orwell's 1984 and the early theories of wilhelm reich

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure his next post does concur with that. He seems to say that the mindset of a society and a language are related, just that causality goes more one way than another. Maybe he thinks the change in the mindset of society came first?

perhaps. the impression i got from the post suggested that politicians and corporations (who are generally those who shape, to a large extent, the mindset of society) arelargely responsible for the degradation of the language. hence my conclusion that the post concurred with my point.

I think both books contain very accurate prophesies, but in terms of “sexual repression vs. sexual liberation” I think it was Huxley who got it right.

The sexual revolution in the West fools people into thinking they are more free than they really are. Huxley predicted this. He predicted the sexualisation of the young, the trivialisation of culture, the decline of the nuclear family, the neglect of the elderly, the dumping of young children in state-run nurseries etc etc

Wilhelm Reich belonged to the Frankfurt School, a group of Marxists dedicated to revolution in the West via the undermining of Western cultural mores (“cultural Marxism” as opposed to economic Marxism). These people were some of the godfathers of political correctness.

I haven’t read Reich (life’s too short – I’ve read 1984 and BNW though) but my understanding is that Orwell and Reich were not singing from the same hymn sheet. In fact, I think if both Orwell and Huxley were alive today to see the influence Reich and his Frankfurt School chums have had, they would view it as a vindication of their gloomy predictions.

Well, people as a whole are happy in all three societies- that's really the point of most dystopian novels. Of the three you mentioned, I would probably survive best in 1984. Fahrenheit 451 wouldn't work for me, I think too much; and in BNW I would be too much like Bernard Marx. 1984 would be unpleasant, but I could remain quiet. Of all fictional dystopian societies, my personal favorite to live in would probably have been that of Player Piano (Vonnegut). And the change also came from below in Fahrenheit 451 as well as BNW.

i don't think i'd really agree with your first point codarac, i doubt that society these days really is sexually liberated. it may appear outwardly so, however look at the popularity of things like internet porn and such, i really don't think the majority of the population is satisfied with their sex lives.

i also disagree that modern society is closer to huxley's vision than orwell's. surely elements of both appear to exist, but your point on the sexualisation of the young, for example, i think is flawed. look at how the tabloids report on this sort of thing, it's certainly not accepted as normal, and halucinogenic drugs are certainly not dished out en-masse.

reich never belonged to the frankfurt school, although he was associated with them, mainly through his connections to erich fromm, for a short time during the early 1930s. indeed, the frankfurt school were marxists, but i think your ideas are perhaps somewhat skewed, especially considering the era during which reich was associated with them. have you been reading right wing propaganda?

Yes. I do think it does go both ways but I think changes in mindset causing changes in language is the dominant force. Language determining culture tends to happen at a more superficial level with things like framing issues.

No, no, no. Politicians and business leaders don't themselves shape the mindset of society except in a superficial sense. Change in in the very deep mindsets that determines a society's general worldview is not the result of the conscious decisions of people, it happens because of the nature of society as a chaotic system ("chaotic" in the sense of Chaos Theory). The behavior of politions is simply the result of those chaotic sociological phenomena.

snake321, I have just read that entire blog. As far as I can tell, it makes absolutely no sense. The government is hostile to the ideas from books that it makes high school students read and think about in english class? The media is brainwashing us by producing a bunch of movies that inform us of brainwashing methods that we should be wary of? Scientists are preaching a doctrine that emphasizes the value of doubt and empirical knowlege i.e. science, in hopes of making us docile and unquestioning?

Snake is a conspiracy nut, trying to reason with him is an act of futility.

ah, i understand odin. although i am not sure that i agree. it is surprising there is not more activity on this thread, i would have thought the anti-pc brigade would have been in here straight away, hahaha.

You seem to imply that people being dissatisfied with their sex lives is proof that the sexual revolution has not gone far enough. What if there is another explanation? Maybe people are dissatisfied with their sex lives, and with life in general, because they have been sold a vision of freedom that is hollow.

That is – at least as far as the needs of “normal people” are concerned. I’m quite conscious here that I am an aspie on an aspie message board trying to analyse a society made up of people who are mostly not quite like us.



