Les Visible and Smoking Mirrors

[Laura]

"Excuse the sarcasm but his ego and hypocrisy make me really mad." -- Windmill knight

Makes you mad? Or do you choose to be mad?

Quite often, allowing the natural tendency of our emotional natures to express themselves is useful in the extreme. As Clarissa Pinkola Estes writes:

"When instincts are strong, we intuitively recognize the innate predator by scent, sight, and hearing... we anticipate its presence, hear it approaching, and take steps to turn it away. In the instinct-injured the predator is upon them before they register its presence. We have been taught to be nice, to behave, to be blind, and to be misused.

"The young and the injured are uninitiated. Neither knows much about the dark predator and are, therefore, credulous. But, fortunately, when the predator is on the move, it leaves behind unmistakable tracks in dreams. These tracks eventually lead to its discovery, capture and containment.

"Wild Ways teaches people when not to act 'nice' about protecting their souls. The instinctive nature knows that being 'sweet' in these instances only makes the predator smile. When the soul is being threatened, it is not only acceptable to draw the line and mean it, it is required." [Pinkola Estes, June 1997; Ballantine Books ISBN: 0345409876]

The "instinct injured" are those who have bought into any number of variations of "we are all one - it's all an illusion - create your own reality" nonsense. All of that is designed to destroy your natural ability to read reality accurately and respond appropriately.

 

[Windmill knight]

"Excuse the sarcasm but his ego and hypocrisy make me really mad." -- Windmill knight

Makes you mad? Or do you choose to be mad?

Hi Peter. I'd say it makes me mad and I choose to allow it because in this case it's the appropriate response, as explained by Laura.

Welcome to the forum! :)

 

[Rabelais]

At Laura's request I have assembled the email exchange between me and Les, Tuesday last. Les has made good on my request to remove my name from his site, but it is still found at other sites on the web. The viciousness of the attack on Laura, her family and the group are the only reason that I am posting these emails.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 2:07 AM
From: "Rabelais”
To: "Les Visible"

Les,

If you knew that I wanted no affiliation with Humble's snake oil, why would you presume that I would want to be identified by name and location on the world wide web associated with your escalating confrontation with Laura and your drug use?

I may one day need to travel back to the US to deal with family or business emergencies. TSA and customs regularly run internet searches for people entering the states, right at the gate. There I will be in your post, at the top of google, embroiled in your drama and likely denied entrance to the country. Hell I don't even know your real last name. You hide behind a pseudonym that does not appear on your passport documents and yet you out my identity and location in a tangentially drug related kerfuffle. Needless to say I am not f***ing amused at your lack of discernment or external considering.




From: Les Visible
Subject: Re: Thanks a lot pal
To: Rabelais
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 3:17 AM

Jesus you are a prickly sort these days. No one is going to bother you on my account. I'll take your name out of there. You are not identified by location. I had no idea you lived in such a paranoid state. I mentioned you because you were central to the story. My name is Les Visible. I'm not hiding behind anything. It is what my passport says and now you've degenerated to insults and name calling like you were six years old. If you don't have any faith then I am sorry for you and if you have to hide and bow down to temporal powers then I am even more sorry for you. You are really are Establishment programmed aren't you. I never thought there was anything wrong with mentioning you and now it's a drug use thing. Are you really a fundie christian now? You take drugs and I didn't take any drugs there. I'll leave you be but I'm not going to live in fear of powers that have no power but what our fear gives them. All you had to do was ask me to remove your name. You don't know much about what's going on, I'll give you that. if you did you wouldn't be so worried. This is what makes people old and feeble. I recommend you consider what I am saying. I will bear no ill will from this and hope I get a chance to make it up and prove you wrong.

visible


Tuesday, March 29, 2011 4:19 AM
From: Rabelais
To: "Les Visible"

I have not degenerated to insults and name calling. You are projecting. For you to assume that no harm will come from this outing is more projecting. I have extreme faith in my chosen path. It does not include teasing the bear. One man's due diligence could be perceived as paranoia by another who possesses not the total awareness of the other's situation.

You did take drugs when here, Les. Do you not recall brewing tea just prior to the chateau visit? Ask Susanne. It brought a side out of you I was not prepared for. Dissociating, Les?

