Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point

Dr. Dan Booth Cohen and Emily Volden merge extended consciousness and after-death communication into psychotherapy. photo by: Pip R Lagenta Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. Today we talk about families… and what a pain in the neck they can be! Don’t get me wrong, I treasure my family. I treasure my relationship with my wife, but it’s difficult at times. My kids? They’re awesome; except when they’re not. My brother, sisters, aunts, uncles, brother-in-laws, all that extended family I don’t see much, they’re great too. But like the rest of my family their problems can become my problems. Family issues can become overwhelming.  They can send us look for help. Today’s guests (Dan Booth Cohen and Emily Blefeld Volden) are two psychotherapists who help individuals and family systems get back on track. But what makes them interesting, and relevant for Skeptiko listeners, is they’ve shattered the traditional family therapy model by incorporating in the growing, inescapable body of evidence suggesting consciousness extends beyond death and that those who are deceased may still be among us. So, if you thought you had problems with your family — stick around — you’re liable to find out you have a lot more folks in your lineage to worry about: —————— Alex Tsakiris: If we accept what you’re doing, and we accept the reality of [after death communication], what does this say about our relationship with the deceased? In a way it’s hard to fathom. We have enough problems dealing with the relationships of the people who are here with us. Now you’re telling us we have to worry about our unseen intergenerational relationship with some great-great-grandfather we never met? Dr. Dan Booth Cohen: Definitely. It’s a great question and it’s at the core of what we’re doing: the ancestors are not all okay. Some of the ancestors are okay and they’re in a loving relationship with us. But when the ancestors are not okay, and often they are not, they show up in our lives as our symptoms.     Click here for forum discussion Click here for Dan and Emily’s website Read Excerpts From Interview: Alex Tsakiris: What I heard from you and felt from you is this excitement that you have because you found something that really works. And it seems to be much more effective than some ...

To this Ohio State University International Relations Professor a one world state is inevitable. To Alt media blogger James Corbett it’s a catastrophe. photo by: Royce Bair Today’s show is not about consciousness, spirituality, or any of the topics we normally cover. Today’s show is about geopolitics and whether a “One World State,” or what some call a, “New World Order,” is an inevitable political reality. It’s a provocative topic, and may be of interest to some Skeptiko listeners, but what makes this show special are the participants in this threaded debate. Dr. Alexander Wendt is a professor at Ohio State University and a recognized expert on international relations and political science. He’s a serious academic, but as you’ll see in this interview, he’s willing to take seriously, and straightforwardly address, the concerns of those who believe deep state politics are driving world politics. After talking to Wendt, I wanted to hear from someone on the front lines of reporting on these deep state geopolitical shenanigans. So, I asked James Corbett, a leading figure in the geopolitical, alternative media and host of the Corbett Report to give me his take on Wendt’s influential One World State paper. The result was a challenging, and sometimes uncomfortable dialog about questions that don’t seem to get as much attention as they deserve… e.g., if a one world state really is inevitable should “we the people” try and shape it? Click here for forum discussion Click here for Dr. Wendt’s website Click here for James Corbett’s website Read Excerpts From Interview With Dr. Alexander Wendt: Dr. Alexander Wendt: In 3000 BC there was something like 600,000 independent political units in the world, most of which were tribes and hardly states at all. But they were separate, sovereign entities and [there were] 600,000 of them. And now we have 190,000. So if you plot that trajectory on a graph what you see is a tremendous consolidation of political authority worldwide over the ensuing millennia. So you project that a bit further and you end up with one. So it seems to me that there has been an increase in the number of states since World War II with the colonization and the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and so on. But overall I think the trend historically has been fewer and fewer states. And if you add in globalization, the Internet, climate change, that war between states is becoming irrational. There’s just many factors that make the idea of the separate sovereign state increasi...

