Advertisement

Michael Tsarion

topic posted Mon, September 4, 2006 - 11:54 AM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark
I've been reading this guys work and watching some of his lectures and I really find his perspectives are very interesting. He has done a tremendous amount of research on an alternative history of the planet including Atlantis and the historical origins of man and how this effects what we are dealing with today. He also deals with 2012 and many other topics. He really seems to be an accomplished occultist and metaphysician so this knowledge adds to his research.
Website: www.michaeltsarion.com/
Great radio interview from coast to coast: oneheartbooks.com/resources...52406.html
Great lecture on 2012 on Google video: video.google.com/videoplay
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has looked into his stuff and what you think.
peace
posted by:
Unsubscribed
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Michael Tsarion

    Mon, September 4, 2006 - 10:29 PM
    the video is long but quite interesting. This guys good. Thanks for posting this. I like how he talks about consciousness and brings Jungian psychology into it all as well as the emergence of Ego and the need to face ourselves as we are behind the mask of social " accepted" personality.

    I think the greatest thing to realize in the coming years is that there is no "outside". Everything is a manifestation of ourselves, a mirror of our own inner world and the shadow is manifesting more and more if we don' start looking at it and ourselves, confronting our own darkness and unconsciousness.

    We can run away, try to "disconnect" from the system, get into self-sustained living, "preparing" for when "the shit hits the fan. All this is futile and useless if we don't face the "shit" in ourselves, because that is what we keep manifesting.

    I think the best thing we can do in order to heal this world and manifest change for the better is by looking at our own personal shadows and make them conscious, shining light onto darkness. We can talk, debate and discuss all day and night long, but it comes down to each one of us how we take care of ourselves and how much we are willing to face ourselves beyond the ego.

    Pinchbeck also talks in his book about the need to do shadow work and look inside ourselves. Interstingly no one mentioned that aspect of his "message" ( at least I haven't read about it on here yet), which I found the most important part of it.

    For me personally, the aspect of the shadow and the need to confront it, became very apparent in my Ayahuasca expierience in Peru, couple of weeks ago, especially when witnessing people doing some intense shadow work ( see my blog for a little inner and outer report).
    Ayahuasca is an amazing exorsist, a highly sexy one too, I must say. Her beauty is breathtaking.

    No outside, no inside, all one. Physical reality is a projection of our own minds and self. Once this is understood deeply and one is aware of his/her his/her shdow and projections, we may then manifest a reality we conscioulsy want without letting the Unconscious go rampart.

    The future is not set in stone. It's in our minds. And what we repress just doesn't go away. If not looked at it, it comes out neurotic and distorted collectively and personally.


    "When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate"

    "People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to stop facing their sould"

    "One doesn't become enlightened by imagining figures of light but by making the darkness conscious"

    -Carl Jung
    • the shadow knows

      Tue, September 5, 2006 - 7:47 AM
      i couldn't agree more with everything you wrote bernard.

      i actually just shared this with a friend who is facing some pretty intense shadow reflections right at this moment.

      thanks for sharing amigo and welcome back...
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: the shadow knows

        Tue, September 5, 2006 - 12:14 PM
        Hi there. it's good to be back with a fresh cleansing of perception...:-)

        Yes, Shadow work and understanding (and consioulsy applying) how 3D reality is created are key to handle whatever may come.
        Once it is truly understood that the outer equals the inner, then a lot these posts on this forum, which seem to be beased on fear of what might happen and how one is to prepare/protect oneself from an economic collapse or whatever, become obsolete. It's fear based thinking and you might just get what you focus on. It seems we've been manifesting fear long enough. Time to switch. I'd wish people who study econmy and tell us about crashes , etc, would spend equal time in studying consciousness and the nature of reality, it would make things a bit easier.

        This guy Michael T. is on of the few conspiracy reseachers who understands the importance consciousness and our shadow plays in it all.
        Good work.
        • Re: the shadow knows

          Fri, September 8, 2006 - 8:25 AM
          "It seems we've been manifesting fear long enough. Time to switch."

          I think this is a very astute and wise observation, Bernhard.

          Fear is the *intuition* that is behind sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, and all of these myriad conspiracy theories, which people *intuit* must be correct because they are *afraid*.

          Fear of the unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar. Fear of going insane (from the entheogens you're taking or the risk of entertaining "alternative" theories of reality) or of being considered insane by others. Fear of being exploited. Fear of the past. Fear of the future. Fear of different "races". Fear of Jews.

          For me, Michael Tsarion's work (and its acceptance by many people in this thread) is a manifestation of fear, both in the "intuition" that inspired his research and the willingness of people to believe it.

          I completely agree with you that it's time to switch.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Michael Tsarion

      Tue, September 5, 2006 - 1:49 PM
      I'm very much a student of Jungian psychology myself and I like the way Tsarion integrates it into his work. Also one of my really good friends is a Jungian scholar and has just written a new book on how the shadow is playing out in world events today and how its a process we are all dreaming into existence together. You can find Paul Levy's stuff here: www.awakeninthedream.com
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Michael Tsarion

        Tue, September 5, 2006 - 3:01 PM
        From the video. Excellent description about the illuions of the new age movement, specifially the NAF with their various methods, as I like to coin them (New Age Fundamentalists) who think just by looking at the light and ignoring the dark, things will get better. Far off. Entheogens can show you that in the most profound way.


        "The masses of men and women in the western world compulsively avoid true, authentic psychoanalytic investigation of their true natures, particularly in regards the so-called "darker" aspects of the personality (the "Shadow"-Self). However, not dealing with the psyche at all proves systemically hazardous. A compromise is required. Hence, the profileration of the "New Age" Philosophy and movement, together with its many permutaions. Riddled with ego-customized shams and gimmicks, the application of its methods serve, for the most part, to merely bolster the falling ego and its drives"

        "Western man has made himself bereft of the rites and rituals, the rites of passage, the Shamanic methods for dealing with the build-up of dark psychic content. As a result, he is patently psychologically arrested. His avoidance condemns mankind and the earth.
        It engenders psychotic and sadistic leaders, who are able to play on his fears and lower instincts, ad infinitum."



        "My shadow's shedding skin I've been picking my scabs again.
        I've been crawling on my belly clearing out what could've been I've been wallowing in my own chaotic and insecure delusions.

        I wanna feel the change consume me, feel the outside turning in.
        I wanna feel the metamorphosis and cleansing I've endured within my shadow. Change is coming. Now is my time. Listen to my muscle memory.
        Contemplate what I've been clinging to. Forty-six and two ahead of me.

        I choose to live and to grow, take and give and to move, learn and love and to cry, kill and die and to be paranoid and to lie, hate and fear and to do what it takes to move through.
        I choose to live and to lie, kill and give and to die, learn and love and to do what it takes to step through.

        See my shadow changing, stretching up and over me soften this old armor. hoping I can clear the way by stepping through my shadow, coming out the other side. Step into the shadow. Forty six and two are just ahead of me."

        -TOOL "46&2" (one of the few "conscious" bands out there)
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Michael Tsarion

        Tue, September 5, 2006 - 8:48 PM
        Interesting, I heard about Levy a couple of years ago. I'll check out his site.

        Thanks for these posts....seems like they are an extention to what I've experienced in Peru.....synchronicity loves!
        Now I begin to realize more and more how much Jung's work is related to shamanism, which is basically shadow work.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Michael Tsarion

      Sat, September 9, 2006 - 12:22 AM
      "Everything is a manifestation of ourselves, a mirror of our own inner world and the shadow is manifesting more and more if we don' start looking at it and ourselves, confronting our own darkness and unconsciousness"

      I agree- we create out own worlds
  • Re: Michael Tsarion

    Wed, September 6, 2006 - 7:22 AM
    Having studied the literature of Atlantis since 1974, I know that it's a very attractive and appealing myth. However, I entreat anyone with an open mind who is lured by fascination with this "mystery" to consider how so much that has been written about Atlantis (and about visitation by extraterrestrials) can be identified as pseudoscience and pseudohistory:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory

    Michael Tsarion invokes Ignatius Donnelly, who popularized Atlantis in the 1880s:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_Donnelly

    He also give credibility to Comyns Beaumont, who also had strange ideas:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will...s_Beaumont

    Tsarion cites Immanuel Velikovsky:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imma...Velikovsky

    And also Erich von Däniken:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric...C3%A4niken

    The Wikipedia entry on Atlantis is long, but worth reading:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

    For open-minded seekers who can tolerate alternatives to Michael Tsarion, I recommend reading Rodney Castleden's "Atlantis Destroyed":

    www.amazon.com/Atlantis-D.../0415165393

    (Note that you can get used copies very cheap.)
    • Re: Michael Tsarion

      Wed, September 6, 2006 - 7:47 AM
      Personally, I see hints in Tsarion's work of a topic under discussion in another thread:

      2012.tribe.net/thread/817...8649c7e8b6d

      For example, there are echos of Comyns Beaumont's work in the White supremacist, anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement:

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

      I think there is also a racist them in the work of von Däniken.

      Tsarion seems to be developing some very similar ideas. Is the "New Edge" finding inspiration in notions of cultural and racial superiority? I hope I'm not the only one who finds this to be incredibly disturbing.
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Wed, September 6, 2006 - 7:49 AM
        Is this what's meant by "shadow work"? Is it a just a new code word for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism?
        • Re: Michael Tsarion

          Wed, September 6, 2006 - 8:48 AM
          <<Is this what's meant by "shadow work"? Is it a just a new code word for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism?>>

          Are you serious?
          • Re: Michael Tsarion

            Wed, September 6, 2006 - 9:00 AM
            TOOL "46&2" (one of the few "conscious" bands out there) <<< hmmm.... conscious of what? dunno if you know these guys in person, would make a difference as to where my question is begging, and what we mean by "conscious". just curious. i've liked tool and a perfect circle at some point along the path... i wonder where acknowledging the darkness and embracing it go separate ways.
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Wed, September 6, 2006 - 9:11 AM
              although i did just check out www.caduceuscellars.org/, maynards local project which is just down the road from here-- nice site, a bit spooky too, lol! but i guess this takes me back to the michael tsarion site, this all seems a bit thelemic, which has its darker tendancies, which is something to look at, but i wouldn't stare too long... boo!
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Michael Tsarion

              Wed, September 6, 2006 - 9:56 AM
              "TOOL "46&2" (one of the few "conscious" bands out there) <<< hmmm.... conscious of what? dunno if you know these guys in person, would make a difference as to where my question is begging, and what we mean by "conscious". just curious. i've liked tool and a perfect circle at some point along the path... i wonder where acknowledging the darkness and embracing it go separate ways."

              Conscious of the deeper aspects of life. I know Danny Carey (drummer) in person, well we talked here and there.
              We had some interesting exchange about our DMT experiences. He's also very knowledgable in Sacred Geometry and the Occult.
              The song 46&2 is about Jung's work, as Maynard said in the past. For me it is a perfect describtion of an entheogenic journey, where one confronts his/her shadow on order to step through and see the light. But that's me. It makes sense to me.
              Actually the album "Aenima" was heavily influenced by Jung's teachings. The title gives it away, I guess...:-)
              Many people's misconception about their music is that they worhsip darkness and neagtivity. Well, just because the music style is heavy and low tuned doesn't mean that they are satan worhsippers right away. I never understood that anyway, how people think negative of bands who play heavy music, judging them as agressive and violent (not you, just in general). Being a drummer and musician myself, I see music as energy and a vehicel to explore myself. It's art, not entertainment. Playing heavy music and hitting the drums hard and then again soft and light (ist's all about the dynamics and exploring the different levels of emotions for me) feels like ecstasy to me, like being in love, no kidding. It's a release.Very similar to haviing sex (actually I had an interseting experience with my kundalini while playing drums on psilocybin....but that's a different story)
              The musicianship of these guys is insane anyway. Their last tour with these huge Ales Grey artworks on stage was mindblowing.

              I think you might be misunderstanding their music and lyrics. Maynards lyrics always have a touch of sarcasm her and there , but I can only refer to the album "Lateralus" which is the "opposite" of "Aenima" it seems. In the previous albums they kinda explored their own and collective darkness and shadow and it seems "Lateralus" (the stage for that our was designed by Alex Grey, as well as the album art. He's a big fan of the band) is the "reaching of the light" after having confronted that shadow. Just like Alex Grey ( his art in his youger years was quite dark and disturbing) they approach their art in a shamanistic way. I don't seen many bands doing that, consciously at least.
              Conscious, I guess, I mean being aware of the need to make the darkness conscious in order to reach the light, to cleanse and look inside confronting whatever may come up.

              maybe these lyrics from "Lalteralus" are a bit lighter for you:


              Parabola

              We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment,
              We are Choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside...
              This holy reality, this holy experience. Choosing to be here in...

              This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
              This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal all this pain is an illusion.

              Alive

              This holy reality, in this holy experience. Choosing to be here in...

              This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in
              This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal all this pain is an illusion...
              Of what it means to be alive

              Swirling round with this familiar parable.
              Spinning, weaving round each new experience.
              Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this
              chance to be alive and breathing
              chance to be alive and breathing.

              This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
              Embrace this moment. Remember. we are eternal.
              all this pain is an illusion.


              Then again, I'm not here to convince you or anyone to like their music. It's a matter of taste and taste is personal. It's beyond judgment.
              Juat hoping to clarify some of the typical misconcepstions this band is getting.
              • Re: Michael Tsarion

                Wed, September 6, 2006 - 10:42 AM
                i guess its the aggressive nature of that style of music is where i'm heading at. its not the lyrics, i get the sarcasm, the message is standard as far as the occult goes. maybe if i heard the music against some mozart or something a bit more ambient. so i'm obviously just not inclined toward heavy metal anymore and its shading my opinion or observations in a sense.

                i saw the alex grey panels at the Cosm "One" fundraiser (the giving tree) last year in l.a., they are amazing and the music was out of this world!
                (in a sense)

                thanks for your elaboration, i hear where you are coming from and i understand that shedding light on things is essential--
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Wed, September 6, 2006 - 12:06 PM
                  "i guess its the aggressive nature of that style of music is where i'm heading at. its not the lyrics, i get the sarcasm, the message is standard as far as the occult goes. maybe if i heard the music against some mozart or something a bit more ambient."

                  You see, there are times when I listen to Solar Fields and times when I listen to Tool. These days I listen to 99% ambinet music ( I grew up on Soundgarden, RATM, etc), the one percent I listen to Rock is mostly Tool, just because I can't find any other band that touches me with their musicianship and lyrics. (well maybe Porcupine Tree).
                  I see music like nature. It is not always sunshine and flowers, there is rain (there would be no flowers if it wasn't for the rain) and storm as well and different realites and dimensions. I think Tool vibrates more of a masculine energy as well. I don't know many female tool fans anyway. I don't like to use the word aggressive since it has a negative undertone. I think heavy music has its place to channel certain emotions which need to be released. It's all a form of cleansing. I remember as a kid listenign to Pantera and old Metalica. I felt so calm and released afterwards, like floaing on a cloud. It never made me aggressive or angry, the oppostite, it transmuted these emotions into light. At concerts the moshpit or dance floor at moontribe has always been like a rites of passage to me, now I like to sit and ejoy the music. Actually rhythmically Heavy Metal is very close related to trance music, no kidding.
                  It's pretty natural to change music taste over the years. I always found that what music one listens to reflects ones' inner being as music always touches the emotional center and it's all about evolving in the end.
                  Ok I stop, I could philosophy about art and music forever.......

                  Actually I think Solar Fields has some pretty "dark" but beautiful tracks. You should check out the compilation "Oxycanta" on ultimae records. I think you'd like it:
                  www.ultimae.com/en/release...tracks.html

                  also "Carbon Based Lifeform"s are amazing, if you don't know them already:
                  www.ultimae.com/en/release...tracks.html

                  Northern Europe has an excellent Ambient and Psy-Dub scene.


                  I was at the Cosm party last year as well!

                  :-)
          • Re: Michael Tsarion

            Wed, September 6, 2006 - 11:15 AM
            "Are you serious?"

            Yes I am.
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Wed, September 6, 2006 - 11:45 AM
              Intellectual arrogance was the hallmark and the downfall of Atlantis. Being well-read and willing to go to any lengths to enjoy an illusion of intellectual superiority is just a shade less enlightened than a non-judgemental, non-ego-dictated orientation towards moving a discussion towards clarity and a fuller appreciation of essential truths. Normally I tolerate a lot of abuse by ego-driven personalities. .. but sometimes the mix gets so muddled that I have to say, oh yes you are very, very smart...but perhaps what we are wanting is less smart, more wisdom, eh? That was the lesson of Atlantis, and I count myself among the many eye witnesses and participants, so do your research a little further...and while we're on the subject of "myths" don't forget Maldek, which was no myth, I guarantee. I was killed on that planet, which is now just the monstrous asteroid belt beyond Mars. Those Maldekians reincarnated into Atlantis...and the Atlanteans reincarnated into the intellectual elite of today...many of which hold lots of titles of educational ability and dismiss all other forms of knowledge as "outsider" and "mythic superstition".
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Michael Tsarion

          Wed, September 6, 2006 - 10:06 AM
          "Is this what's meant by "shadow work"? Is it a just a new code word for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism?"

          Hoopes, I kinda decided to look past your non-constructive criticisms ( and non-sense), however that statement is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I have nothing to say. I still think we should drink Ayahuasca together. It'll get you a clearer picture of what is meant by "shadow work". Just bring your own bucket.

          :-)
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Wed, September 6, 2006 - 8:43 AM
        What exactly is the "New Edge," in your definition? And how do you make generalizations about it, whatever it is, based on individuals (who may not even use or know about that label, in which case, how do you apply it to them and how can you ask others to generalize about the category?)

        <<Is the "New Edge" finding inspiration in notions of cultural and racial superiority? >>

        Individuals can do anything, and I would also find the above disturbing (though cultures may have strengths in diffferent areas, which means they might be said to be "superior" in a particular specialty) but I am also disturbed by across-the-board generalizations about created categories. I place Individual A in Category X, I declare all of Individual A's opinions to characterize Category X, I place you in Category X and therefore declare you to have all the same opinions as Individual A ...

        If there is anything we need to move out of, it is "package deal" ideologies and belief systems, in which if you accept a certain brand-name religion or political affiliation, you are expected to buy the whole package (conveniently prepackaged for you with an attractive label).
        • Re: Michael Tsarion

          Wed, September 6, 2006 - 12:24 PM
          "What exactly is the 'New Edge,' in your definition?"

          Well, I haven't been put on the spot for this yet, but it's a concept that I felt I grasped pretty quickly. I think the history of the term can be traced to a book called "Mondo 2000: A User's Guide to the New Edge", by Rudy Rucker, R.U. Sirius, and Queen Mu (Perennial, 1992):

          www.amazon.com/Mondo-2000.../0060969288

          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondo_2000

          www.totse.com/en/ego/lite...mondo2k.html

          Many people may not catch the esoteric references, but the names of the authors are allusions to speculative works of pseudoscience such as Robert Temple's book "The Sirius Mystery: New Scientific Evidence of Alien Contact 5,000 Years Ago" (Destiny Books, 1998) and Augustus Le Plongeon's book "Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx" (1896), a book that traced Egyptian roots through the lost continent of Atlantis to the ancient Maya (which remains in print today, 110 years after its original publication):

          www.amazon.com/-Sirius-My.../089281750X

          www.amazon.com/Maya-Atlan.../0766101029

          The spelling "Queen Mu" is also an allusion to Col. James Churchward's pseudoscientific works of the 1920s on the lost continent of Mu (Lemuria):

          www.amazon.com/Lost-Conti.../0914732196

          The "New Edge" is a combination of esoterica, occult, and New Age concepts (including extraterrestrial contact, lost continents, alternative medicine, shamanism, etc.) with psychedelia and entheogens in the context of innovative digital technology, art, and music. An article in last week's Rolling Stone seems to be elevating it to the status of a "movement", which implies an emerging political agenda linked to sharp critiques of multinational corporations, the military-industrial complex, and especially alteration of the natural environment. (All of which were previously targeted in the Sixties.)

          www.rollingstone.com/politic...ic_elite

          I see the New Edge as a revival of many concepts that gained popularity in the early 1960s through the early 1970s, but which went largely underground in the 1980s and are again gaining popularity. It combines the fascinations with pseudoscience and pseudohistory--perhaps as a backlash against the failing credibility of the U.S. government in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq War--with an "edginess" that strives to be confrontational and challenging while at the same time seeking to promote an image that is hip, literate, and intellectual. It is both backward-looking (in terms of a preoccupation with ancient extraterrestrial visitors, lost continents, lost civilizations, and lost wisdom) and forward-looking (in terms of neo-Utopias and a "galactic evolution of consciousness" that is becoming associated with the lore and mystery of 2012).

