My Appearance on "Edge AM Television"

9/21/2014

In the trailer for a forthcoming documentary called Ancient Aliens and the New World Order from Sector 5 Films currently running on Yahoo! News, conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs asserts that extraterrestrials and the U.S. government “want you dead” and that the Smithsonian is conspiring to cover up the secret alien bloodline of the U.S. presidents. The documentary will assert that the aliens intend to create an “Orwellian” society based on fear, panic, and fascist-style military control.

The documentary, which is not affiliated with Prometheus Entertainment, the owner of the Ancient Aliens trademark, seems designed to capitalize on the popularity of the H2 series and use that to deliver Marrs’s patented right wing anti-government propaganda.

The trailer launched on YouTube in March but did not attract attention until it was featured on Yahoo! News yesterday. Yahoo! News is one of the most visited online news sources.

This was just one of the many topics I discussed last night on The Edge AM Television, a paranormal internet and radio program hosted by Daniel Ott. In lieu of a lengthy blog post today, I'll direct you to the 2-hour program, which is streaming this week on the Edge website and can also be downloaded as a podcast. I've placed an mp3 at the end of this article. It is also streaming on YouTube, and I have embedded that below as well. I was recovering from a cold, so my voice starts to get hoarse and falter a bit near the end. I appeared by phone, so there is not much to see. You won't miss anything downloading the podcast version.

The experience was an unusual one. I was invited on to talk about ancient astronauts and lost civilizations, but Ott preferred to discuss extreme right wing political views, particularly climate change denial, claims that the Constitution is a Biblical document, creationism, and extreme Islamophobia. During the interview, you will hear me call out Ott for his disgusting claim that "Muslims" drink rat blood and are sub-human vampires. He appeared to be referring to an online video of what is described as an ISIS member drinking the blood of a mouse. What this is meant to prove I can't imagine, and I had never heard of this apparently widespread right-wing anti-Islamic meme until these comments. I told Ott that it was wrong to conflate ISIS with Islam in general.

That said, I did the best I could during the show, but I was operating way outside my area of expertise and was not entirely comfortable discussing the intricacies of evolutionary biology or astronomy. Apparently in fringe world everyone is an expert on everything and happy to comment even on things they know nothing about. I'm sure I got some stuff wrong, but in my defense, I was sick, it was getting late after a long day, and I had no idea that Ott wanted to ambush me with right wing politics. I expected to be challenged, but on aliens and Atlantis, not the Constitution and cosmology.

jason_colavito_09.20.14.mp3
File Size:	24071 kb
File Type:	mp3

Download File

115 Comments

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 05:57:32 am

Haven't listened yet, but this does not surprise me.

As much as you and Tsoukalos have negative attitudes towards each other going back a ways, there is one thing I think you might be able to appreciate, that he's one of a dying breed of either relatively non-political, or fringey New Age types, associated with this part of occulture.

There are still a few others out there. But once ancient aliens (the meme, not specifically the show Ancient Aliens) got explicitly blended with Illuminati Nephilim/Anunaki International Bankers material out of the woo-ish appendix to the the John Birch playbook, the march to the likes of Marrs and A. Jones etc. was inevitable.

The comic-booky ancient astronauts of the 1970s are long gone. You're dealing with the neo-Nephilim, the progeny of the ancient astronauts coming down to post-Reagan Revolution earth and mating with the 1980s "Dark Side of Ufology" that was really the beginning of radical politics blending with nuts-and-bolts ufology (it had flirted with Contacteeism before).

There were troglodytes in those days ...

Jason Colavito link

9/21/2014 06:06:04 am

I can indeed appreciate the fact that Tsoukalos will gladly talk about aliens rather than crazy John Birch conspiracies and right wing politics. He sticks out, too, since he is (by his own admission) a liberal in a field dominated by ultra-conservative views.

I love the neo-Nephilim image!

Name

9/21/2014 11:53:33 am

Jason, you are starting to acquire a droll "talking head' status.

Its only TV but i'd worry if almost everything on any given program

strikes you as lucid and apt. (especially if you are NOT on PBS!)

