Michael Tsarion on God and evil: Sitchin and Icke Redux

[GRiM]

"Hmmm - what is your take on him now"

-- I find his work lacking in the scientific approach, just because something is written in the Vedas or the bible does not make it true, but like I said, the positive thing was it
kinda made me interested in things beside the UFO phenomena, but when I started to study it myself I found other work that resonated better with me, or made more sense
to me.
For example, I thought that the evolution solved all questions regarding our history and his work provoked me/challenged me to disprove it and made me look into the "atlantien"buildings (Stephen Mehler - The Land of Osiris) and so on.. which lead me to signs of the times :)

"Is it an odd occurrence for you to be invited to dinner by him like this?"

-- I find it very odd, the only conversation we have had is a few emails (Around 5-6 I guess) so I'm also wondering whats this is all about. I have never met him before, or talked to him via phone or anything.
First I thought I would pass it up but later I thought it could be a fun experience, I even emailed foofighter about it to get a more objective view on it.

" It will be interesting to hear how it goes."

--Will keep you all updated!

 

[Jingle_Bells]

I think Tsarion has a lot of good stuff to say and he has never indicated that he is the supreme authority on anything and that you should just listen to him and stop thinking for yourself.

Laura comes off very much like she is the be-all-end-all and virtually only legitimate researcher out there. I know she doesn't think she come off like this, but she does. I've read the first 3 Wave books, the Secret History and most of the 9-11 and High Strageness books and there is a lot you have to take with a huge grain of salt, to put it mildly.

Laura says as an adaptation of Anna Salter, "Make careful and slow choices about any individual, teaching, material you assimilate to your psyche, and when you see the tiniest indication that something is amiss, make a fast decision to exclude it."

Exclude the tiny bit of error or the entire teaching? The impression I get from all this "beware of cointelpro" stuff is that you underestimate the intelligence of your readers and don't believe they've learned the truly essential teaching that I, at least, personally get from the Wave material: that you should learn as much as possible and develop the ability to discern what is true, probable, improbable or false.

This goes for pretty much everyone you are harping about. Icke, Rense, Blavatsky, whatever. There is virtually no one, including SOTT, that I agree with more than about 65%. My own beliefs are completely mutable and subject to change at any point where compelling info. is come across. Perhaps I have a few (thousand?) lifetimes left to go before I find people to agree with more frequently. I don't know.

Plus, people need to learn the cold, hard lessons of being wrong and growing from the suffering imposed on them.

I just get the impression of massive censorship on this forum. I mean, if you are reading any of Laura's material, you aren't too naive and impressionable. If you were, you would have not read past the intros of any of the books.

For instance, I would recommend all sorts of insane reading to get you acclimated to the depth of the human psyche. That would include the Bible, Koran, Marquis de Sade, Crowley, and the Satanic Bible. No, I don't subscribe to any of it, but it is essential reading.

Tsarion, Icke, Mother Goose... Read it all and THINK!

 

[ark]

I think Tsarion has a lot of good stuff to say and he has never indicated that he is the supreme authority on anything and that you should just listen to him and stop thinking for yourself.

You can think whatever you want. But where are the data?

Laura comes off very much like she is the be-all-end-all and virtually only legitimate researcher out there.

This is not what we write. We simply point out the nonsense, and there is a lot of nonsense around. But to reveal the nonsense requires WORK, and not so many people wish to work. All too many prefer to have just OPINIONS. Opinions are cheap.

I know she doesn't think she come off like this, but she does. I've read the first 3 Wave books, the Secret History and most of the 9-11 and High Strageness books and there is a lot you have to take with a huge grain of salt, to put it mildly.

And that is EXACTLY what we are calling for again and again: take everything critically. Research, research and research more. How else can you get to the TRUTH?

So, tell me, where is YOUR research?

Laura says as an adaptation of Anna Salter, "Make careful and slow choices about any individual, teaching, material you assimilate to your psyche, and when you see the tiniest indication that something is amiss, make a fast decision to exclude it."

Exclude the tiny bit of error or the entire teaching? The impression I get from all this "beware of cointelpro" stuff is that you underestimate the intelligence of your readers and don't believe they've learned the truly essential teaching that I, at least, personally get from the Wave material: that you should learn as much as possible and develop the ability to discern what is true, probable, improbable or false.