To this Ohio State University International Relations Professor a one world state is inevitable. To Alt media blogger James Corbett it’s a catastrophe. photo by: Royce Bair Today’s show is not about consciousness, spirituality, or any of the topics we normally cover. Today’s show is about geopolitics and whether a “One World State,” or what some call a, “New World Order,” is an inevitable political reality. It’s a provocative topic, and may be of interest to some Skeptiko listeners, but what makes this show special are the participants in this threaded debate. Dr. Alexander Wendt is a professor at Ohio State University and a recognized expert on international relations and political science. He’s a serious academic, but as you’ll see in this interview, he’s willing to take seriously, and straightforwardly address, the concerns of those who believe deep state politics are driving world politics. After talking to Wendt, I wanted to hear from someone on the front lines of reporting on these deep state geopolitical shenanigans. So, I asked James Corbett, a leading figure in the geopolitical, alternative media and host of the Corbett Report to give me his take on Wendt’s influential One World State paper. The result was a challenging, and sometimes uncomfortable dialog about questions that don’t seem to get as much attention as they deserve… e.g., if a one world state really is inevitable should “we the people” try and shape it? Click here for forum discussion Click here for Dr. Wendt’s website Click here for James Corbett’s website Read Excerpts From Interview With Dr. Alexander Wendt: Dr. Alexander Wendt: In 3000 BC there was something like 600,000 independent political units in the world, most of which were tribes and hardly states at all. But they were separate, sovereign entities and [there were] 600,000 of them. And now we have 190,000. So if you plot that trajectory on a graph what you see is a tremendous consolidation of political authority worldwide over the ensuing millennia. So you project that a bit further and you end up with one. So it seems to me that there has been an increase in the number of states since World War II with the colonization and the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and so on. But overall I think the trend historically has been fewer and fewer states. And if you add in globalization, the Internet, climate change, that war between states is becoming irrational. There’s just many factors that make the idea of the separate sovereign state increasingly silly....

According to the movie Ex Machina, strong AI and the Singularity are just around the corner, but consciousness science suggests otherwise. photo by: Alex Garland Here’s the second installment of our Skeptiko at the Movies series. This time me and the guys from the Gimerica podcast (Darren Grimes, Graham Dunlop and Red Pill Junkie) to join me to talk about, Ex Machina, where a young programmer is selected to participate in a groundbreaking experiment in artificial intelligence by evaluating the human qualities of a breathtaking female A.I. The big question is whether we know enough about consciousness (or maybe too much) to realistically evaluate this possibility. This was a fun one to discuss. There’s no transcript/excerpts for this show, just fun banter for those of us interested in a deeper look at some interesting movies. Click here for forum discussion Click here for Grimerica podcast

According to the movie Ex Machina, strong AI and the Singularity are just around the corner, but consciousness science suggests otherwise. photo by: Alex Garland Here’s the second installment of our Skeptiko at the Movies series. This time me and the guys from the Gimerica podcast (Darren Grimes, Graham Dunlop and Red Pill Junkie) to join me to talk about, Ex Machina, where a young programmer is selected to participate in a groundbreaking experiment in artificial intelligence by evaluating the human qualities of a breathtaking female A.I. The big question is whether we know enough about consciousness (or maybe too much) to realistically evaluate this possibility. This was a fun one to discuss. There’s no transcript/excerpts for this show, just fun banter for those of us interested in a deeper look at some interesting movies. Click here for forum discussion Click here for Grimerica podcast

Both parapsychology researchers and Skeptics are misrepresented in this hack job of a movie, but that’s what makes it fun to talk about. photo by: Rodrigo Cortez I love going to the movies, but so much of the stuff I want to talk about afterwards is left unsaid. I mean, there’s only so much about the parallels between the parapsychology research report portrayed in Red Lights and the one published by Stanford Research Institute that my family and friends will listen to. So, I invited my buds from the oh so excellent Gimerica podcast (Darren Grimes, Graham Dunlop and Red Pill Junkie) to join me for a new segment I’m calling Skpetiko at the movies. First up, Red Lights, where professional skeptics (Cillian Murphy, Sigourney Weaver) try to prove that a famous psychic (Robert De Niro) is lying about his ability. BTW, this 2012 stinker is available for free streaming Netflix. There’s no transcript/excerpts for this show, just fun banter for those of us interested in a deeper look at some interesting movies.   Click here for forum discussion Click here for Grimerica podcast    

Both parapsychology researchers and Skeptics are misrepresented in this hack job of a movie, but that’s what makes it fun to talk about. photo by: Rodrigo Cortez I love going to the movies, but so much of the stuff I want to talk about afterwards is left unsaid. I mean, there’s only so much about the parallels between the parapsychology research report portrayed in Red Lights and the one published by Stanford Research Institute that my family and friends will listen to. So, I invited my buds from the oh so excellent Gimerica podcast (Darren Grimes, Graham Dunlop and Red Pill Junkie) to join me for a new segment I’m calling Skpetiko at the movies. First up, Red Lights, where professional skeptics (Cillian Murphy, Sigourney Weaver) try to prove that a famous psychic (Robert De Niro) is lying about his ability. BTW, this 2012 stinker is available for free streaming Netflix. There’s no transcript/excerpts for this show, just fun banter for those of us interested in a deeper look at some interesting movies.   Click here for forum discussion Click here for Grimerica podcast    

