Phillip K. Dick holds a special place within the science fiction genre. He is deservedly celebrated for his mastery of the "mind-fuck". If you are a fan of his writing, you are someone who enjoys having their mind fucked good and proper. I am one of these people and I know that some of my readers share this inclination. I dedicate this post to you and to Mr. Dick.
There are some ideas that the mind tip-toes away from without really looking at them. There is a sense that such ideas are too dangerous to formulate, much less entertain. They might upset our foundational assumptions and put our sanity in peril. But these sorts of ideas are the ones that expose the lies we tell ourselves. And what is sanity anyhow? I've decided that only one who is enlightened is sane. Apart from that, it's only relative. Then it becomes a matter of how coherently you can function. If your foundational assumptions are flawed, the answer is: not very. How would we know if we never checked? If the Truth is what is sought, it can withstand all questions. In fact, it demands them. This is why aspirants to gnosis will go out of their way to entertain "dangerous" ideas, questions and possibilities. That's why we take entheogens. That's why we love movies like "The Matrix" and novels like those of P.K. Dick.
So, without further ado, I will proceed to share this contribution to the honourable tradition of mind-fuckery. This idea had been skirting the edges of my consciousness for some time and I had dismissed it. Quickly. Today I was discussing the control system's plans for the world with my partner. He said what I had so often said and thought myself. "How can they, with all their knowledge, not know that their aims are impossible to reach? Unless...." (at this point I had to finish the sentence) ..."They know that they are serving Infinite Awareness and they are consciously fulfilling their role, which is to wake us up by reflecting our blindness back to us as starkly as necessary." In order to do this consciously and without faltering, they would have to be fully enlightened. My partner felt that this possibility was plenty weird enough to be getting on with. He's going to write about it on his blog as well. I had to go a bit further. "What if it's not just the elite?", I said. "What if everyone who seems to be deeply unconscious is actually already enlightened and they are all perfectly playing their parts in order to test the few who are still actively seeking?" That would mean that it is only those of us "on the path" who have still to awaken. It is we who are the slow ones. When we do awaken fully, all the "others" will remove their masks and take a bow. If this were true, (and I'm not saying it is) we might perceive our task as a whole lot simpler. Perception affects experience. Therefore, regardless of it's truth, it is useful.
The conscious adoption of random beliefs for the purpose of shifting one's experience of reality is the very heart of Magick. Peter J. Carroll, in "Liber Kaos" refers to it as "sleight of mind". It is this aspect of the idea that I found so fascinating. Later, when we went for a walk, I pretended it was true. I imagined that all the people I saw were spiritual masters in disguise. Some of them deserve Oscars! It produced in me an exhilaration and wonder that I cannot really describe. You'd have to try it. As an exercise in consciousness it is pure gold. I want to stress that there is no necessity of committing to this belief (or any other) in order to make use of it. In fact, I'm intuitively certain that it would be a mistake to do so.
The Aztecs engaged in the practice of sacrificing humans to the Sun god. Most people today would consider this barbaric, but the Aztecs had nothing on us. At least the Sun is real, and necessary to all life on this planet. We practice human sacrifice also. The "god" to which we offer up our victims is called the "economy". In contrast to the Sun god, the "economy" is an invented abstraction. When it comes to scale of carnage the Aztecs again, lag far behind. Consider the thousands who starve to death daily for want of little pieces of paper and metal, worth nothing but what we believe they are worth. And let's not forget all the other sacrificial victims who have perished in banker-engineered wars. How could the "economy" have survived without them? Then there are those who for various reasons, are not economically productive. They are kicked to the gutter, considered human garbage. We treat murderers better than that. I guarantee you that, if and when, some future civilisation unearths the debris of our own, they will conclude that the "economy" was our god. How embarrassing. How shameful!
If you look up the word "economy" in the dictionary, it simply means "management of resources". In this sense there is nothing wrong with it. In practice, and as commonly used, it means something else: the monetary economy. Henceforth, when I use the word, it will be in this modern, perverted sense.