Where is your research? What do YOU have to offer to other people?

This goes for pretty much everyone you are harping about. Icke, Rense, Blavatsky, whatever. There is virtually no one, including SOTT, that I agree with more than about 65%.

65%? I would say: suspicious. Too much!

My own beliefs are completely mutable and subject to change at any point where compelling info. is come across. Perhaps I have a few (thousand?) lifetimes left to go before I find people to agree with more frequently. I don't know.

As long as you follow your beliefs - you wll not be different from the masses. They BELIEVE - whatever they choose to. And, following their beliefs, they do whatever they choose to - however evil it may be. You miss the essential point: Knowledge is not the same as, and not even close to, belief. Knowledge we advocate, belief we don't.

Plus, people need to learn the cold, hard lessons of being wrong and growing from the suffering imposed on them.

That is what WE are learning all the time. But to be wrong one first has to propose something - something original. What have YOU proposed? What is your contribution to science and culture?

I just get the impression of massive censorship on this forum. I mean, if you are reading any of Laura's material, you aren't too naive and impressionable. If you were, you would have not read past the intros of any of the books.

For instance, I would recommend all sorts of insane reading to get you acclimated to the depth of the human psyche. That would include the Bible, Koran, Marquis de Sade, Crowley, and the Satanic Bible. No, I don't subscribe to any of it, but it is essential reading.
Tsarion, Icke, Mother Goose... Read it all and THINK!

If you mean learning about psychopathy, then your selections are indeed good ones.

 

[Jingle_Bells]

I think Tsarion has a lot of good stuff to say and he has never indicated that he is the supreme authority on anything and that you should just listen to him and stop thinking for yourself.

You can think whatever you want. But where are the data?

I'm not going to go through Tsarion's work here.

Laura comes off very much like she is the be-all-end-all and virtually only legitimate researcher out there.

This is not what we write.

No. And neither is it what people write who you accuse of the same faults.

We simply point out the nonsense, and there is a lot of nonsense around. But to reveal the nonsense requires WORK, and not so many people wish to work. All too many prefer to have just OPINIONS. Opinions are cheap.

Yes, and that is up to each individual, including your underestimated readers. And if you look through your own work, you will see that not all if it is exactly circumspect.

I know she doesn't think she come off like this, but she does. I've read the first 3 Wave books, the Secret History and most of the 9-11 and High Strageness books and there is a lot you have to take with a huge grain of salt, to put it mildly.

And that is EXACTLY what we are calling for again and again: take everything critically. Research, research and research more. How else can you get to the TRUTH?

So, tell me, where is YOUR research?

Yes, and you seem to be defeating that recommendation with your obsession for obviating research from nearly everyone else. My research? I am a musician who looks to researchers such as yourself for guidance in things not immediately available from the standard stock of mainstream garbage.

Laura says as an adaptation of Anna Salter, "Make careful and slow choices about any individual, teaching, material you assimilate to your psyche, and when you see the tiniest indication that something is amiss, make a fast decision to exclude it."

Exclude the tiny bit of error or the entire teaching? The impression I get from all this "beware of cointelpro" stuff is that you underestimate the intelligence of your readers and don't believe they've learned the truly essential teaching that I, at least, personally get from the Wave material: that you should learn as much as possible and develop the ability to discern what is true, probable, improbable or false.

Where is your research? What do YOU have to offer to other people?

See above. Maybe I should write something if all you can do is deflect criticism onto your loyal readers.

This goes for pretty much everyone you are harping about. Icke, Rense, Blavatsky, whatever. There is virtually no one, including SOTT, that I agree with more than about 65%.

65%? I would say: suspicious. Too much!

Yes. Point made.

My own beliefs are completely mutable and subject to change at any point where compelling info. is come across. Perhaps I have a few (thousand?) lifetimes left to go before I find people to agree with more frequently. I don't know.

As long as you follow your beliefs - you wll not be different from the masses. They BELIEVE - whatever they choose to. And, following their beliefs, they do whatever they choose to - however evil it may be. You miss the essential point: Knowledge is not the same as, and not even close to, belief. Knowledge we advocate, belief we don't.

Evil: subjective. Knowledge: ineffable. Belief: the only capability of the human mind. Me: I don't commit myself to belief; I don't claim knowledge and I don't believe those who do and then say that reality is infinite.

