Quote:
Originally Posted by avyaktam
In a recent radio interview (I forgot with who) I heard somebody saying that it seems that people in these circuits are being set up against each other:
Jones vs Rense, Icke vs ?, Alan watts vs ? etc. And know we see this one.
St. Clair is not my favorite, but I listen to what he has to say once in a while but I am not going to focus on him. The same for David Wilcock. They are not my leading stars, but I'm not trying to bash them. Also Bill and Kerry have stands and follow ways that would not be my primary choices, still I consider what they are doing valuable and I appreciate.
It reminds me of this Tom Bearden interview were he talks about the ways the PTB use to neutralize free-energy inventors, also referred to in the latest Camelot interview with Wade Frazier. The first thing they do Bearden explains there is that they make an in dept study of the person, a psychological profile and with that they know exactly how they best can manipulate and neutralize that researcher. Put a certain person in their life, bribe, use their pride or honesty; whatever serves the purpose. It is wise to be aware of this.
It is also wise to consider what Stewart Swerdlow recentlly said, that the PTB at the moment are putting out mindcontrol frequencies that stimulate anger and dispute.
|
I have to agree with most of this. St. Clair is worth listening to, as are the rest of the people you mention. For the record I've heard things for years about Beardon and Swerdlow being disinformation agents, so I put them in the same category as the rest. We shouldn't be surprised, but ought to suspect that these people are being set up to feud with each other. Knowing this, they (and us) need to rise over such low frequency interference if we're going to evolve as we need to be doing.
I don't think B and K are parenting their audience, but they're taking St. Clair personally. Why should he have to support their paradigm in order to present his own through an interview with them? It doesn't help anyone for PC to present a researcher in a "futuretalk" interview and then delete the conversation because of hurt feelings...though I do understand that there may be more going on there. A little more light on that subject might help.
I've watched the Peggy Kane videos, but I'm still not buying into her. She's interesting, and I certainly wouldn't say there's nothing to it, but instead of only demonstrating the RS blurbs that back up her program, it would be nice to see something a
little more scientific that demonstrates how it doesn't always work, and sometimes gives the opposite of the expected result...which has to be the case.