Jasun Horsley, Socio-Spiritual Engineering |392|

#41
"Ordinary social, community order is constructed around the idea -- the tangible reality -- of the existence of discontinuous beings and it requires certain codes to maintain that order (thou shall not kill, steal,or lust after your neighbor's wife, for example). Conversely, mystical experience and religious doctrine pertains to the opposite idea, that of a continuity of being in which everyone is equally subservient to (and inseparable from) the Divine Order (God). So ,while social order is maintained largely through the implementation of religious taboos, the mystical and religious imperative is to transcend the social order and discover the underlying continuity of being. This inevitably entails the breaking of socioreligious taboos."

This is obviously a deeply disturbing and deeply demented "spiritual" belief system -- as is the belief that deeply sexually traumatized individuals are more in touch with their psi powers and (genuine) alternate realities -- i.e., break their psyche, force them to fragment, and they are somehow more in touch with the Divine? What does this all say about the nature of the Divine?
Very poignant comment and observation which reminds me of the justifications of abusers in general, the priests and popes accused are reported as saying their position excuses them from any act of sin, therefor sin is redefined in their presence, similarly to those in military or even medical experimentation--they are of some 'higher' order that re-writes the laws of the universe, whether of man or nature, in their hands to define at random in their favor.

A friend who recently finished processing as a RN was given lessons about LGBTQ folks, where it said in black and white that they are morally and spiritual superior. This was in Canada not long ago, I wish I could remember her exact wording, but I'm inclined now to contact her again to get it. But this was exactly the experience she had of it, she was being told they were more in touch with the Divine as 'transitioned' people.
 
#42
My problem with conspiracy culture is its tendency to devolve into unbridled paranoia.
I think any decent grasp of history tells us there are always multiple games being played. Innocents, deluded by noble lies, and driven by poverty, are induced to become players in the games of the 'dark elite'. We saw this in World War 1, and in the Gulf wars. Had citizens ignored the grand games of the the plutocrats those awful tragedies would not have unfolded.
I understand and agree with some of what you are both saying. There is a lot of unbridled paranoia, utter nonsense, and cointelpro/disinfo in the so-called "conspiracy world." I agree that THC and other "conspiracy" outlets often have a "blend of well-founded concern mixed with really naive analysis" (or intentional disinformation). At the same time, his-story is full of so-called conspiracy theories later revealed as fact. But why do we even have the benefit of knowing this much "truth"? Because various brave (crazy?) individuals were willing to go against the official narratives and tell a different story. You, Michael, only know about the "multiple games being played" or lies/propaganda being told because someone else objected to the official story on something (whether wars, political coups, MK Ultra, the dangers of particular vaccines, cigarette smoking, psychotropic medications, genetic engineering, experimentation on humans without their consent, etc.). If everyone simply sat back and felt that dark agendas weren't worth actively challenging and pulling apart and resisting, I suggest we'd be in even worse shape than we already are. We wouldn't have the benefit of skepticism towards any official narrative if someone wasn't willing to be ridiculed and dismissed and targeted.

It just gets a little tedious - particularly on this forum -- that instead of actually discussing which "conspiracy theories" might actually be based in truth/reality, the discussion revolves around "the problem with conspiracy theories/theorists" -- as if this is a big amorphous community of paranoid dipshits incapable of adding 1 +1 correctly. Ah well, clearly I am on the wrong forum -- and yet, Alex seems to share much of my world view and I've been particularly enjoying the latest interviews. I too, didn't go looking for conspiracy -- it found me. It actually started while doing intensive research on a health topic -- and many primary sources, books, studies, and even personal interviews with scientists in the field later, I was far more knowledgeable about the depth of government deception -- and forever changed in my world view.

