Today on everyone’s favorite conspiracy podcast:

Join host, Greg Carlwood, of The Higherside Chats podcast as he talks fascism with returning guest, Shamangineer.

As the seemingly never ending battle for control wages between extreme paradigms, and the ‘punch a Nazi’ and ‘snowflake’ meme-slinging serves only to muddy the already landmine infested landscape ahead, the battle for absolute authoritarianism has only just begun.
With both the left and right chipping away at democratic principles with the help of totalitarian government, cultural constructs and corporations, remaining battle ready and able to recognize signs of fascism seeping into society is becoming increasingly more important. But, recognizing the signs can be harder than catching Pokemon, and having a historical context behind the fascist forces at work can serve as the strongest weapon in this war on personal sovereignty.
Fortunately, today’s returning guest, Shamangineer, has been following the threads of fascism throughout history, and today he joins The Higherside to weave it all together.
2:00 Diving right into it, Shamangineer begins by discussing fascism in broad strokes by providing some historical context. Much like the broken two-party system of today, the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians of the 18th century found themselves on opposing ends of the spectrum, each with drastically different ideas about the role of the federal government. While each was to take place under a democratic context, by the will of the people through the ballot box, in a hierarchical bureaucracy, Federalism and big government was experiencing an uptick in support among voters. On the back of the Boston Tea Party, in this post-Revolution landscape, it was understood that the role of corporations was to function as creations of the state, which were founded to accomplish certain objectives, and prohibited from participating in politics. Shamagineer walks through the protections put into place, limiting the influence of corporations like the East India Tea Company, and the gradual erosion of these beginning during the Reconstruction Era.
14:00 Greg and Shamangineer continue with their conversation about fascism throughout our history, the saga of Smedley Butler and Gerald MacGuire, the attempted coup by the American Liberty League, and Prescott Bush’s involvement. Connected to both the Hamburg American Line and UBS Bank, Prescott Bush was able to forward the fascist agenda of the major corporations that choke the life from the American middle class, by funding Nazis during WWII and helping their spies infiltrate US soil. Shamangineer goes on to detail the Nazi influence in US institutions such as the O.S.S. and C.I.A.
26:00 With this recent episode being a divergence from their elemental series, Greg and Shamangineer discuss the importance and necessity for an honest examination of fascism given our current political climate. Between accusations of fake news and tiki-torch wielding Nazi’s overrunning the streets the clash of ideologies and polarization has helped distract people from the encroachment of fascism from both the left and right. Greg and Shamangineer pivot Carol Rosin, Werner Von BraunOperation Gladio, and electrogravitic crafts.
36:00 Shamangineer elaborates on the aspects of Operation Gladio, such as the spread of radical Islamic terror in the West. He discusses revelations from the documentary “9/11, Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus”Osama bin Laden’s Nazi connection, and the ties between German fascists and Arab extremists through the Muslim Brotherhood. Leveling the playing field, Greg and Shamangineer also discuss the fascism of Israel, their role in state sponsored terror, the fight for ‘The Holy Land’, and Hitler’s bargain with Zionists.
42:00 Greg and Shamangineer move on to talk about Wilhelm Reich, a contemporary of Freud, he wrote several books about the psychology of fascism, including “The Mass Psychology of Fascism”. Having a knack for catching the attention of authoritarians around him, Reich is the only recorded person in US history forced to burn his own books and research materials. Using the framework of authoritarian and egalitarian thought detailed in Reich’s work, Shamangineer breaks down the values of these belief systems, explains ways they have manifested in various cultures, and elaborates on Reich’s belief that these values are instilled in children through the structure of the family, rather than the constructs of society.
56:00 Continuing on with their discussion of Reich’s work, Greg and Shamangineer turn their attention to the Bonobo monkeys and their unique social structure. With Reich’s work failing to address forms of marriage beyond monogamy, Greg and Shamangineer refocus their attention on the sexual repression of authoritarian societies, examine examples of various marital arrangements, explore expressions of arrangements across species, and discuss social constructs contributing to patriarchal totalitarianism.
1:07:00 Shamangineer takes a deeper look at the role of power on the psyche. Sometimes likened to being ‘drunk on power’ he explains how this phenomenon occurs. He also breaks down the left and right paradigms of fascism and the different ways it has manifested throughout history on each side.
Become a Plus Member at www.TheHighersideChatsPlus.com/subscribe to hear a second hour of all THC episodes. This week’s included:

In the Plus show, they talk primarily about Ferdinand Ossendowski’s Beasts, Men, & Gods: a largely personal memoir about a Russian doctor’s experiences running from the Bolshevik Revolution in the 1920’s. A journey that not only showed him firsthand examples of the death and destruction associated with the Revolution, but also brought him into contact with many interesting characters throughout China, Mongolia, & Tibet.

Much like the exploration of Etidorhpa in THC’s last Plus show with Shamangineer, this book is another example of some of the odd yet consistent details revolving around things below the surface. It contains stories of strange light sources inside the Earth, an ancient civilization living deep underground, and that this civilization has advanced flying crafts unknown to man at that time. We spend the 2nd hour reading from, and branching off of these themes.

A few valuable resources from the interview:
 Shamanginner on The Higherside Chats:
      “Ether Theory, Ancient Alchemy, & Ormus”: https://www.thehighersidechats.com/ether-theory-alchemy-ormus/
      “Earth Alchemy, Plant Spirits, & Engineered Abundance”: https://www.thehighersidechats.com/shamangineer-earth-alchemy-plant-spirits-engineered-abundance/
      “Water Alchemy, Fringe Science, & Viktor Schauberger”: https://www.thehighersidechats.com/shamangineer-water-alchemy/
Smedley Butler reading:
      The Business Plot of 1933: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
      Timeline’s article “These Wall Street millionaires literally plotted to overthrow the President”: https://timeline.com/business-plot-overthrow-fdr-9a59a012c32a
     “Plot to Overthrow FDR” documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc6kw6N1_kw
“9/11, Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6W4L-HK-Os
Notes From Shamangineer:
The Red House Report, the Nazi survival plan:
Dr. Carol Rosin on discussions with Werner Von Braun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WruCxsh8mfw
Want to hear more THC?
Become a plus member and gain access to the additional hour as well as the THC forums at:
If you want to stay connected to The Higherside Chats, join us on social media:
Facebook:
Twitter:
Youtube:
Reddit:
Review us on iTunes:
And be sure to check out The Higherside Clothing:
Big thanks to for their cover of the THC theme song!