          However, it's my perception that the same individuals who claim to be exercising sharp critical thinking skills when it comes to refuting traditional authority (in issues of politics, medicine, society, philosophy, etc.) are doing so by seeking refuge in failed theories and speculations that are just as flawed in the new Spiritual Left as they have been in the old Religious Right. What's missing in the critiques, which often rely upon hopelessly out-of-date or erroneous and uncritical authorities of their own, is a recognition of the embedded errors of racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. that are found in "alternative" literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (as well as continuing in related works through the 1960s up to the present).

          Daniel Pinchbeck is just one of a number of individuals who are positioning themselves as representatives of an emerging worldview. Obviously, there are many others, such as Michael Tsarion.

          The New Age has traditionally looked to the positive, healing side of alternative worldviews. However, anthropological studies of shamanism reveal that it has a dark side, too. This part has remained "occult" or hidden in the "New Edge", which is why I raised some concerns. Much of the older literature that has inspired this movement is the same stuff that spurred the pseudoscience and pseudohistory, not to mention the global ambitions and genocide, of the Third Reich. Many of the books of the 1870s through the 1930s are filled with ideas that would today be considered overtly racist, anti-Semitic, and biased by white male northern European cultural perspectives. As George Santayana noted, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

          The preoccupation with imagined Utopias, both past and future, is one of the major characteristics. However, critiques of "materialism" (which ironically echo the complaints of Christian and Muslim fundamentalists) lead to an anti-science, anti-rational perspective that may make it impossible to understand past societies or create viable new ones. An air of superiority is accompanied by a distinct lack of self-criticism and self-correction, perhaps because brashness sells and humility is interpreted as weakness. "New Edge" humor tends to be mocking of others rather than the self-deprecating variety.

          I probably would have written this differently if I hadn't felt compelled to cook up an answer on the spot, but I think this will do for now. Do you think I'm ready to create an entry in the Wikipedia, linked from the entry for New Age?

          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age
          • Re: Michael Tsarion

            Wed, September 6, 2006 - 12:38 PM
            Upon reflecting (to be self-critical), I think I may have gone overboard as critiquing the older literature as being male biased. Two of the "progressive" thinkers of the Spiritualist movement (as the predecessor to "New Edge" was was known in the late 19th century) were Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant:

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blavatsky

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Besant

            Blavatsky's work, in particular, had a decidedly racist slant:

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blav...Criticisms

            For New Edge roots in Spiritualism, check out the Wikipedia entry:

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Wed, September 6, 2006 - 2:06 PM
              ""Is this what's meant by "shadow work"? Is it a just a new code word for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism?"

              I suppose that this question is based on the fact that the concept comes from Jung, and at certain points in Jung's career he expressed ideas that might be described that way.

              So what is meant by "Judaism"? Is that just a new code word for favoring Israeli policies?

              And what is meant by "anthropology" and "archaology"? Is that a code word for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism? After all, anthropology is historically steeped in those sentiments. A lot of "Biblical archaeologists" have anti-Semitic agendas. I'll bet if I checked the authors you cite in your own work, and scoured all their work, I could find examples of such sentiments -- and if not them, then authors that =they= cite, or authors that =they= cite. By your own "degrees of separation" arguments, you can claim that anyone believes anything. By this reasoning, based on the fact that you are an archaeologist and anthropologist, and the fact that there are racist, anti-Smitic, and European nationalist anthropologists, we can accuse you of being a racist, anti-Semite, and Euro/white nationalist.

              Hey, if you believe in package-deal ideologies, guilt by association, and degrees-of-separation, you gotta be consistent.

              We need to quit accepting package deal ideologies, and quit accusing others who embrace one idea of embracing all the ideas of some other person who also shared the one idea.

              Otherwise, are you going to accuse everyone who practices yoga of favoring the oppression of untouchables in India, since both come from Hinduism?

              It's your reasoning, so let's be consistent with it. By your reasoning, everyone who practices Judaism favors the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. After all, the people bombing Lebanon practice Judaism too.

              And...

              <<critiques of "materialism" (which ironically echo the complaints of Christian and Muslim fundamentalists) >>

              Yes, ironic indeed, but not surprising. since fundamentalism is a kind of religious materialism, and materialism a form of fundamentalism. Fundamentalisms are, of course, always in rivalry with one another.

              Critics of Muslim fundamentalism echo the complaints of Christian fundamentalists, and vice versa. So, if you, Hoopes, critique Christian fundamentalism, may we assume you are a Muslim fundamentalist?

              This is what we get with package-deal ideologies.

              Is everyone who listens to Richard Wagner's music a Nazi?

              I used to respect you because I believed that you were intellectually honest. Not any more. It is intellectually dishonest, for example, to imply that Jungians must accept the anti-Semitic sentiments that Jung expressed at certain points in his career. They are not essential to Jung's theories, which remain fully intact and mature even without those elements, and it would be hard to find any contemporary Jungian theorists who cite them, and most Jungians probably have never even heard of them.

              The "New Edge" is a catchy phrase, but you are demonstrating how easy it is to misuse it as another package-deal guilt-by-association catchword through which you can play "six degrees of separation" game between any two ideas and thereby claim that anyone believes anything. I'm sure I could find at least one idea under the "New Edge" umbrella that you embrace. Therefore, you must be a racist, anti-Semite, and European nationalist (which we already knew anyway, since you are an anthropologist).

              Hey. These are the consequences of your package-deal thinking. If package-deal thinking and guilt by association is what you advocate, you should realize it can come back and bite you.
              • Re: Michael Tsarion

                Wed, September 6, 2006 - 2:45 PM
                "I used to respect you because I believed that you were intellectually honest. Not any more. It is intellectually dishonest, for example, to imply that Jungians must accept the anti-Semitic sentiments that Jung expressed at certain points in his career."

                Umm, excuse me. You are reading *way* too much into a comment that I've already retracted. You may not believe this, but my remark had absolutely *nothing* to do with Jung. I was referring only the concept of "shadow" and its implications of darkness.

                You were the one who asked me for a definition of "New Edge". I did my best to comply as honestly as I could. If you didn't like my answer, I'm sorry.

                What I'd most like to see is a well-documented refutation of any implications of racism and anti-Semitism. A positive affirmation that races don't exist and don't matter and that Jews are really okay and not evil would be a good start. Those kinds of statements are rare as hen's teeth around here.
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Wed, September 6, 2006 - 3:15 PM
                  "Shadow" and "shadow work" are Jungian terms that have been around for a long time, regardless of whether someone has managed to trademark the term (wonder how they got away with that, don't the trademark people even check?)

                  All of the discussion of shadow work here was Jungian; none of it had anything to do with racism, anti-Semitism, or European nationalism (except indirectly in the fact that is =part= of the shadow that needs to be worked on) so how could you "seriously" have been suggesting that it was a code word for racism, etc., except via guilt by association? Either association with Jung himself, or with Mr. Tsarion, who apparently talks about shadow work, and who is linked with racism because he mentions von Daniken?

                  So if your remark had nothing to do with Jung, it was still directed at Jungians ... why? You said you were "seriously" suggesting it was a code word for racism. (And I took it as facetious that you retracted it due toat someone having trademarked the term -- a trademark they will probably lose the first time they try to enforce it.)

                  "Shadow" =does= imply darkness. It means the areas we don't see, that we don't look at, that we keep in the dark from ourselves, that we are in denial about. That includes racism, but I don't know how you could possibly have "seriously" suggested it was a code word for racism. Shadow work means looking at the areas of our collective and individual selves that we keep in the dark, in the shadows, and only see when we project them onto others; and then integrating our shadows. That was what was being discussed here, and since there was not a hint about racism, anti-semitism, European nationalism, etc., how else could you have linked it to racism (as a "code word") except by guilt through association, with Mr. Tsarion if not with Jung?
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Wed, September 6, 2006 - 4:14 PM
                  <<A positive affirmation that races don't exist and don't matter >>

                  Do social classes exist? Do organizations exist? Do ethnicities exist? Do religious groups exist? Do governments exist? Do any of them matter? Obviously races are social constructs, but do social constructs not exist and not matter?

                  <<and that Jews are really okay and not evil would be a good start. Those kinds of statements are rare as hen's teeth around here.>>

                  No one around here has made a positive affirmation that Inuit are okay and not really evil. That means that this tribe is anti-Inuit, right?

                  Who is the official spokesperson for the "New Edge" who can issue an official New Edge position paper? Everyone speaks for himself or herself. I think Jews are really okay and not evil (of course, Jews are individuals like everyone else and there likely are some not-okay evil ones) but what does it matter if I say that? Someone else may have a different opinion from mine, and you seem inclined to see only certain opinions as the "official doctrine" of the "New Edge."
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Michael Tsarion

            Wed, September 6, 2006 - 1:06 PM
            Do you think that perhaps the reason why there is a certain level of tolerance for racist and sexist ideas in the "New Edge' and New Age is because the anti-establishment and countercultural influences have positioned the movement against academic culture? As someone with one foot in each world, so to speak, I have seen a certain attitude in the academy to be immediately dismissive of anything too "supernatural" or "woo woo", or anything transpersonal yet unproven, let's just say. And I have seen that this sort of dismissive attutude has set up a reaction in the world of New Age/New Edge, to be dismissive of the academy in turn.

            Much of the ideas and philosophy that challenge ideas of racism and sexism emerged from the academy as part of the postmodern/poststructuralist movement, with ideas of relativism vs. essentialism, colonialist vs. postcolonialist perspective, etc. These ideas solidified as part of campus culture and became known dismissively as political correctness. These philosophical concepts provide valuable insight into the nature of the human condition, but perhaps they now bear the taint of the academy, and the baby has gone out with the bathwater. People like Michel Foucault and Edward Said have spent their entire lives contemplating the nature of humanity, but because they don't speak of chakras or vibrations, does that mean their work is empty?
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Wed, September 6, 2006 - 2:20 PM
              "Do you think that perhaps the reason why there is a certain level of tolerance for racist and sexist ideas in the "New Edge' and New Age is because the anti-establishment and countercultural influences have positioned the movement against academic culture?"

              I don't think so, myself, because, well, in the first place I don't know these people who are tolerant of racist and sexist ideas (this "New Edge" thing is even more slippery than "New Age") and in the second place, the academy itself has a long history of racism and sexism and is only barely emerging from that.

              I think that what characterizes this amorphous movement -- at least, the New Age -- is an extreme, perhaps excessive, tolerance for =anything=. It's kind of New Age etiquette never to criticize anyone's ideas, to be open-minded to literally anything at all. (I'm guessing that the "New Edge" is a politicized New Age that at least criticizes Bush, etc.) That pole of extreme ultra-openmindedness has its place in the process that our species is going through..
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Michael Tsarion

                Wed, September 6, 2006 - 5:43 PM
                "the academy itself has a long history of racism and sexism and is only barely emerging from that. "

                So true, that is.

                "I think that what characterizes this amorphous movement -- at least, the New Age -- is an extreme, perhaps excessive, tolerance for =anything=."

                Yes, and perhaps I am confusing the values of "the academy" with those of mainstream or aggregate society. There are certain subjects that are generally regarded as being nonsensical or inappropriate so that one embracing these ideas often has their credibility challenged by those around them. Something like being contacted by an alien intelligence might fall into this category, and so does racist thought. But what happens when one *experiences* something like telepathy, or communicating with a spirit or disembodied intelligence, and one is rejected by those around them when attempting to absorb this experience? Suddenly there is a realization that all the things we previously assumed were "true" are up for reevaluation. So, for some people the convention that racism is bad, sexism is bad, etc. goes out the window as well. I hope that this convention would be replaced by a deeper understanding of why prejudgement is an unhealthy way of thinking. But that is not everyone's experience. It is a million individual processes that led us here, and that makes the "movement" hard to pin down (and do we really need to?), and it also accounts for the many differences of perspective on these issues (and others).
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Wed, September 6, 2006 - 6:20 PM
                  << It is a million individual processes that led us here >>

                  And that's why creating a category, based on some amorphous commonalities, and then making broad generalizations based on a few individuals who share those commonalities, is so obnoxious. Forget nuances, forget seeing people as individuals... just invent stereotypes.

                  Manny, what you describe -- is that a generational thing? For me and my generation, rejecting racism and sexism was part and parcel of rebelling against the "establishment," but it sounds as though you are describing a mental set in which "racism is bad, sexism is bad" IS seen as "establishment" values, and rebellion or questioning established values includes questioning that? May I ask what age group you are talking about? What you describe is so diametrically opposite from my own experience that I have never heard of this before.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Wed, September 6, 2006 - 7:41 PM
                    Well, it might be somewhat of a generational thing...I'm 30...but I certainly don't think it applies to everyone. there are plenty of people my age and younger who are actively breaking down gender and cultural barriers every day.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Wed, September 6, 2006 - 8:10 PM
                    My perspective is also informed by work that I did researching hate groups like Volksfront. They are mostly made up of under-30 crowd and have a very mystical/spiritual slant to them. Mostly having to do with Northern european folk religions like Asatru (which is not to say all Asatru practicioners are racist!!). But anyways one of their major recruiting lines was this idea that you can't talk about this stuff because it's "bad" and therefore it becomes like forbidden knowledge, hidden or "occult", and those who are privvy to it are in a special select group. Basically the same tactic of "exclusivity" that is used to promote the coolest new nightclub that "nobody" knows about. I would never compare anybody in this tribe to people like Volksfront, who are the real deal of haters. But the experience did teach me a little about what makes these ideas attractive to people, and going against the grain of "establishment" is definitely one of them. Like for instance the phrase "politically incorrect" is a huge buzzword in the white pride movement.
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Wed, September 6, 2006 - 7:45 PM
                  "Suddenly there is a realization that all the things we previously assumed were 'true' are up for reevaluation. So, for some people the convention that racism is bad, sexism is bad, etc. goes out the window as well."

                  You got it, Manny. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

                  Gayle is grokking on it, too:

                  "it sounds as though you are describing a mental set in which 'racism is bad, sexism is bad' IS seen as 'establishment' values, and rebellion or questioning established values includes questioning that?"

                  Yep, yep, yep. That's what I think is going on. Rejection of the previous generation's values, regardless of whether or not they were good ones, seems to be part of the phenomenon. It's not a new story.

                  There is also a reprocessing and reinterpretation of material discarded and forgotten that is then "rediscovered" to fuel the imagination of later generations. This is why Atlantis (to return to Michael Tsarion) keeps coming back, despite the fact that educated readers today should see right through Augustus Le Plongeon's and Ignatius Donnelly's twisted logic of the 1880s. HPB's assertion from the Secret Doctrine (Vol. 2, p. 200, 1888) that Jews were "degenerate in spirituality and perfected in materiality" is echoed by some of the rhetoric going around in 2006. In "Never forget" as applied to the Holocaust, never means never. It will get more difficult with each generation.

                  On a lighter note, I fully expect a revival of the turn-of-the-century fascination with pixies, brownies, sprites, fairies, and leprechauns (adding to the mix aluxob, chaneques, hobbits and the like). Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was convinced that the Cottingley fairies were real:

                  www.ash-tree.bc.ca/acdsfairies.htm

                  Who are we to be so mean and close-minded as to say that they're not?

                  If we clap hard enough and believe, Tinkerbelle won't die. But what should happen to the people who won't clap?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    (to whom it may concern) Pick and choose those facts that fit the model you are seeking to build. Ignore the sworn testimony of living people who don't even base their consciousness about such things as reincarnation on anything as flimbsy as "faith" or "studied linear logic". The fact that I (for instance) have had friends who remember me from past lives (Atlantean being among them)...they remember the exact incident that I remember of my interaction with them...it carries no weight in your judgement, eh? Not if I swore on a stack of books that feature such evidence as photos of Atlantean artifacts found embedded in solid rock? Am I not supposed to feel insulted by this wholesale dismissal? If I had written it and published it in a book, and if my reputation were stellar, would that have made a difference? I guess not. Either one has had and remembers (key) mystical experiences or one is probably in denial of the possibility. Can't blame your temporal mind but it can still be a nuisance when so much power and prestige hangs in the balance on the word/judgement of a huge institutionalized religion of selective rationalism. I could direct you to the Billy Meier evidence regarding Extra-terrestrials...you'd block out the parts that show irrefutable evidence? Honestly, it's your business what religion you choose to practice. Just don't accuse those who have first hand knowledge, First-Hand-Eyewitness-Knowledge, of putting forth "dogma". Dogma is second hand knowledge. Science that selectively ignores establish facts is not science even if the carefully selected pieces seem to fit the projected/necessary pattern. I don't care if I am ignored, it's just important that I did try to shed a little light for your benefit, so that someday maybe you won't suffer such a shock when the whole truth becomes self-evident...and my words apply to a great, great number of people....(not to be picking on anyone)
                    • Unsu...
                       
                      OBJECT: Locate community of fringe dwellers and marginal visionary types seeking to develop alternative models of consciousness and lifestyle. Pinpoint leaders and theories which gain attention of members of said community. Expose and exaggerate flaws and questionable or objectionable aspects of these leaders and theories, giving special attention to themes liable to incite controversy and sow division within the ranks of the community (e.g. racism, sexism, etc). Demonize leaders and attack theories using tactics of generalization and 'guilt by association', backing up your arguments with copious literary and academic references so as to intimidate your opponents. Keep the visionaries and radical thinkers preoccupied with polemical disagreements and promote dischord in the name of rational critique and inquiry, striving always to polarize all discourse and to supplant intuition with reason, faith with doubt, hope with uncertainty, expansiveness with inhibition, and imagination with the unassailable monolith of quotidian Fact.

                      You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie! Keep it up!...
                      • Keep the visionaries and radical thinkers preoccupied with polemical disagreements and promote dischord in the name of rational critique and inquiry, striving always to polarize all discourse and to supplant intuition with reason, faith with doubt, hope with uncertainty, expansiveness with inhibition, and imagination with the unassailable monolith of quotidian Fact. >>

                        That's a very well stated expose of a certain agenda.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 12:40 PM
                    Hoopes, I thank you for taking a stand against bias where you see it, and I agree that some of Michael Tsarion's theories could be offensive to those of us who identify as Jewish. But don't you think your utter dismissiveness of Atlantean theories might be offensive to those among us who identify as Atlantean? After all, if someone identifies as being from Atlantis, that is their truth and it's not hurting anyone. Live and let live, right? I can't ask that consideration from others if I don't give it to them as well.
                    • Re: Michael Tsarion

                      Thu, September 7, 2006 - 3:39 PM
                      "But don't you think your utter dismissiveness of Atlantean theories might be offensive to those among us who identify as Atlantean?"

                      Sure, it might be offensive, but it's not possible to express one's viewpoint without offending *someone*. If I speak from a point of critical, materialist rationality, I offend those who prefer uncritical, intuitive, spiritual irrationality. I haven't experienced a great deal of tolerance for my own subjective, intuitive interpretation of the facts on the ground as I see them, and resent being treated as if my worldview is somehow inferior to someone else's because it's less "woo-woo".

                      I think it's likely that I've read more literature on Atlantis than anyone else in this tribe. Why don't you think I've carefully considered a raft of claims and evidence, weighed the alternative hypotheses, and come to a valid conclusion? I am not utterly dismissive. I've formed my opinion after reading a huge amount of stuff over a period of more than 30 years now. (I'd be happy to provide a list for anyone who's interested.)

                      Is it possible to have a world in which everyone's perspective is considered to be equally valid and in which no judgements are made about anything ever? I don't think so. However, I think I can develop a healthy tolerance (if not acceptance) for the worldviews of Muslims, Mormons, Raelians, Atlanteans, and even Jews (!) so long as they are tolerant of mine and don't threaten my right to exist.
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Wed, September 6, 2006 - 3:04 PM
              "I have seen a certain attitude in the academy to be immediately dismissive of anything too 'supernatural' or 'woo woo', or anything transpersonal yet unproven, let's just say. And I have seen that this sort of dismissive attutude has set up a reaction in the world of New Age/New Edge, to be dismissive of the academy in turn."

