JLB Chats w/ Gaia (30-Nov-2017)
Do you believe ‘dinosaurs’ once roamed the earth? Does it bother you if other people hold different opinions? Is it worth spending our finite time arguing with one another over topics such as these — and if so, why?
On Wednesday, 29-Nov-2017, I made an appearance on the Fakeologist Discord server and enjoyed a brief but illuminating conversation with a South American man who goes by the name of Gaia.
This podcast features that discussion (unedited) along with some introductory and closing thoughts which I recorded the following day (i.e. 30-Nov-2017).
The rest of the necessary context is provided within the podcast so download (or stream) and enjoy 🙂
Relevant links
Audio: Original Fakeologist Audiochat – FAC393 (29-Nov-2017)
Article: 37 Things Normies Believe (24-Oct-2016)
Video/audio: 37 Things Normies Believe – Review (Part 1) (14-Jun-2017) [Full Members]
Video: DinoSkeptics Roadtrip – Day One (20-Apr-2017) [Free Members]
CREDITS
The production of this podcast was made possible by the support of a small but growing number of financial supporters of this website.
Full Member list of johnlebon.com as of 30-Nov-2017:
Alistair Caine alphaxomega Archer bmseattle Bruno214 Big Dave Chad628 CM dbuser Dante from NY DJMoe1987 fuhng G-Malicious Hando Harry Ell hdog Jaysog Jimmy Scoular Jumpy64 Nate M local_chump mas Mezzie Negentropic PJG Rebel Shirt Ninja Silvertree Stansen Sts1316 TheProphet49 TheyAreLaughingAtUs Tikielimited Tomfoolery Wattzupsport
These individuals care about independent media and quality research enough to actually support it.
Regardless of future support, this list will remain in the credits of this podcast in perpetuity.
Check this page to see what you get in return for shouting JLB a cup of coffee each week.
i really think we should publish a new, open-ended list of logical fallacies.
among normies and ‘act’ folk alike, there seems to be this common misunderstanding that in order to be taken seriously when identifying (often obvious) flaws , one needs to have an alternative ‘model’, ‘theory’ or whatever … to replace the prevailing ‘accepted’ one.
i encountered this long ago when debating the religious as well the materialists.
none on offer, i was typically met with eyeball rolling or feeble aspersions.
“so what’s your explanation” “there has to be a reason” “if you dont have a theory than you’re useless” blah, blah, blah
*after listening to this and another one on fakeologist site, i felt i should share a quick take:
-while not wrong, i do think the constant questioning of what we don’t know can grow tiring and tedious to others who may be entertaining themselves with whatever they’re talking about. anticipating the temperature in the room…a pugilist should bow out of the ring far sooner.
– i refuse to have a second listen, but it didn’t sound like any personal attacks were being levied at you in the last two instances. triggered? yes. i’m sure you’ll split hairs on what pa’s are but in fairness I think they were just trying to get more substantive positions, despite that not being necessary to prove your point.
-how paradoxical that the guy with zero to contribute to the topic he brought forth has such an ironic sobriquet!
Phil Blanks (Zero Zeros) December 1, 2017 at 6:53 pm
1 1 Rate This
We have a dialogue about language drift, sociolinguistics, linguistics, and the dumbing down of English with acronymy and stupid pictures replacing words (Emojis).
Then John the bad guy derails it by
* saying he doesn’t understand and it doesn’t matter because he won’t understand or study any works in the field
* using the passive voice
* asking closed ended questions
* offering no examples to back up his points
* proposing possibilities without offering any reason for others to consider the possibility
* making character attacks / calling others’ points about relevant info character attacks
* asking questions with infinite recursion
* using circular logic founded in doubt and doubt about doubt. No beliefs.
Read more: http://fakeologist.com/blog/2017/12/01/fac395-show-notes/#ixzz503yofw88
Thanks for the feedback. I’ve broken my response into three sections.
Logical fallacies
The thing about the logical fallacies is that they are still, ultimately, a subjective thing.
Logic is akin to a language, a form or method of communication; there is no overarching organisation or authority which gets to dictate what is and isn’t a fallacy.
Even if such an organisation did exist, they would only be able to communicate their dictums via another language (such as English), which would still bring the matter of subjective interpretation to the fore.
What I am talking about here is described my some as ‘metalogic’: the study or field of inquiry concerned not so much with ‘what is logical?’, but more with ‘what is logic?’
Given that the vast majority of the people we mix day-to-day (including places like the Fakeologist Discord server) have not studied logic (either formally or informally i.e. inside or outside of an academic institution) it is not surprising that they tend to commit fallacies (as ‘fallacies’ are commonly understood by those engaged in this field of study).
The problem, however, goes much further: very, very few people today have spent any time truly thinking about their thinking. One does not need to attend a university to think about their thinking, to ponder concepts and ideas related to what might be called ‘metalogic’ — anybody can do it. The question is: why would somebody do that? Why would the average person ever sit down, with notepad and pen in hand (or a word processor program open on their device) and begin writing down their thoughts about their thoughts in any kind of methodical fashion?
What we are talking about here is, in and of itself, fringe of the fringe of the fringe. To the average person (normie and conspiratard alike) there is no apparent benefit to thinking about thinking, there is no apparent benefit to considering and exploring the way in which we interpret and assess ideas and information and attempt to arrive at sensible conclusions.
