Dr. John Alexander, Warrior Monk — Reality Denied |373|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,513
    Dr. John Alexander, Warrior Monk — Reality Denied |373|
    Share
    Tweet
    SHARES0
    [​IMG]

    Dr./Colonel John Alexander has seen a lot that can’t be dismissed or explained… but is he willing to admit UFOs are real?
    [​IMG]

    photo by: Skeptiko
    Today we welcome Dr. John Alexander to Skeptiko to talk about his new book, Reality Denied: Firsthand Experiences with Things that Can’t Happen – But Did.

    Dr. Alexander is a retired US Army Colonel, with a list of military and non-military distinctions, which are way too long to mention on this show. He’s one of those people, as you’ll hear about when he talks about this book, who really has seen it all and done it all, at least it seems that way. Fortunately, he has written a book about it.

    John, welcome to Skeptiko, thanks for joining me.

    Dr. John Alexander: Glad to be here.

    (later in the interview)

    Alex Tsakiris: You know, John, I’m reading this amazing book of yours and I’m reading these amazing stories, some of which we just have to cover because we have to get this out there, for folks who don’t have a chance to read it, and you really should read Reality Denied. If you can’t find a dozen just completely paradigm shattering stories there, just by sticking your thumb into the book at any random place, well then, I don’t know how you couldn’t, I guess, is my point. But I kept reading this book and I’m trying to square it with what, I guess is, for a long time been the general overriding meme associated with John Alexander, which is, this guy who debates people at UFO conferences, saying that, “The government doesn’t know anything about UFOs and if they did, I would know that they did, and I know, and they don’t and…” What is that whole meme all about, is that an accurate characterization of the way a lot of people think of you? It seems to be out there and is it true?

    Dr. John Alexander: I can’t speak to what other people think, but I don’t think, particularly with the recent revelations, that I can say, if it were there I would know about it.

    I think you’re talking about the recent stuff that [unclear 00:20:12] has been fortunate enough to release on studies that are going on. What you find is, you have tiny pockets of people who have had personal experience and the ability to research that. One of the things I mention in all of these phenomena, UFOs, near-death experiences, precognition, you know, take your phenomena, remember the government, whatever that is, is made up of millions of individuals, and what we know is, across the board, that a vast number of them, probably more than a majority, have had some kind of psychic experience in their life. If it’s UFOS, probably 10% have actually seen something that they believe. [Adult 00:21:05] and particularly in the military, who have been in threatening situations, you find people who have had near-death experiences.

    Now, one of the areas where I get into some difficulty in, is that when you get into these areas, and say, “Well, the government should study this,” I’m talking about the US government now, I argue that’s not necessarily the case. You do not expect that the government is responsible for confirming one’s individual belief system. Although, to be fair, and this goes to, I think, to all of the various phenomena, you do find that each individual comes to the institution with their set belief system, and there certainly have been some who have used that in ways that would be, probably inappropriate.

    One of the things that just came out in the recent, again, release, is that there were people who believed in UFOs but said, “We shouldn’t do that because these are demonic, and we shouldn’t be involved.” We saw that in the remote viewing program, we have opponents who said, “Yeah, you can probably do that, but we should not be involved, because it’s the work of the devil.”

    So, in all cases, you have individuals, both pro and con, bringing individual belief systems into a potential study or looking at these issues and are terribly, terribly complex, whatever we’re dealing with.

    Alex Tsakiris: Let me try and pin it down with a breaking story. In the last couple of weeks, and I don’t know if you were referring to that in a couple of things you say but…?

    Dr. John Alexander: I am.

    Alex Tsakiris: Okay. So, everyone’s heard of the New York Times, UFO story, right?

    Dr. John Alexander: Right.

    Alex Tsakiris: We can also talk about Tom Delonge, but the UFO story breaks in the New York Times. For people who are connected to the UFO community, they’re like, “Well, this is the tip of iceberg, we’ve known about this stuff forever,” but for the general population it still seems to be more of a bombshell than, I guess I could have anticipated, that people are going, “Look, look, it’s real. The government has known about UFOs.”

    I just want you to clarify where you stood in the past on this kind of information, because it just seems to me, just being totally blunt, that you’ve always been a guy who’s said, “This kind of stuff couldn’t possibly be happening and if it was happening, I would know about it.”
     
