterns (by having them re-triggered via transference)

Well, not completely useless, I did apply logic (& writing) to extricate myself….

But ask yourself this: who is wiser, the one who managed to avoid getting conned by staying out of dodgy neighborhoods, or the one who went all the way in there, lost everything but the shirt off his back, but lived to tell the tale? Which one knows more about con tricks?

[I list the names of famous artists Darren cited in his email]: Everyone has their own brand of kool-aid.

Darren responded: I don’t think you can equate my admiration for the accomplishments of certain novelists, filmmakers, etc. with any sort of unconscious desire to turn them into parental figures. I also happen to know a fair number of psychologists socially (I live in NYC, after all) and about half of them strike me as assholes, so I wouldn’t say I hold the people who work in that particular profession in any great esteem. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s another field that’s rife with con artists.

But if “following” JdR worked for you in the same way, or better than, analysis would have worked for you—as you say it did—then I’m totally cool with that. I don’t want to separate that chapter of your experience from the rest of you. I just don’t want to read a book about what you went through to come out on the other side, where we both are now. Let’s write it off to my grandfather issues….

That Ruskoff blurb was nice of him, although I think it’s hyperbole to say it could happen to anyone. For instance, for every one person that gets suckered into Scientology, there must be at least another hundred people who would immediately and unequivocally know that L. Ron Hubbard was a pathological liar, once they’d had a little exposure to his “Study Tech.”

My response: That’s probably a case of me making too broad a point due to the medium (semi-rapid fire email exchange). The finer point (I think) is that transference is the underlying principle behind all forms of cultural enthrallment/hero worship/deification, and that the notion of the creator-artist as a superior figure to be admired & emulated is central to the larger, unrecognized cult of culture.

Probably the main gain for me of falling in thrall to JdR was that it forced me to see that I am not immune to that (no one is), and it gave me the opportunity to better identify those personal patterns that make me susceptible. Hence, again, the mark who knows he has been conned has an advantage over the mark who doesn’t know it. Humbling only happens via humiliation, alas.

Paper Tiger, Prisoner of Infinity, Kubrickon, SANS and Dark Oasis are really all part of the same work in that regard, which is an ongoing examination of cultural programming (“cult logic”) using as many examples as I can find that I have personal, direct experience of. Grokking “mkultra culture” entails seeing that MKULTRA, the historical program, is just an overt, literalized example of a program that predates the CIA by a long time, and that is most effective via the avenues we least suspect; the art of mind control, like culture, is to conceal its own traces and effects by shaping our perceptual and cognitive faculties ~ just as a good cult leader does.

Being able to see through LRH or JDR may give us a false sense of confidence that we know how to spot a con. My view (post-JdR) is that “this could happen to anyone” is not hyperbole but understatement. It has happened to everyone.

***

Order the book here. One for you, for your bathroom, your neighbor, & your dog. I will also be selling signed copies, at least for a while, and just as soon as I receive them. If you want to pre-order one of these, make a payment via Paypal (jasunhorsley [at] gmail [dot] com) with a note about what it’s for and who you’d like it inscribed to. Cost of the signed copies will be $25, inc P & P, if you are in the US, more for Europe and other areas (I will look into prices and update this page). Note also that, currently, the book is listed as unavailable at Amazon.ca ~ ironically, since it’s about a Canadian cult leader. I am told it will show up on .ca eventually, but I’m not sure show long it will take. If you are in Canada and want a copy, you can pre-order it via myself and receive it as soon as I have copies. It will be $22, inc. P & P. I’ll work on getting an order button up at the site in the next day or two.

5 thoughts on “Dark Oasis: 7 Years a Slave to this Book, Finally Released from my Contract Today!

  1. I have to confess Jasun that most books I read are illegally obtained. However (in my defence) I could not purchase most of them even if I wanted to. I shall however be purchasing a copy of your book (from the beast. Aka Amazon.) It better be good, or I’ll be turning up at the thrift store for a refund. ( I’m just up the road in sunny Scotland). Anywhooo…£1(4:44). Interesting! Big fan of the podcast Its 7:07 in the new valley of the sun – Eyes Open – No Fear.

