Politics in Esoterics, Really?

by Grayfox

Egads! Has politics infected the world of Laurency and Pythagorean Hylozoics? I have just read an Internet Blog post by one Håkan Blomqvist entitled “The Henry T. Laurency Esoteric Legacy”. A partial excerpt (and exact quote) of this post reads as follows …

“I discovered the books by Laurency in the late 1970s and contacted Lars Adelskogh who legacy of the Laurency archives. Between 1981-1986 I was associated with Lars Adelskogh subsequently became the director of the Henry T. Laurency Foundation and heir to the studying and promoting the books by Laurency. Unfortunately this partnership came to a sad end when I discovered that Adelskogh mixed his interest for esotericism with political right wing extremism and antisemitism. In 1986 this came as a chock to me and resulted a period of complete scepticism to all things esoteric and spiritual. Instead I became a member of the Swedish Secular Humanist Association and in a cultural radical and anti-cult tradition wrote several very critical articles on esotericism, Laurency and Adelskogh. I was then of the opinion that esotericism actually could be regarded as a front for right wing politics.”

The complete blog post of this excerpt can be found if you care to Google the author’s name and post title. Comments anyone?

Comments for Politics in Esoterics, Really?

Click here to add your own comments

Aug 17, 2016
RE: Mr. Blomqvist PARTs I, II & III
by: Grayfox

Hi Fr. E.S.Q.S.
Thank you for addressing the "interpersonal gap" in an exemplary adult (and non-defensive) manner; a subject I would like to discuss further with you in a future post that I will initiate.

For now, however, I would like to address the substance of your three-part response to Mr. Blomqvist’s article. In my estimation, this three-part response is a model of prodigious literary felicity; a critical analysis that is generously laced with logic, reason and common sense. To say nothing of the fact that it is a fascinating and informative read.

It will be more than worthwhile for all seekers who are regulars to this forum to take the time to read Mr. Blomqvist’s article (it can be googled at Håkan Blomqvist´s blog: The Henry T. Laurency esoteric legacy) followed by your three-part response. Your point by point (virtual sentence by sentence) critique is powerful and devastatingly effective; a highly instructive "clinic" in well researched and presented argumentation.

Mr. Blomqvist would be well advised to read (and learn from) this analysis. However, the chances are slim to none that he will!

Great job Fr. E.S.Q.S.


Aug 16, 2016
RE: Mr. Blomqvist PART III
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

"Adelskogh has created a politically potentially dangerous blend of esotericism, holocaust revisionism, Traditionalism (Perennialism), antifeminism and other antimodernist ideas."

Where is that? Is it in esoterics a la HTL? Is it in his contributions to esoterics? I must admit that I have not seen it. As such, what is the point of this statement besides to cast LA in a bad light?

On the matter of holocaust revisionism: frankly, I know very little of this and, so, I cannot speak on it specifically; however, as a general statement, I must say: what’s wrong with it? Who cares if someone personally agrees/does not agree? Let’s have the facts and make our decisions based on that, alone. No need for insults and criticasting - roll out the facts and let them have their say. If someone wants to present an alternative position, then why will we not give them a fair hearing? It just doesn’t make any sense to a reasonable person.

Note: this is not an antisemitic statement. Of all people, I have no problem - whatsoever - with semitic peoples. After all, brotherhood - the guiding light of my life - includes everyone: every man, woman, and child of every race, class, and creed.

On the matter of traditionalism: what if it’s true, though? What if there really is a superior knowledge? These hyper-intellectual quacks peddling (quasi)-occultism want so desperately to believe that man can know everything; to believe that man is all but omniscient and omnipotent, right here and right now. That this is patently absurd apparently escapes them. The wheel of their over-active imaginations are akin a hamster’s wheel: spinning rapidly, but getting nowhere fast. They delude themselves into thinking that, if they just continue speculating with even greater fervor, they will - somehow - achieve superhuman knowledge. That is one theory, perhaps. The other one - the esoteric one - indicates a different method. Let’s see which one produces any results: the theories of these (quasi)-occultists or the theory of esoterics a la HTL and LA? My bet is on the latter.