I didn’t mention hallucinogenic drugs; I was comparing Huxley’s vision with Orwell’s mainly with regard to the subject of this thread: sexual repression vs sexual liberation.

Orwell foresaw a future that was more sexually repressive than his own time; Huxley foresaw a future that was sexually more liberal than his own time. In this regard at least, Huxley’s vision was surely closer to today’s reality than Orwell’s, but maybe we will have to agree to disagree here.

IMHO, you do not have to be an advocate of Sharia law to suggest that liberal progress is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Regarding the sexualisation of the young, I’m talking about teen magazines giving sex advice to 12 year olds, young kids bring sold oversexed pop music trash etc. In this regard, things are surely very different from how they were decades ago. (Compare a recent edition of “Sugar” magazine with an old edition of Bunty for instance!) And tabloids may complain about it, but still it goes on.



Have you been reading Wilhelm Reich?

Here’s a couple of paragraphs by the Jewish writer Nathan Abrams writing in the Jewish Quarterly in which he tries to shed some light on the motivations of sexual revolutionaries like Wilhelm Reich (full article here)

Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism. According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an “up yours” to these people’. Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on lukeford.net), ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. <snip>

It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics. Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry. Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading.

Wikipedia tells me that Reich was only half-Jewish. Still – an interesting article, I thought.

This seems equivalent to Winston's and Julia's affair in 1984. They did it mainly because it was subversive of established Party order.

Your obviously misunderstanding it then. The government, not these "national" governments, but the international government, or the shadow gov't if you will, they originated all those ideas from those books. So I doubt people buying into their propaganda would make them hostile.
The movies don't ever directly come out and say "hey we're brainwashing you", it's more of like a whack off session for their egos, they tell us through movies because they know most people are too stupid to pick up on it, or to even really listen to so-called "conspiracy theories". They know people are too brainwashed to consider it, because they've brainwashed the people that damn well. So more than anything it's just stroking their egos. Sci-Fi is chock full of predictive programming.... Think Borg, from star trek.
And as for science, the same people who gave you religion gave you science too. Who says it is "emperical knowledge"? There is no proof to evolution, you know they can lie to you? They can even back their lies up with false evidence, and pass it off as "empirical knowledge". I doubt you'll find too many scientific minded people in Germany back in the 40's to doubted eugenics. After all, eugenicists had their "unquestionable scientific proof". You've also got to look at the research done, repeat, QUESTION THE RESEARCH, question the evidence, and question the politics of the corporations or governments that the scientists work for. People who cling to mainstream science only do so because it's the most likely sounding theory that **is given**. Which exhibits a lack of ability to form one's own theories.
I mean it's an open conspiracy, they've admitted this a thousand times through history. I'd give you a laundry list of evidence, empirical evidence, however I doubt it would do any good.

"Committee of 300":

From p.10:
Quote:

In order to get an idea of how vast and how all-pervasive is
this conspiracy, it would be appropriate at this point to name the
goals set by the Committee of 300 for the pending conquest and
control of the world. There are at least 40 known "branch offices"
of the Committee of 300, and we shall be listing them all, together
with a description of their functions. Once this is studied it
becomes easy to understand how one central conspiratorial body
is able to operate so successfully and why it is that no power on
earth can withstand their onslaught against the very foundations
of a civilized, progressive world, based on freedom of the
individual, especially as it is declared in the United States
Constitution.



From pp.14-15:
Quote:

How can the conspirators maintain their grip upon the
world, and more especially, their chokehold over the U.S. and
Britain? One of the most asked questions is, "How can any single
entity know at all times what is going on and how is control
exercised?" This book will attempt to answer these and other
questions. The only way we can come to grips with the reality of
the conspirator's success is by mentioning and discussing the
secret societies, front organizations, government agencies, banks,
insurance companies, international businesses, the petroleum
industry and the hundreds of thousands of entities and
foundations whose leading lights make up the membership of the

15

Committee of 300—the ULTIMATE controlling body that runs the
world and has done so for at least a hundred years.


From pp.230-231:
Quote:
Some major world-wide Committee of 300 institutions and
organizations are as follows:

Americans for a Safe Israel.
Biblical Archaeology Review.
Bilderbergers.
British Petroleum.
Canadian Institute of Foreign Relations.
Christian Fundamentalism.
Council on Foreign Relations, New York.
Egyptian Exploration Society.
Imperial Chemical Industries.
International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Order of Skull and Bones.
Palestine Exploration Fund.


