I also really related to the 'space between stories' and did this one on it: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-space-between-stories-charles. I've heard since that he stole that from someone without attribution. And his whole spiritual jargon is taken from A Course in Miracles, which I asked him about when I interviewed him, and he said he'd never read it.
Very perceptive of you to pick up on the 'speaking for women' feminist man. I did an article on someone else who did that and, at the time, mentioned CE as another, but I hadn't yet caught onto Charles: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles. Then when I found he had usurped my phrase 'tonic masculinity' saying "this is something I like to call ..." I knew none of the other thefts were accidental either.
My only caution is that they usurp the very things that have power, those things that resonate with us. If they can twist its meaning and get us to follow the false guru, they win. If they get us to reject the whole concept and be cynical, they win. It's what I was trying to express on my recent article on Russell Brand.
"New Age" gets defined as any form of spirituality that's not an authorized religion. It's associated with women and intuition. Those who disparage it are often authoritarian men, as I say in this: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/terry-wolfe-spits-on-spirit. I don't know the answer to this but I wonder if there's a way to denounce the charlatans without rejecting the truth that does speak to us and make our hearts sing? To put it in love 'n lite terms ;-)
I'm honored to have given you the impetus to write this, Rozali.
Wow, Tereza, thank you for providing this information. I will check out your posts on these topics - will definitely keep a closer eye on your commentary as you seem to be very in tune to what's happening. That's a good point about not giving into cynicism and not rejecting the truth wholesale - I agree with you - and that's something I need to remember.
Thank you again for inspiring my post. I was going to tag/mention you directly in my article but I didn't want you to feel any sort of pressure to respond or be associated with it :) Thank you!
I am always honored to be associated with you, Rozali! Today is my 68th birthday and I'm posting 'The Year of the Goddess.' This is the time that the truth is coming out and I'm practicing my fierceness in representing it. 'I am woman, hear me argue!'
Great article. Thank you. You might be interested in digging into Alison McDowells research into Charles. Quite the rabbit hole and dovetails perfectly with what you’ve shared here.
Thank you for exposing yet another guru. Hopefully it will help some cut to the chase and save some confusion and heartache for them.
I have known so many people like the man you describe. They all seem cut from the same psyop cloth. Though varied in colors and flavors to appeal to as wide a variety of people as possible.
While shamelessly using love and light as their deceptive covering.
I understand more each day why the narrow path is narrow.
I fell for Charles briefly at the start of the scamdemic. When I look at anything he writes or shares now, it’s pretty amazing to me that I had interest in him at all. There are so many like him, mixing truth with nonsense in just that same way. Once I caught on to the grift, it became much easier to see these characters and avoid them and their followers. I really appreciate this article. Thank you.
Annie, I'm glad this resonated with you. At some points I thought, "Am I being too critical?" so it's nice to get reassurance from others and it definitely cements my position.
Well done here. I was not familiar with the two people you mentioned but the archetype and scenario you describe is all too familiar - charlatans abound. Something that rang true to the core that I once heard someone say was... (paraphrasing here) "if you cannot learn to be your own disciple you will never find what you're looking for) and Life is the Guru -- not some person or movement or AUTHORity. Thanks for writing this. Judging by the title I thought it may have gone in a different direrction but, yes, "spiritual" communities are juuuuuuust as ridden for corrupt and vile lunatic BS as organized religion. Wherever power lies, so will those desperate to covet & manipulate it.
“Feminine power does not move the world through force. It tethers the masculine powers to life, directs them toward love, and keeps them grounded in beauty. In the marriage of matriarchy and patriarchy, the masculine asks the feminine, “Where shall I direct my powers?” The untethered masculine runs awry, building towers of abstraction and technology that grow ever more distant from matter and life.”
