Jasun Horsley, Socio-Spiritual Engineering |392|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Oct 16, 2018.

  1. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    A side item here but I see this sentiment a lot lately.

    An honest question: How is "more than you need" defined? Sure, I get the easy (and lazy IMO) extreme examples of one neighbor with 3 gazillion dollars and another neighbor with not one red cent, but where is the line drawn?
     
    malf likes this.
  2. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    I agree that some conspiracy topics are simply for entertainment value and can generate mock outrage, which is why I don't waste my time on things like flat earth (which seems an intentional muddying/discrediting of conspiracy waters -- but then again, I haven't had any interest in considering it) or whether Michelle Obama or the Williams sisters are transgender (which seems ridiculous and also fairly irrelevant to anyone else's daily life). On the other hand, there are those so-called conspiracies that do touch my life (and others' daily lives) quite intimately -- and we should all be outraged and taking a stand on/against them -- or least take some interest in determining whether there is any truth behind the "conspiracy" allegations. So-labeled "conspiracies" that address the safety/cleanliness of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat, for example. Or the medications or vaccinations we willingly put into our -- or our children's -- bodies.

    My first foray into 'conspiracy' was after one of my children was "diagnosed" with ADHD in elementary school. Not wanting to drug my child, I spent many months researching the world of psychotropic medications. What I found was a completely corrupted industry in literal collusion with the once-dying psychiatric community, and the intentional burying of (randomized double blind) studies showing the efficacy of safer alternatives. Much of this can be found in the excellent book "Anatomy of an Epidemic" by Robert Whitaker, but most people can't be bothered to learn about the dangerous effects of methylphenidate (whose chemical structure is similar to cocaine) or the history behind the rise of similar "magic bullet" mind-altering medications to salvage a dying psychiatric industry. And lacking an educated population daring to take a stand on such things, we now have several decades-worth of overly medicated and severely damaged young adults -- and an opioid epidemic on our hands in the U.S.

    Similarly, most people don't know -- or care -- that our compulsory fluoridation programs are based on local water boards/municipalities purchasing toxic waste from aluminum phosphate industries. Toxic waste that is purchased and then dumped into our drinking waters "to prevent cavities" rather than disposed of safely per our toxic waste disposal laws at that industry's own expense. Or what about the actual, admitted (but still suppressed) dangers of certain vaccines? One deep dive into the history and reported effects of the HPV vaccine alone might have people starting to take "conspiracies" seriously -- rather than risking paralysis or death of their daughters (and now sons).

    And beyond the health/food issues, I think events like 9/11 and similar deep state trauma events that are generated and perpetuated for plutocratic profit, population control, ritualized murder, and mass trauma must be similarly discussed and exposed and outrage generated - not for entertainment value, but for our literal survival. We need to stop sending men and women to die for manufactured wars. And we need to stop ignoring systemic sexual abuse of children -- whether by the Church or elite politicians or celebrities. These are things that do matter and do impact all of us.

    I don't think it's as easy as you think to have a decent grasp of history. One of my oldest friends is a history professor at a prestigious U.S. university. Granted, her specialty is not American history, but she's read Chomsky and Zinn and claims to be familiar with the manufacturing of consent for military interventions and the games of the elite in earlier points in history. Yet, she seems completely incapable of connecting such earlier shenanigans with current ones and instead simply spews mainstream liberal talking points. I don't know what to call this -- mass hallucination? cognitive dissonance? Collective denial?

    Marginalizing those who are willing to be outliers because they dare to question various corporate/government narratives only emboldens more corruption, more deterioration of our health and quality of lives, and more tyranny.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
    Reece likes this.
  3. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    Doesn't that depend on the specific topic and which one of you is correct? (e.g., 9/11 was an inside job or it wasn't)
     
  4. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    824
    Conspiracy theory is such an awful term and it has put people under a spell of sorts. Alternative theory is a better term. Almost everything in life involves a conspiracy, look at a court manuscript. How many conspiracies have come true in the last 10 years? A dozen atleast
     
    Charlie Primero likes this.
  5. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,048
    Conspiracies that been had been previously promoted by fringe supporters that turned out to be true (or broadly accepted)? I’m keen to hear your dozen (at least).
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
    dpdownsouth and hypermagda like this.
  6. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,465
    I think you have picked a bad example there, there must be many possible shades of grey between 9/11 as a CIA conspiracy, and the official story.