Plus, people need to learn the cold, hard lessons of being wrong and growing from the suffering imposed on them.

That is what WE are learning all the time. But to be wrong one first has to propose something - something original.

Says who? Originality has nothing to do with it.

[ark=quote]What have YOU proposed? What is your contribution to science and culture?

See above. Absolutely nothing. If it were up to me, I would have invented the world's best beer and standup comedy routine.

I just get the impression of massive censorship on this forum. I mean, if you are reading any of Laura's material, you aren't too naive and impressionable. If you were, you would have not read past the intros of any of the books.

For instance, I would recommend all sorts of insane reading to get you acclimated to the depth of the human psyche. That would include the Bible, Koran, Marquis de Sade, Crowley, and the Satanic Bible. No, I don't subscribe to any of it, but it is essential reading.
Tsarion, Icke, Mother Goose... Read it all and THINK!

If you mean learning about psychopathy, then your selections are indeed good ones.

That's exactly what I mean. What's your point? Sorry the formatting is off, but my message is clear. I have the greatest respect for Laura and the SOTT. Why you are so confrontational is very perplexing. I am a loyal reader and you don't seem to be able to take criticism constructively. I would suggest that, instead of whitewasing other authors, you specify what it is that is suspect about them and, possibly, point out things you do agree upon. I'm not going to respond to your reaction to this post, since the formatting and flow of posting is becoming very incomprehensible. I'm not interested in arguing with you. I think you do great work and I have been buying your books. Why you would ask me to prove my credentials is curious. If you really want to know, I am a hedonistic derelict and smoke weed while watching FOX News. Kay? Right. Now maybe you can take a step back and regard what I say as an impartial observer.

 

[anart]

I have the greatest respect for Laura and the SOTT. Why you are so confrontational is very perplexing.

Let me see if I can help you understand:

Laura comes off very much like she is the be-all-end-all and virtually only legitimate researcher out there.

Do you see that this is an insult - it does not reflect any 'respect' at all. Your whole post followed this insulting flavor - thus the response you received.

I am a loyal reader and you don't seem to be able to take criticism constructively.

Perhaps that is because it was not offered constructively - it was offered in a derogatory manner.

I would suggest that, instead of whitewasing other authors, you specify what it is that is suspect about them and, possibly, point out things you do agree upon.

This is exactly what occurs, actually. Could you give an example of 'whitewashing' other authors? What usually happens is critical analysis where both colinear points and clear disinformation points are highlighted. Why is this aspect lost on you? Could it be an example of 'black and white' thinking on your part?

I'm not going to respond to your reaction to this post, since the formatting and flow of posting is becoming very incomprehensible. I'm not interested in arguing with you. I think you do great work and I have been buying your books.

Apologies, but this contradicts your previous post.

Why you would ask me to prove my credentials is curious.

Because you are 'tearing down' - thus, when someone comes here and starts to tear down, it is helpful to know exactly what body of work they have behind them that might support what they are saying. Or, if they have no body of work, whether they are just spouting off their own cloudy opinions of things. If you've read the works, then you must understand that opinions have no value here.

If you really want to know, I am a hedonistic derelict and smoke weed while watching FOX News. Kay? Right.

Well, that's better than a Republican. ;)

Now maybe you can take a step back and regard what I say as an impartial observer.

It seems to me that Ark was regarding what you say impartially and it is you who are having an emotional reaction to his 'calling you out' on your comments. The critical analysis of both the work here and the work of other authors is taken very seriously, so when someone such as yourself makes derogatory comments as you have made, it is taken seriously as well - meaning that exactly what is going on and where these comments are coming from needs to be understood. Ultimately, this is all done so 'you' can gain a more full understanding of what goes on here - assuming you are open to actually learning such things.

 

[Jingle_Bells]

I have the greatest respect for Laura and the SOTT. Why you are so confrontational is very perplexing.

Let me see if I can help you understand:

Laura comes off very much like she is the be-all-end-all and virtually only legitimate researcher out there.

Do you see that this is an insult - it does not reflect any 'respect' at all. Your whole post followed this insulting flavor - thus the response you received.