This is typical Eisenstein, building up lofty and giddy abstractions that seem so enticing until you try to unpack what he’s saying and realize he’s saying almost nothing. There are so many things wrong with this it’s hard to know where to begin. Firstly, Eisenstein seems to have no awareness that a huge percentage of the greatest male artists in history — men who devoted all their powers and lives to creating lasting “beauty” and visions of “love” — were homosexual and therefore not driven by eros in relation to women or “matriarchy” in any normative sense.
Secondly, his vision of how the sexes should relate to one another is totally traditional. This whole paragraph barely differs from what an arch-misogynist and anti-feminist like Arthur Schopenhauer said was the proper function of women: he would agree that the feminine ideally tethers the masculine to life. The only real difference is one of tone: in his notorious essay “On Women” Schopenhauer has much the same perspective on how women contribute to civilization: they are here to love and be loved; but he is snarky, sneering and contemptuous of women who try to enter the masculine realm of “abstraction” and “science” since he thinks women have no ability to think, possess no intellect outside matters of love and family, hearth and home. Schopenhauer is snarky and sarcastic where Eisenstein is dewey-eyed and gushy about “feminine nature” — but their underlying assumptions about “what women are like” are very similar.
“The province of matriarchy is what. The province of patriarchy is how. What shall we do, that is in service to life, love, and beauty? How shall we do it? These questions merge and flow into each other. What becomes how, how becomes what. Such is the conjugation of matriarchy and patriarchy.”
Didn’t he just say it’s men who tend to fixate too much on technological solutions? So his scheme is easily reversible. I could just as easily say the opposite: patriarchy’s province is what: since men are the ones who focus on building things, gadgets, tools, instruments, tactile physical objects designed to solve problems. Whereas matriarchy’s province is how: women seem to be more into professions like teaching, psychology, medicine, healing, nursing that involve asking “how” questions (the relations between things or people, how to cooperate, how to convey or communicate understanding). That’s no more or less profound or true than what Charles came up with. I’m not saying that division is true, I’m saying it’s no more or less serious than the superficial, insipid banality Charles came up with.
I mean really look at that sentence: “The province of matriarchy is what. The province of patriarchy is how.” It’s virtually meaningless. It’s just a florid pseudo-profundity. He comes perilously close to saying women are here to write the grocery list (“what”) and the men go out and buy the groceries. Or a woman is here to say what she wants to imagine the world to be like but the man is here to do the actual hard thinking as philosopher, artist, scientist. The woman desires and the man thinks and does and achieves in the realm of the intellect.
Some time ago, in 1492 a guy named Christopher Columbus left Palos with 3 caravels. You were taught that story, right?
He starts on an assumption: that by continuously going west he would get to the east. And in effect what's the point, they have the Pinta, the Nina and the Santa Maria or conversely, the Santa Maria, the Nina and the Pinta depart and make this crossing.
And continuously going west, following the portuants of that time they arrive and they find land.
They meet indigenous people and of course Columbus who was convinced he had arrived in India, calls them Indians.
So even now this nonsense of calling them American Indians, those were the Americans, he was the one who was wrong, but he called them Indians because he was convinced it was India, so a glaring mistake, so this mistake produced the damage it did, in the sense that he should have called them not Indians.
A similar mistake, is that we call ourselves the Indian, when in fact you are something else, okay? On what basis?
On the basis of a continued and continuing error that pursues even now of non-understanding.
Now it is the process of Genesis 1 2-3, it talks about creation and creation ends in Genesis 3. The whole book of Genesis is 50 chapters long, but creation only 3.
Brilliant writing and analysis, Rozali. I see that Tonika also is subbed to you. She had an interesting exchange about NAAS with a woman named Helen on my first CE article: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/deep-fakes-eisenstein-and-rfk/comment/48889543.
And then this guy Brian Roberts jumped in as a CE apologist, very charming: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/deep-fakes-eisenstein-and-rfk/comment/49024929/ I haven't seen him on my stack since.