    0) Maybe it all happened as President Bush said.

    1) Maybe the conspiracy consisted in blaming Iraq, rather than Saudi Arabia - for commercial reasons?

    2) Maybe the conspiracy was to cover up some extremely sloppy work by the intelligence agencies, that could have stopped 9/11 happening.

    3) Maybe the intelligence agencies were warned off arresting Saudi nationals - again for commercial reasons, but nobody realised quite what was at stake.

    4) Maybe someone in the CIA realised an attack was imminent, but decided not to stop it happening.

    ........................................

    100) Maybe the US and Saudi Arabia worked together on this conspiracy - designing it in its entirety - to give the US the pretext to attack Iraq.

    Theories 1 and 2 are almost certainly true, but I would need some good evidence that theory 100 was true.

    David
     
  7. Baccarat

    Baccarat New

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    824
    No point not expecting anything intelligent from you, you're a waste of time
     
  8. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    209
    I regret taking such an adversarial approach earlier in the thread. Such is life.

    Anyway, I had a weird thought: Is conspiracy theorising on PSI an attempt to rationalise the irrational?

    I'm not exactly sure what I'm talking about yet, so, I hope the following makes a kind of sense.

    First, I think it might be useful for discussion purposes to split conspiracy theories into two categories - mundane conspiracies (political corruption, corporate malfeasance, organised crime, etc.) and extraordinary conspiracies (archons, chemtrails, global elite satanism, no one died at event x, etc.). I'll admit that I've chosen obviously polar examples to get the point across.... I suppose Chomsky and Zinn would fit in the middle somewhere. I reckon, the first category is not particularly controversial as most people have an innate degree of distrust when it comes to politicians, large corporates, etc. It's also very mainstream to assume that elites protect their own.

    Also, in what follows, I'm not really talking about individual conspiracies, but, rather, about 'conspiracy culture' in which world events are seen as evidence of an underlying dark agenda perpetrated my a small, consistent group of individuals.

    To be even more specific, I'm only really interested here in conspiracy culture's handling of PSI and the paranormal.

    Here we go:

    Jasun Horsley's website front-page mentions liminality quite prominently. I think this is an important concept here as both PSI / the paranormal are highly liminal phenomena.

    Liminality means threshold and indicates a border or boundary state. It has a number of characteristics: An association with deception, an inversion of status, the blurring of boundaries and a tendency to undermine binary oppositions. Thus, liminality can be declared powerfully anti-structural in nature.

    PSI and the paranormal are highly liminal phenomena. First, they both have a long (not unjustified) association with deception, and have a tendency to confer low-status on those involved. Second, and most importantly, they are powerfully boundary blurring and undermine the clear distinction between a number of important oppositions: internal/external, awake/dream, physical/non-physical, real/imaginary, personal/collective, alive/dead, object/subject, etc.

    The extensive overlapping that occurs between phenomena (PSI, UFOs, synchronicity, NDEs, OOBEs, psychedelics, etc.), too, is very suggestive of a liminal underpinning.

    So, we can conclude that the paranormal is, at heart (or at least partly), an irrational phenomena.
    .
    Moving on: It's important to state that the liminal definitely has its dangers. For one, owing to its powerful tendency to blur boundaries, a long contact with the liminal can make it very hard to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, making paranoaia a real potential. Its effects can also increase at an exponential rate - being potentially quite damaging to social relations and general mental health. A loss of status by association can have very negative professional consequences, too.

    Liminal phenomena's picking away at binary oppositions is also deeply undermining of Aristotelian logic and thus threatening to highly complex societies such as our own, based as the are (in theory, anyway) on a rationalised system of hierarchies, bureaucracies and laws. Perhaps this goes some ways towards explaining the establishments hostility towards PSI and the paranormal. This would also explain the loss of status experienced by those who dare to take the phenomena seriously as the functioning of a complex, rationalised society's immune response.