Review us on

  • iTunes
  • Google Play
  • Google Podcasts
  • Stichter
  • TuneIn

Follow us on

61 Comments ( click here to leave a comment )

61 responses to “Shamangineer | Fascism: The History, The Psychology, & The Re-emergence”

  1. Hello again. I just wanted to speak to Greg’s concern regarding egalitarian societies, and why they seem to fail. Successful egalitarian societies require mature, stable individuals who are able to govern themselves and work well with others. Currently, our society produces the opposite, making it hard for undisciplined people to function in situations where there are fewer rules.

    In medival times, the family was responsible for the behaviour of its members, and banishment was the most extreme form of punishment.

    In my neighbourhood, we are building a food sharing network, and trying to rebuild community. We live, we share, we help, we respect. Sometimes folks don’t get it, and eventually they get excluded. It’s a bit of a return to an older, more egalitarian style of living, and it’s helped me immensely.

    Anyway, what I’m trying to say, is egalitarian really does work, but only with mature, evolved humans.

    Loved the show. Gonna have to listen to this a few times. So grateful to you both for sharing your wisdom and making my think. ????⭐️????????

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  2. Come on guys.. You compare Libertarian to psychopaths and define Anarchy (an=the lack of, archos= ruler, king, authority) as a group of people that can’t agree on anything. I understand that both terms are highly charged and commonly misunderstood but to say you’re going to address the concepts then miss representing them is a trope used by mainstream media all the time. Its a shallow form of sophistry.

    You’ve addressed great topics for further thought and discussion in this episode. I just wish people would understand general concepts better before offering opinions on what they think something like Anarchy is.

    One last thought before I end my rant… If you think leaving the rights, liberty, and personal freedom up to the individuals to work out and decide for themselves, would ultimately somehow result in some kind of corporate hellscape in-circling the globe… And the solution is to have a government to prevent the inevitable corrupt nature of man to ruin everything.. how is this any different then the churches argument that the only way to be a good, moral, upstanding person in the world is to except their authority. Do to the nature of man, there has to be a central church/authority right? I mean if there wasn’t some religion/central authority/archon, people would just go around killing, raping and plundering all day right? If you replace “church/religion” with “government” it seems to be the exact same argument. Just a thought.

    Love the show Mr. Carlwood

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • Look at the Oklahoma territory before state hood. When man executed his own laws. It was pretty bad and chaotic until the hanging judge Parker came in. Was it Plato? Ptolomy, or Socrates? They argued the best from of government was a monarchy, as long as you had a pure monarch. The pure, virtuous monarch doesn’t exist so it must be given to the people.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  3. I’m sorry I thought I was done. The more of the episode I listen to the more bothered I get. To my knowledge your guest hasn’t once defined any of the terms he’s using. Now, the general public might have a cursory knowledge of terms like democracy and socialism but it’s been my experience that very few people know what Libertarianism is. Most of the time people think “they’re the ones who want to get rid of all the goodies that government gives me right?”… I’m not going to lay out a whole economic theory on the comments I’d just like people to understand the pivotal axiom that Libertarianism and anarchism is based on. That is, the none aggression principle: no one person or group has the right to use force or violence against another individual unless in self defense or in defense of another. The reason that Libertarians are against the state therefore is not because they help poor people and build roads it’s because the only way government can do anything is by use of force or violence. This is where people ask “but government violence is only against bad people right?” Governments use the threat of violence against it’s own citizens all the time, good and bad alike by forcing them to pay taxes or in forcing arbitrary laws and moral codes. Example: war on drugs. Tax payers fund the arrest and inprisonment of fellow citizens because they want to ingest an outlawed substance.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • I thought it was pretty hilarious when he said FOX news is Libertarian propaganda! I love me some good Libertarian propaganda, but it certainly cannot found on FOX. 🙂 I get he is trying to do something very difficult here to fit so much in, which requires a lot of generalities and can too easily get contentious, but we got some fundamentals flaws flying around in this chat.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  4. Another miss understood concept is you wouldn’t be able to form an egalitarian collective in a Libertarian society. Not true. As long as you don’t use force or aggression to compel people to join the collective go right ahead.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • This is so key for me b/c I don’t align with any of it, but with this I can try to get on board. What if we could try that?! I’m dead serious. One state, separated as an experiment to try different socio-economic models side-by-side in the real world for a generation or two, instead of just in theory to then be exploited by power and war-mongers. Sounds like great fun!

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  5. Hi Greg, love the show, been a plus member since it first became an option. I’m sorry, but I had to stop listening to this episode early on. Some listeners might see this as a banal point, but I just can’t take a guest seriously about their theories when they can’t get the most basic of known facts correct. When he states FDR died weeks after WWII, he lost credibility with me. FDR died months before the end of the war (or years before if you count Operation Highjump). Sorry to seem trivial, but I can’t buy into any of his shades of grey when he doesn’t know the black & white. Don’t worry, I’m remaining a plus member, you are by far the best host of any of the podcasts I listen to (across all genres) and many guests you have are a wealth of information and open my eyes to many things, I just wanted to explain why I gave this episode a 2-star rating (just on here tho, on Podcast Republic & itunes I always give every episode 5-stars to help boost your numbers).

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • I meant to say he died a few weeks before the end of the war in Europe, obviously you were waiting for the first opportunity to fling yourself overboard. If I only made one mundane misstep in this mental marathon I would be surprised. I’m doubtful you could do better, or even have half as many obscure topics to discuss on a subject.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
      • Oooh, catty! Sharpen those claws! :3
        Shamangineer, you’re great. No need to get defensive about the lame criticism. You don’t actually know if that person could do better than you.. 🙂
        Greg what’s with the inconsistent names on the files? 1,2,3, fascism? I wish you’d put the date in the filename.

         
        Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • At least from my perspective, I wouldn’t discount all that Shamangineer says based on getting a few minor details wrong. I make mistakes talking to people without the pressure of having a microphone recording and a potential audience listening on the other end for like 30 minutes. I think you should cut some slack for an almost 3 hour talk. In any case, thanks for correcting the data point.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  6. Hmmm, first time posting but been a subscriber for a year or more and generally look forward to new episodes. This was one of the few I was close to switching off. I enjoyed the topics but felt it wasn’t quite political enough or quite fringey enough for me. For discussion of political ideology I get a deeper conversation at other shows and I usually find the fringe topics deeper here at higherside. If politics are up for discussion I took much more away from the last Jen Briney episode where she was able to get pretty granular with detail. It felt like too much on the table perhaps and so big topics like libertarianism were presented too simply for me. Likewise his summation of Rand’s writing was too simplistic for my tastes. My primary gripe though is the presentation style Carlwood discusses at the end of the episode. It sounds more like a lecture and less like a talk show, contrived as opposed to organic. I’m all for a good lecture but I don’t feel Shamangineer is particularly adept at delivering what sound like large scripted segments or the lengthy quotes. It comes across to this listener as quite wooden and sterile; contrast with a guy like Dan Carlin for example.

