Suzanne Giesemann medium readings provide evidence of love and guidance |334|

The availability of effective methods of birth control and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases have altered our attitudes towards sexuality over time. Judging historical social attitudes by modern standards is not necessarily valid.
That is not really fair. For example, homosexuals were stigmatised by the Church, even if they remained monogamous, and were therefore not liable to pass on infections! Likewise, there was a period when efforts were made to stamp out masturbation in extraordinary and cruel ways. Think also of the fate of women who became pregnant out of wedlock.

David
 
I heard her on BATGAP... liked some of what she was saying, but was kinda troubled by some of it as well.
The number of religious leaders who tackle the tough questions about corrupt government, its hard to get the feelgoods in your followers while simultaneously peddling a message of distrust. Theres that whole seperation of church and state thing as well, and for good reason considering how quick the crack down on religious leaders is by the federal government when they get out of line.

Maybe that's all there is to it, she at least didn't strike me as an apologist.

I'll watch the BATGAP interview too, might change my opinion more.
 
My take in brief: the questions on evil that Alex asked were important, and I'm glad that he asked them, although (in my view) he hammered on that line of questioning too hard, past the point where his guest had made it clear that she wasn't going to "go there", and yes, it made me a little uncomfortable too...
I left the interview feeling that she was probably very skilled as a I-do-what-I'm-told-and-make-others-do-the-same military officer but hasn't totally grown into the light and love thing (that's cool... I haven't either :))
 
To go back to the podcast and Alex's question about evil.

I didn't think the tension was that heavy.
agreed

It sounds like Suzanne didn't like the use of the word "deflected", which I think she was right to because that's not what she was doing.
that's exactly what she was doing.
She was being asked about questions and areas that 1) she didn't know enough about...
I gotta call bullshit on this one. she's an evidential medium who knows RV people like Joe McMoneagle personally, and she was a high ranking military officer. it's not that she doesn't have an informed opinion; it's just not in her interest to discuss.

2) for spiritual reasons she's not interested in. (And I felt inspired by what she said here to try and cultivate further an attitude where you expect benevolence from the universe - "when they go low, you go high!", although damn that didn't do much for Hillary did it?
not sure that applies in this case. see:
 
not sure that applies in this case. see:
The Clinton reference I made was a joke. But just regarding this "spirit cooking" thing - I mean, I'm open to anything, that Clinton and some of her co-elites would be involved in satanic stuff like this (although I would take the probability of that being very small, given that I assume that most would find it silly, as do I), but I don't see how this is evidence of much. So Podesta has a brother who is into weird stuff like this and is inviting him to take part in it in the hope of seeking a win for Clinton. Maybe I'm naive (definitely a possibility! :)) but I just don't see much here to build a case on beyond that discrete fact.

p.s. and if the Clinton team did use this stuff, it failed miserably! :)
 
The Clinton reference I made was a joke. But just regarding this "spirit cooking" thing - I mean, I'm open to anything, that Clinton and some of her co-elites would be involved in satanic stuff like this (although I would take the probability of that being very small, given that I assume that most would find it silly, as do I), but I don't see how this is evidence of much. So Podesta has a brother who is into weird stuff like this and is inviting him to take part in it in the hope of seeking a win for Clinton. Maybe I'm naive (definitely a possibility! :)) but I just don't see much here to build a case on beyond that discrete fact.
don't want to digress away from the thread, but can't resist a couple of points. I'm not a religious person so I'm not automatically offended by folks interested in occult practices. It's not for me, but I understand some of the interest/logic. there seems to be a lot of evidence suggesting that Hillary's been into this stuff for a long time (this doesn't make her unfit for office, but we understand why she would go to great lengths to hide her interest). and it's not a Dem thing as many Republicans have some very dark, scary occult connections as well.

most importantly, I don't believe any of these folks thought it was "silly." they thought the exact opposite.

this is assumes she was NOT involved with the Lolita Express thing (which she almost certainly WAS). She and Bill should be burned at the stake for this... I'm happy to throw the Bush on the pyre for kindling.
 
there seems to be a lot of evidence suggesting that Hillary's been into this stuff for a long time (this doesn't make her unfit for office, but we understand why she would go to great lengths to hide her interest). and it's not a Dem thing as many Republicans have some very dark, scary occult connections as well.

most importantly, I don't believe any of these folks thought it was "silly." they thought the exact opposite.
I have to take you at your word for this, Alex. I'm just not aware of all that evidence, but then I haven't looked into it.

btw, right this moment I'm re-watching Oliver Stone's JFK, so this exchange is fitting - minus the occult!
 