    Interestingly, traditional, less rationalised societies also recognise the dangers inherent in liminal phenomena and take steps to contain said danger, with rituals and the use of designated practitioners being two examples of protective techniques. I suspect occultists demarcating a magical circle may serve a similar purpose (among other, more esoteric purposes, that is).

    Ok, owing to the destabilising nature of excessive boundary blurring, it is quite natural for people to want to impose structure on the anti-structural. (Perhaps we can look at Whitley Strieber as an example of what living in a semi-permanent liminal state looks like.) I think attempts at imposition of structure on the liminal can take a number of forms, for example: imposing a religious structure, a scientific structure, denial, pathologizing, debunking, an on. Regardless of which approach is taken, the intended outcome is the same: The maintenance of clear boundaries.

    I think many parapsychologists and nuts and bolts UFO people are guilty of trying to over-rationalise the paranormal. They do this by ignoring tricky evidence and trying to impose a rational framework on what seems to be an irrational phenomena. And it's perfectly understandable that they do, trying to get your head round a liminal phenomena and its full implications is absurdly hard. Their attempts at rationalisation can also be seen as protective behaviour against the negative effects associated with the liminal.

    Their approach also reveals a belief in a myth shared by materialists - that the ultimate nature of reality should yield to Aristotelian logic.

    Anyway, all this got me wondering if conspiracy theorising wasn't also an attempt to contain the boundary blurring nature of the paranormal by imposing a rational frame-work of bad actors and disinformation over the tricky and irrational aspects of the paranormal. So, instead of a confounding collapse of oppositions between reality and imagination, we get mental illness brought on by sinister government experiments. Instead of UFOs that straddle the divide between physical and non-physical, we get a series of government hoaxes. Instead of a history of PSI research that strongly indicate a false dichotomy between internal and external, we get a government attempt to create a one world religion. You dig?

    So, in this regard, conspiracy theorising on PSI reveals a belief that the irrational must yield.

    The problem is, 'Conspiracy Culture' is itself a highly liminal field and carries with it all the dangers of the paranormal - a loss of status, having to fend off attacks from the system, a potential difficulty in telling fact from fantasy, potential paranoia, etc.

    So, it's no wonder that an attempt to impose structure on the liminality of the paranormal with another highly liminal phenomena ends in all sorts of weirdness.

    I'd also be tempted to explain the tendency towards superiority felt by many conspiracy theorists as an attempt to regain the status lost to them by their engagement with the liminal.

    And if I'm correct in assuming that Whitley Strieber's 'MK Ultra' memories were retrieved through hypnosis, then we're adding another liminal phenomena to the mix and I don't know how anyone has a hope of sorting this shit out.

    Am I onto something here? Do I even make sense?

    Speaking of hypnosis:

    @David Bailey I think your completely right to be suspicious of Derren Brown's exploits. I remember years ago reading a thorough critique (by a fellow hypnotist) of Brown's apparent programming of an assassin via hypnosis. The piece convincingly demonstrated (to me, anyway) that Brown had not hypnotised someone into performing an assassination, but, rather mundanely, had hypnotised someone into believing they were target shooting at a gun range. And this effect was only achieved in a highly managed environment.

    Then there's this quote from someone who's apparantly participated in one of Brown's shows:
    Source: https://sabotagetimes.com/tv-film/dont-believe-in-derren-brown

    My brother once had a bit part in another mentalist's show, and he told a similar story to the above.

    OK, crazed ramble over.

    [If any of what I've written on liminality makes sense..... I owe it to Michael P. Hansen's book, The Trickster and the Paranormal.]
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
    hypermagda and Charlie Primero like this.
  9. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,465
    I thought the first part of this link (about Darren Brown) was extremely interesting, and it seemed to require that the camera crew were simply part of the deception.

    Then the discussion went on to Uri Geller, and his 'performances' even in laboratory situations. This seemed highly unfair - I mean presumably, given what is being said, Brown would not submit himself to laboratory conditions, but Geller was willing to do so. Under lab conditions, he would not have a crew of people helping him to deceive.