IF people engaged in this kind of process, I would suggest that they would likely arrive at the same conclusion I arrived at after just a week or two of studying logic in my undergrad days: there is zero benefit in focusing on the messenger rather than the message, IF what you are concerned with is ‘truth’ (or, to put is less boldly, useful information).
IF, on the other hand, you want to ‘win a debate’, or impress simple people in a public setting, then the opposite tends to be the case: forget about the message and focus instead on the messenger.
In other words, ad hominem (i.e. focusing on the messenger i.e. personal attacks) does actually have its use, and not only that, but in the life of the average person, ad hominem more useful than what we might call ‘logic’.
Want evidence? Listen back to my most recent chat with Phil, Gaia, et al on Fakeologist. If you were to have interviewed the participants of the call immediately after it had finished, and asked them something like, ‘who made more valid points about the English language and its history: JLB or Phil’, I put to you that most if not all of them would have replied, ‘Phil’.
Now let’s consider Phil’s claim and evidence:
Claim: Those who ‘study these things’ (i.e. the experts) can and/or do know where English came from.
Evidence: A picture of words with arrows pointing to other words. See below:
(Above is literally the same image Phil provided as evidence to support his claim; it comes form this article)
Think about that for a moment.
Seriously, think about this for a moment. We are dealing with people who genuinely believe that the image above is evidence which supports the claim that the experts can/do know where English came from. A picture with arrows between words.
This is up there with Cavendish experiment.
That’s before we even consider the source of the image (Mental Floss dot com).
And what did I do which was so offensive to Phil and the rest of the participants in the call? I challenged Phil on his piece of evidence. ‘Have you checked the methodology of the study which produced this image?’ Of course he had not.
Even after we established that the image held no weight as evidence for the claim Phil was making, he still wanted to persist on using it as the basis for his argument.
And yet, as I suggested earlier, most/all of the other participants (and, I would guess, many of the listeners) would have left the call feeling that Phil’s position/claim was more worthwhile than my own.
Why? Because ‘JLB doesn’t have an opinion’. Putting aside that this notion is evidently and obviously untrue, there is another issue more important here:
My opinion about history/English has absolutely nothing to do with Phil’s claim. I could disappear tomorrow and Phil’s claim that the experts can/do know where English comes from would still be supported by a picture with words and arrows.
What is my point here? That ad hominem fallacies work. By focusing on how ‘JLB doesn’t have an opinion’, the obvious problems with Phil’s own claim are either forgotten or ignored entirely. There is a bigger problem which must command the attention of the audience, and that problem is JLB.
Perhaps the most elementary logical fallacy, the ad hominem — the focusing on the message rather than the messenger — is effective at winning the support of simple people i.e. the vast majority of the masses. Even if it does not work to win their support, the use of ad hominem can still be used to direct their negative emotions towards something other than one’s own faulty evidence. Even if some of the listeners knew that Phil’s evidence was woeful, and his claim completely unfounded, many would still have left the call more concerned with JLB than with the flaws of Phil’s claims.
Tying this all together, what does a list of logical fallacies, regardless of who produces it or how well-constructed the list might be, actually achieve?
Like any language, logic is only useful insofar as those who communicate with it stick to a set of basic rules or principles. You and I would struggle/fail to communicate in English if I decided to employ a verb-object-subject sentence structure, or simply do away with consistent sentence structure altogether — even if I still used the exact same set of terms.
But we be the began if reason apparent a words imagine no it would using for what a sentence like of them normal rearranged same moment for
Or, put another way:
Imagine for a moment what it would be like if we began using the same words of a normal sentence but rearranged them for no apparent reason
In other words, the rules of a language are only useful insofar as they used in communion.
When we discuss topics like the legitimacy (or otherwise) of official stories concerning the English language, it is very useful for those of us who understand the utility of logic to apply it and attempt to hold ourselves to basic standards.
The masses, on the other hand, have neither the understanding of logic necessary to do this, nor the inclination to employ such an understanding even if they do possess it.
Trying to discuss these sorts of topics logically with the masses — especially when they are in a group, as is often the case in a discord server — is like trying to communicate via English in a room full of gypsy immigrants who speak little English if any. Very quickly they will begin talking among themselves in their own language, disregarding anything you have to say in English, and likely insulting you as well.
tl;dr Logic is akin to a language, one whose rules are only useful to those who value the language, and today the number of people who do value logic is small indeed. Moreover, logic is not actually that useful for winning the support of the masses, which calls into question why we would seek to attempt to employ it when in the company of normies/conspiratards (especially when they are in groups) in the first place.
Concerning ‘personal attacks’
During the conversation you refer to (my recent chat with Gaia and Phil on Fakeologist) I pointed out that I was being constantly personally attacked for my questions. I ought to have explained, and will be more careful to do so in the future, that in this context I am using ‘personal attack’ synonymously with ‘ad hominem’ i.e. attacking the messenger rather than the message i.e. focusing on me and my reasons for requesting/challenging ‘evidence’ rather than the evidence itself.
Ergo I do not mean ‘personal attack’ as in ‘he called me bad names’ but rather ‘you are directing your attention to me rather than the evidence’. I can completely understand how I may have been misunderstood and, as I stated earlier, will be more careful in future.
