Charles Manson and the Crushing of the Counterculture - Mae Brussell

alwyn

Padawan Learner
anart said:
Just a note, alwyn, that while I don't necessarily disagree with your take on it, for you to state that just because someone - (anyone, whether they were your 'teacher' or not) was 'there' means that they have any objective knowledge about the dynamics of a situation is simply not true.

You are clearly very highly identified with your 'teacher' and with your take on this - again, I'm not saying your take on it is incorrect, I don't have the data to make that assertion - however - just wanted to point out that saying, "he was THERE" is really immaterial when it comes down to whether or not he could possibly know, objectively, what was really going on under the outward, carefully constructed, facade.
Well, (she says posting late into the discussion) I am not saying just anyone. I am speaking of someone who repeatedly demonstrated the ability to both conceive and demonstrate objective knowlege. Regarding identification, I suppose one could say the same thing about you. You are also highly identified with your teacher(s) and have the same lack of objective knowledge about the situation. There is technically no way that anyone here can speak with objectivity about what happened now almost some 40 odd years ago.

Since this group is theoretically dedicated to objective knowledge, I thought it might be an interesting anecdote from one who was trained (quite capably) in the objective school of which you seem to admire. (Speaking of Crockett here, not me.) When I say he was THERE, I mean on the scene with his full intent and objective knowledge. He IS capable of making those distinctions. He also has the direct EXPERIENCE of these events, and therefore may be one of the few actually qualified to speak about it.

He never mentioned anything about government manipulation, but he never mentioned that it didn't happen either. He was rather contemptuous of government in America. He called it the largest prison in the world, that the walls were so wide that most people didn't even know they were in prison. This said in 1980.

As to my identification with him, I haven't worked with him since 1990. Although I suppose in many ways, I am a product of his teaching. Of course I have had other teachers as well. Knowledge (the subjective kind), and the wisdom that comes from experience, can LEAD one to objective knowledge. The sufis say the apparent is the bridge to the Real. The final leap has to happen within the self.

Rumi, one of the great Sufi examples of the perfected man said the man of wisdom is "not learned from a book." Books can point the way, but they can't fill in for the wisdom of the objective Teacher. The touch of the baker is needed, to quote another sufi source. (So I guess my inclusion in 'half baked' is a sufi complement!)

Crockett also said that you can tell when something real comes up because ignoramuses will come for miles around from the general law and jump on it to make sure it doesn't get any further. It is only when one has a magnetic center that one starts to 'rise above' this sort of general law reaction. Something to think about, anyway.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
Hmmm - did your teacher impart any understanding about self-importance?

alwyn said:
He IS capable of making those distinctions.
Also, just wondering if you are aware that Gurdjieff finally closed his school because he basically found no one truly capable of not only grasping his teachings but of carrying them forward at that point in time. Even those he had initially chosen to 'lead things' fell woefully short due to their own identifications and programs, so when you use proof that this teacher of yours was taught by a student of Gurdjieff himself, it really doesn't mean anything at all, objectively.

If you've not read any of Patterson's work on the time of Gurdjieff, it might be worth your while.

Your cup appears to be quite full, which is certainly your choice, but becoming so offended as to make vague and suggestive remarks of what this group is 'theoretically' interested in says much more about you - and the effect of these 'teachers' of yours - than it does about anything else at all.

It's always quite telling when someone finds the material here lacking, yet continues to frequent the forum and engage in subtle digs and discussions - something to think about indeed.
 

alwyn

Padawan Learner
anart said:
Hmmm - did your teacher impart any understanding about self-importance?
I'm sure he despaired in my case. ;-) But he did teach me to beware of those who would secure their 'reality' by tearing down mine.

anart said:
Also, just wondering if you are aware that Gurdjieff finally closed his school because he basically found no one truly capable of not only grasping his teachings but of carrying them forward at that point in time. Even those he had initially chosen to 'lead things' fell woefully short due to their own identifications and programs, so when you use proof that this teacher of yours was taught by a student of Gurdjieff himself, it really doesn't mean anything at all, objectively.
Well then, 'based upon the ideas of Gurdjieff' means nothing here objectively either, for the same reasons, no? The last words of Gurdjieff were "well, I leave you all in a fine mess here." Well, he used a stronger word, but we can't use it here on the forum. His school was disbanded when he died. What people wrote about him after the fact are opinions of an event, and in no way objective.

anart said:
Your cup appears to be quite full, which is certainly your choice, but becoming so offended as to make vague and suggestive remarks of what this group is 'theoretically' interested in says much more about you - and the effect of these 'teachers' of yours - than it does about anything else at all.

