If you’re a fan of what I have posted to Substack so far, you might like my book, Occult Feminism. It’s about the esoteric religious ideas that are at the foundation of feminism. Few people know that even the early feminist activists included a large number of Luciferians and occultists, spirit mediums and sex cult leaders! Check it out and let me know what you think. https://www.amazon.com/Occult-Feminism-Secret-History-Liberation/dp/B09NGXZKHB/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=occult+feminism&qid=1639879044&sr=8-1
Hello Rachel. I notice few citations in your Substack posts. Is your book thoroughly cited? I enjoy reading your Substack - the information you share is uncommon, and you pose interesting hypotheses. Thank you.
Hi! Yes, my book is thoroughly cited. Here on substack there are some places where I use citations and other places I might include where I found the information inside the piece in the more passive manner. It kind of just depends on my intent and the context. Thank you for reading my stuff! 🙂 Also, since this is a bit more of an interactive venue, please feel free to ask where I got any information if it’s unclear and you are curious.
Thank you. I look forward to exploring the sources in your book. I am curious about your sources for many other topics you cover, including MK Ultra. I know it's out there; because it's not my area of research, citations help me learn and save time. Thank you so much for the Britney coverage. The events drawing out her struggle saddens and frustrates. The story is fascinating as well.
I can see from reading Chapter 1 alone that your book is incredibly flawed, with the greatest flaws being the writing style, which is incredibly immature and hard to digest due to redundancy, and a lack of engagement with scholarship or history. There are only 67 citations for a book of 130 pages - this is absolutely ridiculous and, quite honestly, embarrassing for you as an author.
Chapter 1 begins with a convoluted and imprecise definition of “the occult” that you, as an Orthodox Christian, fit due to your own doctrine (theosis being a good example). You offer no context or history for your definition, and instead launch into an attempt to synthesise the origins of feminism with “Hegelian master-slave dialectics.” Not only is this where you would need a reference, this is also where you would need to explain why feminism is analogous to the Hegelian position - to do that, you would need to understand it, which, demonstrably, you do not. Luckily for you, feminists do use the Hegelian model!
The Hegelian dialectic is a spiral which culminates in sublation, meaning contradictions overcome by negating their opposition, preserving their respective truths, and creating a higher synthesis. In his model:
Two consciousnesses meet —> both want recognition
A struggle ensues —> one becomes master, the other slave
The master wins, but gets shallow recognition
The slave loses, but grows through:
Fear
Work
Self-discipline
Engaging with the world
Eventually, the slave develops a deeper self-awareness and realises their own freedom
The hierarchy becomes unstable —> the slave is no longer mentally subordinate, even though still oppressed
The slave remains a slave, but has grown to fully understand the system through their struggle. What you posited was a pseudo-Marxist theory.
Your third citation was ARIS 2008 in which you said “Wicca and other forms of witchcraft are the fastest growing religions in the United States.” Either you hoped no one would check, or you did not read the study itself. The study says as follows:
Non-denominational Christianity increased by 4039.2%
Buddhism increased by 194.3%
Eastern Religions in sum increased by 185.4%
Islam increased by 156.0%
Irreligion increased by 138.4%
NRMs & Other Religions increased by 116.3%
New Religious Movements & Other Religions is a category including the following: Scientology, New Age, Eckankar, Spiritualist, Unitarian-Universalist, Deist, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Indian Religion, Santeria, Rastafarian.
We can safely assume Deists take the majority of the NRMs & Other Religions increase by ssessing the study in the context of Table 4, which illustrates 12.1% of those partaking in the survey state “there is a higher power but no personal God;” 5.7% stating “I am unsure;” 4.3% stating “there is no way to know;” 2.3% stating “there is no such thing;” the majority falling to 69.5% of Americans partaking, stating “there is definitely a personal God” (6.1% abstained).
You then moved onto theology, in which you stated “Christianity is a patriarchal religion, with all things being created by God the Father…not only is patriarchy the natural and divine order of the created world, but…feminism is a battle that cannot be won against an omnipotent Heavenly Father.”
We rightly refer to God in characteristically masculine terms, as God imbues into all things the principles of their being, intelligibility, and governing providence. This is the nature of the masculinity in active potency. The world, in turn, nurtures these divine gifts and cooperates with God’s divine action through the mode of its own integrity (insofar as created things operate in a rightly ordered fashion). This is the nature of femininity in passive reception. The nature of existence is split into the active (masculine) and the passive (feminine). We see this in the Trinity - as the Father bestows upon the Son a full and complete consubstantial sharing of His infinite, bountiful fecundity that is the divine substance, and insofar as the Son receives this fecund divine life and manifests this Spirit by way of proceeding love, this very much serves as an analogical basis upon which man and woman are to complete the unitive and procreative dimensions of their respective identities as related to each other. To say there is a hierarchy of this active-passive / masculine-feminine relation, such as patriarchy or matriarchy, is therefore to deny the Trinity.
