Is Theosophy Worth Exposing?

The Exposed Source Fallacy

I recently read this article by Mathew Crawford and I can’t help but respond:

Are the Theosophical Roots of Kamala Being Intentionally Mishandled by Alt Media?

“Intentionally mishandled” is possible. Mathew is one of few I’ve seen run with the findings I presented from The Aquarian Conspiracy by Merilyn Ferguson, including the importance of “SPINs” — decentralized networks working to implement a theosophical New Age secretly. He does a great job mapping relationships between different cults and their networks. He suggests that the alt-media might be refusing to discuss Theosophy due to an agenda they share. As he points out, even journalists who are famous for fearlessly ripping the mask off of political movements seem to have a great big blind spot when it comes to Theosophy. However, if I apply Occam’s Razor to this question, I come to another conclusion: the danger of Theosophy takes more effort to explain than its worth.

Truth a la Carte

The alt-media has not been entirely silent on Theosophy. I’ve heard the former king of alt-media, Alex Jones, expose truth about Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, and Merilyn Ferguson in the past, and never positively. He seems to know about the Externalization of the Hierarchy and frames the occult in negative terms. But this is what makes it so ironic that he’s being merged into that very same camp without realizing it, and now promotes theosophical ideas while denying that they’re occultism. Nobody in the New Age admits to being part of it. This is how the SPIN of SPINs is designed to function: they deny any involvement publicly, avoiding fighting you as an enemy, and won’t convert you to their side consciously, but instead simply absorb your movement by infiltrating your peers and appealing to “your truth.” I suspect that most people in the alternative media who are now preaching some variation of the Great (Theosophical) Awakening are clueless about what’s behind it. In other words, they are not consciously complicit, they have not received orders, and they would be disturbed to learn what’s going on in their own social circle.

Let’s not forget that most pundits are not original thinkers, they are parrots. They play a character who is smart, and they themselves are simply skilled at adapting as they go along, especially when they do it for a living and have to please their advertisers, funders, and sponsors. They look attractive, have a cool sounding voice, or their family works for the CIA. They spend their time on camera, not reading books. The alt-media is mostly an assortment of dudes who rode a wave of popular sentiment and got lucky, and their continual challenge is to surf to the next wave before they become irrelevant. Think of somebody like Tim Pool, a skateboarding leftist punk photographer who, once upon a time, streamed video of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Later he traveled to Sweden and revealed how bad the migrant invasion was there. He received such an overwhelming flood of support from the Brexit/Trump crowd that he almost unconsciously morphed into an alt-media figure against his will. He struggled to resist the temptation to devolve into a talking head with his own podcast, but ultimately succumbed. Do we really have to ask why he isn’t willing to tackle Theosophy? He’s an ambulance chaser, he doesn’t read books or do research.

A guy who’s entire brand is a hat he refuses to take off because he’s bald.

Handlers

We need to acknowledge that there are puppet masters behind some of these folks. Most of them have producers who deal with financial concerns, set up interviews, research topics, and manage the daily schedule, so they could be culpable. But in the alternative media I doubt many producers are part of a conspiracy of silence regarding Theosophy. What’s more likely is that the Aquarian Conspirators are reaching out to producers and trying to steer their message from the sidelines, quietly. Theosopphists want to control “Truthers” as subtly as they can, so that everything seems organic. They weasel their way into the inner circle and become an ally. When one of their shills gets an interview, they make sure to flood the broadcast with positive comments, money, and public support, which sends a big signal for that show to keep going that direction. We know that their Telegram channels have tens of thousands of bots that link between each other and spam people to create fake buzz. The audience sees this support and mistakes it for a genuine phenomenon.

Related to this, New Agers have a massive industry of pseudo-scientific products and programs to lure in the alt-media crowds, which can directly advertise on alt-media shows. That’s a lot of money to risk by exposing Theosophy and where it leads. Producers are heavily incentivized to keep the New Age happy, since they are the big spenders in the alt-media space.

But as an example of more direct kind of steering, we can recall that Alex Jones was anointed by the State Department psychological warfare commander Steve Piezcenik.