You can live with any degree of bravado which you choose, just leave me out of it please. Do not presume to know my situations. You do not.

I would like to think that you could and would remove my name from the post, but I fear it is now too late. The link was sent to me from the truthseeker site. It has likely gone to too many other links by now. The hog is out of the tunnel. Please never publish my name anywhere again. I have sensitive business situations in the US, with very conservative colleagues. Being aligned with a blog which in the past has openly solicited for an illegal substance is not in my or their best interests. I hope that you can understand this.




From: Les Visible <lesvisible@****.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks a lot pal
To: {Rabelais}
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 4:59 AM

Okay... I thought about this a little and I can see your angle. You want to keep your tight little ship afloat and I don't blame you for that but my keepers must have wanted this to happen because they never raised a thought in my head about it and they usually do. I operate with total transparency- which makes your knock on my name all the more ludicrous- because of this, I don't factor in everyone else's fears et al. Mostly this never causes a problem for some mystifying reason (not mystifying to me). But with you, it's twice now. The first time you had no real right to send such venom at me and believe me, I felt it. The degree of your contempt and disdain were palpable, merely for my mentioning a product I was not endorsing but commenting on. I guess the proximity to your own material interests seemed challenging AND then, that viper c*nt of a chick who turned out to be, surprise, surprise, a colloidal silver vendor. Now, I don't know one way or the other about silver or MMS. I don't operate from that state but Susanne likes your product and that's enough for me. Your treatment of me at that time should have raised flags but it didn't. I should have known never to mention you again but that consciousness was suppressed in me for some reason. The reason must be what's coming and that you and I, though I love you and think the world of you, should part from our illusion of friendship because I can see very clearly that we would anyway, given the right circumstances. I will depart from your life and trouble you no more. I will officially guarantee you no harmful fallout. I know things you don't about that. Well, the proof will be in the pudding.

Certain things are happening now that are going to raise my profile big time. It's not what I want but that's how it is. You'll see. You need to think a bit about being associated with that pack of rattlesnakes over at SOTT. The emails I am getting about them are voluminous and not kind to them. Frau Laura and her Peterbilt offspring are riding for a fall, not at my hands. You can blame them for this toxic moment. They are the ones who instrumented it and made sure it was brought to my attention. I never thought twice about just saying what really happened. I don't know if you saw what they were accusing me of but it was a tad over the top to say the least and right in the middle of it was that Michael A*** guy who came to visit me and attempted to sexually assault Susanne. He's a very lucky boy that Susanne did not tell me until after he left. Susanne has seen me in action behind that sort of thing and I suspect once was enough. I'm not proud of that side of my nature and it is fast leaving but, at the time, i suspect it would not have gone well for Michael, which may have been the intention of those who sent him.

After the way you made me feel about the first event, I had already realized that I probably should keep apart from you. Your condition would only be challenged by my presence anywhere near it. I had plans for you. I wanted to do things with you and the opportunity for that is just around the corner but... I have to be a realist and all of this has been for that reason, to bring it to my attention.

Maybe you think I'm nuts or close. I think then, what's coming is probably going to be a rather large surprise for you. The people reaching out to me these days could scarcely be called pikers; good thing I'm more discreet than I used to be. I guess you know that eight of my books are scheduled for publication- quality paperback and all the other virtual permutations and Patrick Willis is doing the talking books and we just finished one single album and a triple album, along with that are coming the other media as well. Bottomless pockets are making this a certainty and they are none of them badly associated. Patrick goes to the biggest artistic event in Africa to perform some of the work in a couple of months. But all this is minor compared to what I will keep to myself. I'm not getting grandiose or assuming a false invulnerability. I'd rather pass on the whole thing to tell you the truth but it's happening and I can't stop it without upsetting some really good people. Well set readers are opening their coffers to me and the donation end would be the envy of those sites always crying for money, if they knew.

I sincerely, with all my heart, apologize for injuring you, if only in your imagination; imagined injuries are no less painful than real ones. Of all the seeming friends I have made since I got here, you are near preeminent because I genuinely like you. Because I do really like you I am going to spare you any further insult of my company. This didn't happen by accident. I'm a pretty careful guy, regardless of what you might think and the fact that I didn't get it after you unloaded on me the first time, shows me this was meant to happen.

