You're talking about a lot of researchers, who did not cause this research for me. I have no responsibility for what others write, and I think it's honestly weird that you are this obsessed with tearing down a thread that has nothing to do with you. Unless that defense of MKULTRA doctors actually refers to you being one of the perpetrators.

You repeatedly say shit like this: "this website might be the source of your claims."

x, y or Z may be the source to my claims? This is literally the guilt by association issue you seem to hate so much in my work, only with me there is no connection. No. I came to these subjects by myself. I came to the conclusion that Tavistock was connected to Esalen via its own site which hosts a pdf admitting the connection.

So... you are literally accusing me via guilt by association when there is no association.

Shill fail.

"This is all old news to me I've researched deeply. "

• So what. Not provable, not relevant, facts are important not intellectual e-peens. You can be both smart and wrong, educated and wrong, and old and wrong.

"Had you used terms like "theory" & "allegedly" it might bother me less, still there is very little hard evidence implicating Huxley & almost nothing on Jung, but merely reading much of their works puts them outside this baseline conspiracy theory & it is just a matter of which camp one decides to side with."

• I did indeed say constantly that this was my interpretation. I prefaced entire articles with that sentiment, saying that not everyone association with Esalen may have been involved, and when I made interpretations of a fact, I said, "In. My. Opinion" I said "my theory," and "my hypothesis is," many times. You say you read a lot, but obviously you haven't actually read my writing or you are a straight up shill misrepresenting it intentionally.

"Not to mention the whole genre would also be promoted by Russian & Chinese intelligence to add to the paranoia."

• Who is a paranoid conspiracy theorist throwing bullshit at the wall with no evidence to back it up? Looks like you have a projection issue.

"... think there is some credibility to it, but I don't see enough facts to tarnish these cultural heroes that would survive a slander lawsuit, it is mostly speculation & guilt by association."

• So, you agree with me as far as fact, but you cannot stand to allow reality to tar your worship of these figures. Truth is truth whether it hurts your feelings or the reputation of your heroes or not.

"One could have family members that were Satanists or Nazis & be a Christian with opposite views."

• Wtf does this have to do with my argument, it refutes literally nothing. It's like saying You are wrong about the temperature today... because the sky could theoretically be purple tomorrow.."

Shill fail.

I am not a Christian or an evangelical of any variety, and I have made multiple posts about the fact that viewing Satanism as the only possible variety of cultic ritual abuse is far too narrow minded, because ritual abuse does happen outside this model. Both outside the Abrahamic umbrella, and outside the inversion of Christianity. Nice way to try another smear - while complaining about baseless smears. Rofl.

I'm sorry if I am triggering your cognitive dissonance around Jung and Esalen. If you're really so bothered by it, why don't you go write an actual post where you find "facts" - as you are very short on them despite your throwing around a literacy e-peen every comment. And using these magical things known as "facts" you could actually try to refute my claims. But you don't do that, because you can't. Anyone patient enough to read this exchange will be able to see that for themselves.

" I could use your writing style to build a case against Santa Clause & make it relevant to Pizzagate."

• No, actually that's the method you're using to baselessly attack my writing, and anyone who bothers to read the posts would know that. (which I linked to you previously, asking you to factually disagree with me on anything and I would be willing to admit error, but no, you either could not refute a single point, or did not bother to read.)

You are either lazy, triggered, or a straight up shill. Saying I am making character assassinations - while characterizing me as a jihadist in one comment then an Evangelical Christian on the other. At least get your smear game straight.

"A good propagandist/character assassin can make anyone look bad."

• Again, speaking about yourself here apparently. Bring up one fact or point where I did this.

You can't. Instead, you smear, you bring up the names of other researchers because you cannot refute one thing I wrote. How. Pathetic.

"Your work isn't original & poorly executed IMO, if you want to post fundamentalist type rants"

• Again. I'm not a Christian. Not that it's your business. After being this triggered by my research, you have the audacity to say " this is a "free speech" forum & people can have opposing views."

You have no sense of irony, apparently.

"Look up Dope Inc. which is the original Larouche source on Tavistock & while worth comparisons one must balance in the source."

• First you say I copied Larouche's research, now you tell me to go read them... make up your mind on how to smear me.

Anyone who reads my posts and your slew of comments will realize your accusations are groundless. You are lying, smearing, using non sequiturs and red herrings which are not based in evidence. I've already written my research. I guess it really got under your skin. I encourage you if you are not a shill to review my work (since it's clear you haven't read it) and refute the actual points made.

Until then, take your own advice and grow some balls, get over the fact that people can disagree, and move. On.

I also find it laughable that you are repeatedly alluding to libel suits/defamation. It's almost like you're trying to threaten me.