Richard, thank you for these interviews. I like the way you ask very pertinent questions and then let the interviewee say their piece without interruption. I
also appreciate Alex's approach, which is to challenge, poke, prod, interrupt, and have his say at the same time as finding out what his guest has to say - but that's a by-the-by.
For ease of reference, I have already responded to this video (and related topics) in your later thread, re your interview with Mike Williamson, mostly
here,
here, and
here.
This is a follow-up to all of that (in a sense a reiteration), but especially having also (re-)listened (just prior to writing this post) to your interviews
with Dr. Joachim Schnackenberg and
with Claire Broade, as linked to earlier in this thread.
There are a couple of things that I want to note and comment on, which I will first present as two separate strands that I will then bring together. Firstly, Dr. Schnackenberg's approach seems to me to be an eminently respectful one: to simply accept the view that a client expresses (as to what the voices "really" are), and to work with that client regardless of their view. He goes into very interesting detail as to how voices that might initially seem malevolent - inasmuch as they say things like "This b***h should end her life" - ultimately end up being benevolent - in the sense, in that same example that he gives, that they are really just angry at the voice-hearer for not standing up for herself, and that it is only in that she is
not standing up for herself, and living the life that she ought to, that they think that she should
take her own life; in other words, that they are, in a sense, trying to get her (positively) to "pull her act together" (my paraphrasing). This is certainly "tough love" at best, but that's not really the criticism I want to make - like I said though, I'll eventually pull the strands of this post together; for now I'll leave that one hanging.
Secondly, I want to note Claire's admirable sense that she is a positive, compassionate, loving person who is simply not affected in anything other than a short-term sense by malevolence, including by the malevolence of spirits. I note that the one example she provides of having come into contact with a dark energy is of a client whom she prompted to drop all of that negativity, and who left Claire's presence literally feeling lightweight, even though Claire later had to deal with the dropped darkness in the room of her daughter. In a sense, one might suggest, Claire seems to be invulnerable; "immune to evil" due to her overwhelmingly positive outlook on life.
To start to draw these two strands together: there is a sense in which they seem to suggest that there isn't
really such a thing as malevolent spirits; or, at least, that, if there is, avoiding them is simply a matter of keeping a positive outlook. Dr Schnackenberg's approach
might, for example, be seen to suggest that "voices" are merely psychological projections: that if we can transform the malevolent to the benevolent, then perhaps that transformation
by our minds indicates that that which is transformed is
in our minds - and (merely) in our minds alone. Claire's experience
might be seen to suggest something similar: that it is only when we drop our guard and succumb to malicious thoughts that we
create certain negative experiences (of spirits) as a consequence.
Now, I do not suggest that I am a paragon of love and positive thinking. I certainly have my faults. I fall into bad habits. But, before I experienced the radically unexpected transition into "hearing voices", I was a somewhat ordinary guy. The worst that I could say about myself (and it is, no doubt, very bad) is that I teased my sister very unkindly in our younger years. However, she forgave me for that, and, in any case, even throughout those years, we remained close friends. My experiences with "voices" occurred long after that no doubt unkind period of my life.
Here's the point though, and it is (as foreshadowed) a reiteration of one that I made in the Mike Williamson interview thread:
The experiences that I have had with these malevolent spirits
far transcend the possibility of being transformed into the benevolent, or of being simply a susceptibility to a lack of positive thinking.
Those who have read George Orwell's 1984 will recognise that it does
not have a happy ending. The sort of visions that the malevolent presences in my life impose upon me though make the vision of 1984 look like a happy paradise - one where although you might have to warp your mind to (pretend to) believe in the impossible (doublethink), you are at least otherwise free from overt (physical) harm and even "protected" by the Party and allowed your frivolous indulgences (e.g., to buy tickets in the lottery) and to lead a superficially pretend-happy life.
Now, you could say, "The point of the horrific visions these entities force upon you is to transform you into a warrior who fights
against that possibility", which is fine, except that even then, the very existence of those visions - as the sort of
potential future that one
ought to fight against - is proof of the
exceeding malevolence which exists and projects such possibilities upon us (or, at least, upon me).
Maybe one can take a positive, compassionate, loving approach, and never be exposed to the sort of horrors (in the form of visions) that I have... but does that mean that they don't exist? That they are not potential in some form? That if we solely focus on the positive, and ignore the web that the darkness is weaving around us, we will simply be able to cast aside that web if/when it tightens inexorably?
Look at what is happening in China right now. It looks, to me, though I have never travelled there, to be very, very close to a totalitarian state, especially given the technology-based monitoring of its citizens that is happening there, including facial recognition, along with the "social credit" system, and reeducation camps for Uighurs. And in the West, especially the USA but including Australia too, there are all sorts of totalitarian systems being put in place, especially around the ubiquitous monitoring of communication combined with outrageous laws permitting indefinite detention without charge/trial.
Regardless, though, of whether totalitarianism is possible or likely in the real world, my point is simply that I think that neither Dr. Schnackenberg nor Claire Broad have encountered a depth of malevolence that would really
shake them: the sort of malevolence that
wants the sort of totalitarian visions that they impose upon me to be realised. When you come into contact with that level of pure evil - the sort of presence that hates you and all that you stand for to the point that it would do such things to you as I will not recount here, for eternity - then you are unable to rationalise it as being that which could become benevolent through dialogue, nor as a presence that one can be rid of purely through taking a positive, compassionate, loving attitude.
So, this post is, in the end - again - a vindication (my vindication) of Jerry's view (though I have not re-listened to your interview with him to confirm what I remember of it): that there really
is such a thing as disembodied evil, and that it
cannot be explained merely as a masked/hidden benevolence, nor as a lack of positive/compassionate/loving thinking. It is real and it has intent. And it is not wise to ignore your enemy and pretend that it does not exist.