Jasun Horsley, Socio-Spiritual Engineering |392|

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
Do you really believe it was simply the blaming of Iraq that the whole conspiracy was about? This might be understood to be the case in the U.K, where the entry into the war centred around Iraq and the ‘dodgy document’ and Tony Blair etc

Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the attack soon after it happened, looking back it almost seemed that his name was released to the media in a way that might well have been pre planned. AlQaeda was a name hardly known until then, but the media as usual jumped on the knee jerk train and did their job, who’s going to argue with a Muslim Arab being blamed when the people’s anger was just ripe for hearing a name, were they likely to be reasonable and properly consider the name they’d been given? No way. People in general are ignorant, they really will believe anything the media tells them, particularly if they are pointing the finger at someone that is far away, with no link with the US, a Muslim Arab was perfect. It was the perfect deflection. They’d have been willing to bomb the U.K. if they had thought we’d staged the attack!

For me, this is a very interesting video. There’s a fascinating interview with a CIA guy that’s very familiar with Afghanistan starting around 7:40


As Wesley Clark says, the US were hijacked by a bunch of people who staged a military coup. Was BinLaden really capable of planning and successfully carrying out such a sophisticated attack? Who might be?


And to the 2nd theory.

I say the same thing, to me to say that the whole conspiracy is to deflect away from the CIA and FBIs incompetence seems to be missing the point. It’s possible, but instead we have to look at the active discouraging and wilful blindness shown by superiors in those agencies when agents on the ground wanted to pursue real leads. There are numerous examples of being told ‘forget that’ and documents were shredded etc.

What’s also really evident is this: I searched for YouTube videos I remember having seen many times, but they now seem to be well hidden. You have to have some idea where to look for those type of videos or you’ll have very little success in finding them . Someone that was ignorant about 9/11 but had read or seen something that stirred something in them to look into further, would probably give up before finding anything questioning the mainstream narrative. Why should that be so strongly in evidence? Why is there such an obvious fear of people that want to ask questions?

https://www.newsweek.com/saudi-arabia-911-cia-344693

George Tenet, the man in the article above, and CIA boss, had himself put forward a plan to deal with AlQaeda in 1999. (See below) Al Qaeda is said to be originally a CIA construct. It’s all so messed up. Who can unravel the truth?

“In 1999 Tenet put forward a grand "Plan" for dealing with al-Qaeda. In preparation, he selected new leadership for the CIA's Counterterrorist Center (CTC). He placed Cofer Blackin charge of the CTC, and Richard Blee (a "top-flight executive" from Tenet's own suite) in charge of the CTC's Bin Laden unit. Tenet assigned the CTC to develop the Plan. The proposals, brought out in September, sought to penetrate Qaeda's "Afghan sanctuary" with U.S. and Afghan agents, in order to obtain information on and mount operations against Bin Laden's network. In October, officers from the Bin Laden unit visited northern Afghanistan. Once the Plan was finalized, the Agency created a "Qaeda cell" (whose functions overlapped those of the CTC's Bin Laden unit) to give operational leadership to the effort.

The CIA concentrated its inadequate financial resources on the Plan, so that at least some of its more modest aspirations were realized. Intelligence collection efforts on bin Laden and al-Qaeda increased significantly from 1999. "By 9/11", said Tenet, "a map would show that these collection programs and human [reporting] networks were in place in such numbers as to nearly cover Afghanistan". (But this excluded Bin Laden's inner circle itself.)”
 
I kinda wondered if the above theories weren't attempts to simplify and rationalise the 'high-strangeness' nature of the paranormal.
Ah. I understand. Thanks.

I agree. Conspiracy Theories can be a coping mechanism for a person to "write-off" high strangeness. Similarly, when hard-core "Skeptics" completely dismiss all evidence of both the Supernatural and Conspiracy, this is also a coping mechanism. To misquote Jack Nicholson berating Tom Cruise "They can't handle the truth!" :)

then why would this pattern not hold true for the explosion of conspiracy theory interest over the last twenty years or whatever?
This explosion is due to the astounding increase in public communication provided by the internet since 1995.

