February 14, 2016 — Whitley Strieber

[Honey-Pot]

Strieber wrote the Screen Play for Communion, and he was one of the Producers too. There was no big Hollywood money put into that project. It was low budget, so there may be some money connections that could be traced to see who is behind the curtain in this case.

He shows two kinds of abduction creatures that are very different in appearance, and one of these does not look like any kind of typical ET Alien idea. More like dark-blue frog-face short-stocky humanoid shaped creatures that one of his friends [in the movie] suggested was "creature lore" from the mines in Germany.

Strieber certainly got the ideas seeded about implants and experiencers meeting in groups to discuss their abduction encounters, so "the cult" of ET abduction was certainly being promoted at that point.

One interesting point was made in the movie that abductees received triangle shaped marks on their body, and just a few years later it was claimed by Kelly Cahill that she and two other female abductees were marked by triangle burns on their body. Coincidence or ?

 

[Honey-Pot]

This is a fantastic free podcast that does relate to Strieber and some of the issues we're discussing here:

Direct download here:


More info here:

The Liminalist # 38: Diving into the Nightmare (with Forrest Borie) - AUTICULTURE

 

[SgtRock]

Good interview. Well done. Enjoyed the whole show.

 

[Honey-Pot]

Strieber has not made any specific claims of childhood sexual abuse.

You replied:

The Boy in the Box by Whitley Strieber Friday, March 14, 2003.

What follows are selected quotes from this piece:

I believe that, beginning after World War II, children began to be recruited for various experimental efforts to create 'perfect' spies, and to study the effects of the development of dual and multiple personalities in them.

The idea was that a child would be placed under intense pressure, abused both physically and emotionally, until, as a defense mechanism, the child developed a second personality that the first was not aware of. This second personality would then be used by the child's handlers in all sorts of ways. Some of these children were hypnotically triggered to recruit for CIA on their own when they came of age, and their hidden personalities were then activated and used by informed handlers.

. . .

...it's time for the intelligence community to face up to these abuses, and admit that children were ferociously victimized as well as adults, during and before MK-ULTRA.

I believe that pederasts became involved in these programs, and that they have woven a web of blackmail and intimidation through many areas of government and society in an effort to keep their secrets hidden.

. . .

And then, one night thereafter, another memory flashed into my mind. This memory was visual. In it, I am in the living room of a house with one of the teachers from the camp, a woman who I respected and trusted entirely. My relationship with her was very southern. I was raised in an archaic manner with a mammy, and was used to both obeying and controlling adult authority figures who were not my parents. I assumed that this same relationship existed with this woman, so I felt entirely safe and in control of the situation. I would obey her, but she would take me where I wanted to go and let me do as I wished, within limits that she would establish.

A man was there, who I believe was called Dr. Antonio Krause. I have been unable to find any trace of him. They gave me coffee out of a demi-tasse cup, richly sweet coffee. Then I noticed that my teacher was gone. I did not care for the man, who would not speak to me. I went to look for my teacher. I wanted to tell her that it was time for me to go home.

There followed an extraordinary shock. I went into a bedroom and found her tied hand and foot, with a gag in her mouth. Her eyes were terrible to see. A blast of absolute terror went through me. I saw that my control over this situation was false. I ran back into the living room. I demanded that the man take me home.

He stood between me and the front door, blocking my way. At this point, I can remember no more of this incident. I have been trying to do so for years, but there has never been another spontaneous blast like the one I have just described.

....

In another memory of this dark figure, I am at the house of a childhood friend. I have been stripped of my clothes and I?m terrified. It?s all wrong. Somebody dreadful is there. I run out of the house into the street, holding my clothes in front of me. My friend, a demonic smile on his face, follows. Hiding in the doorway is the dark figure.

...

My memories of what happened to me at Randolph are so horrific that I can scarcely credit them. I will not repeat the details here, because I cannot tell the degree to which they have been dramatized via the process described above. However, there are a few of those spontaneous, sudden glimpses that seem undistorted.

[end quote]

And so on.

Below is a WS quote that seems to negate what you're implying above about alleged WS's childhood sexual abuse in response to my belief [quoted at top above] that he has not alleged childhood sexual abuse...