    I am fairly suspicious about a lot of non-fiction television. For example, you see scenes in which someone receives a visitor, who knocks on the door and is let in (for whatever reason), but a moment's thought tells you that the scene must have been rehearsed, and so the reactions of both parties are obviously fake.

    David
     
  10. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    You put it out there. You know the old saying about the temperature in the kitchen.
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  11. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    By turning the example from a binary choice into 100 (or whatever extended multiple), you might have made it an even better example.

    I would presume Arya has a relatively defined viewpoint on the events around 9/11. Maybe its on your list or maybe its some other variant. The question still stands: She's frustrated by her apparently otherwise intelligent friend who accepts a different variant (e.g., the "official narrative" perhaps). How is she or we to know who is afflicted by mass hallucination, cognitive dissonance, denials, etc.? Seems it could be either party.
     
    hypermagda likes this.
  12. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    752
    I don't understand your question. What do you mean when you say "conspiracy theorizing on PSI"? I don't understand what context you mean. Is it that PSI is a conspiracy? Sorry.

    I like your thoughts on the "liminality" of conspiracy research. I confess that the reason I have researched Conspiracies for 30 years is because I desperately want the world to be rational.

    I autistically dislike ambiguity. When I detect lies by authorities, I get triggered.
     
    dpdownsouth and hypermagda like this.
  13. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    218
    YES!!!!!!! And you know how much I disagree with you as to the presence of unicorns in the afterlife :), so it's actually quite extraordinary that we should agree on this point. You expressed this concept very clearly and convincingly.

    I think the real "conspiracy" is behind the Veil, and impossible to figure out for us due to the limitations of our 1) senses 2) intelligence 3) due to our limited vision (in time and space). I don't think any human being out there has ever known or knows for sure the actual TRUTH about what we all are doing here, so all CTs are ultimately red herrings. Sure, some of them may be true, what do I know, and I fully share the sentiments of those who feel we should strive to uncover the truth in order to protect the innocent - but exposing the perpetrators on the basis of incontrovertible evidence (if at all possible) still would not even begin to explain why evil things happen all the time and why there have always been evil, conniving people out there (with no qualms about, say, raping children etc). Uncovering a specific conspiracy would still not tell us anything about why there is this constant struggle between good and evil in this material world, and where the root of all evil comes from (whence this boundless lust for power, insatiable greed, cruelty, extreme selfishness, sadism etc etc?), as it is beyond this material world, obviously. Cutting off one head of the Hydra will not kill it - two more will grow in its place. What 'programme' makes it grow? The key issue is: do (apparent) good and evil come from the same source or not? Don't hold your breath - I have no definitive answer, of course. As I said, nobody can prove that they know the Ultimate Truth. Hence, it's a depressing possibility, but there may indeed be a "conspiracy" on the part of the source(s) of "good and evil" to keep us guessing, and living, and caring, and struggling in this "projected reality/simulation/lucid dream/call it as you wish" of this apparently material world (which, as you know, at the level of particles seems to evaporate into some kind of "void", ie, a dimension impenetrable for us inhabitants of the "dream" - a realm beyond the Veil, where we cannot see)
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  14. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    I don’t think 1 & 2 are ‘almost certainly true’ at all.

    I think...but what difference will it make? In a way, I now wonder if those behind it know what to believe after so much treachery and deception. We can convince ourselves of almost anything if we’re determined to.
     
  15. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    No, I am frustrated by my friend's inability to even question current official narratives (e.g. official justifications for war against Syria, Libya, etc. Russia as boogeyman, etc.), despite acknowledging that the government has repeatedly lied to us about the reasons for war/attacks/invasions/occupations in the past (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and some of the events listed in the below link).

    https://washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html

    In a criminal trial, evidence of past crimes or wrongs is highly probative to help prove "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident" (Fed. R. Evidence 404). So why wouldn't evidence of past false flags or outright lies about the reasons for military intervention, committed not only by the same government, but typically by the same players in government (or their close relations) be highly probative and pointing towards similar lies of empire when those same players generate new reasons to drag us into middle eastern interventions, wars, etc.?
     
