Rob and Trish Macgregor, Mystical Underground |558|

Alex, what interests me most is your take on the psychic / channeling phenomena that the brothers and Marty cover during the series and how it relates to UFOs
 
An interesting show. People with paradigms and perceptions that are difficult to shift. For me, it felt that Alex was speaking in a different language to Trish and Rob. To be fair to Trish the sea levels have risen in Key West according to NOAA ( thanks for the link Alex), albeit not as much as she might think.

View attachment 2382

I believe the sea level has risen about 400’ since the ice age ended 12,000 years ago, right?

It rises and falls but is not rising at the extreme rate proclaimed by Chicken Little climate alarmists (insurance doesn’t seem to be affected). And the massive fluctuations in the past are not related to human activity.
 
Trish and Rob interviewed me on their show twice. After that, they invited me to some monthly meetings with other psi researchers. Somewhere in there, I think at one of the meetings, I happened to mention I dream I'd had that got a similar reaction to what we hear in this interview. In the dream, Biden was escorted out of the White House by some kind of security/law enforcement. At the same time, Trump was brought back into the White House. A little later, I overheard Trish saying some things about me, something like, "He's got some really interesting stories and is very credible so I don't understand that Trump story. He must be a Trump supporter, and that doesn't make sense either." In that case, her prejudice against Trump overrode her ability to pay attention to the evidence.

One thing I might have mentioned had she asked me was that I frequently dream about things I don't believe in or agree with. The Trump dream is an exception to that because I am sure the election was stolen, Biden was not elected, and Trump was. However, I have enough empirical observations about my own dream content that I can say my beliefs don't seem to affect the content much if at all. Rob and Trish refused to contemplate what Alex was saying and that is what derailed the conversation.

I had a similar experience with the same subject some years ago when I was living in the Netherlands. A friend of mine, Richard, was visiting from the US. Richard is a high energy physicist. He has been working on an experiment at CERN in Switzerland for about 3-6 months of every year for the previous 30 years or so. Somehow the conversation turned to climate change. I told him that if the climate were changing, and I wasn't convinced it was, it wasn't caused by human action nor was it as dangerous as it is purported to be. He responded, "I thought you were more intelligent than that." Without asking why, his instant response was to downgrade his evaluation of my IQ.

The funny thing is that Richard's goal in the conversation was to impress upon me the importance of being a good caretaker of the environment, though he never said it or even hinted that was his goal. Instead, he wanted to talk about polar bears and melting ice caps. I pointed out the faked research out of England and elsewhere, that didn't do the credibility of the climate change argument any good. In the end, I pointed out that I am already a better "caretaker of the environment" than he was because I didn't own a car (I rode a bicycle everywhere in the Netherlands) and have been vegan since 1984. Those two things reduce my carbon footprint far below most people, and especially Richard, who has flown over a million miles on planes, owns several cars, is not vegan, etc. At that point, the conversation was over as he agreed that I was already doing more than is normally expected, so my reasons why were irrelevant.

I've seen so much of the kind of attitude Richard and the MacGregor's have. It's not possible for them to follow the data anymore. And when someone isn't reciting the mantra laid out in the climate alarmist handbook, they usually freak out. It's very unscientific. And real scientists who try to follow the data are being expelled from academia in favor of people who will say what they are supposed to.

For example:

https://financialpost.com/opinion/w...politically-incorrect-facts-about-polar-bears

A well-qualified individual was dismissed by University of Victoria for documenting that Polar Bear populations are not threatened by climate change.

Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford is routinely hired by biologists and archeologists in Canada and abroad to identify the remains of mammals, birds and fish. She has helped catalog museum collections, and assisted police with forensic analyses. But UVic students will no longer benefit from her expertise, and her ability to apply for research grants has come to a screeching halt. In May, the Anthropology Department withdrew her Adjunct Professor status, depriving her of a university affiliation.

Crockford describes her expulsion as “an academic hanging without a trial, conducted behind closed doors.” After being renewed unanimously in 2016 for a three-year term, her adjunct status was not renewed the next time around.