On the matter of antifeminism: once more, I wonder where Mr. Blomqvist is seeing this antifeminism. I have not seen it in the works of HTL or LA, thus far - and I have studied a lot of it, mind you. That being said, even if it were true to some degree, so what? I know feminists who are antifeminists, in the sense that feminists identifying with first-wave and second-wave feminism do not agree with third-wave feminists and their idiotic theorizing. After all, what once started out as a legitimate women’s rights movement has turned into mindless grab-bag of griping about all manner of issues. Now it is about sexuality, gender identity, gender expression, gender politics, racial identity, racial politics, oppression, victimization, etc., - and so it means absolutely nothing, anymore. In many cases, it is about unnecessary pseudo-problems.

It has become, in a sense, the field of failed, spoiled-rotten first-world activists. They found that helping starving people - in the West or abroad - was too hard, that saving the environment was too hard, or that fighting for women’s rights in third-world countries was too hard - and, so, they settled for harassing the general populace in the West; lobbing insults, criticasting, moralizing, and condemning others for not sharing their particular views and/or following their particular conventions. A great many of them have become a bunch of intolerant fanatics, essentially. Then, apparently, they comfort themselves with the delusion that they are finally making a contribution to the betterment of the world. What’s worse still is that these moronic activists, with their incessant griping and short-sighted political maneuvering, are slowly, but surely, eroding our right to free speech and free thought. That kind of seems like a step backwards in terms of human rights and freedoms, wouldn’t you say?

Admittedly, the problem of feminism - not least of all accurately defining it - is a very complicated and delicate matter and, so, I try to keep out of it as much as possible. After all, I just don’t have the time to familiarize myself with all of it and make a contribution to the fight against that form of idiotization. After all, we just can’t do everything at the same time. I have set my sights on teaching esoterics, both now and in the future, and, so, I must study esoterics; I must master the system of Pythagorean Hyloziocs. I must make my contribution as a teacher, not as a political warrior. That being said, I tip my hat to my fellows fighting the good fight against all manner of idiotization.

I will leave the "other antimodernist" statement, seeing as it could mean anything at all.

"This has thrown a dark shadow over esotericism in Sweden as the subject has become associated with right wing extremism."

That is not the fault of LA; rather, that is the fault of people who have been misinterpreting/misrepresenting his personal interests and/or opinions, his personal political position. It is the fault of people, like Mr. Blomqvist, who have only added fuel to the fire by posting articles of this sort.

"Why Adelskogh has entered this path is an enigma as his ideas are anathema to the philosophy of esotericism and even contrary to the writings of Laurency himself as this quote from The Way of Man proves: ‘We incarnate in all races, frequently changing our sex, belonging to all religions, etc., in succession. If we despise a certain race, etc., it may happen that we are reborn in that race. Thus for instance Nazis have to incarnate as Jews and Jews as Nazis until they have ceased to hate each other. Oppressors will be among the oppressed in a new incarnation. The law of reaping is a law of justice.’"

Once more, this is a misinterpretation/misrepresentation of LA’s personal interests and/or opinions, his personal political views. I have yet to see a single thing, in esoterics or otherwise, that would lead me to believe that LA is actually supportive of right wing extremism and antisemiticism, despite appearances.

"In defence of Lars Adelskogh I emphasize, in spite of his political views, that he is a very erudite esotericist and has made a valuable cultural contribution by publishing the writings of Henry T. Laurency."

The problem here is that the damage has already been done. After dragging LA’s name - and esoterics, thereby - through the mud, there is no use in pretending to defend LA. This is a common manipulative tactic, actually. Now Mr. Blomqvist can pretend that he never intended any harm and that people are making up their own minds in regards to this "monster".

"Students who enter a study of Laurency will immediately notice a few idiosyncrasies in his philosophy. He often has very critical remarks on democracy without presenting a political alternative. This could be taken as an excuse for a fascist view but this is not a correct interpretation. Laurency is clearly a definite opponent of all forms of totalitarianism. Very peculiar is his total misunderstanding of Social democracy, which he equates with communist dictatorship. His views on socialism are definitely not in line with his favourite esotericists Blavatsky and Bailey."

HTL doesn’t mention any better political alternative to democracy because, frankly speaking, there really isn’t any better political alternative. So long as the men running the show are morons, the political system will be terrible no matter what the political system is. His critical remarks concerning democracy are, I would think, rather meant to counterbalance the tendency to political fanaticism - or, in plain English, the all too prevalent idea that democracy is the greatest political system and ought to be spread, world-wide.