I’d also point to the so-called “Intellectual Dark Web” (Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Eric & Bret Weinstein, Dave Rubin, Sam Harris) as a softer form of manipulation. The term itself was coined by Eric Weinstein, who is an employee of Peter Thiel, who is a front man for DARPA, which is basically Hitler’s underground research team given an unlimited budget and zero oversight by the US government. Whoever the Intellectual Dark Web members may answer to individually, we can at least point to a moment when they felt the need to transcend their normal fare and recognize that, together, they might serve a higher purpose.¹ I think it’s fair to say that whenever a would-be celebrity begins to take themselves seriously as a contributor to the “Big Ideas of Our Time,” they become extremely susceptible to the SPIN masters. The Movement That Has No Name will already have psychologically profiled the target and determined the best way to feed them “truth” that will challenge and excite them along certain lines.

Illuminati tactics

The original Adam Weishaupt Illuminati used similar tactics, as did the Rosicrucians. They distributed pamphlets announcing a secret brotherhood of truth-seekers who would operate privately to engineer the future using science and reason. It was all about recruiting wealthy and influential people into their movement by appealing to their ego through intellectualism. They were “big thinkers.” The Illuminati called itself a book club, which I think is probably accurate, despite the fanciful notions of an elaborate international cabal of hidden masters. We can look at the Round Table groups as book clubs, too: they read (non-fiction) literature, discuss themes, and debate how to advance the interests of society according to their vision. These men are not actually geniuses and master plotters, they’re just privileged, well-connected, lucky fools who spew propaganda to other wealthy people, and end up funding projects they don’t understand because it makes them feel important.

Adam Weishaupt, Bavarian Jesuit scholar of the 1700s

While I’m on the topic, I should add that Freemasonry was created as a venue for these people to share a private space for their book clubs. The Masonic Lodge was designed to be a place where men of all backgrounds could come together and wax philosophical about the issues of the day, the principles of how to manage society. It’s the same crap the Intellectual Dark Web tried to do on social media. Their effort fell apart in predictable fashion because it did not enjoy secrecy.²

Of course, I believe all of these secretive social engineering groups were actually inventions of the Jesuits, to control and monitor the intellectual progress of Protestants and Jews as the age of revolution unfolded. All of the nefarious machinations people attribute to the Masons, Illuminati, and Rosicrucians are actually true of the Jesuits, who were the first to establish a functional, fabulously wealthy global spy network with the sole aim of social engineering. But let’s move on.

What Exposing Theosophy Is Like

Obviously I want peopel to appreciate the influence and relevance of Theosophy in the modern global conspiracy, but I’m afraid it’s almost exactly like how the Woke mob tries to warn people about White Nationalism.

White Nationalism is very real ideology that can be clearly seen in figures like Cecil Rhodes, Bertrand Russell, and Henry Ford. The KKK made it notorious and iconic, and nobody should deny that it has played a serious role in policy making over the last two centuries. However, it’s also true that I have never heard a real person espouse these views outside of weird neo-pagan rabbit holes which seem like FBI honeytraps. I would guess that 99% of conservatives do not consciously subscribe to White Nationalism, although 75% of them would probably agree with some of the arguments they make (while rejecting the rest). This combination makes it very easy for progressives to warn about White Nationalism as a real threat, because they see it everywhere. To conservatives, however, these warnings only make the leftists seem like they’re delusional. Conservatives don’t know anybody who would call themselves a White Nationalist, and many wouldn’t even know what the term means. Thus, White Nationalism can seem like it’s “just under the surface” with “dog whistles” everywhere, but first you have to know what to look for.

Are there hardcore, old-school racists at every level of conservative politics? Absolutely. Would these racists be embraced by their fellow conservatives if they revealed their true ideology? No. They have to hide it, blend it in, and conspire from the shadows. Likewise, Theosophy hides itself. Its ideas have spread out, planted seeds, transformed, mutated, and become ingrained in the larger conversation around progressive ideology. They managed to kick the ball down the field, but they don’t get to carry it. I mean, do people read Bertrand Russell’s Scientific Outlook today and endorse his views on eugenics? Maybe a few mysterious people in high places. Same with Theosophy. The movement has a life of their own. To trace modern progressive ideas back to Theosophy itself—meaning the actual writings of Helena Blavatsky and the vision of Henry Steel Olcott—implies that modern arguments require those old ideas in order to work. But they don’t. And when you correctly accuse people of being aligned with Theosophist ideas, they don’t even know what you mean. There are hardcore Blavatsky disciples all over the place in progressive politics, but they are incognito for a reason.