    Anyway, appreciated the discussion of Rand’s regard for Hickman, strange stuff indeed. Shamangineer’s breakdown of Soviet inefficiency was good info and insight into that strange system that seems to be forgotten about in favour of endlessly belabouring the atrocities of Nazi Germany (well deserved of course, just stating there are other awful places and times we can look to when discussing political systems). Drawing the lines between different authoritarian formats was also good stuff and how they maneuvered into the Soviet system as well. And regardless of my gripes it was a unique approach to the topic which is always valuable.

    As always, I commend Greg’s preparedness and overall quality of production.

    Thank you both for your work, I’ll be listening.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • Thanks for the comment Wolverine, glad to hear you stuck it out and found the talk valuable. I know it sounded scripted, it’s because I wrote down most of my thoughts beforehand and was following them closely. Frankly, there was a lot of material to present and I knew this would be a quite controversial podcast and wanted to do my best to present my arguments in a logical and well-structured way to avoid knee-jerk reactions (with limited success). As we continue with the mind episode you should find that the talks will be more organic.

      Frankly, I anticipated stepping on the toes of most everyone in one way or another with this episode and hoped it would at least present some alternative views which in my opinion have merit. I wasn’t going for it being popular as exposing people to different concepts than they are accustomed to and identify with often elicits a strong reaction. I wasn’t really trying to push an agenda aside from democracy and limiting power accumulation to prevent abuse and ensuring that people are free to express themselves and have their arguments heard.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
      • I was thinking about my comment and realized I was remiss in neglecting to mention how I also found the material presented on diplomatic work environments and leader selection to be very stimulating and contained some new thoughts for me to consider. I do a fair bit of presenting in my professional life and I too plan and rehearse heavily and to an extent script my examples and case studies so I can understand wanting to be prepared to deliver a specific message and concept. I think you had a challenge in discussing the topics you did in any kind of detail without spending hours on context and groundwork, it’s a difficult line to draw I suspect with an internet audience and knowing where to start the narrative and how to block it off into something cohesive. I’d have to listen to some of the content again but I think I found contention with elements of the description of traditional lifestyles. I spend a lot of time with Aboriginal topics due to my work and I don’t find a lot of evidence of egalitarianism but I do think it’s often balanced by an easily accessed escape if desired. If you don’t like your leadership, simply remove yourself to a different locale or band for example. This is a concept I think Nick Land get’s into a bit, but I’m now a few pints into a night so I may be misspeaking on that last point. Anyway, thanks for the episode and keep sharing your views.

         
        Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  7. Alot of hard work went into this episode, so it pains me to say i found it tough going. Gave up at 1 hour 40 mins. Just not my thing i guess. Gordon, mr knowles & nick redfern i can listen to all day though. Can’t please everyone!

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  8. I was so excited to hear that Shamangineer would be back, eagerly awaiting another part of the Elements talks..but NO! For some reason ‘Fascism’ was the topic of choice. As if this topic hadn’t been beaten to death already by countless others using government and mainstream ‘facts’ as the final truth. There are other sides to the WWII story and I have yet to see anything different and fringe when it comes to this covered on THC in all these years. Why is that? I wonder. Michael Hoffman II, Mark Weber, or David Cole could tell us a lot of things about WWII and Revisionism we won’t hear from anyone else, but i’m not holding my breath for them to make an appearance on THC. The point is there is far, far more about that time than what we typically hear about and it is a shame that that info doesn’t even manage to reach the listeners of this show. How about a show on Communism, the Chosen tribe that created it, and how the whole world was terrified of it for a long time – not just the USA! Maybe i’m just deluded and haven’t realized that there will never be enough mind-thrashing about Nazis and Fascism hurled at us and that I should just be cool with hearing the same thing over and over and over. So if that’s the case and i’m somehow wrong, I’m so very sorry!

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  9. Regarding the extra notes at the end of the episode, around 1940’s, as predicted by the agarthan king, there were really only three powers in the world. The Communists, the Crownists and the Corporatists.

    Hollow earth FTW all the way! [:

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  10. I too think the General Assembly aspect of OWS was designed to make it ineffective and controlled by those with no other time commitments. I was pretty damn involved here in Colorado and it seemed to have been systemic throughout the country from what I’ve heard from other people at other Occupys.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  11. There could easily be a whole episode on libertarian thought, it’s history, ect. but that wasn’t really the thrust of the talk, simply one of many aspects. The main reason I brought the topic into the conversation is that I think the concept of rational self-interest being in the greatest good as espoused by Rand among others is enabling for people who actually act in a completely rationally self-interested manner (economists, bankers, sociopaths, and psychopaths).

    There seems to be a blind spot with regard to Libertarian thought in that the many examples of corporate abuse and the totalitarian structure of the workplace is not questioned with regard to a person’s free will. Liberty seems in this context to be something which would enable a person with superior power to totally dominate others and bend them to their will. Rand’s heroes being corporate CEOs is not unintentional and portrays these people acting a virtuous manner by seeking their rational self-interest to an extreme. The problem with pure reason is that given a limited enough information set, anything can be rationalized, and nobody knows everything. The reality is that there are other people, and all power should be responsible to the people who grant any form of authority.

    In Libertarian thought the dysfunctional and corrupted government is seen as a pure expression of public interest which limits liberty and steals resources. While you will get no argument from me that there are plenty of examples of this occurring, does that mean that this is the only way that government can function?

    In my opinion functioning government would be the guardian of liberty if it is doing it’s job. The main purpose of a government should be to prevent the rights of one group of people from impinging on the rights of another group of people, by force if required. Because people do not all think alike, and relying on everyone having the same innate understanding of where their rights and the rights of others lie will result in those with the greatest power being able to dominate others. Simply believing that people will behave is not enough, pathological personalities exist and are drawn to the accumulation of power in defiance of law and consensus.

    I want to be clear in light of some of the previous comments that I do not equate libertarians with psychopaths. What I was pointing out in light of a study of libertarian psychology is that it shares commonalities with autism and psychopathy in that it manifests in a highly structured logical aspect while also having a reduced emotional and relational capacity.

    I will get into this in more detail in the mind episode, but I do not believe that the rise in autism in recent decades is regarded by those who are a part of the problem in this regard as a negative effect. By proliferating a population of people with limited emotional intelligence who retain the ability to apply skills to work those with a more psychopathic and sociopathic mentality are afforded a wider berth. If a larger portion of people doing work for them have difficulty understanding the emotional aspects of the interactions in an organization and have limited empathic capability unfair practices go unnoticed if properly rationalized by ignoring certain information.