I don't know what you think about the fact that I have invisible friends but they're real enough. One can hardly expect someone 'looking in' to have the same confidence as one looking out, if that makes sense. My times here now and sh*t is going to happen in ways that, I would have to say, are going to be startling in the extreme. I've known about this for decades but it still shocks one when it finally arrives. I've redacted you at the site and I apologize again, profusely. I never meant to hurt you. I love you and you can imagine how this hurts me and there's nothing I can do about it for the moment, but I will, you may rely on that. I can't tell you what I was looking forward to with us and that hurts me too. You can lay the blame squarely in the prodigious lap of Spider Woman and I would suggest paying careful attention to their operations in the near time as a result of bad behavior.

I should have been thinking but I wasn't. I'm going to have to lay that at the feet of the divine who kept me from seeing what I should have seen and he has his reasons. I'm not abdicating responsibility; I'll take the blame and the full measure of it. I just know I would have caught this usually and I didn't. I wish you well and nothing changes in respect of my good wishes for you or positive acts I might take on your behalf, but you are quit or me in all the ways that will count with you. I see you've sent me another email. Please forgive me if I don't go and read it. I'm too distraught for that right now, just understand, I mean every word I say here and you will see that I do. When I get the chance to do something nice for you I will, otherwise, aloha and be well. i shall trouble you no more.

Love,

visible



Tuesday, March 29, 2011 4:14 PM
From: Rabelais
To: "Les Visible"

My imagination? Les, you have posted on the internet, my full name, general location and associated it with drug use... in my home, where I reside only at the pleasure of the French government. In the process you have also put Laura and the group in harm’s way, Was this your intent? Was this your thanks for their and my hospitality?

I am not trying to make you feel bad, just address the objective reality of the situation.

Do you understand the implications of that blog piece, for a great many people, not just myself? I would hope that you consciously did not grasp the potential danger. I would hope that now you do without marginalizing it. I would also hope that you realize the zero sum game that is this escalating diatribe with SOTT/Laura. SOTT didn't "cut you adrift". The nature of some of the topics you were writing about were simply not collinear with their editorial criteria. I personally admire the standards that SOTT maintains. It keeps the noise to a minimum. When you are on your game, you are still one of my favorite arrangers of the English language. When you are hitting your stride, SOTT has still published your work. I sent you a link a couple of weeks ago. They do not publish all of the work of anybody. To my knowledge no one else has taken it personally.

About that "illusion of friendship" thing... A friend of mine would have thought better than to write and publish the blog in question. My friends and I harbor no illusions... at least not ones that we can see and point out to one another. You do not have to do anything "nice" to be my friend. Just respect my privacy and that of my friends.

Thanks for thinking of me but I already have plans, Les. I think that we have widely differing concepts of the most probable of the foreseeable possible futures - and no doubt arrived at by completely different methods, and with different preparations in place to address and observe it as it unfolds... every day. We will all learn the lessons that we need... one way or the other.


"It is no great accomplishment to hear a voice in the head. The accomplishment is to make sure that it is telling you the truth." –Terrence McKenna

It has been suggested in this thread that I am maybe naive in my perceptions of drug users. I would like to inform those who think thusly that I was working, as a professional musician, in nightclubs from the age of 15. That is over 50 years ago, and before many of your parents had even met. During that time I spent several years as the owner/general manager of a very successful live music club. I have seen psychopathy and drug addiction, up close and personal, in most of its more dangerous manifestations, at one time on a nearly daily basis. My ability to recognize it and deal with it is the only reason that I am here today. This was long before I had ever heard of Cleckley, Hare, Stroud, et al.

 

[Joe]

Just for the record, for anyone coming along and reading this thread and wondering how this all started. The PUBLIC insults were started by Les in June last year.

It began with this post on his blog, by him:

I Forget what it is that I can't Remember Any More

http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-forget-what-it-is-that-i-cant.html

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Well, let’s see. I thought I might give some celebrity to Rense’s eliminating my presence without explanation like so many sites have done. Explanations I do get are never explanations. They are of the variety that ‘someone else is handling that area now’ but I never find out who it is. I don’t care really, it’s the mystery and the hope that someone will out the truth that even causes me to bring it up. Is that enough of a digressing intro? Can you digress before you even have something to digress from? [...]

