Richard Cox, Spiritual Journey Conspiracy |555|

Alex

Administrator
Richard Cox, Spiritual Journey Conspiracy |555|
by Alex Tsakiris | Jun 7 | Skepticism, Uncategorized
Share
Tweet
Richard Cox’s new book examines parallels between conspiracy theory analysis and insights gained through spiritual development.
skeptiko-555-Richard-Cox-2-300x300.jpg
 
A very interesting interview!

I remembered the three-way conversation with Tim Freak on skeptiko. I shared Alex's sentiments on Tim's response about the 'global warming' issue too. There's so much propaganda about global warming and the consequences are potentially so dire for us, e.g. Great Reset / WEF enslavement system, that to be wishy washy and not tackle the evidence is feckless

And a fascinating discussion about David Icke and shape-shifting reptilians. It was through David Icke that I was first confronted with a conspiratorial view of the world too. Btw, the friend of mine in the hostel in Sydney who had the telepathic connection to UFOs (whom I talked about in my interview with Alex), well he was the person who introduced me to the ideas of David Icke. At the time I didn't find it plausible that there could be such a powerful conspiracy. It wasn't till later that I saw the discrepancies about the Iraq war and then looking sceptically at 911 that I realised that there really are massive conspiracies
 
Coincidentally, before listening to the latest skeptiko interview, I posted this in another thread today. It's relevant to this discussion too, so I'll post it here:

https://odysee.com/@BNN:6/David-Icke-Speaks-To-Heart-Nation---Full-Interview:8

Just been catching up with David Icke's latest research. This quote at the 1:01:40 timestamp is fascinating and (apart from whether it's a simulation) it's the point I was making with Alex in the interview:

"This level of the simulation is not the only level of the simulation. There are others. There are after-death levels of the simulation. And the manipulation is not just happening in this reality; it's happening in other realities. And I go into this in some detail" (in the book Icke is currently working on, 'The Trap')
 
A question to Richard Cox and everyone else:
Have any of you also noticed that David Icke doesn't mention the shape-shifting reptiles any more? Or maybe only very rarely (at least that's my impression from what I've experienced in recent years)
 
Excellent discussion. I like Richard's approach to the issues. I'm wondering if the use of the term "extended consciousness" here is in keeping with Antonio Damasio's theory of consciousness — or if it's being used as a convenience term for all sorts of notions about NDEs, remote viewing, afterlives, etc? Or is it being used synonymously with "extended mind" ( Andy Clark & David Chalmers )? Or is it it being used as a chameleon word that morphs around in a manner that fits the user's particular biases — similar to the way the word "spiritual" does?

1654639737435.png
 
Last edited:
Great episode.
Near the beginning Richard mentioned an article he wrote about efforts investigating consciousness from the others perspectives. I'd like to read it.
I always love it when Alex turns up the Skeptiko dial. Setting that bar up high where it belongs!
 
I remembered the three-way conversation with Tim Freak on skeptiko. I shared Alex's sentiments on Tim's response about the 'global warming' issue too.

I hear that Tim Freke may be coming around to the reality of some of these ops. if so, that would be really cool. It's encouraging to see public people like this who are willing to change their position.
 
Coincidentally, before listening to the latest skeptiko interview, I posted this in another thread today. It's relevant to this discussion too, so I'll post it here:

https://odysee.com/@BNN:6/David-Icke-Speaks-To-Heart-Nation---Full-Interview:8

Just been catching up with David Icke's latest research. This quote at the 1:01:40 timestamp is fascinating and (apart from whether it's a simulation) it's the point I was making with Alex in the interview:

"This level of the simulation is not the only level of the simulation. There are others. There are after-death levels of the simulation. And the manipulation is not just happening in this reality; it's happening in other realities. And I go into this in some detail" (in the book Icke is currently working on, 'The Trap')
thx I will re-post my reply:

classic Icke... I mean, he would really have to fully explain his theory and be willing to respond to the kind of back and forth that we had in our interview. for example, how would he process the gregory shushan stuff. Shushan has after death experiences across dozens of cultures and hundreds/thousands of years. and he documents how these experiences changed the lives of millions of people within those cultures.

and to this Icke just says " simulation." seems like an inadequate response.