From Strieber in the same Whitley's Journal article:

"What do I think this was all about? I do not believe that it involved pedophilia and sex slavery. I have no memory of such things, and I do not exhibit the behaviors of a person who has suffered childhood sexual abuse."

Entire article here:

The Boy in the Box

Also, if you read that article just focus on the Stalin teddy bear story, and do you seriously believe that really happened to multiple children between 4-7 years old? That comes across as bat sh*t crazy! There's plenty more outlandish memories that seem clearly limited to fiction and fantasy with no possibility of reality that normal people would typically agree with.

 

[Liminalist]

"What do I think this was all about? I do not believe that it involved pedophilia and sex slavery. I have no memory of such things, and I do not exhibit the behaviors of a person who has suffered childhood sexual abuse."

Never underestimate the power of denial.

 

[Honey-Pot]

Never underestimate the power of denial.

Strieber comes across as someone that speculates well beyond denial of any kind. He totally violates the consensus reality into SyFy myth making, and he doesn't deny the belief [said on air many times] that he was abducted and anally probed by military black ops. He even named General Schwarzkopf could be behind it.

Strieber is not in denial of any kind when it comes to speculation about his sexual abuse as an adult, so it's hard to believe he would deny childhood sexual abuse too? He loves being the victim and talking about it.

He should thank Dr. Krause for all the sexual abuse too, since he now thanks the visitors [on air] for all their anal probing and abductions. Works well for his new book that he is some kind of spiritual luminary that endures sexual abuse by ET and/or the military. Experiencers can take solace that they have an ET Spiritual leader to follow and believe in, because this book is validating his suffering and encounters to be part of the religious experience comparable to the amazing historical accounts of "the saints". (He claims to be Catholic.)

Strieber is not someone in denial; he's made millions of dollars off these ideas. As you pointed out, he said he's a trickster on air too.

 

[Liminalist]

You have a very different idea of denial than I do. I am not talking about "denialism." Someone who is in denial is not aware of being in denial; if they were it would not be an effective defense against what is being denied.

That Strieber is someone in denial is what Prisoner of Infinity goes to great lengths to demonstrate: the crucial fiction by which the ego turns unbearable trauma into a best-selling story about transcendence.

Countless different elements in his own narrative indicate a sexual element to the abuse. It is not even concealed. Strieber's interpretations of his experiences (such as the one you quote) change more rapidly than the wind. It is in keeping with extreme trauma for a person to recount experiences of interference that clearly indicate a sexual element and then say in the next breath, "It wasn't really sexual," "Nothing happened, or "It didn't effect me at all." Fragmentation and dissociation can be deduced from how a person remembers events and yet, at the same time, attaches no significance to them. Strieber recounts a clearly sexual context for the "dark figure" in his childhood, as well as being naked with him, and combines that with blacked out memories! The really startling thing would be that, with all of that testimony, someone could take him at his word when he says "nothing sexual happened."

IMO, to attribute a purely opportunistic strategy to Strieber's movements doesn't even begin to account for the endless contradictions in his accounts. He is not just divided, he is fragmented.

 

[Honey-Pot]

Referring to the podcast listed below... this person was believed to be sexually abused too, but he does not believe this ever happened despite what his therapist thought. This is just a fantastic interview that demonstrates just how complicated and difficult to understand what is really going on. I don't think you believe you're qualified to know whether or not Strieber was sexually abused as a child, right?

Strieber has been through plenty of therapy that I'm sure he would have been told he was likely sexually abused as a child if that was a likely possibility.

That Whitley Journal post is just ridiculous to consider it reliable for much of anything, because his recounting of almost everything within that article is just too outlandish to rely on it to be accurate. Some aspects are clearly fantasy and woo woo, imo. Have you got anything more than that nutty WS post? Do you believe it to be accurate and reality based beyond his imaginative mind?

The only thing fascinating was researching The Finders and Marion D. Pettie that Strieber mentions. Everyone should read these articles linked below just for the real life "insanity value" including the real likelihood there was a CIA connection to this guy, but it does not have any direct connection to Strieber.