Theologian and Philosopher Dr. David Bentley Hart has little patience for sloppy thinking atheists. Looks to consciousness and spirituality. photo by: André Batista The wooden pews in the Greek Orthodox church I grew up in were hard and uncomfortable. I think it was by design. The spiritual path of my ancestors was one of sacrifice, suffering, and of course, fear. The pews fit the path, but the path didn’t fit me. Fear kept me there for a while, but even that wore off over time. As the years passed my forced indoctrination transformed into a genuine curiosity about human consciousness, science and soul. But all along I always wondered what had kept everyone in those pews. How did they find Gnosis/truth/bliss/God through the ridiculous ritual and ceremony that dominates Orthodox Christianity? Today’s guest, author, philosopher and theologian, Dr. David Bentley Hart may have found a way through. From his scathing and intellectually rigorous dismantling of the physcialism/materialism that mesmerizes secular culture, to his thorough understanding of Eastern and Western religious traditions, Hart’s deep thinking is almost enough to get me back in those pews… well, almost: David Bentley Hart: If you examine the act of consciousness in which you are engaged when you’re choosing a tie, you already find dynamisms that exceed the possibilities of the naturalist picture of reality. ———————– Alex Tsakiris: We spend a lot of time on this show looking at the science of near-death experiences and other science of extended consciousness. I think it both falsifies this materialism that we’re talking about, and gets us to the entry point of being able to really seriously consider [what lies beyond our physical body]. Do you delve into this science? David Bentley Hart: It depends on what you mean by the science. Alex Tsakiris: For example, the science of near-death experience. David Bentley Hart: No. In fact it may disappoint you but I go out of my way to avoid that because it was never an issue with me since I don’t believe in the mechanistic picture of the soul. So near-death experiences are not surprising to me although, the accounts you read can be disappointing at times. I’ve hand encounters with Bruce Greyson and I was at the University of Virginia. So I did my doctorate and I taught there for a while. And I corresponded with him briefly. But again, what fascinates me is not the way in which extraordinary experiences which may be contentious and contended… you’re not going to be able to hammer that home with great success to a convinced materialist no matter how much evidence you think you’ve amassed. He’s going to dismiss a great deal of it as anecdotal or [because of] the limits of our ability to measure deep electrical processes in the cerebral cortex. All the while that’s going on he’s going to be missing such fundamental issues that would be available to him or her–[such as] Patricia Churchland. I mustn’t leave her out of this. Just from an ordinary phenomenology of consciousness in every moment of life however ordinary the acts of consciousness seem … that remains fascinating. If you can get someone to see there’s a fundamental irreducibility of the stru...

Theologian and Philosopher Dr. David Bentley Hart has little patience for sloppy thinking atheists. Looks to consciousness and spirituality. photo by: André Batista The wooden pews in the Greek Orthodox church I grew up in were hard and uncomfortable. I think it was by design. The spiritual path of my ancestors was one of sacrifice, suffering, and of course, fear. The pews fit the path, but the path didn’t fit me. Fear kept me there for a while, but even that wore off over time. As the years passed my forced indoctrination transformed into a genuine curiosity about human consciousness, science and soul. But all along I always wondered what had kept everyone in those pews. How did they find Gnosis/truth/bliss/God through the ridiculous ritual and ceremony that dominates Orthodox Christianity? Today’s guest, author, philosopher and theologian, Dr. David Bentley Hart may have found a way through. From his scathing and intellectually rigorous dismantling of the physcialism/materialism that mesmerizes secular culture, to his thorough understanding of Eastern and Western religious traditions, Hart’s deep thinking is almost enough to get me back in those pews… well, almost: David Bentley Hart: If you examine the act of consciousness in which you are engaged when you’re choosing a tie, you already find dynamisms that exceed the possibilities of the naturalist picture of reality. ———————– Alex Tsakiris: We spend a lot of time on this show looking at the science of near-death experiences and other science of extended consciousness. I think it both falsifies this materialism that we’re talking about, and gets us to the entry point of being able to really seriously consider [what lies beyond our physical body]. Do you delve into this science? David Bentley Hart: It depends on what you mean by the science. Alex Tsakiris: For example, the science of near-death experience. David Bentley Hart: No. In fact it may disappoint you but I go out of my way to avoid that because it was never an issue with me since I don’t believe in the mechanistic picture of the soul. So near-death experiences are not surprising to me although, the accounts you read can be disappointing at times. I’ve hand encounters with Bruce Greyson and I was at the University of Virginia. So I did my doctorate and I taught there for a while. And I corresponded with him briefly. But again, what fascinates me is not the way in which extraordinary experiences which may be contentious and contended… you’re not going to be able to hammer that home with great success to a convinced materialist no matter how much evidence you think you’ve amassed. He’s going to dismiss a great deal of it as anecdotal or [because of] the limits of our ability to measure deep electrical processes in the cerebral cortex. All the while that’s going on he’s going to be missing such fundamental issues that would be available to him or her–[such as] Patricia Churchland. I mustn’t leave her out of this. Just from an ordinary phenomenology of consciousness in every moment of life however ordinary the acts of consciousness seem … that remains fascinating. If you can get someone to see there’s a fundamental irreducibility of the structure of co...