231


Poor Knights of the Templars
Royal Dutch Shell Company.
Socialist International.
South Africa Foundation.
Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.
Temple Mount Foundation.
The Atheist Club.
The Fourth State of Consciousness Club.
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
The Milner Group.
The Nasi Princes.
The Order of Magna Mater.
The Order of the Divine Disorder.
The RIIA.
The Round Table.
Trilateral Commission.
Universal Freemasonry.
Universal Zionism.
Vickers Armament Company.
Warren Commission.
Watergate Committee.
Wilton Park.
World Council of Churches.


From pp.17-18:
Quote:

The Club of Rome is a conspiratorial umbrella organization,
a marriage between Anglo-American financiers and the old Black
Nobility families of Europe, particularly the so-called "nobility" of
London, Venice and Genoa. The key to the successful control of
the world is their ability to create and manage savage economic
recessions and eventual depressions. The Committee of 300 looks
to social convulsions on a global scale, followed by depressions, as
a softening-up technique for bigger things to come, as its principal
method of creating masses of people all over the world who will
become its "welfare" recipients of the future.

18

The committee appears to base much of its important
decisions affecting mankind on the philosophy of Polish aristocrat,
Felix Dzerzinski, who regarded mankind as being slightly above the
level of cattle. As a close friend of British intelligence agent Sydney
Reilly (Reilly was actually Dzerzinski's controller during the
Bolshevik Revolution's formative years), he often confided in Reilly
during his drinking bouts. Dzerzinski was, of course, the beast who
ran the Red Terror apparatus. He once told Reilly, while the two
were on a drinking binge, that "Man is of no importance. Look at
what happens when you starve him. He begins to eat his dead
companions to stay alive. Man is only interested in his own survival.
That is all that counts. All the Spinoza stuff is a lot of rubbish."



From p. 15:
Quote:

It came as a revelation to them that the Club of Rome and
its financiers under the title of the German Marshall Fund were two
highly-organized conspiratorial bodies operating under cover of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and that the majority of
Club of Rome executives were drawn from NATO. The Club of
Rome formulated all of what NATO claimed as its policies and,
through the activities of Committee of 300 member Lord
Carrington, was able to split NATO into two factions, a political
(left wing) power group and its former military alliance.
The Club of Rome is still one of the most important foreign
policy arms of the Committee of 300—the other being the
Bilderbergers. It was put together in 1968 from hard-core
members of the original Morgenthau group[…]


From p.16:
Quote:

“Peccei's call was answered by the most subversive "future
planners" drawn from the United States, France, Sweden, Britain,
Switzerland and Japan that could be mustered. During the period
1968-1972, The Club of Rome became a cohesive entity of new-science scientists, globalists, future planners and internationalists of every stripe. As one delegate put it, "We became Joseph's Coat
of Many Colors." Peccei's book "Human Quality" formed the basis
of the doctrine adopted by NATO's political wing.”


From pp.194-196:
Quote:

[…]the vastness of the reach of the Committee of 300 which
quite literally sits on top of everything n this world.

Testifying to the truth of this statement is the fact that the
Committee of 300 set up the International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS) under the auspices of the Round Table. This
institute is the vehicle for M16-Tavistock black propaganda and
wet jobs (an intelligence cover name denoting an operation where
bloodshed is required), nuclear and terrorist, which goes to the
world's press for dissemination, as well as to government and
military establishments.

Membership of IISS includes representatives of 87 major
wire services and press associations as well as 138 senior editors
and columnists drawn from international newspapers and
magazines. Now you know where your favorite columnist gets all
of his information and opinions from. Remember Jack Anderson,
Tom Wicker, Sam Donaldson, John Chancellor, Mary McGrory,
Seymour Hersh, Flora Lewis and Anthony Lewis, et al? The

195

information provided by IISS, especially scenarios like those
prepared to blacken President Hussein and to justify the coming
attack on Libya and condemn the PLO are all specially tailormade
for the occasion. The Mai Lai massacre story published by
Seymour Hersh came straight out of IISS, just in case we wrongly
suppose that men like Hersh do their own research work.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies is nothing
more than a higher echelon opinion-maker as defined by
Lippmann and Bernays. Instead of writing books, newspapers
report opinions presented by chosen columnists, and IISS was
formed to be a coordinating center for not only creating opinions,
but to get those opinions and scenarios out much faster and to a
greater audience than could be reached by a book, for example.
IISS is a good example of the gridding and interfacing of
Committee of 300 institutions.