Crockford is the author of a popular blog, polarbearscience.com, as well as five books about these animals. Polar Bear Facts and Myths has been translated into four languages. She says that, contrary to the claims of environmental activists, polar bears are currently thriving and are at no risk of extinction from climate change.

During the time she delivered lectures to elementary school students, Crockford says she was continually “astonished to learn that every single teacher believed that only a few hundred to a few thousand polar bears were left.” She feels duty bound as a scientist to speak up, to point out that the global population is officially estimated to be in the range of 22,000 to 31,000 and may be much higher. “I talk to groups about the adaptive features of polar bears that allow them to survive changes in their Arctic habitat,” she says.

Because her polar bear message conflicts with activist rhetoric, and because activists apparently complained to administrators, her career as an academic researcher has come to an abrupt end.

Jeffrey Foss, a former chair of UVic’s philosophy department, says Crockford has been punished for speaking her own mind about matters of fact, which means she has been denied academic freedom and free speech. “I’m beginning to lose faith and hope in the university system,” he says.

Meanwhile, someone with no scientific qualifications is being allowed to represent this university in talks about climate change.

Dwight Owens, an employee of Ocean Networks Canada, an entity affiliated with UVic, has no scientific training. His BA is in Chinese language and literature. His MA is in educational technology. Nevertheless, under the auspices of the UVic Speakers Bureau, he has been giving talks about ocean chemistry and climate change for years.
 
Meanwhile, someone with no scientific qualifications is being allowed to represent this university in talks about climate change.

The ones with a degree in "education" are often the worst. Not much experience in anything except propaganda. Likewise full-time "activists" who are then promoted into government
 
... And real scientists who try to follow the data are being expelled from academia in favor of people who will say what they are supposed to.

It's part of the whole cancel culture trend where special interest groups weaponize a hot button topics in order to gain power or profit. COVID, Black Lives Matter and Me Too movements are other examples.

 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
The ones with a degree in "education" are often the worst. Not much experience in anything except propaganda. Likewise full-time "activists" who are then promoted into government
I can tell you in no uncertain terms from firsthand experience at a university where I entered into the faculty of education as a student, that one of the first things we we taught is that the primary goal of teaching isn't about imparting knowledge — it's about socialization. We were told that if we had a problem with that, we might as well quit and take-on another career. I bucked the system and was basically drummed out of the faculty in my first year.

Independent thinking was highly frowned upon, regardless of whether or not it made sense or could improve the situation. This was my first realization that the problems within our society are highly systemic, and within that arena, climate change, gender discrimination, and racism are probably the least of our worries. In fact they serve more to deflect people's attention away from the deeper problems ingrained within the workings of the system.
 
Last edited:
I do not accept the narrative of Alan Turing committing suicide due to his incarceration for homosexuality, and I was surprised that the host recommend anyone get their "history" from a movie version of anything, let alone this story. For one thing, someone of such vital strategic importance as Turing should never have been arrested for being gay in the first place. The Old Boy Network was littered with gays, and they were well taken care of, and privately accepted. The pretense of his arrest and "suicide" was to cover up the fact that he was The 4th Man. You can call it a suicide, I call it an execution for passing secrets, almost certainly about the network of spies Britain had established in Chinese universities in the 1930s. Everyone knew there was a fourth man, and when Blunt finally took the fall in the eighties after Peter Wright's book re-ignited interest in the subject, the matter was quietly put to bed. I always thought the Blunt story was nonsensical, but it wasn't until years later when I started reading about Turing, and then Needham, that I put the pieces together. And it makes perfect sense; Turning was a very decent man, who was witness to the repugnant hypocrisies of the Empire and decided to balance out the playing field. It is also the only way to explain why Britain gave all of their IP to the US (to appease their anger over Philby and the rest) and shelved their own computing/AI development, thenceforth taking a backseat to the US.

