Jim Marrs is not a Scientologist |340|

#22
Alex, your guest lost a lot of credibility when he tried to compare Hubbard to some of the truly great science fiction writers. Battleship Earth sucks. I know that I'm being harsh, but it's a terrible book.
I think different science fiction writers appeal to people for different reasons. I really like Greg Egan, because in several of his books some of the main characters are software beings, or start out as humans, and then their brains then get uploaded to a computer!

Greg Egan is a materialist as far as I can tell, but when you read his stories (e.g. "Permutation City") they show up the problems associated with software consciousness in stark relief!

David
 
#23
I think different science fiction writers appeal to people for different reasons. I really like Greg Egan, because in several of his books some of the main characters are software beings, or start out as humans, and then their brains then get uploaded to a computer!

Greg Egan is a materialist as far as I can tell, but when you read his stories (e.g. "Permutation City") they show up the problems associated with software consciousness in stark relief!

David
I don't see you comparing Greg Egan to Asimov. There are reasons certain books are considered classics. And I'm pretty sure that you are not on Greg Egan's payroll. So your opinion as stated is likely to be a sincere effort to share something you enjoy rather than a paid advertisement aimed at unloading a crappy book.
 
#24
I agree with you... I think it was a big misstep on his part. I'm also surprised he didn't do more research into this controversial group before taking the deal.
But it's difficult to avoid negative stories about this cult.

I'm not saying it has happened in this instance, but I would not raise Scientology above collecting 'dirt' on folk to get what they want.
 
#25
But it's difficult to avoid negative stories about this cult.

I'm not saying it has happened in this instance, but I would not raise Scientology above collecting 'dirt' on folk to get what they want.
Yes, but surely we measure the worth of a podcast by what is presented - not on whether the author has links to Scientology - he certainly was not pushing that cult - unless I missed that bit.

There is a danger of being infected by contemporary politics, in which it is possible to dismiss what someone says, by the merest hint of scandal or a non-politically correct remark!

David
 
#26
I think a more appropriate question might be:

Is Jim Marrs a Scientologist or just a useful Wog?

https://scientologymoneyproject.com/tag/jim-marrs/


interesting... thx for sharing this. I did come across the fact that 2 of Jim's books are on the recommended reading list for advanced Scientologists.

I agree about Jim's willful ignorance. I'm hoping this interview might nudge him in another direction.

The bit about Prouty's over-the-top endorsement of Scientology was interesting. then again, this was at a time when a lot of people thought Scientology was another self-development program... so we just don't know.

The part about L. Ron Hubbard being sheep-dipped is almost certainly true... and it was interesting to hear someone say that directly.

Finally, I think Josh Reeves has done some interesting work, but I don't get what he's driving at re JFK. I mean, there are some really unexplored angles along the lines Peter Levenda has hinted at, but most of the big pieces seem to be pretty well understood... e.g. LBJ, Hoover, LHO/CIA, Mafia.

I found this article very helpful (made me re-think what we think we know about L. Ron Hubbard and the CIA):
http://www.wanttoknow.info/mind_control/scientology_remote_viewing

and Gordon's post is great also:
https://runesoup.com/2013/07/very-bad-company/
 
#27
There is a danger of being infected by contemporary politics, in which it is possible to dismiss what someone says, by the merest hint of scandal or a non-politically correct remark!
I agree... and I'm surprised some folks seem to think I took it easy on Jim... boy, I thought I hit him pretty hard. and his responses were not strong... I think that clearly comes thru in the interview.

so, we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out. this is the first time (at least that I'm aware of) he's been asked about this.
 
#28
I agree... and I'm surprised some folks seem to think I took it easy on Jim... boy, I thought I hit him pretty hard. and his responses were not strong... I think that clearly comes thru in the interview.

so, we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out. this is the first time (at least that I'm aware of) he's been asked about this.
I found it somewhat suspicious how Jim was so well informed in so many areas of society and yet seemed conspicuously uniformed about all the cultish aspects of scientology.
 
#30
On the subject of mind control, everyone should watch this. Quite incredible.

I tried to listen to this, but I guess I just don't have the patience for high production value made for TV docs anymore... Podcasts at 1.5x have a much higher information/time density. [/humblebrag]
 
#31
Finally, I think Josh Reeves has done some interesting work, but I don't get what he's driving at re JFK. I mean, there are some really unexplored angles along the lines Peter Levenda has hinted at, but most of the big pieces seem to be pretty well understood... e.g. LBJ, Hoover, LHO/CIA, Mafia.

