9 thoughts on “Head to Head with Tom Hart”

  1. Believing all people to be evil is a belief system, it can’t be proven empirically. Also, how can the state mitigate evil in individuals if its institutions are made up of bureaucrats = employees = individuals?

    Rudimentary reading of history provides ample proof of an elite conspiracy. Plans made and implemented by influential people belonging to organisations, beyond reproach and participation to outsiders. Most conspiracies are not hidden, but very much in the open. One need not dig particularly deep. The information is available in the school curriculums, basic history textbooks. Digging deeper only provides further proof with added insight into the nuances of the overt and visible goals and methods. There are plenty of past and current secret conspiracies, all documented.

    Looking forward to the podcast.

    • I wonder if Mr. Hart will respond to this. I have wondered also how he is able to not-see what you & I see so clearly, and if his difference of perspective is a matter of philosophical principle, of awareness of a whole evidence-set you & I have not come upon, or simply of ignorance, as is generally the case with “conspiracy-deniers” and “coincidence-theorists”.

    • Alchemy demonstrates that assuming man is evil is necessary to achieve the good. You can turn bad into good but good can only turn into bad. You can take man’s greed, self-interest, and selfishness and plug that into a market economy to create benefits for everyone. You can take man’s tendency towards violence and use that to create armies and police forces that, through deterrence, lead to greater peace.

      If you assume man is naturally good then he can only degrade. Even if man starts out as good, sooner or later he will be tempted into selfishness or violence. If you assume this is not so, degradation will be avoided and he will only improve. Hence the parents who assumes their children are naturally good will raise spoiled brats and the parents who assumes their children are naturally bad will raise disciplined and virtuous children.

      This is the paradoxical nature of alchemy.

      I do not believe in anything, nor do I set out to prove anything empirically. I am simply completely retarded.

      AS for conspiracies, there are conspiracies and there are patronage networks (the two overlap occasionally)—it’s just that there’s no one in charge overall.

      • do you distinguish believing something from believing IN something?

        clearly you believe things, in common with every other human being currently existing. If you sincerely believe you don’t then you are manifesting a peculiar delusion, for reasons mysterious to perhaps everyone.

        if you don’t believe IN alchemy, then whey are you referring to it as a valid set of principals? Why not start with “Scientology demonstrates” and argue something else? would there be a difference?

        what is the difference between assumption and belief?

  2. I always leave an option that someone, anyone, irrespective of their station or background, has an ‘awareness of a whole evidence-set’ that I don’t. However, after listening to the podcast I didn’t get that impression. Tom is undoubtedly an erudite individual. Nevertheless, while agreeing with some of his analysis (I recognise that interview/podcast is far from an ideal platform to present one’s ideas in their totality with all the accompanying finesse), I’ve learnt nothing new. While making excellent points there is plenty to disagree with.

    All in all, a very interesting podcast. I always find it amazing when someone educated and passionately dedicated to research and discovery arrives at such different conclusions to myself while accessing almost identical information. Many of them I count amongst my closest friends. An enigma for sure. It says more about us as individuals than about the information available.


Leave a Comment