It's becoming virtually impossible to communicate with Democrats on any level, as evidenced on this episode. If there's one film I would recommend to the Macgregors, it would be MIke Nichols' "Primary Colors" - not least because Nichols was an old-school Dem who was well acquainted with the corridors of power when he made that scathing take-down of the crooked Clintons. It doesn't go far enough, but it's a decent introduction to their depravity, and does hint at Bill's sexual misconduct. Macgregor's obvious effort to "out" Tsakiris as a secret Trumper was laughable. I've experienced this nonsense myself from those with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and from people who are always more to the Right than I am, lol. Nader's old argument that the lesser of is still evil always applies. Of course, thanks to the MSM, Dems think Nader lost them the 2000 election, which, once again, shows how "deplorably" ignorant they themselves are of facts. Just do a search of Alexander Cockburn columns at The Nation, and a host of take-down pieces on "the Left's Climate Change denier" come up. Same old, same old.

Additionally, the Macgregor's opinion that CIA involvement in anything could be benign, and that the CIA would utilize assets without political/imperial motives was either disingenuous or stupefyingly ignorant. I was disappointed that Tsakiris made such a poor show of explaining how and why the women's movement was coopted, which was primarily about economic equity, something the CIA has been very busy destroying all over the world. It was Steinem (who I call a 'Hugh Hefner feminist) that steered second-wave feminism into the trough of the so-called 'sexual revolution' by such ludicrous displays as women burning their bras and evangelizing "free love," (as we know, nothing is free in this society.) I've actually heard her call Marilyn Monroe a "feminist icon" (with feminists like that, who needs chauvanists?!!) That is why for working class women, feminism, essentially changed little for their economic reality. Today the CIA has not needed tools like Steinem, they have effectively buried third-wave feminism altogether, by bringing in the Transgenders. Real feminism is now dead. By not changing the economic realities for the working/welfare classes in the US, Boomers, their kids and grandkids, who are now increasingly falling back into that class (thanks to the new feudalism) are having a very nasty wake up call.
 
I do not accept the narrative of Alan Turing committing suicide due to his incarceration for homosexuality, and I was surprised that the host recommend anyone get their "history" from a movie version of anything, let alone this story. For one thing, someone of such vital strategic importance as Turing should never have been arrested for being gay in the first place. The Old Boy Network was littered with gays, and they were well taken care of, and privately accepted. The pretense of his arrest and "suicide" was to cover up the fact that he was The 4th Man. You can call it a suicide, I call it an execution for passing secrets, almost certainly about the network of spies Britain had established in Chinese universities in the 1930s. Everyone knew there was a fourth man, and when Blunt finally took the fall in the eighties after Peter Wright's book re-ignited interest in the subject, the matter was quietly put to bed. I always thought the Blunt story was nonsensical, but it wasn't until years later when I started reading about Turing, and then Needham, that I put the pieces together. And it makes perfect sense; Turning was a very decent man, who was witness to the repugnant hypocrisies of the Empire and decided to balance out the playing field. It is also the only way to explain why Britain gave all of their IP to the US (to appease their anger over Philby and the rest) and shelved their own computing/AI development, thenceforth taking a backseat to the US.

It's becoming virtually impossible to communicate with Democrats on any level, as evidenced on this episode. If there's one film I would recommend to the Macgregors, it would be MIke Nichols' "Primary Colors" - not least because Nichols was an old-school Dem who was well acquainted with the corridors of power when he made that scathing take-down of the crooked Clintons. It doesn't go far enough, but it's a decent introduction to their depravity, and does hint at Bill's sexual misconduct. Macgregor's obvious effort to "out" Tsakiris as a secret Trumper was laughable. I've experienced this nonsense myself from those with Trump Derangement Syndrome, and from people who are always more to the Right than I am, lol. Nader's old argument that the lesser of is still evil always applies. Of course, thanks to the MSM, Dems think Nader lost them the 2000 election, which, once again, shows how "deplorably" ignorant they themselves are of facts. Just do a search of Alexander Cockburn columns at The Nation, and a host of take-down pieces on "the Left's Climate Change denier" come up. Same old, same old.