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

9/21/2014 08:01:39 am

Although, as I have said before, some New Age types have picked up the right-wingers' conspiracy themes and reworked them to fit their worldview. I'm not sure this sort is a "dying breed", though they're definitely more marginal than their right-wing counterparts. Scott Wolter, with his search for matriarchal Christianity, may be an example, but other than that I don't think the New Agers get on TV. They also lack the sort of intersection with a major political current that the right-wing paranoids have, though J. Z. Knight was the subject of a political controversy in Washington state a couple years back; Google "jz knight campaign contributions". (You know it's a crazy election when Ramtha becomes a campaign issue.)

There are a good number of New Age conspiracists online, spouting about Illuminati and whatnot and citing The Law of One rather than the Bible. I sort of casually study this side of fringe-world. Anybody who has the interest or patience to examine this stuff can find it on the forums at Godlike Productions or AboveTopSecret. My favorites, just because they collect so much absurdity in one place, are a couple of one-person websites that are like compendia of fringe and conspiracy theory. Crystalinks is a collection of web pages on loosely New Age-related subjects that doesn't even pretend not to be copy-pasting a lot of its text. It shows up on Google searches a lot and may serve to recirculate fringe ideas around the web. The Myth Around Supriem David Rockefeller is more like an all-encompassing conspiracy theory, with less widespread influence in the fringe blogosphere, but more impressive to me for fusing so many grandiose theories (nearly all conspiracy culture's greatest hits) while fixating on an obscure Tennesseean who's probably a con man.

9/21/2014 08:11:52 am

Past a certain degree of madness, the difference between left-wing and right-wing fringe worldviews begins to break down.

It's to be expected when you're dealing with theories that are (sometimes deliberately) designed to attract people with mental problems.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 08:37:20 am

I would agree to some extent with EP, and a great deal with Not etc. etc. :)

Traditionally, as EP says, there has been a Moebius strip effect to the fringe. See the fragment of the antiwar "left" in America that became enamored of Ron Paul even though they would otherwise be appalled by his other politics and by his associates (which ultimately did him in with the Lew Rockwell newsletter fiasco).

But as Not the Comte says more explicitly and more completely than I was able to above, the radicalization of the American political/religious right has allowed the conspiracy "fringe" to come out of the cold. From an electoral politics side, this has slowed down a little. I'm impressed at how disciplined the GOP establishment candidates have been this year, largely avoiding the self-inflicted wounds of letting completely unapologetic assholes run for office (see Todd Akin). The cultural shift to the radical hasn't really changed, and in fact that's still getting worse (the Feds capitulating at the Bundy Ranch being a catalyst), so don't expect the pairing of the political with the fringe to go away yet.

Perhaps dying breed is a little too strong, but the New Age side seems to largely be older leftovers from the 1970s, unless you count Steven Greer. All of the energy, much of it being supercharged by the more conspiracy minded side of religion and politics (think Glenn Beck at his height, who notably started to get into Moundbuilder stuff before they yanked his show), is coming from the right.

9/21/2014 08:59:34 am

I think that the fringe swaying from left to right is to a large extent in reaction to the swaying of the mainstream or the "Establishment" in the opposite direction. (I agree that the ideological and material backers of the right-wing fringe are often mainstream themselves, but on the other hand they would not bother with the fringe had they the capacity to generate more respectable support.)

It's also helpful to remember that political spectrum isn't one-dimensional. It's a truism that many fiscal liberals are social conservatives, for instance, and vice versa. Closer to the fringe, the anti-bank strain of American anti-establishmentarianism has always been a chimerical knot of anti-government and anti-capitalist impulses. And many Black Power groups are more viciously homophobic than their white counterparts.

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

9/21/2014 09:26:51 am

"Past a certain degree of madness, the difference between left-wing and right-wing fringe worldviews begins to break down."

True to an extent, as Spookyparadigm says. In the controversy in Washington I mentioned, Democratic candidates rushed to give back campaign donations by J. Z. Knight's foundation after "Ramtha" went on an anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic rant. You'd expect that sort of sentiment to come from a Protestant fundie's mouth, but Knight/Ramtha gave it a strange, reincarnation-based twist.