    A few questions I would have for libertarians:
    How is conflict resolved in a libertarian society? Where does the rights of one person end and another’s begin?

    How would broader environmental concerns and common resources be resolved? Water rights, fishing, and pollution in a river for example?

    What about psychopathic and sociopathic personalities?

    Would a libertarian society be democratic? If so, what about corporate governance? Would private industry be limited in any way, what if a group decides to take over and dominate others?

    One other thing, there is one notable instance of libertarian community being planned in Chile. Do you have any thoughts on Galt’s Gulch?

    https://www.salon.com/2014/09/16/ayn_rands_capitalist_paradise_lost_the_inside_story_of_a_libertarian_scam_partner/

    https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2015/12/07/whatever-happened-to-galts-gulch-chile.html

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • Mr. Shamangineer.. First of all, I want you to know that I agree with many ideas you put forth in the episode. The problem I had were the generalization of concepts like Libertarianism and anarchism without even defining what the terms mean.

      You had a couple questions. How would conflicts be resolved? One example: thousands of disputes are resolved by third party arbitration, without the involvement of government, every day. Where do personal rights begin and end? See previous comment on the none aggression principle. Simple example: I have the right to live in a egalitarian collective community. You don’t have the right to force me into that collective community. Furthermore, a Libertarian (and I haven’t even claimed I am a Libertarian btw) would argue that all rights are property rights. Example: I have right to do with my body as I see fit because it’s my property.. I don’t have the right to physically harm you because i don’t agree with your notions on personal liberty because your body is your property. How would environmental issues be resolved? This is an interesting question. I would contend that our current state of environmental catastrophe is directly related to the diffusion of responsibility that big government and large corporations allows. Example: why do I keep my room/house/property clean? Is it because the government and epa made some kind of law in regards to having a clean personal environment? No, it’s because I feel a direct effect if there’s trash and mayhem on my property. Why does an average citizens or a corporation feel they can pollute? Because the consequences of there actions are diffused amongst the population abroad. Hey! The government will fix this issue or someone else will pick up my trash on a “public” road. Or my personal favorite.. I can buy a green credit from the government to magically allow me to pollute the air! In a society where everyone has a personal responsibility in keeping there environment clean I don’t think you’d have near the number of people standing on the sidelines saying “gee! I wish the government would step in and stop this person or corporation from polluting”. What would we do about psychopaths? This one is personally relevant because apparently with my Libertarian leaning mindset I myself might be a psychopath haha.. listen, no amount of government or government laws are going to prevent psychopaths from existing. Infact, I’d argue that government offers a unique opportunity for psychopaths to magnifying their worst tendencies and act them out on the broader public. Example: in what other system would a psychopath like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao be able to aquire power and kill masses of people without the inherit and inevitable power which comes with having government authority. Would a Libertarian system be democratic? Again, I don’t think you understand the underlying principle behind Libertarianism.. you can have corporate, communistic, democratic, republic or whatever system you want just as long as it’s mutually agreed too and not held together by force. Now, I would personally want to live in an anarcho-captalistic system and I think I could make a compelling argument why but I’d never force Shamangineer to adhere to my system with violence. The real problem in the end is governments ideas are so great that they have to force you with a gun to the head in order to except them. Last question I’ll address, and it’s another good one “what if another group of people band together and come to town and take over?” Que the plot to pretty much every good Western movie. Well, this is basically the story of civilized humanity. Again, being part of a decentralized system like Libertarian or anarchism doesn’t mean you can’t bend together in times of need. This was actually what the original United colonies of America did in the revolution. I can also provide several instances where small decentralized groups have successfully resisted large government forces. I know you may think that a Libertarian would have a tendency of self preservation and not help someone who is being taken advantage of, however, the opposite is true. Ultimately, ones own personal liberty is directly effected by your nieghbors ability to have liberty as well. “We must all hang together or will all hang separately” -Ben Franklin. And that’s quite enough for now I think!

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
      • ” How would conflicts be resolved? One example: thousands of disputes are resolved by third party arbitration, without the involvement of government, every day. Where do personal rights begin and end? See previous comment on the none aggression principle. Simple example: I have the right to live in a egalitarian collective community. You don’t have the right to force me into that collective community.”

        Arbitration highly favors the richer and more powerful entity in the arbitration, as arbitration is paid, and the person with more money and influence is more likely to be involved with an arbiter in an ongoing basis. Arbitration clauses in the workplace are disastrous for employees and inherently favor the employer:

        http://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/

        In the case of arbitration and without force being able to be employed by the arbiter, what would prevent someone from simply ignoring the verdict? One thing worth noting is that arbitration is the result of a contractual clause meaning that ultimately arbitration is a limited sub-set of a broader legal system. Without a larger legal system with the power of enforcement what is essentially being discussed is not arbitration, but mediation in which all parties are simply expected to honor the mediation.

        ” a Libertarian (and I haven’t even claimed I am a Libertarian btw) would argue that all rights are property rights. Example: I have right to do with my body as I see fit because it’s my property.. I don’t have the right to physically harm you because i don’t agree with your notions on personal liberty because your body is your property.”

        People are not property and should not be treated as such. I would go further to say that all life has the right to exist as well.

        “How would environmental issues be resolved? This is an interesting question. I would contend that our current state of environmental catastrophe is directly related to the diffusion of responsibility that big government and large corporations allows. ”

        Pollution is something that can only be stopped before it starts, once pollution happens it is not easily reversible (the cost of cleanup vastly exceeds disposal) , and figuring out who polluted is incredibly difficult, especially without something like the right to discovery afforded by the court system. You are absolutely right that the main reason for pollution is that the cost of disposal is diffused across the broader population, but the cost (contamination and disease – often in the form of cancer) is magnified in this process. Without regulatory audits to prevent the pollution in the first place this would be a much larger problem as was seen before the founding of the EPA (not that this regulatory body has always acted in the public’s best interest). Before government got involved it was apparent that self-regulation did not prevent these abuses. In the end the EPA has become a government that has been corrupted by business and military-industrial influence in the political process to keep it from preventing more pollution caused by industry and the military.

        “Example: why do I keep my room/house/property clean? Is it because the government and epa made some kind of law in regards to having a clean personal environment? No, it’s because I feel a direct effect if there’s trash and mayhem on my property. Why does an average citizens or a corporation feel they can pollute? Because the consequences of there actions are diffused amongst the population abroad. Hey! The government will fix this issue or someone else will pick up my trash on a ‘public’ road.”