Concerning ‘temperature in the room’
Your criticism is well-received and understood. I ought to explain that I did not and do not enter into these Fakeologist chats with the intention of upsetting or offending people, and the conversation which we are talking about followed a completely different path to what I had hoped. Sometimes it may seem that, so long as I be myself and focus on evidence and logic, these sorts of heated disagreements will continue to follow me on places like Fakeologist, especially given their recent influx of individuals like Phil who seem very new to the idea of questioning official (authority) stories.
Is it still worth partaking in the calls? I say, ‘yes’. They may not make for the best listening for third parties, especially for those who are not as interested in the meta aspects of the conversations as I tend to be, but I continue to learn from the calls even when they devolve into disagreements like the one in question. I would go so far as to suggest that, although it is not generally a pleasant experience, these sorts of calls have given me something which sets me apart from my peers in this scene.
Until your skepticism is attacked by two or three people simultaneously, in a live broadcast, and you have dealt with constant interruptions, childish namecalling, and snide remarks (all of which took place in the call in question), how can you truly understand the value which skepticism brings to your psyche?
It is the intellectual equivalent of walking into pub in a happy mood and quickly being physically set upon by angry patrons for failing to dress up. How well do your self-defence skills stack up then?
Skepticism is nothing if not a form of intellectual self-defense. I consider myself to be the leading skeptic on the internet today (and if it makes me ‘arrogant’ to be honest about that then I am happy to be called ‘arrogant’ — it doesn’t change the truth or validity of my claim). I would suggest that one reason for this is that I have had to practise my skepticism, on the fly, without warning, in three- or four- or five-on-one confrontations, on countless occasions, all because I just wanted to have a chat (and, god forbid, ask questions).
tl;dr if I had known it would go the way it did, I would not have joined the call. That said, the benefits continue to outweigh the negatives (for me personally).
All languages as we know them are artificially created. Motive: divide and conquer. So splitting up the society. Languages are developped and created max. 400 a 500 years ago.
Good source:http://www.dillum.ch/
Loved your stance and questioning.
Hi Marin,
Thanks for the kind words. As I explained in my reply to Dante’s comment, if I had known the call (FAC395) would go the way it did, I would not have joined. It is never a pleasant experience to be the target of those levels of opprobrium, especially in a live broadcast. Moreover I gain no deep joy from upsetting people like that, or even just being around people who are upset like that. It is a form/side of the human condition I have seen enough of already in my thirty years, and I am not about to go looking for more of it.
At the same time, I appreciate the benefits which flow form that kind of call, to myself and to listeners ‘with ears to hear’. Your feedback here is much appreciated.
Regarding the languages, it certainly seems possible to me that English was constructed. It was surprising to me that Phil would suggest/imply that this was impossible. He backtracked very quickly when I asked him directly, ‘Are you saying it is impossible?’ (that our language was given to us by the people who run the show), and would not answer my question. Perhaps he realised how foolish he sounded.
If one is not willing to entertain the notion that the official story of how English came to be is fake, then what business does one have participating at Fakeologist in the first place?
The case with the dino’s is a farce. Look at the construction, they couldn’t have moved that way. Oh yes, and their poor hart, what a blood pressure they must have had.
Well then you are going to have to provide an ‘alternative model’, Marin. How else do you explain all of therocks fossils these scientists are allegedly discovering if they are not the remains of hundred-million-year-old lizard-birds who were wiped out by an asteroid? Surely you are not going to suggest that the fossils may be embellishments and fabrications, propagated by vested interests for fame and fortune?
Jokes aside, you are quite right that the heart and blood pressure necessary for such a creature to survive presents a serious problem. The entire physiologies of the large dinosaurs ought to be questioned by any rational individual. Take the Muttaburrasaurus, for instance.
How on earth could such a creature possibly exist? The problems with its alleged physiology are numerous. Take for instance the angular momentum involved in a bipedal creature of that size. The amount of force required to change the torso’s direction would be enormous, because the tail and head supposedly were level to the ground i.e. the creature’s body was like a giant horizontal beam.
Basic physics tells us that (ceteris paribus) the longer the horizontal beam -> the greater the angular momentum about the centrepoint -> the more force required to effect change in movement about the centrepoint.
It is utterly absurd.
About 70% of those fakeologist audiochats are practically unlistenable, drunken babble by smug buffoons. lol The other 30%, usually the ones where Abirato himself participates in the call, are well worth the listen. Abirato has turned into a good thinker in the past couple of years and usually has some good observations to add, plus he’s improved his sense of humor or given the one he always had more full expression, giving the shows more entertainment value.
