By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A report has revealed a significant relationship between former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Chris Butler, the leader of a religious sect described as a cult. Emails and documents suggest that Butler, through his close allies, provided directives and talking points to Gabbard, which she then echoed in her public statements and legislative actions. This close coordination between Gabbard’s advisers and Butler’s inner circle aimed to elevate Gabbard’s national profile and, in turn, advance Butler’s political agenda.
Read the original article here
It’s quite striking how allegations have surfaced concerning Tulsi Gabbard and her alleged ties to a “secret cult,” with particular focus on her guru’s supposed ambitions to leverage her influential position. The very nature of these claims paints a picture of a situation far removed from typical political maneuvering, delving into the realm of deeply personal belief systems and potential manipulation.
The individual at the center of these allegations, reportedly a leader within an alt-right sect of Hinduism known as the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF), is described in rather extraordinary terms. Former members have apparently characterized him as being perceived as God’s voice on Earth within this group, and that questioning or offending him was akin to offending the divine itself. This level of veneration immediately raises questions about the dynamics of influence and control within such a community.
Furthermore, the scope of this guru’s alleged aspirations extends beyond mere spiritual leadership. Reports suggest a former member divulged that he harbored a desire to “rule the world,” a rather grandiose and unsettling ambition that, if true, would certainly cast a different light on his followers’ actions and motivations.
The connection to Tulsi Gabbard, particularly given her past political prominence, is the crux of the matter. It’s suggested that this guru, Chris Butler, may have sought to utilize her influential position, built through her political career, as a vehicle to advance his own agenda. This raises concerns about whether her decisions and public stances were genuinely her own or potentially influenced by external forces with potentially nefarious aims.
Many observers seem to feel this information isn’t entirely new, with some noting that discussions about Gabbard’s cult associations have circulated for years, particularly during her presidential run. It appears that for those who have followed her career closely or done deeper research into her background, the current allegations might not come as a complete surprise, but rather as a confirmation of existing suspicions.
The idea that she was “born into a cult” is frequently mentioned, alongside the assertion that many of her key advisors and donors remain connected to this group. This persistent link, even if she claims to have distanced herself, fuels the narrative that her ties might be deeper and more enduring than publicly acknowledged.
The notion of her seeking out “power vacuums” is also interpreted through this lens, suggesting a pattern of behavior that could be driven by external influences or a desire to achieve certain objectives dictated by her alleged spiritual mentors.
The comparison of her guru to a “Russian handler” highlights a specific political context in which these allegations are being discussed, linking them to broader concerns about foreign influence and potential manipulation of political figures.
Some commentators express a resigned familiarity with such claims, suggesting that the circles involved are often characterized by fringe beliefs and unusual associations. The idea of secret meetings and grand ambitions isn’t entirely outside the realm of what they perceive as typical for such groups.
The historical context of her upbringing is repeatedly brought up, emphasizing that the claims of her being raised in a cult, one that reportedly broke away from the Hare Krishnas, have been public knowledge for a significant period. This prompts questions about the extent of her continued allegiance or susceptibility to the cult’s leadership.
The appeal she seemed to have with certain demographics, often described in terms of their perception of her appearance, is also mentioned, though it doesn’t directly address the cult allegations themselves. It points to a perception of her public image versus the private influences that might be at play.
The recurring sentiment is that for those paying close attention, this information isn’t a sudden revelation but rather a re-emergence of a long-standing concern. The Daily Beast’s reporting is seen by some as catching up to information that has been available for over a year.
The “wild” nature of the allegations, as described by some, is contrasted with the feeling of inevitability for those who have been following the story, suggesting that such associations are not surprising given the nature of the individuals and groups involved.
The description of the Science of Identity Foundation as a “pernicious cult” and the mention of families experiencing “sadness” due to its influence paint a picture of significant harm and suffering associated with the group. Links to extensive documentation on the topic are often shared by those who feel the gravity of the situation needs to be understood.
Concerns about financial dealings and the alleged wealth acquisition of her family through controversial means, specifically mentioned in relation to “gay conversion torture,” add another layer of disturbing allegations to the narrative surrounding her and her family’s past.
The idea of a “homophobic cult” is also brought to the forefront, suggesting that the group’s ideology may have deeply problematic social implications, further coloring the perception of those associated with it.
The description of her guru as a “real-life Bond villain” captures the dramatic and almost cinematic nature of the allegations, emphasizing the perceived megalomania and potential for widespread negative impact.
The notion that she might be “gullible and malleable” is proposed as an explanation for her potential susceptibility to such influences, linking her past political stances, like her perceived alignment with Russia, to this perceived vulnerability.
The shock expressed by some at the idea of the Director of National Intelligence being involved in multiple cults underscores the unusual nature of the allegations and the potential for widespread, unexamined influence within powerful circles.
The statement that “anyone paying attention already knew” is a strong indicator of how long these concerns have been brewing and how widely they are perceived to have been discussed within certain communities. The effectiveness of cults in maintaining secrecy and control is often cited as the reason why such information might not have gained broader public traction until now.
The comparison to Amy Coney Barrett and the broader concept of “it’s all a cult” reflects a sentiment that such issues are not isolated but rather indicative of a more pervasive problem of ideological extremism and manipulation within various spheres of influence.
The idea that her guru might have been a CIA asset is a speculative, but interesting, counterpoint to the “Russian handler” comparison, suggesting a complex web of potential influences and agendas at play.
Ultimately, the overarching narrative woven from these comments suggests a deep-seated concern about Tulsi Gabbard’s alleged ties to a cult, the potential for her influential position to have been exploited for the guru’s ambitious agenda, and the feeling that this story, while now gaining wider attention, has been an open secret for a significant period.