Deanna Spingola interviews Jan Irvin on Manufacturing the Deadhead

Share

Deanna, Gethsemane
Jan Irvin, coauthor with Joe Atwill, of Manufacturing the Deadhead: A product of social engineering, talked about the CIA’s participation in altering society through drugs such as LSD.

Deanna’s radio program: Monday-Friday, 11 am to 1 pm (CT)
www.republicbroadcasting.org
Her radio schedule: http://www.spingola.com/radio_schedule.html
Spingola Specials – commercial-free interviews
Her Books:
The Ruling Elite, a Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation
The Ruling Elite, the Zionist Seizure of World Power
(both available at Amazon, www.spingola.com and other retailers)

  33 comments for “Deanna Spingola interviews Jan Irvin on Manufacturing the Deadhead

  1. Raimonds J.
    June 5, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    Jan, can you please share the link for the 6hr presentation about quantum physics?

  2. sylvestre lilly
    June 5, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    Jan:
    I am not a defender of mainstream science per se, and I generally agree that a lot of the selling of science to the public is a part of a broader agenda of social/mind control. That being said, quantum physics cannot be dismissed just because certain populist scientific journalism serves to mystify understanding of the field.
    The same applies to general relativity, a theory that is even less well understood broadly speaking (in fact both theories are implicitly related on a structural level).
    Today the lack of successful theories that can be physically modelled is the problem the general public faces. Consequently, those that serve the broader control establishment are in a position to make any claim with respect to the physical interpretation or rather mis-interpretation of such theories. The present theories have a quantitative/numerical resolution that is well represented in mathematical terms but have no sensible physical analogs that have been agreed upon.
    This is a case where the public only has the messenger as a reference, and the messenger needs to be (figuratively speaking) shot!
    When you apply yourself to understanding the underlying principles of either quantum or relativistic physics in a purely physical/sensible framework the idea that limits of understanding can be equated to virtual paradoxes is manifestly absurd. Rather than admit as much, the powers would rather regrettably spew fantastical stories of ‘magic’ and such.
    Save the message…shoot the messenger!

    • Jan Irvin
      June 5, 2013 at 9:09 pm

      Please study the material cited. It really bothers me when I specifically cite someone and the citation is completely ignored. Please see David Harriman in the Trivium Study section and also episode #62 from Peace Revolution. Thanks.

      • sylvestre lilly
        June 6, 2013 at 7:54 pm

        Jan, no need to get annoyed before you read the entire comment lol! listened to your interviews with Harriman, I look forward to reading his book, as it appears to have a lot of material dealing with the misrepresentation of quantum physics. See comment above.

      • Charles Frith
        June 6, 2013 at 9:57 pm

        I’ve been listening to Dave McGowan’s stuff on Laurel Canyon. I agree there’s too much that came out of that area to be a coincidence but I don’t think Dave comes across as deep as I had hoped and what the coincidence means is not necessarily something we can all agree upon.

        With respect to David Harriman’s work I’ve listened to those interviews you did many many times (they are among my favourites) but I don’t think he questions the probabilistic nature of Quantum theory and neither can one because it is put into practice in millions of ways in 21st century life. We can question the model but the outputs of the model are in use. That’s just reality.

        Keep up the good work Jan. I’ve no attachment to any people or ideologies and enjoy you smashing a few down but the macro-model you assemble to replace old ones isn’t always robust (in my view) and that’s a compliment if you really think about it.

        Clearly we’re being manipulated and deceived but sometimes we read too much into things and project too much out of them. Good thinker’s are full of doubt not certainty.

        A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what’s going – William Burroughs

        • Charles Frith
          June 7, 2013 at 10:44 pm

          I went back and listened to David McGowan. Man he stinks. If you wanted to put a low brow military shill trying to steer a story down a particular direction (exploiting a meme etc) it would be him. There are interviews on Youtube. I totally don’t trust him and I rarely feel so strongly that I push information away.

          • Jan Irvin
            June 7, 2013 at 11:14 pm

            20+ chapters of material and all you can come up with is name calling? It would be nice if you’d provide some examples and citations rather than name calling and because you said so. Did you even read his work on his website? Please cite SOMETHING other than name calling. This isn’t 1st grade.

          • Charles Frith
            June 11, 2013 at 4:14 am

            Well I’d like to challenge his claim that Jim Morrison lived after his Paris death. You repeated the same thing a recent interview.(unfootnoted as it’s a video interview). You may think the printed word is more evidentiary than video but I use a spectrum of media and I don’t need a footnote to judge someone as an arsehole. I’m at liberty to do that in a world where mind control is not my master.