You should only go in there to chat to Ab himself, Chris Kendall or John Adams. Those guys might be able to give you some decent intellectual sparring. The rest of them? Forget about it! They don’t have either the verbal or mental skills yet. They have a long way to go yet but THINK they have already arrived because they know this or that event is “fake.” Knowing this or that event was fake is mostly following Simon Shack’s or someone else’s thinking. It’s no different than reading a book, except they watch endless videos. lol They think with the video-maker’s brain but think they’re doing their own thinking. Then they see you, a young guy who does have his mental and communication skills together and your mere presence and the asking of a few questions shows up their deficiencies and puts their ego on ice. It’s only natural that they’ll try to ostracize you out of their little groupthink circle-jerk by making you feel unwelcome in silly and quite transparently “passive-aggressive” ways. lol
http://k003.kiwi6.com/hotlink/niynemzif4/schopenhauer_says_you_suck_if_you_just_read_and_do_not_think.jpg
That Gaia dude is a very entertaining personality (I think he said on another show that he was a 3 quarters Dutch and one quarter Jew Geologist from Holland currently living and working in Columbia and other regions of South America) with lots of good stories and quite intelligent to a point, but beyond that, for whatever reason, he becomes as “disapproving” of you (through his somewhat mocking tone of voice) and as unable to see simple but solid foundational/premise-investigating reasoning as most of the rest of the conspiracy hobbyists at that social club.
For example, why was he insisting that you HAVE TO provide an alternative explanation as to where the English language came from, when you stated repeatedly that you don’t know and that was your very point: that not only do YOU not know but THEY don’t know either but want to pretend they do so they can babble on endlessly about who knows what? Deterioration of language and this and that. For all we know, it has always been to various degrees “degraded” on purpose, although at the same time, it’s quite obvious, just by watching English films or reading English books from 60 years ago that the standards were much “higher” relative to today back then.
The Greek-German woman from Switzerland, “Misom” that just showed up last week is also a rare great addition to the chatters there and more intelligent than Gaia plus with a better sense of humor, but too modest and wise to get into major arguments and ruffle anyone’s feathers.
You’re pissing on their party by showing them very simply and without emotional investment that they’re not as “awake” as they think, in fact, they have no evidence for quite a few of the “discussions” they go on half-assedly investigating for 5 to 8 hours at a time or whatever it is.
And, by the way, you calling Phil Blanks “juvenile” at the end of that other discussion which that English dude who sounds like he’s on Thorazine (lol) jumped on and said was “ad hominem” was a well-deserved description of how PB was acting and only came AFTER you had asked for evidence at least 10 times and were given the same silly “runaround” ten times, had your question answered with other questions that were not relevant and called names you certainly did not deserve to be called just because your question made them uncomfortable. That’s what good questions are supposed to do: make you uncomfortable until you find the evidence to answer the question at which point your “comfort” will return until you find the next one of thousands of unanswered questions.
They were trying to win the argument by cheating, through “appeal to ridicule,” “ad hominem” and “appeal to authority” and other logical fallacies, DURING the debate, for which you rightly called them out before it started to get too ridiculous, whereas you only called him “juvenile” after he refused to answer any part of your question for over 30 minutes and had already left that theater of the absurd! lol Therefore, you were not calling him “juvenile” during the argument but only afterwards when, in fact, he had clearly demonstrated childishness. Whereas calling you a “nihilist” and “not as smart as you think” and all that other stuff was all done during the debate in order to NOT answer your very simple question logically.
About 70% of those fakeologist audiochats are practically unlistenable, drunken babble by smug buffoons.
Since Rollo has ceased/reduced his appearances in the chats I would say the drunkenness (or ‘drunkenness’) on Fakeologist has decreased substantially; other than that I agree with your statement.
The question is, is it worth ‘pulling an Irene Zisblatt’ and wading through the crap to get to the diamonds? I used to think so, and would listen to almost every Fakeologist audiochat which Ab released. Nowadays I must confess that, with the occasional exception, I tend to only listen to the chats involving Ab.
That said, I still feel I have gotten so much out of my exposure to and interaction with the broader fakeology audience that I try not to discourage others from spending some time with them. There seems to be stepping stones along the way to a better understanding of ourselves, the world, and this thing we call ‘reality’, and some of those stepping stones may involve dealing with people whose value is not in their knowledge/wisdom/insight but in their lack of these things. That is, by studying the responses of the average person to certain ideas and concepts, we might learn more about the masses (conspiratards and normies alike) and in doing so learn more about ourselves.
The other 30%, usually the ones where Abirato himself participates in the call, are well worth the listen. Abirato has turned into a good thinker in the past couple of years and usually has some good observations to add, plus he’s improved his sense of humor or given the one he always had more full expression, giving the shows more entertainment value.
Very well said, and I completely agree.
You should only go in there to chat to Ab himself, Chris Kendall or John Adams.
I have not heard enough of Adams to be able to come to firm conclusions about his value, but what I have heard has not impressed me. The other day he took issue with me pointing out that it is the parents, not the state/’elite’, who are responsible for the welfare of children, and that any judgements of ‘evil’ about things like vaccinations ought to be directed towards the parents at least as much as they are directed to the state/’elite’.
It is difficult for me to imagine that somebody who still buys wholeheartedly into the ‘the state/elite are evil but the parents are not responsible’ line of belief (and is unable to entertain opposing views, such as my own) is much of a deep thinker on anything. As I said, though, I haven’t heard enough of his output to come to firm conclusions, and I won’t judge his entire schtick based on one or two relatively brief listens/interactions.
Have Adams or Kendall produced any original research worth checking out? I know Kendall has released some ‘unscheduled/random calls with authority/experts’ (for want of better description) which are certainly worthy of attention. I wonder however if either of them have actually produced substantial independent research. If not, then we are basically talking about guys with opinions rather than researchers.
