How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

[jakell]

All I really know is that the powers that rule the world are masters of illusion and operate only to gain more power, more wealth and more control always, of course, cleverly concealed under a benevolent guise that fools even the most "intelligent", or, I should say, especially fools those who measure as academically gifted, whose egos are ingeniously intertwined into the functioning and preservation of the global system created by our elite rulers. The truly wise--regardless of IQ score-- see through the smoke and mirrors.

The Luciferian conspiracy then, where even secular types are drawn towards the one-world religion (whatever form it may eventually take) using frameworks acceptable to them.

I've solidified most of this stuff via such things as the Age of Deceit videos, but also from hanging around with 'truther' Christians a fair bit (online). Stanley Monteith is a good bridge to older thinking in this area.
AOD (and AOD2, which is better in some ways), although pretty far out, is mostly watchable if you ignore Douglas Hamp's assertion that the Antichrist will be an ordinary man who will splice Satan's DNA into his genome (which did get a guffaw from me)

I've also come to believe that they believe in some sort of satanic force that demands sacrifice of the many and that they engage in acts that most of us would consider evil, for example, the horrific abuse and use of children as currency ...the pedophocracy; bloody wars for profit and gain; the exploitation of third world countries; the intentional destruction of our food supply and environment, and on and on and on...

Although, I do believe in a demonic force, as for this whole thing being a simulation / dream / matrix and/or aliens ruling us, I'm not sold. .

There you seem to differ from the Christians I knew then, they were 100% certain of things, which sort of goes with the territory. Unfortunately, most of our debates tended to move away from the spiritual and into the pretty predictable area of standard cosmology/evolution vs Creationism. Still, it's about maintaining engagement and I'll take what I can get.

[Cordelia]

An acquaintance recently informed me that he had come to believe our world inundated with Miles W. Mathis levels of fakery. A bit of background research I have done on Mathis reveals many of the man's claims themselves to be hardly possible. I wonder what the moral of this story is!

Reading Mathis essays brought me to the conclusion that all photographs are faked.

[tapitsbo]

He strikes me as clever enough to be lying about a couple of the things he's wrong about - or maybe I'm just terrible at discerning this?

[Cordelia]

I think Mathis points out some very interesting discrepancies, contradictions, fakeries; even staged events and people (Bob Dylan, the Tate murders, Patty Hearst kidnapping come to mind) but, like Icke, he goes too far and loses his credibility. Also, though his writing style is witty and engaging, his essays become too much about himself and how clever he is.

He's falling down the rabbit hole and grabbing everything as he goes, imho.

[slimmouse]

I think Mathis points out some very interesting discrepancies, contradictions, fakeries; even staged events and people (Bob Dylan, the Tate murders, Patty Hearst kidnapping come to mind) but, like Icke, he goes too far and loses his credibility. Also, though his writing style is witty and engaging, his essays become too much about himself and how clever he is.

He's falling down the rabbit hole and grabbing everything as he goes, imho.

Is this the same guy who did the| " Hancock is disinfo" stuff?

If it is, Ive looked at some of it and it sounds like a guy who's saying it more specifically as he see's it, which would concur with your own opinion, Cordelia.

I really dont think he knows enough about anything that Hancock knows about to offer much of an opinion regarding most of Hancocks work.

But then again of course, what do I know

[Cordelia]

^^^
I haven't read it (there is so much Mathis to read), but is this the piece?

"Graham Hancock Unmasks Himself" http://mileswmathis.com/hanco.pdf

An analysis of his analysis is up for grabs.......which might be an interesting new series for Mathis himself.

[Cordelia]

....Reading Mathis reminds me of the 12 Step adage "Take what you want and leave the rest behind" (he's probably written about the real origin of AA), because a lot of his observations make so much sense, and there are subjects I'd love to read his take on.....

[Joe Hillshoist]

^^^
I haven't read it (there is so much Mathis to read), but is this the piece?

"Graham Hancock Unmasks Himself" http://mileswmathis.com/hanco.pdf

An analysis of his analysis is up for grabs.......which might be an interesting new series for Mathis himself.

The article is shit.

What is more, abstract painting was controlled and promoted by the CIA, and the CIA admits it.

dafuq??? Why do people do this shit? Its only one word (2 if you count the "and") but it changes the meaning of what he is saying by so much.

Neither point out the obvious, which is that the media is controlled by the government, and directly by the CIA. The cynicism isn't an accident: it is a government program.

