A reader named “Fell” has been making some great comments (I think) on the topic of the sort of “brand name” that the occult has nowadays. In one comment, he says:
Tim’s idea about bringing conspiracy theory to a wider public is good, but in my years I’ve met many a theorists and other so-called occultists and I’d rather sit at home and clean my aquarium than listen to them, their fears, their paranoias, their hates.
And elsewhere:
Cuz lord knows I hate hippies and conspiracy and occult nuts. Even though I might right be one, I hate the brand and the people that are wont to become its heroes in the eyes of the public — the figureheads for the movement.
I tend to agree with this for the most part. In all honesty, most people who are interested in the occult, New Age or conspiracy stuff kind of make me feel uncomfortable at the very least. It’s weird though, because our interests overlap so much, but something about the fundamental underpinnings is hugely different. I’m really not totally sure what it is either.
I think the idea that there’s a “branding problem” is actually a really interesting and possibly productive one. And it’s definitely something I’ve thought about a bit in regards to my own work. I don’t really consider myself a pioneer by any means, but I revel in not fitting perfectly into the preconceived notions and categories in regards to the occult. A while ago my site got picked up on Metafilter, and I thought they had an excellent explanation of my work. Basically they described me by saying what I am not:
Tim Boucher isn’t a paranoid occult-conspiracy theorist, a strident anti-occult crusader, or a neo-pagan or New Ager, but he is an occult investigator. That is, he’s a fun-loving guy with a penchant for reading and writing about cool or weird things humanity has done in a search for a higher purpose.
In a way, it’s really simple. But in another way it doesn’t fit any of the pre-existing occult brands. As far as I see it, we have at our disposal a very limited number of ways somebody can “be” who is into weird topics like this. Some of these overlap, I know - and I’d love to hear ways to expand or modify this list. The ones I see though are:
- pagan/wiccan
- occultist/”magickian”
- new ager
- conspiracy nut
- ufologist
- assorted cult member
- hippy yoga meditation
- goth/vampire
To this list I’d add also the burgeoning “gnostic” category which is typified by sites like Fantastic Planet and some others. I think it has the potential to really take off as another category, another style of inquiry. Really though, one of the things lacking with it is we don’t have a stereotypical vision of “what does a gnostic look like?” For all those listed above, I think you could easily conjure up a mental image to match. May not always be accurate, but at least it’s there.
The other category which might go on this list is people who just think this stuff is “cool” and who dabble in it because it’s interesting. There are a lot of sites in this style which go around collecting fortean and other strange news stories. But again, this type of person doesn’t have a well-defined image. I would tend to put myself into this category, although perhaps at the far end of the spectrum. It also means that I regularly delve into the other categories and enjoy moving around inside their headspace.
I feel like the internet is probably responsible for destroying a lot of these pre-built stereotypical images in the occult brand. Before, you had to be a certain kind of weirdo to go to occult book shops or attend weird seminars and stuff. But now, you can safely study all kinds of weird shit without ever leaving your house, thanks to the internet and ordering stuff online. As a result, the “pure” versions of these stereotypes are being diluted and cross-pollinated. And this means that more and more of us just don’t fit inside of any of them, and that these images don’t really represent us or our cultural identities.
The other problem I see is that the “enemies” of these fields tend to be much better at doing caricatures and depicting “us”. They know just how to use the word “conspiracy theory” to immediately and publicly discredit people and ideas. Or they are hardcore Christians or others who think that the occult is a crime worse than murder in the eyes of the Lord. Which is all pretty laughable in the end. But most people who are into the occult spend their time studying, rather than trying to actively re-engineer public perception. I guess the question arises though: what benefit would re-envisioning the stereotypes actually have on society? Do we really need to have a “brand” that matches us or speaks for us in the cultural shorthand lexicon?
One other question I’d like to hear your thoughts on: what’s your favorite and most hated stereotypes of people who are interested in this type of stuff?
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Building my brand
- How come you don’t always talk about the occult?
