ImageSometimes it’s infuriating how much garbage is out there that claims “Gnosticism” as a source. There’s this ridiculous amount of junk that’s just too overwhelming to refute. All you can do is point it out and say, PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

I highly regard “work” by the following individuals as completely suspect and recommend readers avoid them at all costs. It’s difficult to find much criticism of them, probably because nobody *really* cares, but I care enough that I’d at least like to increase the chance that maybe, just maybe, somebody looking into one of them will find this post on Google and rethink their involvement with these characters.

So without further ado, here’s an initial, official list of BLEH:

  • Sylvia Browne – The Gnostics were Goddess-worshippers and I can speak to your dead grandmother. Give me money!
  • William Henry – The Gnostics were describing a LITERAL “Body of Light” and something something STARGATE. I am going to build one. Give me $25,000.00!
  • J.J. and Deseree Hurtak – The Gnostics were– wait for it– UFO aliens! We wrote our own Keys of Enoch. Pay some money to see us speak!
  • John Lash – The Gnostics were UFO aliens. References in the Nag Hammadi Library to “The Outer Darkness” were LITERALLY describing outer space. Sophia is Gaia????.
  • “Tau Malachi” – I’m all part of a Secret Lineage of Gnosticism that I can’t tell you anything about. Aren’t I handsome? Did I mention my lineage is SECRET?
  • Samael Aun Weor (Victor Rodriguez) – The Gnostics were UFO aliens. Good ol’ SEX MAGIC is all about HOLDING IT IN, BABY! Oh, and homosexuals are evil and deviant.

And this is just scratching the surface….

The connecting problem seems to be a complete disdain for historical accuracy, and an inability to admit when something is their own creation versus the creation of the Gnostics. Oh, and a hearty love of ridiculous self-promotion and head-shots. Their books and whatnot are very shiny, and they tend to attract followers via expensive seminars and product pitches.

The craziest thing is how popular and successful a lot of these characters are. Dang, I can barely afford to fill my gas tank with my book royalties. I’m often amazed by how much money I could be making if I didn’t have any scruples or a sense of decency. Sheesh. Well now, I guess that’s not terribly crazy. In fact, it makes a whole lot of sense if you think about it.

Oh, well. Nice thing about having a blog is it gives you a delightful way to let off steam. Steam, begone!

And while I’m at it, GET OFF MY LAWN, YOU DANGED KIDS!



Filed under Boring Stuff, Essays, Gnostic Stuff, Miscellaneous

6 responses to “Infuriating

  1. Klore

    I found you on Google, Jeremy! 🙂

    Thanks for the info. I share your frustration about these writers/personalities, particularly John Lash whose material I have been looking at. In the case Of Lash, he gives you a lot of material and ideas but blocks you from concretely distinguishing between his creative take on gnosticism and the ancient texts themselves, saying that the study of them is about mystical and comparative interpretation. When he does reference the Gnostic writings of Nag Hammadi (which seems to be the main source of reference in many cases), he doesn’t properly use the convention of citing passages such that we are given the impression that the texts say things which they do not necessarily say or imply. His “metahistory” website is more accurate than his audio sessions with interviewers, where he tries hard to promote his interpretation as fact or at least as being highly validated (it doesn’t seem to matter how many times he says “you don’t need to believe me”/”do your own research”, the psychological impact of his approach still influences his audience to remain passive enthusiasts, in my view). He also tries to restage the ancient texts as allegorical interpretations of scientific material phenomena, ideologically opposite and opposed to Abrahamic religions which symbolically and literally represent irrationality and villany (exploiting New Age prejudices, incidently) for Lash.

    The facts are that the ancient gnostic texts can’t be read as scientific documents or can be supposed or assumed to support that interpretation, and that they are written to some extent in support of a salvationist Christ figure – I don’t think it is a matter of modern Judeo-Christian epoch scholars/interpreters falsely structuring the ancient text to reflect their religious bias – I think the texts were in part Christian oriented as written by their authors. Of course we can’t be 100 percent sure that the official scholars did not edit the texts incorrectly, but this gap in our knowledge can be exploited by New Age/Paganist authors to suggest that their take on the material is the authentic one, particularly as they **fervently* believe in the words they speak* in regards to that subject.

    I’m interested in the gnostic/mystic point of view, but I can’t pretend that there are no problems or issues with the methodology and sophistry and/or rhetoric of authors/speakers on this subject. Thus It seems that the integrity of the messenger must be established before we get to the integrity of the spiritual investigation itself – and we can see this is true based on the history of messengers on abstract topics like religion/spirituality.

    If Lash is authentic as a gnostic investigator at the end of the day (and this still might be possible), he sullies this by being an unreliable source by refusing to be absolutely transparent and accessible, placing his role as an entrepreneur ahead of serious accuracy in scholarship. Authorship should not entitle any non-fiction author to put aside the rules of scholarly standards (ie. rules that respect your audience).

  2. I always like to be frank with people… the name of the guy who started my lineage was named Mark and he grew up in Jersey.

  3. A small comment on one of Bleh’s. John Lash isn’t a Gnostic and doesn’t understand Gnosticism. Everything to him has to be proof of aliens. The archons are not aliens. We are the aliens — we are the strangers to the material world.

  4. Hi & thanks.

    I permitted myself to put your text in a page created about John Lamb Lash and the failed warriors.

  5. Michael

    Thank You, Thank You, Thank You…I thought I was the only one having these thoughts! Especially, regarding the last three on your list…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s