Conspiracy Theorizing did occur pre-Internet via mailed newsletters, specialty magazines, and local lectures by weirdos at VFW halls and churches. 90% of the Public never even heard about such things.
 
I thought this was interesting on Derren Brown methods. It also kinda ties in with what the alleged participant in one of Brown's shows described.
In episode one of his controversial series The Experiments, popular TV ‘mentalist’ Derren Brown explored whether it is possible to hypnotise someone into becoming a killer.
It’s interesting to note that Brown makes a big point of citing the Hypnosis Act of 1952 as the reason why he can’t show us the full induction that he uses (an induction is name for the formal procedure used to initiate hypnosis – it’s not a series of magic words, rather a way of setting the scene for what is to come). He tells us this is to ensure no one at home gets ‘stuck’ in hypnosis with no one to bring them out, when this can’t actually happen.
Showman that he is, Brown is hamming it up for the audience at home, softening them up to accept the explosive conclusion he knows in advance his show will have.
Very telling is how he has the academic experts on early in the program to beef up the show’s credibility, but strangely these experts are not asked to comment on the show’s climax, where the test subject supposedly believes he’s killed Stephen Fry. They give a pretty unequivocal answer that in their professional opinion, using hypnosis to create a killer is not possible. Presumably, if he had really achieved something that went counter to all received wisdom, it would have been interesting to hear the expert take on it. But, of course, Brown has no interest in diminishing the impact of his experiment – where would be the fun in that?
Moreover, he has form with playing it fast and loose – his methods are called into question elsewhere in the series, where a couple of professors called him up on the flawed methodology he uses to prove a dubious, and potentially dangerous, point about the nature of crowds[ii]. While his program may be titled ‘Experiments’, it’s the entertainment business he’s in. Coming here for facts is like watching Braveheart to get the true story of William Wallace.
It will take too long to go through step by step and explain the theory behind each of the tricks he uses. It’s all standard hypnotic fare, and there’s no doubt he knows his stuff – the reservations are more to do with how he presents his findings.
The principal factor at work is introduced by Brown himself – namely, compliance. He underplays its role, however. The studio audience are there because they are interested in and fascinated by Derren Brown’s work. They don’t want to be in the audience for a dud show – they want to be part of something spectacular. The stage is very well set for Brown to do his work. There is the sense of being in safe hands – it’s a TV show, after all. What’s the worst that could happen?
When explaining how he gets the four men to throw ‘acid’ at others, he points to the fact that they are in a TV studio, and are thus aware that it’s very unlikely they’d be asked to do anything so immoral. He tries to suggest that his final chosen subject has no idea he’s being filmed when performing his ‘assassination’, but this is simply not true. He is given the gun by one of the show’s producers. He is at the venue for reasons connected with the show. These are all factors in his response. The subject experiences dissociation, sure, but all the suggestions that trigger it come from Brown, and are associated with the ongoing project of the show he’s involved with – his fifteen minutes of fame!
A mixture of compliance and a social safety net at work. At the end Brown ‘removes’ his amnesia, and we see the subject is in fact conscious of what he’s doing, but he’s merely dissociated from it by choice.
Alongside compliance, another factor is at work: expectancy. When Brown ‘steals’ his shoe, the subject intimates that he wouldn’t be surprised if he would be able to do it, because, after all, he’s Derren Brown. Because of the way he is perceived, Brown is able to wield enormous influence in his suggestions simply by being who he is. When allied with the all-too-willing agreeability of his audience to suspend scepticism and buckle in for the ride, a clearer picture begins to emerge of how this trick is achieved.
your eagerness to please the person making the suggestions outweighs your doubts about performing the suggested action you might do things you would ordinarily be reluctant to do.
There’s a lot that can be done with conditioning, and many psychological tricks that could be used to deconstruct someone’s personality, a la Pavlov, and rebuild it to your own ends. I’m not saying that it’s impossible to create a killer – a lengthy deconstruction of someone’s personality, fundamentally altering their values, could well do just that. But it’s very different to do this with just a man off the street, and Brown’s findings should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt.
suggestions are only accepted because you, the client, recognise them as beneficial.
Source:https://www.palacehypnotherapy.com/can-hypnotise-someone-becoming-killer/
 
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.
Interesting. I would look to the Catholic Church (skulduggery and conspiracy has historically been their stock-in-trade). If they wanted to put ‘miracles’ and whatnot back on the table, the first wedge would be to engage some useful idiots:

http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

https://noetic.org/about/overview

Follow the power and the money trail.
 