In general, the New Age fringe is less political than the right-wing fringe. The main way I distinguish the two is by religious attitudes. When right-wing paranoia gets into supernatural territory, it usually has a Christian fundamentalist flavor, seeing demons and the apocalypse everywhere. New Agers, even when they predict catastrophe like the Supriem David Rockefeller e-book does, hope for global spiritual enlightenment or something like that. If they're Christian, they're looking for what they see as a better Christianity (matriarchal like Wolter's, or neo-Gnostic), not the fire-and-brimstone kind.

"Perhaps dying breed is a little too strong, but the New Age side seems to largely be older leftovers from the 1970s…"

You may well be right. The woman who runs Crystalinks is one of those. Because it's the internet, you often don't know who's writing what or how old they are, but some online New Agers are too young to be 1970s products. You're certainly right about the energy on the right as opposed to the left. Right-wingers have tyrants and potential Antichrists to oppose. New Age folks had a (non-political) surge in enthusiasm in the run-up to the enlightenment they expected in 2012, but I haven't seen much new from them since then.

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

9/21/2014 09:44:58 am

"It's also helpful to remember that political spectrum isn't one-dimensional."

Yes, and I considered saying that in my previous comment. All notions of a spectrum are gross simplifications, because, as EP says, people's views can be more "right" or "left" depending on what issue you're talking about. Aside from that, I've long thought that we should at least envision a spectrum with two axes: type of authority (with either end representing the cluster of psychological tendencies we label "right" and "left") and strength of authority (authoritarian versus libertarian). The extreme of left-authoritarian would be Communism, and its libertarian counterpart would be libertarian and anarchist socialism (which you almost never hear about in the US, but some people do advocate it). The Tea Party and its associated conspiracists are really right-libertarian, fueled by the "chimerical knot of anti-government and anti-capitalist impulses" EP mentions. I suspect that many New Agers have left-libertarian tendencies—thus they can adopt conspiracy-theory suspicion of authority figures in general, without the narrow identity politics that accompanies conspiracy theory in the right-wing realm. But because their political views are rarely more explicit than that, it's hard to tell.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 09:45:26 am

I don't disagree with any of that. But the dramatic and to some degree unprecedented-in-scale partisan politicization of religion in the 1970s, which also combined ethnic identity politics and populist politics seems to have changed the equation a bit.

Having a more economically and culturally populist wing of a party allied with a more urban, business-oriented, and socially liberal wing of a party has defined much of of American politics of the 20th century. The DNC and the GOP both had more moderate business oriented candidates (George H. W. Bush for example in his congressional days, even his son in some senses like immigration in contrast to both his party's base and those he surrounded himself with), and they both had more populist, less socially "liberal" wings (rural traditional populists on one side, urban and labor oriented on the other).

But all at the same time the bottom fell out of American heavy industry, desegregation led to white flight led to geographical segregation and middle class abandonment of cities, and radical literalist religion left its traditional rural home in the South and became attractive to those unwilling to accept substantial legal and cultural gains on the part of everyone who wasn't a straight white male.

This has created the bizarre situation of a political movement, an ethnic identity, and a religious community which is strong in numbers and influence, yet constantly feels under threat, feelings that a raft of demagogues and hustlers are all too willing to exploit (remember kids, buy gold and survival seeds for the coming globalist false flag economic collapse of 1999/2002/2005/2006/2008/2012/2014/2016, nevermind that I get a cut).

Which means that conspiracy theory and attacks on "the mainstream" are going to be inherently more suitable on that side of our modified political spectrum.

1970s style New Age woo was allowed due to the cultural ascendancy of social liberalism, but it was not integral to it, which is why it eventually disappeared. This is why even when the Democratic Party, dominated by business-oriented moderates despite propaganda about 'socialism' etc., has done decently either in Congress or with Presidents, the old fringe has largely been an embarrassment of old farts like Dennis Kucinich hanging out with Shirley McClaine, and not driving the base.