            By the way have you read the full listing of cognitive bias? It’s a small footnote on reality. Go ahead Jan. Take a drink.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

          • Jan Irvin
            June 11, 2013 at 9:04 am

            Yes, one must attack the writer, rather than the research. See Dave McGowan, and also the history of Admiral Morrison’s ship… So rather than provide evidence against Joe or Dave McGowan, you came here to attack me. Why do you feel the need to do that? Is it insecurity or what? You come here to call me an asshole? I don’t even know you. Why the need for such hypocrisy.. . you come here acting LIKE an asshole, calling me an “arsehole”. So much hypocrisy and so little critical thinking.

            Silly.

    • oats tao
      June 6, 2013 at 3:29 am

      Can you really prove that anyone is deliberately trying to mystify the general idea and presentation of Quantum physics to as you say the ‘public’?

      The only fact I can conclude with Quantum Physics is that it’s a theory!

      • sylvestre lilly
        June 6, 2013 at 7:48 pm

        I would posit that mainstream characterizations of ‘quantum physics’, by not offering a physical model that is not self-contradictory, go a long way towards mystifying the subject. Popular scientific media typically portrays this aspect with an attitude of “Oh well isn’t that weird and amazing!”
        It’s a theory alright. This as you say is a fact. It is also a fact that the theory is poorly described in causal terms, ergo the consequential mystification.

    • elly dozer
      July 6, 2013 at 2:41 pm

      Dude, NO.
      The point is, if quantum theory is based on a fallacy, we are OBLIGATED to revisit the premise of our understanding.

      Because the NAZI influence in the societal makeup of the 20 th century is obvious. Once you know who is responsible for said knowledge, it behoove s you to check their affiliations.

  3. andy dec
    June 6, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    Did anyone Notice the amount of commercial breaks in this corporate sponsored RBN show?

    At 44 mins, there is an advert interrupting Jan, mid flow. Then after the break, there’s another break, just as Jan starts getting into it at 48.51.

    Give us the listener a break from the breaks interrupting the flow. 4.51 mins between breaks is a joke. That is an assault on the guest as well as the listener.

    I can’t remember who said it, Eric Phelps I think, said RBN is funded by the Vatican. Connected to Disney and ABC TEEVEE.

    Recommend not going on those co-opted shows, or have them on your show instead to see what they know. You could play stupid sounds just when they get into their flow, to upset their train of thought, and then ask them how the liked it.

    The one thing people who dish it out don’t like, is a taste of their own medicine.

    • Jan Irvin
      June 6, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      Eric Phelps? Did you verify the claim? But I did my best to edit them all out. My apologies if I missed one. But please don’t spread rumors here that you’ve not personally verified. Deanna is certainly not co-opted. I recommend you not attack hosts as a representation of the entire network, and not spreading things that you personally haven’t verified… especially by an admitted Zionist who sells diamonds to support Israel… no agenda there in attacks on the Vatican! Look over there, folks…

      I was fooled by Phelps at one time too. Meanwhile, look around you and see who’s doing this shit.. .Catholics? LMAO! Goldman Sachs, et al, are certainly not Catholics… nor is the fake Diamond industry… ehem…

      And even if the NETWORK was funded by the Vatican, which you’ve entirely failed to provide a single iota of evidence for, how does that discount the host and what she says and her guests, such as me? That’s just ridiculous… I mean, seriously… Who thinks like that?

      • andy dec
        June 6, 2013 at 2:36 pm

        1st Of all, if you read what i actually wrote, I didn’t mention the host. I don’t blame her. Rather the CORPORATE Channel’s soap box she’s on. I sited where I heard it, And they are funded by the same people. In any case that is not the point.
        The POINT IS, Interruption of the guests, when they start to give out important information.
        It does not matter that you did your best to edit them out. They are interrupting on purpose. If you can’t see it, you’ve lost it.

        Jan Irvin Quote, ‘I recommend you not attack hosts.’

        Please show where I attacked the host? You just made that up. Because you were been fooled by Phelps as you said, you should not presume everyone else has.

        In the same, as you have said many times in the past, just because some things someone said turns out to be false does not mean everything they said was false.

        I do not have weeks to go and research every thing I have heard, which is why I said WHERE I HEARD IT. NUMBSKULL.

        btw, Having been through the Catholic brainwashing ideology I don’t need Phelps to tell me they are rotten. Because they most certainly are. That is a FACT.

        In any event, Why does RBN sell ads in the first place?
        To make money. Fiat Money. The very thing that holds this world in bondage.

        Where are you going to go with that exactly?

        • Jan Irvin
          June 6, 2013 at 7:08 pm

          1st Of all, if you read what i actually wrote, I didn’t mention the host. I don’t blame her. Rather the CORPORATE Channel’s soap box she’s on. I sited where I heard it, And they are funded by the same people. In any case that is not the point.