On the matter of HTL’s equating a social democracy with a communist dictatorship: to be perfectly frank, HTL’s position is quite sensible. A social democracy could quite easily - and perhaps necessarily - degenerate into a communist dictatorship and, as such, might explain why he wouldn’t even bother pretending that the more or less gradual slip into a communist dictatorship even counted as a legitimate political system in the first place. Granted, I am no political master and so that as all that I will say about that for the time being.

"A third pecularity is his absolute dislike of biographies, which he regards as an infringement on privacy."

More accurately, he disliked people’s interest in biographies.

"Given these ideosynchracies reading the books of Laurency is an intellectual challenge."

Ah - so it has nothing to do with the esoterics part of it, does it? What a hoot.

"As information on Henry T. Laurency and Hylozoics in Sweden is so scarce I have published the chapter on Laurency from my new book on my homepage. Unfortunately it is only in Swedish but a Google translation may be of some help."

Perhaps the reason information concerning HTL and hylozoics in Sweden is so scarce is because of terrible articles like this one, posted by Mr. Blomqvist. God knows it certainly didn’t help the cause.

Thanks for your time,


Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Aug 16, 2016
RE: Mr. Blomqvist PART II
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

"Of interest is his claim that the books were ‘dictated’ by an adept in the planetary hierarchy: ‘The Knowledge of Reality is not my work, even though I was the instrument holding the pen that wrote it, and was made to rewrite every page until the content was approved as being correctly perceived.’ Laurency named his presentation of the esoteric tradition Hylozoics."

Besides the deplorable fact that Mr. Blomqvist took it upon himself to reveal HTL’s purportedly real name, which was a gross violation of his right to privacy, he has also made a number of more or less trifling mistakes in the following passage. The first thing to note is that Mr. Blomqvist, despite making numerous quotes throughout the rest of this article, had failed to properly quote HTL’s words in Knowledge of Life 4, Section 1, "Laurency" - 1.20.11 (I had to go through the section, line-by-line, to locate the exact words and their context) stating that:

"PhS is not my work, even though I was the instrument holding the pen that wrote it, and was made to rewrite every page until the content was approved as being correctly perceived."

It continues:

"The formulation is mine expecting the quotations. I did not permit myself to bring forward even one assumption or conjecture, even one supposition. I did not write anything that I did not accept as tenable myself. Moreover, no single fact, no single idea is my own. Almost all of them existed before in the esoteric literature even though expressed differently. The presentation and the compilation are my own. It was my endeavor to weed out all the symbols and old, worn-out, misleading terminology. Hylozoics stands out clearly."

As such, Mr. Blomqvist has also made a number of other more or less trifling mistakes in relation to this - such as, for example, stating that:

A). All of HTL’s work was dictated - this is undoubtedly false. It is highly unlikely that every single work by HTL, every single page of over 4000 pages worth of material, was dictated in the same sense that The Philosophers Stone was.

B). HTL’s work, The Knowledge of Reality, was dictated - again, this is also undoubtedly false. After all, if The Knowledge of Reality was dictated in the same sense as The Philosophers Stone was, then why wouldn’t he have mentioned it as he had with The Philosophers Stone?

C). HTL called his presentation of the esoteric tradition hyloziocs - this is just absurd. HTL didn’t name the so-called esoteric tradition hylozoics, seeing as it already had the name of hylozoics; rather, HTL’s work was one of presenting hylozoics without the age-old symbolism. Hylozoics isn’t new; rather, his particular presentation of hylozoics is new. Likewise, HTL didn’t create a whole new esoteric tradition - whatever that is supposed to mean.

It is just one misleading claim after another.

"I discovered the books by Laurency in the late 1970s and contacted Lars Adelskogh who subsequently became the director of the Henry T. Laurency Foundation and heir to the legacy of the Laurency archives. Between 1981-1986 I was associated with Lars Adelskogh studying and promoting the books by Laurency. Unfortunately this partnership came to a sad end when I discovered that Adelskogh mixed his interest for esotericism with political right wing extremism and antisemitism. In 1986 this came as a chock to me and resulted a period of complete scepticism to all things esoteric and spiritual. Instead I became a member of the Swedish Secular Humanist Association and in a cultural radical and anti-cult tradition wrote several very critical articles on esotericism, Laurency and Adelskogh. I was then of the opinion that esotericism actually could be regarded as a front for right wing politics."