I thought this was interesting on Derren Brown methods. It also kinda ties in with what the alleged participant in one of Brown's shows described.













Source:https://www.palacehypnotherapy.com/can-hypnotise-someone-becoming-killer/
Nice post. Human susceptibility to instruction, suggestion and expectation, even as fully formed adults, is quite astounding.

Imagine taking a new born brain and dropping it into this world of ours. The instruction, suggestion and expectation inflicted on this malleable infant would be irresistible, and begins to look a lot like programming. Biological robots? Sure, depending on one’s definition. Free will? Hmmm...
 
I would look to the Catholic Church (skulduggery and conspiracy has historically been their stock-in-trade). If they wanted to put ‘miracles’ and whatnot back on the table, the first wedge would be to engage some useful idiots:
begins to look a lot like programming. Biological robots?
Let me get this straight, you believe you are the victim of a vast international conspiracy orchestrated by the Pope and a cabal of nefarious scientists aimed at stopping you from discovering the truth that you are, in fact, a robot?

Malf, please take yourself in hand before this gets worse.
 
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?
My point is that conspiracy and corruption is unremarkable, and an understanding of history would make that evident. Of course there are many who have an understanding of history and have no idea.

A colleague once responded to me, saying that while she understood that there were other ways of seeing things, she did not want to go there. She had rebuilt her life after a horrendous and abusive marriage. She had achieved a place of safety, peace and prosperity for her self and her kids. She wanted to enjoy that.

I have a family member who is dearly beloved. For her, the very idea of ET and UFOs flips her out. She had a carefully crafted personal reality that would unravel if she did not patrol its boundaries and fend off intellectual Mexicans.

For me, history tells us that conspiracy and corruption are pretty much the bedrock of our culture. But that's a nuanced view. I am a social ecologist by training, so I tend to have a deeply tuned sense of the systemic.

My concern is that I see folk fixated by recently revealed conspiracies that are not properly contextualised. It is all normal. You need to be aware and keep yourself safe. Just don't inflate the importance and novelty.

I have friends who are waking up to the fact that their reality is grounded in bullshit and lies, and they are very excited by their awareness. But its their novelty. They can be like folk who are converted to religion and then are gripped by a passion to spread the good news. Please don't do that. That kind of conversion experience is so self-referential.

I am not discouraging awareness of conspiracies, but I am counselling to pay attention to the ones that are hurting you. If you can avoid them, do so. If you can't, adapt.
 
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.
Hey Charlie

I grew up living this weird, weird stuff. I absolutely get that anybody who has not been exposed to it should be doubtful. My experiences are not yours and I would never expect you to take my word as a basis for your own opinion or belief. But, I would equally expect you'd not doubt my report of my experiences, beyond being unable to resolve a personal opinion.

From my perspective PSI is not 'high strangeness' but normal. In fact its absence from human experience should a cause for concern, because it would mean that something is awry. PSI has been a natural part of human experience that has been undoubted, and even unremarked upon, because it was so normal. It has been only the denialism of materialism that has made it an issue.

Trust me, this is what any fair minded review of the literature will tell any diligent researcher. But check it out by all means. Its one thing to be a hold out against rhetoric and bullshit. Its another thing to refuse to look at, or ignore, the evidence.

I know from your past posts that you are neither careless nor ignorant. So I am puzzled by your argument.
 
Arya, do you have some insight into the Unicorn meme and symbolism? B/c I just laughed at your comment on this thread a short while back, yet . . . Apparently you've tapped into a wavelength, once again, which I'd completely overlooked!

