Jasun Horsley, Socio-Spiritual Engineering |392|

Hi Jim. I kinda get this, but surely that narrow range isn't a case of critical measures such that a degree, or a fraction thereof, makes a vital difference. Of course I get that there are situations where one degree more hits fail line. But here's a point - when an official temperature measuring station records, say 40 degrees C the actual temperatures experienced by people might be as high as 50+ degrees C - depending on the location. In Australia official temperature measures are taken in a covered box with slatted sides. A person standing beside the box in full sun will experience a much higher temperature. So when we were told that Penrith had a temperature of 43 degrees C last summer all that meant was that it was 43 degrees C at the point of controlled and standardised measuring. In winter I record temperatures 5 or more degrees cooler than the official recorder for my district. I have had snow in my back garden while in the front all the snow melted days ago - and on days when the official temperature is around 4 degrees.
I don't think Jim said anything technically wrong, but your wider point makes perfect sense.

It is obvious that measurements of daily temperature can only be good to a finite accuracy. While Jim is right that you can use a thermometer to make measurements that are slightly more accurate than the gradations on the side, most of the measurements taken from weather stations, were taken for the purposes of weather, and I don't suppose those who took the measurements bothered to achieve the ultimate accuracy. Thus when it is claimed that the earth is 0.8 C hotter than it was in 1880, even that number may be wrong.

The practice of averaging a large number of such measurements and then looking for 0.01 C variations from year to year, seems to me to be just voodoo science.

In chemistry, melting points are important as a measure of purity, but even so, back in the 1970's, our thermometers were marked in tenths of a degree, and I notice that even now melting point data is normally quoted to this accuracy. In order to obtain that level of accuracy, within a laboratory, the sample is held in a small glass tube in a well stirred bath of liquid, which is slowly heated to ensure that the temperature is actually homogeneous to that degree of precision. Nowadays you probably put the sample into a machine! Measurements like that took time, and we had to do them as part of our practical exams - kind of stressful!

David
 
Last edited:
The woman in now about 60 years old. She told me, that when she was five, her father would use her as bait to attract young boys in the park, who he would kidnap, take to his basement, and make her watch, as he raped and then murdered the boys. She said she witnessed this more than once, and on one occasion, she left her body, and left the house, and was greeted by a being of "golden light", who gave her comfort and reassurance. She says she is still in contact with this being.
I have come to realise that it is extremely difficult to get a clear, consistent of the larger reality.

However, people do seem to go into NDE's in moments of extreme stress, even when they are not close to death. There has never been much evidence that angels, or whatever you like to call them, stop evil acts being committed - just comfort those who find themselves in extreme situations.

This all dissolves into the general question of what is life for, and why some people are permitted to become evil. I don't claim to understand it.

David
 
I have come to realise that it is extremely difficult to get a clear, consistent of the larger reality.

However, people do seem to go into NDE's in moments of extreme stress, even when they are not close to death. There has never been much evidence that angels, or whatever you like to call them, stop evil acts being committed - just comfort those who find themselves in extreme situations.

This all dissolves into the general question of what is life for, and why some people are permitted to become evil. I don't claim to understand it.

David
As for now, the greatest force for evil in the world remains the state. Nobody and nothing else is responsible for so much suffering, confusion and enslavement. Look at this concise yet valid picture-summary of the results of Communism, Fascism and Capitalism:

https://attackthesystem.com/2019/01/06/52524/

Anarchism is yet the only social (non-)system that wasn't tried already, with catastrophic results. Maybe it worths a try?
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit late on this but I wanted to commend Alex for having Jasun on and allowing him to challenge the likes of Strieber and Kripal on his podcast. I wish more of the thoughtful skeptical podcasts like Rune Soup and THC would engage with him (even though he publicly states he won't listen to them and probably wouldn't engage with them). He can certainly be bristly and many won't touch his work. Even better, it would be lovely to hear Kripal or Strieber actually address the concerns raised by Jasun's research. Perhaps this is beyond wishful thinking.

Has anyone read Jasun's The Vice of Kings? Like Prisoner of Infinity, I found it a fascinating if not depressing read. Even though I had already digested a majority of the material through reading Jasun's blog, the book had just enough additional fascia weaving it all together to make it worth the purchase. I hope Alex has him back to discuss this and delve deeper into what they already touched on in this interview.
 