Finders’ Keeper: Marion Pettie and his secretive utopian community, the Finders, flourished underground for decades. Now the group is on the wane, its assets are in court, and its leader is strolling the streets of Culpeper. - Washington City Paper

Brainsturbator

Document:Finders Keepers - Wikispooks

[CTRL] The Finders' Keeper: An Interview with Marion Pettie

This is a fantastic free podcast that does relate to Strieber and some of the issues we're discussing here:

Direct download here:

 

[Liminalist]

As far as I know Strieber has never been in therapy. What takes you think he has?

I am not medically qualified to say he has been sexually abused. What I am saying is that, based on his testimonies, memories, and behaviors, this is a more or less inescapable deduction. Unlike you, I don't find that post "outlandish," certainly less so than his accounts of nonhuman interference. I don't know why you find it to be so either. You specified the Stalin incident. Maybe you can explain what is so unbelievable about that?

I know you included many links to the Prisoner of Infinity material but it seems as if you haven't actually read it, right? To focus on the question of whether or not WS was sexually abused seems futile, IMO. If you want to zero in on any one example of how I deduce that he was, and question that, that would allow for an actual focus beyond, was he or wasn't he?

 

[Honey-Pot]

You specified the Stalin incident. Maybe you can explain what is so unbelievable about that?

That's his 3rd memory he recounts, and most boys would take to a teddy bear at age 4-5. That would be 1949 or 1950 for Strieber.

Here's the alleged "experiment"...

The next memory involves this same teacher, another teacher and, once again, Dr. Krause. We drive through the iron gates of a large estate in the school's station wagon. We are taken onto a sun porch. There are about six of us children. Unfortunately, I remember nothing of the others, except that they were there. We are given stuffed bears and told that they are a gift from Stalin. We are then regaled with stories about how wonderful Stalin is, and how we should all love and respect Stalin. The other children are delighted with their bears. They're happy to hear about Stalin. I am shocked. I try to explain that Stalin is evil. I won't touch my bear. I want nothing to do with Stalin or my teachers or anybody else who likes Stalin.

For a long time, that was all of that memory. But then, one summer about four years ago, there occurred another memory that may be connected to it. I think it is what happened to me after I declared myself to be against Stalin. In this memory, I am looking down on myself from above. I am lying in the lap of a figure who appears a number of times in these memories. He is completely blacked out, as if covered by black paint. He is a portly man, and he is spanking me very harshly. I am suffering so much that I have gone out of my body and am watching this from above.

I believe that this was a clumsy, stupid and sadistic test to determine our level of loyalty. Because nothing would convince me to say that Stalin was good, not even a devastating beating, I passed the test. Too bad for me.
********************

What seems ridiculous, besides the entire story itself, is a 4-5 year old boy is not going to know much about Stalin, much less, protest against him by being bad and not get the reward, the teddy bear, when the other 5 or so children took the toy and were happy about Stalin. It also has nothing to do about loyalty either, imo, though Strieber uses that word choice that doesn't fit the psychology of 4-5 year old children. A test for loyalty?

We're to believe Strieber is a 4-5 year old boy wise and willful enough to protest against the peer pressure of what everyone else did? He stands alone to protest that Stalin was evil and not only not get the teddy bear but to be punished by a spanking too? Any adult there would presumably know Stalin was evil too, so there's no rational reason to punish Strieber with a spanking. There's no rational reason for Strieber to act differently than what the other children did too except to believe Strieber's 50+ year old memory flashback he never had before! Again, loyalty is the test? Bizarre!

This whole matter is illogical and is a result of Strieber's overblown ego and sense of superiority too. He's the 4-5 year old boy wonder that stands against the evil Stalin. Believe what you will...

 

[Liminalist]

The only logical point I can find in the above argument is that Strieber was too young to know, or care, that Stalin was evil. It could be accounted for by a) the fact that Strieber's father (according to him) was a high level government official and friends with Lyndon Johnson, hence expressed strong political opinions to his son, or in his hearing. Nothing too improbable about that. Another factor is if Strieber was inducted to a school for gifted children at a young age, he may have been a highly precocious child.