              Thanks, Manny. I think you've hit upon another salient characteristic of the "New Edge", as I've tried to outline the movement. My experience is that it is distinctly anti-academic, relying heavily upon autodidactic methods and the dissemination of knowledge through non-traditional publications (from websites and blogs to "vanity" presses and mass-market paperbacks). Anything "academic" (meaning originating in the context of traditional colleges and universities) is immediately suspect, while anything non-academic is immediately assigned authority and importance, in spite of its intrinsic merits.

              I do not think that the academy has been dismissive of anything "too 'supernatural'" at all. (You must be excluding Talmudic academies, religious conservatories, and other religion-oriented institutions of higher learning, but that's another discussion.) In fact, most major universities have departments of religious studies that concentrate on understanding humans and their relationship to the supernatural. Investigations of magic and religion have been cornerstones of anthropology as well. However, many "New Edge" critics of the academy seem to be ignorant of the details of this work, choosing instead to cast aspersions on the institutions and the practitioners of academic scholarship rather than concern themselves with intepreting or understanding the actual knowledge these produce.
              • This is the crux of of what is the matter with intellectually-based consciousness. First of all this "New Edge" equivocation with the 10,000 times more familiar term "New Age". Either lets define the difference or forget the term. It doesn't resonate as equivalent to the term "New Age". It has other connotations that have to do with technology, and it's the actual intellectual property/name of various existing commercial concerns. Some people are willing to wade through all the reams of discourse here to try and pinpoint the "point' of so much contention. Some people seem to like to throw out inflammatory emotionally-based accusations that can never, ever be resolved working strictly from the intellect. Yet they can only relate to others from their intellectual perch, backed up by the great and noble institutions whose left-brained achievements are simultaneously remarkable and stifling. The right-brained counterparts (artists, "New Age" spiritualists) well, maybe they can be just as aggravating in certain ways. I mean they are oh so willing to trust their intuitions. Criminal behavior for a scientist. If only they would kneel before the great masculine gods of logic, we might forgive their, ugh, acceptance of the feminine principle. Do you know that Hermes is the origin of the word hermaphrodite? The god of wisdom is not just a male god.....he/she is...both. I'm suggesting we all need to embrace both our male and female aspects of mind/spirit before we continue down this endless road of polarization any further. You're gobbling up a lot of brainpower that could be better used to help get us out of some Actual problems waiting to be addressed (by getting us Into some Actual Creative Solutions). Just the opinion of a former left-brained junkie now gone ambi-brained with co-ordination of higher/lower consciousness. It's a newage of total brain function, haven't you heard? All the rage among former hippies and undocumented geniuses (genii?). Make certain all your brains are fully engaged prior to poking your keyboard.


      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Michael Tsarion

        Wed, September 6, 2006 - 12:18 PM
        I don't really see any racist elements in Tsarion's work. You can't really draw a conclusion about his position based on who he is quoting because he states quite clearly a number of times that he cites sources and looks at the work of authors that he has a problem with (in terms of their motivation or position) because despite the problems they still have something to contribute. I think this is the mark of a good thorough scholar in that you need to look at whats out there as objectively as possible. If there is racism in Tsarion's viewpoint that will become evident in his own opinions and writings but I haven't seen that so far. However I will take your statements into account when I read his stuff in case I am missing something.
        • Re: Michael Tsarion

          Wed, September 6, 2006 - 12:27 PM
          "If there is racism in Tsarion's viewpoint that will become evident in his own opinions and writings but I haven't seen that so far."

          I'm very glad to hear that. I hope you appreciate the basis for my concerns.
        • Re: Michael Tsarion

          Wed, September 6, 2006 - 8:15 PM
          "I don't really see any racist elements in Tsarion's work."

          You may not consider anti-Semitism to be racism, but I decided to look a little more closely and found it in just a few clicks:

          www.taroscopes.com/astro-th...logy.html

          "The Jews who exist today, and who are Jewish by simple religious conversion, have no authentic ties to the so-called Holy Land at all... The surreptitious Cult of Aton (patrons of the Judites and Levites, and enemies of Egypt) remain in the shadows of history, hiding behind many a front. Though they were, and are, the prime-movers in many historical machinations, and though they continue to rule from behind the thrones of religion and government, their actual presence and influence is unacknowledged by the so-called 'experts.' Their true origins have yet to be exposed to the world."
          www.taroscopes.com/astro-th...20exposed

          "The mainstream institutions, from the kindergarten onward, to the top university levels, avoid dealing with racial subject matter while those scholars who look into the tangled history of Judaism usually come away bewildered. When the subject of Judaism is broached, we are taught patent falsehoods by those with much to lose should the truth be learned... we can plainly see that the modern Jew has nothing whatever in common with the people spoken of in the Bible... The actual racial origins of those falsely using the title of 'Jews' may lie in India."
          www.taroscopes.com/astro-th...s%20stand

          Tsarion writes:
          "Since the western world's present political and religious leader's do truly believe themselves to be the vaunted Princes of this reprobate god Jehovah, or his new 'Chosen' prophets, we can confidently lay aside any naive thoughts of using reason as a method of defense or attack against them and their imperialist schemes for world domination.... The Temple of Sol-Aton was meant to be rebuilt for the third time. The New Jerusalem is meant to be re-established in the world. The Arab and Gentile infidels are meant to be ground into the dust, humiliated and destroyed, and the 'sinner's' are meant to be cast into the hell of hells. There is to be eternal war."

          I don't know how you can claim that this is not one long, anti-Semitic screed with overtones of violence.

          "Thanks for the reality check." "You're welcome."


          • Re: Michael Tsarion

            Wed, September 6, 2006 - 9:19 PM
            yowch!

            i remember reading along the lines of blavatsky and finding racial remarks that i ignored. i'm glad i did, it didn't cloud my judgement of what was being learned at the time, but most of the material is outdated for the new aeon... same for several other of yesterdays scribes. the war persists. struggles to understand whats what with the nature of the archetype and the manifest world and how to rise above it and look at the trixter for what it is, seems to be the solution, but very few will do that. i don't know why, except it keeps the dream alive. i recall a vision where osama bin laden looked me dead in the eye and claimed to be mohammed, then recanted saying he was lucifer disguised as jesus, then he went back into his cave. funny... since i don't even care either way...
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Michael Tsarion

            Wed, September 6, 2006 - 11:23 PM
            I wouldn't call this anti-semetic because I don't think his purpose is to attack jews. I'm not saying I agree with everything this guy says but you have to realize that he is presenting a thesis that is calling most of organized, institutionalized religion into question especially the judeo-christian tradition. If you are devoted to the judeo-christian tradition you are very likely going to find this guys ideas offensive and thats ok, its probably not something you are going to want to study. I say its not anti-semetic because he is critisizing much more than just judaism, really the entire judaeo-christian tradition from ancient times. He believes that these institutions have been used for dark purposes and to hide a dark group of people originally behind the atlantean civilization. I'm reading material like this because I believe in questioning everything as I don't believe what we have been presented with in our society is very accurate (more like intentionally false) so I welcome calling all of these things into question including my own beliefs and religion. I think too often terms like racism and anti-semetism are thrown out there when things trigger us the wrong way and I'm not sure that is such a good thing unless it is really the case because it shuts down and invalidates something just by virtue of those accusations. On the other hand, I'm not dismissing what you are bringing up either because I haven't read this section of the website completely which I will do to see this information in context. If it is indeed anti-semetic then I will be grateful to you for pointing that out and appreciative of exploring this on an open forum but at this point this person's work appears legitimate although certainly not supportive of organized religion and societal structures.

            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Thu, September 7, 2006 - 8:08 AM
              "I wouldn't call this anti-semetic because I don't think his purpose is to attack jews"

              Do you mean the people *he* identifies as Jews or the people *most* of us identify as Jews. I don't see how you can deny that he's attacking the latter.

              "I say its not anti-semetic because he is critisizing much more than just judaism..."

              Would you say that something is not racist because it was criticizing more than blacks?

              Tsarion is claiming that it is the Jews and their "fabricated" history who are the root of all the problems.

              By the way, I would argue that there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" tradition. There are Jewish traditions and Christian traditions. "Judeo-Christian" is just another name for Christian. There are strong Jewish traditions that have absolutely nothing to do with Christian ones.

              I hope you appreciate that history of the Christians is totally different from the history of the Jews, and the issue of anti-Christian ideas pales beside the genocidal history of anti-Semitism. If the Christians want to complain about Tsarion, that's fine with me. However, it's a diversion from the problem I have with him, which is about racism and anti-Semitism.
              • Re: Michael Tsarion

                Thu, September 7, 2006 - 8:10 AM
                I should add that there are many Jews who feel that Christian traditions have very little to do with theirs. Sort of the way non-Mormon Christians feel about Mormons.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Michael Tsarion

                Thu, September 7, 2006 - 11:09 AM
                """Would you say that something is not racist because it was criticizing more than blacks? """

                Thats a good question. But here is the issue, Tsarion is claiming that there was extraterrestrial intervention at the time of Atlantis and that these beings altered humanoid DNA on this planet at that time. So he is talking about race and bloodlines and how those changes propagated down to the races we see on the planet today. What I'm getting at is he has to talk about race given the premise he is operating from and he is not just talking about one race but all races. His main message about race is that we are a mixture of alien and human DNA. So no I don't see that as racism because it is applied across the board. But I'm not trying to sidetrack us from talking about the jewish people but that is the gist of his work from my reading of it.

                """Tsarion is claiming that it is the Jews and their "fabricated" history who are the root of all the problems. """

                Thats not at all correct. He is making the case that the alien intervention on this planet is the root of all our problems and that it effects us all without exception.

                """By the way, I would argue that there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" tradition. There are Jewish traditions and Christian traditions. "Judeo-Christian" is just another name for Christian. There are strong Jewish traditions that have absolutely nothing to do with Christian ones. """

                I defer to you on this, I don't mean to imply they are identical I just lumped them together because he is equally taking issue with both (and others as well).

                """I hope you appreciate that history of the Christians is totally different from the history of the Jews, and the issue of anti-Christian ideas pales beside the genocidal history of anti-Semitism"""

                I appreciate that its different but it is interrelated especially in the early days of christianity although sure in modern times they are more divergent. I'm not getting into a comparison of anti-christian vs. anti-semetic history because thats beside the point. What the point really is is whether you give any merit to questioning how judaism and then later christianity developed and what "may" have been at the root of it. This is what he is really talking about in relation to these two tradition and I'm by no means accepting it as the truth but I find it interesting especially his assembly of quotations from mythical, religious and cultural writing from all over the world that speak to many of these themes.
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Thu, September 7, 2006 - 11:46 AM
                  "What I'm getting at is he has to talk about race given the premise he is operating from and he is not just talking about one race but all races. His main message about race is that we are a mixture of alien and human DNA. So no I don't see that as racism because it is applied across the board."

                  Colin, I don't know what your definition of racism is, but mine is pretty close to the one given here:

                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

                  Michael Tsarion is a racist.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 11:54 AM
                    I think that definition is fairly good as well but I'm not ready to label Tsarion a racist just yet, perhaps on further examination I will or perhaps it will continue to appear that he is articulating something well beyond race which effects all races.........interesting...........its also interesting that this issue of anti-semetism would come up given that the friend of mine who turned me on to this work is jewish. Not really that relevant but kind of strange.......
                    • Re: Michael Tsarion

                      Thu, September 7, 2006 - 12:04 PM
                      "the friend of mine who turned me on to this work is jewish. Not really that relevant but kind of strange..."

                      Some of the worst anti-Semites these days are Jewish.

                      www.splcenter.org/intel/int...rticle.jsp
                      • Re: Michael Tsarion

                        Thu, September 7, 2006 - 12:43 PM
                        Racism is a form of tribalism, which is traditional to almost every culture. The notion of a multicultural world where everyone gets along and considers everyone else as equal is very recent historically. "Racism" isn't a new age phenomenon, it's a typically human phenomenon. I think it is a noble ideal, this transcendence of tribalism -even if we are on Tribe.net- , but many people throw around the word "racist" too readily for propaganda purposes. There is also a tendency to act as though, once the charge of racism is made, that the burden of proof is with the accused to prove that they are not racist. This is also known as McCarthyism or the witch-hunt mentality. Just subsititute "racist" for "witch" or "communist."
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Thu, September 7, 2006 - 8:14 AM
              "this person's work appears legitimate"

              Appearances can be deceiving. I urge anyone considering Tsarion's work to approch it with extreme caution. For me, most of what he says about Jews, the history or religion, extraterrestrials, the "lost civilizations", and Atlantis comes across as nonsense. He has a pernicious agenda, and it's not hidden al all.

              But that's just an informed opinion.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Michael Tsarion

                Thu, September 7, 2006 - 11:16 AM
                """Appearances can be deceiving. I urge anyone considering Tsarion's work to approch it with extreme caution. For me, most of what he says about Jews, the history or religion, extraterrestrials, the "lost civilizations", and Atlantis comes across as nonsense. He has a pernicious agenda, and it's not hidden al all."""

                Appearances can indeed be deceiving which is why we need to constantly question and form our own opinions from a wide variety of sources, I'm only presenting one in this thread. But you highlight your own bias about his ideas which means that is the way you are going to see it. For me I take issue with some of the same things you do (although maybe for different reasons) but I think his ideas about extraterrestrials, genetic manipulation, Atlantis and alternative history make a great deal of sense and are pretty well supported for this kind of work but thats just my informed opinion and bias. I appreciate you sharing your position as it highlights things I might not otherwise have focused on.
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Thu, September 7, 2006 - 12:01 PM
                  Colin, I also appreciate your sharing your views and your high level of civility in this exchange. There's certainly nothing that you've said that suggests to me that you're racist, but I'm worried that manipulative authors like Tsarion can lead you to become one . I agree with you completely about constantly questioning and forming opinions from a wide variety of sources. That is a good and important thing to do.

                  "I think his ideas about extraterrestrials, genetic manipulation, Atlantis and alternative history make a great deal of sense and are pretty well supported for this kind of work but thats just my informed opinion and bias."

                  I disagree with you and hope that you'll take the time to consider some of the information I've provided, including links to additional information. Some opinions are more informed than others and some biases are worse to have than others.

                  I urge you read one of the following books:

                  "Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking", by Victor Ruggiero
                  www.amazon.com/Beyond-Fee.../1559348356

                  "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking", by Neil Browne and Stuart Keeley
                  www.amazon.com/Asking-Rig.../0132203049

                  "Becoming a Critical Thinker - A Guide for the New Millennium", by Robert Todd Carroll
                  www.amazon.com/Becoming-C.../0536600600

                  "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and other Confusions of Our Time, by Michael Shermer
                  www.amazon.com/Why-People.../0805070893

                  For years I had a bumper sticker that read "Question Reality". Critical thinking skills are ones that will help you navigate conceptual waters that are swimming with sharks like Tsarion. Please continue with your diligent seeking for answers, but also learn how to ask the right questions.

                  "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat forever."
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 12:40 PM
                    Thanks Hoopes, civility should be a given in any debate and unfortunately all too often today it is not so I'm glad we can both agree and disagree in a civilized and respectful way. I appreciate your concern and I sense that it comes from a genuine place. I'm not too worried about being led astray by Tsarion or anyone else both because I do remain open and keep questioning but also because my spiritual beliefs provide a constant check in that they teach me to practice equinimity and love and respect for all beings.

                    I think I see from your reading suggestions where we disconnect to some degree. I'm very much a believer in critical thinking and feel that the lack of it is a big part of what has produced the world we currently live in. However I'm also very much a believer in intuitive ways of knowing and alternatives to science and empiricism (not replacements for them just additions to them). I've spent a good deal of my life being trained in the scientific approach and logical analysis and I've come to realize its strengths as well as its limitations. So I think intellectual thought is very important but it is just as likely to lead us astray as superstition and ungrounded feelings if its not balanced by deeper levels of understanding.

                    But anyway, I do appreciate your perspective and your suggestions.
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Michael Tsarion

                      Thu, September 7, 2006 - 1:22 PM
                      > "Colin, I also appreciate your sharing your views and your high level of civility in this exchange. There's certainly nothing that you've said that suggests to me that you're racist, but I'm worried that manipulative authors like Tsarion can lead you to become one ."

                      He's right, Colin, I'd watch your step if I were you... Same goes for most of this seemingly benevolent New Age hokum: any good Christian knows that the New Age is Satan's scheme to lead innocent souls down the primrose path to the lake of everlasting fire... Ya start out meditating with crystals and pretty soon yer gibbering in Enochian and sacrificing cats and babies on stone altar under a full moon... Slippery slope, I'll tell ya...
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: Michael Tsarion

                        Thu, September 7, 2006 - 2:00 PM
                        and wtfs wrong with sacrificing cats?
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: Michael Tsarion

                          Thu, September 7, 2006 - 2:08 PM
                          You... you... next time you wolf down your bowl of Alpo you'd better run a metal detector over it beforehand to check for iron filings! (I may cut some slack for racists, but as for cat haters, I show no mercy)...
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: Michael Tsarion

                            Thu, September 7, 2006 - 2:21 PM
                            well somefolk should lay off the Iams. Particularly tonight, sonnyboy

                            Oooowww
                    • Re: Michael Tsarion

                      Thu, September 7, 2006 - 4:44 PM
                      "Thanks, but no thanks" to critical thinking?

                      Well, that's certainly your perogative. It also puts you in the majority of people on this planet.

                      However, you'll be much more likely to be *both* gullible AND close-minded, as well as highly vulnerable to ideologues, syncophants, and people who will use their skills at manipulation to control you and make you do their bidding.

                      Good luck with that.
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: Michael Tsarion

                        Thu, September 7, 2006 - 7:12 PM
                        You know, I'm a big fan of critical thinking, but some of my best decisions are made on the basis of "bad vibes". In fact these decisions have been instrumental in turning me away from exactly the sort of "ideologues, syncophants, and people who will use their skills at manipulation to control you and make you do their bidding" that you describe. Intuition is just another form of intelligence, one that can be strengthened and improved with practice just like our critical thinking skills. Both are valuable tools for understanding the world around us (and within us).
                        • Re: Michael Tsarion

                          Fri, September 8, 2006 - 8:13 AM
                          However intuition can also be deeply flawed. It is at the root of racism and anti-Semitism, which are usually "gut" reactions rather than the result of careful intellectual analysis. One of the theories about racism is that it has to do with intuition about health: We often make judgements about a person's health based on their physical appearance. If they look radically different that what you're accustomed to recognizing as healthy, intuition may tell you that it's because of a severe illness. To avoid getting sick yourself, your "gut" reaction is to avoid people who don't look "healthy". It's only with education and experience that someone who's never seen a black person before can learn that kinky hair and dark skin is not the result of some horrible, contagious disease. This is also true for people with Downs Syndrome or other physical disabilities, who intuition might lead us to avoid out of a "gut" reacition (fear) at getting what they've got.
                          • Re: Michael Tsarion

                            Fri, September 8, 2006 - 9:36 AM
                            What you're saying is intuition driven by fear can be deeply flawed, and only careful intellectual analysis can correct that fear. Yes, you are right; "only" education And Experience can correct intuition that has been misguided through fear illusions. And our fear, our possibly fear-guided intuitions about those who might show a hint of "guilt by association" with people who might accurately be termed "genetic idealists"...would that also lead us into assumptions that these people are the very incarnation of evil? After all, what if it were actually true that Adolf Schickelgrueber had some real complex psychological issues (was half-non-Aryan himself) and lived in a climate that fostered some really warped ideas about other non-aryans. What if he was just another misguided oaf whose command of a hugely talented military machine resulted in both military murder and cultural-ethnic genocide? Sure he was pretty sicko and horrible, but the very incarnation of pure evil? Not a shred of humanity in him? Devil incarnate? This kind of attitude is totally understandable, yet it suffers from exactly this same syndrome....lack of careful analysis of the whole truth. Demonization of what one is not inclined to fully understand. What he did was demonic, but I think if he had really understood the consequences of his actions...he would have reconsidered the path he took. I dissociate myself from and dislike that example of an ultimate racist as much as anyone else...yet I can see in myself how it is possible to delude oneself into such a monstrous course of action through this mechanism of fear-based misguided intuition you speak of. So why (unawarely) indulge in it (oneself) through a campaign of fear-based intuition about all those Bad Guys from history (who make for a convenient substitute for all that careful intellectual analysis that I too would like to see more of in an authentic, wholistic way).......and hey, look...this Michael Tsarion, (and all other NewEdgery and that whole irresponsible New Age stuff/garbage by association) must be another one of those Bad Guys............