Every time I hear the mainstream media, or anybody else, talk about saving the economy, I feel like I'm going to hurl. Why should we want to save it? It's sick. What has it done for us, that we should want to save it? It has turned us into slaves and whores. It has robbed us of our freedom and our self-respect. It has turned this beautiful, bountiful planet into a prison with paper bars. How do we not see this? Could it be that we are members of a mind-control cult so pervasive as to be invisible? It certainly has all the characteristics of a cult, including myths, dogmatic unquestioning belief, and vicious punishment of heretics. There is no shame in having been brain-washed, only in consciously choosing to remain so. Let's examine the mythology, and see if it holds up. Myth #1: The economy is an efficient means of managing resources.
No, it isn't. The economy thrives on waste. Planned obsolescence is an obvious example. It is not economically profitable to make things that last. The economy demands that "goods" be produced as cheaply as possible and last a very short time so as to keep "consumers" consuming and feed the profit machine. Another example of this fallacy is "manufactured want". Goods are produced that no one really has any use for, then we waste human time and creativity on advertising to make people want them. The economy is incredibly wasteful of human energy. Most of the work that people do, doesn't need doing. "Primitive" societies that lack our labour-saving technologies, devote far less time to work that we do. It is sad to see brilliant creative people, who would love to share their gifts, working as tele-marketers and factory slaves. Myth #2: The economy is the driver of innovation and progress.
Wrong again. These things are the result of human creativity and curiosity. The economy has interfered with progress whenever it has threatened vested interests. There is no need for us to still be using fossil fuels, for example. Free energy technology exists, but is not made available because it is free. Likewise, medical advances are suppressed to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Up-to-date discoveries in the fields of physics and biology are not mentioned in grade-school science classes. This is not because they are hard to understand, but because their paradigm-shattering implications threaten vested interests. Need I go on? Another way that the economy has hurt progress is by making us stupid. The brain develops as it is used. Survival needs are taken care of by the R-complex, the reptilian brain. This is it's oldest and least evolved part. The economy, through it's insistence that everyone (except the elite) earn the right to exist, causes us to overuse this part of the brain. Scientific research has shown that a foetus whose mother experiences survival anxiety develops an enlarged R-complex and a shrunken prefrontal cortex. I suspect this is the explanation for social conditions in areas where poverty is most prevalent. In our modern technological society, we have the means to sustainably feed, house and educate everyone on this planet. The only reason we don't is because it would hurt the economy. If people didn't have to worry about surviving, who would staff the third world sweat-shops? Myth #3: Economic growth will lead to greater prosperity for all.
Um, no. Within the economy, the more scarce something is (including money), the more valuable. That is called "supply and demand". These are presented as natural forces. They're not. In order to maximise profit, both are manipulated. "Surplus" food-stuffs are dumped rather than distributed in order to keep prices high. Through advertising, wants are created (where none existed) in order to increase demand. In Vancouver, at least 15% of housing sits empty because it is "investment property" while hundreds are homeless. Low unemployment leads to inflation, so it is deliberately maintained at a level that suits the hoarders of capital. This level is called the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) by economists. This is the reason central banks raise and lower interest rates. There must be losers as well as winners so the rats will keep running, faster and faster. Also, because of the pyramidal structure of the economy, there must be a lot more losers than winners. Myth #4: The economy is the best/only way of organising society.
Not so. Society is organised through communication. If money were to disappear tomorrow, we would not suddenly forget how to speak and write. People would still be capable of organising for common purpose. Everything that wants and needs doing would still get done. People are naturally social and cooperative. Most of us want to contribute something for the benefit of others. The challenge would not be in getting things done but in finding ways to occupy ourselves once all the unnecessary labour ends. Those who are not able to be "productive" do not represent a burden to anyone but rather an opportunity for caring and generosity. "Organising", in the context of this myth, really means managing (as in slaves or livestock). It means forcing others to do what they would otherwise refuse to do.
Myth #5: Money is simply a means of facilitating exchange. It reflects intrinsic value.
I was curious about how and why money came to exist. I assumed, as do most people, that it evolved to expedite trade. When I did some research, I discovered that it was actually created for the purpose of paying tribute. It allowed the rulers to amass and store more wealth than they could in a grain-based economy. In other words, it was created to facilitate hoarding by the wealthy and powerful. This is still it's primary purpose. If money reflected intrinsic value, goods and services would be traded for those of equal value. If this were the case, there would be no such thing as "profit". Profit is the result of fraudulently or coercively trading something of lesser for something of higher value. Profit is theft. It should hardly need stating that not everything with value can be commodified. This obvious fact is increasingly sneared at or overlooked.
Myth #6: Economic activity = democracy = freedom.
