Charlotte Iserbyt: Societies Secrets

[Ed Jewett]

ED, with all do respect you say you don't know much about Marxism. How would you know then what a socialist person looks like? All the attributes you describe in your bibliography are indicative of the profile of "better" people. I do know something about many of these authors you cite and they are in many cases very liberal in their worldview and not averse to leftist politics. Of course that doesn't make them Marxists. Having said that I think the type of person that is educated to reach their personal potential includes the development of a greater appreciation for their fellow man. IOW "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country"

But you're working from a very small sampling of the whole, and can't have any idea about the excerpts I selected from them, and certainly haven't read the "synthesis". You are working from within your own world view and extrapolating about something you can't have seen unless you know one of the few people who has seen the entirety of it; we're talking over 1,400 pages, not including appendices and adjuncts. The text alone represents, in single-sided format, three three-inch three-ring binders or, in digital format, an entire CD. As the major theme of the venture is in learning about how the unity of mind/body/spirit works and how one individual can improve that within themselves by understanding their minds, and given that at least four or five of the source books are from the worlds of the cognitive sciences (neuro-psychiatry, psychology, etc.), and given that every individual is unique in some way in their mix of nature (genetics) and nurture (learning environment), how is it that you can jump to a conclusion and apply a label?

Much of the world of "secret societies" is about how an individual can be shaped by training, experience and other psycho-drama that is imposed from without by others; indeed, we are immersed in propaganda, psycho-babble, poor understanding of how the human mind/experience works, and indeed its weaponization by "the state" for purposes as benign as marketing and advertising and as ugly as servitude through mind control.

How about if we teach individuals how to understand and decide for themselves how their mind should serve them as solitary sentient human beings? How about if we allow individuals to understand how to evolve their own world view from within themselves without interference from state, church, or others? Their baseline from birth to age _?_ is necessarily driven by parents, schools, etc. When and how do their begin their own God-given right to be independent and free?

I repeat the question and the challenge: Where, in your estimation, is there sentiment and suggestion for socialism in the synthesis or the source material?