Alex

Administrator
I'm a bit late on this but I wanted to commend Alex for having Jasun on and allowing him to challenge the likes of Strieber and Kripal on his podcast. I wish more of the thoughtful skeptical podcasts like Rune Soup and THC would engage with him (even though he publicly states he won't listen to them and probably wouldn't engage with them). He can certainly be bristly and many won't touch his work. Even better, it would be lovely to hear Kripal or Strieber actually address the concerns raised by Jasun's research. Perhaps this is beyond wishful thinking.

Has anyone read Jasun's The Vice of Kings? Like Prisoner of Infinity, I found it a fascinating if not depressing read. Even though I had already digested a majority of the material through reading Jasun's blog, the book had just enough additional fascia weaving it all together to make it worth the purchase. I hope Alex has him back to discuss this and delve deeper into what they already touched on in this interview.
thx RC... Jasun is an interesting guy... I like him and admire his willingness to go place others won't. I'd like to have him back to talk about the vice of kings. gotta figure out how to approach this topic... don't want to stare into the abyss just for the sake of staring :)

BTW am interviewing sarah westall re jim rothstein
 
don't want to stare into the abyss just for the sake of staring
That is a completely understandable concern. There's a lot more to The Vice of Kings than the child abuse angle, even though that does tend to overshadow everything else. It seems to me hard to get a handle on how you might explore this and add additional value/meaning because Jasun has focused more in his last two books on what is happening than providing speculation on why it is happening, except of course "control". I think Kripal's work actually may be of help in starting to point towards the why, though it is dangerously close to making out trauma to be good or at least a necessary evil (though I'm not wholly convinced that is even a bad thing... perhaps I'm traumatized myself).

You may also want to read Jasun's latest series of blog posts "Psychological Operatives in Hollywood" as it appears it could be forming the basis of the next in his line of books exploring these topics. It was in the comment section on one of those posts I found a lead which seems to be another compelling part of the why and how of the ancient pattern of occulted abuse puzzle. Perhaps this Bryan Hayden would be a good potential guest.
"A very interesting book that looks into the origins of the phenomena of how all this stuff began would be Brian Hayden’s “The Power of Ritual in Prehistory: Secret Societies and Origins of Social Complexity”, Cambridge, 2018. The book definitely figures out something important about human beings by focusing its lens on the phenomena of a) being hungry for power, and b) the practice of lying. By combining these very obvious human behaviors, Hayden looks at the ethnographic evidences from North America, Oceania, and Africa, and finds plenty of instances of what he calls “transegalitarian secret societies”, which, more or less, are a form of secret organization which enhances the networking power of ‘aggrandizers’ who seek to add to their own individual power. These bodies combined ecstatic shamanism, a belief in spirits who demand human sacrifice, and devious conversation that ultimately resulted in a coordinated manipulation of their individual societies and, if it ever happen to arose, to come to one another’s aid to help deal with intransigents who challenged the constructed order.

Overtime, these bodies and their chosen sites of ritual evolved into ‘super-secret society structures’, producing sites like Stonehenge, Chauvin de Huantar, Jerf el Ahmar, and Gobekli tepe. Some of these ‘superstructures’ would later evolve into official cult centers – such as Eridu in Sumeria, which later became involved in the organization of a larger economy. Hayden mentions the temples of Melqart as an example of a secret society/mafia type structure which operated during the heyday of the Phoenecian state."
 

Alex

Administrator
That is a completely understandable concern. There's a lot more to The Vice of Kings than the child abuse angle, even though that does tend to overshadow everything else. It seems to me hard to get a handle on how you might explore this and add additional value/meaning because Jasun has focused more in his last two books on what is happening than providing speculation on why it is happening, except of course "control". I think Kripal's work actually may be of help in starting to point towards the why, though it is dangerously close to making out trauma to be good or at least a necessary evil (though I'm not wholly convinced that is even a bad thing... perhaps I'm traumatized myself).
agree on all accounts :) I love jeff but I think he's more wrong and right on this one.

You may also want to read Jasun's latest series of blog posts "Psychological Operatives in Hollywood" as it appears it could be forming the basis of the next in his line of books exploring these topics. It was in the comment section on one of those posts I found a lead which seems to be another compelling part of the why and how of the ancient pattern of occulted abuse puzzle. Perhaps this Bryan Hayden would be a good potential guest.
thx. I'll check it out. hey RC what do you think about helping me organize a future show on this... interested ?
 