By contrast, an ethnic and religious persecution complex, which easily becomes conspiracy theory, is now standard get-out-the-vote tactics for the independent demagogues. So long as the big drivers of conservative votes in the US are the likes of Limbaugh, Drudge, and the smaller and slimier guys farther down the food chain, and not the actual GOP and its organs, the love affair with conspiracy theory isn't going to go anywhere.

And god help us if Rand Paul is a serious 2016 contender. His father's rabid followers have long been the primary vector for conspiracy theory into the political bloodstream.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 09:52:00 am

"In general, the New Age fringe is less political than the right-wing fringe. The main way I distinguish the two is by religious attitudes. When right-wing paranoia gets into supernatural territory, it usually has a Christian fundamentalist flavor, seeing demons and the apocalypse everywhere. New Agers, even when they predict catastrophe like the Supriem David Rockefeller e-book does, hope for global spiritual enlightenment or something like that. If they're Christian, they're looking for what they see as a better Christianity (matriarchal like Wolter's, or neo-Gnostic), not the fire-and-brimstone kind."

Again, a more effective version of what I am trying to say. They may well be "political" on narrow topics (antivax is found on the left and right fringes, but this is where it is found on the left), but do not see partisan politics as being part of their greater concerns.

This loops back to the comments I made on a different thread about how some European archaeologists don't understand why some in the US are so concerned about pseudoarchaeology. While there is radical nationalist and racist pseudoarchaeology there, it is so much more out of lockstep with the larger culture. Here, an aggressive, literalist, fear-driven supernatural culture is much more common, and informs our "alternatives." Like I said, if we were mostly dealing with crystals and karma and higher consciousness types, the tone and tactics of these issues would be very different, and I think those who care about science and history probably wouldn't be so alarmed.

9/21/2014 10:05:39 am

"the bizarre situation of a political movement, an ethnic identity, and a religious community which is strong in numbers and influence, yet constantly feels under threat, feelings that a raft of demagogues and hustlers are all too willing to exploit"

I'd say this has been a constant in American politics since the late 19th century. Periods of exception seem to coincide with great national crises (World Wars, early to midlle Cold War). Given how much the processes you mention should have exacerbated it (imagine desegregation in the 1920s!), I'd say the Moral Majority and the Tea Partiers are relatively imeffective. Religion has become more of an overt rallying call because of the liberalization of major organized groups (Catholics, Episcopalians, even that one our friend the Rev. Phil Gotsch belongs to), along with education (of all levels) becoming progressively more widespread.

Fringe ideas in general have gained unprecedented coherence and visibility thanks to the Internet. Before then, they propagated slower, via short-wave radio stations and mailing lists. The advent of the internet happened to coincide with there being a lot more people receptive to right-wing fringe ideas than to left-wing ones.

I realize a lot of what I'm saying may come across as overly optimistic. But much of the pessimism expressed by many progressives strikes me as historically myopic.

(Also, I'd be curious to hear why y'all are expressing reservations concerning my claim about the lunatic edge of the fringe.)

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

9/21/2014 10:09:19 am

No argument here. There's another reason for the right-wing white Christians' persecution complex: their cultural dominance is dying. Thanks to immigration and so forth, there won't be a white majority in the US by the middle of the century. Christianity is still overwhelmingly the majority religion in the US, but a lot of the people who show up as "Christian" on polls are going through the motions, or exaggerating their church attendance because of social pressure, while the number of people who adhere to no religion grows with every generation. The right-wing crowd may not keep track of the statistics, but they feel their influence slipping away. So obviously, many of them conclude, the apocalypse is nigh.

9/21/2014 10:15:53 am

Just to expand on the "unprecedented coherence" part... It's a well-known phenomenon that the Internet has enabled all kinds of marginal groups to coalesce and expand, since it has given people unprecedented networking opportunities. This isn't a political thing - it explains "furries", "bronies", "incels", and countless schisms *within* these already ultra-specialized groups. (Some have suggested that, for the first time in history, people are able to "pick" their identity, instead of dealing with whatever their family-church-community settles them with. In any case, it allowed all kinds of marginal elements to self-define in a way that was impossible before.)