          You didn’t cite the source, nor did you verify it. What page, chapter, book, talk etc? Nothing. It’s nothing but specious rumor, from someone whom I pointed out was already in question – a man who sells blood diamonds to support the Zionists who have an agenda against the Vatican. Now this could be guilt by association, but you’ve provided absolutely nothing but the arbitrary whims of nothing to verify your claims. If you didn’t verify the claim you don’t pass it on. It’s the most basic common sense. https://www.google.com/search?q=Eric+John+Phelps+diamonds&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

          Rather the CORPORATE Channel’s soap box she’s on

          Guilt by association. Circumstantial ad hominem.

          The POINT IS, Interruption of the guests, when they start to give out important information.
          It does not matter that you did your best to edit them out. They are interrupting on purpose. If you can’t see it, you’ve lost it.

          Then Change the damned channel. I’ve put out nearly 400 interviews – most are commercial free. Or start your own show rather than bitch at how others manage to pay the bills. Doing a show is hard work, especially when there are assholes who bitch and complain about everything and dream up wild, unsupported conspiracies rather than helping out. You certainly don’t provide any donations to support this show. And no doubt you’d tell lies about us if we ever took ads to pay the bills.

          Jan Irvin Quote, ‘I recommend you not attack hosts.’

          Please show where I attacked the host? You just made that up. Because you were been fooled by Phelps as you said, you should not presume everyone else has.

          That doesn’t make sense, but your red herring to Phelps has nothing to do with anything – other than you brought him up and spread unsupported gossip. I go on your own words.. which I’d appreciate you not twist to fit your needs. To QUOTE YOU:

          “Recommend not going on those co-opted shows, or have them on your show instead to see what they know.”

          Right here you’re saying those “co-opted shows” – because of a guilt by association fallacy to the network that you’ve provided ZERO evidence for. You want us to not reach thousands of people because of stupid rumors you may or may not have heard, by someone who’s own reputation and critical thinking abilities are in question. How, EXACTLY, is her show co-opted? Answer the question without stupid excuses. You made the claim. You can’t support your own claims? Of course you provide absolutely nothing. We’re just to accept your fallacious, unfounded opinions. Have you not learned anything from this show about critical thinking? Why is it you can tell me what I say, but you can’t grasp the simple onus of proof?

          In the same, as you have said many times in the past, just because some things someone said turns out to be false does not mean everything they said was false.

          I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Why change the subject? Why the need for a straw man here? I read him before I made my decision about him. If his diamond dealing in blood diamonds for the Zionists isn’t reason enough to give serious pause to his agenda, I don’t know what is. The Catholics are by far not the worst issue we’re dealing with today and Phelps is nothing but a racist and a distraction. The man wants to put up separate cities for blacks for fuck’s sake.

          I do not have weeks to go and research every thing I have heard, which is why I said WHERE I HEARD IT. NUMBSKULL.

          So here you make up lazy excuses as to why you shouldn’t support your own baseless accusations, rather than grasping the simple idea of common sense that if you have no evidence, don’t make the claim. If you haven’t verified someone else’s claim, you don’t make the claim. This is really simple, basic, common sense here. And then what do you do? For me daring to ask you for your citations that support your LIES, you then attack me with name calling! How dare you ask me, Andy, for evidence for my own claims – you “numbskull!”. I’m too lazy to fact check any of my beliefs. It’s easy for my lazy ass to just make up unsupported lies and spread them around for no good reason and name call at anyone who points out how stupid my behavior is.

          btw, Having been through the Catholic brainwashing ideology I don’t need Phelps to tell me they are rotten. Because they most certainly are. That is a FACT.

          No one said they weren’t wrotten. Can you stick to the subject? Why all the red herrings? I just said that Phelps is a Zionist who sells blood diamonds to support Israel which is a clear conflict of interest in his whole deal. But I don’t understand why you’re bring up all of this irrelevant stuff?

          In any event, Why does RBN sell ads in the first place?
          To make money. Fiat Money. The very thing that holds this world in bondage.

          Obviously you haven’t heard my show enough to study the 5 episodes with Stephen Zarlenga on the history of money, or even my interview with Molynoex on this very subject, discussing David Astle’s work. But they sell adds so that they don’t have to beg for donations like I do – from people like who don’t donate and make unfounded attacks for doing the interview in the first place, which you could have simply turned off. So then you make another guilt by association to the host by saying that because RBN takes money for adds that she’s then co-opted, but again, with no proof or evidence of something she’s said or done that was so grave to support your unfounded claims or lies. Then you stray off into a red herring about money as if it were evidence of your claim, which it’s not, but an attack on money and ignorant and unstudied at that. If you think that it’s FIAT money, I suggest you go and study Astle and see how it’s commodity money and usury money and not FIAT.

          Where are you going to go with that exactly?