Last edited:
I'm only just now listening to podcast 333 with Gordon White, and when Alex brings up the question of evil alluding to the interview with Jane Kent, I'm glad Gordon is bringing up the importance of distinguishing a) evil as a facet of the universe if an objective morality exists as a fundamental aspect of that universe. vs. b) "people - incarnate or not - harming each other".

True. Even if there is an objective morality it doesn't mean there are beings who exist only to serve Evil, or that Evil is a force or an entity. OTOH the same goes for Good.

And of course it might be possible there such forces, that a good chunk of reality is a Manichean battle ground....
 
I also don't want to derail this thread, but just on the Podesta email re: Marina Abramovic's spirit cooking, maybe consider this:
For the record: Spirit Cooking is nothing but a little-known (and, measured in her oeuvre, a rather throwaway) performance Abramovic did in an Italian gallery in 1996, in which she painted apparent instructions on the white wall with pigs blood. Instructions like: “with a sharp knife cut deeply into the middle finger of your left hand eat the pain.” She also painted a small kind of icon in the corner with the blood too. It’s pretty repulsive and rather luridly aims to shock but it’s also clearly not serious. Abramovic also published a Spirit Cooking cookbook, containing comico-mystical, self-helpy instructions like: “spit inside your naval / until the lake is filled / lie motionless / listen to the heartbeat / of a dog.” You’re not really meant to actually do these things. As Abramovic said at London’s Royal Festival Hall last night in a launch event for her new memoir Walk Through Walls, it’s just poetry.

Spirit Cooking later evolved into a form of dinner party entertainment that Abramovic occasionally lays on for collectors, donors, and friends. That’s where John Podesta comes in—or doesn’t, since he never actually attended the dinner, where anyway guests simply made soup, not out of blood or any other bodily fluid, while overseen by Abramovic in full-on comedy schoolmarm mode.

They probably made a “golden ball” too, a recipe given to her by Tibetan monks after a meditation retreat in northern India. A golden ball is supposed to be eaten after a long period of fasting and meditation. I’ve had one, at the end of a “workshop” she gave to her students—I was her assistant at the time—in Andalusia in 2005. A golden ball consists, precisely, of seven almonds, three coriander seeds, two black peppercorns, one white peppercorn, and a dribble of honey, all ground together and wrapped in a sheet of 24 carat gold leaf. It was delicious, but I was confident that I wasn’t going to become a Buddhist by eating it.

Having known Marina for fourteen years now, and having written a biography, I don’t think she’s ever actually worshipped anything. What she has done is graze world religions and esoteric spiritual practices as source material for experimental performances and as meditation tools to salve her bottomless emotional pain. She essentially takes the spiritual and squeezes it into the purely bodily. It’s all about the management of stimulations, deprivations, and aesthetics to achieve—in a down-to-earth cause and effect way—certain physical effects and mental states. She kind of believes in everything—and therefore, in a way, in nothing. Except the power of the body.

The literalism of the alt-right’s interpretation of the Spirit Cooking dinner recalls the culture wars of the 80s and 90s, where the line between representation and advocacy, between artifice and reality, got blurred… and apparently never got back into focus for some. Since the 1980s, Abramovic has spent months in retreat at Buddhist monasteries in Northern India—does that make her a Buddhist? She’s also spent months with Aborigines in Australia—does that make her a shaman adept in reading Songlines and recalling the Dreamtime? She habitually performs numerological readings on new people she meets, breaking down their date of birth to a single significant number—does that make her a Hindu mystic? She’s twirled with Sufis—so is she one? She’s suspended herself from wires in homage to the levitations of Saint Teresa of Avila—does that make her a Christian? She’s stared at snakes for hours and sat determinedly still while a python wrapped itself around her head and neck—does that make her a snake charmer? She’s knelt down face to face with a donkey, gazing into its eyes while trying to telepathically communicate with it—does that make her… Dr. Doolittle? She’s lived with quartz miners in Brazil—does that make her a miner too? She’s milked goats in Istria and helped make cheese—does that make her a dairy farmer?

Maybe it makes perverse sense, since the mission of the alt-right is to “reveal” reality as a lie, that they would also convert artifice—in Abramovic’s case, performance—into cold hard fact. But this confusion of performance and reality, experiment and faith, does inadvertently point towards something curious and essential about Abramovic: she’s simultaneously utterly sincere and totally comedic. To neophytes she may well look like a convincing modern day witch. But it doesn’t take much googling to surmise that this is also performance in the traditional sense of the word, and that in reality she’s funny, frivolous, and game for anything—in her own words, she’s a lover of “bullshit” like celebrity and fashion.