That was the just first paragraph, the rest involves him rambling on about other things, but he makes it clear here that he is annoyed (why would he write about it if he really didn't care?) that Sott.net (among others) were not carrying his articles. THAT was and is the primary motivation for him joining the defamation gang - his ego. He couldn't take the fact that Sott.net decided not to publish his articles anymore. And Sott.net is apparently not entitled to the right of non-association.

Then someone wrote this comment in response to Les' blog post:

Anonymous said...

I, for one, know you don't care about these sites because of our email exchange from more that a year ago. I've still got the list,

The People's Voice

SOTT= Signs of the Times

Uruknet

What Really Happened, regular linking gone. Members now put you up.

Infowars

The occasional Rense

Except for The People's Voice you never got an explanation from anyone and you wanted one.

This was the first mention of Sott.net and the commentator was referencing Sott, among other sites, that no longer published Les' writings. He seems to be saying that he had an email exchange with Les in 2009 where Les gave him a list of sites that were no longer posting his articles.

Next we have a former Cass forum reader who wrote this on Les' blog, apparently in response to the above:

New Reader said...

@ m_astera

Before you brush away the SOTT team, take a look at this link

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3410.0

or google "Are Russian Jews Descended from the Khazars? Cassiopaea forum".

Their forum link is in the right upper-hand corner of the SOTT page.
That is where you can access a _LOT_ of meaty topics they don't put on their news page.

SOTT news from what I've seen and read in the forums, is the real world skin 'n' bones no BS reporting. Just the facts (sometimes with commentary) jack.

I think for SOTT, it isn't so much that Les Vis is persona non grata as is...he is persona non grata (sardonic smile)

SOTT and Laura Knight-Jadcyzk have repeatedly stated they do not endorse violence and drug use (outside of moderate alcohol and nicotine usage)

aside from that, I do very much agree that ALL of these guys should've given a proper explaination. It's the polite thing to do

Then we have Les' response to him:

Visible said...

New Reader;

I've got a couple of questions. First, what is your connection to SOTT? There has to be one.

Second, what has violence got to do with me. I was at their chateau in France and the only violence I saw was Laura's daughter saying she could kick my ass over and over while I was demonstrating some martial arts techniques in slow motion on someone.

Secondly, when I was there they had an impressive liquor collection of which most imbibed liberally so that by the end of the evening nearly everyone was drunk. I take it that alcohol is okay but the use of other mind altering substances used less than ten times a year is not okay. This despite the fact that alcohol kills more people in one year than all drugs have over a century

Meanwhile most of them smoke as well. I'd like this double standard explained and also an explanation for why my posts, the vast majority of which never mention drugs (and please don't mention this post as it is an obvious parody. I only wish I had something like that)were made verboten.

Many people discovered me at that site and many wrote me wondering why I was no longer there. I never answered that even though I knew.

Gee... someone disapproves of my exercising my freedom of choice which they trumpet as their anthem and yet fail to practice in actuality; all while encouraging me to embrace their causes at Facebook as if we were friends.

I've always been warm toward them and never criticized them. I could find plenty if I wanted to but why would I?

The worst of it is that people will criticize what they don't experience and judge anothers experiences which they aren't present for as if they had some sort of divine prescience.

I've been courteous to them and even tempered; never hassled them for cutting me adrift, tolerated their bogus excuses about why they didn't print me any more. It never mattered to me that much anyway except for failing to tell me the truth which I had to learn from a disgruntled member who sought me out after leaving them. And I missed whatever Michael had to say. I only saw what Rick said.

I bear them no ill will, I just think they're immature as far as understanding certain basic principles of existence. one of these is to consider the message independent of the individual choices of the writer which don't find their way into print. If I started listing exceptional people who changed the world while imbibing in their personal activities I would still be listing them at dawn. it's childish is what it is.

So the end result is that I am slandered (par for the course) while nothing is said about them by me except for these general observations a long time coming.

This is just to set the record straight and I have several good friends connected to them who will bear out every word I have said and then some. The 'and then some' is what you don't get from me.