The very nature of marriage, in reflecting this duality within divine creation and emanation, reflects this as a husband is to bestow upon his wife a share of his own identity, and his wife reflects this back to him by way of an offspring which proceeds from the love of both of them. There is no hierarchy.
After your linguistic, philosophical, and theological mess of a first page, you then move to historic mythology. Unsurprisingly, you misconstrue the very basis of Ištar, and do not even mention Ninhursag. You say of Ištar “she is also notorious for treating her male lovers in a demeaning and sadistic manner, using her sexuality to control and punish them,” yet you offer no references - and you offer no references because there are none.
You then progress to Lilith, in an attempt to demonstrate “something something evil feminism,” and yet again offer no citations, even though in this case you are predominantly correct.
But Kali. Yes, you are disgustingly uneducated in regards to Kali, just as most of Western pop culture is. In the Devi Mahatmya, the gods are being overwhelmed by Raktabija, a monster who can regenerate every drop of his spilled blood into another clone of himself, and other demons. The goddess Durga (warrior goddess) goes to battle him, but every time Durga draws blood, his wounds spawn more demons. In her final moment of desperation, Durga furrows her brow in rage, and from this brow emerges Kali a dark, terrifying manifestation of pure destruction and wrath but, above all, desperation. Kali defeats Raktabija by drinking all his blood and devouring his clones, but she becomes intoxicated by the violence and begins to uncontrollably destroy everything in sight. To stop her, Shiva throws himself under her feet and when Kali steps on him and realises what she has done, she is shocked into self-awareness. That is why her tongue falls out of her mouth, out of shame for her loss of control, not because she is obscene. The point of Kali isn’t that she is evil - she is a sacred embodiment of rage in the face of demonic chaos. The myth is supposed to reveal the potential of righteous anger if you do not control it and the pain of feminine suffering; that women bear rage out of necessity and lose control when they are unprotected. She is redeemed because she repents for her actions and regrets them deeply. Your presentation of Kali is so ridiculously far from Hindu thought that you truly do pervert and contort an entire typology simply because you couldn’t be bothered to study it.
As far as commentaries on pop culture go, I don’t think anyone reading the book could really care less. But the statue in Union Square looks nothing like a Roman statue of Janus, so just stop it. The entire point of Janus was that both sides shared one mind.
Suffice to say, I was incredibly disappointed with the lack of care, effort, and understanding in one chapter alone. This was, without a doubt, the biggest waste of £8 I have ever made the mistake to undertake.
A well-written book, clearly the result of due scholarly diligence.
Some remarks, all strictly opinion on my part--not sure if they are useful now that the book is out, but sounds like the dialogue is intended to continue, so:
*) There are places where the book could use more citations, and others where the citations given could to advantage be given earlier in the paragraph. (I can give the speficics.)
*) I think the message about the effects of fenimism can be strengthened by including the direct effects of feminism on education and mental health of the American population, and not just the indirect results of raising fatherless children. I cound three such effects and accompany each by some sources:
-- Making school curricula and atmosphere anti-male. Well documented in Christina Hoff Sommers's book "The war against boys", a glimpse of which is given in Sommers's 5-minute video "The War on Boys" on Prager University.
-- Conditioning everyone to think by default like a patient in psychotherapy. (The book "One nation under therapy", co-authored by Sommers.)
-- Making religious spaces female-oriented and useless, and at times stressful, for men. (I first thought this problem occurred only in synagogues, an environment I am more familiar with. But, no, it turns out Christian communities are having this problem in a big way. One source is the YouTube video titled "Why guys hate church", but a search for this one will bring up others as well.)
*) I think the book--again, as regards the effects of feminism--would benefit from referring to:
-- Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" (chapter 11), and
-- Helen Smith's book "Men on strike" (she also has a podcast on this, of which there are short clips on YouTube).
*) "The Alphabet of Ben Sira" is not considered an authoritative Judaic source, but your other statements about occurrences of Lilith in the Babylonian Talmud, etc., are correct. And there is a mention even in Isaiah 34:14.