I'm a bit late on this but I wanted to commend Alex for having Jasun on and allowing him to challenge the likes of Strieber and Kripal on his podcast. I wish more of the thoughtful skeptical podcasts like Rune Soup and THC would engage with him (even though he publicly states he won't listen to them and probably wouldn't engage with them). He can certainly be bristly and many won't touch his work. Even better, it would be lovely to hear Kripal or Strieber actually address the concerns raised by Jasun's research. Perhaps this is beyond wishful thinking.

Has anyone read Jasun's The Vice of Kings? Like Prisoner of Infinity, I found it a fascinating if not depressing read. Even though I had already digested a majority of the material through reading Jasun's blog, the book had just enough additional fascia weaving it all together to make it worth the purchase. I hope Alex has him back to discuss this and delve deeper into what they already touched on in this interview.
It would be great if Alex could convince Jasun Horsley, Jeff Kripal, and Gordon White to do a show together.

Skeptiko Royal Rumble!!! ;)
 
Very late to the party here.

You may also want to read Jasun's latest series of blog posts "Psychological Operatives in Hollywood" as it appears it could be forming the basis of the next in his line of books exploring these topics.
Prophetic words; I didn't know it at the time but that's what happened, those four essays became the crystal matrix which my latest book grew out of.

It was in the comment section on one of those posts I found a lead which seems to be another compelling part of the why and how of the ancient pattern of occulted abuse puzzle. Perhaps this Bryan Hayden would be a good potential guest. "A very interesting book that looks into the origins of the phenomena of how all this stuff began would be Brian Hayden’s “The Power of Ritual in Prehistory: Secret Societies and Origins of Social Complexity”, Cambridge, 2018. The book definitely figures out something important about human beings by focusing its lens on the phenomena of a) being hungry for power, and b) the practice of lying. By combining these very obvious human behaviors, Hayden looks at the ethnographic evidences from North America, Oceania, and Africa, and finds plenty of instances of what he calls “transegalitarian secret societies”, which, more or less, are a form of secret organization which enhances the networking power of ‘aggrandizers’ who seek to add to their own individual power. These bodies combined ecstatic shamanism, a belief in spirits who demand human sacrifice, and devious conversation that ultimately resulted in a coordinated manipulation of their individual societies and, if it ever happen to arose, to come to one another’s aid to help deal with intransigents who challenged the constructed order.

Overtime, these bodies and their chosen sites of ritual evolved into ‘super-secret society structures’, producing sites like Stonehenge, Chauvin de Huantar, Jerf el Ahmar, and Gobekli tepe. Some of these ‘superstructures’ would later evolve into official cult centers – such as Eridu in Sumeria, which later became involved in the organization of a larger economy. Hayden mentions the temples of Melqart as an example of a secret society/mafia type structure which operated during the heyday of the Phoenecian state."
And Hollywood appears to be one such place. I would def. recommend the Hayden book, based on what I have read of it so far.
 

Alex

Administrator
Very late to the party here.


Prophetic words; I didn't know it at the time but that's what happened, those four essays became the crystal matrix which my latest book grew out of.


And Hollywood appears to be one such place. I would def. recommend the Hayden book, based on what I have read of it so far.
never too late :) speaking of which, I'd love to have to back on to talk about Vice of Kings.
 
Scott Adams writes in his book, "Win Bigly", that when you understand the psychology of persuasion, you are not impressed by the consensus of scientists because they are just as suceptible as ordinary people to mass delusions. According to the psychology of persuasion, mass delusion is actually the normal state of consciousness. This is particularly true for scientists studying climate change because their career and financial incentives are involved. In the following excerpt, 2-D is the normal world view and 3-D is Adam's world view that people are not rational but make decisions based on other factors and then use logic to defend their beliefs.