After that the comments continued with more lies and delusion from Les about Sott.net and his visit here and all sorts of rude and offensive comments made by both Les and others about Laura, her family, Sott.net etc.

Now let's be VERY clear about this, all of this was posted on Les' PUBLIC blog, yet we had made NO public reference WHATSOEVER to either Les Visible or his visit to France. NONE.

Furthermore, all of the above defamation was posted by Les in June 2010. Over the following months we still made NO public comments about Les. We DID however have a short PRIVATE discussion on this forum about his visit here, which was in response to a member asking why Sott.net did not carry his articles any more.

Then a few days ago, at the end of March 2011, for some reason, apparently either because he had nothing better to write about and/or someone from this forum sent him details of the aforementioned PRIVATE thread, (where we had described his visit and the FACT that he arrived here after having taken some form of hallucinogenic drug, was obnoxious and rude and I personally had to ask Rabelais (with whom Les was staying) to take him home under the excuse that he (rabelais) was tired) Les decided to start up the attacks on us again, upping the defamation and hate and cheerleading his deluded readers into believing all the nonsense you have seen in the posts previous to this one on this thread.

As a result, we have now made this thread PUBLIC.

So you decide who is to blame for any of this.

Les is a clearly delusional person without honor or a decent bone in his body. You can identify such types first and foremost by the fact that they quickly resort to attacking and defaming children.

 

[Beau]

It has been suggested in this thread that I am maybe naive in my perceptions of drug users.

I don't think you're naive Rabelais. I think you showed extremely poor judgment when you knowingly took someone on mushrooms to Laura's home. That's not naivete, that's just plain stupidity. What do you think is the cause for such a gigantic lapse in judgment?

 

[Rabelais]

Just for the record, for anyone coming along and reading this thread and wondering how this all started. The PUBLIC insults were started by Les in June last year.

Oddly enough, SOTT ran one of Les' blogs on the front page on the 12th of last month. That pretty much blows the "they don't publish my stuff anymore" rant.

 

[Rabelais]

It has been suggested in this thread that I am maybe naive in my perceptions of drug users.

I don't think you're naive Rabelais. I think you showed extremely poor judgment when you knowingly took someone on mushrooms to Laura's home. That's not naivete, that's just plain stupidity. What do you think is the cause for such a gigantic lapse in judgment?

I certainly have to agree with that, but under the circumstances and with a big dinner prepared and waiting at the chateau, in his honor, and his claiming to be operating stoned most of the time anyway, it being his "normal" state, what would you have done?

 

[Gawan]

"Excuse the sarcasm but his ego and hypocrisy make me really mad." -- Windmill knight

Makes you mad? Or do you choose to be mad?

Welcome Peter, if you like you can introduce yourself in the Newbies section! :)

 

[Beau]

It has been suggested in this thread that I am maybe naive in my perceptions of drug users.

I don't think you're naive Rabelais. I think you showed extremely poor judgment when you knowingly took someone on mushrooms to Laura's home. That's not naivete, that's just plain stupidity. What do you think is the cause for such a gigantic lapse in judgment?

I certainly have to agree with that, but under the circumstances and with a big dinner prepared and waiting at the chateau, in his honor, and his claiming to be operating stoned most of the time anyway, it being his "normal" state, what would you have done?

I would have called and cancelled/re-scheduled the dinner. Considering the circumstances, it would have been more than appropriate. If Les would have taken offense to such a decision and made a big deal, you say you're sorry but you're responsible for your guests and you don't feel comfortable taking him there in such a state.

 

[Mountain Crown]

It seems from Les’ statements (about backers with money) that his ego prevents him from addressing the possibility that there may be people who know him better than he knows himself; that money never comes without strings nor is ever used without purpose.

Since there’s no doubt about Visible’s charisma as a writer already with a following, the scenario could be an illustration right out of Political Ponerology, which Les very likely has never read

 

[anart]

I certainly have to agree with that, but under the circumstances and with a big dinner prepared and waiting at the chateau, in his honor, and his claiming to be operating stoned most of the time anyway, it being his "normal" state, what would you have done?