Jurgen Ziewe used lucid dreaming to travel outside of his body and explore other realms of consciousness. photo by: Jurgen Ziewe I always thought lucid dreaming was baloney, until I had one myself. For several years my oldest son had told me about the wild escapades he orchestrated in his dreams. But Zack’s stories sounded like childhood fantasy, and I didn’t pay much attention.  Then, I discovered  lucid dreaming had become a hot topic among dream researchers and those attending weekend retreats “teaching” lucid dreaming.  I decided to try it for myself. As it turns out the most effective trigger for having a lucid dream is becoming aware it’s possible. Learning others have them is sometimes all it takes to propel us into these other realms of consciousness. It was almost that easy for me. Soon after researching lucid dreaming I found myself in an ordinary dream with the realization that “I” was somehow separate from the scene being played out in front of me. It seemed like natural and normal realization, “hey, this is a dream.” Once the idea sunk in I decided to take control. I did what most rookie lucid dreamer do — I jumped into the air and took flight! It seems unlikely this simple experience that almost anyone can achieve during a weekend course at their local Marriott can turn science’s understanding of who we are on its head, but it can. Because as today’s guest on Skeptiko explains, lucid dreaming gives us the undeniable experience of being the observer of reality; and that’s a vantage point our current understanding of consciousness can’t accommodate: Alex Tsakiris: Even though I’ve interviewed several very respectable people who have had similar out-of-body experiences… I always feel obligated to come back and remind us that most of the world is living in a reality that doesn’t allow for this. How do you balance that on a day-to-day basis? How did you deal with it for that long period of time when you really weren’t telling anyone that this was what was going on? Jurgen Ziewe: I think the first thing of course is we are totally focused on the physical reality, nearly everybody is. And when it comes to our dreams we hardly pay any attention. We just dismiss them as dreams. But the moment you become aware in your dreams, which is what usually happens during lucid dreams, things start changing dramatically. When you have an out-of-body experience, and very often [this] happens from a lucid dream… then you suddenly are in a position to take control of the experience. And that’s what I did–I disintegrated or interrupted the dream narrative, which is a lucid dream–which usually takes its content from the subconscious. And by doing so, after you dismantle the dream narrative, you then find yourself in a new consensus reality, which is just as real as our physical reality. And this is where things become really interesting. Click here for forum discussion Click here for Jurgen’s Website Read Excerpts: Alex Tsakiris: We don’t know about that extended realm. We hear about people who go and they meet these beings, and the being says, here’s my hand where I was crucified on the cross and I am Jesus… We don’t know what to make of that. And it really raises the larger question about your work: what can we really take out of these exten...