Any adult there would presumably know Stalin was evil too, so there's no rational reason to punish Strieber with a spanking.

This remark is so bizarre and illogical that I don't know what to make of it. You seem to be trying to analyze a complex narrative that probably involves extremely elaborate forms of inducing trauma, psychological conditioning, behavior modification, and the like, as if Strieber was talking about grade school!?

 

[Honey-Pot]

This remark is so bizarre and illogical that I don't know what to make of it. You seem to be trying to analyze a complex narrative that probably involves extremely elaborate forms of inducing trauma, psychological conditioning, behavior modification, and the like, as if Strieber was talking about grade school!?

Well, you're taking this position because you believe Strieber's 50+ year old memory flashback is accurate and real. I don't think it even happened.

You should investigate his brother and sister to see what their experience was all about at this same school of torture, mind control, and abuse.

 

[Honey-Pot]

I know you included many links to the Prisoner of Infinity material but it seems as if you haven't actually read it, right?

I'm reading it very slowly. I've only finished chapter 1.

I've been enjoying many of your podcasts instead which are excellent, imo.

To focus on the question of whether or not WS was sexually abused seems futile, IMO.

I've only focused on the childhood sexual abuse issue, since you seem to formulate that as being central to your idea of childhood trauma prompting what happens to someone like yourself or Strieber later in life. If I'm mistaken about that, then please explain.

 

[Liminalist]

I'm pointing out the absence of all logic in your comment.

I'm not really an investigator of that sort; for one thing it requires funds, for another time which I do not have. You seem to want to force me into a role that I'm not suited for. I did try and contact his son. I am pretty sure no one close to Strieber is going to talk about him, not even off the record.

 

[Honey-Pot]

I'm pointing out the absence of all logic in your comment.

Well, as I said, you're willing to believe far more about what Whitley writes as being real and accurate, whereas I'm more skeptical than you are.

You've had personal experiences that you can sympathize with Whitley's accounts, and you were a true believer for about 20 years in much of his writing relating to Communion and the following books relating to that.

That's a huge difference in experience between us. It's very difficult for me to accept and relate to this without the foundations or experiences you have had.

You recall your sister Ashley's interview... She warned you that people would have a hard time accepting what you're writing about. She was very uncomfortable herself with all the layering upon layer of your analysis that would have to be accepted to be possible or believed, and I think she is a trained professional Jungian psychologist too. Did I not pick-up on that accurately about her concerns and assessment?

I certainly believe there is social engineering going on relating to Kurzweil ideas and also in Ufology and Space Exploration. I think Strieber is more of a historical place card, rather than a major player now that he once was with Communion. Do you think he plays that big a role now, more so, than what he was with Communion? I think he has a certain following of believers that hopped on back then, but these people are getting much older now. There is little new blood joining this ET game. The UFO conferences are filled with mostly older people, and it's getting worse not better.

It's a sign the social engineering is focused elsewhere. Agree or ?

 

[Liminalist]

Ufology would appear to have all-but outlived its usefulness, yes. But it's all a continuum, and in that regard one focus is as good as another; the main thing is going all the way down to find the ground (where the paystreak is). There's much to be gleaned from studying Blavatsky or Leadbeater or any of these cultural sock puppets; Strieber is still alive, so the game is still on. Also, Ufology being so thoroughly discredited means people are more open to seeing behind the tattered curtain than they would be with something fresher.

I wouldn't want to rule out Kripal's power to reboot Strieber just yet, either.

 

[technomage]

I can't comment on this thread because it would take me days to go through it and I wasn't impressed enough with Whitley Strieber to read through all the posts. Please note that this doesn't imply the posts are worthless; I just don't have the time to get so immersed in this conversation.

Back to Strieber:

I agree with Chris. He's eloquent, but I didn't hear much new stuff or much substance. I enjoyed Communion the book quite a bit as it scared the hell out of me and liked the movie a bit less.

All I can remember from the whole interview is (granted, my memory stinks):

• We don't know what the visitors are.
  