*) What you call "Jewish influence" in Hollywood is more accurately, but more verbosely, described as "Lefist influence from Leftist Jews who are not observant and often even opposed to Judaic observance." (No such influence would be expected, for example, from Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, or Tovia Singer.). Thus, "Jewish influence" is misleading, analogously to calling the Blood Libel, Catholic Inquisitions, and, say, the Rhineland Massacres "Christian doing" if you posit that Western branches of Christianity are in dissent with the authentic Christianity.
*) Just as the reach of feminism is pervasive and broad, as you observe, the standoff is broader than between Orthodox Christianity and feminism. It's generally Leftism (of which feminism is a special manifestation, one of many) against all religions that attempt to prescribe a moral system and attach central meaning to obligation rather than to gratification (of which Orthodox Christianity is but one).
Is there a non Amazon way to purchase, I am very interested in this subject, just found you on psyop cinema, your two episodes there are right on the money.
The quilt this thread exists in, the dissolution of the family unit, has other threads, this is one of them, and an essential one. It radically impacted my childhood and is doing the same thing as an adult with a child.
So, I am right in the middle of it and finally getting some clarity on what happened to the American family.
My understanding is the antecedents of feminism and breaking up the family (and this needs to be put into context, for instance, families that lived in "company towns" had radical pressure on them, of course slave families did too; I am focusing on the post WWII attack on families, how to dial back that impending unity in a post war gold rush) go back to the burgeoning middle class and working class black families in the 50s.
There was an economic stability there that allowed for the so called "American Dream", stable jobs, stay at home mother, schools.
The first step was to create economic instability, challenge the expectations of the parents and then let them figure out what to do. This is going to result in disputes. And then the message, from publications and eventually government, if your man can't take care of you, we will, with welfare.
Don't laugh, whitey, you next. The 60s destroyed family relations and expectations to a degree never discussed in the glamorization of those times.
I could go on and on, there's so much to unpack there, and the bullets aren't coming from one shooter, there are paths of attack.
Looking forward to reading your book, I just don't want to buy it off of Amazon. Publisher have an option?
"Individual and collective Yoga and worship, conducted daily, fortnightly, and monthly “for the delectation of the deity,” are of special importance. After elaborate purifications, the worshipers—who must be initiated, full of devotion toward the guru and God, have control over themselves, be well prepared and pure of heart, know the mysteries of the scriptures, and look forward to the adoration with eagerness—make the prescribed offerings, worship the power of the Divine Mother, and recite the relevant mantras."
Hello Rachel. I notice few citations in your Substack posts. Is your book thoroughly cited? I enjoy reading your Substack - the information you share is uncommon, and you pose interesting hypotheses. Thank you.
Hi! Yes, my book is thoroughly cited. Here on substack there are some places where I use citations and other places I might include where I found the information inside the piece in the more passive manner. It kind of just depends on my intent and the context. Thank you for reading my stuff! 🙂 Also, since this is a bit more of an interactive venue, please feel free to ask where I got any information if it’s unclear and you are curious.
Thank you. I look forward to exploring the sources in your book. I am curious about your sources for many other topics you cover, including MK Ultra. I know it's out there; because it's not my area of research, citations help me learn and save time. Thank you so much for the Britney coverage. The events drawing out her struggle saddens and frustrates. The story is fascinating as well.
I can see from reading Chapter 1 alone that your book is incredibly flawed, with the greatest flaws being the writing style, which is incredibly immature and hard to digest due to redundancy, and a lack of engagement with scholarship or history. There are only 67 citations for a book of 130 pages - this is absolutely ridiculous and, quite honestly, embarrassing for you as an author.
Chapter 1 begins with a convoluted and imprecise definition of “the occult” that you, as an Orthodox Christian, fit due to your own doctrine (theosis being a good example). You offer no context or history for your definition, and instead launch into an attempt to synthesise the origins of feminism with “Hegelian master-slave dialectics.” Not only is this where you would need a reference, this is also where you would need to explain why feminism is analogous to the Hegelian position - to do that, you would need to understand it, which, demonstrably, you do not. Luckily for you, feminists do use the Hegelian model!
The Hegelian dialectic is a spiral which culminates in sublation, meaning contradictions overcome by negating their opposition, preserving their respective truths, and creating a higher synthesis. In his model:
Two consciousnesses meet —> both want recognition
A struggle ensues —> one becomes master, the other slave
The master wins, but gets shallow recognition
The slave loses, but grows through:
Fear
Work
Self-discipline
Engaging with the world
Eventually, the slave develops a deeper self-awareness and realises their own freedom
The hierarchy becomes unstable —> the slave is no longer mentally subordinate, even though still oppressed
The slave remains a slave, but has grown to fully understand the system through their struggle. What you posited was a pseudo-Marxist theory.