  2. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,001
    Alex's questions at the end of the podcast:

    What do you make of the warrior monk? Is it real in the sense that I was talking about? Is there a need for a warrior among those who are seeking truth, enlightenment, peace -- do we also have to balance that with the warrior? Are we willing to accept everything that the warrior must do to be a warrior? Are we willing to accept the idea that "you can't handle the truth", or -- even worse -- you don't deserve the truth? Doesn't that come along with the warrior monk bargain?
     
    Mishelle and Michael Patterson like this.
  3. I never worked for the government or had a security clearance but I've heard many times that black projects have layers within layers and people don't always know as much as they think they know. And would someone in the military know everything the CIA knows?

    High Ranking Government and Military Officials Say UFOs are Extraterrestrial Craft Visiting the Earth
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/09/high-ranking-government-and-military.html
    Astronauts Say UFOs are Real
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/astronauts-say-ufos-are-real.html
    More here:
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-and-links-arranged-by-subject.html#articles_by_subject_ufo
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
  4. I look to people with greater insight than I have to answer that question and I consider Joe McMoneagle a reliable authority on the subject. He has had an NDE and was a soldier. He says it is wrong to take another life, and if facing of your own death by violence, "to essentially turn the other cheek, or to walk to death with a smile on your face " .

    http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/joe/transcripts/jr970601jm-2of5.html
    Sightings on the Radio with Jeff Rense
    Sunday, June 1st, 1997 8:00pm - 11:00pm Pacific Time

    Featured Guest Joseph W. McMoneagle

    Transcript File 2 of Total 5
    ...

    JEFF: How do you feel after your experience Joe, about the taking of human life, about murdering, about killing, in uniform, about the actual participation in the ending of someone's conscious life on this planet?

    JOE: I have a great problem with that now. Personally [pause] I have done a lot of things as a soldier that I probably wouldn't do again. I think every human being has a right to change, however. My conviction is, the conviction to which I'm wedded at the moment, is that every human being has as much right to life as any other. I was once a great supporter of the death penalty for certain crimes. However, in my experience I've now changed that position. I think that no human being has the right to take the life of another human being. No matter what the crime is that they might have committed. You do have the right to control them, to put them in prison or to punish them, but we do not have the right to take their life.
    ...
    JOE: One of the things I've learned, because I've pretty much internalized my spirituality, and have pursued this philosophically, and one of the conclusions that I've come to... um, let's see, the best way to present this would be: I've never clearly understood in my own lifetime how anyone could voluntarily walk to their own death. And certainly the holocaust brings us an example of that. I could never understand why someone would allow someone that was evil incarnate, a Hitler for instance, to put them to death without at least fighting back. I've since, I've come to the conclusion that however, evil incarnate is not best fought by participation. It's fought by a participation or involvement, a total involvement, in the good, or the positive. And the only real response to evil incarnate is to ignore it, in the display of a positive or righteous attitude. So since death, physical death is not an end unto itself, the most appropriate response is to essentially turn the other cheek, or to walk to death with a smile on your face, and I never understood that before, but I think I finally have come to grasp with that, and have a tremendous respect for the numbers of people that chose to honor the positive and the constructive and in doing so give their lives.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2018
  5. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,513
    great post. thx. I generally agree with you/Joe, but I also understand/respect the other side.
    The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
     
    AryaS, Mishelle and Charlie Primero like this.
  6. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    247
    I don't understand pacifism. Being a good man sometimes involves harming others who intend to harm innocent people. Of course there are times to "turn the other cheek" and take things in stride. You know, the "be the bigger man" type situations. Killing your enemies with kindness can really change people for the better in a huge way. But If somebody is trying to kill you or innocent people, that is not one of those times. You fight. If the Nazis were not physically challenged and defeated, well, who wants to ponder what that would mean for Europe and perhaps the whole world. They needed to be killed. They HAD to be killed. Most of the individual German soldiers were just guys like you and I who happened to be born in Germany during that time. But guess what? They had to be killed. And I haven't listened to the Podcast yet so I don't know his exact thoughts on it, but those are mine.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
    hypermagda likes this.
  7. Non-violent resistance works by provoking the state into reactions that alienate more and more people until eventually no one supports them any more.