        So in line with your example, and assuming all land has been privatized in a libertarian society; where do you dump your personal trash? How do you prevent it from polluting the environment without having containment strategies for runoff? Who or what determines what constitutes pollution and the harm it inflicts? If your neighbor anonymously dumps a steaming pile of X toxic compound or heavy metal on your land, pollutes your water, or gives you cancer, how do you deal with it in a libertarian societal context?

        “Or my personal favorite.. I can buy a green credit from the government to magically allow me to pollute the air! In a society where everyone has a personal responsibility in keeping there environment clean I don’t think you’d have near the number of people standing on the sidelines saying ‘gee! I wish the government would step in and stop this person or corporation from polluting’.”

        I personally think that the whole carbon credit thing is a scam meant to create another financial market – one which virtually guarantees that the maximum amount of carbon is released. While I think that there may be other reasons for climate change such as geoengineering / weather weaponry, nuclear effects on ether, and cosmic etheric flows during this portion of our procession through the equinox, I also agree that carbon is a driver, and should be limited especially since combustion is the primary carbon-generating process and creates other toxic pollutants as well. There are clean fuel sources (zero-point) which could be used but which have been suppressed due to both government and private interests (in this case government at the behest of private).

        “listen, no amount of government or government laws are going to prevent psychopaths from existing. Infact, I’d argue that government offers a unique opportunity for psychopaths to magnifying their worst tendencies and act them out on the broader public. Example: in what other system would a psychopath like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao be able to aquire power and kill masses of people without the inherit and inevitable power which comes with having government authority.”

        Corporate, criminal, and religious organizations are examples. I would argue any accumulation of power and authority that is not responsible to those granting the authority would be subject to psychopathic leaders. This is not merely a government problem, it is a societal problem, and one which the philosophy of libertarian philosophy does not adequately address. If there is no formalized way of dealing with psychopathic entities – they will flourish.

        “Would a Libertarian system be democratic? Again, I don’t think you understand the underlying principle behind Libertarianism.. you can have corporate, communistic, democratic, republic or whatever system you want just as long as it’s mutually agreed too and not held together by force. Now, I would personally want to live in an anarcho-captalistic system and I think I could make a compelling argument why but I’d never force Shamangineer to adhere to my system with violence. The real problem in the end is governments ideas are so great that they have to force you with a gun to the head in order to except them. Last question I’ll address, and it’s another good one “what if another group of people band together and come to town and take over?” Que the plot to pretty much every good Western movie. Well, this is basically the story of civilized humanity. Again, being part of a decentralized system like Libertarian or anarchism doesn’t mean you can’t bend together in times of need. This was actually what the original United colonies of America did in the revolution. I can also provide several instances where small decentralized groups have successfully resisted large government forces. I know you may think that a Libertarian would have a tendency of self preservation and not help someone who is being taken advantage of, however, the opposite is true. Ultimately, ones own personal liberty is directly effected by your nieghbors ability to have liberty as well. “We must all hang together or will all hang separately” -Ben Franklin. And that’s quite enough for now I think!”

        It really does sound like the wild west to me. A post-Civil War capitalist utopia complete replete with robber-barons, armed gangs, courts that are literally bought and paid for – with no enforcement capabilities, and vigilante posses organized on the spot. By basing one’s definition of rights on property you are giving those with the most property the most rights in this society, and essentially taking any limits that still exist on corporations and private entities and eliminating them.

        One other thing that I think is worthy of mention with regard to libertarian philosophy: I often hear it bemoaned that taxes are taken with the threat of force as this amounts to property theft. I have never heard a libertarian discuss the amount of money extracted from their work in a private enterprise. This work which as a product of your property (body- by your definition) is often “taxed” at many fold what is ever extracted for public needs by the government – is this okay because you agreed to it? Do you think that starvation and deprivation are not acting as a “force” that necessitates these arrangements even if you are only paid 1/10-1/3 of what you produce? This is the common experience of “the owned” (as George Carlin might call them) – those who sell their time and expertise to afford a living in a highly disproportionate society ruled by private interests. Do you think that in a libertarian society they would act differently without any threat of being held to account besides arbitration/mediation? Many of the entities in control today have more than enough money to employ a private army (and have done so in third world countries), so I wouldn’t count on a posse to keep them from violating your property in one form or another.

         
        Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
        • Wow, great convo happening here! I appreciate the time it takes to express all this and the food for thought. Disagreements are a huge part of the learning process we often don’t take time for, which means I will take the time and read through all this, soon. I think it’s important too that we keep talking politics, b/c as the saying goes: If you don’t do politics, politics will do you.

           
          Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
        • Great stuff, I enjoy stretching the analytical process of this argument. Before we got lost in the intellectual weeds of the particulars I think it’s important to take things back to first principles. It’s interesting that we differed on the notion that people are not property and perhaps I didn’t define what I meant. In any frame work anything can be defined as property but that doesn’t make it so. the vast majority of human society has had the institution of slavery but does that mean in “reality” that one human can own another. I don’t think so, it’s my contention that ownership (except for ones self, thoughts, words, or labor) is strictly a mental construct. Example: I can believe that I own the clothes on my back but it’s strictly a mental game I’m playing with others around me. In the end clothes are clothes but not me. Do I own my thoughts and actions? I would argue yes because I’m the only entity which can produce both. Now, we could go into the Locken notion of mixing of our labor with what we own which is starting to dip into Libertarian ideals. Simply, if I make a shirt (or pay) I could say that I’m entitled to use that shirt. In a collective, everyone on the planet owns that shirt and it’s function. This is why Libertarians make a mental distinction on what property is. If no one establishes that you own yourself and what you choose to think about and physically work on then essentially anyone can claim you or your labor. Other than you, your thoughts and actions you can’t claim anything as your property unless by way of mental abstraction and this is where we loose most people. In the end, collectives, democracies, yes even free and open Libertarian societies are mental abstractions . So, I have to fall back to first principles namely: I own my thoughts, words and actions (labor). No other person can change this unless by use of force or by verbally changing my mind. Which is why humans either contract verbally over a disagreement or use violence. This is where the government or state comes in. I hope we can both agree that the government is a mental construct and not an actual physical entity. This is where the particulars get lost because defining what exactly a government does differs from person to person. I would say “government” is a mental agreement among multiple individual, defining the particulars. If everyone agrees to the particulars I have no problem with the outcome. It’s only when you force certain aspects of what exactly the government does upon people that problems ensue.

          Im a pragmatic person and would never claim to know the exact way every individual should function in the world. The argument I would put forward is that unless everyone agrees to the government they are living in you can never have freedom within the society.

