Jan Irwin / Gnostic Media is considered a complete loon by anyone in MKULTRA or psychedelic research no matter which side they take. Also many later writers on these subjects after about 1990 recirculate made up hype & disinfo to sell books, seminars or YouTube/blog clickbait. Irvin was a psychedelic proponent that OD'd on DMT, went totally paranoid & started claiming everyone involved with psychedelics professionally were CIA agents, often guilt by association, etc..
This is also a problem with a few female authors on Monarch programming claiming recovered memories. Fritz Springmeier got outed as a phoney "minister" & the woman he "deprogrammed" turned on his writings about her, besides he started an affair with her when they were both married & he had children. Some "minister".
While CIA & Satanic SRA are well-documented by responsible journalists there is now a market for hype & obfuscation as marketing & clickbait as in much other conspiracy theory.
Some of the people doing useful work also without knowing recirculate hype & disinfo & the model for this was the UFO movement which model is now used throughout CT by going over the top, David Icke & Alex Jones for example, 90% truth with 10% bullshit & normals chuck the rest.
Sounds like a pretty subjective opinion here based on my own experience watching his material. His and Outrim's work correlates well with what Dave McGowan has always said about the California 'scene'. I'll simply have to consider your opinion 'half baked'.
I call out a bunch of the "holy cows" of contemporary "pop" conspiracy theories & will go into more of my qualifications over time, but two standards apply IMO when making claims or theories in this genre. Does it pass the basic tenets of journalism & does it pass the legal definition of slander or libel. This would be akin to proof in the scientific method.
These kinds of standards are necessary or else you enter the David Icke realm of "shape shifting reptilians". Not to say Queen Elizabeth isn't one, but what is the evidence?
Now most celebs & dead people won't sue for slander for calling them "Monarch handlers" or "reptilians" because in general terms they would tie up their time & careers taking on every psycho's claims besides actual stalkers claiming they are "married" etc..
There are some in the conspiracy genre with actual mental issues besides claims of the CIA beaming thoughts at them, not that there aren't actual cases.
Learning to distinguish the difference keeps one from the Icke/Jones level of clickbait/hype while most doing that level are also trying to make money from it.
There are legit, serious researchers who get peer recognition, publishing deals, footnote their claims & don't go into slander/libel to make money.
Then there are amatuers or huxters, often with mental issues that will make the slightest association "proof" of conspiracy, which if they have fanboys like Irvin might get their innuendo taken as fact or history if it gets repeated enough despite no real proof given.
When I call out these sacred cow types I've done my homework or researched their backgrounds besides claiming far more depth & expertise on the subject matter. But time will tell.
Putin sat next to QE II while both were driven in her car. Putin called her "not human." So exactly what does that really mean? I would cast more aspersions on her husband for many different reasons including his questionable taste in humor and some of the statements he's made about the "lesser" beings of the world. He'd like to be reincarnated as WTF?
Personally I think close to 90% of conspiracy theory has some basis in truth & reality is far stranger than people assume, but whether one can say something is factual or true is another level than speculation or theory.
I've seen UFOs with others several times & evidence of whistleblowers is near overwhelming but believers can agree while all the evidence given to skeptics rarely moves them.
Much work gets accomplished in groups like PG but people have to watch the human tendencies of lynch mob or witch burning mentality or basing assumed facts on assumptions, more so if innocent parties might be targeted by mistake.
At the same time huge amount of disinfo is pumped out by shills to defame conspiracy theorists & often becomes a meme of its own such as the "flat earth" types.
view the rest of the comments →
Da-Cat ago
Jan Irwin / Gnostic Media is considered a complete loon by anyone in MKULTRA or psychedelic research no matter which side they take. Also many later writers on these subjects after about 1990 recirculate made up hype & disinfo to sell books, seminars or YouTube/blog clickbait. Irvin was a psychedelic proponent that OD'd on DMT, went totally paranoid & started claiming everyone involved with psychedelics professionally were CIA agents, often guilt by association, etc..
This is also a problem with a few female authors on Monarch programming claiming recovered memories. Fritz Springmeier got outed as a phoney "minister" & the woman he "deprogrammed" turned on his writings about her, besides he started an affair with her when they were both married & he had children. Some "minister".
While CIA & Satanic SRA are well-documented by responsible journalists there is now a market for hype & obfuscation as marketing & clickbait as in much other conspiracy theory.
Some of the people doing useful work also without knowing recirculate hype & disinfo & the model for this was the UFO movement which model is now used throughout CT by going over the top, David Icke & Alex Jones for example, 90% truth with 10% bullshit & normals chuck the rest.
ASolo ago
Sounds like a pretty subjective opinion here based on my own experience watching his material. His and Outrim's work correlates well with what Dave McGowan has always said about the California 'scene'. I'll simply have to consider your opinion 'half baked'.
Da-Cat ago
I call out a bunch of the "holy cows" of contemporary "pop" conspiracy theories & will go into more of my qualifications over time, but two standards apply IMO when making claims or theories in this genre. Does it pass the basic tenets of journalism & does it pass the legal definition of slander or libel. This would be akin to proof in the scientific method.
These kinds of standards are necessary or else you enter the David Icke realm of "shape shifting reptilians". Not to say Queen Elizabeth isn't one, but what is the evidence?
Now most celebs & dead people won't sue for slander for calling them "Monarch handlers" or "reptilians" because in general terms they would tie up their time & careers taking on every psycho's claims besides actual stalkers claiming they are "married" etc..
There are some in the conspiracy genre with actual mental issues besides claims of the CIA beaming thoughts at them, not that there aren't actual cases.
Learning to distinguish the difference keeps one from the Icke/Jones level of clickbait/hype while most doing that level are also trying to make money from it.
There are legit, serious researchers who get peer recognition, publishing deals, footnote their claims & don't go into slander/libel to make money.
Then there are amatuers or huxters, often with mental issues that will make the slightest association "proof" of conspiracy, which if they have fanboys like Irvin might get their innuendo taken as fact or history if it gets repeated enough despite no real proof given.
When I call out these sacred cow types I've done my homework or researched their backgrounds besides claiming far more depth & expertise on the subject matter. But time will tell.
AgainstPedos ago
Putin sat next to QE II while both were driven in her car. Putin called her "not human." So exactly what does that really mean? I would cast more aspersions on her husband for many different reasons including his questionable taste in humor and some of the statements he's made about the "lesser" beings of the world. He'd like to be reincarnated as WTF?
Da-Cat ago
Personally I think close to 90% of conspiracy theory has some basis in truth & reality is far stranger than people assume, but whether one can say something is factual or true is another level than speculation or theory.
I've seen UFOs with others several times & evidence of whistleblowers is near overwhelming but believers can agree while all the evidence given to skeptics rarely moves them.
Much work gets accomplished in groups like PG but people have to watch the human tendencies of lynch mob or witch burning mentality or basing assumed facts on assumptions, more so if innocent parties might be targeted by mistake.
At the same time huge amount of disinfo is pumped out by shills to defame conspiracy theorists & often becomes a meme of its own such as the "flat earth" types.