- God Brand
- Your One-Stop Shop for Occult Solutions
- Brand names: global language
23 Comments
favorite: the independent researcher a la jacques vallee. the guy is totally unpretentious, isn’t trying to start any kind of major ‘movement;’ he’s just a really brilliant, curious guy who is utterly interested in the ufo phenom, no frills or bullshit, just excellent research and analysis. or, charles fort. he took this line of inquiry to the next level. call the archetype the ‘invisible collegiate.’
least favorite: other than the obvious cultists, i really can’t stand timothy leary. sure, i think he’s come up with some good stuff, and i don’t really have an issue with psychedelics per se, but leary’s always put me off. he comes across as this cackling, drug-addled pretentious dimwit and his followers always *INSIST* that psychotropic drugs are *THE WAY TO SALVATION.* call the archetype ‘the self-proclaimed psychoshaman.’
as far as the ‘gnostic,’ i think it’s probably better not to have an archetype. after all, to the cosmos, we are transparent!
I think Genesis P-Orridge did a great job in this sense by labelling himself as a Cultural Engineer.
http://www.genesisp-orridge.com/
yeah i tend to agree on both counts jeremy. vallee is pretty much “the bomb” and is probably the best model to explain all of us - even though i didnt find him till recently. its weird though how much resistance he gets from “real” UFOlogists - know what i mean?
leary also pisses me off. but once in a while he has a good idea. you know what else infuriates me? trans-humanism or post-humanism. whatever the hell they call it. that whole bullshit about how the “natural” next step is for humans to gain immortality and leave the planet. and they act like its a “logical” conclusion and if you dont agree, youre some kind of troglodyte
ooh, yeah, transhumanism is awful! the thing that creeps me out about ‘transhumanism’ is the whole ‘we must become robots and accept implants that ‘enhance’ our puny human abilities.’ these people *want* to become the borg. how the heck is having implants any kind of ‘enhancement’? blech.
yeah i plan on writing a good thrashing of those motherfuckers later. robert anton wilson is totally on the borderline for me with that stuff. with leary, his success rate of having non bullshit ideas is maybe like 1 out of 5. wilson for me is a lot higher, like 1 out of 2. but its all packaged in such a goofy dipshit hippy way that it infuriates me sometimes
Tim, I believe RAW is meant to be kooky that way in discordian style…
I like him for his entertainment value and his writing style, but that is where the buck stops with his stuff…
RAW allowed me to understand another layer of the puzzle that I believe wouldn’t have been accesible. His style made me realise my earliest questions about the cryptic fashion of the work we study…
All I am saying is that Leary and RAW are two very different breeds.
RAW also has never claimed to know anything. He often states that on the record.
oh i know hes trying to be kooky on purpose. but sometimes it annoys me. thats all. and i agree, there was a time that finding his work was really helpful for me. and still im interested in what he has to say. much moreso than leary. i think the best thing RAW does is act as sort of a “gateway-drug” into this kind of thinking. many other authors do the same, but it seems like its vitally important to leave them behind at some point
tim and N.M:
I hear you both… I have little patience for some of RAW’s bullshit - but at the same time, he does have his own little brand. and it is well-defined and accessible. i think when I first read Prometheus Rising, it was written perfectly for where I was at. maybe now I could stand to process that information packaged differently but thats what branding is all about…
agreed! anyway youre right though, his brand - whether you like it or not - is very clearly defined. and you know exactly what to expect from it. thats pretty much the whole point is that its (1) identifiable and (2) delivers on its promise
I also appreciate those who branch out of the traditional mold as Grant Morrison did with his comic book The Invisibles as “one big sigil” according to his own words..
You also have the Beatnik brand with Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs et al.
You have Hunter Thompson with the Gonzo Journalism.
All of the above touched upon what we are talking about but in a non-abrasive manner as opposed to Crowley or Leary with their guru approach.
How can we also forget what may be the biggest identifiable brand in the occult these days with Disinformation Co.
http://www.disinfo.com/site/
those are all great examples. i knew i was missing some important ones! thanks
I think it is a matter of semantics, and defining conspiracy/occult matters on equal terms. When discussing conspiracies with people who don’t buy into them, the number one response they give to me is that they cannot imagine a smoke-filled room with world leaders sitting around deciding the fate of the world. I counter by saying “if that’s what you think a conspiracy is, you need to do some reading”. Usually I switch to the legal definition of conspiracy: “two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy; one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or ‘overt acts’) described in the indictment; and that such ‘overt act’ was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.”