           
          Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
          • I know I didn’t address all your rebuttals to my original arguments. I’ll tackle one. Arbitration. I read the article (good stuff btw) and breaking this down would take hours of research and formulation. So instead all address your own statements. Namely that a third party would be partial to those who has the greater financial influence. I can only analyze this on a philosophical level and not in the framework which it exist in the current societal model.

            The reason two parties seek arbitration is because of reasonable issues which could be resolved by impartial discernment. If we take this in the scope of the current system it’s because it’s not worth the financial hassle for one or both the parties involved. Basically this means it would be far more expensive to go through our current legal system to decide an outcome. Does it mean that there would be more or less justice under one or the other system? No. The only question is what is fair and equitable for both parties. I don’t think third party arbitration is the only answer to a dispute. I do think that it’s one of the lowest and best levels of redress possible. But to say it’s the only way to resolve disputes would be crazy.

            Example: my neighbor thinks I stole property of his/hers. Lowest level would be them confronting me personally. It’s not resolved so we take it to a third party (this is an ancient way of arbitration). The issue is still not resolved so we take it to a jury of our peers (respectable people of the community or in Icelandic culture it would be the entire community at a collective “thing”) once the entire community (not a mental construct called government) weighs in on the issue the result would be banishment of the individual who was guilty or recompense of the injured party. Again, both parties submit to a decision at all levels. the final last resort being a collective decision within a local society and not some arbitrary choice of an appointed governmental figure in wizard robes deciding on what’s fair and equitable.

            Is this the only way to resolve conflicts? Of course not! But at least it isn’t a framework where one of two parties is draged before a court where you ask a government official to decide the fate of another human being.

             
            Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
            • First off there I was turned off the most not about your (Shama) vague regurgitated socialist ideas but the long story of disgusting murder. Could have said “Really really bad guy” and maybe not site a somethingsomething.com as the source. To your credit I think you mentioned the original but…

              Second on the business structure. Guess what? YOU CAN DO IT. If it’s such a good ideas to run a business like that, do it. If it is successful people will copy it but don’t drone on how thing should be ran in a business you don’t run, you start to sound ziegiesty.

              Third, I understand libertarianism isn’t perfect and you have not seemed to do your home work with the questions your asking. There are solutions, long nuanced ones, that I don’t fully agree with and if not juxtaposed to our current predicament sound awful. But the saying what about _____ so you people are like _____.

              I’ve liked your stuff before and I will tune in again. This one just seemed a little anger based not curiosity love based. Thank you for your time and energy I know that goes into anything of this sort.

              LOVE EVOLve LOVE

               
              Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • “The main purpose of a government should be to prevent the rights of one group of people from impinging on the rights of another group of people, by force if required.” 1930s Germany had just witnessed their Communist neighbours (the leadership overwhelmingly jewish) just slaughter over 20 million Russian Christians.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  12. A truly inspirational and paradigm changing show, you confirmed my suspicions that Donald Trump’s motive was not what either political spectrum suspected. I think that his ulterior motive is to corporatise the executive office in order to complete US Inc. I am neither for or against Mr Trump, I rejoice that he is ‘clearing the swamp’ and tackling the human trafficking and child abuse that i liken to a cancer in society. His fight against the corruption that has permeated the body politic, like a tate worm, is something that most citizens of the world are sick and tired of seeing.
    Mr Trumps has skilfully manipulated the American people; at a time where the corporate influenced media has polarised its society to the two extremes of the political spectrum. His next move will be the mass arrests of the corrupt abusers. This may result in violence on the streets as many people will perceive much of this as an attempt to wipe out a political rivals, in much the same manner as the Turkish president is as the present moment. As time goes by and detailed information is released to the public, Mr Trump will be hailed as the saviour of America from the clutches of the deep state that had permeated the union. All the while Mr Trump will be making substantial changes to laws, and perhaps the constitution, in order to cement his new style executive branch, to rule and change the American system in favour of a more corporate management system.
    I see this as the final stages of the corporate control of America that we were warned about by President Harry Truman.
    I can see many Pro Trump listeners saying that this is impossible but please not that the main obstacle to this plan will be the judicial system, who would try to prevent such a change in governance. However, the current issues concerning the political corruption within the DoJ and the FBI will result in a change of oversight and more stringent controls which will only work in Mr Trumps favour. Once this ‘task’ is done, I perceive there will be many changes to laws and the powers of oversight that may well lead up to calls to ‘solidify’ and change the constitution so that ‘such corruption and abuse of power would not happen again in the US of A.
    I sincerely hope that my synopsis is totally incorrect and that Mr Trump will be the President that he promises to be, that President Trump will truly drain the swamp of corruption and deception in both politics and corporate American, which on the surface appears to be true. Consider this though; America is as ripe now as Germany was, to allow someone like Hitler to take over. America is in debt, its people are fed up with the political bias and corruption that has become like a disease, the national dissatisfaction of the abuse of criminal, corporate and political power is at an all time high. America is ready for an individual who promises change and appears to be delivering that change. In fact, the majority of American are demanding that change. Even those on the opposite political spectrum are realising that much of what Mr Trump is doing is right for America and those numbers will only grow as the depth of depravity and corruption is revealed. By the time Mr Trump is finished, he will have much of the world calling out for change. Thus will the world be be by the time Mr Trump finishes his term and passes his mantel of to the next Corporate President of America.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  13. What would be really refreshing would be to get someone on who takes a racial perspective of history. Africans, Jews, Asians have no problem looking at politics from a racial angle. Only whites have been demonised for even having such thoughts. To me the evidence is clear that the jewish racial group (most are athiest so its not really a religion) currently have control of most financial institutions and hence control politicians and media etc. Whites are useful in terms of civilisation building and income generation but they are also the main racial competitors. Organised jewry acts as a co-ordinated block while discouraging whites from doing the same – thats ‘evil nationalism’. I know these are hot topics Greg but ignoring it is burying our heads in the sand. At the moment our controlled politicians and media are trying to start another white on white conflict with the West vs Russia. One guest suggestion would be Kyle Hunt of Renegade Broadcasting, another is Chris Cantwell of Radical Agenda.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  14. Greg and Shamangineer, this was a fascinating episode; I always enjoy listening to your conversations. The first thing that I did, upon fully listening to this episode, was find the book, “Beasts, Men, and Gods,” by Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski. Wow, just wow. It is one of the most interesting books that I have ever read, and it is available in the public domain–audio too. If there ever was a book that needed to be made into a movie! Thank you, Shamangineer for introducing me to an entertaining and thought provoking read! The inner Earth conversation, alone, is worth it, but gall dern that man had himself an adventure. Greg, you keep doing what you do; your podcast has opened my mind in ways I thought not possible. The fact that you simply allow guests to present what they have, and rarely try to steer the conversation is the reason I will be a Plus member for as long as it’s available (and I have the $5.) Shamagineer, I have listened to each of your episodes with Greg twice, and am now making my 3rd trip through; I always get something new out of them. Actually, I am on my 3rd trip through the entire THC Plus catalog, but, Shamangineer, your episodes are some of my favorites. You are knocking it out of the park so far this year, Greg. Thank you both, and screw the naysayers. Z

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  15. Great work gentlemen! I also nearly tuned out early, but I’m so glad I didn’t. Greg makes such a good point at the end about keeping our pitchforks aimed at the real enemies. I very much think anger and disagreement are totally appropriate and we should all get better at handling criticism. I grew up in an older school Midwest mentality that preached ‘if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.’ I think that’s how we’ve gotten so deep in this mess. Another fav: Do as I say, not as I do. This to me is the epitome of Authoritarianism. Or how about: The lashings will continue until moral improves!