What is effective?

I’m going to start using the term “Exposed Source Fallacy” to describe what I keep seeing in the independent research world. It is the assumption that tracing a cultural force to its historical origin point is an effective way to counter that force in the present. I’ve been as guilty as the next person of making this assumption. But the truth is, publicizing the origin of a movement is often a perfect excuse for that movement to disown their predecessors and rebrand themselves as something better, while still potentially moving toward the same end. They can shed the baggage of the past, condemn the bad actors, plead ignorance of their heritage, and use the opportunity to define what makes them different. And in some cases, this is fair. It’s the same reason why accusing ordinary conservatives of being White Nationalists is so absurd, and why Protestant Christians shouldn’t be accused of wanting a new Inquisition or Crusade; they broke away so they could be different. So unless somebody consciously subscribes to an ideology, the best you can do is steer them away from the darker corners of their neighboring ideas.

In the case of Theosophy, what are we really trying to stop?

1. The spread of Helena Blavatsky’s actual literature and doctrines, because they lead to more deranged mysticism at high levels of international government?

2. A specific list of goals or policies Theosophy is trying to achieve for the future?

3. A specific list of groups or offspring cults related to Theosophy, because they are involved in deceitful social engineering?

I think one reason why skilled researchers fail to impact the trajectory of events—which is the same reason the Aquarian SPIN masters are so effective at cultivating change—is that rather than hoping that better research and more context will lead to natural change, the Aquarian Conspiracy is involved in the daily churn of covert audience capture and narrative building. They are conspiring to hijack the alt-media without requiring intellectual buy-in. They are essentially creating a parallel reality, with their own celebrities, economy, and news cycle. In an upcoming post I will discuss this side of the alternative media world more directly.

Theosophy can feel like the ultimate rabbit hole, since so many things tie back into it today. If you know where to look, it’s everywhere. Hell, one of the stated goals of the Theosophical Society was interreligious studies, to push people toward a mystical Oneness brotherhood. This is the New World Religion for the New World Order, the destruction of Christianity, and the never ending post-truth era. But trying to explain all of that to people may be a lost cause.

I’m going to keep digging into the Aquarian Conspiracy, the Movement That Has No Name, the Theosophists, and the cults they operate, but mostly for my own edification. I don’t think there is a conspiracy of silence around the topic in most cases, I just think it’s a brick of protein most commentators aren’t willing to chew, because they can have unlimited sugar instead. If we got serious about identifying specific goals, groups, and doctrines, and then tied these into a narrative that got people excited, we would have a chance. But what is that narrative? For me it’s the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, but that is a non-starter for most of the alternative media. They either aren’t Christian, or don’t want to divide their audience by getting into the weeds of biblical interpretation. Even churches don’t do that.

Conclusion

Theosophy is getting away with it because there isn’t a good counter-narrative. All of the pop-culture warnings we’ve been fed for the last 60 years is about technology, AI, robots, authoritarianism, fascism, and the despoiling of our planet—all things that the Aquarian Age promises to solve, not create. We have been living in an endless infomercial for Theosophy for as long as we’ve been alive. All of the fearmongering and iconic characters of epic fiction are against the boogeyman of centralized materialist dystopia, not communitarian Green mysticism. To live in harmony with the spirits of nature and have no government is considered paradise in the alternative media. We’ve got a whole generation of watchdogs looking the wrong way.

1. If you’re familiar with Plato’s Republic and his concept of “Guardians,” they are elite intellectuals who are fit to guide society professionally. I ususally call these kind of people “social engineers.”

2. Anyone who has followed Eric Weinstein’s interviews knows that he believes that the time has come to induct the public into these controversial topics and soften them up for what’s to come.

Feel free to leave a comment. Do you think Theosophy is worth exposing?

If you think my work is effective, let a friend know I exist.

And if you want to know more of my thoughts on Theosophy, check this out: