Ennio said:It seems reasonable to me. We want to be as balanced as possible when looking at the deeper darker secrets that have been withheld from us, but we don't want to obsess so much that it colors our views of everything we look at. We want to know the truth of things and understand the nature of reality in as much of its complexity and nuance as possible, sure. But to get stuck in the conspiracy side of things could jam us into a narrow point of view and close us off to other areas of knowledge that we could stand to benefit from.
I did find it interesting that the video managed to stick something vaguely Russophobic at about 1:24 - almost as if to confirm and feed into the idea that the "Russian conspiracy" to subvert the West is real. Or maybe that's just me - seeing anti-Russian conspiracies everywhere! ;)
Bruce said:I saw this today was a bit curious about it. He makes a good argument (osit) about being an intelligent skeptic but can't help wondering if this is some sort of distraction.
Alada said:Bruce said:I saw this today was a bit curious about it. He makes a good argument (osit) about being an intelligent skeptic but can't help wondering if this is some sort of distraction.
There seems to be a mix of truths and distortions there. Overall and just going on impressions, it comes across in a kind of soothing hypnotic conditioning way. The whole patronising child like style of it irks me somewhat too. Also the way it focuses in the end on purely on ideas but on the type of person, there’s an implication/manipulation in the way that’s pitched which is kind of the opposite of what is being said, that together with the overall child like presentation if you believe in conspiracy theories, that’s nice, but the grown ups are oh so much better than that.
Notice the UFO imagery at the outset too, when I think conspiracy my mind usually goes straight to politics, not UFOs! But while we’re on the subject of UFOs though, if he holds that a hypothesis must be thrown out if it can’t be proved, he isn’t trying hard enough! Besides, wouldn’t an intelligent skeptic park an idea, but never totally discard it if it still remains unproven? What happens when new data comes along?
The result, however, IS conspiracy. Humans lie to themselves and others, thereby effectively creating conspiracies. Consider Western politicians making the case for bombing a country, and telling themselves and the public that it is for humanitarian reasons. Later, the fact that these same politicians had shares in arms manufacturers is revealed. Many people cry "conscious conspiracy!" but it may well have been narrative building, with the politician in question so self-deluded that he/she truly believes what they tell themselves and others.
It can go pretty deep too. For example, a politician can be aware that they are BSing the public about the nastier aspects of a military attack on another nation, like the massive death toll for example, but here again the politicians seem to BS themselves and justify the deaths and the public cover up of the deaths because the "general public are too simple-minded or sensitive to understand or accept the "fact" that, ultimately, it's a 'dog eat dog' world out there and you have to "break a few eggs to make an omelette". This may be true, but my problem with it is the assumption that the public would not be able to accept this 'harsh truth' about the way the world works. How do they know if they have never been fully honest with the public about such things?
Carl said:While we're on the topic, I wonder about this also. Do even the most evil of Dr. Evils engage in that kind of self-calming righteous narrative? Like the kinds of satanists described in the above video even. Surely once you take the step into molesting/torturing children, there is no possible positive self narrative. Are psychopaths even gifted enough to make it this far to the top, or does it take an actual soul to consciously choose evil?
“What separates the Conspiracy Theorist from the Intelligent Skeptic is not the possession of some odd-sounding hypotheses; it's what they then go on to do with these hypotheses.
The Intelligent Skeptic knows that hypotheses cannot be sustained indefinitely without evidence. They can be trialed for a time but eventually have to be positively backed up by concrete proof, or else graciously and uncomplainingly abandoned.”
“2. Burden of Proof
Intelligent skeptics know that the burden of proving a hypothesis must invariably fall on them as the challengers to the status quo, and not on the upholders of the established ideology. They accept that it's their duty to show that ghosts really do exist and not the responsibility of everyone else to prove that they don't.”
“Upholding a quarrelsome hypothesis delivers some hugely redemptive emotional pleasures. One often feels empowered and superior to all those who still blindly trust in the status quo. [...] Our job may not be so significant, nor our house very grand, be we, unlike the stuck-up professors, know what really happened...”
Joe said:A certain period in history is usually analyzed by historians long after the event itself, when documents can be 'uncovered' etc. This gives a new and more complex truth to the official story around historical events. Having a good knowledge of those deeper truths allows us to then apply them to modern events, even as history is 'being made' and we are treated to a narrative about what is happening, because it is reasonable to subscribe to the idea that human nature doesn't really change across the ages. This narrative creation is not necessarily a function of conspiracy, but rather of the normal human inclination to BS ourselves and others about our true motivations, why we did what we did, and airbrush to one extent or another, the more disreputable aspects.
Carl said:What separates someone capable of looking at this, from someone who absolutely could not accept it? Is it a deep soul level thing, or just some of us had some misery growing up so are ready to accept the world is miserable, while others still have their rose coloured glasses more intact? Even that is doubtful.
Woodsman said:The one thing the video gets right is in the closing remarks about the ideal position being one where you are internally strong enough to take the world at face value and generally be happy and loving as an individual who is also wise enough to react appropriately when things get dark.
Divide By Zero said:Perhaps this is why the aliens/men in black appear, yet cannot do much in this world. If they are just a potential fed by fear/paranoia, that would explain why Jacobs said that those who fight back stop abductions, etc. The C's also mentioned that Laura had much less abductions in a session because she fought back.
Laura said:October 14, 1995
Frank, Laura, Susan V, Terry and Jan, Tom K
A: Suggest more questions about the goings on at underground facilities. Jan and Terry were visitors involuntary when went to Albuquerque and Las Vegas!
Q: (J) Oh, really! (T) Read it back, I lost it after visitors. (L) You were in an underground base? (T) We were in a front door of an underground base. We were in Carlsbad Caverns, and I know that there's a government facility at the other end of it, and they won't talk about it. (J) Is that what they mean? (T) You're talking about Carlsbad?
Q: (T): When we were in Albuquerque?
Q: (J) And Las Vegas? (T) When we were in Las Vegas, also?
A: Met alien there.
Q: (L) Oh, you met an alien when you were in Las Vegas! (J) Does that have anything to do with the fact that the pictures didn't come out from our wedding?
Q: (T): Ohhhhh... (J) I know exactly what you are talking about.
A: Disguised humanoid gray species four. Rigelian. Orion union STS.
Q: (T) Why did he talk to us? Why did he approach us? I know exactly...
A: Spying on you and aural frequency reading, had you not been as strong, would have suffered permanent abduction because of your studies
Q: (L) Now, right there is a point. Everybody take note of this. What is there about strength that makes one inaccessible to permanent abduction?
A: Strength is of character, i.e. if STO candidate, not likely to be victim.
Q: (L) Not likely to be victim... OK, but what.. (T) STO candidate... (L) I know, but that's... it says when... well, what is it that makes a person... We know that it means being an STO candidate, but what is the thing inside one that stops them... I mean, is this something that is a core ingredient of certain human beings? Is this like something inside them that blocks this manipulation and victimization?
A: Soul pattern.
Q: (L) So in other words, there is something about us, or within us, that literally they cannot touch or harm, is that correct?
A: Basically, but difficult to facilitate.
Q: (L) OK, in other words, this is something that is in us, that creates an inherent barrier, but not necessarily something that we can, at this level of density, reach in, grab out as a weapon, and wave around, as in facilitate?
A: Can, but intricate to do consciously.
Q: (L) Is this some quality or ability that we can work at? I don't think meditation is the answer, this is something that I've come to think... Is this a state of focused awareness, whole body awareness, internal and external, basically whole body awareness... (J) Going with instinct...
Q: (L) Is there something we can do to develop this to the highest degree possible, while in these bodies, in this density?
A: Wait for 4.
Q: (L) Wait for 4? 4th density?
Q: (T) We can't develop it ourselves, but if we... (J) We can start the process... (T) It's a case of not developing it, it's a case of that, if you can do it, it does it all by itself, you don't think about it... (L) It's an innate thing... (T) It's a do, it's an involuntary, it's there, it works when it needs to work. Is this the idea?
A: Network western experiences for learning purposes please. Knowledge is protection.
[Briefly, Terry related the story where he and Jan met the barfly at Vegas World, after having gone downtown to get their marriage license. They had taken a taxi to City Hall, and foolishly decided to walk back to the Strip, in 116 degree weather. They made it as far south as Vegas World, and stopped at the bar inside to cool off. Jan was close to heat prostration, and the barmaid gave her glasses of iced water and an iced towel to put on her neck. They were getting ready to go back out and hail a cab back to Bally's, when they were approached by the "Barfly," who started asking all sorts of personal questions, and seemed to be acting drunk when he wasn't really intoxicated. He became belligerent when Terry refused to show him his Florida drivers license, but switched to disorientation when Terry made the statement "We don't have a problem, here, do we?! Everything's cool, everything's OK! I'll buy you a beer?" While staring the guy down and putting the force of his personality behind the question/statement.]
Q: (T) Before we get too far into this, I want to ask them where we were taken. Because after that, as far as I know, nothing else happened. We just went on about our business, and we didn't see him again... (L) In this story that Terry has just recounted, what instant represents the turning point of resistance?
A: The statement.
Q: (L) What statement? (T) "We don't have a problem, here, do we?! Everything's cool, everything's OK! I'll buy you a beer?"
Q: (T): Because that's when he got confused... (J) You totally nullified the... (SV) Yeah, from the glaring and staring at each other... (T) He was escalating this to a point, and I don't know, it just came to me that the best way to do this was to just stop it right there...
A: Grays and their associates are thrown off by energy flow diversions or thought pattern interruptions.
Q: (SV) That's exactly what they said in Matrix I! (T) Another thing that comes to mind while I'm thinking about it, before it turned ugly, he was leading up to going someplace. (J) Very vaguely, but yes. (T) He was leading up toward, "We ought to get together and go someplace." I think that's when I really shut the whole thing off. (L) OK, now, in this episode where Terry and Jan were taken to an underground base, can you identify the location of the underground facility?
A: Socorro, NM
Q: (J) We were in Socorro, weren't we? (T) We went through Socorro... We stopped at the geological school. (L) OK, what was done to them when they were in this underground facility?
A: Quick exam.
Q: (T) Did we pass? I'm not good on quick exams! Which of the nights in Albuquerque was it we were taken?
Q: (T) We got there Friday afternoon, that would have been Saturday... (L) Who was in charge of this base, this facility? What group?
A: Orion Union STS.
Q: (T) Why did they take us? I know, a quick exam, but why? Because we happened to be there, and we were close by? (L) They said a minute ago because of your studies. (T) Well, they could have taken us in Florida.
Q: (L) They said because of your studies. Well, you happened to be near a base, I guess. Not everybody goes to these bases, you know, these underground facilities. They get taken to ships.... (T) Did we get taken to the base because we happened to be close by at the time when they grabbed us? Was it an opportunity for them?
Q: (T) Did they know we were coming out there?
Q: (T) Why did they follow up with a spy afterwards?
Q: (T) What kind of test? (J) I think we passed... (L) I think that if you'd failed, they said a minute ago, you'd have been permanently abducted.
A: Already answered.
Laura said:February 24, 1996
Q: (L) Now, my memory for dates and times has always been, at best, a little vague. But, lately, it has been really bad. What is the cause of this loss of ability to keep a sequential record of what one does, who one sees, etc? It is really strange.
A: It is not strange. As one "ages" the illusion of time passage begins to deteriorate because your "higher mind" begins to understand the illusion.