          I’m going to show you how intellectually bankrupt your comments are, then and now. That’s where.

          Learn some critical thinking – see EVERYTHING in the trivium study section and stop allowing fallacies, or lies, to lead you around by the nose… It’s absurdly ridiculous.

          But my god, have the brains, the common sense, to understand what the onus of proof is and don’t be a lazy ass and spread lies if you haven’t verified them YOURSELF. If you have NO EVIDENCE it’s called arguing the arbitrary and is dimissed by default, so therefore you lose, no name calling or lazy ass excuses necessary. And how lame to go through life believing all these lies you tell yourself rather than spending just a few minutes to verify them before you believe them. I’ve said it so many times… why haven’t you heard that? Why haven’t you heard not to name call to make your argument? Why is it that you don’t understand that by name calling you lose automatically and it proves that you’re intellectually bankrupt?

          It has been said that great minds debate ideas.
          Mediocre minds talk about events.
          Small minds attack people.

          Which are you? I think you’ve demonstrated which one quite clearly.

          Let’s see, you attacked the network, the host, me, and not the ideas, or the events being discussed… can you figure out what’s left? I know it may be a lot to ask…

          • andy dec
            June 6, 2013 at 10:47 pm

            Jan Irvin Quote, ‘You didn’t cite the source, nor did you verify it. What page, chapter, book, talk etc? Nothing. It’s nothing but specious rumor.’

            Yet another Diatribe, What I referred to was what I ACTUALLY WROTE.
            Here it is as you are a baby with a new old toy, called the Trivium, that only recently have you become aware of.

            Quote adc, ‘Did anyone Notice the amount of commercial breaks in this corporate sponsored RBN show?’ (no answer to that folks)

            But no you decided to argue beside the point…
            Ignoratio elenchi.
            This fallacy arises from falsely assuming that the point at issue has been disproved when one merely resembling it has been disproved. (not quite the case here, more a shift to another point in question. NB.. Not argued, admitted up front.)

            …adc, quote, ‘I can’t remember who said it, Eric Phelps I think, said RBN is funded by the Vatican. Connected to Disney and ABC TEEVEE.’ (It is in his Vatican Assassins 3 part talk. TYPE THAT into your search engine)

            Specious rumour? Antonyms: forthright, frank, honest, open, truthful, upright. There’s some words that exist to counter you unsullied integrity.

            Indeed I had to repeat it because of your deliberate ignorance, stating, adc quote,
            ‘ I do not have weeks to go and research every thing I have heard, which is why I said WHERE I HEARD IT. NUMBSKULL.’

            Guilt by association. Circumstantial ad hominem. Really?
            But she is on CORPORATE Radio with ads interrupting the guest in 4.51 mins as soon as the guest gets into the flow.

            Rather I would say your grasping at straws at best, at worst protecting the guilty as accused.
            Although this is STILL NOT THE POINT.

            Jan Irvin quote, ‘Then Change the damned channel. I’ve put out nearly 400 interviews – most are commercial free. Or start your own show rather than bitch at how others manage to pay the bills. Doing a show is hard work, especially when there are assholes who bitch and complain about everything and dream up wild, unsupported conspiracies rather than helping out. You certainly don’t provide any donations to support this show. And no doubt you’d tell lies about us if we ever took ads to pay the bills.

            That’s funny. What did you say earlier, Ad hominim attack. I’m not complaining. I’m pointing out a reality of a 4 minuet 51 second interruption.
            Actually people like me sent you £194.00 about $400.00 to enable you to continue to do important research and bring that to the global community. Because I do not have time to spend 30 yrs like you have done to attempt to play catch-up. I would need another lifetime.

            Interestingly, you don’t have ads, but they do. That is my point.

            Jan Irvin quote, ‘That doesn’t make sense, but your red herring to Phelps has nothing to do with anything – other than you brought him up and spread unsupported gossip. I go on your own words.. which I’d appreciate you not twist to fit your needs. To QUOTE YOU:’

            As you see above, I quoted myself for clarity, VERBATIM.

            Your innuendo is circular to please your ego. It does not detract from my honesty. Do I have to repeat it again?

            I cited Phelps but you have chosen to attack him using ad hominim against me, when I was straight forward with saying where I heard that RBN is funded at the start.

            Jan Irvin quote, ‘You want us to not reach thousands of people because of stupid rumors you may or may not have heard…’

            Incorrect assumption and FALSE.

            I am Have been a big supporter of your work. I want this info to spread far and wide. Her show is co-opted because wheather she does it, or not, they interrupt the flow, with advertisements in 4.51 mins. It was not the only one. there were at least 2 other examples in the same show, which is why I even bothered to say something. Furthermore, you are not the only guest where this interruption of guests in mid flow happens.