Yes I do. This was in response to your insulting flavor towards Tsarion and all the other supposed "conintelpro" targets. However, I very much respect Laura and SOTT. I would not have bothered to buy or read the books if I thought they were unworthy of my time. Your accusations initiated the insulting flavor.

I am a loyal reader and you don't seem to be able to take criticism constructively.

Perhaps that is because it was not offered constructively - it was offered in a derogatory manner.

It was reactionary to the deragatory manner in which you seem to be directing your "conintelpro" invective.

I would suggest that, instead of whitewasing other authors, you specify what it is that is suspect about them and, possibly, point out things you do agree upon.

This is exactly what occurs, actually. Could you give an example of 'whitewashing' other authors?

No. I don't have time to go over the finer points brushed upon in the extensive seven-page or so repartee of the Tsarion epic. The fact that these are all under "conintelpro" or "baked noodles" seems to justify my stance.

What usually happens is critical analysis where both colinear points and clear disinformation points are highlighted. Why is this aspect lost on you? Could it be an example of 'black and white' thinking on your part?

I didn't read the entire thread. The overwhelming impression from the first few pages was that Tsarion was proclaiming to be the absolute authority on whatever subject and that he was implying that his listeners were supposed to not think for themselves.

I'm not going to respond to your reaction to this post, since the formatting and flow of posting is becoming very incomprehensible. I'm not interested in arguing with you. I think you do great work and I have been buying your books.

Apologies, but this contradicts your previous post.

I'm responding to your newly formatted post. I'm responding to anart, not ark. I do think you do great work. My previous post still contends the insubstantiation of your thread.

Why you would ask me to prove my credentials is curious.

Because you are 'tearing down' - thus, when someone comes here and starts to tear down, it is helpful to know exactly what body of work they have behind them that might support what they are saying. Or, if they have no body of work, whether they are just spouting off their own cloudy opinions of things. If you've read the works, then you must understand that opinions have no value here.

That is part of the 35% I disagree with. There are facts of a certain superficial nature. See previous post: Knowledge: ineffable. Belief: the only capability of the human mind. Me: I don't commit myself to belief; I don't claim knowledge and I don't believe those who do and then say that reality is infinite.

If you really want to know, I am a hedonistic derelict and smoke weed while watching FOX News. Kay? Right.

Well, that's better than a Republican. ;)

Now maybe you can take a step back and regard what I say as an impartial observer.

It seems to me that Ark was regarding what you say impartially and it is you who are having an emotional reaction to his 'calling you out' on your comments.

I don't believe in impartiality or objectivity. You can call me out all you want. My main contention is that Tsarion has a great deal to teach people and he has never implied that he is an absolute authority on anything and that people should stop thinking and trust him.

The critical analysis of both the work here and the work of other authors is taken very seriously, so when someone such as yourself makes derogatory comments as you have made, it is taken seriously as well - meaning that exactly what is going on and where these comments are coming from needs to be understood. Ultimately, this is all done so 'you' can gain a more full understanding of what goes on here - assuming you are open to actually learning such things.

comprende

 

[ark]

I would not have bothered to buy or read the books if I thought they were unworthy of my time.

So, this is why you read Satanic Bible. Now we understand. :)

 

[Jingle_Bells]

I would not have bothered to buy or read the books if I thought they were unworthy of my time.

So, this is why you read Satanic Bible. Now we understand. :)

Hail Satan, full of Grace. :)

 

[domi]

For instance, I would recommend all sorts of insane reading to get you acclimated to the depth of the human psyche. That would include the Bible, Koran, Marquis de Sade, Crowley, and the Satanic Bible. No, I don't subscribe to any of it, but it is essential reading.

Call me curious, but have you read all the books you are recommending and if so what did you take away from all of them?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I have the greatest respect for Laura and the SOTT. Why you are so confrontational is very perplexing.

Let me see if I can help you understand:

Laura comes off very much like she is the be-all-end-all and virtually only legitimate researcher out there.

Do you see that this is an insult - it does not reflect any 'respect' at all. Your whole post followed this insulting flavor - thus the response you received.

Yes I do. This was in response to your insulting flavor towards Tsarion and all the other supposed "conintelpro" targets. However, I very much respect Laura and SOTT. I would not have bothered to buy or read the books if I thought they were unworthy of my time. Your accusations initiated the insulting flavor.