Jurgen Ziewe used lucid dreaming to travel outside of his body and explore other realms of consciousness. photo by: Jurgen Ziewe I always thought lucid dreaming was baloney, until I had one myself. For several years my oldest son had told me about the wild escapades he orchestrated in his dreams. But Zack’s stories sounded like childhood fantasy, and I didn’t pay much attention.  Then, I discovered  lucid dreaming had become a hot topic among dream researchers and those attending weekend retreats “teaching” lucid dreaming.  I decided to try it for myself. As it turns out the most effective trigger for having a lucid dream is becoming aware it’s possible. Learning others have them is sometimes all it takes to propel us into these other realms of consciousness. It was almost that easy for me. Soon after researching lucid dreaming I found myself in an ordinary dream with the realization that “I” was somehow separate from the scene being played out in front of me. It seemed like natural and normal realization, “hey, this is a dream.” Once the idea sunk in I decided to take control. I did what most rookie lucid dreamer do — I jumped into the air and took flight! It seems unlikely this simple experience that almost anyone can achieve during a weekend course at their local Marriott can turn science’s understanding of who we are on its head, but it can. Because as today’s guest on Skeptiko explains, lucid dreaming gives us the undeniable experience of being the observer of reality; and that’s a vantage point our current understanding of consciousness can’t accommodate: Alex Tsakiris: Even though I’ve interviewed several very respectable people who have had similar out-of-body experiences… I always feel obligated to come back and remind us that most of the world is living in a reality that doesn’t allow for this. How do you balance that on a day-to-day basis? How did you deal with it for that long period of time when you really weren’t telling anyone that this was what was going on? Jurgen Ziewe: I think the first thing of course is we are totally focused on the physical reality, nearly everybody is. And when it comes to our dreams we hardly pay any attention. We just dismiss them as dreams. But the moment you become aware in your dreams, which is what usually happens during lucid dreams, things start changing dramatically. When you have an out-of-body experience, and very often [this] happens from a lucid dream… then you suddenly are in a position to take control of the experience. And that’s what I did–I disintegrated or interrupted the dream narrative, which is a lucid dream–which usually takes its content from the subconscious. And by doing so, after you dismantle the dream narrative, you then find yourself in a new consensus reality, which is just as real as our physical reality. And this is where things become really interesting. Click here for forum discussion Click here for Jurgen’s Website Read Excerpts: Alex Tsakiris: We don’t know about that extended realm. We hear about people who go and they meet these beings, and the being says, here’s my hand where I was crucified on the cross and I am Jesus… We don’t know what to make of that. And it really raises the larger question about your work: what can we really take out of these exten...

Remote Viewer Dr. Paul Smith has concerns about the direction of parapsychology research. Also doubts 9/11 remote viewing. photo by: David Webb A few years ago, when the kids were younger, they loved playing hide-and-seek in our backyard. Our version of the game was played at night. The finder was granted the use of a flashlight, but had to cover a large area with many good hiding spots. My kids were good at hiding and I wasn’t very effective at finding them — except once!  The game had started as usual, but for some reason (probably related to a Skeptiko interview I had done) I thought about psychicly remote viewing their location. As soon as the thought crossed my mind an image of my oldest son and daughter crouched underneath a wooden play flashed in my mind. Even though I had never had such an experience before, I felt quite sure about what I had seen and immediately ran there. I turned on the flashlight and there they were — exactly as I had seen them. While my brush with remote viewing wouldn’t impress serious parapsychology researchers, or professional remote viewers like today’s guest Dr. Paul Smith, it defiantly left me with the sense that I had experienced something beyond what traditional science can explain. Today’s guest on Skeptiko explores how science is approaching strange phenomena like remote viewing and whether a tradition/reductionist scientific approach is likely to yield results: Dr. Paul Smith: I call it the “Stockholm Syndrome” of the parapsychology community. Stockholm Syndrome is where people who are taken hostage start to identify with the hostage takers and start to sympathize with them. I kind of see–at least some members of the parapsychology community–longing so much to be one with the physicalists that they are attempting to come up with an explanation–a physical explanation–that captures the phenomenon that they’re researching. I agree with you. I don’t think the physical model will ever explain it. That’s a conclusion I come to in my dissertation is essentially, the odds are … in science and in parapsychology for that matter, you can only go on odds. In fact human knowledge itself is based on probabilities. So the odds are that there is no real physical explanation for parapsychology and parapsychology effects because they aren’t physical. Alex Tsakiris: I don’t think there’s enough of a discussion about that because the other thing that you’re really drawing out there is we have to be real about the pull for that. These are human beings, number one, and they’re professionals and they’re seeking to have some kind of career to put bread on the table. But there’s also the peer pressure to fit in the existing paradigm. Until we’re really honest and say this is social enterprise as well, and of course there can’t be a purity, then we can have more compassion and say, okay, now I understand how this could happen the way that Dr. Smith is saying…that this Stockholm Syndrome could take effect to these very intelligent scientists. Because otherwise people look at it and say, oh that couldn’t possibly be true. Dr. Paul Smith: It really is a sociological game. Science always has been. If you look at how much the majority rules when theories are wrong,