The idea of bringing IISS into being arose at the 1957
Bilderberger meeting. It will be recalled that the Bilderberger
Conference is a creation of M16 under the direction of the Royal
Institute of International Affairs. The idea came from Alastair
Buchan, son of Lord Tweedsmuir. Buchan was chairman at the
time, and a board member of the RIIA and a member of the
Round Table reportedly very close to the British royal family This
was the same conference that welcomed Labour Party leader
Dennis Healey to its ranks. Others in attendance were Francois
Duchene, whose mentor, Jean Monet Duchenes, ran the Trilateral
Commission under the tutelage of H. V. Dicks from Tavistock's
Columbus Center.

Among the governing council of this gigantic propaganda
opinion-making apparat is included the following:
Frank Kitson, a one time controller of The IRA
PROVISIONALS, the man who started the Mau-Mau insurgency in
Kenya.

Lazard Freres, represented by Robert Ellsworth.
N. M. Rothschild, represented by John Loudon.
Paul Nitze, representative of Schroeder Bank. Nitze has
played a very prominent and substantial role in matters of Arms

196

Control agreements, which have ALWAYS been under the direction
of the RIIA.

C. L. Sulzberger of the New York Times.
Stansfield Turner, a former director of the CIA.
Peter Calvocoressi, representing Penguin Books.
Royal Institute for International Affairs, represented by
Andrew Schoenberg.
Columnists and Reporters, represented by Flora Lewis,
Drew Middleton, Anthony Lewis, Max Frankel.
Daniel Ellsberg.
Henry Kissinger.
Robert Bowie, a former director of the ClA's National
Intelligence Estimates.

United Nations:

(From: "Diplomacy By Deception" by J. Coleman.) -

From pp. 22-25:
Quote:
The goal of the United Nations, or rather, the goal of the men behind
the United Nations, is not peace, even in the Communist sense of the

22


word, but is actually world revolution, the overthrow of good government
and good order and the destruction of established religion.
Socialism and communism are not in themselves necessarily the goal;
they are only the means to an end. The economic chaos now being
perpetrated against the United States is a much more powerful means
to that end.

World revolution, of which the United Nations is an integral component,
is another matter entirely; a complete overturning of moral and
spiritual values enjoyed by the Western nations for centuries is its
goal. As part of that goal, Christian leadership must perforce, be
destroyed, and that has already largely been accomplished by placing
false leaders in places where they exert tremendous influence. Billy
Graham and Robert S. Schuler are two good examples of so-called
Christian leaders who are not. Much of this program of revolution was
confirmed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in his book, "Our Way."

If one reads between the lines of the treasonous, seditious U.N.
Charter, one will find that much of the objectives outlined in the
preceding paragraphs are implied, and, even in some instances, are
even spelled out in the pernicious "treaty," which, if we, the people
do not reverse, will trample our Constitution underfoot and make of
us slaves in a dictatorship of the most savage and repressive kind
under a One World Government.

Summed up, the goals of the spiritual and moral world revolution
now raging — and nowhere more so than in the United States — are:

(1) The destruction of Western civilization.

(2) Dissolution of legal government

(3) Destruction of nationalism, and with it, the ideal of patriotism.

(4) Bringing the people of the United States into penury via graduated
income taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, sales taxes and so on,
ad nausea.

23


(5) The abolition of the God-given right to private property by taxing
property out of existence and targeting inheritance with bigger and
bigger taxes. (President Clinton has already taken a giant step down
this road.)

(6) Destruction of the family unit via "free love", abortion, lesbianism
and homosexuality. (Here again, President Clinton has placed himself
firmly behind these revolutionary goals, thereby destroying any
lingering doubts about where he stands in relation to the forces of
world revolution.)