Additionally, the Macgregor's opinion that CIA involvement in anything could be benign, and that the CIA would utilize assets without political/imperial motives was either disingenuous or stupefyingly ignorant. I was disappointed that Tsakiris made such a poor show of explaining how and why the women's movement was coopted, which was primarily about economic equity, something the CIA has been very busy destroying all over the world. It was Steinem (who I call a 'Hugh Hefner feminist) that steered second-wave feminism into the trough of the so-called 'sexual revolution' by such ludicrous displays as women burning their bras and evangelizing "free love," (as we know, nothing is free in this society.) I've actually heard her call Marilyn Monroe a "feminist icon" (with feminists like that, who needs chauvanists?!!) That is why for working class women, feminism, essentially changed little for their economic reality. Today the CIA has not needed tools like Steinem, they have effectively buried third-wave feminism altogether, by bringing in the Transgenders. Real feminism is now dead. By not changing the economic realities for the working/welfare classes in the US, Boomers, their kids and grandkids, who are now increasingly falling back into that class (thanks to the new feudalism) are having a very nasty wake up call.
Very interesting. I suspect that the weaponization of Me Too against David Sabatini has more to do with advancing careers and shutting down research that threatens the profits of big-pharma, than any concern for moral impropriety. Virtually all accusations of moral impropriety made by players within power structures, be they political, bureaucratic, or social, are for strategic purposes — and any concern for virtuosity is beside the point.
 
Last edited:
I can tell you in no uncertain terms from firsthand experience at a university where I entered into the faculty of education as a student, that one of the first things we we taught is that the primary goal of teaching isn't about imparting knowledge — it's about socialization. We were told that if we had a problem with that, we might as well quit and take-on another career. I bucked the system and was basically drummed out of the faculty in my first year.

Independent thinking was highly frowned upon, regardless of whether or not it made sense or could improve the situation. This was my first realization that the problems within our society are highly systemic, and within that arena, climate change, gender discrimination, and racism are probably the least of our worries. In fact they serve more to deflect people's attention away from the deeper problems ingrained within the workings of the system.

Woah, that story sent chills down my spine. The problems in our society are systemic indeed
 
Interesting post Schleptimo. On this I disagree though:

Tsakiris made such a poor show of explaining how and why the women's movement was coopted, which was primarily about economic equity, something the CIA has been very busy destroying all over the world.

When one is engaged in psychological warfare (as the talking points parroted by Rob and Trish clearly are), it makes no sense to go to deeper levels if the opponent doesn't allow this. First the opponent has to concede that Steinem was a CIA agent, or at least entertain this, before one can productively go into deeper levels about how & why / cui bono...
 
Last edited:
I had that thought also while listening to the show. I think I understand why Alex didn't go there but wish he had. In context, he wanted the McGregor's to acknowledge his point that they didn't even know what Pizzagate was but they wouldn't do it. So, in classic fashion, Alex continued pursuing that point.

Just to clarify, I didn't want there "acknowledgement" I wanted to demonstrate that you shouldn't continue a dialogue with folks who during the same dialogue demonstrate they don't have any business being in the dialogue in the first place.

As Twain said, never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it.

I know it's an overly harsh analogy for this situation, but you get the point
 
Oh boy! Alex, perhaps you really should check out what Mattias Desmet has to say about the psychology of mass formation,

great! thx. working on it. would like to do it with rob and brandon.

... believing that mass formation arose only in the last century, but I'm not so sure.

haha... total agree.


Yes, the 'eccentric' Google software engineer who has developed a set of algorithms seemingly that can pass the Turing Test is definitely a ploy to further trans-humanism. (Where is it that Ray Kurzweil works these days?). I'd welcome your perspective on AI. For what it's worth, I agree with Roger Penrose that consciousness cannot be computed.

agreed.

re AI... I think it's a "category error" I think the evidence for " consciousness is fundamental" is overwhelming. I think the evidence for an extended realm of consciousness is overwhelming.

What do all the NDErs say... " that other realm was realer than real"

so maybe we're in the wrong realm to contemplate transhumanism.