Remote Viewer Dr. Paul Smith has concerns about the direction of parapsychology research. Also doubts 9/11 remote viewing. photo by: David Webb A few years ago, when the kids were younger, they loved playing hide-and-seek in our backyard. Our version of the game was played at night. The finder was granted the use of a flashlight, but had to cover a large area with many good hiding spots. My kids were good at hiding and I wasn’t very effective at finding them — except once!  The game had started as usual, but for some reason (probably related to a Skeptiko interview I had done) I thought about psychicly remote viewing their location. As soon as the thought crossed my mind an image of my oldest son and daughter crouched underneath a wooden play flashed in my mind. Even though I had never had such an experience before, I felt quite sure about what I had seen and immediately ran there. I turned on the flashlight and there they were — exactly as I had seen them. While my brush with remote viewing wouldn’t impress serious parapsychology researchers, or professional remote viewers like today’s guest Dr. Paul Smith, it defiantly left me with the sense that I had experienced something beyond what traditional science can explain. Today’s guest on Skeptiko explores how science is approaching strange phenomena like remote viewing and whether a tradition/reductionist scientific approach is likely to yield results: Dr. Paul Smith: I call it the “Stockholm Syndrome” of the parapsychology community. Stockholm Syndrome is where people who are taken hostage start to identify with the hostage takers and start to sympathize with them. I kind of see–at least some members of the parapsychology community–longing so much to be one with the physicalists that they are attempting to come up with an explanation–a physical explanation–that captures the phenomenon that they’re researching. I agree with you. I don’t think the physical model will ever explain it. That’s a conclusion I come to in my dissertation is essentially, the odds are … in science and in parapsychology for that matter, you can only go on odds. In fact human knowledge itself is based on probabilities. So the odds are that there is no real physical explanation for parapsychology and parapsychology effects because they aren’t physical. Alex Tsakiris: I don’t think there’s enough of a discussion about that because the other thing that you’re really drawing out there is we have to be real about the pull for that. These are human beings, number one, and they’re professionals and they’re seeking to have some kind of career to put bread on the table. But there’s also the peer pressure to fit in the existing paradigm. Until we’re really honest and say this is social enterprise as well, and of course there can’t be a purity, then we can have more compassion and say, okay, now I understand how this could happen the way that Dr. Smith is saying…that this Stockholm Syndrome could take effect to these very intelligent scientists. Because otherwise people look at it and say, oh that couldn’t possibly be true. Dr. Paul Smith: It really is a sociological game. Science always has been. If you look at how much the majority rules when theories are wrong,

Investigative journalist Luke Rudkowski shows us how to talk to power and challenge the status quo. photo by: Luke Rudkowski I don’t like Las Vegas very much.  Too many grueling COMDEX computer trade shows burned into my memory I suppose. But a few years ago, my wife and I were on our way to the mountains to celebrate our wedding anniversary when we passed a sign outside of Barstow, California telling us Las Vegas was about the same distance away as the Mammoth mountains we were heading toward. I looked at my wife, she looked at me, and soon were heading into the desert. On the way, I started calling for reservations. “Sure,” I was told, plenty of rooms at the Bellagio. In fact, how about a complementary room upgrade and dinner reservation at their exclusive, new restaurant. It was all “no problem,” I was told. They seemed very eager to have us. Then again, it was Friday, September 14, 2001. Three days after those planes flew into those buildings in New York. No one was going to Vegas for the weekend. In retrospect, our care-free weekend at a time when so many were suffering sounds callous, and insensitive. But the truth is, I didn’t feel very connected to the events of 9/11. In fact, I didn’t feel very connected to world events, local events, or much of anything other than what was going on in my little personal bubble. I had constructed a worldview that made me feel okay, and part of it involved accepting this “scientific” idea that I was separate from the people and events around me. My Skeptiko interviews with some of the world’s leading consciousness researchers and thinkers gradually changed my opinion about how interconnected we really are; and over the years my interest in investigating the craziness of science-as-we-know-it and the absurdity of big picture science led me to re-examine other beliefs. I took a fresh look at what the mainstream media had told me about geo-politics and compared it what I was learning about the “deep state.” The lies, cover-ups and disinformation I discovered went way beyond what I ever imagined. And while the learning process was painful, it also came with an unexpected silver lining — the discovery of  a brave, highly-creative group of do-it-yourself investigative journalists who had found a way to talk to power like no one before. Today on Skeptiko we’re going to find out why this act of talking to power and challenging authority is not only the answer to moving toward a better and more just political system, but also the ONLY way to unmask the nitwits who’ve crippled science-as-we-know-it with a ridiculous soul crushing materialism we talk so much about on this show: Alex Tsakiris: In one of your videos you talk about the despair people face when they do challenge their beliefs; when they do open their eyes and challenge their core beliefs.  They think the world works [a certain way] and suddenly, they look at some of your videos, they dig into them and they go, oh my god, maybe the world isn’t what I thought it was. And I thought you did a great job of talking about that, but I don’t think it’s an issue that the alternative media, the ‘truth movement’ media, talks about enough and that is–it’s hard to change these beliefs, it’s hard to face some of the information that’s out there isn’t it? Luke Rudkowski: It definitely is. It’s a huge obstacle. It’s a huge step that you have to go through personally and it’s a very personal journey. So it’s very hard to not only describe and divulge but also help other people get there because they need to get there themselves independently. I look at it like we have a choice in this life. We can either live life like a robot and just do th...

