Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Whitley Strieber, Coast To Coast

Just listened to the Whitley Strieber 'Coast' interview with one of my fave mainstream journalists, George Knapp. Discussed was 'The Key,' which I got when it first came out. It bothered my quite a bit at the time, and I haven't read it since.

Knapp had what is the best theory of who 'The Master Of The Key' really was (beyond simply being a Canadian who doesn't pay taxes): a future iteration of Strieber himself, visiting from the future.

This makes some sense; critics of 'The Key' have noticed how internally inconsistent it is, logically and philosophically. This mirrors Strieber's unique dialectic, which attempts to arrive at truths by allowing diametrically opposed arguments (many of which are demonstrably "wrong") to achieve some sort of synthesis.

I should probably re-read "The Key," particularly because I bought the mangled first edition, which may have been altered and censored. But while it may be better than other esoteric books out there, I'm not convinced that it's the profound revelation that Whitley thinks it is (though I'm open to being convinced).

One thing he said, however, makes me want to go back and re-read 'The Key':  the 'Master' says that our 'souls' have a physical composition, and there are spiritual predators that 'harvest' the physical product of these souls, and use this physical product to construct intelligent machines.

This is, of course, the same conclusion that Nick Redfern's 'Collin's Elite' came to after studying the UFO phenomenon. And, despite the Christian fundamentalist bent of the Collins Elite, I actually think that they are observing something real--but what it 'is,' and what it means, I don't know.

Whitley goes on to suggest that souls that are 'evil' are more likely to be 'harvested.' I'm reminded of  Michael Newton, who makes a number of pointed references in his books to souls that are refurbished, or rebuilt, when their 'energy' has become too contaminated with destructive tendencies.

I think that there is something there. But what these different observers are seeing, and what the thing that they are seeing means, is not yet clear.


  1. Hiya Ish, I'm not a fan of the 'soul harvester' meme that largely took form in the 80s. Lear, Valerian and Strieber seem to have tapped into a nightmare-scenario that appeals to sections of the white Christian demographic. Like the Collins Elite, their apparent belief in such notions is borne of their interpretations being filtered through their world-views. Sincere maybe, but their evidence is impressionistic and inferred from what?

    Lear and Strieber have, to an extent, replaced the panoplies of angels and gods with technological critters. Instead of Archangels, Horus or other entities of Judgement they offer greys, tall greys and industrialised evil. Given that Strieber is demonstrably 'flexible' with his stories (as you point out) and that Lear used any trick available to get to his 'truth,' how much credibility can be ascribed to either? By extension, how much credibility should anyone gain when the evidence that UFOs are demonic is wholly limited to Christian inference?

    Wouldn't it be ironic if Strieber's harvesters are wholly sourced from his own imagination? If so, by weaving his narratives, that hook into the fears of his readers and listeners, he's essentially feeding himself on the fears of 'other souls.' The parasitic entity, in that light, is the man in the mirror.

  2. My thinking is that this archetype (which is of course a staple of the major religions) might be a heavily distorted, fragmentary view of a real process; if you strip away the value judgement such as "evil" and "good," some sort of soul "recycling" might actually take place at some level for various reasons.

    I had forgotten about Lear (in fact, I hadn't thought about him in a long time).  I can't decide if he is psychologically unbalanced or deliberately deceptive or maybe a victim of some sort of CIA thought control experiment gone awry.

    In any case, "evil" is a major component of Strieber's narratives and beliefs. He tends to see profound evil lurking everywhere. But I've noticed that the amount of evil one finds is directly proportional to the amount of energy invested in believing in it.  It is largely self-generated.

  3. I like Whitley & I don't always agree with anyone 100%. I was in a position once where he listened to me & my story & he thought I was telling the truth. I do think Whitley is onto something. I definitely think there are evil personalities & energies for sure. I never felt drawn to The Key though, never have read it. I remember the night I read Communion, I had to read it all, couldn't put it down. Terrifying book.

  4. Whitley Strieber is an intriguing thinker who presents his ideas unfiltered--without qualification or censorship. Many of his ideas are brilliant but some are rubbish. He has a powerful imagination with a talent for creating dark narratives, and I think that this influences his metaphysical writings. He frequently champions various ideas but then quickly abandons them later. So while I am intrigued by his ideas I wait for them to "settle" before I invest too much belief in them. While he has stuck by the events described in "Communion," he's changed his interpretation of them through the years... But it presents a focussed story. "The Key" seems informed and unfinished by comparison.

  5. About the physical composition of our souls, Seth said in Early Sessions Books 1-3 that the inner ego (or inner self) and the nonphysical part of us were made up of electricity, actually existing in electrical form. He said our organs existed electrically (but not our skin) and we wouldn't recognize ourselves if we could see it w/ our eyes. Most this was in Early Sess. Book 3. Right now I don't see any reason 2 believe any of us have been harvested for any reason. I don't see evidence of it. That idea is based in physical reality, you can't harvest something nonphysical, but it is interesting.

  6. I read this also in the Early Sessions and found it convincing. I think that Seth said that we would understand the non-physical realm as electrical, but that is an oversimplification. The closest equivalent, conceptually, for us, is "energy." I think that this is what Seth was driving at. While electricity is energy, "energy" is more than electricity. Michael Newton talks about soul energy as being "refashioned" or cleansed (but not destroyed or scattered).

    There is a school of thought (primarily occultism of the Crowley sort) that believes there are predator spirits that "feed" on human souls. And there are probably entities or energies that regard themselves as predatory. Such entities claim to be able to take "energy" from unwilling victims. This might be the origin of Strieber's belief. Although it's hard to say. The "Master" seemed to be saying that it's consciousness being harvested, not souls. Even though we are conscious, we still do not understand what consciousness is. Is it energy? Is it material? It seems to be a thing unto itself, and I've always argued that consciousness cannot know or examine itself.

    We simply lack the tools or vocabulary to properly understand the concepts that the "Master" claims to be able to discuss. Still, I think that if the material in "The Key" is valid and not a distortion--which is debatable--its similarity to other texts out there suggests that it's describing some real after-life process, the nature of which is unclear.

  7. U just reminded me of the concept of the emotional pain body, which is a parasitic entity. I actually do believe that is very real, and it certainly feeds off of us. As far as harvesting, that's not in that equation, but they do cause great harm to humans (The Power of Now, Tolle, 1999). I've seen the pain body at work, I'm pretty sure it is real. I have no doubt there are things that can & do feed off of us like parasites, other dimensional beings. I had an experience with one of those. I'm not exactly sure what they are, they're not pain bodies but similar. Very interesting discussion here.