The Committee of 300 employs a vast number of specialists in
diplomacy by deception who make us believe that severely dangerous
and often disruptive changes come about through "changing times,"
as though their direction could change without some force compelling
such changes. The Committee has a vast number of "teachers" and
"leaders," whose sole task in life is to dupe as many people as possible
into believing that major changes "just happen" and so, of course,
should just be accepted.

Toward this end, these "leaders" who are in the vanguard of carrying
out the Communist Manifesto's "social programs," have cleverly
employed the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations methods like
"inner directional conditioning" and "Operation Research" to make
us accept the changes as if they were our own ideas to begin with.
A critical examination of the U.N. Charter shows that it differs only
very slightly from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, an unabridged,
unaltered copy of which is kept in the British Museum in London.
There is an extract of the manifesto, allegedly the work of Karl Marx
(Mordechai Levy) and Friedrich Engels, but was actually written by
members of the Illuminati, which is still very active today through
their top 13 council members in the United States.

In 1945 absolutely none of this vital information was ever viewed by
the senators, who fell all over themselves in their rush to sign the
dangerous document. If our lawmakers knew the Constitution, if our
Supreme Court would uphold it then we would be able to echo the

24


words of the late Sen. Sam Ervin, a great constitutional scholar, so
much admired by liberals because of his work on Watergate: " There
is no way under the noon-day sun we ever joined the United Nations"
and force our legislators to recognize the fact that the U.S. Constitution
stands supreme over any treaty.

The United Nations is a war-making body. It strives to place power in
the hands of the executive branch instead of where it belongs: in the
legislative branch. Take the examples of the Korean War and the Gulf
War. In the latter, the United Nations, not the Senate and the House,
gave President Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq, thereby
enabling him to use diplomacy by deception as a means to bypass the
mandated Constitutional declaration of war. President Harry Truman
evoked the same unauthorized power for the Korean War.
If we, the sovereign people, continue to go on believing that the United
States is legally a member of the United Nations, then we must be
prepared for more illegal actions by our Presidents, such as we saw
in the invasion of Panama and the Gulf War. By acting under color of
Security Council resolutions, the president of the United States can
take on the powers of a king or a dictator. Those powers areexpressly
forbidden in the Constitution.

Under the powers vested in the president by U.N. Security Council
resolutions, the president will be able to drag us into any future wars
he decides we must fight. The groundwork for this method of
sabotaging the declaration of war procedures mandated by the Constitution
was tested and carried out in the days before the Gulf War,
which will no doubt, forever be used as a precedent for future
undeclared wars, in furtherance of the strategy of diplomacy by
deception. Wars make far reaching changes which are unable to be
achieved by diplomacy.



Religious evidence:


(From: "The Earth Charter". http://meta-religion.com/Secret_societi ... harter.htm [- Accessed 18 May 2008]) -

Quote:
It was hoped that an Earth Charter would be the result of this event. This was not the case, however an international agreement was adopted – Agenda 21 – which layed down the international "sustainable development" necessary to form a future Earth Charter agreement. Maurice Strong hinted at the overtly pagan agenda proposed for a future Earth Charter, when in his opening address to the Rio Conference delegates he said, "It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light." [note: Alice Bailey, and Blavatsky before her, used these terms often. Their writings state that the 'force of darkness' are those who adhere to the 'out-dated' Judeo-Christian faith; those who continue along their 'separative' paths of the one true God. The 'force of light' (Lucifer), in there view, is the inclusive new age doctrine of a pagan pantheistic New World Religion. In the New Age of Aquarius there will be no room for the 'force of darkness' and 'separativeness'.] "We must therefore transform our attitudes and adopt a renewed respect for the SUPERIOR LAWS OF DIVINE NATURE," Strong finished with unanimous applause from the crowd.


Despite the disapointing setback of no official agreement toward a "peoples Earth Charter", Maurice Strong forged ahead, with Rockefeller backing, to form his Earth Council organization for the express purpose of helping governments implement UNCED's sustainable development which Agenda 21 had outlined. Agenda 21 was perhaps the biggest step taken to facilitate any future "enforcement" of a patently pagan Earth Charter. According to Strong "the Charter will stand on it's own. It will be in effect, to use an Anglo-Saxon term, the Magna Carta of the people around the Earth. But, it will also, we hope, lead to action by the governments through the United Nations."