 
More socio-spiritual engineering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership

What we will find in this Orwellian double-speak is the linguistic-level conspiracy--this is how we get "Illuminati" changing meanings in dictionaries from one century and one language to the next.

And 'learned' folks think the debates over colloquial definitions from the time of the printing press and overwhelmingly the more control the power structure has over the narrative is 'equal' and 'open' somehow, today more than ever. Try this: enter into Wiki on a page where you have a truth about something, anything or anyone, just something you know to be true, but not included in the wiki. It will be purged within a week, minimum. Your truth, no matter how true it is, does not matter in the 'collective story' -- what matters is the official agreed-upon truth. Look at old photos of your family and try to tell the 'officials' that folks in rural Czechoslovakia in the 20s might have been 'poor' but they were clearly more healthy, and the sky more beautiful, and the cities more charming, and you will be called a liar in a dozen languages.

But, please, embrace your 'highly spiritual' servitude called leadership.
 
Hey Charlie

I grew up living this weird, weird stuff. I absolutely get that anybody who has not been exposed to it should be doubtful. My experiences are not yours and I would never expect you to take my word as a basis for your own opinion or belief. But, I would equally expect you'd not doubt my report of my experiences, beyond being unable to resolve a personal opinion.

From my perspective PSI is not 'high strangeness' but normal. In fact its absence from human experience should a cause for concern, because it would mean that something is awry. PSI has been a natural part of human experience that has been undoubted, and even unremarked upon, because it was so normal. It has been only the denialism of materialism that has made it an issue.

Trust me, this is what any fair minded review of the literature will tell any diligent researcher. But check it out by all means. Its one thing to be a hold out against rhetoric and bullshit. Its another thing to refuse to look at, or ignore, the evidence.

I know from your past posts that you are neither careless nor ignorant. So I am puzzled by your argument.
This is not my experience at all, I did not find high strangeness to be a part of my open experiences in any way growing up, but rather a dulling and skirting of anything remotely out-of-the-ordinary. I grew up with the much more common experience I would say of those in middleburg USA, neither with faith nor with liberty to any authentic degree. What I've found from my upbringing in this odd middle-of-the-road existence was a failure of discernment and a blind acceptance of expert opinion. Even if that expert opinion has just groped your daughter's ass.

But what I learn from your response often enough, and indeed from this forum from time-to-time in general, is a beautiful way to communicate beyond my current level of desire or craft, and I am inspired and humbled by that alone.

Not that this is required for my interest and participation necessarily, the learning on its own is enough, but it is like the cherry on top, so thanks. :)
 
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.
Fair enough. As long as you recognize my own right to view the bulk of the mainstream narrative as equally infectious steaming piles of crap. Ya'll might need to stay away from my brand of crazy, anti-vaxxer, conspiracy cook that I am, fair enough. But please, tell me how I can stay away from all y'all, b/c the walls are closing in!

So, as two rationally-driven individuals trying to steer clear of our own version of crap from the outskirts, how might we find alliance?
 
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?]
You wouldn't need hypnosis and its considered academically to be ineffective in making people do anything they didn't already want to do. Instead cult style indoctrination is widely used today, they utilize the processes of conditioning and stockholme syndrome among others to turn deeply abused people into willing accomplices over a long span of time. Check out the cult videos of heavens gate or read about Isis recruitment. They use strategies based on the pain vs pleasure principle, they condition people with positive and negative reinforcement for good or bad acts, they behave cruelly and threaten or use violence to create people who are more afraid of their indoctrinator than they are of the commands and eventually they may come to identify with their indoctrinator as a way to escape their anxiety and thus become willing accomplices.

In addition to hypnosis not helping you tell a person to jump over a bridge unless they were already suicidal, hypnotic suggestions fade over time which makes it pretty un-reliable for things like sleeper agents I would imagine.

