Strieber comparison

[BrandonD]

Streiber is polluting the well of information concerning the whole UFO Alien Abduction thing.

He needs to be ignored.

Why do you think Streiber should be ignored?

I'm personally skeptical of his interpretations of the phenomenon and the intelligences involved, but I do think that he's had genuine experiences.

The ratio of investigators to "experiencers" on the Paracast is probably about 2 to 1, which might be another reason why the conversations often veer towards ufology and its dramas. I think it would be worthwhile to bring another experiencer on the show.

Same question for Mogwa and the others who think Streiber shouldn't be on the Paracast. Why do you think that?

And if not Streiber, what "experiencer" would be a good guest for the show rather than him?

 

[Mogwa]

Streiber is polluting the well of information concerning the whole UFO Alien Abduction thing.

He needs to be ignored.

I
Why do you think Streiber should be ignored?

I'm personally skeptical of his interpretations of the phenomenon and the intelligences involved, but I do think that he's had genuine experiences.

The ratio of investigators to "experiencers" on the Paracast is probably about 2 to 1, which might be another reason why the conversations often veer towards ufology and its dramas. I think it would be worthwhile to bring another experiencer on the show.

Same question for Mogwa and the others who think Streiber shouldn't be on the Paracast. Why do you think that?

And if not Streiber, what "experiencer" would be a good guest for the show rather than him?

I Didn't say he shouldn't be on the Paracast, Brandon. My comment was that if he does agree to an interview, I hope David will challenge him with rational argument and fact when he starts slinging his New Age retro style of Theosophical bullshit.
That's why I listen to this program. It's the only one of its kind available; open minded moderators who haven't allowed their own beliefs to cloud their sense of rational evaluation when dealing with paranormal subjects. Seems to me everyone else working this genre on air is either gullible beyond belief or out to turn a quick buck by terrorizing naive true believers.

 

[BrandonD]

I Didn't say he shouldn't be on the Paracast, Brandon. My comment was that if he does agree to an interview, I hope David will challenge him with rational argument and fact when he starts slinging his New Age retro style of Theosophical bullshit.
That's why I listen to this program. It's the only one of its kind available; open minded moderators who haven't allowed their own beliefs to cloud their sense of rational evaluation when dealing with paranormal subjects. Seems to me everyone else working this genre on air is either gullible beyond belief or out to turn a quick buck by terrorizing naive true believers.

Sounds good, I agree.

I haven't read anything of his in a while...after listening to the Pinchbeck-Streiber battle, he seems to have become significantly less open-minded. I'm looking forward to the hosts confronting him about his irrational stance towards the beings he's interacted with. He's apparently so unwilling to consider that these entities could be negative that he takes the very suggestion as a personal insult!

Talk about Stockholm, geez.

 

[David Biedny]

I'm heading down to NYC tomorrow evening, Mr. Vaeni is hosting a book release event for him (6:30 PM, East West Books, 78 Fifth Avenue @ 14th Street). I'll try to convince him to come on the show, but based on what I heard on his podcast (the one where he got into it with Pinchbeck), I doubt he'll accept.

 

[XBadger]

It really was an unfortunate podcast. Even when Pinchbeck tried saying he felt two adults could disagree still be friends, Strieber responded by calling him ignorant. Sophistocated. Classy. He would have truly fit in alongside Voltaire in the salons of Paris. In my mind it is a fair question as to whether he should be ignored.

Perhaps this is the problem when the investigator/experiencer line gets too blurred and you lose any objectivity. Obviously, the hosts have had experiences, but they are still able to make commentary about the subject outside of bringing up "my experience." I think the best example of that was the long analysis of the "photographic proof" that Aliens have designated a one armed Swiss man to be their representative. No mention of their experience, just tapping into his expertise and profession to make informed comments.