                            Just abandon the subtle/ironic repetition of these basic patterns in yourself (despite years of deliberate and expensive training...heck it got you here so it served its purpose) and you are on the road to not being an absurdance.
                            • Re: Michael Tsarion

                              Fri, September 8, 2006 - 11:18 AM
                              "So why (unawarely) indulge in it (oneself) through a campaign of fear-based intuition about all those Bad Guys from history (who make for a convenient substitute for all that careful intellectual analysis that I too would like to see more of in an authentic, wholistic way)..."

                              How presumptuous of you to assume this is indulged in "unawarely". Does your intuition also permit you to read my mind?

                              Convenient substitute? Have you even *read* my comments in this thread? Haven't I extensively quoted Michael Tsarion's own words and attempted an analysis of their meaning? Haven't I commented on the multiple authors from whom he himself says he draws inspiration (and made it easier by providing multiple links for people to evaluate these *for themselves*)? Didn't I take the time to research the forum in which Tsarion was speaking and analyze the larger context?

                              Your comments are the ones that border on absurdity. The evidence is right here for you and everyone else to see.
                              • Oh, yes you've done your homework and you can move to the next level. So do it. More of that awareness please. This whole thread has become a waste of time. Move on to your new thread (which looks good, congrats) because you just don't get it (you've got too much invested in your concept and you've made your point that "look here Tsarion has some flaws in his sources"...nevermind that Tsarion pointed this out himself) and maybe we can work from a different angle towards some useful understandings. Okie Dokie Pokie?
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: Michael Tsarion

                        Fri, September 8, 2006 - 1:06 AM
                        How in the world did you come away with that from what I said?
                        • Re: Michael Tsarion

                          Fri, September 8, 2006 - 7:55 AM
                          Sorry about that. You did say, "I'm very much a believer in critical thinking" but also suggested that my readings indicated a "disconnection".

                          I guess it was this remark:

                          "So I think intellectual thought is very important but it is just as likely to lead us astray as superstition and ungrounded feelings if its not balanced by deeper levels of understanding."

                          I tend to equate "intellectual thought" with "critical thinking". Intuition is a key element of intellectual thought. For example, the ability to spot connections that no one else has seen before (which can be either real or imagined). I think all of the authors of all the books I cited appreciate "deeper levels of understanding", which (for me) must be a combination of intellectual thought and intuition tempered by critical thinking.

                          I totally agree that intellectual thought can certainly lead us astray. I think that's exactly what's going on with Michael Tsarion and other conspiracy theorists. They are making "Type I" errors: Thinking there are connections where none really exist. There are also "Type II" errors: Failing to see connections when they are really there. Critical thinking is what helps one to avoid making errors of either kind.

                          I hope you realize that intuition can also be deeply flawed. If that weren't true, professional magicians (like Penn & Teller) wouldn't be entertaining at all and Americans wouldn't have accepted the connection between 9/11 and Iraq (and a whole host of other lies). It's ironic that Michael Tsarion's video starts out with clips from Robert Greenwald's movie "Uncovered: The War on Iraq". It's a device to catch the audience: If your intuition tells you that Greenwald is right, that sets up your intuition to interpret Tsarion as being right, too. It's a trap that seems to be working, but its a dangerous one. It's the same trap that Bush used to capture the people who elected him: If intuition tells people he's right about Jesus, they think he must be right about other things, too.

                          Intuition may tell you that there's someone outside, tapping at your window, but it could be just a branch, blowing in the wind...

                          As you say, there must be a balance.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Michael Tsarion

      Wed, September 6, 2006 - 2:30 PM
      Hoopes, you're an intelligent man. I'm curious what you make of the human capacity to even imagine that existence has ever been, or could become, radically different from the way it presently appears -- such as in these mythic stories of a lost Golden Age and supra-ancient civilizations.

      Where does that come from? What is the origin, and necessary function (or biological imperative, if you will) of humanity's vast and incessantly active capacity for imagination?

      As a poet, I'm prone to muse on this kind of question.... Concerning the mystery in existence, I find it a rather elegant and abundant aspect of life that perhaps deserves more considerate (even tender) treatement than most people, wether academic, scientific, religious or spiritualist, are willing to give it these days. I appreciate how Mark Twain put it: "Truth is stranger than Fiction; but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't."

      Respectfully,
      Geoffrey
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Wed, September 6, 2006 - 3:15 PM
        "I'm curious what you make of the human capacity to even imagine that existence has ever been, or could become, radically different from the way it presently appears"

        I hope you'll believe me when I say that this has been one of the core issues of my entire career. To use a Biblical metaphor, I think of it when I rise up and when I lie down. For many years now, I have devoted most of my energy to teaching people how to comprehend past existences in order to imagine and create new ones.

        These are excellent questions you're asking. I will give a shot at answering them later, given that I've already vastly exceeded any reasonable level of contribution to this thread today (all free of charge).

        "I appreciate how Mark Twain put it: 'Truth is stranger than Fiction; but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't.'

        These are wise words indeed. Another thought to contemplate: Fiction, art, and poetry, the province of subjectivity, are all limited by the human imagination. The material world, the province of objectivity, isn't.
        • subjectivity vs. objectivity - round 8

          Wed, September 6, 2006 - 4:15 PM
          Another thought to contemplate: Fiction, art, and poetry, the province of subjectivity, are all limited by the human imagination. The material world, the province of objectivity, isn't.

          if we were swing this discussion back to the ideas shared by paul levy instead of arguing dichotomies once again, i think we would be able to contemplate that even though the above statement may have some validity, the respective provinces are intertwined in a way that neither left or right, up or down, black or white, truth or fiction, good or evil, superior or inferior, light or dark can fully comprehend on their own.

          that is a collective contemplation worth having -- free for everyone, worthy or not.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: subjectivity vs. objectivity - round 8

            Wed, September 6, 2006 - 4:49 PM
            cheers to that. I remember sitting around the fire after a yaje ceremony in the amazon last summer; the guy sitting next to me was mulling over the visions he'd had. He said in a ramble, "I've got to get on top of this thing. . . . or rather, get to the bottom of it. . . . whichever way." I spontaneously suggested, "Why not get to the heart of it, to the core of it." He agreed, nodding in affirmation, and it immediately resolved his nerves.
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Wed, September 6, 2006 - 3:18 PM
        "Hoopes, you're an intelligent man."

        Be careful about making wild, unfounded assumptions based on subjective observations..
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Michael Tsarion

          Wed, September 6, 2006 - 4:40 PM
          heh. yea. well. then take my use of the word "intelligent" as expressing no more than an acknowledgement that you have the capacity to think and reason.

          perhaps it would've been more accurate to say "you appear to have a decent range of knowledge"...

          ah, but when do we get to the point where all discourse is buried in a mountain of qualifications, ala: "this is just my subjective impression, and I don't take it as gospel, but perhaps you might be something in the general vacinity of smart... I know. I know. It's completely unsubstantiated, and we have to tip-toe around these things or say nothing at all, but please bear with me...."

          alas. In Book XIII of the Analects, Tzu-Lu asks Confucius: "If the Duke of Wei called you to administer his country, what would be your first act?" The Master replied, "The reform of language."

          Take your time on the response to my questions. I'm certainly curious, especially if this vein gets to the heart of your passion.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Michael Tsarion

            Wed, September 6, 2006 - 9:14 PM
            What really is Intelligence?

            at the danger of getting ridiculed for posting a long ass excerpt, Krishnamurti has an interesting view ( I can seem some "Jung" in him ):



            Modern education, in developing the intellect, offers more and more theories and facts, without bringing about the understanding of the total process of human existence. We are highly intellectual; we have developed cunning minds, and are caught up in explanations. The intellect is satisfied with theories and explanations, but intelligence is not; and for the understanding of the total process of existence, there must be an integration of the mind and heart in action. Intelligence is not separate from love.

            For most of us, to accomplish this inward revolution is extremely arduous. We know how to meditate, how to play the piano, how to write, but we have no knowledge of the meditator, the player, the writer. We are not creators, for we have filled our hearts and minds with knowledge, information and arrogance; we are full of quotations from what others have thought or said. BUT EXPERIENCING COMES FIRST NOT THE WAY OF EXPERIENCING. There must be love before there can be the expression of love.

            Information, the knowledge of facts, though ever increasing, is by its very nature limited. Wisdom is infinite, it includes knowledge and the way of action; but we take hold of a branch and think it is the whole tree. Through the knowledge of the part, we can never realize the joy of the whole. Intellect can never lead to the whole, for it is only a segment, a part.

            We have separated intellect from feeling, and have developed intellect at the expanse of feeling. We are like a three-legged object with one leg much longer than the others, and we have no balance. We are trained to be intellectual; our education cultivates the intellect to be sharp, cunning, acquisitive, and so it plays the most important rôle in our life. Intelligence is much greater than intellect, for it is the integration of reason and love; BUT THERE CAN BE INTELLIGENCE ONLY WHEN THERE IS SELF-KNOWLEDGE. THE DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOTAL PROCESS OF ONESELF.

            What is essential for man, whether young or old, is to live fully, integrally, and that is why our major problem is the cultivation of that intelligence which brings integration. Undue emphasis on any part of our total make-up gives a partial and therefore distorted view of life, and it is this distortion which is causing most of our difficulties. Any partial development of our whole temperament is bound to be disastrous both for ourselves and for society, and so it is really very important that we approach our human problems with an integrated point of view.

            TO BE AN INTEGRATED HUMAN BEING IS TO UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF ONE'S OWN CONSCIOUSNESS, BOTH HIDDEN AND THE OPEN. This is not possible if we give due emphasis to the intellect. We attach great importance to the cultivation of the mind, but inwardly we are insufficient, poor and confused. This living in the intellect is the way of disintegration; for ideas, like beliefs, can never bring people together except in conflicting groups.

            As long as we depend on thought as a means of integration, there must be disintegration; and to understand the disintegrating action of thought is to be aware of the ways of the self, the ways of one's own desire. WE MUST BE AWARE OF OUR CONDITIONING AND ITS RESPONSES, BOTH COLLECTIVE AND PERSONAL. It is only when one is fully aware of the activities of the self with its contradictory desires and pursuits, its hopes and fears, that there is a possibility of going beyond the self.

            Only love and right thinking will bring about true revolution, the revolution within ourselves. But how are we to have love? Not through the pursuit of the ideal of love, but only when there is no hatred, when there is no greed, when the sense of self, which is the cause of antagonism, comes to an end. A man who is caught up in the pursuits of exploitation, of greed, of envy, can never love.

            Without love and right thinking, oppression and cruelty will ever be on the increase. The problem of man's antagonism to man can be solved, not by pursuing the ideal of peace, but by understanding the causes of war which lie in our attitude towards life, towards our fellow-beings; and this understanding can come about only through the right kind of education. Without a change of heart, without goodwill, without the inward transformation which is born of self-awareness, there can be no peace, no happiness for men.

            from "Education and the Significance of Life"



            Interesting, ever since my Ayahuasca journey I feel no desire anymore to take part in intellectual debates and I used to love it. Seems so un-constructive, energy- wasting and just a bit....boring. Being creative sounds like a much better Idea than being intellectual. We have a reality to create. Why not focus on that? (I'm aksing this question myself)

            On Machu Picchu, when our shaman guide was leading us up the hundreds of stairs to Waynapicchu he gave us an old inca mantra which meant translated "Who am I". You'd say this mantra in rhyhthm with your steps. It put me in an interesting and aware state of mind. This mantar stuck with me ever since.

            Why can't we just focus a little bit on ourselves, understanding the Self first before anything else? Why do we gain knwoledge about others but not about the Self? Doesn't seem it time to let go of the ego-intellect and look at us truly as we are beyond the memory of accumulated knwoledge and social conditioning?

            It seems the ego always like to complicate things when it is all quite simple in the end, isnt it?

            it is becasue the ego thinks there is a world "outside" to defend, attack, protect or destroy.

            La grand illusion.

            May the shift in consciousness take care of this dillema.

            Peace.



            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Wed, September 6, 2006 - 9:40 PM
              Modern education, in developing the intellect, offers more and more theories and facts, without bringing about the understanding of the total process of human existence. >>

              K. pretty well sums up the limits of modern civilization in that one sentence.
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Thu, September 7, 2006 - 7:56 AM
              "Why can't we just focus a little bit on ourselves, understanding the Self first before anything else? Why do we gain knwoledge about others but not about the Self? Doesn't seem it time to let go of the ego-intellect and look at us truly as we are beyond the memory of accumulated knwoledge and social conditioning?"

              Yes, the problem with people today is that they are not sufficiently selfish.

              Give me a break, Bernhard.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Michael Tsarion

                Thu, September 7, 2006 - 9:57 AM
                Hoopes, please! I'm tlaking about getting to know the self. Self-knowledge before any other knowledge, as K puts it so eloquently in his little essay.
                It's intersting how you always filter out of posts what you can attack and igniore the rest. I wonder what you have to say about K's little insight there.
                Makes sense on a lot of levels, don't you think?

                It is interesting, how you keep focusing on "problems" with this and that, now it is Mr. Tsarion and completlley ignoring the positive and constructive points he is giving in his little lecture. I thought it was quite simple, you make a racist probelm out of it. It amzes me. In the past it would upset me and engage in endless dsicussions with you. Now I can only see it with humor and laugh at it, letting it go.I cannot possibly take you seroius. You remind me of this guy I used to play in a band with years ago. He would always complain and crirtizise, always knowing better, laughing down at others from his ego-horse, but never, he would never bring any constructive solutions or ideas to the table, just breeding antagonism, only focusing on the negative and what is wrong, never getting into the positive and aknowledging what is good about this or that, how we could come to an understnding together. it was fascinating, it was just impossible for him coperate in any way.
                In Mr. Tsarion's case, since this his the topic of this post, you completley ignore his whole message, same with pinchbek's book or the video I posted about the media propaganda in Isreal. You edit out what you don't want to hear and turn it into an absurd intellectual debate, which I , I'm sorry, just cannot take part anymore. It's literally a waste of energy and has no constructive value whatsoever. It's just intellectaul masturbation and the ego is getting off giving itself a hand.
                Maybe I'm not the only one who feels like that, maybe I am. Don't really care. Much has changed for me since my Peru trip. I was even considering to delete my profile as I find it more and more a waste to just talk and write rather than create and do. However Tasrion's lecture caught mey eye and I had to give him kudos.......until you came in and turned it all upside down, departing from what was actually being said.
                It seems your ego has quite a hold of you and shadow work might be a bit intense for you, so I understand that you are not into entheogens. You'd probaly need a couple of buckets.
                I don't know man, the way you talk or write, it seems most of the time you are way off the point and treat the "outside" as something different and separate from you. I actually don't see the real you, just another ego that keeps defending and attacking and not much in between.

                For me there are only three questions:

                - Who am I? (or the self. beyond the ego-mask, beyond our memorized education and image. Self-inquiry is far away from being selfish as in ego based, Mr.Professor)

                - Is the "outside" separate from the "Inside"?

                -How is reality created?

                Maybe contempalte on those for a while...or....let your ego go ahead and find fault in what I've posted right away. Your choice.
                The answers to these questions would make most of the debates on here obsolete and help us in a more constructive way.
                And I found that Tsarion has found a great way to integrate consciousness into the whole conspiracy issue....(until he became a racist, I guess)

                So yeah, I certainly will give you a break. What I wrote is really all I have to say in this matter. Don't know how to make it any clearer.
                At this point, I rather make music or focus on my work as a bodyworker, than engaging in pointless discussion that don't bring any solutions to the table.

                Peace out, prof.!

                P.S. My offer for free bodywork and an Ayahusca session is still up, Mr. Hoopes. You let me know. I only have one bucket though.
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Thu, September 7, 2006 - 9:58 PM
                  Okay, Berhard. Forget the rest and let's go right to the heart of things.

                  "For me there are only three questions:

                  - Who am I? (or the self. beyond the ego-mask, beyond our memorized education and image. Self-inquiry is far away from being selfish as in ego based, Mr.Professor)

                  - Is the "outside" separate from the "Inside"?

                  -How is reality created?"

                  Two thousand years ago, the answers to these were given by Hillel, a Jewish sage:

                  "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? If not now, when?

                  I agree with you. Self-inquiry is *critical* (as in *essential*). The analogy I like to use is the instruction they give parents on airplanes: If the oxygen masks drop down, put on yours first and then help your child to put on theirs. If you are not alert, aware, and mentally healthy, then you are not in good condition to help someone else. I agree with you that self-inquiry doesn't have to be selfish, but that can only be true if it results in action for the benefit of others.

                  This leads to the second issue: Is the outside separate from the inside? For me, the answer has to be NO. A man is not an island. You are who you are in relation to the physical world and other sentient beings, which are "external" (although the neurophysiology and biochemistry of their perception may be "internal"--although this begs the question of whether you have an identity "inside" the material workings of your conscious mind. Compassion for others is a way of being compassionate to yourself (and not the other way around). The *reason* for self-inquiry is to be able to help others (the outside) so that they can nurture you (the inside). If you are *not* for others (on the outside), what are you (on the inside)?

                  Your third question: "How is reality created?" It's created by what is happening right now. Not what happened in the past, nor what you hope will happen in the future. Your reality (and mine, and anyone else's) is created by what we are doing and feeling at this very moment. Where are you at this moment, Bernhard? That's your reality, not what has happened or what will happen, both of which are subject to memory, imagination, manipulation, anticipation, etc., etc. How is it created? Well, simultaneously by both objective and subjective factors. The objective ones are external, and the subjective ones are internal. There is no separation, especially given that without the spark of life at this moment, your consciousness would not even exist. (Well, that's what I and Hillel think, at least, but I suppose we could be wrong).

                  Anyway, that's my modest stab at your three questions, for what it's worth. Vomit free.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 10:42 PM
                    Interesting hoopes, for once I agree with your responses to these questions. At times it seems you're acting so contrary to these insights or maybe I just don't get it. Or maybe you just write what I want to hear...I don't know.
                    In case of Tsarion's lecture ( I suppose you have watched it) and since it is the topic of this thread (every thread seems to turn into a whole jewish thing lately....I guess I started that trend weeks ago with my "Israeli crimes against humanity" thread), besides you thinking he's a shark and "racist under cover" (I still can't see it anywhere....and just critiquing any group of people, be they jewish, american, arabic or whateve they like to identify themselves with is not what I consider racism.....also the fact, which I mentioned sometime else, that every time someone say something against jews he/she is gettting judged right away as anti-semitic is quite ridiculous .......but anyway, I don't want to get into this racist discussion as I don't see it in him at all and coming from Germany I'm pretty familiar with how racists talk and act, even "under cover"), can't you see any value in his lecture and what he is actually suggessting and saying? And, if you don't agree with what he has to say, what do you have to offer and bring to the table as a constructive solution to the world's problems? It's always easy to critique but a whole other story to bring creative and constructive solutions to the table. Even if there are things in his lecture you can't understand or relate to (like the Atlantean thing. Personally I can't make a judgment, becasue I haven't studied his reasearch on that subject, yet, however, I give it the benefit of a doubt since evolution as taught in public schools sound more like fiction to me anyway), don't you think he has some valid points? In particualr the need to confront ourselves and our own shadow/darkness as we keep manifesting it as long as we deny/ignore our shadow. (Shadow meaning in Jungian terms. I suppose you are famliar with Car Jung)
                    • Re: Michael Tsarion

                      Fri, September 8, 2006 - 6:07 PM
                      "... don't you think he has some valid points? In particualr the need to confront ourselves and our own shadow/darkness as we keep manifesting it as long as we deny/ignore our shadow."

                      Yes. I think you need to confront yourself and your own darkness for as long as you continue to deny it.
                      • Re: Michael Tsarion

                        Sun, September 10, 2006 - 6:14 AM
                        << "... don't you think he has some valid points? In particualr the need to confront ourselves and our own shadow/darkness as we keep manifesting it as long as we deny/ignore our shadow."

                        Yes. I think you need to confront yourself and your own darkness for as long as you continue to deny it. >>

                        Hoopes! You are using the code for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism?

                        Oh wait, I forgot. According to you, if someone trademarks a racist symbol (or code) it ceases to be racist. According to you, if someone trademarks the swastika, it ceases to be racist, right? Racist caricatures used as symbols for sports teams are not racist by virute of the fact that they are trademarked?

                        First, you say things that make no reference whatsoever to race / racism, anti-Semitism, or European nationalism (except indirectly to criticize them) are "codes" for those things

                        And then you say that if someone trademarks something racist, then that makes it cease to be racist. Like, if the Ku Klux Klan trademarks its symbols and code words, that makes those things cease to be racist.