            Jan Irvin quote, ‘Answer the question without stupid excuses.’
            response.
            Interruptions 3 times minimum, in 4.51 mins, during this show.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘You made the claim.’
            I did.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘You can’t support your own claims? Of course you provide absolutely nothing.’

            Response repeated:
            Interruptions 3 times minimum, in 4.51 mins, for adverts during this show interrupting the flow of the guest.

            Which part of that don’t you get?

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘We’re just to accept your fallacious, unfounded opinions. Have you not learned anything from this show about critical thinking? Why is it you can tell me what I say, but you can’t grasp the simple onus of proof?’

            Erm, I’m feeling like Gene Odening’s advice is relevant here, when you realize that some conversations are not worth the effort for lack of integrity, or rational conversation, other than: Don’t say that, your a this, your dumb because, you don’t know that. That is what your saying.

            I’ll give you the proof.
            Here it is, ready…

            Adverts separated by 4.51 mins interrupting the flow.

            Is that clear?

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.’

            On the contrary, I quoted what you have said MANY times in the past. You actually sound like the federal government, telling others they cannot quote what you actually said. Unbelievable!!

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘Why change the subject?’

            Hello Kettle. Unbelievable again.

            There you go on about Phelps, for which I’m confident that now that an unbiased reader will be able to determine the point at issue for me, not you, was the length of advertisements separating the guest’s dialogue.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘Why the need for a straw man here?’

            Again a double red herring by you in the same paragraph.
            Same answer. Hello Kettle I’m a pot.
            You are the one to attack Phelps. I merely relayed what he said.

            Interesting you had not addressed the point at issue, you ignored it.
            Whether he does deal in Blood Diamonds, is not at issue here. Not by me in any case.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘For me daring to ask you for your citations that support your LIES, you then attack me with name calling! How dare you ask me, Andy, for evidence for my own claims – you “numbskull!”. I’m too lazy to fact check any of my beliefs. It’s easy for my lazy ass to just make up unsupported lies and spread them around for no good reason and name call at anyone who points out how stupid my behavior is.’

            That is a Fallacious distraction away from the POINT at issue. It is evident because I said where I heard that RBN’s funding came from in the beginning. A lie has to be intentional for it to be what you claimed it is. I relayed what I heard and where I heard it. That may be ignorance, but it’s not lying.

            Jan Irvin quote, ‘Can you stick to the subject?’

            Can you?

            Advertisements, remember?

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘Obviously you haven’t heard my show enough to study the 5 episodes with Stephen Zarlenga on the history of money…’

            More Fallacious assumption & presumption.
            Perhaps you’d succeed in a court of law if you understood it is not a wise position to take as you have done to an extraordinary degree.
            Not only have I listened to all those podcast’s I bought his book, and disagreed in principle with its recommendations for resolution, but that is still a work I support in any case.

            Unlike you I have studied the law extensively and been into the courts to attempt to gain remedy allowing me to access my portion of the consolidated funds operated in the name of the people.
            To no avail I might add.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘from people like who don’t donate and make unfounded attacks for doing the interview in the first place, which you could have simply turned off.’

            Like I said above, you don’t even know who supports you and your work. You are a fool.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘So then you make another guilt by association to the host by saying that because RBN takes money for adds that she’s then co-opted..’

            I stated what they did, that is FACT. Evidence. I can take it into a court of LAW and it will be admitted as veracious.

            So there.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘but again, with no proof or evidence of something she’s said or done that was so grave to support your unfounded claims or lies.’

            Lets reverse it. Are you saying that that show didn’t interrupt the guest’s dialogue in 4.51 mins?

            Because they did and she was a part of that, being that she is the host. Whether or not she actually controlled the timing of the advertisement is another question.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘But my god, have the brains, the common sense, to understand what the onus of proof is and don’t be a lazy ass and spread lies if you haven’t verified them YOURSELF…’

            Actually here you are repeating what you repeated many times throughout this I don’t know what to call it, diatribe.

            I said in the beginning where I heard it. You then accused me of lying about it.
            The only lies are the ones you told in saying I said something or with held evidence of which was untrue & is for you to review, when you climb out of adolescence.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘And how lame to go through life believing all these lies you tell yourself rather than spending just a few minutes to verify them before you believe them. I’ve said it so many times… why haven’t you heard that? Why haven’t you heard not to name call to make your argument? Why is it that you don’t understand that by name calling you lose automatically and it proves that you’re intellectually bankrupt?’

            I guess I’m reflecting back to you, your example of hypocrisy doing what you tell others not to.

            But on that point I am in progress of studying the Trivium having read the Trivium book 3 times last year, but still I am the student. And I don’t mind learning what is necessary to learn.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘It has been said that great minds debate ideas.
            Mediocre minds talk about events.
            Small minds attack people.’