  2. John de Ruiter and Oasis brace for impact? In the updated (?) FAQ: https://johnderuiter.com/news-post/faq-frequently-asked-questions/

    Is the gazing a form of hypnosis or mind control?
    The Oxford English Dictionary defines hypnosis as:

    1. The inducement or the gradual approach of sleep.
    2. Artificially produced sleep: esp. that induced by hypnotism; the hypnotic state.

    Opening up inside and letting go of distracting patterns and preoccupations is essential to both meetings and going to sleep at night. The body can respond to both similarly, so people occasionally become drowsy in meetings. It can also be the relaxation after a long day’s work.

    There is no induced sleep or hypnotic process in meetings. As for mind control, the meetings support you to place your mind in the control of your own integrity. John teaches that the mind is innocent and not an illusory force. The mind is a facility that reflects and expresses what is deeper within a person. Meetings build up the resources of goodness inside, who and what you really are, so that you can support your mind to function fully and truly. The mind belongs to the deeper levels of you and meeting with John only brings the mind back to that crystal clear basis. You take responsibility for your own mind.


    How does John’s teaching match with the controversy associated with him?

    For every person who knows of John de Ruiter, there is another opinion about him. These views range from love to resentment and everything in between. Despite beliefs that John is acting in his own interest at the expense of his audience, those around him experience a loving and generous person. We experience that the meetings and teaching of John de Ruiter are of profound benefit, heightening awareness of what is deeper than ourselves, so that a better life can manifest from living in our hearts.

    The meetings and dialogues with John de Ruiter deepen a true relationship with sexuality, power and what we do and do not know. If you are interested in the teachings of John de Ruiter, you are invited to consider popular interpretations of these issues as well as levels of perception that are less obvious or less common. John’s teaching is to discern and believe only what you know is true. This applies to everything John says as well as everything that is said or written about him.

    What criticism is directed to John de Ruiter?
    Many discerning and sincere people respect John de Ruiter as a unique speaker of truth and evolution of consciousness, and many others are skeptical. Criticism centres around John’s sexual relations with women, the belief that John is leading a cult for personal gain, the belief that John cultivates followers primarily for financial profit, and the long periods of silence in John’s meetings. These questions are considered in more detail below.

    John and sexual relations with women

    In a time when sexual misconduct is gaining more recognition as a major issue, some people misattribute the stereotypes to John de Ruiter. John’s conduct in regards to sexuality holds to an exacting standard of communication and respect. This was brought into question when John de Ruiter made public the fact of his consensual sexual relations with women beyond the traditional scope of marriage. John states that despite the impact this has on the community around him and his own life, he acts only according to a profound inner clarity. These are John’s words:

    ….


    Do John and his meetings constitute a cult?

    Observing the full attendance at John’s meetings and audiences’ dedication to his teachings, writers have described the community as a cult, and John de Ruiter as a cult leader. Much of the value and inspiration in meetings is attributed to John and yet the constant emphasis of his teaching is for all to reach what is truly known to them individually and to believe nothing else. John sets no control on people’s actions or beliefs intentionally. He does everything he can to balance the perceived power differential of “student and teacher.” He reflects questioning back into each person’s own evaluation, invites various interpretations and encourages everybody to educate and develop themselves in all aspects of life. The meetings, open mics, and social discussions are for the development and enjoyment of anybody who chooses to attend them.

    In all settings, The College of Integrated Philosophy and the community openly questions itself and John.  Discussions around tables in The Jewel Cafe are a forum where open dialogue is welcome, complemented by occasional large-scale events for all to examine the nature of the community and John. The self-critique has both formal and comical expressions. Around the fire at The Nordegg Camping Trip, we have stand-up comedy evenings and skits laying bare the quirks and blind-spots of meetings and John. Anybody is fair game and everybody is laughing.  Cinema Nights are a more casual format that allows for a direct and sometimes humorous approach to understanding John and the community.

    Those at meetings form a community by a shared interest in John’s teaching, not by any other structure.  As we welcome the inspiration, we take care of the dynamics of being a community.