    "Why Civil Resistance Works" by Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth
    http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Chenoweth.pdf

    "198 Methods of Nonviolent Action"
    http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/resources/nonviolent/methods.php

    Nazi Germany was pretty bad maybe the worst but if you look at many peaceful "advanced" societies today they were once brutal but have become benevolent because of internal changes. What we don't understand are the spiritual forces at work. The physical realm is not the entirety of reality, not the ultimate reality. To understand what is happening on the physical level you have to understand what is happening on the spiritual level. Most people can't perceive at that level, which is why I say I accept what Joe says on authority.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
    Andrew9 likes this.
  8. I don't believe the Dalai Lama has the same type of authority on the subject as Joe McMoneagle. Has the Dalai Lama had an NDE? Is he psychic? Is there reason to believe he is in tune with the spiritual realms in the way Joe is. I'm not an expert on the Dalai Lama so if I'm missing something let me know.

    But to a certain extent I agree "it would be reasonable".

    But what Joe is saying is not a result of reason (logic). In my experience it is not a logical proposition that is true or false, right or wrong, smart or not smart.. It is not reasonable or unreasonable. It is an emotion. You understand it only if you feel it.

    I find this is a common problem with many spiritual ideas. They can only be communicated with words which people interpret as a logical argument. But they are not really arrived at through logic. They do not come from the analytical mind. They come from the empathic mind. When you are angry you might say or do something you would not otherwise do. When you are in love you might say or do something you might not otherwise do. What seems to be the "Truth" is not always logical. Sometimes it is emotional and therefore it can vary from person to person or seem to change. That is why I think it is useful to refer to an authority on this subject.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
    AryaS, Psiclops and dpdownsouth like this.
  9. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    124
    Interesting stuff, thanks Alex.

    Hey Wormwood, I get your point, and I'm not a complete pacifist either. But you also have to admit that all wars seem to sow the seeds for the next conflict.... creating an apparently endless cycle: WWII can be traced back to WWI, WWI can be traced back to the colonial/empire building wars, most of the 20th century's post WW2 conflicts had their roots in the great war, the current horror in the middle east goes back to Iraq, which goes back, eventually, to WW2 via soviet/US rivalry, which goes back to WWI, then to the empire building wars.... etc. etc. etc. (Jeez, I've just given myself a panic-attack). And I suspect we could probably trace this line back to the first city-states.

    Ok, I know I've taken a relatively superficial historical view of the above, but it's enough to get the point across. So, surely we've got to think of a different way of doing things, cause this shit ain't working!

    Regarding Warrior Monks, I'm not sure if soldiering for a contemporary military-industrial-complex can be seen as a part of a spiritual path...... (while not passing judgement on any individuals doing said soldiering).

    I love this. The truth doesn't have to be logical or reasonable (or practical) to be true.... beautiful.
     
    Jim_Smith likes this.
  10. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    93
    Home Page:
    You know, this is unfair. We are a day ahead of you guys in the States, yet every time I find we get the podcast after you do. This has to be some kind of flat earth time conspiracy crap. So I am going to comment on Alex's questions before I listen to the show.

    What do you make of the warrior monk? Is it real in the sense that I was talking about? Are there monks who are also warriors? If you mean monks who do Kung Fu - yes? if you mean another kind of combat - then yes, regardless of what it but still fulfils the definition of warrior, if they also meet the definition of monk. Maybe a monk's preferred weapon is Twitter?

    Is there a need for a warrior among those who are seeking truth, enlightenment, peace - Yes in the sense that none of those valued states can come about without conflict. But do I mean the kind of conflict Kung Fu will address? No. We need an intellectual Kung Fu, a political Kung Fu and so on.

    - can we handle the truth? Yes when we know it and accept it. But how do we know it and how do we know that what we accept as true really is? That's not part of the question - so I will pass.

    Is there a need for a warrior monk? Well of course there is. We need that fusion of monkishness and feistiness - if for no other reason than having something to counter a bland predictable array of 'truth-seekers' that could get boring.

    Are we willing to accept everything that the warrior must do to be a warrior? This isn't a good question. Is the warrior willing to accept what it takes to be a warrior? That's a good question. Is the warrior fighting on his/her behalf or on ours? I say they are fighting on their own behalf -even if that is defending others. Do the Shaolin monks ask permission of the community to impose the challenges to become a monk? Of course not. The community is grateful for the support.

    you don't deserve the truth? - Truth takes some work, and anybody who does the work 'deserves' the truth. If you don't put the effort in you can't 'get' the truth. The problem of deserving kinda takes care of itself. Truth isn't custard and your consciousness isn't a bowl.