            I guess you should get someone else to read back what you have written above. Namely, that calling people names detracts from the points at issue.
            This was the issue with my point of the length of time between adverts.

            For your information it is not an accident. But I’m sure that will be wasted on you. That was my point. And it does detract from what you are saying, along with losing momentum for the listener. Do you care?
            They need you, you do not need them. That was my point of all this.

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘Which are you? I think you’ve demonstrated which one quite clearly.’

            Not so clear. More a childish dig to massage your ego. Do you think that endears you?

            Jan Irvin quote,
            ‘Let’s see, you attacked the network, the host, me, and not the ideas, or the events being discussed… can you figure out what’s left? I know it may be a lot to ask…’

            Here’s a quote,

            ‘If your not ready to die for freedom, Put that word out of your vocabulary.’
            Malcolm X.

            Stop taking and go apply your knowledge where it will actually do some good.
            Try going into the court, It’s a good place to start if you really want to be free.

          • Jan Irvin
            June 7, 2013 at 9:16 am

            Wow, the joke’s on you. By your above, I highly doubt you’d understand if I broke down your misapplication of all these fallacies- and once again explained to you to take the onus of proof (which is not just regurgitating an unverified rumor -which was already made clear to you. All you’re doing is spreading unverified gossip like the Enquirer – sad. And even when it’s explained to you, you still want to tail chase. Verifying the information, rather than spreading rumours, which you don’t seem to grasp the difference, even when it’s explained very clearly for you – is not the same as just regurgitating someone else’s rumor. I note your ad vericundiam as well, and your failure to check a single item and to just regurgitate the same unsupported claim to Phelps.

            Again, see if you’re capable of grasping this very simple concept: if YOU did not verify the claim, and YOU are spreading it downstream, which you admitted in your first post that you didn’t verify it, then it is YOUR responsibility to take the onus of proof. Is Phelps here? No. You are. Did Phelps make the claim here? No, You did. Did you verify the claim? No, you gave some emotional appeal about being too lazy and then name called.

            Get this through your head. You spread the rumor past Phelps and it is 100% on YOU to support the claim with citations, quotes and facts, and not just regurgitating that you heard it from Phelps but can’t quote where… YOU FAILED – PERIOD. just that you “heard it someplace” is not a valid citation unless you VERIFIED Phelps’ claims. Do you comprehend this? Again, these are but unverified lies, rumors, and YOU are the one spreading them. YOU are the one using irrelevant information about commercials and RBN and everything else rather than focusing on the work itself. YOU. NO one else. YOU are the one who has failed at every step to use logic and critical thinking, and when this fact is pointed out to you, you continue to justify and make excuses for this sorry behavior. I leave you to Jesus.

  4. Casey Borchert
    June 6, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    Great interview.
    Thanks.

  5. andy dec
    June 7, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    It appears the reply button to the thread is missing. Why would that be?

    As I have shown in my reply, repeatedly deflecting your red herring arguments away from the main point I was making.

    As it happens I am searching for the data you claim is false, to find out if you are correct about RBN’s position. If I don’t find any I’ll return and say that. If you allow that, or I’ll publish it elsewhere.

    It was still not my point. Your baseless claims of me lying are shown to be False.
    Your accusations of not supporting you, are LIES AND FALSE. You have derided yourself in the diatribe posed as a genuine retort. Pathetic. LIER.

    Like the enquirer? I don’t even know who that is. But being an ex journalist yourself with the manner of your diversions I would imagine you’d be right at home if your donations dry up.

    I did the Pt, 1 & 2 transcripts of the John Taylor Gatto interviews you did, taking me a week to do.

    I have supported your work purchasing more than I required on top of giving you a large donation more than once supporting your work and you accuse me of all manner of fallacious ad hominims, again using them to NEVER ANSWER the point of the MULTIPLE breaks interrupting the show. That was my point. THAT IS A FACT. YOU DON’T EVEN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER IT.

    My post above answered your every LIE and RED HERRING to go anywhere else but admit that single point I made.

    WHAT IS FALSE, when I said IN THE BEGINNING WHERE I HEARD ABOUT RBN?

    The only one who is an ‘ass hole,’ in this conversation is YOU. btw, YOUR words not mine.

    The same way I wasn’t taken in by Phelps as you admitted to being, I was not impressed with Jesus either. So you can have him back.

  6. Jeff Brinkerhoff
    June 12, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    Ms Spingola is one of my favorites. I’m pretty sure you can still get several hours of her reading her research at thebyteshow.com . Personally I had a front row seat for several of what I now realize were “operations” thanks to you, J. Atwill, Tarpley, Gatto et al. best to all.. Ja B

  7. Charles Frith
    June 12, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    Mary Pinchot Meyer and John F. Kennedy had “about 30 trysts” and more than one author has claimed she brought marijuana or LSD to almost all of these meetings.