• His Alien Hunter series is great, but it's being viciously attacked by critics.
• We don't need any new religions.
• We should study this subject in a scientific manner.
• He drove some kid through the Twilight Zone.
• He's had interaction with the military and experiments may have been done on him.
• The visitors have an agenda, and it's probably beneficial to humans, like a mid-wife is to a pregnant woman.
• Death is not the end, only the beginning.
• We're screwing up the planet and we can't really stop it, so we better accept it.

 

[Strategic Deception]

LIMINALIST: I agree with a lot of what you're saying, (and I've downloaded some of your podcasts, they sound very interesting---are you the host?)

I agree with most of your approach, and I do appreciate it a great deal! Although honestly I find it a bit ludicrous that you dismissed my "indignation" by saying that there's no point in being indignant since social-engineering is "nothing personal."----that's patently absurd, since society is composed of individuals, and for each affected individual such matters are indeed quite personal. It's like the government saying to victims of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, "Hey guys, don't be so offended, it was nothing personal!"

Now I don't claim to have been as adversely affected to the degree of something as extreme as a Tuskegee subject, but SOME people have been , in this wasteland we call a culture---some have quite literally lost their minds, many more have at lost least their direction in life; I personally see "couch-surfing", unemployed men well into their 40's still posting Terrence McKenna quotes & memes, as if they know something about freedom & enlightenment, when they're clearly just lost, confused, depressed souls still clinging to the belief that such drug use benefited their lives! But I do agree with you that Jan Irvin's approach (mainly his anger and impatience) has indeed alienated many, and enabled them to turn away from his good information by giving them too many "Screw that guy, he's a jerk!"-type reasons to ignore him.

BURNT STATE: as for your comments defending Aldous Huxley----several years ago, I would have agreed with your viewpoint, but by now I'm afraid that such a stance is just too naive. It begins to crumble when you see more of Huxley's own words, his family connections, etc. So I'll repeat in case you missed it the first time: his brother Julian Huxley was a leader of the British Eugenics Society, and their uncle Thomas Huxley was a Social Darwinist famous for the type of beliefs argued in his essay "The Natural Inequality of Men." This is the elitist, control-freak milieu Aldous was a part of.

How could he write a book in 1932 (_Brave New World_) where he's supposedly warning society about being controlled & distracted by bliss-inducing drugs, and then turn around and be suddenly writing private letters to Dr. Osmond literally coming up with marketing jingles to re-brand psychomimetic (psychosis-mimicking) drugs as something cool & appealing & hip that would open up heavenly realms to the masses? Shouldn't that contradiction give you pause? It really appears, upon closer examination, that _Brave New World_ wasn't a warning, but a game-plan, and its publicity didn't steer the public away from that fate; it merely desensitized them to it, allowing them to go down that slippery slope with the false confidence that, "Hey, we've got guys like Huxley looking out for us, that future won't befall us...." He wasn't advocating those drugs for their verified, helpful uses, such healing alcoholics or traumatized people---he was concerned with making them appealing to the masses who would *dose themselves*, RECREATIONALLY, which is why he and Dr. Osmond came up with clever, appealing, rhyming jingles like modern commercials, and also why they went to interview and assess Dr. Timothy Leary for their marketing program:

Dr. Osmond, as quoted in his own words audible in the YouTube clip "A Conversation on LSD":

"We [Osmond & Aldous Huxley] went out to this place. And Timothy [Leary] then was wearing his gray flannel suite and his crew cut. And we had this very interesting discussion with him. And when we went.. and I don’t think I told you this, Timothy. But the night we went we both said 'what a nice fellow he is.' He says 'he’s a very nice man,' and Aldous said, 'It’s very, very nice to think that this is what’s going to be done at Harvard.' He said 'it would be so good for it.' And then I said to him, 'I think he’s a nice fellow too. But don’t you think he’s just a little bit square?' Aldous said 'you may be right,' he said 'but after all isn’t that what we want?' "