After pointing out that many people have been charged with, tried and convicted of criminal conspiracy, I ask the person if they believe that in each one of these cases, the convicted conspirators met in a smoke-filled room while discussing their plans. The person will have to answer that it is highly unlikely, unless they are just trying to be spiteful.
Then, you re-marry the word “conspiracy” with “theory” by stating the obvious: it’s only a theory, and many rational-minded people believe in theories. Evolution is a widely believed theory, but the only people who think evolutionists are quacks are born-again fundamentalist Christians… who have their own little quack theory about the world’s creation.
I mean, not everyone imagines a smoke-filled room, but once you break down the phrase “conspiracy theory” in a way that anyone who has ever been an armchair quarterback can relate to, you start to win over the respect of people who are given to referring to all conspiracy hobbyists as tinfoil-hat wearers.
People like Tim Leary did themselves no favors by being so purposelessly wacky. RAW and his ilk are more prankish, more along the lines of Thomas Pynchon than Jim Marrs. I pride myself on being able to carry out coherent conversations with people and making them think twice about the theories they are so quick to dismiss as “lunacy”.
in most people’s minds the main brand of conspiracy theorist is right-wing survivalist/gun nut, i.e. hateful bigots prohesying about the Elders of Zion. when you add the occult aspect to this i think you tend to see the magician/goth/vampire types - crowley, michael aquino, etc. that is, the apparent agents of many of these conspiracies. i think a good new brand should probably get as far from that image as possible.
my least favorite sterotypes are “the loner” and “the cult”, which is a group of loners [stupid i know but that's how it goes]. least favourite because it underlies all accusations of heresy, and because we are not alone, and need no brand to bind us.
we assorted heretics have been branded before and it is not pleasant. if we now brand ourselves we have to be careful… brands have minds of their own, and enemies, who as you say are better branders than we.
as i understand it, branding is the process of evoking cultural archetypes. [when you think "hero", think product x]. branding is also about ownership [of archetypes and of the real things they represent].
as such i hesitate to even label myself, but i’m not not an iconoclast, so any attempt to brand me [or anything in my vicinity] results in hammers and knives in all directions. tis hard tho, the desire to brand is ubiquitous.
holy shit hang on a sec, does archetype mean “archon-type”? cos that would open up a can of worms. i mean you’ve been talking about the nasty archons that want to enslave us, and the very practical and positive application of archetypes to personal transformation. what does it mean if archon = archetype? are we at war with our most powerful tools?
if so that sounds like a really cool game. brand on.
i have to go now and polish my rifle, jerk off for aliens, hug a tree, dye my hair black and get beaten up by jocks for reading a book. praise the lord.
favorites are people who lift up the rocks and let me look for my self.r.a.w.,tim leary before he pissed of the fed and richard bandler,co-founder of nlp,who shows a person the tools for self-empowerment.
least favorites are dogmatic popes who say there`s nothing left to see or do.sceptics who hate the world so much that they let science be the new religion.james randi,carl sagan,nasa(whatever thier game is…….)and that guy from egypt that wont let anyone near the pyramids anymore.and the types who say it`s either dawinian evolution or biblical creation.why can we just have our questions unanswered until something actually fits the facts…for fuck`s sake.
and stop hiding the rocks,we need to lift them up and have a look underneath.
about stereotypes, i feel like i’m in the crossfire between the “your beliefs create reality” bozos and the cartesian materialists who mock them.
about the transhumanists, here’s a link someone sent me:
http://www.accelerationwatch.com/
this guy is better than most because he tries to integrate ecology, but i still think he’s totally wrong in a way that’s very difficult to explain.
Coincidence indeedly-do, I had to special order the out-of-print Confrontations, by Jacques Vallée, and it came in a few days ago. I haven’t read anything by him yet, but the book sounded intriguing so I went after it. Fortunately, these posts make my purchase sound worthwhile.