Your third citation was ARIS 2008 in which you said “Wicca and other forms of witchcraft are the fastest growing religions in the United States.” Either you hoped no one would check, or you did not read the study itself. The study says as follows:
Non-denominational Christianity increased by 4039.2%
Buddhism increased by 194.3%
Eastern Religions in sum increased by 185.4%
Islam increased by 156.0%
Irreligion increased by 138.4%
NRMs & Other Religions increased by 116.3%
New Religious Movements & Other Religions is a category including the following: Scientology, New Age, Eckankar, Spiritualist, Unitarian-Universalist, Deist, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Indian Religion, Santeria, Rastafarian.
We can safely assume Deists take the majority of the NRMs & Other Religions increase by ssessing the study in the context of Table 4, which illustrates 12.1% of those partaking in the survey state “there is a higher power but no personal God;” 5.7% stating “I am unsure;” 4.3% stating “there is no way to know;” 2.3% stating “there is no such thing;” the majority falling to 69.5% of Americans partaking, stating “there is definitely a personal God” (6.1% abstained).
You then moved onto theology, in which you stated “Christianity is a patriarchal religion, with all things being created by God the Father…not only is patriarchy the natural and divine order of the created world, but…feminism is a battle that cannot be won against an omnipotent Heavenly Father.”
We rightly refer to God in characteristically masculine terms, as God imbues into all things the principles of their being, intelligibility, and governing providence. This is the nature of the masculinity in active potency. The world, in turn, nurtures these divine gifts and cooperates with God’s divine action through the mode of its own integrity (insofar as created things operate in a rightly ordered fashion). This is the nature of femininity in passive reception. The nature of existence is split into the active (masculine) and the passive (feminine). We see this in the Trinity - as the Father bestows upon the Son a full and complete consubstantial sharing of His infinite, bountiful fecundity that is the divine substance, and insofar as the Son receives this fecund divine life and manifests this Spirit by way of proceeding love, this very much serves as an analogical basis upon which man and woman are to complete the unitive and procreative dimensions of their respective identities as related to each other. To say there is a hierarchy of this active-passive / masculine-feminine relation, such as patriarchy or matriarchy, is therefore to deny the Trinity.
The very nature of marriage, in reflecting this duality within divine creation and emanation, reflects this as a husband is to bestow upon his wife a share of his own identity, and his wife reflects this back to him by way of an offspring which proceeds from the love of both of them. There is no hierarchy.
After your linguistic, philosophical, and theological mess of a first page, you then move to historic mythology. Unsurprisingly, you misconstrue the very basis of Ištar, and do not even mention Ninhursag. You say of Ištar “she is also notorious for treating her male lovers in a demeaning and sadistic manner, using her sexuality to control and punish them,” yet you offer no references - and you offer no references because there are none.
You then progress to Lilith, in an attempt to demonstrate “something something evil feminism,” and yet again offer no citations, even though in this case you are predominantly correct.
But Kali. Yes, you are disgustingly uneducated in regards to Kali, just as most of Western pop culture is. In the Devi Mahatmya, the gods are being overwhelmed by Raktabija, a monster who can regenerate every drop of his spilled blood into another clone of himself, and other demons. The goddess Durga (warrior goddess) goes to battle him, but every time Durga draws blood, his wounds spawn more demons. In her final moment of desperation, Durga furrows her brow in rage, and from this brow emerges Kali a dark, terrifying manifestation of pure destruction and wrath but, above all, desperation. Kali defeats Raktabija by drinking all his blood and devouring his clones, but she becomes intoxicated by the violence and begins to uncontrollably destroy everything in sight. To stop her, Shiva throws himself under her feet and when Kali steps on him and realises what she has done, she is shocked into self-awareness. That is why her tongue falls out of her mouth, out of shame for her loss of control, not because she is obscene. The point of Kali isn’t that she is evil - she is a sacred embodiment of rage in the face of demonic chaos. The myth is supposed to reveal the potential of righteous anger if you do not control it and the pain of feminine suffering; that women bear rage out of necessity and lose control when they are unprotected. She is redeemed because she repents for her actions and regrets them deeply. Your presentation of Kali is so ridiculously far from Hindu thought that you truly do pervert and contort an entire typology simply because you couldn’t be bothered to study it.
As far as commentaries on pop culture go, I don’t think anyone reading the book could really care less. But the statue in Union Square looks nothing like a Roman statue of Janus, so just stop it. The entire point of Janus was that both sides shared one mind.