Like Alex, I too think that the world is run on conspiracies, in the sense that people are constantly conspiring to commit illegal or immoral acts, from industry price fixing to insider trading to rigging LIBOR markets to blowing up/flying planes into buildings to get buy-in for middle east interventions and draconian surveillance laws. But I would argue, Michael, that "most" people do not, in fact, have a decent grasp of history nor do they see the multiple games being played. In fact, try to discuss (in ordinary company) the Gulf of Tonkin or Operation Northwoods or the 2016 whisteblower at the CDC who confessed to fixing the data on the MMR/autism connection -- and see what happens. "Conspiracy theories" still need to be discussed and given serious consideration for the very reason that you touch on above -- so that the "grand games of the plutocrats" do not, in fact, lead to Innocents being led to slaughter fighting Rich Man wars. (which I also happen to think are ritualized sacrifices).

In this interview (or was it the one with Tim Freke?), Alex suggests that Donald Rumsfeld, in his absurd denial of Building 7, was taunting those of us in the know -- as well as laughing at those still in ignorance. One layer of this response is basically Jack Nicholson's "You Can't Handle the Truth" -- a communication to those people who will accept the official narrative/explanation, no matter how ridiculous, if it keeps them in their first world comfort zone. In fact, I would argue that David's response above to my list of articles regarding weaponized technology suggests he's in that very category. I could post twenty more links to articles and books that might lead some genuinely open-minded person to deep dive into the history of mind control and the nefarious uses of technology by government/elites, but there will always be someone who doesn't want to know the truth. Instead, that person will just keep demanding more "evidence" from someone else so they can categorize and dismiss it (without doing their own research). There will always be someone who reads about the ability to put voices in people's heads...and then calls it humane crowd control. (?!!) Because having the actual ability to put voices in people's heads shouldn't alarm anyone, right? It doesn't matter if several of those "lone shooters" we've been hearing about claimed to have "voices in their heads telling them to shoot people"? No, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory.

Maybe Alex was right -- maybe what those in power are really saying is: "You Don't Deserve the Truth."

But please, carry on with the discussions of Idealism -- and unicorns in the afterlife.
 
Last edited:
#43
Come on, don’t be shy. Which CT do you mean?
Nothing impressive or professional, I'm afraid. Just a long-held interest in symbolism and ancient religion. Can you say Anunnaki, Illuminati, and hidden symbolism in advertising / pop-culture? I should have kept quiet, leave the mystery. :)

But I also do feel that many (not all) conspiracy theories absolutely fall apart upon even a little digging. Steve, why do you find chem-trails a hard swallow? Because you know a lot (professionally, in this case) about the subject of aeroplanes!

But please, carry on with the discussions of Idealism -- and unicorns in the afterlife.
I hope you enjoyed writing that one. I'm tempted to reply, "well, at least I don't get my speculative raw-material from the latest overly violent series I've caught on telly," but I won't.... the afterlife unicorns would not approve of such a response.

Otherwise, yes, I probably get your frustration on the direction conspiracy discussions take on this forum. I think the problem lies in the two audiences Skeptiko has: One group brought in by the conspiracy shows and the other by the sciency PSI shows (I'm sure there's a fair bit of overlap).

What annoys me is hearing strange allegations thrown at people like Geoff Kripal, etc.

we even have the benefit of knowing this much "truth"? Because various brave (crazy?) individuals were willing to go against the official narratives and tell a different story. You, Michael, only know about the "multiple games being played" or lies/propaganda being told because someone else objected to the official story on something (whether wars, political coups, MK Ultra, the dangers of particular vaccines, cigarette smoking, psychotropic medications, genetic engineering, experimentation on humans without their consent, etc.).
We know about the above through the work or old-school, proper journalists and not wild-eyed YouTubers. Said YouTubers often use the work of the aforementioned journos to make themselves look credible.
Instead, that person will just keep demanding more "evidence" from someone else so they can categorize and dismiss it (without doing their own research).
No, I have looked into a number of conspiracy theories and, in my personal opinion, have found them to be flakey beyond belief!

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
#44
I hope you enjoyed writing that one. I'm tempted to reply, "well, at least I don't get my speculative raw-material from the latest, overly violent series I've caught on telly," but I won't.... the afterlife unicorns would not approve of such a response.
.
Nice twisting of my post, dpdown. If that made you feel better, go you.