Probably it’s only possible to throw yourself headlong into the type of activities she does with a strong taste for the absurd. At the end of the workshop in Andalusia I was surprised when, after five days of starvation and detoxification of the body and the psyche, Marina cracked open a can of caffeine, sugar, and artificial color-filled Fanta one morning. When I joked with her that she was undoing all that detoxification in a stroke, she said rapturously “Baby, come on, the Fanta is beyond!”
https://mitpress.mit.edu/blog/marina-abramovic’s-spirit-cooking

If we're interested in truth, we should consider that the alt-right conspiracy-minded corners of the internet have a tendency to jump on seeming factoids and weave grand narratives (just as we can launch similar accusations towards other types of groups - unreflecting PC leftists, mainstream media, etc.). In one's zeal to extricate oneself from information control from the so-called media elites and eyes-blinding paradigms, it's easy to fall into one of these traps, IMO. But then people (I'm including myself) are going to be attracted to whatever they are, so whatever.
 
Last edited:
I also don't want to derail this thread, but just on the Podesta email re: Marina Abramovic's spirit cooking, maybe consider this:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/blog/marina-abramovic’s-spirit-cooking

If we're interested in truth, we should consider that the alt-right conspiracy-minded corners of the internet have a tendency to jump on seeming factoids and weave grand narratives (just as we can launch similar accusations towards other types of groups - unreflecting PC leftists, mainstream media, etc.). In one's zeal to extricate oneself from information control from the so-called media elites and eyes-blinding paradigms, it's easy to fall into one of these traps, IMO. But then people (I'm including myself) are going to be attracted to whatever they are, so whatever.

There is something curious about humanity's need to find comforting reality tunnels - whatever their metaphysical/political persuasion - and reinforce them with biases. It seems downright Gnostic at times...
 
If we're interested in truth, we should consider that the alt-right conspiracy-minded corners of the internet have a tendency to jump on seeming factoids and weave grand narratives (just as we can launch similar accusations towards other types of groups - unreflecting PC leftists, mainstream media, etc.). In one's zeal to extricate oneself from information control from the so-called media elites and eyes-blinding paradigms, it's easy to fall into one of these traps, IMO. But then people (I'm including myself) are going to be attracted to whatever they are, so whatever.
There's also a huge appetite for revisionism among the public. Look at the success of Dan Brown's novelisation of popular - and a few lesser known - conspiracies to see the financial opportunities in everything-you-think-is-wrong intrigue. This has a long history through Von Daniken, the Hitler Diaries and the living Jesus-Magdalen historical gymnastics. People love to think someone, anyone, is pulling the levers so long as they're not the official story.
 
don't want to digress away from the thread, but can't resist a couple of points. I'm not a religious person so I'm not automatically offended by folks interested in occult practices. It's not for me, but I understand some of the interest/logic. there seems to be a lot of evidence suggesting that Hillary's been into this stuff for a long time (this doesn't make her unfit for office, but we understand why she would go to great lengths to hide her interest). and it's not a Dem thing as many Republicans have some very dark, scary occult connections as well.
I tend to think the whole nuclear confrontation thing may be related to occult practices inspired by evil. Clinton wanted to risk a confrontation with Russia in Syria, which is why I was rooting for Donald Trump (there were one or two secondary issues, but this was the big one) - of course I didn't have a vote, like the hundreds of millions around the world who would be affected if we really did get a maniac in the White House.

David
 
There's also a huge appetite for revisionism among the public. Look at the success of Dan Brown's novelisation of popular - and a few lesser known - conspiracies to see the financial opportunities in everything-you-think-is-wrong intrigue. This has a long history through Von Daniken, the Hitler Diaries and the living Jesus-Magdalen historical gymnastics. People love to think someone, anyone, is pulling the levers so long as they're not the official story.

It is worth remembering that real (Western elite) conspiracies do exist, so we should not be too dismissive of the small number of conspiracy theories that do contain a large portion of veridical evidence and, therefore, can be used for an objective accusation of some wrongdoing (9/11 Truth and JFK assasination are two examples of such valid and substatatial conspiracy theories). Yet it is also worth remebering that most conspiracy theories cannot pass a test of veridicality and do not contain much more than grandiose horror-story-style narratives backed by highly speculative inferences from small and dubious amounts of data.