The point that comes right after this (like around 1:02) it's kind of interesting, " how good is your psychic if she he didn't pick up on the covid hoax?"
 
Great interview.
It sparked a conversation with me and my sisters, especially at the blindness of Alex on a couple of subjects- global warming for the most part.
If I understand Alex's argument, because the expected waters haven't risen, therefore global warming doesn't exist.
And Alex's insistence that it's not worth talking to people who can't get past that comes off as nutty as The Great Reset conspiracy.
For example, every specific detail about the Great Conspiracy doesn't pass the smell test. Most recently passed around was the famous Pfizer CEO interview where he says that by 2023 we will have 50% of the population left... until you actually look at the raw footage and see that he never said that at all. He said that they would reduce the number of people in the world who CAN NOT afford their medicines by 50%. (Typical plutocrat making money off of human misery- Jack insert).
I shared this with a friend of mine who said that it was EASIER to insert words than to cut them out in edits. That was his response.
While I disagree with him, I do agree that there may be something TO the Great Reset idea (in my opinion rich people fleecing us as they've done all through the pandemic) but this particular part was dead wrong.

Similarly, I've yet to hear Alex argue about Global Warming and the other factors. The fact that in Nova Scotia we've seen our climate change significantly in the past twenty years. We've seen invasive species move into Canada that never could exist here. We've got bloody black widow spiders of all things! If you told me we had black widow spiders when I was a kid, I would have called you a liar. They couldn't exist up here in the Great White North. Well, they do now.
We've got perma-frost for the first time in recorded history melting into soupy swamps- no longer perma-frost. We have cruise lines creating routes around the arctic through places that were previously ENTIRELY impassable throughout the entire year. We've got roads to distant communities intractable because they have warmed significantly and they can no longer support transport trucks to provide goods and services.
My sister pointed out last night, that the lupins started to bloom at the beginning of July in Nova Scotia when she moved here twenty plus years ago, and now they are nearly here now. Three weeks earlier, and earlier still all the time.
We have Forest Rangers talking about changes in habitats and different species of birds other animals and fauna dying off because of climate change. We have record forest fires as forests dry up in record time all around the year like kindling waiting for a spark.
We have freaky weather we can't account for.
The lists go on and on.
Now, are their groups of people USING the global warming crisis to create false data, and make bank? OF COURSE. Any crisis for some is an opportunity for others. The more dangerous the situation the bigger the rewards.
This is why for all their posturing, you don't see the powers that be ACTUALLY do anything to change global warming. They are paid off by the oil companies and cartels and the greatest polluters to make it look like they are for change when they are not.
Simply follow the money. While there's a ton of cash to be made on Greenwashing. The REAL money continues the status quo polluting the planet.

That being said, I found that the discussion circles around the natures of people who tend to be articulated in the political left/right spectrums but honestly have more to do with traditional versus innovation and the varieties that come between those.
You may be traditional on social issues but innovative on economic issues.
You could be traditional in religious beliefs but innovative in family ideals.
There are all kinds of varieties and of course, the older you get, the more the traditional aspects take hold.
They tend to also glom on to various elements about safety and security. Someone who is more traditional is likely to be more suspicious of politicians who provide new solutions to old problems and vice versa.

This is why so many people on the political right are so suspicious of politicians talking about LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, higher minimum wage, and the like.
I've noticed that there are three responses to conspiracies from the conspiratorial mindset as to the purposes of the conspirators and those who are fighting them. Take those who have problems with anti-vaxxers. They either are:
1. Deluded by false information and easily lied to
2. Influenced into believing false information about vaccines (lately by the vaccines themselves who people claim with no evidence that they make people more likely to take vaccines)
3. Outright moustache-twisting evil individuals who want to kill most of the population on the planet.