How can Strieber be objective or rational enough to either interview someone, be interviewed in a productive manner or write hard hitting books, if he said himself that the message taught to him by the aliens were so central to his belief system that they made the very core of his being. For goodness sakes he began cursing on his own show and throwing insults when someone dared to disagree with him. I have a hunch that interviewing him about aliens would be like critically interviewing me about my mother. I couldn't imagine saying anything bad about her. At the very least it would unproductive for anyone looking for somehting more than a hagiography.

So what is his value to the field? Does he allow his experiences to be openly examination by fellow researchers? I mean if he's right then he is one of the few people who have the memories of such a sustained contact with these entities. If he's serious about being a researcher (rather than a self-righteous, pseudoscientific author) then he carries an obligation to calmly answer questions and respond to his critics. Is it possible for him write books that talk about broader things than just his direct experiences? Clearly no. He said himself to the guest on his podcast that despite the fact he read _Communion_ since he didn't experience it then he can't comment about the book's findings. If you can't write something that can (at the very least) be intellectually digested then what use are your books to the field.

I remember being young and hearing him being interviewed in the mid-90s on T2T and being impressed, so I make this comment with heavy heart. I agree with the previous poster, he should be ignored.

 

[Noanswers]

I'm heading down to NYC tomorrow evening, Mr. Vaeni is hosting a book release event for him (6:30 PM, East West Books, 78 Fifth Avenue @ 14th Street). I'll try to convince him to come on the show, but based on what I heard on his podcast (the one where he got into it with Pinchbeck), I doubt he'll accept.

After that podcast, I'd pack brass knuckles if he did accept.

 

[valiens]

Wait a minute, are you kidding me? Did we hear the same show? Pinchbeck goes off on Whitley and Whitley quietly responds for most of it. He did swear, I think once, but it wasn't even at Pinchbeck. He didn't call the guy a name or anything.

The dude handled himself completely well. I was surprised by how unwar-like the situation was given the build up.

Now tell me how you'd respond to someone aggressively asserting that you're being controlled by evil aliens and that you shouldn't put out a negative vibe because that will magically create the reality you're prophesying? That may work for us in our individual lives, but if Strieber can bring the entire planet to its knees with "negative thinking" then we'd better show him more respect as a God or super hero than we've been doing.

I disagree with most of what's been said here. Of course I would, so...there's that chunk of salt. Regardless, let me point out that he has actually poked fun at himself for being a horrible prophet (re: The Secret School) and has remained fairly consistent while evolving his opinions on what contact is. To me that smacks of honesty.

I know that how we receive someone like him is completely subjective because he doesn't put out UFO photos to debunk or video footage. But he has taken a lie detector test, has had an MRI to check for brain damage, has put his career and entire life on the line to talk about this stuff. For my money he's passed the smell test.

Lastly, I submit to you that had Strieber not come along to write Communion no one would have. John Mack would have been the closest thing to an antidote for the "evil doctors creating hybrids" narrative, but even he didn't arrive on the scene until much later. So Strieber really changed everything with Communion and gave lil teen Jeremy a reason not to kill himself when the abduction going got tough. This topic is richer and far more important than evil doctors or sleep paralysis and if it wasn't for Whitley, I don't think that would have broken to the surface. Yes, there are researchers like Vallee and Keel who accept the high strangeness aspects of this stuff but joe public was never influenced by them. (Er...except for the Vallee character in "Close Encounters.")

Sorry. Didn't mean to write a thesis paper. I just don't see how you can easily brush off an important living historical figure with a couple of keystrokes. I've got to think his life's work is slightly more important than that.

 

[Mogwa]

Wait a minute, are you kidding me? Did we hear the same show? Pinchbeck goes off on Whitley and Whitley quietly responds for most of it. He did swear, I think once, but it wasn't even at Pinchbeck. He didn't call the guy a name or anything.

The dude handled himself completely well. I was surprised by how unwar-like the situation was given the build up.