There is of course nothing wrong with guys with opinions; I have learned (and will continue to learn) a lot from others, whether or not they produce/release their own original research. That said, it seems to me that a clear distinction ought to be made between those who produce original research and those who do not, especially in light of the fact that characters like Adams seem (and this may just be my own subjective perception) to present themselves as researchers.
They have a long way to go yet but THINK they have already arrived because they know this or that event is “fake.” Knowing this or that event was fake is mostly following Simon Shack’s or someone else’s thinking. It’s no different than reading a book, except they watch endless videos. lol They think with the video-maker’s brain but think they’re doing their own thinking.
Completely agree. As if waking up to the Baby Hoaxes is something to be proud of. It seems to me that this is the main reason why my suggestion that the absurd and blatant fakery involved in 9/11 and the Moon Landings may have been done on purpose (i.e. like easter eggs) is so unpopular among fakeologists. It makes some (most?) of them feel special to believe that they have ‘figured out’ some kind of difficult puzzle, so if it were the case that the ruse was made deliberately easy to ‘figure out’, it would undermine the pride they have in their ‘discoveries’.
Then they see you, a young guy who does have his mental and communication skills together and your mere presence and the asking of a few questions shows up their deficiencies and puts their ego on ice. It’s only natural that they’ll try to ostracize you out of their little groupthink circle-jerk by making you feel unwelcome in silly and quite transparently “passive-aggressive” ways.
Completely agree again. The behaviour of Gaia and Rochello during the call in question was particularly juvenile. Constantly interrupting my replies? Shouting ‘yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa’ into the microphone to endorse somebody elses ad hominem attacks on me? Interjecting after said ad hominem attacks before giving me a chance to respond myself? Snide remarks from the sidelines? Like dealing with children. Poorly-raised children.
Regarding Gaia, I agree with you that he is an entertaining character. I remain optimistic that he might eventually move beyond his current disdain for my skepticism. If he has spent this long feeling ‘woke’ for knowing about the Baby Hoaxes (and so forth) while still believing in nonsense like dinosaurs and human evolution, and especially if he works in fields related to ‘science’ (as he claims), then what I am presenting will naturally be rather challenging to his current paradigm (and, of course, his ego). It is possible that in time he may be able to work through this. I hope so.
The Greek-German woman from Switzerland, “Misom” that just showed up last week is also a rare great addition to the chatters there and more intelligent than Gaia plus with a better sense of humor, but too modest and wise to get into major arguments and ruffle anyone’s feathers.
I haven’t heard much of Misom but what I have heard so far has impressed me. Sadly she had some less-than-endearing things to say about me and this site following the FAC in question:
I understand that John le Bon is actually not trying to discuss with others to influence them and let himself be influenced by them. He rather purely intents to create content in which he poses as the one who speaks the most by saying nothing. That is an abusive tactic but i guess, unfortunately, there are a lot of people who would pay for it.
I don’t take this personally and hope that in time Misom may see that I am not the boogeyman she may currently have me pegged for.
You’re pissing on their party by showing them very simply and without emotional investment that they’re not as “awake” as they think, in fact, they have no evidence for quite a few of the “discussions” they go on half-assedly investigating for 5 to 8 hours at a time or whatever it is.
I cannot disagree with this analysis.
They were trying to win the argument by cheating, through “appeal to ridicule,” “ad hominem” and “appeal to authority” and other logical fallacies, DURING the debate, for which you rightly called them out before it started to get too ridiculous, whereas you only called him “juvenile” after he refused to answer any part of your question for over 30 minutes and had already left that theater of the absurd! lol Therefore, you were not calling him “juvenile” during the argument but only afterwards when, in fact, he had clearly demonstrated childishness. Whereas calling you a “nihilist” and “not as smart as you think” and all that other stuff was all done during the debate in order to NOT answer your very simple question logically.
Excellent summary of what transpired. It can sometimes be both amusing and at the same time unsettling to think that this is so obvious to you and to me (and, I would dare say, to several others who have listened to the call), but that many (most?) ‘fakeologists’ cannot or will not be able to see it for themselves.
Dale Carnegie explained that, for the average person, emotion trumps logic – EASILY. Not even a contest. The moment emotion enters the equation, logic disappears. Again and again we see this play out in the ACT realm. Once a person becomes emotionally triggered by me (or anybody else who dares challenge their evidence) then they can no longer employ any critical thinking abilities which they might otherwise have at their disposal.
It is truly remarkable just how quickly logic can disappear once a person becomes emotionally unsettled. Like watching a high-functioning adult morph into a special needs child before your very eyes.
By “pissing on their party” I meant how they perceive it without full awareness and without forming that phrase as a description of what’s happening in their heads. People do it subconsciously when their “cognitive dissonance” radar goes off. Arguing with you logically might play havoc with their peace-of-mind based on un-t-root-ed be-leafs they consider t-rooted. Once that foundation is questioned they’ll have to learn an entirely new way of discussing things. I don’t mean that you deliberately go in there to aggravate them, only to challenge them a bit, but they take it as “aggravation” because they’re not quite ready for it.
