I am off on another journey with my wife, this time to Patagonia and Torres del Paine, to hike the “W.” We’ll be “glamping,” or glamour camping, each night having a bed and a meal awaiting. We just are not that tough – those sleeping-on-the-ground carrying a backpack days are behind us.
From there we go to Buenes Aires and further up north to view Iguazu Falls, which I like to think of as Niagara Falls times seven. Of course we’ll have Internet in various places, but I don’t like using the blog as a travelogue, so will not be writing about where we are that day or what we had for lunch.
I have two things to cover in this post:
The interview I did with Faye. Anyone who has listened to it finds that it is extremely annoying in that I continually cut out, have to repeat myself. My first thought was that technology has simply not caught up yet. Ab suggested he and I do an interview when I get better equipment. But what is my equipment? I have a $30 headset that I use for everything from transcription to conversations. It has worked for everything but that interview. I have a computer that seems to work properly, as right now. Can you read this?
Prior to the interview Faye and I probably had an hour of conversation on Discord to lay out the groundwork and discuss the technology, as I was concerned that the one other time I used that program, it took me a long time and numerous reboots to finally be heard. She agreed to call me well ahead of time. In every conversation with Faye, after finally achieving voice contact, my “equipment” worked fine. She could hear me and I could hear her.
Then came time for the formal interview, and of course, I could not reach her by voice. It took like five minutes of “can you hear me?” before we finally hooked up. Why that five minutes was not edited out of the finished product I cannot say. Then came the cutout problems, consistent throughout, and basically spoiling the entire show. That happened only on that day.
I am slow to advance in technology, but not a moron. Something happened in that two-hour time frame that happened at no other time.
Faye, if you are reading this, I am more than happy to do another interview with you covering the same ground and more. If the cutout problem happens again, we quit. We could schedule it to broadcast on April 19, the true 25th anniversary of the Waco “Massacre.” Your call. I love that kind of thing. I would like to do it again and do it right.
Iconoclasts: During my absence I am scheduling four posts to appear, a series I have to write today and which I am calling “Iconoclasts.” The idea is to keep the blog lively to allow a place for our excellent commenters to chime in. I will follow it while on our journey when possible.
Note to the other writers: Anytime you have something to publish, simply go into “Posts” that are “Scheduled” and reschedule mine. If you publish something and my pieces rudely pushes you aside, just change the date on mine to give yourselves headline time.
Iconoclasts, or “icon busters,” are as the name says, people who break up statues. They don’t think like everyone around them. They are not subject to “peer review,” that oppressive system of thought control that guarantees mediocrity in human pursuits. They are often looked down on, even chastised and ridiculed by people “in the know,” that is, those who go with the flow.
Such people are hard to find. As Ward Churchill learned (though that whole affair has the earmarks of a psyop used to warn people everywhere, including those with tenure, to STFU), people who go against the grain are not protected by any system. The vast majority of people in the professions worry more about livelihood than pursuit of truth or excellence. Doing otherwise usually means doing something else for a living.
Here are the four I have chosen:
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979), author of Worlds In Collision (1950) and Earth in Upheaval (1955).
Eric Berne (1910-1970), author of Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis.
Joseph Kinsey Howard (1906-1951), author of Montana, High, Wide and Handsome.
Miles W. Mathis, who we all know. I emphasize here a point that I made at Fakeologist in the comments behind that failed interview that even though I have met Mr. Mathis and like and admire him, we are not friends, and he is not a patron of this blog. Much of the interview with Faye dealt with skepticism about Miles, so maybe we can hash it out here.
I will not be able to write much about each of these four men, perhaps for the best. I don’t have time, but hope that everyone else will bring the topic home.
As always, this blog is a synergistic enterprise. I happen to have time and fluid fingers, where others are constrained by those stinking jobs and the ongoing need to make money. However, I appreciate every writer, every guest writer, and every commenter here (except Skink, who floats on a dark cloud).
23 thoughts on “The mucked up interview, and off on a glamping journey”
Very nice travel, Mark, enjoy! Buenos Aires is an amazing city and Patagonia and Iguazu must be overwhelming nature. I will send you some tips for Buenos Aires.
I agree the audio was bad, but when listening back later it was less bad than I experienced live. Some people have suggested it was your mic where you weren’t too close to, but to me it sounded like internet connection cut-outs. When we talked some days before you didn’t have that, it may have to with the Livestream only?
I never heard of Berne and Howard, but took a quick look at that book by Velikovsky here:
I hope the Velikovsky discussion is lively. I read it in the wake of several books about the failures of the theory of evolution and natural selection, that Darwinism does not get it done. For instance, just as an example, the LaBrea Tar Pits are filled with fossilized bones of large and extinct animals, and the assumption from an evolutionary standpoint has to be that they wandered in and got stuck, as everything is gradual. One or two, maybe, but thousands? The same problem of gradualism as an explanation applies with shells in the water, said to have been fossilized by repeated and microscopic layers of sediment. They have to be held perfectly still for hundreds of years, that is, no water motion.