I also really related to the 'space between stories' and did this one on it: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-space-between-stories-charles. I've heard since that he stole that from someone without attribution. And his whole spiritual jargon is taken from A Course in Miracles, which I asked him about when I interviewed him, and he said he'd never read it.
Very perceptive of you to pick up on the 'speaking for women' feminist man. I did an article on someone else who did that and, at the time, mentioned CE as another, but I hadn't yet caught onto Charles: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/tonic-masculinity-and-feminine-wiles. Then when I found he had usurped my phrase 'tonic masculinity' saying "this is something I like to call ..." I knew none of the other thefts were accidental either.
My only caution is that they usurp the very things that have power, those things that resonate with us. If they can twist its meaning and get us to follow the false guru, they win. If they get us to reject the whole concept and be cynical, they win. It's what I was trying to express on my recent article on Russell Brand.
"New Age" gets defined as any form of spirituality that's not an authorized religion. It's associated with women and intuition. Those who disparage it are often authoritarian men, as I say in this: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/terry-wolfe-spits-on-spirit. I don't know the answer to this but I wonder if there's a way to denounce the charlatans without rejecting the truth that does speak to us and make our hearts sing? To put it in love 'n lite terms ;-)
I'm honored to have given you the impetus to write this, Rozali.
Wow, Tereza, thank you for providing this information. I will check out your posts on these topics - will definitely keep a closer eye on your commentary as you seem to be very in tune to what's happening. That's a good point about not giving into cynicism and not rejecting the truth wholesale - I agree with you - and that's something I need to remember.
Thank you again for inspiring my post. I was going to tag/mention you directly in my article but I didn't want you to feel any sort of pressure to respond or be associated with it :) Thank you!
I am always honored to be associated with you, Rozali! Today is my 68th birthday and I'm posting 'The Year of the Goddess.' This is the time that the truth is coming out and I'm practicing my fierceness in representing it. 'I am woman, hear me argue!'
Great article. Thank you. You might be interested in digging into Alison McDowells research into Charles. Quite the rabbit hole and dovetails perfectly with what you’ve shared here.
https://wrenchinthegears.com/2023/05/26/camelot-corner-with-operation-snow-white-and-charles-eisenstein-as-troubadour/
This is new to me! Thank you very much for this link, I wouldn't have known about it otherwise.
You’re welcome. Check out her videos too. Super interesting stuff. And she made them a while ago
Thank you for exposing yet another guru. Hopefully it will help some cut to the chase and save some confusion and heartache for them.
I have known so many people like the man you describe. They all seem cut from the same psyop cloth. Though varied in colors and flavors to appeal to as wide a variety of people as possible.
While shamelessly using love and light as their deceptive covering.
I understand more each day why the narrow path is narrow.
Well said. Yes, there are many like him. It's up to us to trust our gut and use our critical thinking skills to recognize people like this.
I listen to God's wisdom and practice the skill of discernment as best I can.
Well, I liked it.
I fell for Charles briefly at the start of the scamdemic. When I look at anything he writes or shares now, it’s pretty amazing to me that I had interest in him at all. There are so many like him, mixing truth with nonsense in just that same way. Once I caught on to the grift, it became much easier to see these characters and avoid them and their followers. I really appreciate this article. Thank you.
Annie, I'm glad this resonated with you. At some points I thought, "Am I being too critical?" so it's nice to get reassurance from others and it definitely cements my position.
Well done here. I was not familiar with the two people you mentioned but the archetype and scenario you describe is all too familiar - charlatans abound. Something that rang true to the core that I once heard someone say was... (paraphrasing here) "if you cannot learn to be your own disciple you will never find what you're looking for) and Life is the Guru -- not some person or movement or AUTHORity. Thanks for writing this. Judging by the title I thought it may have gone in a different direrction but, yes, "spiritual" communities are juuuuuuust as ridden for corrupt and vile lunatic BS as organized religion. Wherever power lies, so will those desperate to covet & manipulate it.