                        For me, you have lost credibility for discussing racism by your eagerness to read racist "code" and intent where there is none (which is a shame, because apparently there IS anti-semitism in Tsarion's work -- dowritewoman's perceptions are credible to me) and lost the claim to intellectual honesty and to logical rationality in discourse until you can explain the logic of how something that is otherwise racist would no longer be so if trademarked.
                        • Re: Michael Tsarion

                          Sun, September 10, 2006 - 11:52 AM
                          "you have lost credibility for discussing racism by your eagerness to read racist "code" and intent where there is none"

                          Please let go of this "code" thing, Gayle. I was being facetious with my trademark remark. "Shadow work" clearly means many different things to many different people.

                          "According to you, if someone trademarks the swastika, it ceases to be racist, right? Racist caricatures used as symbols for sports teams are not racist by virute of the fact that they are trademarked?"

                          No. You are putting words into my mouth that I never uttered. I don't think that either of these things is true.

                          My use of the word "darkness" with Bernhard was intended to have shadings of these other issues, but it was certainly not intended as a 1:1 equivalence.

                          Maybe the best interpretation of a "shadow" is something that appears, often in an exaggerated and distorted form, when a bright light is cast upon the object that is the real subject of investigation.
                          • Re: Michael Tsarion

                            Sun, September 10, 2006 - 1:36 PM
                            Bernhard posted:

                            <<
                            "The masses of men and women in the western world compulsively avoid true, authentic psychoanalytic investigation of their true natures, particularly in regards the so-called "darker" aspects of the personality (the "Shadow"-Self). However, not dealing with the psyche at all proves systemically hazardous. A compromise is required. Hence, the profileration of the "New Age" Philosophy and movement, together with its many permutaions. Riddled with ego-customized shams and gimmicks, the application of its methods serve, for the most part, to merely bolster the falling ego and its drives"

                            "Western man has made himself bereft of the rites and rituals, the rites of passage, the Shamanic methods for dealing with the build-up of dark psychic content. As a result, he is patently psychologically arrested. His avoidance condemns mankind and the earth.
                            It engenders psychotic and sadistic leaders, who are able to play on his fears and lower instincts, ad infinitum."

                            "My shadow's shedding skin I've been picking my scabs again.
                            I've been crawling on my belly clearing out what could've been I've been wallowing in my own chaotic and insecure delusions.

                            I wanna feel the change consume me, feel the outside turning in.
                            I wanna feel the metamorphosis and cleansing I've endured within my shadow. Change is coming. Now is my time. Listen to my muscle memory.
                            Contemplate what I've been clinging to. Forty-six and two ahead of me.

                            I choose to live and to grow, take and give and to move, learn and love and to cry, kill and die and to be paranoid and to lie, hate and fear and to do what it takes to move through.
                            I choose to live and to lie, kill and give and to die, learn and love and to do what it takes to step through.

                            See my shadow changing, stretching up and over me soften this old armor. hoping I can clear the way by stepping through my shadow, coming out the other side. Step into the shadow. Forty six and two are just ahead of me."

                            -TOOL "46&2" (one of the few "conscious" bands out there)>>

                            That is the post in its entirety.

                            In response, you wrote -- and later reiterated that you were serious --

                            << Is this what's meant by "shadow work"? Is it a just a new code word for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism? >>

                            "This" of course, means Bernhard's post, and I can find not a single word in Bernhard's post that suggests that. And neither can you.

                            But you reiterated that your post was serious.

                            Now, one can make a case that the use of "black" or "dark" to mean "evil," as in "black magic," is offensive to black or dark-skinned people, and one can make a case that that mental equation has subconsciously influenced western attitudes toward dark-skinned people. But that is subconscious and far from being a "code for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism," and, furthermore, the post on shadow work doesn't make that equation anyway.

                            I figured there had to be =some= kind of reasoning process behind your statement, and the only thing I could come up was a tie-in with some anti-Semitic writings of Jung, but it turned out I was giving you too much credit; there wasn't even that much. "You are reading *way* too much into a comment that I've already retracted."

                            Now it turns out that the retraction was facetious.

                            And you had intended your charge seriously -- you repeated when asked that it was serious.

                            And your "facetious" retraction gave no reason for a retraction other than the "trademark" issue.

                            So what was behind the original charge?

                            And, if you did mean a retraction, why did you retract a charge you made seriously?

                            Furthermore, if "Shadow work" clearly means many different things to many different people," the meaning of a "code for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism" is a recent meaning -- it is only a few days old, because you invented it yourself.

                            We can all invent new meanings for any word and then claim that, because of our new meaning, the word "means different things to different people."

                            I thought you were in favor of careful, critical reading? This is the same standard of skepticism and critical analysis I apply to everything I read, including writings or postings by people I agree with, although I only voice it when there is a reason to or when something might be accomplished as a result. Let's say that this whole thing (or something analogous) was by a different writer, someone you don't agree with. (Like Tsarion -- I appreciate dowritewoman's critical reading of him in the other thread.) Would you not want these kinds of questions to be asked?
                            • Re: Michael Tsarion

                              Sun, September 10, 2006 - 10:11 PM
                              What was behind the original charge? Where was there any "charge"??? I think you're hallucinating, Gayle.

                              If you look carefully at the thread, I think you'll see that the questions of mine that you quoted were not a direct response to *anything* that Bernhard wrote, much less the message that you quoted. In the messages that immediately precede it, I alluded to "another thread". This was the one dowritewomyn started, "Racism rears its ugly head in the New Edge":

                              2012.tribe.net/thread/817...8649c7e8b6d

                              When I asked, "Is this what's meant by 'shadow work'"? the word *this* referred to Tsarion's inspiration from Comyns Beaumont's anti-Semitic and European nationalist writings, von Daniken's racism, and the "notions of cultural and racial superiority" I mentioned in the post immediately prior to that, not to anything Bernhard wrote.

                              However I did have some of what Bernhard said in mind. Let's read Bernhard's own words (as you quoted them):

                              "Western man has made himself bereft of the rites and rituals, the rites of passage, the Shamanic methods for dealing with the build-up of dark psychic content. As a result, he is patently psychologically arrested. His avoidance condemns mankind and the earth. It engenders psychotic and sadistic leaders, who are able to play on his fears and lower instincts, ad infinitum."

                              Isn't the "it" that engenders psychotic and sadistic leaders the "shadow" that requires the work? And isn't it fair to interpret this as including racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism (especially in the case of "Western man")?

                              Bernhard quoted the lyrics from "46&2", a song by Tool: "I choose to live and to grow, take and give and to move, learn and love and to cry, kill and die and to be paranoid and to lie, hate and fear and to do what it takes to move through. I choose to live and to lie, kill and give and to die, learn and love and to do what it takes to step through."

                              My queries stemmed from an honest inquiry that originated from my wondering whether statements such as "I choose to... kill... and to be paranoid and to lie, hate, and fear" were part of this shadow work.

                              Because of my past experiences with Bernhard as well as issues discussed in the "Racism rears its ugly head" thread, I asked: "Is this what's meant by "shadow work"? Is it a just a new code word for racism, anti-Semitism, and European nationalism?"

                              Rather than answering my questions, you asked me "Are you serious?" and I answered "Yes I am."

                              Bernhard pointed out that I seemed to be off track, so I did a little googling on "shadow work" and discovered it was a registered trademark and that it referred to a self-help therapy routine based on Jungian psychology (something I didn't know when I posed my first questions). What made my remark facetious was precisely because the trademark thing was a non-issue with me. I figured out that "shadow work" referred to something other than the "dark" workings of racism, anti-Semitism, etc., so I let it go.

                              Intead of getting a straight answer from you or anyone, you decide to *accuse* me of making some kind of *charge* even though it's clear from the words I posted in this thread that I was not charging *anyone* with *anything*, but only asking some *questions* that I felt were legitimate.

                              You're the one with the knee-jerk reaction here, Gayle. Go back and read what I wrote. I didn't invent any meanings for anything. I wasn't even thinking of Jung. All I did was ask some questions that you didn't even have the courtesy to take seriously, despite the fact that they stemmed from some serious concerns of mine. Bernhard, to his credit, at least got a laugh out of it and moved on. You've clearly got an axe to grind and won't let go of your delusion.

                              Ya know, a simple "NO" with a helpful explanation of "shadow work" would have been better than all this bullshit.
              • Re: Michael Tsarion

                Thu, September 7, 2006 - 10:26 AM
                "Yes, the problem with people today is that they are not sufficiently selfish"

                It seems more of a problem with people today that they are not sufficiently self-analytical, self-aware, or otherwise self-CRITICAL.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Thu, September 7, 2006 - 10:40 AM
                  "It seems more of a problem with people today that they are not sufficiently self-analytical, self-aware, or otherwise self-CRITICAL."

                  Thank you.

                  ...and as Tsarion used this quote in his lecture I'd like to repeat it again, as it goes hand in hand with Krihsnamurti's little essay and was also the main point I tried to make:

                  "People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to stop facing their souls"
                  -Carl Jung
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 10:52 AM
                    "OBJECT: Locate community of fringe dwellers and marginal visionary types seeking to develop alternative models of consciousness and lifestyle. Pinpoint leaders and theories which gain attention of members of said community. Expose and exaggerate flaws and questionable or objectionable aspects of these leaders and theories, giving special attention to themes liable to incite controversy and sow division within the ranks of the community (e.g. racism, sexism, etc). Demonize leaders and attack theories using tactics of generalization and 'guilt by association', backing up your arguments with copious literary and academic references so as to intimidate your opponents. Keep the visionaries and radical thinkers preoccupied with polemical disagreements and promote dischord in the name of rational critique and inquiry, striving always to polarize all discourse and to supplant intuition with reason, faith with doubt, hope with uncertainty, expansiveness with inhibition, and imagination with the unassailable monolith of quotidian Fact. "

                    That's amazingly well put, Ferrara. The short form of what I was trying to say. I guess we know who this is referring to.
                    The thought comes into my mind that there is a certain deliberate and intentional destruction of anything constructive here. Would I be going too far to say that that is his main objective, that he actually is the wolf in sheep clothes so to speak (as he claims others to be?)?.........just a thought.....
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 10:01 PM
                    "People will do anything, no matter how absurd, to stop facing their souls"
                    -Carl Jung

                    I think there's abundant evidence for *that* in this thread!
                    • Now, now, no need to self-depricate. But it's a long journey back to the foudations of your psyche, so best get moving! That whole 'fun with cannibalism' thing, sure we all understand the humor in that...and no reflection, no hidden spark of truth about...............Hey, let us know what you discover about yourself because you seem so good at this shoveling debris around thing.
                      Seriously, coyote, stop digging up everything with your facility for inadvertantly covering up more than you reveal in terms of insight into other than the constructs of a temporal mind that is all about 'facticle' manipulation and too little about inner alchemy of the spirit to be of much help in a wholistic discussion. Your wholesale academic-authoritative dismissal of everything that is not, well, "academic" is kind of the same old stuff that I used to subscribe to; and now I know enough to "trust in and look into my soul" so that I'm not spewing reams of logical absurdness. Sorry for my lack of detachment here, (and it's not about you..it's about how those of us who care can help this whole popular mindset evolve past itself and loosen the deathgrip it has on the efforts of free thinkers) but Damn, was I ever "That" far gone?
                      Hey, lighten up it's all just fun with rhetoric, and if certain words in the language ever pass my lips or fingertips in certain patterns...ever...I too wil be eligible for all eternity to be known as RACIST in all I ever think or say or do again....forever and in all things associated with my being. Evil will be my name and there are those who will champion good by endlessly rubberstamping the word racist on all things associated with me for ever having even referred to any implication of good involving another person with this label tagged to him by the diligent work of the noble, most holy academy of learnididism. Amen
  • Re: Michael Tsarion

    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 6:31 PM
    I think it is fairly clear that what we see regarding Jews in Tsarion is not a mere blanket refutal of "Judeo-Christian" values. I think there is hate in it. I think there is something pernicious in it. I think overlooking this is a mistake. I'm concerned about what happens when the best, most forward looking people begin overlooking the possible dangers of hate; when we are looking for big changes, big solutions to big problems and it starts looking like *any* solution might not be too upsetting to people -- just so long as it solves all the evils in the world, brings about something better, utopian.

    I think if we're really looking to create a good, righteous, just future, we have to be very careful about *means.* We have to be careful about having good and righteous and just and clear *intentions.* And if I see hate in a spiritual teacher, I know that person cannot be my teacher. Hate should be a sign to us in our teachers. We should know that when we see hate and contempt that that is a sign to us about a teacher or guide, and we should be careful.

    Hitler's final solution was a solution to perceived terrible problems -- and people were desperate enough to hope it would all turn out good for themselves. They turned their backs as evil came to their neighbors, looked the other way when their old friends got shot in the streets, buried in mass wooded graves, carted away in trains. They entered their neighbors old houses and took all the neat stuff their neighbors had left behind. They were strangely hopeful. Hopeful in a way I don't think the universe ever seems to support, long term. Hitler's name, for many, became synonymous with evil, and his followers with either evil or a sort of weakness most of us would hope we'd rise above.

    I think there is a real difference between making allowances for people who wrote in the past -- in times before hate in its various incarnations, including slavery, genocide, racism -- had been contemplated in modern terms. We can hardly fault someone writing thousands -- or even hundreds -- of years ago for lacking a certain sensitivity about these matters. One might, I think correctly, say that a person with a great and tremendous soul wrote things that were quite useful to humanity AND was a racist or what we might today call a sexist. There are many fiction writers who I hold in high esteem. I sometimes might wish some of them were better than most of their contemporaries in terms of their views toward women or people with darker skin than themselves or other religions. And also I get that it is an extraordinary thing to rise above one's time and place in terms of worldview -- almost impossible, perhaps. I love what I love in their writing, I acknowledge that it costs me something, too, taking in their contempt for my sex or religion. And I move on, both with the pain of their contempt and the benefit of the ways in which their minds were indeed working better, were shinier than the rest. We forgive certain things in writers who come to us from a time before much of humanity had begun to see the humanity -- or at least strive to see the humanity -- in others of different sex, race, religion. We forgive it, in part, out of a sense of humility. Who knows what great love the future will bring? Who knows how strange and shortsighted our most progressive and evolved ideas will appear to our grandchildren? We understand there is a process happening -- or at least we hope so. And we understand that nobody who lived before certain conversations had taken place among humans should be retroactively responsible for understanding the content of those dialogues -- no matter how urgent those dialogues might seem to us today.

    However, what we overlook in our beloved writers of the past we should not blithely overlook in the writers and thinkers and artists of our present. With them we must continue the dialogue, mustn't we, if we are to be concerned with truly good ends and not just easy means? With regard to our leaders and would-be leaders of today -- and this includes ourselves -- we should not, I think, decide that it is too complicated to worry about a little hate here and a little hate there, if the overarching ideas are compelling enough, if the game plan seems viable except for certain niggling little details, such as upset and whiney Jews. In the end, love always wins out over hate, and the process is toward higher and higher levels of empathy for one another. It is tempting to be on the side that's winning, the side where everyone has the cool Burner clothes, and the aliens and Aya and Atlantis are on that side. But love will win out, empathy will win out, accepting not just the green aliens but Jews (so alien in our own way) -- that will win out. And so we might as well address hate here and now where it shows up.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Michael Tsarion

      Thu, September 7, 2006 - 7:29 PM
      Thank you for your beautiful words, which I happen to agree with wholeheartedly.
      • al-khem-i

        Thu, September 7, 2006 - 7:46 PM
        bridging the occident and the orient is always a struggle, inside and out.... (you'll find war closer in tthese regions)
        hemi-syncing the macrocosm and the microcosm is the souls purpose.
  • Re: Michael Tsarion

    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 10:58 PM
    To get back Colin's original post, "I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has looked into his stuff and what you think", has anyone looked into The Granada Forum (where the Tsarion video was recorded)?

    www.granadaforum.com

    Mike Schultz spoke there yesterday about his DVD "The Sands of Time". Anyone seen it?

    www.fountainsofyouth.net/DVD/index.html

    He's also an autodidact, inspired by von Daniken's movie "Chariots of the Gods" (in which "We learned about these ancient monuments, and their possible creation by an advanced race") and all kinds of metaphysical So-Co stuff:

    www.fountainsofyouth.net/DVD/bio.html

    He writes, "My dharma is to reconcile my Christian traditional background with Eastern metaphysical concepts, and to uncover the truth of our past on this planet."

    Does anyone know if he comes to the same conclusions as Tsarion? (I'm too cheap to spring for his video.) The Granada Forum seems to be a kind of think tank for conspiracy theorists. Past speakers have included:

    Jordan Maxwell www.jordanmaxwell.com
    Author of "What You Need to Know About the British Israel World Federation Movement" which offers, "Actual documents dating from the mid-twentieth century showing that, even as far back as the late 1930s, secret societies had earmarked September 2001 as a start-date for the 'New World Order.'"

    William Henry site.williamhenry.net
    "Learn all about William’s theory that the human body is a resurrection tool, a ladder or
    Stairway to Heaven, as well as a ‘flow-er of light’ a plant, a Holy Grail, capable of tuning into an enlightening substance BLUE APPLES that the Mayans say will spray from the center of the Milky Way in 2012." (Shades of Led Zeppelin! Also, what if the blue apples were like the ones in the Beatles' "Yellow Submarine" movie??? That could be baaad. What if the Blue Meanies were Jewish???)

    David Icke www.davidicke.com
    Lizards R Us. "Since Matthew Delooze's encounters with interdimensional beings during his childhood, and a spiritual awakening in 1998, he has been directed by mysterious forces. In 2005 he found himself being guided to visit Egypt, specifically the Temple of Hathor at Dendera. The astonishing photographs he took there suggest that we were ruled then by a race of reptilian aliens."

    Captain Joyce Riley www.all-natural.com/riley.html
    Gulf War Syndrome and lots, lots more, including a sexually transmitted cancer and a plan to make nature worship a state religion.

    David Horowitz en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz
    A Jew!!! (But a conservative one.) Founder of a right-wing think tank that seeks "to eliminate what they see as political bias in university hiring and grading. Horowitz claims that bias in universities amounts to indoctrination, and charges that conservatives and particularly Republicans are 'systematically excluded' from faculties.'" Also one who's been accused of racism:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davi...#Criticism

    Be careful not to judge Michael Tsarion's work out of context.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Michael Tsarion

      Thu, September 7, 2006 - 11:41 PM
      Maxwell's work is amazing and so is Icke's (I admit at times he's a bit muvh, however his secret society research is excellent).

      hoopes, if you really want to find out more about who is who in the conspiracy world and "pseudo-science" (as you call it), who spreads disinfo, lies mixed with truth, etc.......these guys (icluding a professor!...(-:) have done amazing research (I'm sure you can find a flaw ( = doesn't fit your belief system?) with them as well )

      www.cassiopaea.org
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Michael Tsarion

        Fri, September 8, 2006 - 12:17 AM
        by the way here are two discussions about Michael Tsarion on this forum

        about his lecture:
        signs-of-the-times.org/signs/...pic.php


        about is work in general: (6 pages thread!)
        signs-of-the-times.org/signs/...pic.php


        this forum is from the site I mentioned above:
        www.cassiopaea.org in conjuntion with their news site: signs-of-the-times.org


        I'm familiar with the cassiopaea material , as I have read their research in depth over the last two years. Although I don't agree with all of what they are saying and claiming, they also do have a bit of " we know it all" - attitude which I'm not a fan of, but i have to give them kudos for doing some great work approaching conspiray and secret histroy in the most objective and scientific matter they are able to.........it's never pure objecive though. we know that. Good effort though. They don't leave one stone unturned.

        In regards to the Tsarion discussion on their forum, i can't really comment on anything since I'm not familiar with his work (yet) except for having watched his lecture (which obvioulsy is a bit scattered since he covers a lot of things). Still, I think Tsarion has some valubale and consructive points....in particluar his Jungian view.
        • Re: Michael Tsarion

          Fri, September 8, 2006 - 6:40 AM
          " have to give them kudos for doing some great work approaching conspiray and secret histroy in the most objective and scientific matter they are able to"

          That sounds so odd, coming from you. I thought that objectivity and science were a *problem* for you. Do you have any idea how self-contradictory you've been? First you criticize objective, scientific worldviews as being close-minded and materialistic and then you turn around and use them to say they give legitimacy to the theories that appeal to you. Which is it, Bernhard?
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Michael Tsarion

            Fri, September 8, 2006 - 9:26 AM
            "That sounds so odd, coming from you. I thought that objectivity and science were a *problem* for you. Do you have any idea how self-contradictory you've been? First you criticize objective, scientific worldviews as being close-minded and materialistic and then you turn around and use them to say they give legitimacy to the theories that appeal to you. Which is it, Bernhard?"