    Are John and the meetings motivated mainly by financial profit?
    As John de Ruiter bases his meetings in a high-end venue and charges money for the meetings, writers and critics suggest that he is operating for maximum profit in exchange for a “product that is nonexistent.”

    John’s reply is typically that no luxury is needed to provide a location for meetings, but that he is grateful to be able to maintain a beautiful building for the meetings and the general public. He has stated that The College of Integrated Philosophy is not focused on profit or personal investment, but to continually facilitate the meetings and other events. John stated:

    Money is not needed for any evolution of awareness or any opening of the heart, except to sustain living in body. Money is also not in conflict with the evolution of awareness: it is a resource that allows us to grow and do more with the awareness we have. With all the finances available to us as an organization, we are are reinvesting in our time together as a community. This building was constructed by donation and volunteers and that means that what we have is for all of our benefit. The results go back into the foundation.  I love that we can be in a place that is uplifting and matches what occurs in meetings.

    John describes a conversation with one of his critics
    From a meeting with John de Ruiter in which he recalls speaking with one of his critics,  Professor Stephen Kent at the University of Alberta. This illustrates how different perspectives can hold a common ground.

    Q: Academics have actually written papers calling you a cult, calling this a cult.

    J: That’s fine. Then I just keep being what I know to be and doing what I know to do. What I fundamentally relate to is goodness and it’s what I fundamentally relate to in others. The beingness of that in either is love. We met, Stephen Kent and I.

    Q: Who is Stephen Kent?

    J: The academic that you’re speaking of. We had a wonderful conversation and I thoroughly enjoyed him.

    Q: What did you like about him?

    J: First, I just really enjoyed being with him. How what moved in our conversation was really meaningful. What I enjoyed about him is that everywhere we went in our conversation, I found meaning and goodness.

    Q: Where did you go in your conversation?

    J: We talked about a lot of different ideals and different beliefs.

    Q: Can you be specific?

    J: We talked about different religions and how religion functions. I shared my past; he shared some of his.

    Q: What did you share about your past?

    J: That I grew up in a Christian family but the beliefs within my family weren’t anything that I could relate to. So I didn’t disbelieve and I also didn’t believe. It just didn’t really make sense to me. I explained to him what it was like to be taken to church every week. I explained to him how I awakened. He spoke of his own past. All of our conversation was heartwarming. It was all intellectually stimulating but the very best part is that we were meeting. There was a sense of real meaning that wasn’t dependent on what we were speaking about and it came through everything that we spoke of.

    What are the extreme criticisms of John de Ruiter?
    Some libellous statements have been circulated about John de Ruiter, both online and in print. These imagine ties between John and mental or physical abuse. These are not tasteful to manufacture, nor to have to comment on. Abuse of any kind is a serious topic; allegations wrongly made are also serious. John de Ruiter lives by a meticulous code of ethics in regards to financial, legal, and personal matters.

    Are the extreme criticisms about John de Ruiter true?
    Various sources on the internet raise concerns of a legal or moral nature, alluding to physical and mental abuse. As erroneous and untruthful statements have been alleged, it is important to clarify that:

    John did not study hypnosis or persuasive techniques.

    John did not use sex as a means of control or submission over any person.

    John did not contribute to the disappearance of Anina Hundsdoerfer in any active, direct, or conscious way. Her death is as tragic and mysterious to him as to all of us.

    Both John and The College of Integrated Philosophy respect the sanctity of sexuality. Absolute value  is placed on honesty, and communication in sexuality.

    John is scrupulous in all financial, legal, and personal matters.

    There is no avoiding libel once people dispense it, but we invite readers and thinkers to be more responsible than writers who confuse assumption and fact. John and The College of Integrated Philosophy are deeply committed to factual, ethical and rational conduct.

    Independent of any external criticism, The College of Integrated Philosophy and the community has always embraced questions and concerns about itself. We love learning and rest on John’s core teaching to “believe only what you know is true.” We welcome all questions and comments in that spirit.

    ….

    Heading makes it look like the page allows comments but in fact it doesn’t.

    John de Ruiter FAQ
    By johnderuiter.com    October 30, 2013    2 Comments

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s