Where is the reasonable argument that these are people who- through their own efforts and studies- have reasonably understood the risks of the vaccines and decided this was the best choice for them healthwise when faced with the first truly global pandemic in modern times?
Isn't that a better descriptive understanding than the prescriptive suggestions of the three above?

I'm always stunned when on one hand Alex can adeptly describe that people dismissing all other evidence- like Near-Death Experiences for example, because one data set doesn't fit are ridiculous when you look at the mountain of evidence otherwise, and yet when it comes to the Pandemic and Global Warming that ideology is flipped.
It comes down to our willingness to support our pre-conceived notions more often than not, than to honestly look at the evidence before us.
J
 
https://odysee.com/@BNN:6/David-Icke-Speaks-To-Heart-Nation---Full-Interview:8

At the 1:15:30 timestamp, I'm wondering what everyone's take is on David Icke's description of the double slit experiment to support the idea that we're in a simulation
It seems to me that he's falling for the back door materialism trap.

the takeaway from the double slit experiment is that consciousness is fundamental. we are in consciousness. we are co-creators of consciousness. wave in the ocean stuff. eckhart tolle stuff.

So you can't switch horses in midstream like icke does at 1:17:30 and start talking about the computational power necessary to sustain the simulation. simulation of what? infinite regress.
 
blindness of Alex on a couple of subjects- global warming for the most part.

I've done several shows on this mainly because my friend rick archer from buddha at the gas pump is pretty invested in the global warming cult. all the guests that rick brought on failed miserably... mainly because there's a lot of good science that contradicts their hokey claims.

even rick himself had to backpedal on the 97% consensus thing... but then quickly added that, despite claiming to be open minded enough to change his mind, the new information he learned from dissecting the cook study didn't change his opinion on global warming.

If you can bring a relatively high level, credible guest on the show I'd be happy to revisit. let me know if you find someone who's interested and I'll take care of the rest.
 
Excellent discussion. I like Richard's approach to the issues. I'm wondering if the use of the term "extended consciousness" here is in keeping with Antonio Damasio's theory of consciousness — or if it's being used as a convenience term for all sorts of notions about NDEs, remote viewing, afterlives, etc? Or is it being used synonymously with "extended mind" ( Andy Clark & David Chalmers )? Or is it it being used as a chameleon word that morphs around in a manner that fits the user's particular biases — similar to the way the word "spiritual" does?

View attachment 2368
The terms "extended consciousness, extended mind, spiritual," etc I understand as poking through the Veil, i.e., brief glimpses or otherwise longer periods of the brain's filtering system going off-line. My conception is that we are, in fact, so deeply connected that our brain & NS have a very hard time keeping us feeling isolated or as a single unit.
Yet I may be writing about one end of the spectrum only. Jon Rappoport tells of a hypnotherapist who has dedicated his life to "un-gluing" layers upon layers of realities that ppl have pasted into place, that they are quite unaware of any "extended realm" of consciousness.
 
Great interview.
It sparked a conversation with me and my sisters, especially at the blindness of Alex on a couple of subjects- global warming for the most part.
If I understand Alex's argument, because the expected waters haven't risen, therefore global warming doesn't exist.

Climate changes. Always has and always will. That's not the question, which is whether or not it's down to fossil fuels. I don't accept that it is, though other man-made environmental influences like proper forest management, stopping razing forest areas for the planting of cash crops, ironically to "combat" the effects of fossil fuels, probably are contributors. And increasingly we're seeing wind and solar energy in various ways as being far worse than oil and coal. To blame everything on CO2 is absurd, making the use of fossil fuels into the new original sin of the environmentalist religion.
 
I've done several shows on this mainly because my friend rick archer from buddha at the gas pump is pretty invested in the global warming cult. all the guests that rick brought on failed miserably... mainly because there's a lot of good science that contradicts their hokey claims.

even rick himself had to backpedal on the 97% consensus thing... but then quickly added that, despite claiming to be open minded enough to change his mind, the new information he learned from dissecting the cook study didn't change his opinion on global warming.