            No hoopes, you apparently have not understood my stand point. I say that MAINSTREAM science is in a tunnel visions and blocked it's view by academic pressure and pure materialistic thought. You don't consider science as legit if it is not accpeted academically or doesn't fit your beleif system. Belief plays a big role in this. Not all of what you call pseudo-science is to be disregarded. It's truth mixed with lies and deception. You seem to think so black and white ("which is it, Bernhard?"). It's not and if you really study the material of these sites I've posted (whcih I doubt, since you like to edit out anything that is a threat to your BS (Belief System), you will understand what I mean. I just get the feeling you make too fast judgments about other peoples work without ever having studied it and moslty because it offends your belief system (= conditioning) and bias (= social,academic conditioning)



            here a little excerpt from Laura Knight Jadzyck from the Cassiopaea site about Science:

            "Why is it so that scientists - most particularly physicists and mathematicians of a good and honest disposition - seem to be the ones who most actively resist the very idea that their profession MAY have been taken over and "vectored" by conspirators who do not have humanity's best interests at heart?

            Why do scientists - those to whom the power elite MUST look for solutions to their "power problems" - think for one instant that their profession is exempt from conspiratorial manipulation and management?

            That just isn't logical, is it?

            In the physical sciences, very often machines and instruments are utilized to "take measurements." In order to achieve accuracy with even the most accurately tooled device, certain tests are undertaken to establish the "reading error" of the gadget. What we would like to suggest is that the "official culture" that establishes what may or may not be taken "seriously" is a planned and deliberate "reading error" built into the "machine" of science - our very thinking - the suggestions of the "hypnotist."

            William March wrote in The Bad Seed:

            [G]ood people are rarely suspicious: they cannot imagine others doing the things they themselves are incapable of doing…

            Without a historical context of science, there is little possibility that a sincere scientist - who is generally not much interested in history, based on my own experience - will ever be able to establish the "reading error" of his machine - his thinking.

            There are only so many hours in the day, only so many days in the year, and only so many years in the life of a scientist. The amount of study that is necessary to discover the threads of "conspiracy," where they lead to and what they lead away from, is actually overwhelming. I know: I've spent about 30 years doing it. What's more, I began my research from a skeptical point of view that "conspiracy" was paranoid thinking and I was determined to find the way to demonstrate that there was NO conspiracy. Unfortunately, not only did my plan fail - my hypothesis was utterly demolished by the hard facts.

            But what I did learn was that finding those "hard facts" was very difficult and time-consuming. And that is deliberate. After all, how good a conspiracy is it if it is so easily discovered? And it is clear that in such a high stakes arena as the Global Control agenda now being overtly pursued by the Bush Reich - after years and years of the "secret science" - whatever conspiracies exist, will be managed with all the resources and power of those elitists who wish to retain control. That is a formidable obstacle.

            I would also like to mention the fact that, even though I am the one who has collected and sorted data, my husband, a mathematical physicist, HAS assisted me in analyzing it. At first he did it to humor me. And then, as he applied his knowledge of mathematics to the various problems I brought to him, he began to realize that science CAN be applied to these problems, and once that is done, it strips away the denial mechanism and one is left with the inescapable conclusion that nothing is as it seems and never has been. We live in an ocean of lies, disinformation, manipulation, propaganda, and smokescreens.

            Too bad more competent scientists do not bring their skills to the solving of these problems. But that is precisely what the "Secret Cult" does NOT want to happen. And that is precisely WHY the most subtle and far-reaching of the "COINTELPRO" operations have been run on scientists themselves.

            The possibility that COINTELPRO is in operation in regards to certain ideas that are being associated with the Bogdanov twins ought not to be taken lightly. Physics and mathematics are the numero uno professions that have been used - historically speaking - to support the power elite. It is logically evident that "they" have a vested interest in making sure that the money goes only to projects that 1) will augment their control; in which case such projects will be buried and no one will know about them; or 2) projects that do not threaten their control, in which case we may assume that they are funding research in the public domain that leads AWAY from the "important" issues.

            In short, if it's popular, gets funded, is allowed out in the open, you can almost guarantee that it is smart but useless.



            for the full article go to www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm

            In particular the last scentences is what I'm talking about. Bogus ideas will be promoted (like most of the crap they teach in public schools, which you and I are conditioned with (and it still seems to have a strong hold on some)) and the truth will be ridiculed (isn't that so obvious?)

            I'm telling you Hoopes, don't judge until you do the proper research. You could learn a lot from the folks at www.cassiopaea.org
            Becasue they do scientific research without any academic pressure, the need for official funding or ego desire of title, status, etc........they do it for the sole purpose of lookign for truth. That "search for truth" is what journalists in the mianstream media and scientists in the mainstream science have left behind a long time ago on their pursuit for social and worldly success. In the meantime they are being mislead and "guided" by their "employers".
            My friend, a professor at NASA Cal Tech, Nano Technology Department has told me repeately how much ego fights are in his professions. Not much cooperation, everyone wants to be the next "big shot". His work is also , by the way, closely monitored and defined by the ones who are signing his checks and funding his research : the military complex (defense department). Everything on a need to know bassis. Compartementalization is the name of the game.
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Fri, September 8, 2006 - 11:23 AM
              "My friend, a professor at NASA Cal Tech, Nano Technology Department has told me repeately how much ego fights are in his professions. Not much cooperation, everyone wants to be the next 'big shot'.

              Truth by anecdote doesn't impress me. I've been in academia for a long time now, and this hasn't been my experience at all.
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Fri, September 8, 2006 - 7:14 AM
        There's certainly no shortage of pseudoscientists (and people walking around wearing helmets made of aluminum foil and coat hangers), even among professors. I could give you lots more examples than these.

        I find all of this stuff amazing, too, but for totally different reasons.

        What I'm trying to figure out is this phenomenon of suspending judgement and disbelief and abandoning critical thinking when presented with "alternative" theories, accepting them solely on the basis of the fact that they challenge conventional knowledge while at the same time being dismissive and ultra-critical of anything coming from the hardworking, competitive, self-critical, and self-correcting world of professional academia.

        The history of the Third Reich and Hitler's fascination with the occult shows how a charismatic individual with a completely warped view of the world can capture the imagination of a gullible, vulnerable public and turn it into a plan for world domination. I don't mean to be alarmist, but I think those of you who are choosing to abandon critical thinking are setting yourselves up to become sheep that will follow yet another fanatic. Don't you realize that you're mirroring exactly what has happened with those people who blindly supported George Bush?

        As I've been saying for a while now, the attacks on science in "New Edge" thinking are almost identical to those that have been coming from the evangelical Christian advocates of Creationism and intelligent design. Sure, you can find some professors who are presenting "alternative" views, but there are also professors like Wiliam Dembski and Michael Behe, who contradict established knowledge as adamant supporters of the "alternative" theory of intelligent design.

        www.designinference.com

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

        But then, maybe you're already a believer in intelligent design...

        www.rael.org/rael_content/intro.php

        According to your standards, there's also "scientific" evidence for Creation *exactly* as it is described in the Book of Genesis:

        www.answersingenesis.org

        I'm curious. By abandoning critical thinking, how do you evaluate statements by nutwads like Ann Coulter? If I say she's full of shit, does that make you want to believe *her*?

        www.anncoulter.com

        The issue here, Bernhard, is not one of science at all. It's a matter of faith and belief. You're certainly entitled to your beliefs, but don't claim they're any more "objective" or "scientific" than other myths, legends, revelations, and rants that fall into the category of "lies mixed with truth". Most of those won't fit your belief system, either.

        The question I'm interested in is: How do you decide what to believe?
        • Re: Michael Tsarion

          Fri, September 8, 2006 - 8:26 AM
          Here's where you need to do some spiritual archaeology. That's where you will find the answers to questions about whether things that logic cannot decipher are baseless or solid truth. One's soul is a rich storehouse of experiences that extent far beyond the present incarnation one is so familiar with. Surely there are mystical experiences about yourself, your life experience that you cannot explain. Investigate these and get back with us when yet get a lead.
  • Re: Michael Tsarion

    Thu, September 7, 2006 - 11:49 PM
    Wow finally made it deeper into the site... Dig what he's up to...
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Michael Tsarion

      Fri, September 8, 2006 - 9:44 AM
      on a note, hoopes, it does become a bit annoying that you constantly judge and form opinions without ever really having done any proper studies in the particular subjects. It's literally that you edit out what you don't want to hear or see and just keep repeating and justifying your worldview and belief system which you are apparently not giving up even if your life is at stake. Your ego does have a strong hold on you, you know that right? It really doesn't want to let go and that's why I find it time wasting to try to make you anything clear becasue people who don't want to listen just won't listen and will do anything to defend their paradigm. Why I'm here again, interacting with you? I don't know, sometimes I have hopes you would just open your mind a little bit and let go and actually look at what is being presented without your memory of past conditioning clouding your abiliity to see.
      But I'm a romantic at times and never give up hope.....which puts me into these time consuming and sometimes useless interactions here on this tribe.
      As I said before, I really don't know what to say or do anymore. If someone doesn't want to see it or listen, there is nothing I can do.
      My principles in life are truth, love and integrity. At least that is what I'm trying to focus on. Not much else matters to me. I'm not concerned with status, titles ot any other social games. I certainly have my own flaws, no doubt. However, it just takes too much energy to get through your hard head, Mr. hoopes,as you keep twisting around what I say and edit out what you can attack and ignore the rest. It's getting old.
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Fri, September 8, 2006 - 11:03 AM
        "it does become a bit annoying that you constantly judge and form opinions without ever really having done any proper studies in the particular subjects"

        It has become more than annoying that you constantly assume that I *haven't* done any of what you consider to be "proper studies" in these particular subjects. You're the one that's constantly judging, and I know for a fact that you're wrong. You were forming opinions about Tsarion while at the same time admitting that you hadn't really studied his work. Look into the mirror, pal. All of the accusations you're hurling at me are a projection of your own issues. I hope some of the work you're doing on Self is revealing that, too.

        Maybe you could outline for me a particular subject and what you consider to be a "proper study" of it. Go ahead. We'll give it a spin.

        "you edit out what you don't want to hear or see and just keep repeating and justifying your worldview and belief system which you are apparently not giving up even if your life is at stake"

        You say this as if you and others on this thread, especially yourself, aren't doing *exactly* the same thing. You say it as if it's a bad thing. As if you don't have the same problem.

        Remember Hillel? "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" But also, "If I am not for others, what am I?" And "If not now, when?"
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Michael Tsarion

          Fri, September 8, 2006 - 12:32 PM
          "Maybe you could outline for me a particular subject and what you consider to be a "proper study" of it. "

          Well, let's start with Tsarion. Have you known his work for that long that you can you say you have studied it in depth or only since this thread?
          In the past I rememebr you dissing the crop circle phenomena, alien abduction and the paranormal but it seems to me that you haven't looked into the research that is out here on these subjects at all. I also question your study and knowledge about shamanism without ever having studied the tools of the shaman, namely entheogens.
          It also seems to me that you don't unerstand the whole part social and eduactional conditioning plays in the role of what you are "judging" what is true and what not. That more than anything. it seems to me you are not aware of your own conditioning at all and won't admit to it on a million years. It matters very much in what state of maind and what kind of awareness one is doing research, don't you think? You can read thousands of books, quote thousands of scholars and post millions of links, but if you cannot look through your own bias and conditioning, it is all useless and worthless.

          "You say this as if you and others on this thread, especially yourself, aren't doing *exactly* the same thing. You say it as if it's a bad thing. As if you don't have the same problem. "

          I'm surely not compeltely free of my conditioning, however, I think (just from the interaction with you) that I'm a bit more awre of the filter of social and education conditioning through mainstream institutions and "offcial culture". Pinchbeck has tried to make you aware of that in many occasions as well. However, you seemed to take that personal (as your ego being offended) or you ignore it. That's also why I posted krishnamurtis' excerpt (whcih you aslo ignored although I asked you what you felt about it) becasue he puts the problem of the lack of self-knoweldge so well into words. I think, at times you are a victim of your own intellect and not aware of your own psychological processes. You seem to be more focused on "outside" knowledge through books and whatever, defending your paradigm and belief system at "any cost", but don't undertand your own internal process of how you take in this information as it goes through your conditioned filter. Obvioulsy I can't get a clear picture of you or you of me, since interaction through this forum is limited. I can only sense something and observe in the most objective way posssible. You see hoopes, I'm not interested in being right, I have no ego-need to defend any form of social status, I'm just seeking and looking for truth, no more or less. You , on the oterh hand, have much more at stake, right professor?


          here is a thread from yesterday, some questions I asked you, which you ignored, didn't see or had no time to respond in regards to Tsarion's work:

          "....can't you see ANY value in his lecture and what he is actually suggessting and saying? (I'm ONLY talking about the lecture) And, if you don't agree with what he has to say, what do you have to offer and bring to the table as a constructive solution to the world's problems? It's always easy to critique but a whole other story to bring creative and constructive solutions to the table. Even if there are things in his lecture you can't understand, don't agree, or relate to (like the Atlantean thing. Personally I can't make a judgment, becasue I haven't studied his reasearch on that subject, yet, however, I give it the benefit of a doubt since evolution as taught in public schools sound more like fiction to me anyway), don't you think he has some valid points? In particular the need to confront ourselves and our own shadow/darkness as we keep manifesting it as long as we deny/ignore our shadow. (Shadow meaning in Jungian terms. I suppose you are famliar with Car Jung). in anyway, what do YOU have to offer creatively and constructively , rather than just critiquing and debunking anything that doesn't suit you?"

          Do you mind answering?
          • Re: Michael Tsarion

            Fri, September 8, 2006 - 4:15 PM
            "In the past I rememebr you dissing the crop circle phenomena, alien abduction and the paranormal but it seems to me that you haven't looked into the research that is out here on these subjects at all. I also question your study and knowledge about shamanism without ever having studied the tools of the shaman, namely entheogens."

            It "seems" to you that I haven't looked into the research at all? You question my knowledge and think I've never studied entheogens?

            "Do you mind answering?"

            Yes, I do. I'm done with you for now, Bernhard.

            As a source of "knowledge" your intuition sucks. You are wrong, my friend, in more ways than you can possibly imagine.

            I can't detect any change in your consciousness or introspection from before you left for Peru. All that ayahuasca doesn't seem to have helped you one bit.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Michael Tsarion

              Fri, September 8, 2006 - 11:34 PM
              "I can't detect any change in your consciousness or introspection from before you left for Peru. All that ayahuasca doesn't seem to have helped you one bit. "

              you know what, I can tell how this is draining my energy, as you are simpley not listening or even understand what I'm trying to tell you.
              It would just be an ego battle anyway and I can't do it anymore. yes the journey has changed me, in more r ways you (and I actually) can possibly imagine.
              For me this whole thread was about Shadow work (as presented in Tsarion's lecture.) Something I experienced in Peru. You completely ignore the whole topic I was trying to talk about.
              Again, you ignore the questions, about what you have to offer creativley (without posting any links) that can help humaity to understand human existence, their own Self and ultimately help the whole world? I thought tsarion is making very clear how important iti s to confront our shadows, to understand ourselves, how we function. Even if he's wrong with everything else (whcih I doubt anyway) he does hit the nail on the head about the Shadow Self and how it is going rampart in our world. Ever since Peru this has become so obvious to me, so it was an interesting "coinicdence" and synchronicity that I got to see this lecture. Before that I just browsed tribe, simply becasue I didn't want get into these draining discussions. however, I can't help myself, if someone so cunning, smart and book-wise as you are, but can't see the whole issue of social and educational conditioning in yourself at all, I gave in. So my ego got into play. And yes, I surely did project as well. But I don't like it. It seems like I have to suppress my consiousness in order to play that game. I'd rather let go and go back to what I was doing before I started posting on here and that is just: being Creative.

              The arena is yours hoopes. teach 'em all about what is true and what not. Black and white.

              Everyone else. Thanks for listening and participating. Hopefully some of you understood what my intention was and what I was trying to say.
              If not, it doesn't matter either way.

              much love to you all!

              ...off to new adventures.

              B:-)
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Fri, September 8, 2006 - 11:04 AM
        Hoopes wrote:

        >>Jordan Maxwell www.jordanmaxwell.com
        Author of "What You Need to Know About the British Israel World Federation Movement" which offers, "Actual documents dating from the mid-twentieth century showing that, even as far back as the late 1930s, secret societies had earmarked September 2001 as a start-date for the 'New World Order.'"<<

        This is information providing context for understanding where Tsarion is coming from. I see this and I find it alarming, because it's all too Protocols of the Elders of Zion for my taste. And yet the focus of the conversation becomes what a retrograde goofball Hoopes is. Tsarion is sending out hate and is associated with folks who are disseminating propaganda worthy of Goebbles, but Hoopes is the bad guy.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Michael Tsarion

          Fri, September 8, 2006 - 12:53 PM
          "Tsarion is sending out hate and is associated with folks who are disseminating propaganda worthy of Goebbles, but Hoopes is the bad guy. "

          Please show me where Tsarion is sending out hate...and I'm talking HATE, not just critique of any group. You should knwo yourself that there are bad jews and good jews, bad americans and good americans, bad germans and good germans......ti's all mixed up......and I see no problem at all to critique any national or religious goup. It's not racisim as I don't hate anyone. These are just labels people put on themeselves anyway. I can't relate to that as I see no point in identifying myself with any religion, nation or group. But I talked about this some months ago on a different thread. more about this here: people.tribe.net/aquamanta...e1c8224493

          By the way you can learn fromt the wisdom of peole like Goebbles or Hitler as well:
          "The bigger the lie, the more people believe it", as Adolf used to say.

          My point in general is not to defend Tsarions' work, I'm saying that anyone has a bit of the truth and some valid points and like I told Hoopes, most of us underestimate our own social conditioning and bias (some are not ever aware of that), the whole psychology of it all. Self-knowledge.
          Hoopes is not a bad guy, I never said that, it's just extremely hard to engage in a discussion of truth with someone who is very obviously side-tracked through Conditioning and not aware of it. Again, my I refer to Krishanmurti on that regard, as he uses words so eloquently and direct without making it an intellectual feast of masturbation.

          In short, don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
          • Re: Michael Tsarion

            Fri, September 8, 2006 - 2:58 PM
            >>>Please show me where Tsarion is sending out hate...and I'm talking HATE, not just critique of any group.<<<

            If the links Hoopes provides at the top of this thread don't do much for you, I'm not sure what more can be done on that front. I think you are willfully not seeing it, because you think, somehow you can afford to. I don't think that's the way it works, my friend. We're all connected, and when one group blithely overlooks another group in trouble, it affects us all.

            >>You should knwo yourself that there are bad jews and good jews, bad americans and good americans, bad germans and good germans......ti's all mixed up......and I see no problem at all to critique any national or religious goup. It's not racisim as I don't hate anyone. These are just labels people put on themeselves anyway. I can't relate to that as I see no point in identifying myself with any religion, nation or group. But I talked about this some months ago on a different thread. more about this here: people.tribe.net/aquamanta...e1c8224493<<<

            Is there some reason that you are assuming I am not capable of some amount of discernment between "good Jews" and "bad Jews"? You seem to be accusing me of being yet another one of those hysterical overreactive Jews we all find so pesky. Is it possible I have discernment about individuals and that I can still see hate coming from Tsarion? I mean is it just a little bit possible I'm bringing up something valid and upsetting, something you might be upset about if you let yourself feel it a bit?

            >>>By the way you can learn fromt the wisdom of peole like Goebbles or Hitler as well:
            "The bigger the lie, the more people believe it", as Adolf used to say.<<<

            That's really deep. Being a complete idiot, it hadn't occurred to me that people who express certain ideas I dislike could EVER have ANYTHING of value to say about ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. Thanks for hipping me to that. I shall from now on read my children Mein Kampf at bedtime and hope they are discerning enough to pick the good parts out.