So catastrophism has a lot to offer, for instance, in perfectly preserved mammoths in Siberia. Did they get cold gradually and decided not to move? What were they doing there anyway, as there is not enough vegetation to support them. I was disturbed by the prevalence of spook markers in the link you provided. That is always in the back of my mind, but if that is the case, why? What masonic rite is furthered by promoting a conversational scientific theory that is widely rejected, the author forced into obscurity. I stand to be educated, I guess, always painful.
On the LaBrea tar pits; it could have been a lake, so an attraction for animals to drink, but with a more sinister thing boiling below it. Like a “Bermuda Triangle”, but then for animals.
I have seen tar live in the field, as well as gas (methane) vents which may kill people (and animals). Give it enough time and they can accumulate.
I don’t defend every single fossil, after all I haven’t seen them with my own eyes and touched them, but geologically speaking it doesn’t sound “outrageous” to me.
A similar paleontological Lagerstätte is the Messel Pit in southern Germany, a former lake in a volcanic area where many fossils have been found beautifully preserved, dating back to the Eocene (like 35-45 million years ago).
You’re going to Argentina, Patagonia is well known for the preservation of fossils, there are lots of them from different eras. Dinosaurs, but many more modern mammals too. If you get the chance (and have a rental car), it would make a nice field trip to actually try to find things yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The tar pits are not a former lake bed, but rather an outcropping of a bed of petroleum shale that extends out over 450 miles from LA to Cape Mendicino. An excavation there uncovered skulls of wolves and saber tooth tigers averaging 20 per cubic yard. That is an agglomeration, not some animals happenstance getting their feet stuck.
And here is the deal: It may be inexplicable with our current knowledge, but Darwinism does not get it done.
See the book: “The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism” by Richard Milton:
It did get a mention back in January … https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/01/30/misdirection-in-the-aids-debate/
PS – our Internet here works fine, 12 mb on a dedicated line with no outside interference. We used to have cutout problems until I had the dedicated line run in – it comes in on the landline wire.
I’m jealous! Have a nice trip !
We’ll be flying over you on the way – I will have the pilot tip the wing.
Mark, sounds phantastic your travel route, have a wonderful time !
P.S. I will be happy to talk with you on April 19, or whenever possible.
I usually like MM’s non scientific papers. It’s his scientific papers which makes me wonder. Like his latest paper on moonlight cooling. So there is this weird claim and there are some flat earthers using this claim to point out, the moon is not reflecting the sunlight and then comes MM and claims the FE’s use bad methods to prove that moonlight is cooling but they are flat earthers and draws from this the conclusion moonlight cooling must be true, because Flatearthers try to blackwash it using wrong methods. He even admits, he’s not making his own experiments but brings his own weird theories to prove that moonlight colling must be true because his theories support it. If this makes any sense to you, think again. You can’t prove the moonlight is cooling because you cannot reproduce any measurement because the conditions are always different. It is as bad as the entire global warming psyop. And MM is on it too.
I was aware of the claims about cooling moonlight, not first from Flat Earth sources, but from some knowledge of Ayurveda. The idea is far older than the current FE psy-op.
A few years ago I was with a group of high school kids having a nighttime discussion. It was a mostly clear night with a few big clouds and a full moon. From time to time the moon would duck behind a cloud and then come out again. It was the common experience of the group and myself that we felt warmer when the moon was behind a cloud and cooler when in full moonlight–very much in the same way as one might feel warmer when the sun came out from behind a big cloud, but opposite, of course.
Just anecdata. And by no means a defense of the MM science stuff. But still a curious phenomenon, whether physical or merely psychological. As one astronomer quipped: “If human beings are not affected somehow by the moon, they are the only things on earth that are not ….”
12-Sign Zodiac: One more things the Romans screwed up. Prior to that, ancient knowledge of 13 signs of 28-day (moon) cycles were observed. It’s back. https://www.13astrology.com/
All that you touch
And all that you see
All that you taste
All you feel
And all that you love
And all that you hate
All you distrust
All you save
And all that you give
And all that you deal
And all that you buy
Beg, borrow, or steal
And all you create
And all you destroy
And all that you do
And all that you say
And all that you eat
And everyone you meet
And all that you slight
And everyone you fight
And all that is now
And all that is gone
And all that’s to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon
of course we are affected by the moon in a lot of ways. Not only the tides. We had cold temperatures in Germany since January. The latest full moon on this weekend changed the weather. The last remains of some January snow are now melted. Finally. The full moon not always changes weather visibly of course but it does quite often as people in different cultures observed for centuries. I heard that from my grand parents and also from old people in Spain I once talked to and also from a native travel guide in New Zealand a couple of years ago. You may have heard similar things too. In my opinion there is no way to exactly prove that the moonlight can reduce temperature on anything and have any cooling impact. The measurement error would be too big. Many things can make you shudder (or sweat) without any changes in the temperature around you, for instance your blood circulation. To reduce temperature you have to somehow take energy out or in other words to slow the molecules in a system. Fridges do that using forced decompression. To heat something is more easy, you only have to put energy into a system. The same effect applies for every kind of pumping. Its relatively easy to create pressure and not so easy to create negative pressure. Sucking pumps are much more complicated than pumping pumps, so to speak.