I'm sure hypnosis is used in some way as well as various techniques considered to be hypnotic in nature but I doubt they are the deciding factor, rather less skilled indoctrinators probably use a kitchen sink approach while most would not bother with hypnosis at all when simple threats work better.

Common Hypnotic techniques used for indoctrination are probably things like Mantras (as seen in most cults today), Visualization training, dissociations or desensitizations but as already mentioned these aren't really that effective especially not over short periods and hardly at all when compared to non-hypnotic techniques.

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.
I don't have more information on this specific show than the youtube video as maybe he's addressed these suspicions elsewhere but simply going on the video if I were in his shoes and we have similar enough understandings of psychology then I would just do multiple shoots of this experiment and air the ones that were successful. Also, a stage show is not likely to yield low results like 60% in my opinion because there is a need to fulfill a certain role when one is on the stage, they also probably vet people who come on the show as being more suggestible
 
Last edited:
Yes but look at dpdownsouth's link that I was discussing here:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...itual-engineering-392.4215/page-5#post-126273

There is reason to believe that Brown's shows are a complete pretence.

David
That would certainly be a shame. I think the videos I've seen that he's done such as hypnotising a person to shoot a target or this recent one to kill a cat could be genuinely made, though many more techniques than hypnosis would need to be used. It's possible there is a lot of theater going on simply because it needs to be presentable, no one wants to see the 3 people who failed to kill the cat etc.
 
Last edited:
Your truth, no matter how true it is, does not matter in the 'collective story' -- what matters is the official agreed-upon truth.
This is such an important idea. A collective truth cannot match an individual truth - but neither is invalidated by the other's lack of matching. A few years ago I was talking about growing up in our family home with my sibling on those rare occasions when we come together. One sister observed, after hearing my recollection, that it did not seem to her that we had grown up in the same home. Other siblings echoed that to each other. And yet we had the same experience at large - but very individual at the same time.

There is an old thing about the blind men holding parts of an elephant. To one, holding the ear, the elephant is thin and flexible. To another, holding the tail, it is long and cordlike. And so on. Their error is obvious to the listener. And yet our language habits train us to assert seemingly objective truths, rather than describe personal experiences. So my friend says "It is cold." She means that she feels the temperature is cool enough for her to want a heater on. But that is not what she says. Personal experience is conveyed as objective truth. We all do this.

Likewise we articulate shared experience as if it were objective truth and not shared experience. And when shared experience becomes the signal of what is real, individual and non-conforming experience becomes, variously, illegal, heresy, stupidity or madness. Now and then it becomes genius, but mostly not.

Our experience of life is our experience. But we learn, in order to survive, to tell it in ways that do not trouble the shared experience. Mercifully, these days the shared experience is fragmented, and centralised power is largely broken, save in certain cultures (work, institutional, cultural). So we have a chance of validating our own truths.
 
I have friends who are waking up to the fact that their reality is grounded in bullshit and lies, and they are very excited by their awareness. ...They can be like folk who are converted to religion and then are gripped by a passion to spread the good news.
I don't believe this can be avoided.

On the Right we call this: "What level woke you at?". :)

It's also similar to the Seven Stages of Grieving.

It can be therapeutic (eventually), but it can also be quite dangerous during the Anger and Depression stages.
 
Hey Charlie
I grew up living this weird, weird stuff. I absolutely get that anybody who has not been exposed to it should be doubtful. My experiences are not yours and I would never expect you to take my word as a basis for your own opinion or belief. But, I would equally expect you'd not doubt my report of my experiences, beyond being unable to resolve a personal opinion.
From my perspective PSI is not 'high strangeness' but normal. In fact its absence from human experience should a cause for concern, because it would mean that something is awry. PSI has been a natural part of human experience that has been undoubted, and even unremarked upon, because it was so normal. It has been only the denialism of materialism that has made it an issue.
Trust me, this is what any fair minded review of the literature will tell any diligent researcher. But check it out by all means. Its one thing to be a hold out against rhetoric and bullshit. Its another thing to refuse to look at, or ignore, the evidence.
I know from your past posts that you are neither careless nor ignorant. So I am puzzled by your argument.
Hi Michael, um, you quoted my post, but addressed Charlie (as in Charlie Primero). I'm going to assume your post was directed my way.