I found this article very helpful (made me re-think what we think we know about L. Ron Hubbard and the CIA):
http://www.wanttoknow.info/mind_control/scientology_remote_viewing

and Gordon's post is great also:
https://runesoup.com/2013/07/very-bad-company/
That is a great timeline in the wanttoknow link... and when I have time I want to study it in more detail.

I kind of had to laugh when Josh Reeves connected Ron Paul and Michael Moore in the same group... they, along with others in the truther movement are allegedly connected to Scientology by their hatred for the pseudo-science known as psychiatry? I mean come on... there's a lot of people with negative opinions on psychiatry. Well that just makes me wonder if certain nefarious elements didn't wage a war against Scientology simultaneously infiltrating it and steering it and demonizing in order to prevent it from side tracking the plot to reconstruct the mass psychology and culture as outlined by Huxley? But I'm certainly no expert. Most of what I know about Scientology I learned today skimming things in between actual work.
 
#32
I kind of had to laugh when Josh Reeves connected Ron Paul and Michael Moore in the same group... they, along with others in the truther movement are allegedly connected to Scientology by their hatred for the pseudo-science known as psychiatry? I mean come on... there's a lot of people with negative opinions on psychiatry. Well that just makes me wonder if certain nefarious elements didn't wage a war against Scientology simultaneously infiltrating it and steering it and demonizing in order to prevent it from side tracking the plot to reconstruct the mass psychology and culture as outlined by Huxley?
that kinda what I was thinking... I'd never say this publicly (;)) but the deep MKULTRA connections make me wonder if some folks aren't looking at Scientology as some kind of lab experiment.
 
#33
Gosh. Hmm. I was right on board with this interview, right up to the point that this guy started espousing his political views. Hillary=Socialism, and Trump=Everything Our Founding Fathers Envisioned For Our Great Country. Are those pearls of wisdom from his top-notch investigative reporting? Or does the investigative journalism come in with his statement about all of the illegal voting in the last election? For someone who claims we're all mind controlled by the "liberal" media he sounds an awful lot like that other large non-liberal media outlet. First of all, let me tell you why Hillary didn't win the election, it had absolutely nothing to do with our rejection of the "march towards socialism" and everything to do with the fact that...Everybody hates Hillary Clinton! Even us Socialist Democrats didn't like her. Trump won because he ran against the absolute only person he could beat. Period.

And, unfortunately, because I listened to this interview on my radio instead of Skype, I was unable to witness the copious amount of drool coming out of Alex's mouth as he gushed all over this meatball.

This interview would have been better served on a ham radio.

What the hell has happened to this show? If fucking sucks now.

Over and out.
 
#34
I enjoy listening to Jim Marrs, entertaining for sure. But his 'they're nice people' attitude towards the Scientologists is kind of cringeworthy to me. I was raised in a religion that is perhaps just one rung down from it, Mormonism. Many Mormons are very nice people, my family are very nice people. But being raised in a religion that DEMANDS your money, time, strict obedience, and absolute loyalty is scary. I know, I lived it growing up hard-core mormon. I'm sure there are many nice Scientologists, but I don't want to get very close them.

I'm also gay, and being gay in a cult-ish environment that demonizes you is SCARY. All the while I was being put through one of those so-called pray-the-gay-away programs in my early 20s, meeting in Mormon church houses, meeting with the leaders in the church's headquarters, they had smiles on their face. But it was a thoroughly destructive and awful experience.

I actually became interested in NDE's (and is why I follow Skeptiko) because I had to figure out if the religious fear-mongering was correct, or if it was nonsense. When I saw that a lot of people were reporting experiences that were transcendent, uplifting, loving and beautiful, I realized there was a huge disconnect between the 'loving' environment I was raised in and what seemed to be the actual larger reality of existence.
 