Otherwise, yes, I probably get your frustration on the direction conspiracy discussions take on this forum. I think the problem lies in the two audiences Skeptiko has: One group brought in by the conspiracy shows and the other by the sciency PSI shows (I'm sure there's a fair bit of overlap).
.
I agree. But if you like the "sciency PSI" ones, why personally bother listening to the interviews Alex has with "conspiracy theorists" -- and then object to/shut down attempted conversations about them in that particular thread? Horsley's entire book deals with the possibility of Streiber being a sexually traumatized confabulist due to Streiber's alleged childhood in an MK Ultra program. So why wouldn't the conversation in this thread naturally go in that conspiratorial direction? And why would such nonsense interest you in the slightest? (also btw: The "strange allegations against Kripal" are in Horsley's book, so maybe you might want to read what he says yourself before you profess indignation).

We know about the above through the work or old-school, proper journalists and not wild-eyed YouTubers. Said YouTubers often use the work of the aforementioned journos to make themselves look credible.
.
First, who is posting to wild-eyed YouTube videos? I don't believe I have ever linked to or cited a YouTube video for support in any post on this forum. Even in the links in response to David's specific request for information above, I've linked to NYT, WaPo, Guardian, etc. Or is that just your general go-to contemptuous attack on anyone you consider a conspiracy theorist? Second, just so I understand your point: so if a journalist with the right credentials writes about an alleged conspiracy theory, it will be accepted and no longer attacked as conspiracy theory (like Gary Webb, Seymour Hersh, etc.)? What about journalists (or others with relevant credentials) who write books that go against the mainstream views on anything? At what point does any alternative story about an event, product, etc. get street cred with you? What media outlet has to sanction it for you? (and actually, usually before the journalist, comes the whistleblower).

INo, I have looked into a number of conspiracy theories and, in my personal opinion, have found them to be flakey beyond belief!
.
Thanks for that blanket resolution -- we can all stop researching now!
 
Last edited:
#45
But I also do feel that many (not all) conspiracy theories absolutely fall apart upon even a little digging. Steve, why do you find chem-trails a hard swallow? Because you know a lot (professionally, in this case) about the subject of aeroplanes!
Oh sure, that’s why I was interested in finding out what it was that made it different for you in the case of some CTs. In my case I’m only really interested in a couple of the more down to earth so called CTs, 9/11 being my main interest as it’s potential implications are mind boggling, which is also why the truth of who might be behind it will probably never be accepted by the mainstream. The other stuff; flat earth, Chemtrails and the more exotic theories that go with 9/11 etc, I just basically put in the ‘open’ category. Note I don’t put them in the ‘ignore and ridicule’ category, which is what I find objectionable behaviour in some others.

There is no doubt in my mind that dwelling too long and too deep in such areas was not in my best interests. I see it as a black hole that one can get sucked into, so was careful not to get inside the event horizon! (Get me :))

I am also troubled by the reaction of others in this area. Why do so many people have such angry/fearful/disgusted reactions when these things are mentioned? To me it’s exactly like the modern equivalent to the “burn them’ insanity of times past.

Finally, and perhaps your own expertise can help here, I feel that there is a sometimes (often?) a concerted effort to deliberately confuse and obfuscate such matters. Who might be behind such a thing? Are they simply the down to earth human voices, or is it possibly the darker forces if the illuminati, or a mix of the two or more?
 
#46
There is no doubt in my mind that dwelling too long and too deep in such areas was not in my best interests. I see it as a black hole that one can get sucked into, so was careful not to get inside the event horizon! (Get me :))
This is kinda my main point: Paranoia is sometimes a justifiable and realistic viewpoint..... but it seems to inevitably lead into black holes of universal suspicion and a tendency to buy into almost anything. It's hard to keep your boundaries healthy when delving into this field. Where does this leave us? I don't know.

Finally, and perhaps your own expertise can help here, I feel that there is a sometimes (often?) a concerted effort to deliberately confuse and obfuscate such matters. Who might be behind such a thing? Are they simply the down to earth human voices, or is it possibly the darker forces if the illuminati, or a mix of the two or more?
Well, again, I don't know. A lazy answer would be to claim that they (conspiracy peeps) bring it on themselves. For me, the real difference between a good journalist (rare as hen's teeth) and your average conspiracy theorist (less rare) is a dedication to rigour. Or maybe the ridicule is just the usual 'tyranny of the status quo' effect at play (I feel much of the objection to PSI can be put down to this).