If you can bring a relatively high level, credible guest on the show I'd be happy to revisit. let me know if you find someone who's interested and I'll take care of the rest.

I never understood the whole consensus thing myself. Science is a process not a concensus. I mean it's good if you can find comparative studies that all point to the same conclusion, but that's not the same as belief.
I would like someone to answer even the basic list I provided about what I can demonstrate in Canada.
Thanks for entertaining it!
 
Climate changes. Always has and always will. That's not the question, which is whether or not it's down to fossil fuels. I don't accept that it is, though other man-made environmental influences like proper forest management, stopping razing forest areas for the planting of cash crops, ironically to "combat" the effects of fossil fuels, probably are contributors. And increasingly we're seeing wind and solar energy in various ways as being far worse than oil and coal. To blame everything on CO2 is absurd, making the use of fossil fuels into the new original sin of the environmentalist religion.

That's a bit of a dodge. Climate Change/Global Warming isn't about the natural changes. It's about the rapid onset of Climate Change that has heated the Earth based on Anthropomorphic influence. I've always found it unusual that people think that somehow multiple billions of people on the planet DON'T engage in changes in the environment. I mean we've seen entire forests rendered into cities, plains. Entire lakes and rivers wiped out by various geological changes. But somehow, the idea that climate could be affected is beyond people's imagination?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/

I've also yet to hear ANY effective criticism of James Blalog's videos.

My parents a couple years ago took a nordic tour of Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and others. They got to see in person the death of ice sheets and glaciers. It's hard to say there's no global warming when you have straightforward evidence as these.
https://weather.com/photos/news/glaciers-before-and-after-climate-change

To me, all the scientists number-crunching never beats physical evidence.
J
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kim
https://odysee.com/@BNN:6/David-Icke-Speaks-To-Heart-Nation---Full-Interview:8

At the 1:15:30 timestamp, I'm wondering what everyone's take is on David Icke's description of the double slit experiment to support the idea that we're in a simulation

Havent had a chance to listen yet, but I think the key thing is that reality is a nested fractal. Pick your metaphor. Simulation within a simulation is just a more detailed metaphor than dream within a dream. Russian nesting dolls. A neural network generating and a neural network perceiving/discriminating.


Reality is a nested alternation between environment and localized point of view or subject/object.

At each level there is a frustrated entity attempting to achieve a goal making choices which leaves structure that frustrates other entities which gives them opportunities to make choices which creates still more structures. And at all levels there is acceptance and rejection to refine the ability to achieve the goal.

The only way to collapse this nested structure into the singularity: god/love/light/dark/love/death/oneness is to stop being frustrated… stop desiring… stop thinking… and then it all stops… for a while. But then a frustration comes and the reality machine gets spun up again.
 
My parents a couple years ago took a nordic tour of Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and others. They got to see in person the death of ice sheets and glaciers.

The "death" of the ice sheets... When I hear such language I suspect we're in the frame of psychological warfare
 
to see in person the death of ice sheets and glaciers

Not saying that you're necessarily engaged in psychological warfare, but it is the modus operandi of those pushing the Great Reset / NWO agenda

To me, all the scientists number-crunching never beats physical evidence

I agree. One can see evidence in the landscapes of far more dramatic climate change in prehistory, including evidence of vast cataclysms. This dwarfs anything that has been seen in recent centuries
 
That's a bit of a dodge.

You don't seem to mention CO2. Strange, because thats what most of the hoo-ha is about. The steps being taken against it are IMHO ridiculous -- a prime example of mass formation. People should attend instead to the damage those steps are causing, as well as other possible anthropomorphic influences.

Oh, and also quite natural changes too. Don't forget that we're still rebounding from the little ice age and that historically, CO2 rise naturally follows rather than precedes temperature rise -- a point that Al Gore conveniently obfuscated in his "An inconvenient truth".
 
Back
Top