From his essay on The Feminine you linked to:
“Feminine power does not move the world through force. It tethers the masculine powers to life, directs them toward love, and keeps them grounded in beauty. In the marriage of matriarchy and patriarchy, the masculine asks the feminine, “Where shall I direct my powers?” The untethered masculine runs awry, building towers of abstraction and technology that grow ever more distant from matter and life.”
This is typical Eisenstein, building up lofty and giddy abstractions that seem so enticing until you try to unpack what he’s saying and realize he’s saying almost nothing. There are so many things wrong with this it’s hard to know where to begin. Firstly, Eisenstein seems to have no awareness that a huge percentage of the greatest male artists in history — men who devoted all their powers and lives to creating lasting “beauty” and visions of “love” — were homosexual and therefore not driven by eros in relation to women or “matriarchy” in any normative sense.
Secondly, his vision of how the sexes should relate to one another is totally traditional. This whole paragraph barely differs from what an arch-misogynist and anti-feminist like Arthur Schopenhauer said was the proper function of women: he would agree that the feminine ideally tethers the masculine to life. The only real difference is one of tone: in his notorious essay “On Women” Schopenhauer has much the same perspective on how women contribute to civilization: they are here to love and be loved; but he is snarky, sneering and contemptuous of women who try to enter the masculine realm of “abstraction” and “science” since he thinks women have no ability to think, possess no intellect outside matters of love and family, hearth and home. Schopenhauer is snarky and sarcastic where Eisenstein is dewey-eyed and gushy about “feminine nature” — but their underlying assumptions about “what women are like” are very similar.
“The province of matriarchy is what. The province of patriarchy is how. What shall we do, that is in service to life, love, and beauty? How shall we do it? These questions merge and flow into each other. What becomes how, how becomes what. Such is the conjugation of matriarchy and patriarchy.”
Didn’t he just say it’s men who tend to fixate too much on technological solutions? So his scheme is easily reversible. I could just as easily say the opposite: patriarchy’s province is what: since men are the ones who focus on building things, gadgets, tools, instruments, tactile physical objects designed to solve problems. Whereas matriarchy’s province is how: women seem to be more into professions like teaching, psychology, medicine, healing, nursing that involve asking “how” questions (the relations between things or people, how to cooperate, how to convey or communicate understanding). That’s no more or less profound or true than what Charles came up with. I’m not saying that division is true, I’m saying it’s no more or less serious than the superficial, insipid banality Charles came up with.
I mean really look at that sentence: “The province of matriarchy is what. The province of patriarchy is how.” It’s virtually meaningless. It’s just a florid pseudo-profundity. He comes perilously close to saying women are here to write the grocery list (“what”) and the men go out and buy the groceries. Or a woman is here to say what she wants to imagine the world to be like but the man is here to do the actual hard thinking as philosopher, artist, scientist. The woman desires and the man thinks and does and achieves in the realm of the intellect.
We are in such a situation.
Some time ago, in 1492 a guy named Christopher Columbus left Palos with 3 caravels. You were taught that story, right?
He starts on an assumption: that by continuously going west he would get to the east. And in effect what's the point, they have the Pinta, the Nina and the Santa Maria or conversely, the Santa Maria, the Nina and the Pinta depart and make this crossing.
And continuously going west, following the portuants of that time they arrive and they find land.
They meet indigenous people and of course Columbus who was convinced he had arrived in India, calls them Indians.
So even now this nonsense of calling them American Indians, those were the Americans, he was the one who was wrong, but he called them Indians because he was convinced it was India, so a glaring mistake, so this mistake produced the damage it did, in the sense that he should have called them not Indians.
A similar mistake, is that we call ourselves the Indian, when in fact you are something else, okay? On what basis?
On the basis of a continued and continuing error that pursues even now of non-understanding.
Now it is the process of Genesis 1 2-3, it talks about creation and creation ends in Genesis 3. The whole book of Genesis is 50 chapters long, but creation only 3.