Yes, I completely agree that PSI is very real and somehow a fundamental aspect of existence. My use of the word weird was in clarifying a point for Charlie from a previous post in which I called PSI and the paranormal 'irrational'. Irrational in that they undermine some of the fundamentals of Aristotelian Logic, specifically the concept of the excluded middle (something is either A, or not A). So, in the above way, the paranormal is highly boundary dissolving and undermining of binary oppositions (internal/external, imagination/reality, dead/alive, object/subject, past/present, etc).

So, the paranormal is, again, in a very specific and literal way, irrational and weird - it's a liminal (border) phenomena.

Do you see what I'm trying (perhaps inarticulately) to get at?

I think it can be very challenging (it was for me) when people first look closely at NDEs, OOBEs, UFOs, psychedelic experiences, 'abductions', etc. The superficial popular view of the aforementioned phenomena give the impression that they can be quite easily sorted into various classifiable boxes, closer inspection reveals them to be far trickier subjects.

So, I was wondering if imposing a conspiracy theory over the paranormal (eg. That all UFO 'abduction' experiences are screen memories implanted by a government mind control program) wasn't an attempt to rationalise and impose structure on an inherently irrational and deconstructing phenomena?

And I get this need - unprepared engagement with the liminal can be a slippery slope and lead to some unhealthy states. This danger is probably more pronounced for us moderns, raised as we are in a highly complex, rationalised society. That being said, even traditional societies have rituals and other means of containing the potential runaway aspects of the liminal.

Best.

You wouldn't need hypnosis and its considered academically....
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I found it very, very educational and interesting, genuinely. I guess my beef with Derren Brown comes from the fact that he does use disingenuous framing of his shows. For example: In one episode he claims to defy conventional expert opinion and produce, via hypnosis, a sleeper assassin, walking around unawares, waiting for his trigger to shoot a public figure. And we could call it entertainment and leave it there, fine. But he also produces shows in which he claims to use hypnosis and other techniques to debunk a range of paranormal phenomena.

To me, there's a hypocrisy at play here - claiming to be a sceptical voice of reason while producing misleading TV.

Anyway, thanks again for the great posts.

Interesting. I would look to the Catholic Church (skulduggery and conspiracy has historically been their stock-in-trade). If they wanted to put ‘miracles’ and whatnot back on the table, the first wedge would be to engage some useful idiots:
OK, leaving behind attempts at smart-assery, yeah, you're right, funding and its effects on research is a big issue. But if the methodologies used hold up to close scrutiny, well, then the research stands on its own merits.
Nice post. Human susceptibility to instruction, suggestion and expectation, even as fully formed adults, is quite astounding.
For better or for worse, we're definitely social creatures. And while I can see this having a big evolutionary advantage, I'm still not sure how much of it is down to nature vs. nurture. Either way, I don't think anyone here is claiming that biology has no shaping effect on consciousness.

Fair enough. As long as you recognize my own right to view the bulk of the mainstream narrative as equally infectious steaming piles of crap. Ya'll might need to stay away from my brand of crazy, anti-vaxxer, conspiracy cook that I am, fair enough. But please, tell me how I can stay away from all y'all, b/c the walls are closing in!So, as two rationally-driven individuals trying to steer clear of our own version of crap from the outskirts, how might we find alliance?
Please don't remind me of that post. :) I said earlier in the thread how I regretted taking such an adversarial approach. I still do. Check out my reply to Michael Patterson for the context in which I've been using the words irrational and rational.
 
Last edited:
Please don't remind me of that post. I said earlier in the thread how I regretted taking such an adversarial approach. I still do. Check out my reply to Michael Patterson for the context in which I've been using the words irrational and rational.
Remember that people don't always read posts in any particular order, so if you don't like what you wrote, I suggest you edit it and add an extra sentence - maybe in bold - explaining your change of mind.

David
 
Top