Now tell me how you'd respond to someone aggressively asserting that you're being controlled by evil aliens and that you shouldn't put out a negative vibe because that will magically create the reality you're prophesying? That may work for us in our individual lives, but if Strieber can bring the entire planet to its knees with "negative thinking" then we'd better show him more respect as a God or super hero than we've been doing.

I disagree with most of what's been said here. Of course I would, so...there's that chunk of salt. Regardless, let me point out that he has actually poked fun at himself for being a horrible prophet (re: The Secret School) and has remained fairly consistent while evolving his opinions on what contact is. To me that smacks of honesty.

I know that how we receive someone like him is completely subjective because he doesn't put out UFO photos to debunk or video footage. But he has taken a lie detector test, has had an MRI to check for brain damage, has put his career and entire life on the line to talk about this stuff. For my money he's passed the smell test.

Lastly, I submit to you that had Strieber not come along to write Communion no one would have. John Mack would have been the closest thing to an antidote for the "evil doctors creating hybrids" narrative, but even he didn't arrive on the scene until much later. So Strieber really changed everything with Communion and gave lil teen Jeremy a reason not to kill himself when the abduction going got tough. This topic is richer and far more important than evil doctors or sleep paralysis and if it wasn't for Whitley, I don't think that would have broken to the surface. Yes, there are researchers like Vallee and Keel who accept the high strangeness aspects of this stuff but joe public was never influenced by them. (Er...except for the Vallee character in "Close Encounters.")

Sorry. Didn't mean to write a thesis paper. I just don't see how you can easily brush off an important living historical figure with a couple of keystrokes. I've got to think his life's work is slightly more important than that.

Come on! Pinchbeck offered an opinion that Strieber seems to be in the habit of casting every current event as a harbinger of imminent disaster. The man 's books and web site offer nothing but an incessant drumbeat of Milleranistic doom.
Never Once did Pinchback resort to name calling or any other form of character assassination, although from the tone of his voice it's obvious he was extremely agitated. Strieber's response was a hateful, vitriolic temper tantrum. He called Pinchback ignorant, a fascist, a Nazi, foolish, dishonest and generally behaved like the arrogant narcissist he truly is. The man's personal behavior is as disgusting as the malignant pseudo-religion he peddles. In my experience, the same holds true for his disciples. Maybe they've all been hit in the head by the "sixth ray" too often.

 

[XBadger]

"Now tell me how you'd respond to someone aggressively asserting that you're being controlled by evil aliens"

That is true, but then again I haven't set myself up as a person who is trying to get rid of the narrative of evil ETs. He is putting himself forward as a prominent face in the abduction movement, it is his profession, and simply put this comes with the territory. If you are going to per a "serious" reasearcher then you have to not scream at people and call them Nazis. No matter what. Collegiality and open and honest debate demand that much.

I also think you are only looking at it from WS point of view. Who is to say that he is the only one who is "right". Sure he believes what he does, so how is that any more defensible than what the other guy believes. Pinchbeck (and I disagree with him) thinks that WS is acting to the detriment of the human species. So to put your question another way, "Now tell me how you'd respond to someone aggressively asserting things as fact that are directly detrimental to the future of the human species?"

 

[valiens]

No, what he said was the view that you can't hold any other view or even talk about what is actually unfolding in nature and politics for fear of making the worst come true is fascist. I don't know where you think the temper tantrum came in as it was Pinchbeck angrily talking over Strieber at some points and I think Strieber raised his voice once, but I'll point out the crux of the argument and you tell me which makes more sense:

Pinchbeck: Evil aliens are controlling your thoughts and making you say the doomtastic things you say. We create our reality by thought and so by saying doomtastic things with conviction, you are planting seeds of fear in peoples' minds, which will make these things come true.