In other words, "You made me do it." You are blaming others for the flavor of your post. You are deflecting responsibility for your own actions. The only person responsible for the tone of your posts is you.

I don't believe in impartiality or objectivity.

BS in, BS out. Subjectivity, or "egotism of the natural world view" as Lobaczewski calls it, is a self-fulfilling prophecy; a tautology. It will always prove itself correct. "Can I trust this criticism? No, because it cannot possibly be impartial or objective." False premises will always produce faulty conclusions. But then again, if you don't believe in objectivity, then I doubt you believe in "falsity" either.

 

[Jingle_Bells]

For instance, I would recommend all sorts of insane reading to get you acclimated to the depth of the human psyche. That would include the Bible, Koran, Marquis de Sade, Crowley, and the Satanic Bible. No, I don't subscribe to any of it, but it is essential reading.

Call me curious, but have you read all the books you are recommending and if so what did you take away from all of them?

Bible, yes; Koran, some; Sade, most; Croley, some; SB, no. Bible: Foundation of Western Culture; Koran: Old Testament Rehash; Sade: Fountain of Poetic Perversion; Crowley: Majikal Mishmash.

 

[anart]

~sigh~ - and I was approaching it as if you had an open mind and were actually looking to learn something. Your cup seems to be full.

Yes I do. This was in response to your insulting flavor towards Tsarion and all the other supposed "conintelpro" targets. However, I very much respect Laura and SOTT. I would not have bothered to buy or read the books if I thought they were unworthy of my time. Your accusations initiated the insulting flavor.

You didn't even read the entire thread - you are clearly highly emotionally invested in Tsarion and feel personally insulted that this forum does not agree with your subjective assessment of him and other disinformation artists. You are taking the assessment of them personally - that indicates that you have some very large sacred cows about them and are unwilling to open your mind widely enough to see that you are mistaken.

BS in, BS out. Subjectivity, or "egotism of the natural world view" as Lobaczewski calls it, is a self-fulfilling prophecy; a tautology.

Bingo.

 

[Jingle_Bells]

In other words, "You made me do it." You are blaming others for the flavor of your post. You are deflecting responsibility for your own actions. The only person responsible for the tone of your posts is you.

"FlavOUr", Mate. Fouyre Youyre Infouyrmatioune: The Devilye mayde mye doo iyt. Ooyps... Iye meyne... Weylle, actuallye Iye ayme thee incarnayte fleysh of the Trinitye of thee Devilye's Spawn, The Devil's UnHoly Dis-Spirit, and Devil's Almighty He-Man Head-it-it-ity.

I don't believe in impartiality or objectivity.

BS in, BS out. Subjectivity, or "egotism of the natural world view" as Lobaczewski calls it, is a self-fulfilling prophecy; a tautology. It will always prove itself correct. "Can I trust this criticism? No, because it cannot possibly be impartial or objective." False premises will always produce faulty conclusions. But then again, if you don't believe in objectivity, then I doubt you believe in "falsity" either.

I prophesize that I don't care. My sole point in this entire saga is that Tsarion has a lot of very valuable things to say and he never implied that you should just listen to him and stop thinking for yourself.

 

[Miss Isness]

I prophesize that I don't care. My sole point in this entire saga is that Tsarion has a lot of very valuable things to say and he never implied that you should just listen to him and stop thinking for yourself.

Hi Jingle Bells,

I think the problem with your point is that it doesn't matter what he said or implied. If people's minds are getting shut down by what he's saying, he doesn't need to tell them to stop thinking for themselves.

I'm talking about agents of disinformation in general, and sometimes they are people with the best of intentions that just can't see how their own programs interfere with their ability to be objective. They may actually be trying to wake people up when instead, they are putting them to sleep, or helping them to continue sleeping. There's also the conscious agents that know better than to tell rebels what to think, they just wrap up their BS in an enticing package and wait for the inevitable.

I'd suggest trying to keep your wounded ego in check long enough to do a little more research here. You don't have to change your mind about this particular issue - just be respectful and patient and you'll find that others will be that way with you too.

 

[nf3]

My sole point in this entire saga is that Tsarion has a lot of very valuable things to say and he never implied that you should just listen to him and stop thinking for yourself.

Hi. Your assertion here is rather vague. Maybe you could list some of the valuable things he says and explain how you've benefited from them?