Investigative journalist Luke Rudkowski shows us how to talk to power and challenge the status quo. photo by: Luke Rudkowski I don’t like Las Vegas very much.  Too many grueling COMDEX computer trade shows burned into my memory I suppose. But a few years ago, my wife and I were on our way to the mountains to celebrate our wedding anniversary when we passed a sign outside of Barstow, California telling us Las Vegas was about the same distance away as the Mammoth mountains we were heading toward. I looked at my wife, she looked at me, and soon were heading into the desert. On the way, I started calling for reservations. “Sure,” I was told, plenty of rooms at the Bellagio. In fact, how about a complementary room upgrade and dinner reservation at their exclusive, new restaurant. It was all “no problem,” I was told. They seemed very eager to have us. Then again, it was Friday, September 14, 2001. Three days after those planes flew into those buildings in New York. No one was going to Vegas for the weekend. In retrospect, our care-free weekend at a time when so many were suffering sounds callous, and insensitive. But the truth is, I didn’t feel very connected to the events of 9/11. In fact, I didn’t feel very connected to world events, local events, or much of anything other than what was going on in my little personal bubble. I had constructed a worldview that made me feel okay, and part of it involved accepting this “scientific” idea that I was separate from the people and events around me. My Skeptiko interviews with some of the world’s leading consciousness researchers and thinkers gradually changed my opinion about how interconnected we really are; and over the years my interest in investigating the craziness of science-as-we-know-it and the absurdity of big picture science led me to re-examine other beliefs. I took a fresh look at what the mainstream media had told me about geo-politics and compared it what I was learning about the “deep state.” The lies, cover-ups and disinformation I discovered went way beyond what I ever imagined. And while the learning process was painful, it also came with an unexpected silver lining — the discovery of  a brave, highly-creative group of do-it-yourself investigative journalists who had found a way to talk to power like no one before. Today on Skeptiko we’re going to find out why this act of talking to power and challenging authority is not only the answer to moving toward a better and more just political system, but also the ONLY way to unmask the nitwits who’ve crippled science-as-we-know-it with a ridiculous soul crushing materialism we talk so much about on this show: Alex Tsakiris: In one of your videos you talk about the despair people face when they do challenge their beliefs; when they do open their eyes and challenge their core beliefs.  They think the world works [a certain way] and suddenly, they look at some of your videos, they dig into them and they go, oh my god, maybe the world isn’t what I thought it was. And I thought you did a great job of talking about that, but I don’t think it’s an issue that the alternative media, the ‘truth movement’ media, talks about enough and that is–it’s hard to change these beliefs, it’s hard to face some of the information that’s out there isn’t it? Luke Rudkowski: It definitely is. It’s a huge obstacle. It’s a huge step that you have to go through personally and it’s a very personal journey. So it’s very hard to not only describe and divulge but also help other people get there because they need to get there themselves independently. I look at it like we have a choice in this life. We can either live life like a robot and just do th...