Strieber: Nature is numbers. The world cannot sustain us as we are just because you wish it to happen. All that evil alien stuff is nonsense. You're a hypocrite when you tell me I can't know anything and then you pretend to know this about me and also talk about positivity when you're the one yelling. The positive actions you're talking about to counteract the seemingly inevitable might have worked if we'd implemented them 30 years ago but now it's a little late in the game. You're scared of this. I'm not. That's what this is about.

Essentially Pinchbeck's argument boils down to this: If Paul Revere had never ridden into town yelling "The British Are Coming!" the British would not have come. It's ridiculous. In my opinion--and it's just that, an opinion, but one formed long ago after reading his 2012 book--Pinchbeck is a white, wealthy intellectual who played Indian shaman and liked it and is claiming it for his own. (Very white of him, by the way). You want to talk about inauthentic narcissists, look no further. His book, while a whirlwind of interesting factoids, is all build up and no climax. "Behold! All the things that interest me! And now they shall interest you!" And then, what? He channels Quetzelcoatl and gives us a great post-millennial message of peace and love?

Blaaaaht.

But really, for my money, the big clue to who this man is comes from his relationship with his now-ex wife. He calls her his "partner" throughout the book, which is the liberal's way of taking a stand against sexism and the historic ownership of women built into marriage. That's all well and good, except then we learn that Mr. Sensitivity Training cheats on her and they divorce. But he doesn't just cheat on her, no. He cheats on her and blames Quetzalcoatl. Yes, this long dead god-man influenced him to cheat on his wife as part of his merry walkabout. Talk about not taking responsibility for your actions.

I dunno. I walked away from that argument/interview thinking Pinchbeck is another one of those New Age narcissists that talks about peace and love and doing good things as a means of repressing his rage. You challenge that surface demeanor and it's no longer you challenging his beliefs, it's evil entities controlling you.

So cheating on his wife under the influence of a god myth was for the best, but Whitley pointing out the obvious collapse of the echo system is the product of evil aliens?

It's kinda Dungeons & Dragons any way you slice it.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Anyone who takes what Whitley Streiber says as being the gospel of UFOlogy, needs to find a new hobby.

 

[BrandonD]

No, what he said was the view that you can't hold any other view or even talk about what is actually unfolding in nature and politics for fear of making the worst come true is fascist. I don't know where you think the temper tantrum came in as it was Pinchbeck angrily talking over Strieber at some points and I think Strieber raised his voice once, but I'll point out the crux of the argument and you tell me which makes more sense:

Pinchbeck's point of view is not the issue, because the Paracast isn't considering interviewing Pinchbeck. I don't subscribe to Pinchbeck's idea that talking about negativity makes it happen. I think that's silly and "magical" thinking.

The issue here is Whitley. He was unable to consider that the alien beings were negative, a possibility which he was actually able to consider at one time. In fact, he considered this a personal insult "at his very core", and further said that he was no longer friends with Pinchbeck because he dared to bring up this possibility.

This is not the behavior of a rational sane man.

One of the trademarks of a sane man is that he doesn't take things personally. If these beings were indeed positive toward our "evolution" then I would expect Whitley to at least show the behavior of a rational sane man, which he didn't in the case of the beings.

Any person in his right mind can see that it's perfectly reasonable to keep the possibility on the table that these beings are negative. We still don't know who they are, we still don't know where they come from... their very nature appears to be deceptive! The possibility that they're negative is every bit as viable as the possibility that they're positive.

A sane man should be able to calmly and rationally discuss this subject without name-calling and burning bridges. Unless of course, like a religious zealot he has so enmeshed his identity with one particular point of view that he is unable to look at the situation rationally.

 

[valiens]

I see what you're saying but then the question becomes this: If a rational, sane man had a deeper relationship with these beings than he's talked about publicly because the public doesn't take him seriously as it is (as he said on my show), then would he not be offended to his core?