Hoax Busters is a weird show. They pass the holohoax litmus or I wouldn’t even bother to listen for 10 minutes. I like the free-flowing format of their show and Chris’s willingness to jump form any topic to any other and find a connection between them, but I don’t agree with a lot of what is claimed by them at all, not even that JFK and his brother and his son are all alive and well and living in a “secret location.” Occam’s Razor says it’s much easier to just hit three people over the head and whack them.
By the way, I am now completely banned from Hoax Busters and can’t even leave a mosquito bite of a critical comment for 20 people to read to set any of their silly claims straight. The show itself gets around a thousand downloads unless Mami’s posts it, then a few thousand more. I can easily circumvent the banning by getting fake accounts but I’m not like that other asswipe they had over there posting under 30 different accounts, “Marcus Goldstein Allen” (he’s the guy who says it’s “ridiculous” for Simon Shack to imply Jews pulled off 9-11, despite being conclusively proven to own over 90% of the world’s media, a laughable position which John Adams and Kendall also apparently share, never mind that what they themselves are implying, and sometimes even openly claiming, that “off chessboard entities” no one can name pulled it off to set up the Jews, is the most absurd theory I’ve ever heard, akin to the Alien intereference and Reptilian Shape Shifters Rule the World, etc. ) or whatever his name was, one of the guys Kendall first partnered with to do 5 hour shows before John Adams.
I think what you should really do is invite the people you like or those who can at least spar with you intellectually without being butthurt and offended, on your own show. I think you should do what Red Ice used to do before the invaders of Europe ruined their party and forced them to become one-track-minded, audios with Michael Tsarion, Neil Kramer, Bill Joslin, Dennis Fetcho, Lenon Honor and people of this sort, maybe even Jan Irvin. Then follow the Red Ice model to success. Put the first hour free, second hour “paid members.” Just call them and ask and send them a good representation of what you feel to be your best work or audio “performance.” A good place to fish for guests is Red Ice’s podcasts before 2013. A short detour to do a “ball earth skeptic” debate or discussion with Brian Staveley (and James Sloan) would be a great place to start, since both of your are very adept conversationalists, and he’s back in action but concentrating mostly on FE. You might even call the show “the hot seat” or something equivalent so that guests know that they might have some tough questions thrown at them that might ruffle their feathers a bit if they take the Le Bon challenge. lol That way, they can’t blame you for being a “red herring fallacy spreader” and “deliberate disrupter” or whatever else they were calling you at Fakeologist.
” the Le Bon challenge.” I like it
@JLB
Also, you’re not using any of the Fakeologist audios as “paid content,” that would be poaching off Abirato’s site content, even if it’s not exactly copyrighted. So what are Misom and JustSayingDude talking about? That you’re using those audios to get more customers for your paid section? lol Come on!
The hilarious part is these people spend 8 hours at a time in the chat rooms, which if they were even making U.S. minimum wage, let’s say 8 bucks an hour, would translate to 64 dollars each time, more than 3 months of subscription to your supposedly “high priced” paid content intended to lure in people more naive than Misom. lol
Their time or energy must truly not be worth much of anything at all if they put so much value on paper money and so little on where the energy, which paper-money is only a symbolic representation of, is actually spent.
So, basically, these are people who spend 50 to a hundred dollars at a time in time-&-energy-spent every time they go on discord to refuse to turn down their mics and speak with barely understandable accents “enhanced” by alcohol and drugs and who knows what else, including all kinds of weird mouth and stomach noises (lol) listeners have to endure, but they complain about you directly having paid content and not beating around the bush with “donation” buttons which are more-or-less the same thing but pretend not to be.
Your best business partners are those who spend the most time at your site. They are keeping the bees-nest bee-sy by bee-hiving that way, are they not? Of course, they are! But don’t quantify that with that evil symbol of money or you become tainted. If making money by selling “truth” is not honorable or a “turd.” Then anybody who ever wrote a book, costing money, that gave you truthful information is similarly guilty. The discussion is pointless unless they’re not accepting donations either, but it is pointless even if just plenty of people voluntarily give of their time and effort to produce content on the site by chatting for many hours and leaving comments. That’s energy spent, but paid in increments of respect, dis-respect (the troll’s preferred form of emotional payment) and/or appreciation, instead of the symbol of cash. They’re just picking up the same turd by the “rite” alt-media-consensus-approved “clean” end, that’s all, akin to what politically correct commentators do psychologically speaking.
http://k003.kiwi6.com/hotlink/iq6ft1f4ux/political-correctness.jpg
All of Fakeologst is an alternative-media-politically-correct site. All of Hoax Busters is the same, hence why they’re such good “buddy buddies” together and never once had a problem with each other.
As we all know, there is one (((major topic))) which is nearly completely taboo there and even when rarely spoken of, always done so in mocking terms to make you pay the emotional costs of having dared to broach it, and that coincides directly with “To find out who rules over you, just ask who you are not allowed to criticize” — Voltaire. They might even go full retard SJW like Nova Scotian and start calling you a “hater.”
I know you’ve recently taken the line that “we” have no effect on the outcome of what goes on in the world, even if just for argument’s sake. But I disagree. All of IMDB comments was shut down because truthers and White Nationalists were trolling the fuck out of the boards. I know this because the comments-section of the IMDB was always the most entertaining part to read. I myself posted ten thousand links to every hoax imaginable. It was like a Wild West for a while. Now it’s all completely gone, they cancelled the whole thing overnight a year or so ago. Same with you tube and twitter, look at how much more restrictive they are now compared to 4 years ago.
