Ruses of Manipulation: Dark Library Edition
As an avid reader, and highly curious, I have run into, and come into possession of, a number of questionable books. I was introduced to them with a kind of reverence and awe, both for the supposed knowledge contained, and being that they were, apparently, in some measure, repressed and kept from the eyes of the general public. I have, after perusing them, found them to be deserving of no respect or reverence at all. I have since disposed of them. However, “why” they are to be dismissed may not be so clear to the readers, and deserves to be shown. In this essay, I will give specific examples and explain the basic psychological subversion tactics with which the authors wrote.
[Note: I hesitate to release these observations, because speaking of the books themselves will increase their visibility, which may thereby cause the public to look into them deeper. However, even if that is the case, the analysis is instructive for the reader to discern similar tactics in other writing, as well as other media (which is vital in our “brave new world”). Therefore, in this respect, I do believe the “exposition of the books’ malicious tactics” outweighs their “advertisement” .]
I have already addressed how William Burroughs’ books present a spiritually and psychologically debilitating style and subject matter in the essay “Reckoning with a Liberal Education”. Other books that I can personally confirm fall within this category: Aleister Crowley’s “Book of Lies”, Robert Anton Wilson’s “Prometheus Rising”, the “Principia Discordia” (I am unsure of the author of that one), and at least one book by Faye Kellerman about a husband and wife investigative team, which, if I recall correctly, was called “Grievous Sin”.
It stands to reason that just about anything that these characters wrote, whether they were consciously aware of what they were doing or not, is likely compromised and to be avoided. Again, not so much because they provide some sort of “dark knowledge”, but because they actively make the reader a weaker person, regardless of the intentions of the person reading them. If you ever wanted to summon demons, or gain power through dark knowledge for personal gain, you will not find that here. That is one of the great ruses of these authors. They diminish the power of the individual who reads them unsuspectingly, especially those who “aim to do evil”. To all of those “Dark Sith” out there, who read Crowley’s work and others: you, more than anyone else, have been greatly deceived by your so-called “masters”.
The mechanisms through which they do so are thus: Crowley’s work is instructive in its primacy, in that the passages represent an assault on the human spirit that is “raw” and much more identifiable, whereas the other authors’ techniques are more “refined”. The intent is to get the reader to doubt him or herself; less to doubt “what they have heard” from others (though that is another tactic, “to speak so many lies that honest people cannot exist”), but to doubt the very essence of themselves, to disparage, disrespect, and debase all and everything. In such a world, it is only criminals and psychopaths who prosper. It is vital for proper discernment that we “judge the tree by its fruits”, rather than its appearance.
In regard to Crowley, the title speaks of its own intentions: “The Book of Lies”, released in 1913, parallel, coincident, and perhaps causal, with the astounding assaults on the human spirit that occurred around that date: the sinking of the Titanic, the outbreak of World War I, the Spanish Flu, and a host of other events.
For lack of a better term, the “dark sorcerers”, at that time, quite literally aimed to enslave the entire planet, and they have been pushing forth stages of this plan these last 100+ years. We are all literally witnessing, in front of, and attached to, our faces, the final stage of this plan, with the virus panic “spell”. Make no mistake: this is a giant illusion, woven together by deceptive forces and systems twisted to this purpose. It is no accident that we call radio and television programs “broadcasts”.
[Note: All who can read and write are “wizards”, at some level. Look into the etymology of the word “cleric”, as well. Some of these characters can be very clever, and take advantage of your knowledge and emotion to control people even worse than if they were illiterate. A simple question to ask oneself in the face of questionable material: What is the author’s motive? What is the “effect” of reading their work? This may give a bit more insight into why, for so many years, often regardless of talent or merit or dedication, some artists and writers would find positions of prominence and others not. It’s not just “who you know”, it’s “what spell you’re casting”. And for the record, my intention, here, is to enlighten and empower the reader, and to break the hypnotic spell that the public has been increasingly put under for decades. The more that we know about large-scale psychological manipulation tactics, the better we may defend against them.]