As for transhumanism, I dunno if there is a diff between that and so-called posthumanism, but I actually kinda like transhumanism. It makes a natural sort of sense to me. Not like the Leary crap being associated to it (though I do love Leary’s eight-circuit model), but in the near-future we’ll be uploading memories and information directly via wetware and the internet. This is going to shift the group consciousness in such a radically new direction: delving internally into the unconciosness of Leviathan. And by such, interestingly, as we cybernetically explore these depths of the social mind, I put my money on many of our kids coming full-circle and finding themselves within. The Hermetic dichotomy will be actualised by the masses, named, felt out, explored, and eventually tagged with graffiti. They’ll pay $5 to download the experiences of other languages, anal sex, Fear Factor, deep sea diving, overdosing on ketamine, shooting a president, winning the Grand Prix, whatever. The dreamtime is beginning to lay its foundations via the internet for a merger with our apparent solid gestalts that people so vehemently grasp onto as absolutely real.
Interestingly, carlos made this note:
holy shit hang on a sec, does archetype mean “archon-type� cos that would open up a can of worms. i mean you’ve been talking about the nasty archons that want to enslave us, and the very practical and positive application of archetypes to personal transformation. what does it mean if archon = archetype? are we at war with our most powerful tools?
I think this would be one of the beauties of a well-designed brand: a sort of self-destructing construct à la the Cheshire Cat or Tyler Durden, and Jeff Noon’s Vurt also comes to mind. For anyone needing some incentive to take a fresh approach, I suggest re-reading Machiavelli’s The Prince. Or The Yellow Wallpaper. I know these really gave me a rejuvinated interest in the perception of what it is I am so passionate about.
By choosing and promoting images of chaos and self-exploration — the very essence of through-the-looking-glass — and drawing upon the likes of David Bohm rather than Timothy Leary (or whatever), we can make legitimate an image of the King Mob, the Grant Morrison, the Danny Carey.
The power of the archetype is that it helps define in this age of too-much-information. Even for moi, it’s easy to neglect my visualisation exercises or my readings. In all honesty, however, I can say that The Invisibles has inspired in me a hope for more freedom than anyone I know of alive. Others, like Shepard Fairey and Banksy have allowed me an inspirational bridge between fantasy, albeit inspirational, and reality, where I can “hack reality” and bring these messages and memes into the public. But I did need to be inspired. I admit that.
If the archon itself is ordering the public to become inspired, if its sole purpose is to bring about the destruction of the other archons, itself inevitably included, we could, in fact, create a Zen archon. Or something.
A brand that spoon-feeds the public into buying into their own existential exploration. A brand that, in essence, brings about its own annihilation, is in itself moot at the end.
It could go in many directions.
As for Robert Anton Wilson, I give him kudos for the effects Prometheus Rising had on me. I read it at a good time and it was my first real metaphysical kick to the skull.
A “Zen Archon”– awesome!
i thought of another despicable stereotype that i think deserves its own category. even though it could go under the ‘conspiracy nut’ stereotype, i think there’s a good argument for seperating out the ‘*racist* conspiracy nut.’ hell, bill hicks was a conspiracy nut, but the racist conspiracy nuts churn out hogwash about white supremacy and how the UN is run by a bunch of dirty jews. definitely a different “type;” it’s like fox mulder vs. charles manson.
As a small note, I did print out some Visual Thesaurus diagrams of possible directions to go with an occult brand. Still needs lots of work, but it’s a start. I shall be playing with it more, hopefully with Tim and others, this summer and autumn.
http://hatestupid.blogspot.com/2005/06/to-brand-occult-design.html
yeah i`m busted,i`m one of those “beliefs create reality”bozos.but you`re not caught here.you are free to go……………….
as r.a.w would have said,but i said first,sorry my karma ran over your dogma.
RAW is a complete twit with delusions of self importance, and probably the most condescending person I have ever met in my life.
God, I do miss Bill Hicks. We have a tradition of listening to him whenever we drive on the coast. What a damn shame peoplke like Strom Thurmond get to live practically forever…
i am also a complete twit with delusions of self importance.it`s the reason why i go off half-cocked with these posts.how condscending i am,to you depends on your opinion.
i`d be interseted to follow your line of ressoning regarding your opinion of r.a.w., especially considering that my opinion of the man is diametrically oposite yours.
One Trackback
[...] ou pretty much can’t stop them. The real problem here, which I touched on before, is branding. It definitely seems to me that Thelema and Crowley have a much stronge [...]