It's funny because I'm having similar arguments with friends now. Similar in that at the very heart of the argument is that we both think the way in which the other is thinking is completely wrong. Not just topic-to-topic, but fundamentally flawed and so what we're really saying to each other is: I don't trust your judgment on the very subject that has dominated your life. And that's what Pinchbeck/Strieber are saying to each other. So how can they remain friends without it being based on mutual condescension?

It kind of parallels my problem with fundamentalist religious types come to think of it. How can you be friends with anyone you think is going to hell?

 

[Mogwa]

I think Jeremy has identified a salient point in this situation when he points out that Pinchbeck holds some extremely....odd...views, to put it politely. Nothing wrong with that of and by itself, but when your disagreement with another person is partially based upon what you to consider to be odd or destructive beliefs, hypocrisy rears its ugly head.
My disgust with Strieber stems from his arrogant and hateful response to the criticism. It's far from the first time he's violently savaged someone verbally who disagrees with him, and I consider that to be revealing insight into his character.
What really troubles me most about the Strieber-Pinchbeck debate is their cowardly reluctance to address the issue of whether or not they want to see Britney Spears play ping pong nekkid, even after she put on all that weight. I guess I'll pass, but that's just me.

 

[BrandonD]

I see what you're saying but then the question becomes this: If a rational, sane man had a deeper relationship with these beings than he's talked about publicly because the public doesn't take him seriously as it is (as he said on my show), then would he not be offended to his core?

Here's a hypothetical scenario: Say that I knew George W Bush personally, I'm actually a friend of his, and I happened to know that his whole "stupid schtick" is a complete act. He's actually a very intelligent man, and even his southern accent is a facade which was suggested to him by his political image consultants.

And now a group of people want to talk with me about how stupid George W is. Should I take it personally that these people think my friend is dumb? Well, not having the "inside info" that I have, I think it's perfectly sane and reasonable to think that W is pretty dumb. Nearly everything about his public persona leads one to think this!

Ok, so being offended in either scenario is just not rational. Consider the serious ufo researcher who studies the cases but has no personal experiences or "inside info". I think it's perfectly normal for such a person to think these beings could very well be negative or parasitic.

I would think that Whitley would be intelligent enough to realize this, and not lose his temper and end friendships because of someone else's very reasonable misunderstanding.

...Having said all that, I just want to add that I don't consider it "set in stone" that these beings are negative. I consider it completely possible that, in the larger scheme of things, these beings serve a positive purpose toward the development of human beings. Perhaps even without their own awareness. People generally only grow when in a state of discomfort or crisis, and these beings could be serving this purpose on a grander scale.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Anyone who takes what Whitley Streiber says as being the gospel of UFOlogy, needs to find a new hobby.

What makes you think they'll be better at another hobby?

 

[Poi]

People generally only grow when in a state of discomfort or crisis, and these beings could be serving this purpose on a grander scale.

I think that's right. If someone is routinely subjected to his own fear, he has to learn to spit in it's eye just to survive. It's what's is left after the fear that is rather remarkable, maybe even a deeper understanding of the nature of the cosmos and it's inhabitants.

My guess is that Whitely, like so many and including myself, has yet to conquer his more immediate fears, like being rejected or ridiculed. He is easily distracted by criticism which, while very normal in human terms, makes him vulnerable to even more criticism. Gets in the way of believableness, if you will. Most of this debate seems to be centered on his reaction rather than his experiences, but it colors the whole picture when it doesn't have to do that. We should separate the two, if possible.

 

[valiens]

I consider it completely possible that, in the larger scheme of things, these beings serve a positive purpose toward the development of human beings. Perhaps even without their own awareness. People generally only grow when in a state of discomfort or crisis, and these beings could be serving this purpose on a grander scale.

Bingo.

What makes you think they'll be better at another hobby?

Bingo.

 

[tommyball]

Rolling Stone published a good interview of Pinchbeck about a year ago. Whatever Quetzalcoatl may or may not have said to him, it seems like Pinchbeck is in it more for the trips and sex.

-todd.

 

[valiens]

Perfect.