Criteria one must satisfy in order to belong to a given group have become more precise and evolve much more rapidly (though as always along the path of least social, cultural, and cognitive resistance). Simultaneously, because it's more of a "seller's market" due to the ease of accessing potential adherents/converts, there is less need to compromise, which encourages radicalization.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 10:18:07 am

I'm not concerned about the internet per se, because I don't think it can be blamed.

There have always been radical fringers, yes. But in the same political movements and parties, with rare exceptions there have usually been brakes on them, forces that kept them on the fringe.

Do you think that accurately describes the post-Southern Strategy, post-Falwell etc. GOP? I'll admit as I did above, there is _slightly_ more brake this year than in 2012.

But when there are two parties that make uncomfortable compromises, that have moderate and radical wings (vs. just one wing dragging the rest ever further from the center), that don't nearly lockstep take up and typically celebrate anti-science as a basic principle of membership, then I'll concede your more optimistic stance.

Heck, I'll even concede a more balanced view of it if we get Democrats talking in public speeches and the like about chakras and bodhisatvas and such the same way Louis Gohmert amongst others rants about demons. And that's leaving the low-hanging fruit of Birtherism, which polls at one point put at 57% of GOP voters, alone.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 10:22:31 am

"Just to expand on the "unprecedented coherence" part... It's a well-known phenomenon that the Internet has enabled all kinds of marginal groups to coalesce and expand,"

Where is the politically weaponized "liberal" equivalent to the radical right? There isn't one. Sure, there are people on the fringes, but They Are On The Fringes. They're not the base. They don't drive the conversation in the DNC, they aren't even in the conversation.

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

9/21/2014 10:26:30 am

"But much of the pessimism expressed by many progressives strikes me as historically myopic."

I don't fear the Tea Party. It's demographically doomed. I worry about the US's deeper systemic issues, which I don't want to go into because this thread is already too long.

"Also, I'd be curious to hear why y'all are expressing reservations concerning my claim about the lunatic edge of the fringe."

Not sure what you're referring to. If you mean your remark that the left-wing and right-wing fringe worlds aren't clearly separated, you have a point, which we both acknowledged. As I said, the only way I can tell them apart sometimes is by their religious views. People who cling to a paranoid version of traditionalist Christianity are pretty surely "right-wing", whereas New Age spiritual eclecticism seems fairly apolitical, sometimes with leftish tendencies.

9/21/2014 10:27:08 am

My optimism is admittedly long-term. I assure you that I do not for a moment wish to suggest that it's okay to ignore Tea Partiers and fundie nutjobs and wait for them to go away.

As far as the politicians are concerned, I can't help but wish to say that you should watch what they do more than what they say (except that sounds kinda condescending because it's so obvious).

"I'm not concerned about the internet per se, because I don't think it can be blamed."

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But if you're denying that it's a game-changer for the dynamics of human culture (comparable in scope to the printing press), then I strongly disagree.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 10:45:18 am

I am not going to return additional comments this afternoon/evening as I have work to do, but regarding the internet:

It has a number of impacts, of course. But I believe that it at this stage, in affluent countries with generally open media (infrastructure poor regions, or regions with much more restrictive laws about media are a different story), other larger structural factors are more important. The rise of neoliberal economic policies (and the technologies that make them more possible, many predating the internet) and the subsequent decline of unskilled industrial labor in formerly industrialized nations, and at the same time wealth has been concentrated to gilded age levels and beyond, likely has more to do with the normalization of conspiracy theory than the ability of wooists to find each other online, IMO. But then, I've always been a something of a materialist.

The Other J.

9/24/2014 07:34:00 am

This looks like a good comment thread to get lost in:

"But all at the same time the bottom fell out of American heavy industry, desegregation led to white flight led to geographical segregation and middle class abandonment of cities, and radical literalist religion left its traditional rural home in the South and became attractive to those unwilling to accept substantial legal and cultural gains on the part of everyone who wasn't a straight white male."

There's another aspect to that desegregation and white flight that should be recognized -- local and state governmental help facilitating that flight, especially in the rust belt states. By the early 1980's, on the heels of the Reagan Revolution and the rise of the Republican party, many state and local governments in former Democratic strongholds like Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. started to monkey with zoning to facilitate white flight out to the suburbs. Generally only people with the right ethnic backgrounds and bank accounts could make it out to these burgeoning areas, and the shift in the tax base meant a decline inside the cities due to dwindling funds.