I don't think it's really productive to ask such questions since it's basically a deflection and what is done is done. If you do 'certainly agree with that', then that's good. I suppose, looking back in such a situation, all that could have been done would have been to contact someone at the Chateau to inform them before taking him over and letting them decide - but again - what's done is done, so I don't think there's much point in 'should haves' - at least I don't see much point in it at this time. fwiw.

 

[Rabelais]

It has been suggested in this thread that I am maybe naive in my perceptions of drug users.

I don't think you're naive Rabelais. I think you showed extremely poor judgment when you knowingly took someone on mushrooms to Laura's home. That's not naivete, that's just plain stupidity. What do you think is the cause for such a gigantic lapse in judgment?

I certainly have to agree with that, but under the circumstances and with a big dinner prepared and waiting at the chateau, in his honor, and his claiming to be operating stoned most of the time anyway, it being his "normal" state, what would you have done?

I would have called and cancelled/re-scheduled the dinner. Considering the circumstances, it would have been more than appropriate. If Les would have taken offense to such a decision and made a big deal, you say you're sorry but you're responsible for your guests and you don't feel comfortable taking him there in such a state.

Hind sight is always 20/20 and given the turn of events that would have obviously been the correct thing to do. But it was no secret at that time that Les did drugs, and mushrooms usually make the consumer mellow, not aggressive. Bad call on my part all the way around.

 

[go2]

Perhaps, something can be distilled from the heat. I do not wish to observe this conflict as dramatic entertainment, but from the perspective of a teaching drama. I recall a passage from Mourvieff on scandal and the necessity to split attention between the vector of scandal and upon one’s motive and behavior in response to scandal.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for an exoterically unevolved person to discern false prophets spontaneously. He will recognize them more easily by their ‘fruits’, by the observable results of their works, which serve as signs(indices). The Tradition knows and teaches a whole Science of signs.

Jesus says:

“It is impossible but that scandals will come: but woe unto him through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea…….

For the time being let us not try to understand the reasons why, as Jesus said, it is impossible that there should not be scandals in the world. We should take this text as a warning, and never forget that it has a twofold significance, as the Lord concluded: ‘take heed to yourselves.’

 

[Hesper]

Since there’s no doubt about Visible’s charisma as a writer already with a following, the scenario could be an illustration right out of Political Ponerology, which Les very likely has never read

Yeah. And even if Les has read Political Ponerology, like he's said, his keepers have a nasty way of doing his thinking for him.

You want to keep your tight little ship afloat and I don't blame you for that but my keepers must have wanted this to happen because they never raised a thought in my head about it and they usually do.

For anyone to call anything or anyone their "keepers" in such a way just reeks of wishful thinking. I mean who wants to be a pet, honestly? For him to go off hurting people, making up stories, and then complain that his "keepers" aren't doing their job of thinking for him is just creepy. Yuck.

Perhaps, something can be distilled from the heat. I do not wish to observe this conflict as dramatic entertainment, but from the perspective of a teaching drama. I recall a passage from Mourvieff on scandal and the necessity to split attention between the vector of scandal and upon one’s motive and behavior in response to scandal.

I may be wrong, but I think that you are trying to actually avoid the heat, rather than distill anything from it. Are you imposing your own interpretation of "drama" and "entertainment" onto the unfolding situation, thereby avoiding it? If so, Laura already posted about this in this thread:

The "instinct injured" are those who have bought into any number of variations of "we are all one - it's all an illusion - create your own reality" nonsense. All of that is designed to destroy your natural ability to read reality accurately and respond appropriately.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Why do you say it is unlikely, when obviously
Les is under the influence, not in control, and is more
likely to become "vile", less inhibitive, showing his dark
side? Somehow he morphed into Mr. Smith?

When one knowingly, a-priori, chooses to put oneself
and others at risk by choosing to be under the influence
of drugs/alcohol/whatever, then one is being highly
irresponsible?

FWIW,
Dan

Perhaps if the "influence" is more cosmic in nature, perhaps brought on by the drug use, rather than just people being planted to lead him into a fruitless direction. As for alcohol, it disinhibits. Some people, when not feeling inhibited, are still pleasant if drunk. For others, alcohol reveals something much more unpleasant beneath the veneer, something that was already there.