Truther Talk Episode 51: Hippie Hate! – an interview with Jan Irvin

Share
b1523828-b1d9-4873-a7ba-29627caf19c8_conspiracy_realist_(2)

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/truthertalk/2013/10/23/truther-talk-episode-51-hippi-hate

In Truther Talk Episode 51: Hippie Hate.. Or attack of the fake liberals.. April and Virstyne talk about the social networking phenomena of picking fights for any number of reasons big, medium and small.. How people address you in a manner differently than they would to your face.. Does social networking, texting and technology remove one’s empathy?

In the next segment, while Virstyne is off on her learjet to go Llama wrangling.. April invites back to the show, Gnostic Media’s Jan Irvin to discuss this phenomena and some personal attacks he’s been receiving from the Hippie Haters. Tune in to find out the meaning of ‘Hippie Hate’ in all it’s irony, hypocrisy and down right kookie nature of those who claim spiritual enlightenment, peace and love while attacking, stalking and trying to bring down anyone who expresses a contrary opinion to their own.

To check out Jan’s research, books, podcasts and videos go to his website: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/

In the final segment Virstyne returns to talk about the Hippie haters under the umbrella of the fake liberals and the number of ways in which we’ve been on the receiving end of their wrath through social networking or otherwise.

You won’t want to miss this lively show as they call out the fake liberals, phony new agers, false feminists, hippie haters and more.

Until next time..

Peace, truth & love (and we mean it),

Truther Talk, http://truthertalk.com/

  15 comments for “Truther Talk Episode 51: Hippie Hate! – an interview with Jan Irvin

  1. Knosis
    October 24, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Jan, with regards to your statement that the Trivium is presented out of order. This is the definition in Oxford Dictionaries ‘The world’s most trusted dictionaries.’ They define it out of its functional order:

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/trivium?q=trivium

    Definition of trivium in English
    trivium
    Syllabification: (triv·i·um)
    Pronunciation: /ˈtrivēəm/
    noun
    historical
    an introductory curriculum at a medieval university involving the study of grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Compare with quadrivium.
    Origin:

    early 19th century: from Latin, literally ‘place where three roads meet’, from tri- ‘three’ + via ‘road’

    This supports your statement the trivium is often presented in a way that breaks its functionality.

    Be well.

    • October 24, 2013 at 12:27 pm

      Thank you. Most dictionaries, books, historical write ups, etc, that I have found all present it out of functional order.

  2. Frank Grill
    October 26, 2013 at 6:39 am

    Hi Jan, I recently came across an interesting paragraph from Robert Anton Wilson in Cosmic Trigger (1977):

    “It is scarcely coincidental that mainstream “literary” intellectuals – the heirs of the Platonic-aristocratic tradition that a gentleman never uses his hands, monkeys with tools or learns a manual craft – despise both science fiction and the dope-culture. NOR IS IT COINCIDENTAL that the Whole Earth Catalogs – created by Stewart Brand, a graduate of Ken Kesey’s Merry Pranksters – are the New Testament of the rural dropout culture, each issue bulging with eco-technological information about all the manual, dextrous, gadgety know-how that Plato and his heirs consider fit ONLY FOR SLAVES.”

    This from a book that extols the virtues of Tim Leary and Aldous Huxley. Thanks to your work, this takes on whole new levels of meaning I would have never had any notion of!

    • Andrew
      October 27, 2013 at 10:55 pm

      Frank,

      If you have the interest, I’d be curious to hear you expand on ‘the new levels of meaning’, that Jan’s work provides, regarding this paragraph.

  3. everett duncan
    October 30, 2013 at 5:23 am

    Hello Jan,

    Could you please clarify your use of “the map is not the territory” at 48’00″?

    Also, when referring to quantum physicists just before that, are you generalizing that some if not most subscribe to string theory? And, are you limiting your definition of physicists to academia or to anyone who can appreciate and espouse the basics tenants of quantum theory without disposing of them as readily as you seem to do?

    Thanks,
    Everett

    • October 30, 2013 at 10:58 am

      1) study the trivium. It’s discussed there.
      2) IF they’re a quantum physicist, they’re a quantum physicist. Would they believe in string theory if they weren’t quantum physicists? I didn’t say “physicists” – you’re using the lesser to the greater fallacy and changing what I said. I’m not saying all physicists. I said “quantum physicists”. I’m limiting it to the specific words I already used.
      3) ” or to anyone who can appreciate and espouse the basics tenants of quantum theory without disposing of them as readily as you seem to do?”

      please study the material that I’ve referred to many hundreds of times by David Harriman and don’t take my words out of context, change what they say or how they were said. What’s to appreciate if QP is a fraud? You want to appreciate and espouse a lie? Why? That’s ridiculous. I’ve provided many hours of research on exactly why Quantum Physicists are debating the fallacies and contradictions in their own little heads. Do not omit, distort, et al, my words and citations. Please study these specific citations that I’ve provided over and over rather than ignoring them and using circular logic back to “appreciate and espouse and disposing them as “readily as I seem to” all the while ignoring and omitting all of the specific, detailed research we’ve provided as to why.

      • Andrew
        October 31, 2013 at 9:36 pm

        Jan,

        Out of curiosity, do you believe that David Harriman thinks that Quantum Mechanics is a fraud? I can’t quite tell, though it seems that you do. Please don’t ask me to listen to your interviews with him or listen to the lengthy lecture he gave, as I already have. I’m curious to hear what your interpretation of his beliefs are?

        Thanks.

      • Andrew
        November 1, 2013 at 9:28 pm

        For what it’s worth, David Harriman does not believe Quantum Mechanics is a fraudulent science and using ad hominems (‘own little heads’) to describe Quantum Physicists doesn’t make it so. In my opinion, it would be wise to stop strapping your conclusions as to whether Quantum Mechanics is a ‘fraud’, or not, to what David Harriman says about it because, as I’ve indicated, he doesn’t subscribe to that point of view.

        • Andrew
          November 1, 2013 at 9:33 pm

          And obviously, if you don’t believe that Quantum Mechanics is a ‘fraud’, disregard and or delete my posts.

    • el
      November 17, 2013 at 12:08 pm

      my understanding of the map not equating to the territory is something like, you can study the 2D info all day long, but it needs to be experienced and exercised in reality to be true.

      Sometimes when we talk we act as tho we’ve been there, but have not.

      i could be wrong.

  4. olivier
    October 30, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    Howdy, Olivier here from Montreal, Canada.

    First of all, kudos for the great work, really enjoying your work. It has opened my eyes on McKenna and the MK ultra stuff, mind blowing.

    Jan, have you ever looked at David Wilcock stuff ? oh man…..if not look him up on youtube, total fraud.

  5. steve naive
    November 26, 2013 at 3:40 pm

    jan, have you ever considered trying to get wilCOCK and or pinchbeck on the show? it would be rather interesting to hear what they have to say with you interviewing them and cutting straight though their total and utter bilge. i would imagine they’d decline though.

    oh the capitals aren’t a typo. ;)

    • November 26, 2013 at 10:51 pm

      They would never come on. But why waste people’s time? How would they benefit? You see, any press is good press, and I’d rather give them no press.

  6. steve naive
    November 27, 2013 at 6:17 am

    you are of course correct that they wouldn’t even contemplate coming on your show, and i agree about your point about no press. however i think it could help some people who are caught up in their nonsense if you interviewed them and refuted point by point most of their garbage and exposed their frauds. (although if those ‘people’ are already spellbound by those two monkeys then i doubt they’d have the logic to process your grammar – and therefore would remain entranced).

    the fantasy is still a compelling show in my head jan!

    cheers.

Leave a Reply