    The notion that Authoritarianism includes such things as owning property I think are misguided. But as a property owner who worked very hard at it, starting from scratch with no knowledge or skills and working that up to now producing a substantial portion of our own food has been a shining achievement in my life, according to me.

    I also wonder if such questions as ‘can an egalitarian society work’ are neither here nor there at this point ultimately. On the path we’re on, we won’t get a chance to try it. I agree with such old-school guys as Max Igan–we have been seduced into loving the technology that is enslaving us. Everything we do online, including what I write right here now is helping AI to understand us, in order to predict behavior, in order to control behavior. That is the real purpose of Big Data, not to make shopping more convenient and marketers happier, that’s of course the cover story that’s working like a charm.

    The issue of individualism vs collectivism is crucial, but right now they’re working both sides against the middle. It is mistaken to think either the State or the Corporation is going to take over b/c we have been a fascist country moving into a fascist globe for a long time already. The power of the State is in bed with the power of the Corporation, they are the Yin-Yang and they will dance together, nearly effortlessly, into global rule and there is absolutely nothing that can be done at this point to stop them. We might be able to mitigate the damages somewhat if more folks start opting-out of the system fast, but that requires a level of sacrifice that’s been bred out of our culture.

    If one thing might help us I believe it is shifting the notion that we live on a finite planet with finite resources. Isn’t that a mistaken assumption or even a manufactured one? Air is not finite, and apparently water isn’t either if you listen to the argument about ‘primary water’. Oil it seems might also be very different than a ‘fossil fuel’. Energy apparently too is infinite. So really what we’re talking about is pollution and food it seems to me. This would be so easy to tackle if folks were more grounded in nature. When you can look your farmer in the eye and shake her hand I bet she would do all in her power to make sure her customers had clean food grown sustainably on her property, which she would be caring for meticulously in order to pass it down.

    Just my food for thought. Really appreciate the conversations here in any case and love to hear from folks who care. I can see how much work and thought went into this show and it is impressive!

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • I guess I should add one potential mistake there–space/land is finite. But, I don’t see that as a big hindrance b/c some folks prefer to live in close proximity to others while others prefer wild, solitary spaces. I think this would balance itself out if folks were left to their own devices and organization took place everywhere as it does in nature, from the bottom-up. The predator organizes around the prey, not the other way around. The insect organizes around the plant, (yes, the plant seduces it). The parents organize around the needs of the infant. It’s a bottom-up situation. Does this make sense? I think it’s exactly why AI is necessary to keep the powers-that-shouldn’t be firmly in place, they know how to organize by watching ‘the bottom’ of the pyramid. Many folks mistakenly believe the queen bee runs the beehive. It’s the opposite, the workers control the queen. They dictate where and when she will lay, whether she will lay workers or drones, and even when she’ll lay her own replacement. We can learn a lot from the bees! 🙂

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  16. Wasn’t really a fan of this one. Not much content about actual fascism – mostly just a disjointed blab fest without any real point. When he starts talking about libertarianism he doesn’t really make any arguments against libertarian philosophy, just throws out ad homs and strawmen. Pretty much any time someone starts bitching about Ayn Rand you know you aren’t going to have a serious discussion.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  17. So Sham puts the nazis at the top of the pyramid. I’d like to point out he was referencing the official 9/11 bullshit story. Why stop at the nazis? They didn’t create much, but stole most of it from others. They got a lot from Assyria. The master aryans. That’s where that mindset came from. Hitler had a huge interest in that area. The holocaust was largely a made up story. 270k did die, majority being protestant, and not Jewish. America had fucking japanese internment camps too. You got locked up for being a specific race. So I don’t think we learned that from the nazis. Kinda strange how that’s glossed over. 6 million Jews did not die, and America had the same camps as Hitler. Auschwitz was a labor camp. You can’t get work out of a dead body. He just synthesizes other people’s work with his own flavor. Iv read some of the same books. You can tell he’s just reading out of a book. I never get any decent info, it’s just a long conversation, an empty bowl

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • To elaborate though, other guests have mentioned how trump has this strange Roman theme. Obama had an egyptian/babylonian theme. The nazis had that Assyrian theme. The assyrians are of the original Aryan race, according to the table of nations. The aryans, also took power and integrated themselves into the pharaohs of Egypt. That’s why the genetics labs are saying the DNA shows a few were white with some red hair. The boy king tut, I’m pretty sure was Aryan. The aryans took over the northern kingdoms of Israel, but was later crushed by the Babylonians. The assyrians were the first to claim the white master race.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • No one claims six million Jews were gassed. Six million Jews is the estimated total number that died in death camps, induced starvation, pogroms, forced marches and other Nazi persecution.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
      • Where did the six million number come from? It’s a bullshit number. According to the red Cross, it’s 270K. You cannot site a single reference with that 6 million number. All official numbers put it 5.7 million shy. It’s not even close. The official numbers conflict with the official story. That’s a huge problem. Ask the local Germans about the camps. They denied it in the day when it happened, and they denied it until it became illegal to deny it.

        Your looking at history through those who conquered. The same reasons, I think the US expansion into the west, post civil war, is the same brainwashing as every other war. Make the other people look like animals, so you don’t feel bad about killing them. Your justifying your evil because of a greater evil.
        The US calvary and Indian wars in the West. The natives were savages and constantly raiding the poor little settlers. They were heathens blah blah. Your history books will blame the native Americans every turn to justify the broken treaties. If you want to know the truth ask the people that were there. The same applies to the Germans. It was all economic.