Ark of our demise?

"Cosmos is my God. Nature is my God."
—Mikhail Gorbachev, on the PBS Charlie Rose Show, Oct. 23, 1996

"A post-Christian belief system is taking over – one that sees the earth as a living being mythologically, as Gaia, Earth Mother – with mankind as her consciousness... Such worship of the universe is properly called cosmolatry."
—Donna Steichen, Ungodly Rage, p. 237

The New Age and the Radical-Left 'Enlightenment'

The "For Love of Earth" day-long celebrations at Shelburne Farms Vermont began with an early morning pilgramage during which 2000 or so participants, led by Satish Kumar, walked to the "great barn" where they were greeted by the sounds of the "Sun Song" played by musician Paul Winter. The Pagan festivities continued with the words of Dr. Jane Goodall, Satish Kumar and organizer Dr. Steven C. Rockefeller. The Earth worshippers were treated to dance, music and paintings of several Vermont artists, after which they joined hands and offered an "Earth prayer" of "reverence" and "commitment" to Mother Earth and the "Ark of Hope".

Satish Kumar, who led the early morning pilgramage at Shelburne Farms, is an an influencial advocate of Gaia. Kumar says that "contemporary thinkers of the green movement are collectively developing an ecological world-view." The Earth Charter is the green movement's crowning achievement toward this holistic world-view, and the practical means by which all of us will soon be held accountable to "Divine Nature". According to Satish Kumar,2 this pagan view has five ingredients: Gaia (James Lovelock), Deep Ecology (Arne Naess), Permaculture (Bill Mollison), Bioregionalism (Gary Snyder et al.), and Creation Spirituality (Matthew Fox). "Creation Spirituality" is what had, undoubtedly, taken place at the Shelburne Farms Earth Charter celebrations. In the words of Steven W. Mosher, president of Population Research Institute, "Gaia is the New Age term for Mother Earth. The New Age believers hold that the earth is a sentient super-being, kind of goddess, deserving of worship and, some say, human sacrifice. Compared to Gaia worship, the simple animism of primitive cultures is wholesome."

Musician Paul Winter also has deep roots within the green movement and "creation spirituality." He has performed concerts at the Cathedral St. John the Divine in New York City, on the solstice and equinox, for well over twenty years. These pagan festivals, in a supposedly christian church nonetheless, are generously sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and a new age organization called the Lindisfarne Institute – the latter of which has its headquarters in the Cathedral. Maurice Strong is also a member of Lindisfarne (publishers of G-A-I-A, a way of knowing) along with Gaia theory biologist James Lovelock, and admitted Luciferian David Spangler, among others. Paul Winters' most recent concert at St. John the Divine was for the annual Earth Mass, on 7 October.3 The fact that this annual October 7th Earth Mass coincides with the hindu Holy Day of Dassehra (worship of the Great Divine Mother) cannot be a coincidence. Winter and bandmates play a tune called Missa Gaia as part of the Feast of St. Francis. The Pope once attended the Feast of St. Francis at St. John the Divine in 1986. Stressing the unity of all the world's religions, John Paul II happily shared the platform with a Tibetan Lama, a Hindu swami, a Native American medicine man, and a Moari high priest.

The New American Insider Report of January 23, 19954 writes that the historic Episcopal Cathedral of Saint John the Divine "has long been a center of New Age and radical-left 'enlightenment' and high-brow Establishment 'culture'." Author Gary Kah reports, in his well-documented book The New World Religion, that the Cathedral of St. John the Divine displays "a female Christ on the cross, complete with shapely hips and full breasts." Also in the same issue of The New American there is a list of donors to the Cathedral: Mr. and Ms. Steven Rockefeller is among them, along with Mr. Robert de Rothschild; David Rockefeller Jr.; Mrs. Mary C. Rockefeller; Mr. and Mrs. Laurance Spellman Rockefeller; Rockefeller Center Properties Inc.; The Rockefeller Group Inc. and many elite-of-the-elite organizations such as J.P. Morgan & Co.; Chase Manhattan Bank; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Hearst Corporation; CBS, Inc. and even, mysteriously, the Federal Emergency Managment Agency (FEMA), among others.