That decline in turn meant conservatives could point to failing inner cities and talk about how scary they were, which helped to guarantee more flight from the urban areas, as business started to populate strip malls instead of boulevards and their tributaries. That, in turn, helped facilitate a climate where conspiracy theories and unwarranted fears about the Big Other could thrive.

It makes me wonder had we been more careful with urban planning and zoning, if we would see such a strong alternative history and fringe theory movement today. It's generally more difficult for people to be suckered in by fears of the Big Other when they lived around and work with people who don't look or worship like them on a daily basis, and they're not only NOT threatened by those people, but they're friends with them.

9/21/2014 06:08:20 am

Jason, I'm surprised you went on Edge AM in the first place.

Jason Colavito link

9/21/2014 06:31:08 am

They have more than 3.5 million monthly listeners. I don't get many chances to reach that many people at once.

9/21/2014 12:03:11 pm

luv... its a start. i just looked at Ken Burns's neat
and recent documentary. methinks you are soon to
find a much bigger "bully pulpit" as TR would say.
all i can say is good luck! its an uncharted ocean
of the human Id, and if you have the wit to counter a
true demagogue, do so. keep in mind most folks
are boring but can get damned bored rather fast.

Only Me

9/21/2014 06:48:56 am

I caught the second half of the show last night, and I really don't know what to make of it.

When Mr. Ott started asking questions, as I was listening to you answer, I was quite distracted by the background image of his face Photoshopped onto what was clearly meant to be a Knight Templar. That whole exchange about vampiric Muslims wasn't exactly shocking (given his choice of background imagery), but I salute you in calling him out. He obviously wasn't expecting that.

By the end, I had grown frustrated with his attempts to conflate "theory" with "belief" in a childish effort to play "Gotcha!". I understand why you went on the show...I just don't know what to make of the show or Mr. Ott.

Jason Colavito link

9/21/2014 07:15:49 am

To be entirely honest, I didn't know much about the show or its host at all. The production assistant--the only person I spoke with ahead of time--emphasize how the show was professional and how we would focus on my books and on the ancient astronaut hypothesis. Classic bait and switch.

I knew Ott is a fringe believer--it's the whole purpose of his show--but I underestimated his desire to push an agenda. If we talk only those we agree with, conversation will never occur. But at the same time, I had visions of Scott Wolter accepting an award from the racist Frank from Queens, and I knew that I couldn't very well pretend as though I endorsed Ott's views, however politely I tried to rebuff them for the first hour. By the 9:30 half hour, I was getting fed up with his off-topic ranting and confusing gotcha games, and it started to show.

9/21/2014 07:21:17 am

I'm dreading listening to it. Must have been a painful experience for you.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 08:39:53 am

I'm going to try listening to it, we'll see if I make it through.

I've never heard of this show before. Knights Templar and blood libel against Muslims? Did they ever have Brevik on as a guest?

9/21/2014 09:00:13 am

spookyparadigm, I direct your attention to my comment just below :)

9/21/2014 01:57:54 pm

i listened. went to Mr. Ott's website. i feel i know how
he defines the word "cowboy" and i can see how he
became an Art Bell fan. my respect for H.L Mencken
doubled by the time i got to Existentialism & the Big
Bang theory Stephen Hawking brilliantly formulated.
Jason very definitely is not his typical & ordinary guest.
Mr. Ott pitched himself as "the Cosmic Cowboy host
of The Edge News Television Broadcast" quite literally.

Shane Sullivan

9/21/2014 11:43:24 am

>>>By the end, I had grown frustrated with his attempts to conflate "theory" with "belief" in a childish effort to play "Gotcha!".

Here's a more coherent version of what Daniel Ott was trying to say:
http://vimeo.com/69970735

Only Me

9/21/2014 02:35:07 pm

Thank you!