I was listening to a ball game on Saturday when the Cincinnati main channel cut in to announce that an SUV had been stolen and that were were three children in it. “Be on the lookout for … license plate number …”etc. It sounded fishy to me – what car thief also wants to be a kidnapper? So I waited for it … wait for it … wait for it … and at the end they told us the suspect is 33 years old and weighs 155 pounds. There it is … 33 and 11. Fake fake fake.
this sounds almost like an inside joke. Yet still the majority will take this for real and fear for the kids. They don’t think it impossible somebody leaves three kids in a car and then goes somewhere so it can get stolen. And the car thief comes by and thinks, wow, look there is a car with kids in there, lets steal it? And they don’t think it weird, that the police knows the exact weigh and age of the thief. I think, they constantly invent such “news” and communicate with each other with that numbers. It’s like some school homework: write a short story containing the numbers 33 and 11 encoded somehow in the text.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If anyone decides to go climb the Catastrophism//Saturnian cosmology mountain I highly recommend checking out Jno Cook’s http://saturniancosmology.org . This e-book is very compelling and deserves to be read in its entirety.
To me it helps explain why humanity seems to have been born with a real bad case of PTSD.
Tidbits and caution flags:
Velikovsky was a raving Zionist yet he and his followers were still shit-canned by the scientific establishment. Not sure what to make of this yet.
In a few chapters Jno Cook quotes extensively from Alfred de Grazia , who on his own website admits he worked for Intelligence (even going as far as naming the psychological warfare unit he was a part of). Having read some of de Grazia’s work he is also not nice to the Zionists. In fact he writes he entire book of how mad Egyptian priest Moses was a raving schizo who led his ‘Mad Max’ army of Jewish survivors on a bloody conquest campaign and the origins of Judaism.
More reading into this you get the sense that ‘insiders’ have been discussing this for many decades but for whatever reason it remains suppressed. Perhaps not all the Families agree on releasing this info to the public.
The Thunderbolts Project has carried on Velikovsky’s work and has expanded upon it. You can check out their channel on youtube. Miles mentioned in one of his older science papers and although he has some respect for David Talbott, they need Miles’ charge field to make sense of the Electric Universe theory of course. The T-bolts crew dances with ‘mainstream’ science though and of course will not call out the biggest hoaxes in science.
Having De Grazia involved makes me want to toss it all out, but having dived into ancient mythology myself there is too much compelling evidence that the planets were not in stable orbits between 10,000 BC and roughly 550BC. The mythologies of the ancients all seem to point to a radically different sky above along with devastation wrecked on the Earth below.
(apologies if I double post, not sure if my first comment made it through. You may delete that one)
I consider the possibility that at least one great catastrophe happened around 1000 years ago and maybe even closer to our present age. I also believe in a shorter chronology for the historical narratives. A lot of historical narratives seem to be copy pasted, with a few changes in names (persons, geographical names etc). This leads to the question about how much to trust the narratives. I don’t trust the narratives that were created today, but there is a real history. Can the real history be deduced from the narratives presented (both “history” and mythologies)? I believe that certain things can be deduced, but i cannot be certain. This is why I still study the writings written by historians, philosophers, fictional writers etc (both “ancient” and modern). Some or many writers can be almost 100% fake personalities, but they are still relevant to get an understanding of many elements of civilization (there is the possibility that some writers are the duplicate of other writers) .
Anatoly Fomenko’s ideas seem to align too well to the Eurasianism ideology (which I don’t trust since it aligns with what is happening today). From what I see his books are sold in relatively big number. Most alternative people promote Fomenko. Also promoted by the spook Garry Kasparov.
Some people may believe that Velikovsky misdirects away from Comyns Beaumont (see http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/comyns-beaumont.html). From what I read, neither satisfy me.
Gunnar Heinsohn has some reasonable ideas regarding chronology. He also probably presents some narratives that are probably not true. He also has a theory about the youth bulge and nazism, which I consider as booshit.
All of them may have something useful regarding chronology and some possible narratives. There are also a few people that discussed the elite families like Ralph Ellis and Hugh Montgomery. But even there I see some narratives that seem wrong. For example Montgomery says that everybody important at the Battle of Hastings was related, but the war was a real contention between these people. Nobody considers the possibility that the only sides are the related elites (Families) and the common people that must be managed through various types of wars.