Suffice to say, I was incredibly disappointed with the lack of care, effort, and understanding in one chapter alone. This was, without a doubt, the biggest waste of £8 I have ever made the mistake to undertake.
Hi Mrs. Wilson,
A well-written book, clearly the result of due scholarly diligence.
Some remarks, all strictly opinion on my part--not sure if they are useful now that the book is out, but sounds like the dialogue is intended to continue, so:
*) There are places where the book could use more citations, and others where the citations given could to advantage be given earlier in the paragraph. (I can give the speficics.)
*) I think the message about the effects of fenimism can be strengthened by including the direct effects of feminism on education and mental health of the American population, and not just the indirect results of raising fatherless children. I cound three such effects and accompany each by some sources:
-- Making school curricula and atmosphere anti-male. Well documented in Christina Hoff Sommers's book "The war against boys", a glimpse of which is given in Sommers's 5-minute video "The War on Boys" on Prager University.
-- Conditioning everyone to think by default like a patient in psychotherapy. (The book "One nation under therapy", co-authored by Sommers.)
-- Making religious spaces female-oriented and useless, and at times stressful, for men. (I first thought this problem occurred only in synagogues, an environment I am more familiar with. But, no, it turns out Christian communities are having this problem in a big way. One source is the YouTube video titled "Why guys hate church", but a search for this one will bring up others as well.)
*) I think the book--again, as regards the effects of feminism--would benefit from referring to:
-- Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" (chapter 11), and
-- Helen Smith's book "Men on strike" (she also has a podcast on this, of which there are short clips on YouTube).
*) "The Alphabet of Ben Sira" is not considered an authoritative Judaic source, but your other statements about occurrences of Lilith in the Babylonian Talmud, etc., are correct. And there is a mention even in Isaiah 34:14.
*) What you call "Jewish influence" in Hollywood is more accurately, but more verbosely, described as "Lefist influence from Leftist Jews who are not observant and often even opposed to Judaic observance." (No such influence would be expected, for example, from Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, or Tovia Singer.). Thus, "Jewish influence" is misleading, analogously to calling the Blood Libel, Catholic Inquisitions, and, say, the Rhineland Massacres "Christian doing" if you posit that Western branches of Christianity are in dissent with the authentic Christianity.
*) Just as the reach of feminism is pervasive and broad, as you observe, the standoff is broader than between Orthodox Christianity and feminism. It's generally Leftism (of which feminism is a special manifestation, one of many) against all religions that attempt to prescribe a moral system and attach central meaning to obligation rather than to gratification (of which Orthodox Christianity is but one).
Is there a non Amazon way to purchase, I am very interested in this subject, just found you on psyop cinema, your two episodes there are right on the money.
The quilt this thread exists in, the dissolution of the family unit, has other threads, this is one of them, and an essential one. It radically impacted my childhood and is doing the same thing as an adult with a child.
So, I am right in the middle of it and finally getting some clarity on what happened to the American family.
My understanding is the antecedents of feminism and breaking up the family (and this needs to be put into context, for instance, families that lived in "company towns" had radical pressure on them, of course slave families did too; I am focusing on the post WWII attack on families, how to dial back that impending unity in a post war gold rush) go back to the burgeoning middle class and working class black families in the 50s.
There was an economic stability there that allowed for the so called "American Dream", stable jobs, stay at home mother, schools.
The first step was to create economic instability, challenge the expectations of the parents and then let them figure out what to do. This is going to result in disputes. And then the message, from publications and eventually government, if your man can't take care of you, we will, with welfare.
Don't laugh, whitey, you next. The 60s destroyed family relations and expectations to a degree never discussed in the glamorization of those times.
I could go on and on, there's so much to unpack there, and the bullets aren't coming from one shooter, there are paths of attack.
Looking forward to reading your book, I just don't want to buy it off of Amazon. Publisher have an option?
Yes! Email me at therachwilson@gmail.com to buy a signed copy directly from me.
Incoming
I'm going to assume you think "occultism" is bad. Do you consider Buddhism and Hinduism occultism?
"Individual and collective Yoga and worship, conducted daily, fortnightly, and monthly “for the delectation of the deity,” are of special importance. After elaborate purifications, the worshipers—who must be initiated, full of devotion toward the guru and God, have control over themselves, be well prepared and pure of heart, know the mysteries of the scriptures, and look forward to the adoration with eagerness—make the prescribed offerings, worship the power of the Divine Mother, and recite the relevant mantras."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hinduism/Tantric-ritual-and-magical-practices