I suppose it's also worth noting that conspiracy theories have also been used historically by the powerful for truly horrific ends - Hitler and his 'international Jewish conspiracy' come to mind.

Nice twisting of my post, dpdown. If that made you feel better, go you.
Come on, it was at least a little funny, wasn't it?

... LGBTQ folks ... are morally and spiritual superior ... more in touch with the Divine as 'transitioned' people.
Wow, good to know. :)

I think this comes from being under the influence of a society drenched in Christian thinking - the last shall be first, the poor (or marginalised) as the repository of spiritual wisdom, etc. Weirdly, I also think classical Marxism is as deeply influenced by Christianity as secular humanism, what with its revolutionary working class and all. I have much sympathy for this influence.
 
Last edited:
#47
Some issues seem to straddle the border between conspiracy, professional laziness, and big business corruption.

I would say that the way the medical profession continues to push statins on people, despite a lot of evidence that they do harm to many, and their limited effectiveness, especially for those who currently do not have cardiovascular disease, is probably best described that way, as are a number of other medical scandals.

http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-persons-low-risk-cardiovascular-disease/

http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-with-known-heart-disease/

The NNT is an interesting statistic - it means the number of patients of a given type that a doctor would have to treat in order to help one patient. Note that even in the second case, a doctor would have to treat 83 with statins for 5 years in order to save one!

Conspiracies in which everyone involved has to understand the full enormity of what has been done, seem far less easy to pull off - and for that reason, are probably less common.

I think another question is how much secrecy do you need for a conspiracy? I mean hardly anyone thinks the 9/11 attack happened exactly as reported, but when we talk about a conspiracy, do we mean a team in the CIA started with a blank piece of paper and came up with the entire scenario?

David
 
Last edited:
#48
I guess the ability to fake videos and photographs has been with us for some time. It could become a serious problem, but it is the price we pay for living in a digital world. I would say it is not used often (yet) because I am not aware of anyone complaining that this trick has been used on them - not even Trump!
It is interesting that fakery has become so sophisticated that determining authenticity is increasingly difficult. That leaves us with two options - if we care about what is true. We can become obsessively engaged in confirming authenticity or discovering fakery. Or we can decide that what is vulnerable to such fakery is not a good source of truth in the first place.

This takes me back to my earlier comment about quarantining - a withdrawal from externalities and a focus on inner truth seeking. We can develop a metaphysics of externalities that go back to Don Degracia's arguments about consciousness - what is out there may be rooted in reality but it is nevertheless all appearance. Can we take the 'agenda of the dark elite' and look at it from a different POV? Maybe it could be a toxic yet pathetic misconstruction? Maybe its fake in the sense that it is not grounded in authenticity. That does not mean the grievous harm done is diminished.

So much harm is done to others in a state of deranged inauthenticity. The people who cause harm are not loving, empathic and compassionate. Does it not seem odd that we are induced to fixate on harm causers and the harm they cause? One of the saddest aspects of Christianity has been its failure to honour its self-proclaimed status as the guardian of moral integrity. And in that failure we have lost faith in love, empathy and compassion as the authentic ground of our being. Indeed, it seems that we dare not openly and robustly stand with what is good, and yet that is what we aspire to. And when we do make a stand it is against the dark - as if standing for light on its own account is inadequate.

Deception and fakery abound because we give them reason to exist.

I have just started to read Whitley's new book The Afterlife Revolution. The Foreword has a quote from his wife, Anne, from what I presume is a post mortem state.

All through history, there have been those who have lived in conscious relationship with Earth and the cosmos. We call them masters. In the future, everybody who enters the physical will do so as a master of being. And why will we still be using the physical? Give somebody a kiss. That's why. Humanity’s destiny in the universe is to bring forth the experience of love, that all may share in it. Objective love, the core creative urgency, is also the essential human energy....Enlightenment is what happens when there is nothing left of us but love.