            >>>My point in general is not to defend Tsarions' work, I'm saying that anyone has a bit of the truth and some valid points and like I told Hoopes, most of us underestimate our own social conditioning and bias (some are not ever aware of that), the whole psychology of it all. Self-knowledge.<<<

            I'd say anyone whose gotten a liberal arts BA at any college in America gets the basics of our the importance of social condition. Really, that's no big secret known only to intellectual behemoths such as yourself. And I'd say it's insulting for you to try to brush off my concerns as those of another person who is somehow so confused by being a Jew that she can't tell the difference between a difference of opinion and malice. What I've read of Tsarion is malice. I can withstand a lot of debate and I can also recognize hate when I see it, thank you very much.

            >>>Hoopes is not a bad guy, I never said that, it's just extremely hard to engage in a discussion of truth with someone who is very obviously side-tracked through Conditioning and not aware of it. Again, my I refer to Krishanmurti on that regard, as he uses words so eloquently and direct without making it an intellectual feast of masturbation.<<<

            I guess if it's possible for someone as smart as Hoopes to get sidetracked by Conditioning and not be aware of it, it's possible for all of us, isn't it? Maybe even you?

            >>>In short, don't throw out the baby with the bath water.<<<

            Uh, thanks. It's the kids' bedtime. I'm off to read them Mein Kampf. So glad we've had this conversation. Your compassion and care changed my world view.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Michael Tsarion

              Fri, September 8, 2006 - 11:00 PM
              "If the links Hoopes provides at the top of this thread don't do much for you, I'm not sure what more can be done on that front."

              I'm glad you let hoopes do the thinking for you, or are familiar at all with maxwell's or Icke's work yourself?


              "I'm off to read them Mein Kampf."

              it's a good book. You'll like it. He was a psycho, no doubt , but a genius as well. Amazing how he wrote down everything 10 years berfore he'd do it. Talking about vision and manifesting it. Gotta give this guy credit. Maybe a more compassionate vision would have been better, though.

              :-)
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Fri, September 8, 2006 - 11:34 AM
        Bernard, nice to have you back,, Namaste, InLaketch,

        "You edit out what you don't want to hear and turn it into an absurd intellectual debate, which I , I'm sorry, just cannot take part anymore. It's literally a waste of energy and has no constructive value whatsoever. It's just intellectaul masturbation and the ego is getting off giving itself a hand. "

        This is why I rarely have anythig to say her , but I do enjoy "listening"
        May we all remember ourselves
        may we all become part of the solution
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Michael Tsarion

          Fri, September 8, 2006 - 1:01 PM
          "This is why I rarely have anythig to say her , but I do enjoy "listening"
          May we all remember ourselves
          may we all become part of the solution"

          Yep, and I'm just giving it another shot.......until it's time to shut up again and go inside. I learn more traveling my inside than reading on forums or books. Funny how that works.....and words, let me tell you are the most limiting from of communication I've ever encountered. It's frustrating, to say the least.


          "May we all remember ourselves
          may we all become part of the solution"

          So true.


          By the way, my friend Matthew (also the singer of my band) wrote a poem which is getting pubilshed in some magazine. I think it fits in here quite well:


          Spiral

          The ship is returning to the harbor
          Within it our forgotten self
          What illusion could not make us forget

          For fear could not stop us
          From reaching for light continually

          A circle approaching completion
          As we are reminded of these gifts
          That we placed in boxes with ribbons and bows
          At the start of this great journey
          To be unwraped upon remembering

          Pulling loose the ribbon, tearing away the bows

          Boundless and free
          We wake up laughing




      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Fri, September 8, 2006 - 2:36 PM
        But I'm a romantic at times and never give up hope.....which puts me into these time consuming and sometimes useless interactions here on this tribe. As I said before, I really don't know what to say or do anymore. If someone doesn't want to see it or listen, there is nothing I can do. My principles in life are truth, love and integrity. At least that is what I'm trying to focus on. Not much else matters to me. I'm not concerned with status, titles ot any other social games. I certainly have my own flaws, no doubt. However, it just takes too much energy to get through your hard head, Mr. hoopes,as you keep twisting around what I say and edit out what you can attack and ignore the rest. It's getting old. >> (Bernard)

        This is close to what I'm feeling. I've seen this kind of thing in so many discussions across the net. People are diverted by someone who, consciously or not, plays the troll role, and time and energy are expended on refuting the trolls' every criticism. When it comes down to it, all that matters is that you (everyone) uses what works for them. I'm not familiar with Michael Tsarion; maybe I'll check him out when I have a chance. But if some of his work is helpful to you, go with it and discard the rest. Most things are that way -having many aspects and interpretations- whether you are talking about an internet conspiracy theory, the Bible or the Koran (the latter two, for example, contain many examples of what could be called "hate" but that doesn't mean there is no spiritual value in them). I don't feel the need to justify myself to anyone. When it comes down to it, it's all universal energy/the Tao/God/Goddess. If someone objects to something I say, read, believe in, whatever, and they want to categorize me a certain way, so be it. Defending yourself, unless something truly important is at stake (like your life) is usually defending your ego and is not very productive.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Michael Tsarion

          Sun, September 10, 2006 - 5:09 PM
          very well said Larry, I really resonate with those sentiments
          • Re: Michael Tsarion

            Sun, September 10, 2006 - 7:17 PM
            Scanning through this "discussion" after a several weeks' absence from these forums, I found it instructive how the focus was entirely sabotaged by hoopes and pulled into the same unproductive vortex as many of our earlier discussions. Ferrara described this tactic perfectly below.

            It is perhaps important, if we are seeking to learn how to use these collective forums as tools in consciousness evolution, that we become experts at avoiding certain tactics that work to keep discourses on the lowest level. Rampantly overusing terms like "racist" is a scare tactic that creates a poisonous environment in which people feel too hammered to go deep into difficult terrain of any sort. Hoopes' tactics need to be seen as what they are - systematic means of intimidation that allow him to dominate the discourse. The best way of dealing with this method would be to acknowledge it for what it is, and then icily ignore it. By commenting upon his comments further, one only remains stuck in the same place, sacrificing one's energy to the black hole of the professor's rigidified ego.

            I believe that in earlier discussions, I and others have carefully demonstrated the failure of his viewpoint and the deterministic limits of his worldview on various subjects, from crop circles to quantum physics and consciousness. Allowing him to take back this ground again and again means that nothing subtle, nothing truly new, can be explored or gleaned from these forums.

            Others will come along with other tactics - it could be excellent training to learn how to deal with such methods in this forum. Think of it as learning a kind of martial arts practice on an intellectual level.

            The possibility that there are esoteric and spiritual distinctions in human races is something that should be allowed for discussion without being derailed and intercepted by immediate cries of racism. Otherwise we can't have open discussions, only banal demagoguery. Rudolf Steiner went into these ideas at great length in his work, and I would be happy to explore his concepts, as long as most participants are willing to entertain the possibility that I am not a racist for doing so (and neither perhaps was Steiner). I do not necessarily "believe" the ideas, or support them, but I do find some of them worthy of serious consideration.

            I strongly suspect that hoopes has serious shadow material hiding in this area, as so many white male academics do. Therefore, he constantly leaps to the "attack" in a frenzied and wind-baggy effort to stave off any potentially meaningful back-and-forth. He is very much the archetypal white man, who must dominate any discussion he enters, out of fear of confronting his own inner abyss.
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Sun, September 10, 2006 - 8:58 PM
              Thanks Colin.

              Very good points, Daniel. This is an ongoing challenge for me, and others as well I'm sure -to resist the temptation to get caught up in fruitless debates. The trouble is, if someone's intention is to subvert the basic purpose of the discussion itself, you can't really win an argument with them because by arguing you have already lost your focus. I'm just rephrasing what Daniel said, but it's important to remember. There is too much at stake right now to waste time.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Michael Tsarion

              Sun, September 10, 2006 - 10:29 PM
              I appreciate your insights Daniel. I for one will not be intimidated by anyones attacks, when people engage in this kind of behavior they reveal a great deal about themselves which is easy to see if we don't become entangled in it. I pointed out in this thread and another one examples of Hoopes using labels to shutdown discussion and pathologizing those that hold certain beliefs. These are very clear defense mechanisms to anyone somewhat versed in psychology and if someone is going to repeatedly engage in that with me I will ignore their comments because they are really saying they are not interested in real communication and it quickly becomes a waste of time. I'm fully interested in open honest discussion and debate and welcome those that share that goal.
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Sun, September 10, 2006 - 10:41 PM
              "the focus was entirely sabotaged by hoopes and pulled into the same unproductive vortex as many of our earlier discussions"

              Gee, Daniel, I could have sworn "the focus" of this thread was Michael Tsarion's work and responses to Colin's remark, "I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has looked into his stuff and what you think." How was that focus "sabotaged"?

              "Rampantly overusing terms like 'racist' is a scare tactic that creates a poisonous environment in which people feel too hammered to go deep into difficult terrain of any sort."

              Rampantly overusing? Perhaps you could give me an example of what you mean. Where did I use the term excessively, to refer to something other than what was intended?

              "systematic means of intimidation that allow him to dominate the discourse"

              Who here felt *intimidated* by me? Daniel, I think that's pretty insulting to the rest of the folks in this thread. I don't think any of them seem intimidated at all.

              "Others will come along with other tactics - it could be excellent training to learn how to deal with such methods in this forum. Think of it as learning a kind of martial arts practice on an intellectual level."

              Daniel, I think you're finally beginning to catch on.

              "I strongly suspect that hoopes has serious shadow material hiding in this area, as so many white male academics do."

              Well, if there was any doubt about your own racism and sexism, you've just played those two cards, along with your anti-academic prejudice.

              "He is very much the archetypal white man, who must dominate any discussion he enters, out of fear of confronting his own inner abyss."

              Now you're demonizing white men. Do you think that's wise, considering the variety of people who've contributed to this thread? I mean, from what I can tell, Colin, Bernhard, littlefish, Ferrara, oliver, Geoffrey, Larry, and dreamweaver all fall into that category.

              I think you're overlooking the carefully considered and articulate contributions of Manny Wolves and dowritewomyn, who I'm pretty sure are not archetypal white men. Have they experienced my need for domination? Maybe it's just a thing between us guys. Or maybe there's something totally different going on, such as--perhaps--exposing and critiquing racism and anti-Semitism in Michael Tsarion's writing as a response to Colin?

              Naaaaah.



              • Re: Michael Tsarion

                Mon, September 11, 2006 - 8:33 AM
                Boring. Redundant. Ultimate crimes in a forum calling for creative thought. Let's try another topic.
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Mon, September 11, 2006 - 8:47 AM
                  I second Leslie's last comment.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Michael Tsarion

                    Mon, September 11, 2006 - 9:49 AM
                    Who's being dismissive and hypocritical? Neither of you, right?
                    • Re: Michael Tsarion

                      Mon, September 11, 2006 - 10:24 AM
                      Yeah, all three of us, if that evens the score for you. I let myself be dragged into this discussion with the idea i might elevate it, but i seem to just be drawn down into the useless bickering, so, guilty as charged...I'm boring, redundant, and uncreative too, and wish to try another approach.
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Michael Tsarion

                      Mon, September 11, 2006 - 11:01 AM
                      "Scanning through this "discussion" after a several weeks' absence from these forums, I found it instructive how the focus was entirely sabotaged by hoopes and pulled into the same unproductive vortex as many of our earlier discussions."

                      That's it.


                      "It is perhaps important, if we are seeking to learn how to use these collective forums as tools in consciousness evolution, that we become experts at avoiding certain tactics that work to keep discourses on the lowest level. "

                      When there is no self-knowledge and basic knowledge of psychology any discussion becomes a waste of time. As I said earlier , I literally felt had to lower my consciousness in order to keep enaging in this interaction. No good.


                      "Hoopes' tactics need to be seen as what they are - systematic means of intimidation that allow him to dominate the discourse. The best way of dealing with this method would be to acknowledge it for what it is, and then icily ignore it. By commenting upon his comments further, one only remains stuck in the same place, sacrificing one's energy to the black hole of the professor's rigidified ego."

                      That's so well put as I really felt I got stuck in this place with no way out, completely wasting my energy as I got suck into the prof's ego....a bottomeless hole, as he kept ignoring what I was talking about.. That's the reason why I left this discussion. I'm still around but I rather be in observartion moder. Some good posts are made by many people on here and I like to learn. The one thing I've learned through the hoopes interaction is to ignore him.....until he has maybe a better understanding of himself and his ego. At this point he can't see clearly, as it shows with his response to your thread: Defense, attack, defense, atttack.........it's impossible for him to admit to anyhting. His ego is too strong.



                      "I strongly suspect that hoopes has serious shadow material hiding in this area, as so many white male academics do. Therefore, he constantly leaps to the "attack" in a frenzied and wind-baggy effort to stave off any potentially meaningful back-and-forth.

                      Very well put, Daniel and also exacly my point in this thread about my attempts to talk about the Shadow work as presented in Tsarion's lecture and my many attempts to hint at hoope's own shadow, as he's trying to defend his ego at any cost, not listening to what's being said, refusing to look at himself (beyond the ego and the mask of social, educational and academical conditioning) at any cost. I actually wonder if knows what conditioning mans at all. As Krishnamurti said, if you're not aware of your own conditioning (and everyone is conditioned) then you can't see yourself or the world clearly becasue you're looking at it through a filter, a state of mind formed by society, educational institutions and popular learned beliefs (like religion or nationalism). Such people do anything to defend their image and state of mind. I might even say that Hoopes is doing this unconscioulsy, as most people take their ego to be their real self.


                      "He is very much the archetypal white man, who must dominate any discussion he enters, out of fear of confronting his own inner abyss. "

                      That is very obvious to anyone who knows a bit of psychology 101. It 's common sense, really.
                      It's also very interesting how he ignored the Krishnamurti post completley, which talks so great about the importance of self-knowlede and the danger of the intellect. He basically ignores anything that is a serious threat to his "image" and might have to make him confront himself on a deeper level than just ego-response of defense and attack, posting links and talking his way out through intellectual means.


                      Again his respones to your post just proves it even more so.


                      I'll go back into observer mode. Just wanted to give kudos to Daniel's post as he has put the whole scenario here so well into words.,
                      There is no constructive discussion possible until the prof lets go and comes down from his horse (not sure if that happens this lifetime). Right now he's accomplishing the opposite and it is a complete waste of time and energy.

                      On another thread (regarding Tsarion) he was wondering why Daniel left the discussions about his book. ("Shall we invite him to join this discussion? (This seemed to work with Pinchbeck until he quit participating for some reason.))"

                      That's quite funny, actually ,as he doesn't seem to get it at all.
                      Well, the reason is very well outlined by Daniels' post right here, Ferara's excellent description of him and my attempts to talk about consciousness, shadow work and self-knowledge as presented for example in the Tsarion lecture.
                      It's a waste of time and energy to interact with hoopes and that's basically why I left and it might have been Daniel's reason as well.

                      I'm sure he can find excuses for all the above and no fault in him whatosever.

                      Never let go hoopes, you might find yourself.
                      • Re: Michael Tsarion

                        Mon, September 11, 2006 - 8:28 PM
                        blaming john hoopes for the destruction of this discussion is like blaming osama bin laden for 9/11.
                        or george w. bush for that matter.

                        we are all racists.
                        we are all killers.
                        we are all hypocrites.
                        we are all shadows.
                        we are all victims.
                        we are all rationalists.
                        we are all skeptics.
                        we are all whiners.
                        we are all liars.
                        we are all elitists.
                        we are all narcissists.
                        we are all schizophrenics.
                        we are all meglomaniacs.

                        we are all reflections.

                        think about it...
                        • Re: Michael Tsarion

                          Tue, September 12, 2006 - 7:26 AM
                          "blaming john hoopes for the destruction of this discussion is like blaming osama bin laden for 9/11. or george w. bush for that matter."

                          Thanks so much for that! I agree with you completely. Five years ago, still shaking after having watched the towers come down, I told my students the story of how I had proposed to my wife after a romantic dinner at Windows on the World. I'd been working all summer as a server at a restaurant in Rockefeller Center, scraping together savings for a special night out. I had explained to that the reason I'd chosen that location was so that, whenever she looked at the New York skyline, she would see where we'd been and remember that night. It seemed to me the closest thing to a mountaintop, a majestic and magical place. The towers are gone, but we're still married, in spite of some rough patches.

                          I also told my students the story of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, these magnificent works of art and inspiration that the Taliban had blown to bits on March 11, 2001 (six months to the day before 9/11). It's sad for me that this other loss isn't also commemorated in our national consciousness. Not so much for the loss of the more than 2000-year-old statues (which was horrible to me), but for the terrible mistakes in communication that had led to their demolition. An Iranian friend explained that the Taliban had been seeking money for food and medicine from the United Nations, but had been refused because of their human rights issues. When the Swedish government allocated money for protecting the statues and saving Buddhist antiquities, but not for helping Afghani children, the Buddhas became symbols of the Taliban's outrage. So, they blew them up and also destroyed thousands of other sacred Buddhist statues, shrines, paintings, and other religious objects.

                          You can read more about the Buddhas of Bamiyan here:
                          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

                          "Then Taliban Ambassador-at-large, (and current Yale student) Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, said that the destruction of the statues was carried out during the famine in Afghanistan after a Swedish government earmarked money to be provided to repair the statues and refused to allow it to be used to aid Afghan Children. Hashimi is reported as saying: "When the Afghani head council asked them to provide the money to feed the children instead of fixing the statues, they refused and said, 'No, the money is just for the statues, not for the children'. Herein, they made the decision to destroy the statues.

                          "On April 19th 2004, in an interview to a Pakistani journalist Mohammad Shehzad, Mullah Mohammad Omar said the following, 'I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings — the Afghans who are dying of hunger, but they are so concerned about non-living objects like the Buddha. This was extremely deplorable. That is why I ordered its destruction. Had they come for humanitarian work, I would have never ordered the Buddhas' destruction.'"

                          The destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan can't be blamed on either Osama bin Laden or George Bush, a far more complex process that involved all of us and also resulted in the events of 9/11. It is a mind-blowing irony that the loss of the Buddhas of Bamiyan was attributed to a lack of compassion. I suspect that the same problem is at the root of many other things.

                          I hope we can all realize that anything, like racism and anti-Semitism, that contributes to the dehumanization of a group of people, and anything that contributes to the erasure of an individual's unique identity--such as dismissing them for being examples of a negative stereotype--contributes to the problem rather than its solution.

                          The more this problem continues, the more likely we are to lose things that we treasure. Whether we're contribute to it ourselves, or fail to confront it when we see it, we are all to blame.
  • Re: Michael Tsarion

    Mon, September 25, 2006 - 5:32 PM
    Michael Tsarion's work falls within the tradition of "British Israelism", also called "Anglo-Israelism", whose origins go back to at least the 1700s:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

    Given his Irish ethnicity, it's interesting to note how his interests also have many parallels with those of Annie Besant (1847-1933), a London-born Irish activist for Irish independence who later befriended Madame Blavatsky and became a leading Theosophist.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Besant

    Annie Besant's life shows how closely intertwined progressive social thinking and what later came to be known as "New Age" thought could become. Before becoming a Theosophist, she was an early advocate for women's rights, birth control, fights against poverty and injustice, and British socialism. She was an early Marxist. In 1916, Besant became a major advocate for the Home Rule Movement in India. (A little-know bit of trivia is that she was apparently the first to call Mohandas Gandhi by the title "Mahatma", a term beloved to Blavatsky). She was also a close friend of Krishnamurthi.
    • Re: Michael Tsarion

      Mon, August 25, 2008 - 12:19 PM
      I find it depressing that so many take this garbage seriously. I really do. The bogus history and psychobabble is so transparent. People seem so ready to believe pretty much anydamnthing. Is this a preview of a new dark age, where emotion, mythology and fear again take the minds of humanity?
      • Re: Michael Tsarion

        Mon, August 25, 2008 - 12:55 PM
        i know wil
        just like you said the russo film: from freedom to fascism was garbage
        especially when he went to the irs to ask them to explain their 'law,code'
        i am sorry if i made a fool out of you back then
        i am trying to refrain from all less positive incitations....
        believe me, it will not be easy
        take a hike over to thread: void contracts...
        and listen to opening link: maxwell
        quite scary, once you see how the whole foundation was laid
        to pick the what...ever they chose: ptb? call them what you wish, or simply ignore
        just re: tho, the core word of ignorance is ignore
        grammar check? please, give me a break...
        • Re: Michael Tsarion

          Mon, August 25, 2008 - 12:59 PM
          Ok, roger. Take a break.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Michael Tsarion

            Mon, August 25, 2008 - 5:29 PM
            Wil, you use very strong words like 'garbage' and 'psychobabble' among others
            when it comes to these kinds of researchers, and this kind of material.
            Without telling us why and how.
            Do you really think they make us afraid?
            If you are so fervent against fear-mongering,
            you should be more concerned about the things that actually instill real terror and fear.
            "Can I pay my bills next week?"
            "Will I be able to pay for my wife's surgery?"
            "Will my kids be able to go to a decent school?"
            These are all very real, everyday fears, for most people in the world,
            and ALL of them could be solved if the world was shared, instead of greedily controlled by a few.