Not only is that arse about - the govt is controlled by the media, or to an extent anyway by people that own or fund (ie advertise in) the media - the CIA is the government, well and aspect of it. They aren't separate.

The bit in bold would make a worthy sig line tho.

He hasn't snowed me, though. I know that like other drugs, DMT is consciousness-altering. And like other drugs, it has serious side-effects, many of them long-term. This is why you can normally tell when people have taken hallucinogens. They lose natural speed and clarity of thought, and I don't mean just when they are tripping. They lose these things permanently. They aren't what they were before. They also lose a natural spread of emotions. Which gets us into why Intelligence has promoted them all along.

That is just bullshit. Is this the rantings of some puritanical wowser?

People think the book 1984 was warning us about the future, but it was simply telling us about the present.

Maaate is 2016. That book told us about the past.

Hancock then repeats the old saw that the government has spent billions in the war against drugs, trying to keep illegal drugs away from the population. He says 750,000 Americans are arrested every year for possession of cannabis. But we now know that is all propaganda. Even if they are true, they don't mean what Hancock says they mean. Those numbers don't mean the government is trying to stop the drug trade, it just means they are trying to profit from both ends of it. They spend billions of dollars pushing drugs in the illegal markets—which we know the government ultimately controls—and then spend billions from the treasury in the fake war on drugs. You will say that if they spent the money, they didn't also make the money, but you are missing the bigger picture. Any money spent is made by someone. In fact, it is your money they spend: taxdollars. They spend it by paying the salaries at DEA and FBI and ATF and local police. Then they incarcerate these drug offenders in private prisons, paying the salaries there and making huge profits for the owners and investors of these prisons. So for many reasons the government has no interest in stopping the drug trade. Just the reverse. It is the largest black market in the world, and black markets are no longer controlled by mobs and mafias. They are controlled by your governments and banks.

If nothing else this writing is just so bad. And whatever goodness it holds is lost in the bad writing. Plus he's missing the obvious racial issues associated with private prisons and the enforcement of drug laws. Its been shown that one of the major drivers of the prohibition of pot (and other drugs) stemmed from the racist attitudes prevalent in 1930s America. Private prisons are a form of de facto slavery.

[Cordelia]

If Mathis substituted 'Hancock' with 'Mathis' and 'books' with 'essays' (his words below), he'd describe most of my experience with what he writes. (I don't know how to 'cross out' words.)

"I have read several of Hancock's books and they are indeed beguiling. He knows how to mix science, travel, and marginalized theory into a good story, and he seeds all his books with enough real research, truth, and interesting speculation to keep you turning the pages."

[tapitsbo]

Mathis' poison pill status seems probable to me.

His claim that the Corpus Hermetica was a Renaissance forgery is very unlikely to be true.

However some of his targets (Chomsky, Hawking, Taylor Swift, etc.) ARE very intriguing as rigint subjects...

[slimmouse]

Thanks for the replies wrt mathis and the hancock stuff.

I read a relatively brief portion of the pdf critique by Mathis, before I became disinterested. Sounds like Im glad I stopped when I did.


I say this, since I seriously have yet to hear a bad presentation from Hancock.

In fact, a critique of the guy might be an interesting excercise

[minime]

Originally, Wonderland was the human body, or more precisely, Alice's body. The rabbit hole was the entrance to her body, so to speak.

Please make a note of it.

[JackRiddler]

Originally, Wonderland was the human body, or more precisely, Alice's body. The rabbit hole was the entrance to her body, so to speak.

Please make a note of it.

Sounds halfway plausible. Citations and specifics, please. Not numerological or symbological wrongwaywizard-style stuff, okay? No not even text-based analysis. Actual documentation, or at least contemporary hearsay of incidents/statements supporting this view. Or have I misunderstood the implication about Lewis Carroll? Thank you.

[minime]

Originally, Wonderland was the human body, or more precisely, Alice's body. The rabbit hole was the entrance to her body, so to speak.

Please make a note of it.

Sounds halfway plausible. Citations and specifics, please. Not numerological or symbological wrongwaywizard-style stuff, okay? No not even text-based analysis. Actual documentation, or at least contemporary hearsay of incidents/statements supporting this view. Thank you.

Citations and specifics?



Why, Jack, it's self-evident. The more you know, the more you know, the more you know you know. You know? It's never been any different, since the dawn of man. East meets West.

How the hell you been?

[minime]

By the way, this is your thread, and I'm not attempting to derail it. Just thought it needed a single post of counterpoint, to make a point.