Now we get to the politics. This will require a careful analysis in a number of parts. The first and foremost point that I will ask people to consider is this:

In what way do LA’s alleged personal interests and/or opinions on various exoteric matters factor into our personal studies of esoterics a la HTL?


We need to keep in mind that just because someone has said it doesn’t mean that it is true, thereby. Just because Mr. Blomqvist has said that "LA mixes esotericism with right wing extremism and antisemitism" doesn’t, automatically, mean that it is so.


We need to take care when appending emotionally loaded labels to people. For example, what does Mr. Blomqvist mean by saying these things? Are they actually fair assessments of LA’s personal interests and/or opinions, or are they being unfairly applied to LA in an attempt to drag his name - and everything and everyone he associates with - through the mud?


Even if it were true, I could not let it affect my view of esoterics a la HTL - or even the wonderful contributions that LA has made, himself. After all, why should it? Likewise, I could never hate LA for doing what every other human being does: make mistakes.

Frankly speaking, I prefer to reserve my judgment on the matter. After all, I - admittedly - do not know LA’s personal interests and/or opinions; likewise, I take what Mr. Blomqvist says with a grain of salt. After all, he, perhaps, has reasons for wanting to see LA’s name sullied, what with their falling out. Finally, as I mentioned in the first point, what does it matter? LA’s personal interests and/or opinions are not esoterics. I am not studying LA’s personal political position; rather, I am studying esoterics. I am studying hylozoics.

On the matter of esoterics being either right-wing or left-wing, politically speaking, I must admit that I find it can be a bit of both at times. In some cases, it could be construed as right and in other cases, it could be construed as left. In any case, I must admit that I pay little mind to its political positioning. Facts are what I am after, not social games. What works, works. What is acceptable to common sense is my guiding compass. Some men are suited to dealing with politics - and I am not such a one. It is not my forte. Let the members of the appropriate department deal with that one.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Blomqvist became skeptical of esoterics because of what he felt about it and not what he actually saw; it was his own suspicion that drove him away from esoterics in the first place. I have also known a great many people just like him that did precisely the same thing. It seems that they had preferred wallowing in the stinking cess pit of paranoid conspiratorial feeling than studying esoterics.

"Many years later when I resumed my study of esotericism and the books by Laurency I discovered to my amazement that the esoteric tradition was essentially politically left wing. This is especially noticeable in The Key to Theosophy by Blavatsky and the writings of Alice Bailey. There is of course also right wing esotericists, as documented by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke in his excellent Black Sun. Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity, but they must be regarded as not in line with the ideas of mainstream esotericism."

Now esoterics was apparently politically left wing. You see, Mr. Blomqvist is able to see a bit of everything in esoterics - as with most people. Right wing one day, left wing the next day - what’s next? Now he will champion esoterics, but what about tomorrow? It is hard to take someone like that seriously.

Likewise, this chatter about anything being "in line with the ideas of mainstream esotericism" is laughable - as if being in line with the ideas of (quasi)-occultism was a measure of any real importance. Lo, the professor has declared it to be so and so all was made good!

"Personally I find it somewhat of a tragedy the Lars Adelskogh hos chosen to associate Laurency and the esoteric tradition with neonazi groups and antisemitism."

This is a lie. LA has done no such thing; rather, in this case, Mr. Blomqvist has. It is Mr. Blomqvist that is incapable of separating LA’s alleged personal interests and/or opinions from esoterics a la HTL. It is Mr. Blomqvist that is flapping his gums and being sure to tie LA - his alleged personal interests and/or opinions, his political position - to esoterics a la HTL. It is not LA’s fault that his alleged personal interests and/or opinions, personal political position, has been hauled out into broad daylight for all to see.

NOTE: As I write this, I am also reading a number of other articles concerning LA’s interest in such matters. So far, I must say that I am not overly shocked to find that LA’s alleged involvement with right wing extremism and antisemitism has been grossly exaggerated. People are, perhaps unsurprisingly, misinterpreting/misrepresenting him.