    Doesn't that come along with the warrior monk bargain? I would say that the warrior monk acts in service of his own enlightenment first, and compassion toward others second. There are times when acting in relation to another demands loyalty to truth, and hence causes what is considered suffering. Is it compassionate to avoid the suffering in service of truth and prefer sustenance of delusion or a lie that causes no pain? Being true to one's own path is the better way maybe. But it will bring you enemies and suffering.
     
  11. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    586
    I have been a Martial Arts Instructor for 30 years. The "Warrior Monk" meme has always existed in our industry because of legends about the magical fighting powers one could attain with sufficient spiritual development.

    For the most part it's B.S. After falling in with bad company, I got thrown in Kid's Prison in Louisiana when I was 13. I had to fight and get beaten to near-death to avoid being anally raped by the much larger 17 year-old boys.

    This taught me that violence is the Currency of the Realm, so I darn well better gain some of the currency. The point is: I was highly motivated. For decades I searched for the mystical magic fighting ability portrayed in the legends. I can report to you with certainty that it is inconsequential.

    As with other spooky stuff, a person can develop a very, very slight advantage of precognition and forewarning during the chaotic rush of a fight, but that advantage is so slight it's virtually impossible to distinguish from the advantage gained by 10,000 hours / 10 years of daily practice.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
    AryaS likes this.
  12. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    586
    Hell No it is not. (no offense to you DP)

    My Son-in-Law was a Scout Sniper in Iraq and Afghanistan. He killed 102 people.

    One of the largest problems we had after he married my daughter was my contention that he killed all those people as a mercenary for Wall Street and the City of London.

    After many long hours discussing the matter while we camped and fished for catfish, we finally agreed that the young men who join the U.S. Military to go fight in foreign lands do so for Good Reasons; a good, natural, wholesome, and proper sense of duty that all normal men should feel to protect their children, wives, family, and community.

    The fact that Oligarchs exploit this natural, wholesome instinct is utterly repulsive. They should hang for it.

    This video by Mike Rivero is a classic. Everyone must see it at least once in their life/education...

     
    AryaS and Mishelle like this.
  13. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    247
    I agree with all of you guys. Of course I’m all for peace. I don’t want to sound “pro-War.” That would be ridiculous. But of course, WW2 was a war that had to be fought. There were/are pacifistic societies who, if you ask them, would say that reisitance in WW2 was the wrong way to go. I’ve read/heard pacifists say this. If pacifism means “do everything you can for peace” then of course I’m a pacifist. But if pacifism means, “allow a tyrant to go unchecked and slaughter as many innocent people as he wants, then I am not a Pacifist. I think the definition of Pacificism, in its strictest form, is of the latter option. Therefore, I don’t understand it because it’s impractical and very foolish and stupid, almost to the point of being wildly immoral. Actually no, It’s wholly immoral.
     
    hypermagda likes this.
  14. I liked the video it has facts I didn't know but I don't agree with all of his interpretations. And some of the facts are wrong. This quote he attributes to Churchill seems to be bogus.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...w_historically_accurate_is_the_quote_the_war/

    I am in 100% agreement our monetary system is a ponzi scheme.
    I checked one quote by Ben Franklin and another by General Smedley which I was able to verify as true.

    What he says about Kennedy and United States Notes seems to be contradicted here.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note#End_of_the_United_States_Note

    Kennedy's ultimate purpose was to phase them out not to replace Federal Reserve Notes with them.

    And he implies the federal reserve is a private bank whose owners profit by lending currency. I don't think that is correct either. (If I'm wrong let me know.)

    There is a text version of the video here
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php#axzz57kDWaNCc

    It's helpful for anyone who wants to verify what he says in the video.

    Given the mixed results I've had trying to verify what is in the video I can't say he proves his thesis.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
    Vortex likes this.
  15. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    586
    No it wasn't.

    WW2 was a Banker War like all others, and was fought for no other reason than to enrich Bankers.
     