So, I, personally, think there are two types of conspiracy theorists: good (even if not recognised by the mainstream) criminal investigators - such as David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage - and bad mystics. The latter, unfortunately, are prevailing upon the former...
 
Last edited:
I have to take you at your word for this, Alex. I'm just not aware of all that evidence, but then I haven't looked into it.

btw, right this moment I'm re-watching Oliver Stone's JFK, so this exchange is fitting - minus the occult!
Hey Ian... I have to reign myself in because I find this stuff fascinating :)

JFK was a great movie. the real life interviews with Garrison are pretty amazing (many on Youtube)

Also, Oliver Stone did a very good (toned down) doc series on untold US History:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...8kxAQR5f8mH2QgmxCFuwsg&bvm=bv.139782543,d.cGw
 
In one's zeal to extricate oneself from information control from the so-called media elites and eyes-blinding paradigms, it's easy to fall into one of these traps, IMO. But then people (I'm including myself) are going to be attracted to whatever they are, so whatever.
eternal vigilance is fun :)

I also consider the sources. Luke at wearechange is just an alt-media guy... nothing right-wing about him. He's a anti-war-mongering, false-flag-despising, Bush-hater, like me :) Same goes for James Corbett, just alt-media, far from right-wing.

Along these lines, there seems to be a lot of narrative spinning out there aimed at lumping all these alt-media people together. It's easy to see thru this as one just has to look at the body of work, but most don't.
 
It is worth remembering that real (Western elite) conspiracies do exist, so we should not be too dismissive of the small number of conspiracy theories that do contain a large portion of veridical evidence and, therefore, can be used for an objective accusation of some wrongdoing (9/11 Truth and JFK assasination are two examples of such valid and substatatial conspiracy theories).
ok, but hold on... we're no where near accepting and coming to grips with JFK and 9-11. An understanding of these events would lead to a total rewriting of our history and a massive reorientation re how we go forward.
 
ok, but hold on... we're no where near accepting and coming to grips with JFK and 9-11. An understanding of these events would lead to a total rewriting of our history and a massive reorientation re how we go forward.
Although a majority of Americans, as seen in polls in recent years, accept JFK (though I don't know that that equates with "coming to grips" with it.)

Why do so many Americans believe JFK conspiracy theories?
Because of the evidence.

In an unusually objective commentary on conspiracy theories published in the Washington Post, University of Miami political scientists Joseph Uscinski and Joseph Parent, note that two other popular conspiracy theories — The Truther and Birther theories — resonate with only 25 percent of the population. (Respectively, these are the theories that the Bush administration either directed or permitted the 9/11 attacks, and that President Obama was foreign-born and faked his Hawaiian birth certificate.)

By contrast, JFK theories resonate with around 70 percent of the population, according to a recent poll.

“Unlike the Birther and Truther theories, which languish for lack of impartial support, JFK conspiracy theories have some impartial support,” the authors write.

“High-quality information does change minds,” they go on. “When the Watergate story first broke, many dismissed the charges as partisan. Because high-quality evidence became available — hearings were held, evidence was presented, co-conspirators admitted to their crimes — virtually everyone now believes that Nixon conspired to commit and cover up crimes. But unlike the Birther and Truther theories, which languish for lack of impartial support, JFK conspiracy theories have some impartial support.”

They go on:

“Calling it ‘proof’ might be generous, but Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories clear higher evidentiary bars. There is evidence that the government hurried the investigation of the president’s murder and was not eager to find high-profile scapegoats. Most accounts attribute that rush to a pragmatic desire not to wrongfully implicate the Soviets and dangerously destabilize superpower relations.”

“Most notably an official congressional inquiry seemed convinced of a conspiracy, so even those with moderate conspiratorial predispositions have something to hang their hat on. Because of their evolving scapegoats and above-average amount of evidence, JFK conspiracy theories have lodged themselves into the collective consciousness.”

I think Uscinski and Parent have it right. JFK conspiracy theories are popular because there is corroborating evidence, much more evidence than supports improbable theories that hold 9/11 was an “inside job” or Obama was born in Kenya.
 
Although a majority of Americans, as seen in polls in recent years, accept JFK (though I don't know that that equates with "coming to grips" with it.)

Why do so many Americans believe JFK conspiracy theories?
right, it's a masterful job or normalizing criminal behavior at the highest level. so, there was this coup by which a few rich, powerful men took over the government... oh well, stuff happens... wave the flag... support our troops.
 
Back
Top