Aug 16, 2016
RE: Mr. Blomqvist PART I
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Dear Grayfox,

Once more, it is nice to hear from you. I must admit that I was looking forward to your response. That being said, let me get right down to business here.

Before getting into the response proper, I’d like to address the matter of what I had meant by the following:

"That being said, I must admit that it seems to be the case that you have neglected to really offer a comment on the article. If you want me to respond, then you must say something first - and something a little more substantial, mind you. Please, do not be afraid to speak your mind. I have a 7 page response waiting to be posted, the product of roughly 5 hours of concentrated thought, but I will refrain from posting it until you have posted, first - as per what I said in my first post on this thread. I want to see people engaging the material and not just waiting for someone like myself to, in a sense, "drop a bomb". I want to see people thinking things through."

Line by line, then, I had meant the following:

1. This is perhaps the most significant line in this paragraph, which indicates - in no uncertain terms, mind you - just why I wrote the paragraph to begin with. You had neglected to offer your thoughts on the article - and it was precisely this that I was looking for, Grayfox.

2. This line was not meant in a rude way; rather, I was merely playing coy. I was trying to coax a more substantial response out of you concerning your thoughts on the article.

3. I meant this line exactly as it is written. Once more, I was trying to encourage you to respond more fully and, so, I thought to address the possibility that you were, perhaps, afraid of unfavourable reactions.

4. This line was mostly to let you know that I have written a response - one that I think you’ll enjoy, even - while also, once more, trying to encourage you to respond more fully.

5. This line indicates what I see to be a very real problem with peoples: this notion that, just because someone like me is around, they ought not to say anything at all and just wait for me to say something. Too many people become shy, feel inferior, or, perhaps, are intimidated by me, even - but then they are missing a very great opportunity to practice critical thinking; also, an opportunity to practice emotional unconcern. Being a teaching-type, I encourage people to think for themselves; to speak up, to have a say. It may not be right, but you can’t be afraid of making mistakes - you can’t let that fear hold you back. For example, my position concerning Mr. Blomqvist’s article is, undoubtedly, somewhat mistaken; nevertheless, I am willing to share my position with people here because I understand that it is only by practicing critical thinking - and by subsequent corrections - that I will learn to think ever clearer. My position is obvious enough to me, but, perhaps, someone here will see something that I did not.

6. This line essentially sums up line 5.

Hopefully, that clarifies things for you. A word of well meaning advice for the future, Grayfox: if you unsure of the intent of someone’s words, it is always wisest to take them in the best possible light. This will spare you much unnecessary suffering. Now, I could continue examining other elements of your response, but I think that you have waited long enough for my response. I will not keep you waiting any longer.

Before I begin posting that material, however, I’d like to begin by saying that, originally, I had read through Mr. Blomqvist’s article and then proceeded to analyze its contents to see whether or not his position(s) was/were actually fair. After all, it is no small matter that he is, essentially, dragging someone’s name through the mud. If he will do that, then we really ought to take care to think: is this fair? Does LA actually deserve this kind of treatment? Let’s find out.


"The last decades has seen a remarkable renaissance for the scholarly interest in the esoteric tradition. What in academe has been named Western Esotericism can now be studied at universities in Paris (Sorbonne), Amsterdam and Exeter. This once taboo subject is slowly becoming mainstream. From being relegated to the dustbin of irrational nonsense it is now seriously investigated by students and scholars all over the world. There are now several learned societies and academic journals exclusively devoted to various aspects of the esoteric tradition. Excellent introductions to the study of Western Esotericism has been written by Wouter Hanegraaff and Tim Rudbøg."

The thing that ought to be kept in mind here is that this so-called western esotericism is, in truth, little more than (quasi)-occultism. It is precisely as HTL had predicted: soon enough, even the word esoteric will be meaningless, as it will be associated with all manner of exoteric speculation. It is, perhaps, only a matter of time before the word hylozoics is idiotized as well. This so-called western esotericism is, largely, a stupendous admixture of a few esoteric facts; dubious historicism; incomprehensible sociological, psychological, and philosophical theories; and mind-numbingly idiotic speculations on reality based upon far too few esoteric facts and without any real esoteric system. It is a veritable cornucopia of alchemical nonsense, pseudo-rosicrucian mysticism, theological fictionalism, new age sophistry, and thoroughly misunderstood symbolism. This so-called western esotericism and its proponents - by-and-large - exhibit the mere appearance of knowledge, seeing as most of what they claim to know, outside of esoteric facts, is pure fictionalism.