Anyway, back to the books:
Robert Anton Wilson’s “Prometheus Rising” is quite insidious on another level, more “refined”. Rather than Crowley’s clear debasement, this one, as the title indicates, “purports to empower”. Who would not like to be as Prometheus, bringing knowledge and truth to humanity? The title captures the reader with that thought in mind. Then, as one reads it, one page after another of meaningless, spiritually disrespectful garbage and trash pile up, and up, and up. Many unsuspecting readers (as I once was), would continue to slog through this, in anticipation of the real knowledge, the real truth, that promised secret to Prometheus’s “fire”. Well, let me spoil it for you: There is no fire here. There is no deep, secret knowledge: “the cake is a lie”. The book is simply a disrespectful assault on the human spirit, particularly in regard to sexuality. It attacks the basic, unalterable facts of human life. It notices these basic facts, and disrespects them, rather than embracing them. This speaks to the fundamental choice we all make in our own lives, when we are faced with facts, events, and people that we cannot clearly define as “good” or “evil”. It is the “half-full or half-empty” attitude. This book expresses an unending pessimism, a defeatism, that is completely unwarranted. Reading it makes you a weaker person.
“The Principia Discordia” is another along these lines, as a sort of combination of Crowley’s work, and “Prometheus Rising”, as it contains aspects of both of the aforementioned strategies to debase, demean, and disrespect. Moreso than the others, it is especially childish in its transparent method. There is little more to say of it specifically.
The last in our exhibit is “Grievous Sin”, by Faye Kellerman. It is damaging in a similar respect to these, but it does so in a different manner. Whereas the previously mentioned books are what might be called “journalistic non-fiction” or “poetry”, at best, this particular book is different. It is a paperback, dimestore type of “detective novel”, starring a husband and wife pair of investigators, written in the 80s or 90s.
Within the first chapter is the instructive episode with our “intrepid heroes”: the wife is having a baby in the hospital, the husband is there at her side, and the doctor is doing the delivery. She has the baby, and the doctor hands the child to the nurse, who takes it to another room. The couple are exhausted but relieved: the baby was born healthy and well. Then the doctor sets his ear to her stomach, and suddenly exclaims, in some incomprehensible jargon, that there is something terribly wrong. “Her lypobedomina is hemorrhaging!” So, the doctor does what any other doctor would do to a woman immediately after giving birth: he gets up above her, and with all of his weight, slams down upon her stomach, again and again. The woman screams and yells for him to stop, but he does not. The husband is horrified, and tries to confirm that what he is doing is appropriate. Thereupon, the doctor claims that her life is in danger, he must do this to save her, and that the husband needs to leave the room. The husband meekly leaves and sits in the hallway, thinking, “Gee whiz, I hope she’ll be okay.” And that’s where I stopped reading.
This episode is indicative of a trope that has been running through media for decades now: the emasculation of the man. This doctor was clearly assaulting this woman, at her most vulnerable moment. The appropriate response for a husband, when your wife is being assaulted, is to protect your wife and stop the assailant. Period. This is about as basic as it gets, folks. Literally, the dumbest animal in nature knows better than that. Think about the level of psychological warping going on here. If the reader just continues along, and a red flag doesn’t pop up, this very episode would rewrite portions of their underlying mental programming, or at the very least, create heavy conflicts, “cognitive dissonance” at a very deep psychological level.
Interesting to note that, in this case, the “emasculation of the man” is not so direct, because this author’s books are marketed to women. Any self-respecting man would, as I did, throw “Grievous Sin” down in disgust upon witnessing the actions of our supposed “hero” in this initial episode. The psychological attack, then, is clearly a curve-ball directed at women, and it works like this: especially in her most vulnerable moments, the woman is to trust “the doctor” (a stranger with “authority”, wherever it comes from), over both her own husband (a familiar, trusted loved-one) and her own instincts (relaxing with her new-born, in the wake of the powerful experience of giving birth).