We are either having an effect or they want us to believe we are having an effect. I don’t see why or how the second case could be truer than the first.
JLB
I’ve listened to the podcast, our conversation on tabletennis comes in handy. To cut the story short, that simply isn’t your league. I know you don’t want to spoil the party or to be “the wiseman”, but that’s a fact, and anyway that’s how they see you, a pedantic smartass. I think after a while they realize they can’t defeat you on your playground so it’s not surprising in the least if you end up beaten by an angry gang like Paul Newman in The Hustler when he has a try in the dive bar.
I know it’s none of my business, but with the due respect I take the liberty to suggest you to consider the possibility of quitting this group debates with random people clearly not in the same league, and so saving time for your research work, that in my humble opinion is what you should be focused on.
A famous and very insightful “existentialist” quote related to “nihilism” which you might find useful, given that that’s the supposedly “disruptive” mindset you keep getting accused of:
“The absurd … is an experience to be lived through, a point of departure, the equivalent, in existence of Descartes’ methodical doubt. Absurdism, like methodical doubt, has wiped the slate clean. It leaves us in a blind alley. But, like methodical doubt, it can, by returning upon itself, open up a new field of investigation, and in the process of reasoning then pursues the same course.
I proclaim that I believe in nothing and that everything is absurd, but I cannot doubt the validity of my proclamation and I must at least believe in my protest. The first and only evidence that is supplied me, within the terms of the absurdist experience, is rebellion … Rebellion is born of the spectacle of irrationality, confronted with an unjust and incomprehensible condition.” ~ Albert Camus
“Everyone ‘appreciates’ your honesty, until you’re honest with them, then you’re an asshole.” — George Carlin
I’m not Carlin’s biggest fan but this is pretty much true.
When I am not mistaken the guy “Gaya” is an archeoleogist. So he is part of an system in which he is brought up, do have believe in it , as the system is an deception of itsself, he probably will never be able to look over the horizon.
Geologist, very different than archeology. Although people tend to confuse it.
But whether a person is a “geologist,” “archeologist,” “physicist” or “math teacher” (like K-ham), your observation is correct. Looking “over the horizon” is hard for them because they are actually MORE indoctrinated than the “masses” but believe themselves to be “immune” or at least not as susceptible to propaganda due to the fact that they can think more-or-less logically and arrive at some valid conclusions, even more so if their thinking has discovered “baby hoaxes” within the mostly controlled-opposition of the alt-media. Note: I don’t look at shillery as direct “paid” agency but through the lens of this principle: Direct agent or useful idiot/useful ego, the result is the same: disinformation or making everything believable and nothing knowable.
However, regardless of how many hoaxes the “professional logicians” (as they usually think of themselves if they have some degree in a scientific field) have gotten wise to, they’re most often still operating within the belly of the “Big Con” beast or the often-falsified set dialectics and paradigms of the “establishment” confidence game itself, the game within which they score points called their salary and respectability and social status: bait and hook.
The system is “limited hangout” in its entirety because it is run by the biggest con-artists in the world: elite Jews and freemasons, the former currently on top and the latter a “gentile” version of the former for better lubrication and fit to non-Judaic genetic predispositions and mind-sets. Your average “every day” Jews and freemasons are usually only guilty to the extent that they support their elite ranks or do not speak about their very destructive, win-lose and anti-see-will-I-zation (win-win) machinations and cover them up.
In other words, no matter what the profession, there’s always enough bait of “truth,” (I define truth as t-root or k-now-ledge that goes to-the-root of the tree and explores the foundational premises of all structures of logical ideas built on them, later called opinions or beliefs, i.e., be-leafs, the sound of the word is not accidental, although you have been put under the “spell” of a slightly different spelling) or observable evidence that “works” (forks, gives you a fork for stabbing your food dead, lol, yes, that is not accidental either, they are making fun of the peons through the English language itself) to accomplish useful tasks in today’s world, to pull you in the gate and hook you to the nonsense or lies attached to it.
