Liminal people. What do the margins have to say?
This week’s podcast is with Random Dude. I couldn’t get any of the people I emailed to agree to come onto the podcast; in most cases, I didn’t even receive a response. Is it because of my recent turn towards the conspiratorial, ever since I hit the magic number of 30, or is it something more subtle? (Even some regular listeners are getting triggered and acting strangely.)
Either way, it is five weeks since I spoke to Ann Diamond and it still feels as though a threshold was crossed and that I am now on the other side. I am no longer on the outside, looking in at the murky world of MKULTRA and organized child abuse, I am on the inside, looking out. If so, no wonder people are wary about joining me! Some voices are even trying to persuade me to cross back over, come to my senses, and/or seek medical assistance.
It turned out that my conversation with “Random Dude” was as satisfying as any conversation I’ve had for the podcast so far, and I think it makes for one of the most energetically rich (soul-ful) ones in the series. This invites me to question, why do I want to try and get more mainstream or “known” people onto the podcast? Partially it has to do with a fear of losing access to the mainstream and of being marginalized, a primary survival fear, because to be marginalized is to be in danger of being ostracized, even scapegoated. But it’s also a practical and creative concern. Here’s why:
“Alternate perceptions” are not alternative if they are confined to an “alternate perceptions community.” Instead they are quickly subsumed into a dominant (if marginal) narrative, and so become increasingly irrelevant.
This is from an email I sent to a fellow researcher of a case I prefer not to mention:
FYI, I am more than wary of terms like “Illuminati,” which IMO have by now been thoroughly uncoupled from any historical meaning and shackled to a conspiratainment industry aimed at, and designed to create, an audience cult of paranoid true believers, the existence of which only makes the debunking work of trolls like [redacted] that much easier.
The first website I ever had, the paranoid awareness section had a slogan, “There is a worldwide conspiracy to create the belief that there is a worldwide conspiracy to create the belief….”
The value of a place like Rigorous Intuition for me is that there is every bit as much skepticism among the serious participants of such passed-down conspiracy-jargon as there is of the cover-ups that keep the Consensus running. I called it the 2nd matrix for convenience. It’s not even so simple as an ideology, it’s more like an energy, and once it gets a hold of what we do it distorts everything and turns it into something, well, Icke-y.
Context is everything, and a word can bring with it a whole context strong enough to counteract and even undo the context we may have worked so hard to create. For me, words like “Illuminati,” “Satanist” and even to a degree at this stage “Pedophile” tend to do this; they are buzz words that both carry with them and trigger in people a whole memeplex of associations and assumptions and thereby shut down deeper inquiry. [I realized after writing this that I used “Satanic” in the last blog post title, entirely without thinking; that’s how contagious these memes are.]
I’m also wary of confusing research and exploration with social activism or the desire to bring about change. I strongly believe that the latter can only ever be effective as a side effect of the former, never as something that’s being consciously desired or directed. Our conscious reasons for wanting to change stuff are, I think, not merely secondary but mostly irrelevant when compared to our unconscious ones, which is why social reform never works on anything but a surface level, IMO. After all, the very perps being identified by this deep research ~ or at least the ones behind the perps ~ are social reformers! What is social engineering but activism on a grand scale? So Satanism and Illuminism, in my view, are just as much masks, sock puppets, and weaponized memes as are Labor & Conservative, Christianity and Democracy.
A regular listener recently suggested bringing my liminal listening audience into the podcast discussion in some form or another. I have already brought up the idea of recording a podcast with live listeners, via Skype, listeners who could pipe in at any time with questions or comments. It’s probably too soon for that, but another possibility is for people who read this blog and who listen to the podcast to provide me with audio or written material for upcoming podcasts.
If anyone likes this idea, send me your statements, expressions, questions, etc., and I will incorporate them into a future podcast, thereby dialoguing with the fragments of my non-localized self “out there.”
These collective podcasts could alternate with usual format (in which I discuss things with a single person), as a way to continue that discussion and keep it going, back and forth between a two-person dialogue and a multilogue.
I’m always cautious about proposing these sorts of things because I tend to get demoralized if there’s no response. But here are a few suggestions for anyone who wants to participate, suggestions that relate to my latest conversation with Random Dude:
The individual vs. the collective.
How Jekyll creates (makes necessary) Hyde within society. How the excessive appliance of reason leads to the worst excesses of the id, erupting behind the scenes of “decent” and rational society (MKULTRA, etc.).
Specifically, my own predilection for exploring dark subject matter. Why do I always accentuate what’s wrong about existence (i.e., the world) rather than focus on what is right within us (the soul). Is the balance off, or is it just right?
Or, introduce your own subject.
If you’re interested in participating, record an mp3 audio of your “statement,” whatever it may be, and send it by email (jasun at auticulture dot com) or online file site. If you feel inhibited by speaking, you can also write it down & send it to me in an email, or even post it here in the comments.
If I receive enough statements, or if whatever I do receive is interesting enough, I will build a podcast around that offering for the following week.
That’s all, folks.