Thank you for your reply. I was hoping someone would contribute their views on the subject and I figured this might be a better place for it.
I could add another 30 paragraphs on this but alas maybe when I have a coherent view on the subject. Velikovsky may have been misdirecting I agree. The Saturn cosmologists like to say he was ‘wrong in theory, but correct in details’.
Agreed something is wrong with chronology. The Bronze Age Collapse or one of these catastrophes seems to have ushered in about 400 years of ‘phantom’ history (both to the devastation possibly by Venus or Mars, and bad researchers) and parts of the mainstream are admitting this as well. The Sybiline Oracle books (or whats left of them) might be the closest anyone will get to the reality of these catastrophes. But I’m para-phrasing from Jno Cook’s work extensively here.
Which is why I keep recommending Jno Cook to everybody. Going to his personal website he reminds you of Miles Mathis in a way.. a garage scientist, artist, and engineer, and presents a ‘third’ alternative view on this subject (he also knows 9.11 is a conspiracy at least.. passing that ‘litmus test’ is notable). He criticizes the Velikovsky and the Saturn cosmologists where they don’t make sense and ties accepted chronology where it does (for example Saturn WAS Planet X, or the body that had been causing repeating mass extinctions over the eons that the mainstream admits is now looking for).
He also the first to suggest Earth had it’s own equatorial ring system in the past and part of the deluge myths (and the Day of the Dead mythologies) is the story of the collapse of these rings. The ancients knew this as the Absu by the Babylonians, the Duat by the Egyptians, and the Abyss or the Deep in the Bible. The ancients believed this was an ocean standing up into the sky.
I think it’s fascinating you get pull more truth about the past through ‘mythologies’ than you can with the theories presented to us today lol. Says a lot about the modern world…
“In a time of universal deceit, iconoclasm is the easiest method for trolling the lemmings.”
-H.E. Pennypacker (attributed)
Over the past few years I have come to learn that humans, with very rare exception, seem to need explanations about the ‘how’ and ‘why’ and ‘when’ and ‘where’ of existence. It is not enough to accept and appreciate the mystery; they would prefer to have explanations — no matter how absurd and ridiculous — and so they flock to those who claim to have the answers.
In this sense, the priests of organised religion, the experts of modern ‘science’, the self-styled gurus of various online ‘truth movements’, these are all just different forms of the very same thing. They get attention because they offer what the people want: answers, explanations, a sense of ‘knowing’ what any honest man will eventually realise he simply cannot ‘know’.
Is this desperation for answers a function of ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’? A strong case can be made wither way.
As children we are raised to believe that we can know so much: just repeat the story in the book and you too can know that the lights in the sky are giant balls of gas! Yes, Billy, you are so smart now, because you can repeat what the smart men tell you. Did you know that in the past, people believed that light in the sky to be a god? How silly! You are smart because you know it is a ball of gas.
Repeat after me, class: light in sky is ball of gas! Light in sky is ball of gas! Light in sky is ball of gas! Very good. You are all so smart!
But, then again, we have no way to fairly compare how humans would be were it not for the advent of mass ‘education’. If we were not all sent to the fish-factory, sorry, ‘school’, would we still have turned out to be fish? I suspect the answer may well be ‘yes’, but I have come to accept that this is yet another thing I will probably never ‘know’.
The relevance of all of this is that, as ‘iconoclasts’, or in my case as a self-styled ‘skeptic’, we are engaged in an activity which is, to most of our fellow ‘humans’, inherently offensive and upsetting. They need to believe the very stories we dare to challenge. Without these stories there is a void in not merely their mind but, I would argue, their soul, their identification — albeit ‘subconscious’ — as a significant entity in this thing we call ‘existence’.
Hence my reconsideration of the utility or acceptability of ‘secret schools’. Once upon a time I was more of a conspiratard, and I was against secret schools because I believed that the truth was inherently good, that all people would benefit from it. Much observation and reflection later, and I see now that the masses are quite happy believing utter nonsense, and I am doing them no favours by pointing out the self-contradictory nature of their beliefs.
And so I slowly but surely pull back from my overt promotion of skepticism to the masses, and focus more on conversation with those who already have begun the process of what I call ‘deprogramming’. It is more enjoyable for me and I glean more insight from it, in comparison with explaining to a regular person that the T-Rex is physiologically impossible due to basic laws of physics. Force is a function of mass multiplied by acceleration, so if the T-Rex was bipedal… ah, forget it.
Mark, is the interview posted on this site? I would like to hear it. You seem to be implying that the interview was “mucked up” for nefarious reasons, and I find it interesting this didn’t get developed further here in comments. Can you be reached by email?
It is at fake9logisy, and some time ago, February 28th I believe.