    Alex, Reece, Charlie Primero and 4 others like this.
  16. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    390
    I agree, it’s a loaded term which almost suggests that one is crazy if they question the official explanation.
     
    Reece, Charlie Primero and Steve like this.
  17. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    391
    I understand now. My apologies.

    Yes, I am in agreement with you on the flaw in your friend's approach. While I generally struggle with buying into CTs, I do try to at least consider the possibility that the official narrative is lacking.
     
    AryaS and hypermagda like this.
  18. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,465
    I'd love to know why you say that. The attacks were explicitly used to justify the attack on Iraq, and it does seem incredible that these guys were able to train on passenger aircraft in the US, and if memory serves me right, someone noted at the time that they didn't want to train to land the aircraft - only takeoffs and level flight - yet the intelligence services took no action to prevent the attack.

    David
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
  19. LetsEat

    LetsEat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    No hypnotism was used really, though its hard to define hypnosis it is much easier to define the various techniques used as being merely suggestions.
    He builds whats called a compliance set by asking her to tell him things, draw things etc. The more often someone obeys a command the more likely they are to obey further commands.
    He places himself in an authoritative role to her by being the host of the show and asking her to imagine being more childlike while leaving himself as the adult in the room.
    He uses the law of reverse action which he calls negative suggestion which merely means the stronger suggestion wins out.
    He uses plain jane garden variety obedience, this entire set up is a variation on the Milgram experiments where it was found around 60% of people would provide fatal shocks to other people if in the appropriate setting.
    Lastly the environment is dark, ominous and reminiscent of horror movie while also being a well known television show.

    This suffers from the same problems the milgram experiments did, that its hard to tell what the subjects level of belief in the experiment really is, and even if it were fully believed it's not necessarily what the majority of people would have done the same as this experimenter.

    More information on the Milgram Experiments if anyone is interested. https://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/10/1...criticisms-of-milgrams-obedience-experiments/
     
    malf, Trancestate and dpdownsouth like this.
  20. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    209
    Now I'm worried. :) Anyway, brushing my imaginary unicorn's mane keeps me on a generally optimistic footing.
    .[​IMG]`
    I've come across a number of conspiracies regarding PSI (using the term very elastically): That PSI research is another branch of the 'new-age' psyop - hoping to lure people into a new one-world-religion or induce confused thinking. That all 'abduction' experiences are screen memories implanted by government mind-control programs. That clusters of high-strangeness events are evidence of government mind control / psyop programmes. That you can't trust a single world that comes out of, for example, Dean Radin's mouth because of his association with the remote viewing program (so everything he says is part of an agenda).

    I mean, you'll know, if you look even a little deeply at PSI and the paranormal, you soon realise that this is weird, weird stuff. So, I kinda wondered if the above theories weren't attempts to simplify and rationalise the 'high-strangeness' nature of the paranormal.
    I was hoping you'd comment on Alex's video, wasn't disappointed. :)

    I assume there's also a lot of TV chicanery involved - if you're going for a grand finale, working with odds at 60/40 don't really cut the mustard, y'know.

    Very interesting stuff, thanks.

    Can I ask your professional opinion on the likelihood of hypnotised / mind controlled assassins being a thing? [EDIT: Ok, to put it more clearly, do you feel the alleged evidence that someone can be hypnotised to kill increases the likelihood of mind controlled assassins being a thing?]
    I remember that too.
    The result of effective propaganda.

    @Everyone

    If the idea is to look for the conspiracy (as Alex says), why not turn this mantra on conspiracy culture itself? If most of the cultural movements of the last 50+ years are extensively managed (at the bare minimum), then why would this pattern not hold true for the explosion of conspiracy theory interest over the last twenty years or whatever?

    And, while I know that 'conspiracy theory' has an intended association with flakiness, it does, in a very literal way, describe the idea perfectly. So I don't use the term as an insult or to suggest craziness.
    The lazy example seems like a good place to start to me. :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
    malf and hypermagda like this.

Share This Page