I don't know that I agree, because here are thoughts that are confronting and challenging. Some, especially the last, just zero in on me and blow me away. But I would rather devote my energies to contemplating these words than be exposed to the endless roll call of evils perpetrated by people who must truly be badly fucked up as humans.Why should they continue to disproportionately contribute to our share discourse?

I grew up with power discourses. We were expected to be in awe of those who really were the plunderers and abusers of the world. They had power, and that conferred authority - the grubby (not divine) right to rule - was supreme. The Church was complicit in this, which is why its authority has been in steady decline. There is a certain advantage to being an Australian in that in our post-colonial state the divide between republicans and monarchists is stark. It has been the monarchists that have asserted the grubby right to rule.This isn't a left/right divide so much as divide between being a citizen and a subject. Americans have a disturbing passion for British royalty, suggesting that a royalist sentiment is alive and well.

Monarchy is fakery on steroids. It is deception in polished form. It is a hoax that has been pulled on many people with such aplomb and accomplishment that its legitimacy of thievery is beyond measure. But it is now diminished by being ignored. Its power of enthralling a population is unravelling. It is irrelevant.

We can ignore the fakers and liars and make our lives better - and the lives of others, because we have more time to attend to what is good and desirable.
 
#49
I think this comes from being under the influence of a society drenched in Christian thinking - the last shall be first, the poor (or marginalised) as the repository of spiritual wisdom, etc. Weirdly, I also think classical Marxism is as deeply influenced by Christianity as secular humanism, what with its revolutionary working class and all. I have much sympathy for this influence.
I don't know. It kind of sounds like you are saying as a group the LGBT should rightfully move to the head of the class for having been a repressed and marginalized group. But at the same time, the repressed group of CT should be pushed out before their out-of-control paranoia infects the entire civilization.
 
#51
I don't know. It kind of sounds like you are saying as a group the LGBT should rightfully move to the head of the class for having been a repressed and marginalized group. But at the same time, the repressed group of CT should be pushed out before their out-of-control paranoia infects the entire civilization.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying LGBT people are somehow superior. I'm just pointing out how the concept comes with a long lineage of Christian influenced thinking. A lineage of thought that I reckon has it's ethical uses.... and perhaps a seed of truth to it (even if not literally).

On the second point: Ah, good one. Still, I'm not suggesting anyone should be sectioned off or pushed out (that was Michael Patterson riffing on quarantine, I think), and certainly agree that there is much corporate, governmental, etc. malfeasance and coordination. But I also reserve the right to view most 'conspiracy culture' ideas as steaming piles of crap.

Best.

P.S. I wouldn't have gotten involved, but I took exception to AryaS's defensive (huffy, even) reply to David Bailey's seemingly earnest inquiry and her similiar reply to Silence's rather less earnest inquiry.
P.S. Maybe I agree with Michael Patterson: If people just said they were speaking from their gut, I might have more time for their ideas.... it's the evidence they provide that dissuades me. I genuinely mean this!
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#52
I'll do a blog on this in a couple of weeks.
let me know when it goes up.

I have an ongoing argument with a friend who persistently wants to discuss the horrors they discover on YouTube. I decline, and am accused of 'burying my head in the sand'. But it is easy to become fixated on the ills we do to each other and spent less time on the good.
agreed. I'm trying to be mindful of where I put my attention. then again, it's useful to know of the abyss... even while choosing not to stare into it.
 

Alex

Administrator
#53
This is obviously a deeply disturbing and deeply demented "spiritual" belief system -- as is the belief that deeply sexually traumatized individuals are more in touch with their psi powers and (genuine) alternate realities -- i.e., break their psyche, force them to fragment, and they are somehow more in touch with the Divine? What does this all say about the nature of the Divine?
I hear you... I have a bunch of interviews on this question... and the links to ET.

I also listened to Streiber on THC a while back and felt instinctively that there was something wrong/false about him.
I know what you mean... it sure sounds like he's dealing with a lot of pain... but I suspect he's telling the truth the best he can.
 