On top of our mass delusions, we also have junk science that is too often masquerading as the real thing. To the extent that people can't tell the difference, that too is a source of mass delusion.​
In the 2-D view of the world, mass delusions are rare and newsworthy. But to trained persuaders in the third dimension, mass delusions are the norm. They are everywhere, and they influence every person. This difference in training and experience can explain why people disagree on some of the big issues of the day.​
For example, consider the case of global warming. People from the 2-D world assume mass delusions are rare, and they apply that assumption to every topic. So when they notice that most scientists are on the same side, that observation is persuasive to them. A reasonable person wants to be on the same side with the smartest people who understand the topic. That makes sense, right?​
But people who live in the 3-D world, where persuasion rules, can often have a different view of climate change because we see mass delusions (even among experts) as normal and routine. My starting bias for this topic is that the scientists could easily be wrong about the horrors of change, even in the context of repeated experiments and peer review. Whenever you see a situation with complicated prediction models, you also have lots of room for bias to masquerade as reason. Just tweak the assumptions and you can get any outcome you want.​
Now add to that situation the fact that scientists who oppose the climate change consensus have a high degree of career and reputation risk. That's the perfect setup for a mass delusion. You only need these two conditions:​
1. Complicated prediction models with lots of assumptions​
2. Financial and psychological pressure to agree with the consensus​
In the 2-D world, the scientific method and peer review squeeze out the bias over time. But in the 3-D world, the scientific method can't detect bias when nearly everyone including the peer reviewers shares the same mass delusion.​
I'm not a scientist, and I have no way to validate the accuracy of the climate model predictions. But if the majority of experts on this topic turn out to be having a mass hallucination, I would consider that an ordinary situation. In my reality, this would be routine, if not expected, whenever there are complicated prediction models involved. That's because I see the world as bristling with mass delusions. I don't see mass delusions as rare.​
When nonscientists take sides with climate scientists, they often think they are being supportive of science. The reality is that the nonscientists are not involved in science, or anything like it. They are taking the word of scientists. In the 2-D world, that makes perfect sense, because it seems as if thousands of experts can't be wrong. But in the 3-D world, I accept that the experts could be right, and perhaps they are, but it would be normal and natural in my experience if the vast majority of ciimate scientists were experiencing a shared hallucination.
To be clear, I am not saying the majority of scientists are wrong about climate science. I'm making the narrow point that it would be normal and natural for that group of people to be experiencing a mass hallucination that is consistent with their financial and psychological incentives. The scientific method and the peer-review process wouldn't necessarily catch a mass delusion during any specific window of time. With science, you never know if you are halfway to the truth or already there. Sometimes it looks the same.
Climate science is a polarizing topic (ironically). So let me just generalize the point to say that compared with the average citizen, trained persuaders are less impressed by experts.
To put it another way, if an ordinary idiot doubts a scientific truth, the most likely explanation for that situation is that the idiot is wrong. But if a trained persuader calls BS on a scientific truth, pay attention.​
Do you remember when citizen Trump once tweeted that climate change was a hoax for the benefit of China? It sounded crazy to most of the world. Then we learned that the centerpiece of politics around climate change—the Paris climate accord—was hugely expensive for the United States and almost entirely useless for lowering temperatures. (Experts agree on both points now.) The accord was a good deal for China, in the sense that it would impede its biggest business rival, the United States, while costing China nothing for years. You could say Trump was wrong to call climate change a hoax. But in the context of Trump's normal hyperbole, it wasn't as wrong as the public's mass delusion believed it to be at the time.​
I'll concede that citizen Trump did not understand the science of climate change. That's true of most of us. But he still detected a fraud from a distance. It wasn't luck.​


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1272180537541656577.html

During the Korean War, captured American soldiers found themselves in POW camps run by Chinese Communists. The Chinese treated captives quite differently than their allies, the North Koreans, who favored savagery and harsh punishment to gain compliance​
The Red Chinese engaged in what they called “lenient policy,” which was a sophisticated psychological assault on their captives. After the war, American psychologists questioned the returning prisoners intensively, because of the unsettling success of the Chinese program​
...​
How did the Chinese get compliance from the American POWS? These men were trained to provide only name, rank, serial number. Short of torture, how could the captors hope to get such men to give military information, turn in fellow prisoners, or publicly denounce their country?​
The Chinese answer was to start small and build. Prisoners were asked to make statements so mildly anti-American or pro-Communist as to seem inconsequential "The United States is not perfect." "In a Communist country, unemployment is not a problem."​
Once they complied with these minor requests, the men were pushed to submit to more substantive ones. A man who had agreed that the United States is not perfect might be asked provide examples. He might then be asked to make a list of "problems with America" and sign his name​
...​
 
Top