Another way of seeing it clearly is when someone clever wants to poison you, they will, of course, give the poison in a sugar coated pill, or better yet, in small and mostly undetectable portions, drop-by-drop even, in your regular “truthful and everyday and maybe even nutritious if no poison was added” meals which taste no different. Switch it to poisoning ideas and intellects and you have de Maistre’s maxim:
“False opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doing.” — Joseph de Maistre
All of science is limited hangout but scientists being “intellectuals,” and thinking themselves invulnerable to propaganda or less vulnerable than the “average” person without a degree in academia actually makes them MORE vulnerable as the following well-known Jacques Ellul quotes correctly elucidated over 5 decades ago:
“The individual’s adherence to his group is ‘ conscious’ because he is aware of it and recognizes it, but it is ultimately involuntary because he is trapped in a dialectic and in a group that leads him unfailingly to his adherence. His adherence is also ‘intellectual’ because he can express his conviction clearly and logically, but it is not genuine because the information, the data, the reasoning, that have led him to adherence to the group were themselves deliberately falsified in order to lead him there.” ~ Jacques Ellul – “Propaganda, The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”
“Naturally, the educated man does not believe in propaganda, he shrugs and is convinced that propaganda has no effect on him. This is, in fact, one of his great weaknesses, and propagandists are well aware that in order to reach someone, one must first convince him that propaganda is ineffectual and not very clever. Because he is convinced of his own superiority, the intellectual is much more vulnerable than anybody else to this maneuver.” ~ Jacques Ellul – “Propaganda, The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”
That’s is the crux of the biscuit right there (and as far as I know, I’m the only person on the entire internet who took those particular quotes out of that well-known book and pasted them everywhere, which brings up the question: why am I the only person who first thought these quotes important enough to sit down, copy them by hand from the ragged old paperback I had since the 1990s in my own library, and paste them online?). Once you begin to understand what Ellul is trying to say there more fully, and being deep thoughts that took Ellul a lifetime to crystallize, it will also take some reflection on the reader’s part with your understanding improving every time you go back and re-read the quotes having gained more experience and perspective looking through the C-LEVER-age (conceptual leverage = t-rooted conceptual ideas that enable people to do heavy mental lifting with the least effort) of that very-same Ellul-influenced idea-lens or modality of thought-processing, then you realize that dealing with “intellectuals” is no big obstacle for expert con-artists and propagandists who have been doing this stuff for many generations going back centuries.
After all, even if you were a common pickpocket, it would be harder to rob the “average” person on the street who has been exposed to more thieves and crooks in his life, is more grounded in “every day” experience, and is more likely to turn around and beat the crap out of you in the bargain as well if you’re caught, than robbing the middle class, bourgeois “intellectual” with his head in the clouds who will just run to the “police” or policy-enforcers of the system?
@Negentropic.
Wish I could formulate that well.
Since a couple of years ago it became clear to me that everything is about denaturing a person, building up a false matrix, that’s why they created these schoolsystems and compartimentalization. Once done that you’re depended on their system and they can do whatever they want to do with you.
The collective noun for fish. Let’s name these institutions (which take up more than a decade of the average person’s life) after the collective noun for fish.
After a decade of schooling they will be too dumb to get the joke!
You said what needed to be said. I just like to give my imagination free reign and go off into outer space a bit and see what “connections” turns up. The system IS a deception of itself. It is meant to put you on that de-natured course early on subconsciously, unsuspected, after it has already put your parents and grandparents in the same box, that of falsely believing you’re “free” and have volition or reside “in the best of all possible worlds as the world is currently designated.” You DO have volition but only if you realize that if you don’t use that choice to re-build your entire value system, you’ll be forever controlled by it, since that is the one that you have gotten used to habitually since you were born and your parents and grandparents before that going back many generations. Only a few people are able to break that chain and those few are usually ostracized out of the larger groups and believed by only a few other people. This way, “dissent” is allowed, because it has little effect.
Once you falsely believe that you came up with your foundational value system and ideas yourself, through “conscious” thinking and judging “right and wrong,” which most people are in no way even half-assedly and pragmatically capable of until they reach their late teens, then you’re in the false reality of “the made-tricks” or that of the domesticated hue-man, no longer capable of half as many hues or subtleties as before because always under this or that stress and pressure, most of it manufactured and unnecessary.
The “warfare” is mostly psychological, as it has been for a very long time, although when they need to, they can still consolidate their power by whacking as many people as they need to.
Dinosaur scientists found 20% of a new species, thats hilarious. Jokes in plain sight.
Imagine you turn on the radio and hear a new song for the very first time, but the reception is so bad that you are only able to hear 20% of the song. How hard would it be to reconstruct that whole song, that you never heard before, using only that 20%? And you don’t know for sure if that is actually 20% of the song because you don’t know how long the song is!
Dinosaur scientists found 20% of a new species, thats hilarious. Jokes in plain sight.
It is so obvious that the emperor has no clothes. When I read the official scientific studies and noticed this… words barely describe it.
Fortunately I got around to reading and studying Gustave le Bon’s The Crowd around the same time (late 2016), so it all began to make sense.
Lemmings, my friend. We are surrounded by lemmings.
Great analogy.
Their bullshit is so obvious
Dinosaur scientists found 20% of a new species, thats hilarious. Jokes in plain sight.
Just wondering how they can come op with a 20% when they don’t know how this whole thing must look alike. There goes your tax money.
That is the point of my analogy between a new species and a new song. In order to know what % the portion constitutes, one must know the entire structure. How can you know the entire structure of a brand new thing when you only have a small piece of it?
If I remember right Gaia’s argument was that Dino scientists have related species that they can compare the new pieces to, then they can extrapolate(assume) what the remainder of the structure should be. Instead of disagreeing with Gaia argument I thought of the music analogy. Imagine doing the same thing with a brand new song, you could compare the pieces to similar pieces of music to figure out how the song should go. I think it would be easier to do this with a new song than it would be with a new organism.
Oh, but Marin, don’t you know they have similar species they can compare it to?
‘How do they know the species are similar, though?’
Well they have the femur.
‘How do you know they have the femur, you haven’t even read the paper!’
These guys are experts, okay? Just leave it alone. Stop asking nihilistic questions.