Maybe it is just another op
 
An interesting show. People with paradigms and perceptions that are difficult to shift. For me, it felt that Alex was speaking in a different language to Trish and Rob. To be fair to Trish the sea levels have risen in Key West according to NOAA ( thanks for the link Alex), albeit not as much as she might think.

View attachment 2382

right... and i'm glad you brought it up... facts matter... data matters... details matter. 2 things to add:

- during this interview my point was that this data should be the foundation for a discussion about whether trish's personal experience with the the roads of miami beach

- the data you have presented completely undermines the catastrophic global warming apocalypse narrative it's being perpetuated
 
Just to clarify, I didn't want there "acknowledgement" I wanted to demonstrate that you shouldn't continue a dialogue with folks who during the same dialogue demonstrate they don't have any business being in the dialogue in the first place.

As Twain said, never wrestle with a pig – it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it.

I know it's an overly harsh analogy for this situation, but you get the point

I think that maybe you're being a bit too harsh. Like I said earlier, you guys were arguing past each other ( if you know what I mean ). In other words, it's not like you were right and they were wrong. It's that both sides were looking at the topic from two separate perspectives, each of which were valid, but irrelevant to the points the other side was making. At least that's what it looks like to me — but maybe I'm wrong too.
 
The ones with a degree in "education" are often the worst. Not much experience in anything except propaganda. Likewise full-time "activists" who are then promoted into government
I hate to say it but my PhD is in Education. In my case, I got it because I wanted to understand where other educators were coming from so that I could counter their objections to my methods as a university lecturer. This is in the context of co-founding an academy in the Netherlands that quickly developed an international reputation for quality and consistently ranked in the top 5 (often number 1) among the Netherlands' over 1,300 bachelor's programs. With all the attention we got, our administration started looking at the program as a cash cow, if only we would relax our standards. It was that argument against relaxing standards that led me to get a degree in education. Beyond that one argument, I had no serious interest in the subject. From my experience, education can retard the acquisition of knowledge if done improperly, as it often is.

My real interests were either medical visualization or parapsychology but neither had the same practical appeal as Education. In the end, I realize that the subject of the doctorate is less important than the process. It is much like deciding to learn how to write about gardening vs. true crime. Either way, you learn how to write. You may pick up some subject-specific knowledge along the way but that is less important than what is learned about methodology and research writing.

The problem with education research is that it can be based more on theory than evidence. Not always. There are some researchers, particularly a group that did some leadership studies for the Army, who do excellent work.
 
I hate to say it but my PhD is in Education. In my case, I got it because I wanted to understand where other educators were coming from so that I could counter their objections to my methods as a university lecturer. This is in the context of co-founding an academy in the Netherlands that quickly developed an international reputation for quality and consistently ranked in the top 5 (often number 1) among the Netherlands' over 1,300 bachelor's programs. With all the attention we got, our administration started looking at the program as a cash cow, if only we would relax our standards. It was that argument against relaxing standards that led me to get a degree in education. Beyond that one argument, I had no serious interest in the subject. From my experience, education can retard the acquisition of knowledge if done improperly, as it often is.

My real interests were either medical visualization or parapsychology but neither had the same practical appeal as Education. In the end, I realize that the subject of the doctorate is less important than the process. It is much like deciding to learn how to write about gardening vs. true crime. Either way, you learn how to write. You may pick up some subject-specific knowledge along the way but that is less important than what is learned about methodology and research writing.

The problem with education research is that it can be based more on theory than evidence. Not always. There are some researchers, particularly a group that did some leadership studies for the Army, who do excellent work.

That's impressive. I can imagine as a free-thinking person going through the "education education", that you have a valuable insider's perspective on this important subject. And I wasn't underestimating its importance. As you may know, for Plato it was central in his philosophy.

And because pedagogy is so important, is also the reason it's been to such a large extent co-opted. Then the normie types who go through this training are especially brainwashed and don't have much in the way of real knowledge to fall back on.

Do you think that's fair to say?
 
Back
Top