    Mishelle likes this.
  16. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    247
    Youre not at all getting my point. The point being that once innocent people start being slaughtered, a good man does something about it. One wrong, the cause of the war, doesn’t mean that another wrong, inaction, is beneficial in any way and only severe to protract the initial wrong. I’m not a Nazi. Only a dedicated or somebody who is immoral and has financial interests would call the initiation of the war necessary. The German people were in fact hampered by the Treaty of Versailles and in possibly a very unfair way, but again, I’m my opinion Germany was also the main initiator of World War 1. But again, life was hard in Germany before Hitler rose, there were probably no easy answers for them but obviously starting a war and holocuast wasn’t the right solution.

    Big history digression.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
  17. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    586
    I agree with you, but a Good Man stops innocent people from being slaughtered in the first place.

    All Wars Are Bankers' Wars

    I was hit and ridiculed by people who are my friends today when spoke out in 1990 against the Gulf War. I got thrown out parties, and rejected by family members for it.

    The same thing happened again in 2003 when I said "NO! STOP IT!"

    My Son-in-Law is crippled from being blown up in Iraq. Every time he winces in pain while I help him into our fishing boat I grit my teeth in anger.
     
    Mishelle, David Bailey and Wormwood like this.
  18. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    247
    There was another cause of the war. Japan’s imperialtic pro-expansionist attitude. That was largely a financial motivation as well but I think a superior attitude of themselves and wanderlust and power greed played into it.
     
  19. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,014
    Yes, when the 'Left' accuse us of being 'far right' because we are anti-war, well I pride myself in being their kind of 'far right'!

    However please let's not turn this discussion into a political discussion. I thought the podcast was very interesting - I will probably listen to it again before commenting. If anyone wants to discuss US wars and aggression - fine - but why not start a new thread?

    David
     
    Charlie Primero likes this.
  20. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,001
    Hmm. Hitler et al. did what they did in order to enrich bankers? Suppose we'd all rolled over and let folk like this kill every last Jew, every last Slav, enslave all manner of "inferior" people, euthanise all those with the slightest defect, and create a world in which not thinking their way was a crime? Where everyone would constantly have to tread on eggshells lest they say something that conflicted with party dogma?

    I'm not arguing that bankers don't benefit from wars, but do they actively start them? WW2 was the result of the interplay of at least two factors: first, the humiliation and resentment caused by the severe financial reparations placed on the Germans after WW1. Second, the twisted mind of a jumped-up little Austrian psychopath which just so happened to resonate with an at least significant minority of the German people.

    Did the bankers consciously seek to create the conditions that made another world war inevitable? Really? All the bankers knew this in advance and rubbed their hands in greed in anticipation of that, even conspired to make it so? I somehow doubt that. Cynical money grubbers they might be, but soothsayers? They don't know in advance how things will turn out: in some cases, a war could threaten their hegemony, especially if it results in the ascendancy of a regime that is actively in opposition to it. It's difficult to run a thriving business when the population opposes such thriving.

    Bankers are people, and, like all people, are prone to error. They aren't special. Many people would do the same as they do given the chance. Banking is just an extreme manifestation of the greed we all possess to some degree. What causes wars is people and their faults. Those people who are rich can give freer rein to their baser instincts by dint of their wealth. There are millions more who don't have that wealth, but can try to do the same by becoming followers of a dogma du jour, making it an excuse for them to give rein to their inner demons.

    Hence I'd rephrase your statement by asserting that all wars are to enrich people, rather than just bankers; in one way or another most of us seek to enrich ourselves, not necessarily in exclusively monetary terms, but in terms of a perceived need to allay fear. IOW, we think we'll enrich ourselves (metaphorically speaking), by ridding ourselves of fear. By killing or expelling ethnic or political groups, for example -- tribalism is inside us all.

    There were wars, after all, long before bankers appeared on the scene, and greed tended to play into most if not all of them -- there have always been the spoils of war, and always been demagogues ready to take advantage of people's fear. Such demagogues would go nowhere without sufficient complicity of the populace as a whole. They don't invent specific fears; they are genuinely present in significant numbers of people. Yes, such people might be manipulated by elites, but those elites are in power because they are sanctioned by the people. No government ever permanently stayed in power without the at least tacit approval of the people.

    That said, if there was one war that I see as necessary, it was WW2. How the world would have been without it doesn't bear thinking about. Hitler and his regime was so transparently evil, so transparently the aggressor, I don't see what else we could have done but fight.
     
    Bucky likes this.

Share This Page