    In an interview with Nina Burleigh, Kennedy aide Myer Feldman said, “I think he might have thought more of her than some of the other women and discussed things that were on his mind, not just social gossip.” Burleigh wrote, “Mary might actually have been a force for peace during some of the most frightening years of the cold war…”

    In this instance the CIA, Terence McKenna, Huxley and Leary all inadvertently changed the direction of the world from a future state of hallucinatory haze to an assassination that really acted as a trigger to the global collective consciousness.

    The idea that LSD, Mushrooms and Ayahuasca have worked out for global mind control is silly. A linear interpretation of non linear events that didn’t work out in favour of the 100 club or whatever interpretation one chooses to impose.

    There is a footnote for the above but I don’t think footnotes are the be all and end all. That’s for pedants.

  8. elly dozer
    August 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Having followed this beef for a few that the best thing that could happen is a defamation case against witch said claims would have to be shown in a court of law whether true or not.

    And I want to know! And people’s head s should roll. Just my opinion.

  9. Caelidh
    August 28, 2013 at 7:19 am

    I have been following your discussion on the subject of the deliberate agenda to breakdown the family and honestly it isn’t making sense.

    While I am not saying these connections and evidence are not true, some of the things you say were the goals of the CIA and other groups seems to reach a bit.

    For instance, the 1950’s was a very conformist era. I would think that it would be convenient for the elite to have a complicit society that mindlessly consumed ? So why would they want to dismantle that, and create a disturbance in that culture. Folks seemed to be generally very obedient and didn’t question alot. So why would a group deliberately want to destroy that and create a situation where they had very unpredictable outcomes and violence? It seems to me, in my examining the 60’s that folks started to wake up towards the end of the 50’s and perhaps the CIA stepped in to attempt to co-opt the awakening and find new ways of controlling the population?.

    I would disagree that the entire “Hippie” movement was a wash and that it was all about just navel gazing and “pillow sitting”. There were some successful movments like “back to the land” organic farming, sustainable homesteading etc. I think those were productive and positive, eventhough they were outside of the mainstream of society. Sure, a fair number of the Hippies ended up devolving into the 70’s disco cocaine snorting shallow bad dressing era and then into the 80’s ME ME “Greed is good” consumeristic culture and then on into the 90s. I would argue that was something that the ELITE would want, mindless consumers again and that is what they got. It wouldn’t make sense to shake that up and get folks questioning that way of life. There are still segments of the population that are rejecting the consumerism. The 2008 crash definately was a ploy to steal the wealth from the majority of the public and perhaps a way to take their power away but folks I know are getting fed up with the game and realizing the self sufficiency and not consuming anymore is more rewarding.

    As for your eugenics stuff. All I will say is that a lot of folks during Sanger’s era were into eugenics. Some had evil agendas and some were probably wellmeaning but very misguided. However, as a woman, I am very tired of the constant assault to take away my right to control what I do with my body!. No pro choice individual I know is pro eugenics or believes that abortion should be a convenient birth control method.

    I have my own criticisms of the Feminist movement and honstly it hasn’t done much for me. However, I do support the right of any woman to be her own personal soveriegn and laws that restrict the right of a woman to use birth control or engage in consenual conscious sexual activity are draconion and I believe part of the elite agenda.

    As I have said in the past, I respect your research and I do read it but sometimes lately I feel you are reaching in your conclusions about the goals of some of these organizations and people. I can’t honestly see Jim Morrison sitting around a table with his father and other elites laughing about how they put one over on all those kids at the Door’s concert and I certainly couldn’t see Jim Morrison having slipped out of society (via fake death or anything) and rejoined his military father and the establishment.

    There was a lot of good music that came out of the 60’s and I do hope that folks don’t reject all that and go back to listening to croonings of Slim Whitman (I am being facetious btw ;>)).

    Again, I believe there are kernals of truth in the connections but be cautious in seeing demons around EVERY corner…

    Peace

  10. Caelidh
    August 28, 2013 at 7:32 am

    After reading about the 4th World Wilderness conference and their “agenda”.. I guess my comments regarding getting “back to the land” and the environmental movement gives me away as being an Elitist eh?…

    Again, while I can see how the Elite would want to control the environmental movement, I hear an increasing amount of overall condemnation and mistrust of any part of the environmental movement because it is now a movement that was create BY the elite not merely co-opted by it.

