Summary: "C" stands for consciousness 129: An Affirmation of Your Own Sanity Here are a couple of messages that I received concerning Michael Tsarion. The first comes from Neil Kramer of The Cleaver: KMO, For me, Michael Tsarion is, what we in England call, a diamond geezer. One of the good guys. The difficulty is, his work is so esoteric, so off the radar, that unless you have a grounding in the arcane and mystery-cult texts on Atlantis, Catastrophism, revisionist history, ET's, Secret Societies and the like, it is unduly hard to follow his thinking. Personally, I have done most of the homework and so have no issue with most of his theories. For him to constantly evidence and reference his theories during a brief radio interview would leave no time for the broader visions he is outlining. If people need to see the data, go read his scholarly and voluminous books. And the works of Comyns Beaumont, Conor MacDari, Graham Hancock, Zecharia Sitchin, Michael Cremo etc. Tsarion himself is perhaps somewhat of a modern day Ignatius Donnelly or Immanuel Velikovsky. The core of his work is solid. He is positively incapable of inauthentic behaviour, which is more than can be said for most alternative researchers. Personally, I like his energy and dogged no-compromise approach. If you were going into battle, Lord Of The Rings style, you'd want him at your side. With the dark forces loose in the world today, such considerations may not be altogether fantastical. I think it was a bold and creative choice on your part to include him on the guest roster. Conscious diversity is good. If his words open one more mind to the crucial importance of ancient history in today's current events - including the US elections - it's been worth it. Great work as ever, keep it coming. NK And from a happy C-Realm listener: KMO, Sorry to send this comment to you through direct email but unfortunately, I refuse to join another site where I have to get an account like livejournal, etc. I know this refusal to join anymore "gated" communities will limit my access to certain neighborhoods but I'm at peace with that. With that said, I'd like to say the following: I really, really like Michael Tsarion, always have and probably always will. I also realize that there are those who don't--kinda obvious don't you think. And honestly, I'm fine with that, each person should be able to decide what/who moves them and what/who doesn't. My concern is when these "dissenters" alter the way a guest is handled or portrayed. What I am trying to say is, I think you may have cut the session with Tsarion short last week to appease the naysayers and am afraid you might do the same this week. This would personally be very disappointing. I looked forward to the 3 weeks of Tsarion even if others can't take 5 minutes of him. I try to listen to the guest on yours and other shows with an open ear regardless of my personal opinions about them. Each speaker usually has a well thought out point and has backed up their efforts by authoring books (like Tsarion) and other venues for getting their ideas out (like podcasts and conferences, etc.) and though this doesn't make them someone to be in awe of or blindly followed they do deserve credit for their work, efforts and scholarship. At least they have the courage to put themselves out there for criticism. Instead of catering to people who don't like a certain guest, how about suggesting they write a few books, speak at several conferences, maybe make a good youtube video or DVD for sale and then you can have them on as a guest--better yet accept their displeasure with a guest selection but move on as you decided. The publishing/entertainment/education industries don't eat people up because they actually have a large creature that "eats" people, instead people slowly conform to the wishes of others till there original vision is lost. Maybe, I'm jumping the gun here a little, and if so, please accept my apologies.