        There were two camps that did execute Jews specifically. They used Tommy guns and it happened in Poland. Both camps are in the woods and there’s not a single memorial or anything to make the place. We know that through letters wrote back and forth by the German command. Hitler was specifically kept out of the loop on those two camps. Did people die, yes thousands. It was absolutely terrible. Nobody died to gas chambers. 6 million never died. They been pumping that story from an old Talmud prophecy. 6 million will die before Israel becomes a nation again. It was self fulfilled https://youtu.be/v2zijKYY3WI

         
        Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
        • Poland, home of the world’s largest Jewish community before the war, lost 3,300,000 (90 percent) of its Jewish population.[25] Although the Germans rigorously imposed the death penalty for hiding Jews,[26][27][28] some Poles hid Jews (saving their lives) despite the risk to themselves and their families.[29] Although reports of the Holocaust had reached Western leaders, public awareness in the United States and other democracies of the mass murder of Jews in Poland was low at the time; the first references in The New York Times, in 1942, were unconfirmed reports rather than front-page news.

          Greece, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Lithuania, Bohemia, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Latvia lost over 70 percent of their Jewish population; in Belgium, Romania, Luxembourg, Norway, and Estonia the figure was about 50 percent. Over one-third of the Soviet Union’s Jews were killed; France lost about 25 percent of its Jewish population, Italy between 15 and 20%. Denmark evacuated nearly all its Jews to nearby, neutral Sweden; the Danish resistance movement, with the assistance of many Danish citizens, evacuated 7,220 of the country’s 7,800 Jews by sea to Sweden[30] in vessels ranging from fishing boats to private yachts. The rescue allowed the vast majority of Denmark’s Jewish population to avoid capture by the Nazis.[30] Jews outside Europe under Axis occupation were also affected by the Holocaust in Italian Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Japan, and China.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims#Jews

           
          Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  18. More cool aid talk. I get it trump is holding up corporate interests. Got it, I’m not a fan boy. But the Russians? Sham is drinking the punch. Let’s do the logic test. Putins private business owns uranium. The Obama administration signed off on the deal selling putin, not Russia, selling uranium to putin. We know the Clintons are dirty. The Russians were getting everything they wanted from them to begin with. Why change it to trump when the Clintons are lining their pockets already? That is another bolshevik tactic. Accuse the opposition what you are guilty of. Where did that come from? The bolshevik revolution. Can’t get around that

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  19. The conclusion that people on the autism spectrum suffer from a “lower grade of psychopathy” is a completely baseless claim. It was correctly asserted that psychopathy is triggered by trauma, yet autistics are not traumatized into their different wiring, so it makes no sense at all. They in fact have completely opposite natures. Psychopathy is a neuro-typical phenomena that occurs when psyche can’t handle the emotions of a traumatizing experience and disassociates the emotional center in order to survive. Psychopaths are cut off from their emotions and feel nothing at all. Autistics access and process emotions differently, but feel them very deeply. This allows them to suffer the same trauma without the psychological effect it has on the neuro-typical population. Psychopaths have hypo-senses, autistics have hyper-senses, psychopaths are destructive, autistics are creative. And on and on. The mainstream loves to muddy the line and confuse the two conditions, and I was disappointed to see it parroted here. As an aside, being emotionally driven is not exactly a virtue anyway. It’s the reason for this mess the population is in today. The masses are so easily played and manipulated by their emotions. It’s why we have to study those crazy candlestick charts in the stock market, it’s why people are so easily divided, triggered and conquered, it’s why so many people are annoying as hell! It’s about time for an evolutionary jump in that department.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • That is a question of interpretation. Autists are not predatory or malicious, however they tend to have difficulty with empathy. This leads them often to treat people in inappropriate ways. The similarity is in that both groups tend to ignore the rights and feelings of others, though for different reasons. Though most autistic people do mean well, and if they understand what they did was hurtful they won’t do it again.

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  20. A great topic for a show would be the only historical event protected by law. If that doesn’t get your conspiracy wheels turning that you can literally get put in a cage in many countries for asking questions about the material facts of the Holocaust then you should wonder why. If its a emotional topic or something you cant explore because its just too far out there or too hard to imagine not happening they way you’ve been indoctrinated to believe, but you have no issues speculating on reptiles and archons you should take pause. When you research historical revisionism and the other side of the WWII story it becomes less clear that the US was on the “good” side and that the Nazi’s were monsters. Not defending either just really believe the history is written by the victors quote and think more conspiracy people should look deeper into that history rather than just going with the mainstream Nazis are terrible and murdered six million Jews because they didn’t like them. Question everything and consider with an open mind the truth becomes clear.

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
    • “As we explore the world around us, it’s seeming more and more like the realms of science are not reflecting to us “the culmination of human knowledge and unbiased progress” but rather a carefully crafted paradigm in which the lab-coat-clad quarantiners have roped off areas that interfere with the profits of their monopolistic paymasters and the capstone cabal has made sure to strategically structure their “fancy educational institutions” to leave any information that might lead to opening these doors, scattered across the cutting room floor. But there are plenty of rabbit holes full of erased history, dismissed discoveries, and destroyed scientists to look at, for those curious enough to take the journey, and that’s what we’re doing today specifically in the realm of that mysterious, magical, and essential element: Water.” – Carlwood description of past Shamangineer episode.

      Water = carefully crafted paradigm and rabbit holes of erased history
      Holocaust = everything as your told, nothing to see here

       
      Commenter ArchiveComments this thread
  21. I’m amazed to see how much the lies and the deception are ingrained on people’s minds, even on the minds of those who are supposedly “awake” and see through the lies of the Enemy.

    We’ve already heard the lies and half-truths disseminated by Peter Levenda or Jim Marrs. We know that narrative already. Are we open minded enough to hear the thoughts of someone who really defies the ruling elite and the official WWII narrative? Any narrative that must enforced by law is a fishy one to me, no matter what it is. Also the fact that a topic cannot be discussed without people being offended, proves that the mind control is more than real, even on those supposedly “awake”. Critical thinking and research should be encouraged on any topics, not just on those who are allowed by the powers that be.

    In those places that we are told that we shouldn’t look, is where we should look deeper. Both WW are the most important historical events on recent memory, nevertheless we can only access the narrative told by the victors.

    I love THC, but I think that we have never heard the other side regarding WW topics, real “Nazi” esotericism and nordic pagan traditions and cults, alchemy and gnosticism (except of course by the amazing John Lamb Lash interview). I hope that changes in the future. All points of view should be allowed. And there’s very intelligent people and researchers on the revisionist and european esotericism topics (Kalki Weisthor maybe? http://www.kalkiweisthor.net/ ). There’s a whole world to be discovered on that regard and one that we can learn a lot from, even if we don’t agree on everything.

    Thanks Greg

     
    Commenter ArchiveComments this thread

Leave a Reply