Please bear in mind that I am not merely repeating what HTL has said on the matter; rather, I am speaking from my own experiences with such individuals. Prior to my initial studying of esoterics, and even somewhat during my initial studying of esoterics, I studied elements of this so-called western esotericism. I had more than ample opportunity to deal with these (quasi)-occultists - who now, perhaps, suspect that they are esotericians.

What is becoming mainstream here isn’t esoterics. In fact, that which is becoming mainstream here is, more often than not, in direct opposition to esoterics. Of course, this is not really all that surprising. It is the same old song-and-dance with these types. In order to appear wiser than they actually are, they need to misdirect people from the sources of their own knowledge by casting a shadow of doubt and suspicion on esoterics and its proponents. One wonders whether or not poor HPB will ever have a fair trial. One wonders whether or not these (quasi)-occultists will ever condescend to offer their most sincere thanks - and apologies, even - for the veritable cornucopia of esoteric facts that they had effectively cribbed from HPB’s theosophy - also the work of CWL, AWB, AEP, and AAB (soon to include the work of HTL and LA, no doubt) - to make their own flimsy (quasi)-occult systems appear even just a little bit more plausible.

The point here is that we need to take what Mr. Blomqvist has said here with a grain of salt - or maybe the whole box.

"I have noticed rather few comments on this cultural renaissance from organized theosophists and esotericists, which is somewhat surprising. It should of course be welcomed by all students who adhere to the motto of the Theosophical Society: there is no higher religion than truth. An academic journal which is absolutely indispensable for serious students of Theosophy and its various offshoots is Theosophical History."

Once more, this so-called western esotericism is - by-and-large - little more than (quasi)-occultism, not esoterics. That, perhaps, might explain why so few organized theosophists and esotericists - who are concerned with actual esoteric facts and systems - are commenting on it. There is nothing to comment on. It is the same old ilk that has existed for ages, only now it is being studied, written about, and taught in a scholarly setting. Nothing new under the sun - and definitely not worth much time. Students of esoterics have enough to work on besides parsing through the mind-numbing speculations and theoretical legerdemain. One is very much reminded of walking through a fun house: this so-called western esotericism consists of a whole lot of smoke and mirrors.


Aug 15, 2016
A Respectful Admonition
by: Grayfox

Hi Fr. E.S.Q.S.
In your last post you asked if I would say something "more substantial" regarding my opinion and "not to be afraid" to speak my mind, "if I wanted you to respond" So, rather making up a story about what I thought your words meant, let me start this way…

I am aware that the written word per se does not provide the receiver of a message with sufficient information to properly interpret the message intended by the sender (and the receiver is left to make up her or his own story about the meaning of the message). Academics who study such matters estimate that voice inflection, tone, and volume as well as facial expression and body language are responsible for the majority of the meaning conveyed in all interpersonal interactions (this is why we are so often misunderstood).

It also goes without saying that face to face contact with someone we know and like is most conducive to producing a satisfying exchange of important ideas. Obviously, none of these communication enhancing factors are available to us given the limitations of this forum.
In Applied Behavioral Science this gulf in understanding between sender and receiver has been called the "interpersonal gap"; a gap that I am hopeful we can agree to minimize if we are to continue having a respectful, rewarding, and ongoing exchange of ideas.

That being said, it is important for me to make sure that what I am about to say is "substantial enough for you to respond" and that I am understood when I attribute this viewpoint to my first self. What’s more, it is my intention that my words be interpreted as exoteric in nature and informed by my negative emotions uninfluenced by rational thought; a purely subjective attitude not intended to be a rebuttal, argument or attempt to influence. It is only for the purpose of eliciting other seekers point of view regarding Mr. Mr.Blomqvist’s article.

My subjective view regarding politics is that it is for the most part, devoid of logic, reason and common sense; an enterprise where intellect operates in the service of negative emotions (fear and hatred), where obfuscation replaces clarification and mean-spirited judgmental-ism prevails (a sad but esoterically understandable portrayal of the preponderance of current human consciousness).