It's always quite telling when someone finds the material here lacking, yet continues to frequent the forum and engage in subtle digs and discussions - something to think about indeed.
I'm sorry, I thought this was a news forum, where people could discuss ideas. If I found the majority of the material lacking, I wouldn't spend so much of my valuable time here. Also I do not only post 'digs' as you call it, but respond to the site's stated raison d'etre of learning and speaking about objective knowledge. It is telling, perhaps, when you, Anart, shift the focus of discussion of the topic (Charles Manson) to my supposed qualifications or lack of them to discuss said subject objectively. It shows quite markedly what I demonstrated objectively, i.e. If you are a 'product' of a work which produces people who have objective knowledge, you would be able to examine my statement, and know whether it was the truth or not. That IS a mark of someone who has objective knowledge. As you Anart, have responded to my post with subtle digs of your own, it rather proves the theoretical part, doesn't it? So perhaps then this actually says more about you than about me. A legitimate news-site, or an objective one which SOTT purports be, has no need to attack to defend, as it were. I contribute such knowledge (and experience) as I have, in the interests of us all advancing. We are at a rather critical junction. I understand that you have no way to verify whether I actually possess such knowledge or not, but that says more about your lack of objectivity than mine.

I admire Gurdjieff, I aspire to the sufis, and I can only hope that one day I am worthy of the costs of my arising, as G used to say. My interest in the Cassiopaean material is a direct result of Laura's statements about both these former subjects, of which I've had both interest in and exposure to for a significant portion of my life. I'm sorry if you find my speech a little rough. I don't have much polish. I don't purport to be the 'perfect' human, and if I'm not a credit to my teachers, I'm sure it's not their fault. I do try to modulate my tone, but my husband informs me I need serious work in this area. However, I've studied with whom I've studied, and I know what I know. And I hope that some of what I know is considered fair exchange for my use of this site. Knowledge for knowledge. It should be what it's about.

Unless, of course, you actually are a cult. ;-)

I'm sure you can brush this whole thing off by relegating it to my self-importance. It's easier that way. But it may not be, strictly speaking, correct. And if I'm not welcome, well then it's your pony, and you can put it in your barn and lock the door behind it.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
alwyn said:
I'm sure you can brush this whole thing off by relegating it to my self-importance.
Pretty much, and quite a high level of venom behind your words, indicating how powerful those sacred cows of yours are. You'll clearly be happier elsewhere - or perhaps you can start your own forum where you can pontificate all the live-long-day about what is and what is not 'objective', holding your self-importance and subjective understandings closer and closer to your chest as time moves by.

You see, there is a difference - I KNOW most of my understanding is subjective and I work tirelessly to learn more and to minimize the subjectivity wherever possible - nothing is spared - no aspect of myself or my view of the world is safe from being 'torn down' if data is uncovered that proves it is not valid - even those things I've already 'learned'. This is never-ending and I would hope that as long as I am alive and even after, it will continue.

That is what having NO sacred cows means - because, ultimately, it is not about me - nor is it about alwyn.

Hopefully you'll find what you're looking for.
 

SeekinTruth

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The significance of self-importance can't be overstated. It is one of the major obstacles to progress in the Work. It is related and connected to all other important ideas in the work such as identifying, internal considering, imagining, etc. The main problem may be that even if someone has admitted that they are not one, not a unity, but a multiplicity of small "i's," it has been done only on the level of thought and not with their whole being. It takes absolute sincerity and long, proper self observation and self remebering to feel that you are not one with your whole being. As the process continues, more and more is seen and felt, and more and more buffers are destroyed.

And as anart said, it is an ongoing process. All of this is also embodied very succinctly in anart's quote from Mme de Salzmann.

It is quite shocking (at least for a short time) everytime I discover that there is still quite a bit of self-importance in myself after long and serious efforts to get rid of it. I don't post that much because I have so much reading to do and I usually don't feel that I have much of value to add to the discussions. This "protects" me from being exposed as often to my blinds spots and showing my self-importance and other related short comings of subjectivity. Also when I am reading and posting here I am much more on my guard not to react mechanically and not to let my self-importance surface. But over time, I have caught myself in everyday life that as much as I think my self-importance is diminishing, it is not completely eradicated.