It may be that the book continues on to lead these two intrepid truth-seekers to find that the doctor was malicious, or they discover some other deep conspiracy that led to the attack at the beginning. Or this episode sets the background for a perpetual medical issue for extra struggle, in addition to the major arc of the story. Or, especially maliciously, the author may have the heroes question this episode, and then later conclude the book with the doctor saving her life. In any case, however, the action, or inaction, of these characters in the moment inform their character. And since all stories hold a mirror up to the reader, you can be well assured that reading this work makes you a weaker person. A “Grievous Sin”, indeed.
The psychological subversion is to change the underlying perception of the reader, here a woman, that she may see this episode, and any similar situations in her life, as not only acceptable, but preferable. And if this goes unnoticed, she will not only be more susceptible to deception and abuse, but she will become an active agent of it. She will be that much more likely to dismiss the concerns of her trusted companions and accept abuse from anyone who claims to have “authority”. And if she is in a position of authority, she will be more likely to abuse it.
[Tangential Note: Ever since I was a kid, I had wondered why it was that we have been told, over and over and over, in a thousand different ways, that, when confronted with criminality, say, someone trying to rob your store with a gun, that we, as people, should “not risk our lives, but give them what they want.” It is now quite clear what this was all about: learned helplessness.
Consider this thought experiment: imagine you were the leader of a small country, and you were at war with a couple of your neighbors. How long do you suppose you would be in charge if you told your army “don’t risk your lives, but give them what they want”? This is part of the reason we have not won “the war on crime”. We, the American people, have the right to bear arms. At the most basic level, WE are the army. And for far too long, we have been trained to be cowards, aiming to turn us all into “surrender monkeys”. The fruit of this subversion is now painfully clear, with the present collective response to assaults on our basic human rights by a highly-coordinated criminal syndicate. Also, it should be noted, that the person who gave me the first three books here exhibited, mentioned his alignment with “anarcho-syndicalism” when we spoke on political theory. He would not, however, describe what that term really meant, even when pressed. Curious that…]
*******
All of these books speak of their own particular issues, but the major thread passing through them, is that, when reading the book itself, intaking the words and, in some cases, pictures or diagrams, you make yourself a weaker person. These books will not help you “summon demons” or gain some sort of “dark magic”. They are “demonic” in that they turn you into a weaker person, that may more easily be turned into a “thrall”, to be more susceptible to hypnotism, to deception, to lies. And even the most innocuous dimestore detective novel can have deep psychological subversion embedded within. You could look at them as “cursed scrolls”.
This is something to keep in mind when reading or absorbing any and all media. What are the characters really doing? Are they standing up for themselves and showing courage? Or are they showing submission and fear? How is this media informing my subconscious?
People have said that “we only use 10% of our brains”. This is plainly false, of course, but there is a grain of truth. Our conscious attention may be 10% of our brain’s usage (or some other small fraction). Our subconscious makes up the majority of our brain, for the proper functioning of our bodies and the deepest aspects of our character. We ought best to use our conscious attention for the benefit of our subconscious. If one ignores the significance of their subconscious, someone else, who actually understands that fact, will use it for their own purpose. Do not give away your sovereignty, and be vigilant in all research and entertainment pursuits, to defend against attempts to subvert, and exploit, your subconscious. We all only get one real temple in this life. Keep it clean, keep it safe, and when you find a thief, kick them out.
– G
[Addendum: If you are interested in some books that would actually empower you, beyond strictly religious or philosophical or scientific texts, start with Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe. I encourage everyone to follow their academic, spiritual, and psychological pursuits, but I do not wish to actively encourage explorations into “dark magic”. At the same time, there is a “self-correcting mechanism” that will activate if you go too far. That’s a different way of saying “God will humble you”. Just be prepared, regardless of your intentions. God is forgiving and merciful. As Prince said shortly before his death: “Don’t pray for me, pray for yourselves.” And to quote Billy Corgan, from “Zero”: “Save your prayers for when you’re really gonna need them.” For if you are led too far astray in these explorations, you will.]