This is a particularly nasty lie, as it plays on noble instincts to deliver just the opposite. The economy does not promote democracy (as officially defined, "government of the people for the people"). It concentrates power in the hands of the very few. When was the last time your government defended the interests of the people over those of the elite? Exactly. This is not the result of corruption, but the result intended from the beginning. The monetary economy was invented by the rulers to control the ruled. I have deliberately chosen not to make a distinction between capitalism and communism, since both are monetary economic systems and both are coercive and enslaving. One is secretly, and the other openly so. That is the only real difference. This false polarity has proved very useful for the controllers, since we would all prefer to believe we are free. This also allows for circumscribed debate, which never addresses the real issues.
To return to the Aztec parallel, it should be pointed out that most of those people believed that what they were doing was right and necessary. Their priests and rulers told them so. When the promised results failed to materialise, their solution was... more of the same. Some of them must have known that what they were doing was cruel and insane but they didn't see any alternative. Sound familiar? This brought about the end of their civilisation. Somebody should have said something.
There are alternatives to the monetary economy. The natives of this region (Pacific North-West) had a gift economy until it was outlawed by the European colonialists. The movie, Zeitgeist Addendum proposes a resource based economy. There are other possibilities as well. Actually, almost everyone has had the experience of a non-monetary economy. We call it "the family". What will be fundamentally required is awareness, vision, maturity and cooperation. It's going to be up to us. We will have to trust each other and ourselves. The psychopaths who are running the show don't want to change. The first thing we need to do is wake up and stop supporting the insanity. The rest might be easier that we think.
Note: This essay might seem to include excessive use of quotation marks. In many cases I am employing them to indicate abuse of language. This is one of the hall-marks of mind-control, that words and phrases are used in ways that reverse or pervert their proper meaning.
I find Synchromysticism fascinating because it possesses features that are utterly novel and and unique. It truly reflects the mood of this modern era in which we live and yet is a reversal of it. I am referring to our age's banality, it's obsessive focus on the trivial and meaningless. It reminds me of the yin/yang symbol which depicts the extreme of one pole spontaneously flipping into it's opposite. The subject matter it employs is usually pop culture, eg. TV, comics, movies, advertising. This might appear to reduce it's value for consciousness development, yet it does not. As an exercise in awareness, it is comparable to mindfulness meditation. As I see it, the subject matter and interpretation is less important that the act of noticing symbolic connections. This practice trains the mind to remain awake. I think it can lead to greater levels of awareness by developing the habit of paying attention and seeing patterns in what is attended to.
The people involved in developing this field are mostly young and technologically inclined. They have spent most of their lives in a culture of over-stimulation. I am in awe of the way Synchromysticism has succeeded in integrating this noisy confusion and turning it to the service of awareness. In this sense it has parallels with the study of the Qabalistic Tree of Life, which has been called a "filing system for the mind". Any type of information may be sorted in this way, from the mundane to the profound, and symbolic connections begin to develop between them. The capacity to attend to information in this way will lead to conscious contact with the intuitive mind.
In the study of the Tree, a student would usually begin with the more abstract interpretations and work towards the concrete. Synchromysticism seems to reverse this order. I do not see this as negative. It is to be expected that the level of interpretation will vary according to understanding. For example, in a Tarot reading, the appearance of the five of wands might indicate an argument, a psychological conflict, or an spiritual ordeal. The determining factor would be the plane of inquiry. Thus a "spiritual" interpretation is not necessarily more correct than a mundane one. It is the recognition of the "note" rather than the "octave" that is important. Ultimately, through this process, ALL is seen to be an expression of the One.
The main stumbling block of symbolic mysticism, is literalness. This error is just as common among traditional symbolistists, when an absolute distinction is made between spirit and matter. In Reality, no such division exists. I have come across the idea, although rarely, within the Synchromystic community, that the "Illuminati" are implanting all of this symbolism deliberately. I think this assumes far too much intelligence (and power) on their part. It does happen, but not as often as these few imagine. Most of the time it is an expression of the fractal nature of the "reality hologram". So while the symbols associated with the Illuminati do reveal their intentions, they are as unconscious of this as most people.
Should any readers be unfamiliar with, and curious about, the phenomena of Synchromysticism, here are a few links to prominent sites: The Blob The Secret Sun CentrePortal
These sites carry links to many others.