    After seeing the disaster in Fukishima, the BP oil spill (and other oil spills) and all the pollution and die-offs and destruction by the corporate powers, I will continue to stick to the label of being an “environmentalist” and focus on getting back to nature. Yes, I know, the UN and others are controlling it and trying to kill off the world population so endagered species can roam free, but I do like hugging trees now and again and being out in nature. If that makes me a willing dupe of the elite’s agenda.. well…

    I know you will probably come down on me hard for various logical fallacies contained in my very obvious sarcastic replies.. but I will bear it ;>)

    Thanks

    • Jan Irvin
      August 28, 2013 at 9:19 am

      You omit the fact that they’re using manipulation and mind control to get us there, and you omit the fact thay they PRd this sutff in the first place. These same families promoted oil, nuclear energy, etc.. .and now you want to put them in charge for solving the rest of the issues. LOL.

      We have to empower people to solve their own problems. This isn’t group think and something you give to dirty billionaires to figure out.

  11. Caelidh
    August 28, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Well that is a good point and brings it full circle to certain groups who are deciding to bow out of participating in this endless game of corporatocracy. While we all pretty much still drive cars, there are those who don’t. There are those who promote the building of bike paths, walking paths (and then certain groups get all up in arms about cities doing that). There are those who are trying to homestead and go “off the grid”, many happen to be “Hippies”, they promote concepts like Permaculture etc.

    As for UN and Agenda 21 and the preservation of nature and wilderness areas etc.. I just don’t know. The Rainforest is very rapidly being depleted and indigenous populations are decreasing and being forced out into the open and are being forced to participate in global society. Humanity is losing and nature is losing. So what is the solution? Why is preserving wilderness and “heritage” sites so evil? Do you advocate that private companies own them? Or are you saying that the UN is so currently corrupted by the Corporate Elite agenda that they are?.

  12. Caelidh
    August 28, 2013 at 11:26 am

    another thing and I am merely clarifying because this is what I was hearing in the conversation.

    First off, you all were talking about how the NAACP was a “Jewish run” organization, implying a “Jewish agenda’. I have heard you speak about the issues of Zionism and I do understand the difference… but Spingola really seemed to be on this idea of a “Jewish” agenda and influence.. just sounded a bit more of that old racism. I looked up the NAACP on Wikipedia and while certainly there were Jewish individuals on the original board, there were also African Americans W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells and Archibald Henry Grimké , there was also a white Unitarian female Mary White Ovington… so it wasn’t just all elite Jewish individuals as you make it sound.

    When you discuss the ‘elite” trying to turn whites onto black music and culture it was to to bring down white society and the family unit. Are you trying to say that is what THEY believed because they were overtly racist or is that merely what happened and thus proving somehow that black culture and music was /is so bad that it had that influence to tear down white society and the family unit?…

    You go on about the breakdown of the family unit, you criticize feminism to such a degree it sounds like you might like to go back to some mythical time where this “nuclear family” unit was intact. What I see is that yes, the current family unit IS in disarray, but not because of some traditional family values that were shredded by black music or jewish influence. Again, modern feminism hasn’t done me any favors, my mother was a doctor from the late 1950’s and raised me as a single parent and so I never felt oppressed like I was supposed to (according to the early 90’s militant feminist movement)..
    However, I can somewhat sympathise with women in the 1960’s who didn’t have choices and again, were culturally and society required and expected to raise families and clean their houses and be utterly content with that life. I could understand why women would revolt all on their own! (and not need some nefarious agenda to drive them to do so). I mean you say that this agenda drove women to be “selfish”.. Why? because they wanted to be treated more than mere property of their husbands???

    I mean, I get you that Bernays was a complete wanker with the “liberty torches cigarette” campaign but to then jump to “driving women to be selfish”. Wow. While I wouldn’t mind not having to work so hard outside of my own home to make a living. ( I wouldn’t mind staying home and cooking more etc.. ), I am also glad I am NOT expected to dress a certain way, or act a certain way. I am glad women do have more opportunities to be creative and be their own person. I am glad we can vote (although I will admit that I do understand our political system is a sham…).

    I agree with your arguments and the research you have done to a point.. and then you reach.

    anyway.

  13. Caelidh
    August 28, 2013 at 11:40 am

    I actually just heard another conversation about an incident that happened in 1968 (the year I was born) on TV when white woman Petula Clark and Harry Bellafonte were singing a song and she put her arm through his. Apparently this was SHOCKING and caused quite a controversy (probably not unlike the modern Miley Cyrus “twerking” VMA award…. ahem). and certain advertisers threatened to pull their advertising. They were afraid of southern whites being offended etc. etc.. Was this a deliberate attempt by the Jews and the Blacks and the corporate establishment to bring down the family unit?. I think they were singing an anti war song or something too? Shocking..

    I mean I am glad Petula Clark didn’t back down. I am glad that we can all get along (or can we?)… It’s funny because the song to me sounded completely “whitebread” and very very tame.

    I see more issues admittedly with the whole constructed VMA modern media type of crap they put out there. IT’s all trash as far as I am concerned.

    anyway.

Leave a Reply