            Maybe you feel these kinds of researchers make a bunch of money on unsuspecting masses?
            Then I suggest you compare their wealth with those on the forbes list,
            or those that have too much wealth to be mentioned on that list.

            Has it ever occured to you that if there was such a thing as a hidden agenda,
            that then it would be... well.......hidden?
            That it would be very hard to come by some decent evidence?
            Especially since those who do the research,
            are more often than not regular people,
            and do not control huge amounts of money, media,
            intelligence- and law enforcement organizations and people?
            If there are people in this world who make so much money that they're excluded from the
            Forbes list, is it really that hard to imagine that they might prefer to be 'hidden'?
            That they might be obscure when it comes to them revealing their dealings?
            Have you asked yet to be invited to the next Bilderberg meeting?
            Until you are, I consider their meetings secretive and suspicious.

            Most people who DO watch these things, and take from them what they find likely to be true,
            do that out of frustration with the terrors and misery inflicted upon the world and it's inhabitants.
            What's your motivation for stereotyping these researchers and attacking them with content-less judgments?
            And who are you to tell Roger to take a break?
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Mon, August 25, 2008 - 5:55 PM
              Was kidding with roger. He asked me to "give him a break" so i said "take a break"

              Look ramon. I really do have a very low opinion of tsarian and icke. Very low. I am not impressed with the writing , the thinking, the research or the moral tenor of either man. They seem wrong to me from every angle from the get go. I actually don't think i'm near as strident about not believing it as some are insulting and insistent who believe in such. However, i am tired of going over the same stuff and i was right sorry i spoke to this thread, and even sorrier that i spoke in such a harsh way. I had a lousy day.....a lot of that going around evidently.

              I'm tired of arguing about it. I don't like to keep offending you with this, ramon. To tell you the truth, i'm about sick of the whole damned business.




              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Michael Tsarion

                Wed, August 27, 2008 - 10:13 AM
                Well, Wil. What about Jordan Maxwell, Jim Mars, Robert Anton Wilson, or any of the other prominent researchers? Tsarion and Icke are just parroting works dating back to the 15th century. Works of Alice Baily and Blavatsky(1880s). Works of Manly P Hall, John Dee and Edward Kelly(1580s). Tsarion is Maxwell's student... But Icke is just using everyone's research, sometimes even calling it his own... which is the main thing I noticed about Icke...

                What about all the Whistle Blowers... There are to many to list... Some are extremely high ranking...

                I understand that you might not like these people... but if you do the research yourself, you will in fact find the same paper trails and information... I question some of Tsarion's interpretations of the Symbolism... Heck he doesn't even believe in actual Draconians, just symbolic ones... Oh he believes that they are not from Earth... but not the reptilian bit... But Siriusly Put all the Alien stuff to the side for now... And look at the Hard Evidence... And there is plenty... The Subject is not new... Nor is it just a handful of crackpots saying these things... University Professors, High Ranking Gov. and Military, Ex-Intelligence Community, Military Industrial Complex Whistle Blowers to name a few... You can in fact trace it back to Summer and Egypt...

                But Don't Take My Word For It... GO and Study...
            • Re: Michael Tsarion

              Tue, August 26, 2008 - 7:04 AM
              "'Can I pay my bills next week?'
              'Will I be able to pay for my wife's surgery?'
              'Will my kids be able to go to a decent school?'
              These are all very real, everyday fears, for most people in the world,
              and ALL of them could be solved if the world was shared, instead of greedily controlled by a few."

              Ramon, these are exactly the kinds of questions that led people to read "Mein Kampf" and conclude that Adolf Hitler was the kind of leader they needed. He gained their confidence by persuading the German people that they were suffering at the hands of Jews with a "hidden agenda".

              If you don't see the parallels, then you need to learn more about history. Hitler originally wanted to title his book "Four and a Half Years [of Fighting] Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice".

              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_kampf

              "Most people who DO watch these things, and take from them what they find likely to be true, do that out of frustration with the terrors and misery inflicted upon the world and it's inhabitants."

              It is understandable why that happens. However, when the same people who obviously abandon good critical thinking about "what they find likely to be true" with regards to crop circles, alien abductions, psi phenomena, crystal healing, 2012, etc. in order to fervently believe what they WANT to be true begin following ideologues such as Tsarion, it seems more likely that they will get what the Third Reich almost succeeded in delivering--a world "greedily controlled by a few."

              If you pay close attention to Tsarion, you will see that he--like Hitler--exploits fear, ignorance, and gullibility. Yes, the problems that you describe are real and require solutions. However, succumbing to the psychobabble of individuals like Tsarion won't get you any solutions you want.

              "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana
              • Re: Michael Tsarion

                Tue, August 26, 2008 - 8:41 AM
                pp:If you pay close attention to Tsarion, you will see that he--like Hitler...
                704am

                wow
                it is one thing to bring up hitler
                but to compare, and even in the same sentence
                gee, they sure taught you well; at least in critical writing...
              • Re: Michael Tsarion

                Tue, August 26, 2008 - 11:51 AM
                "'Can I pay my bills next week?'
                'Will I be able to pay for my wife's surgery?'
                'Will my kids be able to go to a decent school?'
                These are all very real, everyday fears, for most people in the world,
                and ALL of them could be solved if the world was shared, instead of greedily controlled by a few."

                I agree with the sentiment behind that for sure. There is, i think , enough. I think that the greed of the very rich and financially powerful is a big problem. So is war and the scourge, as i see it, of nationalism. On a level closer to home, egotism and our prejudice for our own cellves, our family and tribe. When we look at the world through the eyes of a systems analyst we see that many of our problems are indeed fairly easy to remedy. The question is how to get to where we apply systems analysis to our thinking and then apply these thoughts to the situation.

                I think that our problems are a product of this lack of awareness, and that they perfectly push us towards the changes that need to be made. If we do not discard our egotism and separate agendas in favor of a more coherent and functional whole, we are toast. Very simple. I do not see the economic collusions of a few as the primary cause of our problems. Our problems come from bad memes like nationalism, racism, consumerism, sexism, all sorts of phobias and fears, addictions of all natures certainly including power and substance addictions and anything else that keeps us treating each other . I see our problem as the extremely widespread notions of everyday folks just like us, In fact....us, in various ways and guises and to various degrees.
                • Re: Michael Tsarion

                  Tue, August 26, 2008 - 11:59 AM
                  gee wil
                  if read enough of your stupid bullshit, over and over and over and over
                  again
                  most come to believe it

                  but we have read enough of what 'published'; the experts speak
                  and look, we give medals to the best and brightest. what? a phd
                  and money to go/glo...
                  gee thanx

                  once upon a time, plants existed...
  • Unsu...
     

    ...dear Hoopes,

    Fri, August 29, 2008 - 4:14 PM
    "....Ramon, these are exactly the kinds of questions that led people to read "Mein Kampf" and conclude that Adolf Hitler was the kind of leader they needed. He gained their confidence by persuading the German people that they were suffering at the hands of Jews with a "hidden agenda". ...."

    It's very easy to drop the anti-semitism label on somebody who starts talking about how banking cartels suck the blood of mother nature and it's inhabitants.
    It happens all the time, and I don't care, I've never said I believe in the protocols of zion, or that I think the elites are all jewish. However, I think there's a lot to say about the role Israel and Judaism or Zionism play in the upholding of the status quo and problems in the world. I watched the 'Israeli Lobby' and was awe struck by the allegiance even figures like Hillary and Obama are giving to Israel... but...
    If we say Hitler was mainly after the jews, much like the extremist Jihadi's, so "there must be something to it"... we are anti-semitic.
    If we say the whole jewish thing was exaggerated after wards, and there's nothing special about 'jews', we are "holocaust-deniers"...
    ...so it's safest to not say anything I guess.

    I've lived in Israel, and the whole "jew" thing actually doesn't mean shit anymore these days as everybody can become "Jewish", regardless of race or original nationality. The whole anti-semitism thing therefore is in my opinion utter stupidity; it's like being against 'people'...
    I'm just against the unfair possession and distribution of natural resources.

    "....If you don't see the parallels, then you need to learn more about history....."
    Well, growing up in Holland, I actually learned quite a bit about the second world war.
    I think the parallels are very far fetched... and the notion that we cannot question the world's richest families and our leaders, because Hitler did that, utterly ridiculous and dangerous.
    Ever heard of Joseph Rulof, a medium from Holland? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jozef_Rulof
    His teachings consisted of channeled information about all sorts of New Agey stuff like
    Karma, Twin Souls, Spiritual Evolution and Cosmic Grades, to name a few.
    Many people worldwide, even plenty here on Tribe, would probably devour his books without immediately noticing the fascism introduced in like book 8 or so...
    Even I was a 'follower' for a while when I was younger!!!

    His teachings and channeled info seem very realistic at first, but the deeper you get into it, the fouler it starts to smell, at least it did to me.
    Joseph Rulof eventually spoke of National Karma, that could be acquired by all people of a certain Race or Nation. He said the Jews had taken on a huge (national) Karmic debt by crucifying Jesus, and Hitler was so kind and noble to help the jews erase this karmic debt in no-time by inflicting the horrors upon them also known as the Holocaust.
    Within a couple years their debt would have been cleared, and even though Hitler knew he would become the most hated man on Earth, he knew at a deeper level that someday he would be recognized as the saint that he was....'

    This is in Joseph Rulof's teachings.

    He also spoke of 'spiritual development' in the sense that we are all 'spiritual' students and progressing through the classes to one day become enlightened enough to become teachers ourselves. We all start out as blobs, then became fish, then monkeys, then black people, then asian, etc. etc. etc. Before being done with all teachings on earth, we would receive the white caucasian body which was the last body before 'graduation' from earth. In other words, Rulof claimed all white people are further in their "development" than black people.

    Many people believe this crap, even to this day, but I'm having none of it.
    You see, critical thinking is not only reserved for science, but also very usefull in spirituality.

    I don't believe in Karma, I don't believe in 'spiritual development', and I don't believe in many things Tsarion and Icke believe.
    I think critically, and decide for myself, and have created my own religion which can best be described as a mixture of Anarchist teachings and gnosticism, and which is adjusted and updated on a daily basis.
    I believe in free press, and I think the existence of gullible naive people should not be a reason to put limits on what anybody can write, publish or talk about.


    What I do believe is that Hitler was not just a maniac with some weird ass obsession with Jews, but that there are far deeper reasons for his actions, and many of them in the occult domain. The Joseph Rulof domain of spiritual development and racial karmic fascism and other susch crap...

    I also believe that death is no magic mirror that once we pass through we will be totally enlightened.
    In other words, if people can be mean dumb-asses here, they can be like that beyond death as well, I think.
    Hence the fascist channeling.
    Of course it could be true that all channelling is fake, but I find that harder to believe than to belief some channeling is real, but the channeled spirits could very well be mean dumb-asses.

    "...However, when the same people who obviously abandon good critical thinking about "what they find likely to be true" with regards to crop circles, alien abductions, psi phenomena, crystal healing, 2012, etc...."

    You pick and choose the most 'out-there' ideas they present, but conveniently leave out the parts closer to Earth and our reality:
    -Problem-Reaction-Solution
    -Bilderberg
    -the federal reserve
    -recycled religions
    -patriot act
    -New World Order
    ...all very real, and right here on earth...no hocus pocus there.
    Do you believe all of these things are "psychobabble"?

    Saying we cannot even talk about the greedy elites because Hitler used such words to get to power is like saying you cannot drive a volkswagon because hitler used them to get to power. We cannot educate children, coz that's what Hitler did. We cannot have speeches, marches, parades, food...? Because hitler used that too?

    "...If you pay close attention to Tsarion, you will see that he--like Hitler--exploits fear, ignorance, and gullibility. ...."
    I've see all of his talks for free on his site, and he hasn't seen a penny from me... so I don't understand what you mean with "exploit".

    "....However, succumbing to the psychobabble of individuals like Tsarion won't get you any solutions you want. ...."
    I'm not succumbing to anyone, I just like to read books from different perspectives,
    take from them what I think has value, and move on to the next book.
    I think all these researchers and whistle blowers have important information,
    and I'm fascinated by the passionate repulsion some people have against such researchers,
    some even to the point that they bypass their "critical-think-filter" and decide the whole thing must be 100% psychobabble.

    "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - A. Einstein
    • Re: ...dear Ramon,

      Fri, August 29, 2008 - 6:27 PM
      "I've see all of his talks for free on his site, and he hasn't seen a penny from me... so I don't understand what you mean with 'exploit'."

      I'm not using "exploit" in a monetary sense at all, but in the sense of "taking advantage of" in an exploitative sense. You're entitled to find whatever gems of wisdom you like in Tsarion's work, but I think it's foolish not to consider some of the deeper, darker currents that run through his work.

      I don't think he's like Hitler in the sense of hating Jews (though that may still be true), since I suspect that he has little concern for relatively recent converts to Judaism. It's clear that he's principally interested in "bloodlines" that run far back into "ante-Diluvian" (i.e. before the "Great Flood") history. What I see as a similarity with Hitler is a preoccupation with race and heritage. In Hitler's case it was the "Aryans", while for Tsarion it's the Irish. You may have watched a lot of his videos, but have you read this?

      The Irish Origins of Civilization
      www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/irishoriginsexcerpts/irishorigins2.html

      Tsarion frequently cites as authoritative the work of William Comyns Beaumont:

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will...s_Beaumont

      As I've mentioned before, much of Tsarion's work is a manifestation of British Israelism:

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

      Even *without* the anti-Semitism, there is a lot of Tsarion's work that has much in common with the Nazi ideology of a Master Race:

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race

      Much of it is clearly a form of white supremacy:

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

      For me, that throws in doubt everything else he has to say.

      "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - A. Einstein

      For that reason, I encourage other people to investigate Tsaron's work and decide for themselves. I have.
      • Re: ...dear Ramon,

        Fri, August 29, 2008 - 6:37 PM
        pp:*...investigation is the height of ignorance" - A. Einstein *
        he should know
        wonder where he may of developed his keen insite?
        re: tesla
        and who was the idio 'clerk'?
        theory of relativity?
        gee, no wonder few understand it
        my cat has a theory or maybe two
        and now she wants to write
        comic books
        2
      • Re: ...dear Ramon,

        Fri, August 29, 2008 - 6:58 PM
        This is my first introductint to the term "British Israelism" but i've sure noticed the syndrome and it drives me crazy, and also you are so right, hoopes, about tsarion exemplifying it. It sort of has a hidden theme of racism and not so hidden christian chauvinism, imo. Mountains of "scholorship". What a waste pre-judice is.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: ...dear Ramon,

        Fri, August 29, 2008 - 7:04 PM
        ...."taking advantage of" in an exploitative sense....
        I still don't get it. All I know is that he charges money for teaching Tarot, which I've experienced to be a genuine helpful tool for those who put belief in it, and everybody's got to make a living....
        He's not amassing an army of people to take over the world and crown him emperor is he?

        "...I think it's foolish not to consider some of the deeper, darker currents that run through his work...."
        Like I said, I take what I like, and discard what I don't. Nobody is getting me on their white supremacy bandwagon, ever-
        not to say that I agree with yoy that he has deeper darker currents going on...

        "...What I see as a similarity with Hitler is a preoccupation with race and heritage...."
        Because that's the "dealbreaker" of the whole 'global conspiracy' thing!
        There had to have been a 'special' breed of people, who became our royal families,
        in order for there to be any truth to a global conspiracy.
        They showed magic tricks, whether real or not, in order to subject the masses.
        Where does the term 'blue blood' or 'royal blood' come from if there wasn't something 'special' about certain bloodlines?
        We all know property rights and wealth are passed on from generation to generation.
        Who are the people who control our planet's wealth and course today, and what is their heritage?
        Can I ask this without being labeled a fascist? I think so.

        "...You may have watched a lot of his videos, but have you read this? ..."
        So the guy is proud of his heritage... big deal.
        I caught the spiritual fascism in Joseph Rulof's books,
        but there wasn't anything even close to that in Tsarion's vids.
        As I stated before, I believe there is fascism in other realms as well,
        so I'll have a look at those links, but I really don't think you should throw everything he speaks of out the window
        because he may have made mistakes in his thinking.

        ".....For me, that throws in doubt everything else he has to say. ....."
        I don't see how that works.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: ...dear Ramon,

          Fri, August 29, 2008 - 7:11 PM
          I'd like to add that ---IF--- there truly is a "special" group of people that control our world and resources,
          my idea of a fix is not to start a witch hunt or holocaust.
          Again, this idea might well have stemmed from a belief in Karma,
          to which I do not subscribe personally.
          My suggestion is we ask these people to turn in their wealth,
          and join us in the reshaping of the future of our planet.
          The rich will need to share and the poor will need to forgive and forget.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: ...dear Ramon,

            Fri, August 29, 2008 - 7:21 PM
            "...This is my first introductint to the term "British Israelism" but i've sure noticed the syndrome and it drives me crazy..."

            Perhaps you noticed it in the surreal Israeli Lobby from Washington DC?
            Is the US really independent from Britain?
            Weren't two ex-presidents knighted by the British Queen for excellence in...?
        • Re: ...dear Ramon,

          Fri, August 29, 2008 - 7:23 PM
          I'll explain further, "in an exploitative sense" refers to the fact that I think he is USING people's ignorance, gullibility, fear, prejudice, hatred, etc. in order to pull them into believing he is a credible authority. I honestly don't know whether he's interested in amassing wealth or power or not, but the fact that people take him seriously is disturbing to me in the same way that it's disturbing to me that lots of people will vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

          I'm glad you're interested in investigating him further. Here's another document to consider:

          www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/irishoriginsexcerpts/irishorigins1.html

          "So the guy is proud of his heritage... big deal."

          I think you'll find it goes a lot farther than this! It's one thing to be proud of your own heritage, but something else altogether to trash the heritages of others. For some insight into how Tsarion thinks about Jews, read this section:

          Will the Real Jews Please Stand Up
          www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/irishoriginsexcerpts/irishorigins1.html#real%20jews%20stand

          "There had to have been a 'special' breed of people, who became our royal families, in order for there to be any truth to a global conspiracy."

          I sure don't know why that's so. Why the emphasis on "breed"? Can't a global "conspiracy" include people of multiple heritages and genealogies? The Bushes and the Saudis, for example?

          "'.....For me, that throws in doubt everything else he has to say. .....'
          I don't see how that works."

          If you can take the words of a white supremacist seriously, you're a different breed than I.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: ...dear Ramon,

            Fri, August 29, 2008 - 8:32 PM
            "...but something else altogether to trash the heritages of others...."
            Agreed.

            "...Can't a global "conspiracy" include people of multiple heritages and genealogies?
            The Bushes and the Saudis, for example?..."
            It can.
            But what I don't understand about our history is how people were elevated to Royal status
            i.e. claiming ownership of property and resources while subjecting a massive majority
            to a shitty life without them revolting...
            I think the real power has always been with the 'high' priests, and not the pharaos...
            Why? Because they claimed a direct link with God, or the gods,
            by showing magic powers or advanced knowledge.
            This could simply be announcing that they would make the sun disappear,
            right before an eclipse the people knew nothing of.
            I find it harder to believe that the unjust distribution of land and resources
            and the successive current capitalist, globalist system it enabled 'just naturally evolved'...
            It's not unrealistic to me that this knowledge or 'magic' was extraterrestrial, or interdimensional.
            To me, it could be that it started out as a 'breed' or 'bloodline' or 'group'
            with secret 'knowledge or magic' and ended up with the original group becoming so powerful
            they could approach and initiate (to a certain degree) other bloodlines/groups in other parts of the world.
            The only reason it is relevant to me today is because wealth and property "stay in the family".

            ".....If you can take the words of a white supremacist seriously, you're a different breed than I. ....."
            Tsarion uses and quotes Bakunin's thoughts and work, among others, and I see value in those perspectives.
            If your links shed a different light on him as an occult white supremacist,
            like the famous dutch medium I mentioned earlier, we should get to the bottom of it,
            and figure out it's roots and what effect it has (had) on our world,
            instead of dismissing and ignoring it.