#35
Gosh. Hmm. I was right on board with this interview, right up to the point that this guy started espousing his political views. Hillary=Socialism, and Trump=Everything Our Founding Fathers Envisioned For Our Great Country. Are those pearls of wisdom from his top-notch investigative reporting? Or does the investigative journalism come in with his statement about all of the illegal voting in the last election? For someone who claims we're all mind controlled by the "liberal" media he sounds an awful lot like that other large non-liberal media outlet. First of all, let me tell you why Hillary didn't win the election, it had absolutely nothing to do with our rejection of the "march towards socialism" and everything to do with the fact that...Everybody hates Hillary Clinton! Even us Socialist Democrats didn't like her. Trump won because he ran against the absolute only person he could beat. Period.

And, unfortunately, because I listened to this interview on my radio instead of Skype, I was unable to witness the copious amount of drool coming out of Alex's mouth as he gushed all over this meatball.

This interview would have been better served on a ham radio.

What the hell has happened to this show? If fucking sucks now.

Over and out.
Please don't leave, its lonely being one of the few progressives left. It kind of staggers the mind how this show has made such a right turn. I'm still trying to get my head around how I can share what seem like very important ideas around the nature of reality and then am left agape by the cognitive dissonance of what appear to me to be bat shit crazy political ideas.
 
#36
Please don't leave, its lonely being one of the few progressives left. It kind of staggers the mind how this show has made such a right turn. I'm still trying to get my head around how I can share what seem like very important ideas around the nature of reality and then am left agape by the cognitive dissonance of what appear to me to be bat shit crazy political ideas.
Maybe if you are forced to look at things differently you might see that 'bat shit crazy' has been the norm for years, whichever side you're on.

To me it's some sort of universal pushback or something. Obama was really no different to Trump where it counts, he was willing to turn a blind eye to things that can not go on without their having consequences. It is Karma, of that I feel certain, without really knowing what karma is.
 
#38
Please don't leave, its lonely being one of the few progressives left. It kind of staggers the mind how this show has made such a right turn. I'm still trying to get my head around how I can share what seem like very important ideas around the nature of reality and then am left agape by the cognitive dissonance of what appear to me to be bat shit crazy political ideas.
IMO, Democrats and Republicans are as bad as one another. Think Obama was an exception? Read this Guardian article here: remember that the Guardian is a lefty newspaper.

I myself regard myself as neither right nor left in a political sense, but note the left have their own species of batshit crazy, prime amongst which is its virtue signalling (e.g. on CAGW) and its dismissal of half the population as mentally inferior simply because the latter hold a different opinion on many issues. If it were up to the left, it would become illegal to express dissenting ideas. They've almost made it that way already by pushing political correctness, safe spaces, and general intolerance.

I agree that the reason Hillary didn't get in was in part because so many people, even Democrats, disliked her. But would anyone else have beaten Trump? I'm not so sure about that. Pretty much any other candidate would have been seen as part of the establishment that many have come to despise. A vote for Trump was a vote for a change as much as anything. If the establishment on both sides couldn't find better candidates from a nation of 300 million people, well, what does that say about the establishment? To me it says it has become complacent and ensconced in an elitist bubble that people can't relate to.

In the fullness of time, who knows: there may be a miracle and Trump may achieve something (mind you, he won't if the Democrats can possibly help it). We Brits remember this:


Was Ronald Reagan a bad president? I don't know, and won't find out by asking Democrats, who put up Hillary as a candidate despite her many failings. They're angry at half the people of their own nation for what was their own crass ignorance of, and indifference to, the public mood for change -- any change, so long as it wasn't more of the same, left or right.

The right bombs people in other countries, and so does the left. At least the right are somewhat more open and obvious about it: they're more transparent than the virtue-signalling left, which I really don't think knows what the heck it wants unless it's a self-hating society that wants to commit cultural suicide.

Is Donald Trump on the right or the left? Actually, I'm not sure; for better or worse, he may be his own man. I will be looking on with bemused interest during his presidency and hoping for the best whilst bracing for the worst. Like it or not, that's what we'll all have to do, won't we?
 
Last edited:
#39
I agree that the reason Hillary didn't get in was in part because so many people, even Democrats, disliked her. But would anyone else have beaten Trump? I'm not so sure about that. Pretty much any other candidate would have been seen as part of the establishment that many have come to despise
I think that's a bit of wishful thinking Michael. I think Bernie would have been acceptable to enough of those voters who couldn't stand Hillary, to make the difference. What would have been interesting, would have been seeing if Bernie would have made a difference, or if his 'talk' would be forgotten once he stepped into the chair of power.
 
Top