Read that quote carefully and ask yourself what they're talking about! "It's very, very nice to think that THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE at Harvard...IT WOULD BE SO GOOD FOR IT." " 'Don't you think he's [Leary] just a little bit square?' 'You may be right, but AFTER ALL ISN'T THAT WHAT WE WANT?' " They assessed Leary and found that he would be a good asset/agent, they found him to be a 'square' with a buzz-cut, and chose him to become the tie-dyed hippy promoting willy-nilly, recreational drug use----not as a form of psychiatric, guided therapy to actually help people, and not as a means of political protest, but instead as a mystifying diversion for the masses----the exact type of thing Huxley was supposedly "warning" people about a few decades earlier! Consider Huxley's letter to his former student, Eric Blair (George Orwell), congratulating him on his book _1984_ but basically bragging, "Good book, but MINE is more accurate about the coming dictatorship." He's not fretting about how it "might" happen if we're not careful, he's saying THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN:
Letters of Note: 1984 v. Brave New World


Also watch that same video ("A Conversation on LSD") to hear Dr. Timothy Leary use the phrase "our undercover agents" and also to admit that the so-called mystical experience of LSD was a "California invention." This is all part of the lie that the banker R. Gordon Wasson helped promote with his MK-Ultra funded popularization of magic mushrooms------Freedom of Information Act-released documents prove that "Seeking The Magic Mushroom", Life magazine, May 13, 1957) was MK-Ultra funded, specifically MK-Ultra Subproject 58.

Consider this Huxley quote from _Brave New World Revisited_:
“The real hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be most normal. Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in their lives, that they do not even struggle or suffer or develop symptoms as the neurotic does. They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted.”

IF THEY WERE FULLY HUMAN BEINGS, THEY OUGHT NOT TO BE ADJUSTED----this is his eugenicist background coming out; he's basically saying, "If you fall for this zeitgeist, then you deserve it." Implying that so many people are not fully human beings, that some are more human than others? That's "The Natural Inequality of Men", eugenicist mindset for you.

Lastly, consider this Aldous Huxley quote which can be applied so aptly to UFOs & the 'paranormal' in general:

"An unexciting truth may be eclipsed by a thrilling lie."

 

[Constance]

An excellent and insightful post, @Strategic Deception. I've been thinking about the political and cultural sources that could have generated the immense paranoia and search for means of control of the masses that characterize the 20th century and you have foregrounded most of them. It seems clear that scientists were recruited, or felt recruited, to seek ways and means to bring about such control, the first attempt taking the form of eugenics. The Huxley family were, of course, members of a self-perceived elite entitled by 'nature' to control the social world at large. Eugenics and Social Darwinism were the breeding ground of fascism, prominently in Spain and Italy as well as in Germany, where paranoia, prejudice, and fascism took the still incomprehensible form of the Holocaust. But for a decade or more before then not only anti-Semitism but anti-socialism grew in the streets of Europe where activist workers as well as Jews, Gypsies, and intellectuals were attacked nightly by brown-shirts and ordinary citizens alike. The primary fear instilled in these countries, as well as in the US, was the fear of the political philosophy of socialism -- the revolutionary view of how humans in general could organize their social and economic lives in a more equitable fashion, which of course terrified the economic PTB -- the Capitalists -- everywhere.

All these factors seem to me to have fed the paranoia motivating the development of various methods of sociopolitical control and mind control, leading ultimately to the tactic of distracting the young, who had developed a social consciousness and conscience, with mind-altering drugs, propagated freely by the controllers in the interests not of improving mental and emotional health but of inducing political and social quietism. Tune in, turn on, drop out of the current reality and from conscious efforts to change the outrageous conditions of the world you actually live in. The main effort had all along been not only to make individuals malleable and manipulable and effectively brainwashed, but to prevent their thinking seriously about what was wrong with their societies and about how to change it through open discussion of practical political and economic issues and resulting activism.

 

[Liminalist]

FYI, the primary (historically visible) social engineers are the Fabian Society, whose credo was & is "socialist." And yes, Huxley was closely-tied to them.

A Brief History of Fabianism (Occult Yorkshire Part 2)

Havelock Ellis, Lolita, & The Sexual Child (Occult Yorkshire 3)

Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, & Dandies (Occult Yorkshire 6)

Re, the main topic, I just ran this: Delivering the Poison Secret: Whitley Strieber & Jeffrey Kripal’s Traumatic Package