In addition, my subjective judgment of Mr.Blomqvist’s article and political attributions directed at LA and his subsequent skepticism "with all things esoteric and spiritual" falls metaphorically along the same lines as my subjective view of politics (unless of course there are some mitigating circumstances for which I’m currently unaware). For me at least, his later change in attitude does not constitute such mitigating circumstances. I am of course willing to expand on my views of Mr. Mr.Blomqvist and his comments upon request.

I will not be surprised if the above remarks are unsatisfying to your level of erudition (my true and sincere sentiment) and frankly they are unsatisfying to me as well. Unfortunately, they represent a more infantile fragment of my as yet uninvolved first self (a work in progress).

So there you have it Fr. E.S.Q.S., I am looking forward with anticipation to a mutually satisfying collegial exchange of views.

All the Best,

Aug 11, 2016
Not so fast...
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Hello again Grayfox,

I am certainly glad to see that you have responded in kind.

As per the matter of my responding quickly: generally speaking, I try to respond as soon as possible - and you have caught my attention at a good time. Generally speaking, I only work a couple days a week and, so, I am free to read, study, and write most other days (for the time being, of course).

On the matter of following my posts: your attention is flattering, Grayfox; however, please do be mindful of the fact that I am, by no means, perfect in my presentations. I am, more than I’d like to admit, a bungler and an idiot. I am still learning, in other words - and, as such, I make a lot of mistakes in my presentations. The thing is, they are subtle mistakes. Read carefully and take even what I say with a grain of salt. That being said, I am certainly glad that you have found them to be - at the very least - interesting. After all, it is my intention to encourage interest - and participation, even. I suspect that I will not disappoint you when I finally post my response.

On the matter of reading the post in question: absolutely. I have read the post in question and more.

That being said, I must admit that it seems to be the case that you have neglected to really offer a comment on the article. If you want me to respond, then you must say something first - and something a little more substantial, mind you. Please, do not be afraid to speak your mind. I have a 7 page response waiting to be posted, the product of roughly 5 hours of concentrated thought, but I will refrain from posting it until you have posted, first - as per what I said in my first post on this thread. I want to see people engaging the material and not just waiting for someone like myself to, in a sense, "drop a bomb". I want to see people thinking things through.

Tell me what you think. Clearly you have some opinions on this matter.

RDB: Thank you for contributing to this thread, my fellow. This is precisely the sort of thing I am hoping to see: people thinking the matter through and taking some sort of position.

That being said, I will await a response from
Grayfox. Whenever Grayfox is ready and opens up, I will post my response to the article.

Thanks for your time,


Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Aug 10, 2016
A dialogue begins...
by: Grayfox

Hi Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Grayfox here. I appreciate your quick response! I was hoping you would respond to my post. I have been following this forum since its inception and have read all of your post. I have found all of them to be both interesting and insightful, hence my anticipation of your response.

I am guessing you have read the post in question (my impression of your writings leads me think that you have). Therefore, I will offer my thoughts. Actually, from my point of view the post in question can be viewed either esoterically or exoterically.

Exoterically, I have a subjective (and emotionally informed) political bias that I am willing to argue (probably with little reality, content) just to satisfy my competitive urges. However, I must admit I get a certain amount of malicious pleasure from the conflict, especially if I think I have won the argument!

Esoterically speaking, politics, for me, has little logic, reason or common sense to recommend it as a suitable subject for serious esoteric dialogue.

Thanks Fr. E.S.Q.S. for providing what I hope will be a stimulating and fruitful exchange of ideas. I will now leave the ball in your court and await your usually insightful response.

My Regards,

Aug 10, 2016
Not Anti-Semetists
by: Anonymous


I to read this same blog a few months ago. I know that both Adelskogh and HTL speak of the Jews in a negative way in their writings, so it may be that anyone who aims criticism at that nation are automatically branded as anti-semitic. I have not read anything by either author to remotely suggest that they are right wing political activists. Let's face it they are both critical of humanity as a whole, and for good reason.


Aug 10, 2016
by: Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Hello Grayfox,

What a wonderful opportunity to practice critical thinking! As such, before I will even consider commenting on this matter, I would encourage you - and anyone reading this - to comment first. What do you think about what this article has to say?

I will be looking forward to at least one reply in the near future.

Thanks for your time,


Fr. E.S.Q.S.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Your Pythagorean Hylozoics (Esoteric) forum.