All of this is also related to intent. When we learn many new things both about ourselve and the world in general, there is a tendency to go out and "teach" others what we have learned, even if we don't have a proper understanding of it yet. So one must always be on guard to notice this tendency related to self-importance and to struggle against it. First, we must discern if others are truly asking for knowledge and information, before wanting to provide these. Second, we must be careful that what we do provide is as objective as possible and not to distort it with our subjectivity. And third, remain vigilant to make sure that the information we gather is properly processed, turned into knowledge, and then understanding, rather than hijacked by self-importance and turned into something to take pride in (how much more we know than others, etc.).

All of these things are related and connected. The Work and the Teachings about it constitute one whole; an organic system. The more we understand how all the parts relate to and fit into the whole, the more we are able to progress. Everything must eventually become one's own. It must acquire deep internal meaning and not remain just external concepts that we repeat mechanically. Otherwise its true value is not realized internally. Finally, again all of this is inter-related. As the process continues, our being grows from becoming more conscious, less mechanical, more unified, less fragmented. As our being grows, we can receive more and higher knowledge which then becomes understanding which is completely our own, we can't lose it or forget it. It is very important as the process continues to make relentless efforts to not identify with the fragments, the legion of small "i's."
 

iggy

The Force is Strong With This One
I have uploaded some Mae Brussell radio shows onto a Podomatic account. As you know, her shows are nearly impossible to find on the net. I have uploaded about a dozen online. If anyone has a request for a particular show, leave me a message on the podcast site or this one and I will do my best to upload it.

_http://nwoexposed.podomatic.com/
 

cholas

Dagobah Resident
In a complete accident, I stumbled upon Mae Brussell's recordings on archive: (would it be better to start a new thread?)

Excellent listening!



Also looks like the complete recordings here:

 

Debra

Jedi Council Member
In a complete accident, I stumbled upon Mae Brussell's recordings on archive: (would it be better to start a new thread?)

Excellent listening!



Also looks like the complete recordings here:

Excellent find! I did a double take when I read her name, and it felt like receiving a message from a long lost, beloved family member.
For members who may not be familiar with this amazing woman, here is a quote, from the page, of Mae describing herself, and her quest for truth:

“I see pockets of fascism ... The Rockefellers' attorney, Allen Dulles, consulted with Reinhard Gehlen, the Nazi intelligence chief, to form our own CIA.

George Ball writes about getting rid of people by the millions.
Patrick Buchanan writes an article justifying the use of torture.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, head of our National Security Council, writes that 'with the use of computers, human behavior itself will become more determined and subject to deliberate programming,' and that 'it will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen' ...

It's not my whole life. It's important to find out who killed Kennedy, but not at the expense of your own humanness.
I don't lose anything if they never find out who killed him. I still have my self-respect.
And I like having children and preparing meals and mastering everything having to do with the home.
In fact, my initial concern over who killed John Kennedy was basically a selfish one.

I wanted to find out if there had been a coup, if the United States was going fascist.
Would I be like Anne Frank's father, who told his family that things were OK and that people were basically good - while they were living their last days?
They never fought Nazism, but just watched it all go by and hid in the attic until their time came around to be taken away.
With a family of five children, my husband and myself, I had an obligation to understand the world outside my home.
When Hitler failed, his officers were brought to the U.S. from inside Rockefeller Center, and to the Bahamas and Southern states to build this dream of the Fourth Reich.
It is in this context that the Kennedys, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, labor leaders, judges, entertainers, reporters, authors, students, Black Panthers, Indians, Chicanos, and hippies are being slain, and why the masses are being doped into control."

— Mae Brussell
 

Charade

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
In a complete accident, I stumbled upon Mae Brussell's recordings on archive: (would it be better to start a new thread?)

Excellent listening!



Also looks like the complete recordings here:

This looks really fascinating. Can’t wait to check it out. Comes on the heels of just watching JFK and Forrest Gump. All that footage of assassinations is utterly shocking. Fascist conspiracy ? Hell yes. Thanks for the find.
 
Last edited:

cholas

Dagobah Resident
Many, many moons ago I lived in Berkeley, Ca. It was just before and during 9/11 and Guns and Butter was on KPFA every Saturday (if I remember correctly)

They were the only one's on-air, locally, getting to the root of it. Seemingly unafraid of exposing the truth.

Of course that didn't last and KPFA eventually ended up kicking Bonnie Faulkner and Co off their platform.

She naturally protested and I think that vid can be found on utube or such (public hearing of sorts).

Here's a link from Archive of their shows. Again, excellent listening:


Again, very much inspired and related to Mae's work.

(my has Berkeley changed: a total 180 now)
 
Top Bottom