Alex

Administrator
#55
My problem with conspiracy culture is its tendency to devolve into unbridled paranoia.
I get it... we've all seen it :) but in the end I think this line of reasoning takes us in the wrong direction. I remember yrs ago interviewing Skeptic Steve Novella and him say (paraphrasing), "... these people believe in a whole host of weird things" as if it was an excuse for his complete ignorance of Dean Radin's presentiment experiments (for example).

same goes here... if you got a particular conspiracy theory that needs to be debunked... great... go for it... but don't use the proliferation of conspiracies as an excuse for digging in and doing the research.
 
#56
P.S. I wouldn't have gotten involved, but I took exception to AryaS's defensive (huffy, even) reply to David Bailey's seemingly earnest inquiry and her similiar reply to Silence's rather less earnest inquiry.
Well, FYI, I was only huffy to David because I assumed his request for "concrete evidence" was snarky -- as I indicated. Perhaps I'm just tired of those non-conspiracy theorists who are always trying to circle the wagons and shut down conversation that makes them uncomfortable with endless requests for the conspiracy theorists to provide them with "proof" -- just so they can shut down whatever is offered. Once David clarified that he was sincere, I provided a number of links in response. I'm sure he's fully capable of fighting his own battles, though. Also, I'm not sure why you would object to MY huffiness to Silence since you acknowledge it was not an earnest inquiry. Interesting. If you're the self-appointed tone police, perhaps you might want to be a little more even-handed about handing out tickets.
 

Alex

Administrator
#58
There will always be someone who reads about the ability to put voices in people's heads...and then calls it humane crowd control. (?!!) Because having the actual ability to put voices in people's heads shouldn't alarm anyone, right? It doesn't matter if several of those "lone shooters" we've been hearing about claimed to have "voices in their heads telling them to shoot people"? No, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory.
yeah, back to knowing about the abyss, but not staring too long. I agree with you about weaponization of mind control. I mean, if Darren Brown can do this on TV imagine what our evil genius intelligence friends (not to mention our 10,000-1M yr advanced space bros) can do:
 
#59
Does it not seem odd that we are induced to fixate on harm causers and the harm they cause? One of the saddest aspects of Christianity has been its failure to honour its self-proclaimed status as the guardian of moral integrity. And in that failure we have lost faith in love, empathy and compassion as the authentic ground of our being. Indeed, it seems that we dare not openly and robustly stand with what is good, and yet that is what we aspire to. And when we do make a stand it is against the dark - as if standing for light on its own account is inadequate.
.

But I would rather devote my energies to contemplating these words than be exposed to the endless roll call of evils perpetrated by people who must truly be badly fucked up as humans.Why should they continue to disproportionately contribute to our share discourse?
.
You are right, of course, and I appreciate your perspective on this immensely. Honestly, in real life, I do try to spend most of my time focusing on the positive and uplifting (and creative). I also don't just complain into my laptop or spend my days going down dark rabbit holes. But I agree with Alex that it's probably useful to understand the abyss -- and I just get so frustrated with people who not only pretend it isn't there, but who actively seek to stop others from even discussing it.

More specifically: this particular interview was with someone who suggests, and rather articulately, that there's a larger socio-spiritual engineering effort afoot -- one based largely upon inflicting trauma on individuals and whole populations in order to induce a particular disassociative (and highly suggestible) state of mind. We don't have to dwell on this admittedly dark subject matter forever, but perhaps it's worth considering for just a short time in the actual thread set up for its discussion?

For example, does Horsley make a good case for this possibility? Is there historical precedent for such a large scale mind-control social engineering effort? Why can we look back at 1950's-1970's and recognize various social engineering efforts (e.g., the co-options of various counter-culture movements, acknowledged/outed MK ultra programs, etc.) but not suspect that such engineering efforts would most likely be ongoing and more sophisticated, given the incredible technological advances? And also, is it possible that various large scale events in the world today are manufactured -- with the actual intent to produce mass trauma (again for socio-spiritual engineering purposes)?

These are things that are interesting to me -- and presumably to Alex, since he invited Jasun Horsely to his show. But it does appear that the two different audiences of Skeptiko are unable to bridge the gap between interests here.
 
Last edited:
Top