Unfortunately for Mr. Ott, he is arguing for equivalency. Unlike a belief, anyone (even if they require assistance from experts) can put a theory to the test...and their results should be roughly the same as the original results that elevated a hypothesis to a theory. The argument can, and has, been made that not all beliefs are equal. In this day and age, is anyone of sound mind actually going to shrug nonchalantly at the practice of child sacrifice...because all beliefs are equally valid?

That's what really frustrated me about Ott's semantics game. Fringe believers, like Christian fundamentalists, want to question science...unless they feel it can lend support to their specific beliefs.

9/21/2014 03:30:51 pm

"In this day and age, is anyone of sound mind actually going to shrug nonchalantly at the practice of child sacrifice...because all beliefs are equally valid?"

No, but some of spookyparadigm's and my colleagues would be hard-pressed to explain why they couldn't. (There are some actual cases where similar issues come up - look up Yanomami.)

9/21/2014 06:51:37 am

"his face Photoshopped onto what was clearly meant to be a Knight Templar... vampiric Muslims..."

Anders Breivik, anyone?

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 08:40:33 am

Whoops. You beat me to it, and spelled his name right.

9/21/2014 09:01:21 am

If it's any consolation, I made a smartass comment about it without scrolling down myself :)

Shane Sullivan

9/21/2014 07:41:32 am

I tuned in close to the end of the first hour. You know, there *are* glass pyramids all over the world...I distinctly remember driving past one in the desert out east. Let me see if I can find a picture...

Oh, here's one:

http://tinyurl.com/kw49ngz

There's no way it was built with just ropes.

Only Me

9/21/2014 07:59:15 am

Well, no, they had pulleys, too.

But no rocks. Something about glass houses and all that :)

9/21/2014 08:04:55 am

Nah, you're both wrong. Here is how it really went:

The aliens had all these nuclear bombs they exploded in the Nevada desert and the exploding nuclear bombs turned rock into glass.

Shane Sullivan

9/21/2014 08:24:54 am

That should say "west" of course. I don't know if that was parapraxis, or if my finger just slipped to the wrong key. Either way, I promise I know east from west. :)

9/21/2014 08:26:32 am

Shane, just admit that you live in Hawaii. There is no shame in that.

(OK, maybe a little.)

Tara Jordan link

9/21/2014 09:19:09 am

The host was open minded & courageous enough to have you on his program,however the vacuity of the questions (which reflects the collective IQ of the audience) made it extremely difficult to listen.

To be honest I am quite baffled with your response regarding the historical Jesus."it`s a widespread consensus among historians that there was a historical Jesus...".Who is this "historical Jesus" you mentioned?.Yeshua-Joshua was a very popular name,and there is no doubt that many individuals under these names were associated with historical/local events,but to unequivocally state that "there was a historical Jesus",is quite a stretch in my opinion.

Historians can also attest to the existence of a historical John Smith.
John Smith,the explorer,the British Labour Party leader,the actor or John Smith the the nephew of Joseph Smith,founder of Mormonism?.

Jason Colavito link

9/21/2014 09:28:24 am

I refer to a Jewish cult leader of the early centuries CE, whose life and work is attested by Flavius Josephus and Tacitus and who later formed the nucleus of the Christian sect. I didn't assert anything about his existence; it is the consensus of historians that this figure once existed, though there are those in the Jesus Myth school who argue that there was no human figure behind the stories at all. Since I wasn't on the show to talk about the origins of Christianity, I regret that my comments were not as well-sourced and nuanced as they might have been.

9/21/2014 09:32:07 am

Tara, would you say that we have less evidence for the historical Jesus (a Jewish religious leader active around the time of the reign of Tiberius) than we do for, say, Socrates or Akhenaten?

He's not as well-attested as major Roman emperors, of course. But it isn't a stretch to say that there are no compelling reasons to doubt his existence.

Tara Jordan link

9/21/2014 10:23:28 am

It is a very difficult question,which I am unable to answer.
"the historical Jesus (a Jewish religious leader active around the time of the reign of Tiberius....".
I think we are having a semantical argument.How can you define this particular Jesus as the "historical Jesus"?.Personally,I have no trust at all in patristics,biblical studies & all the scholarships that intersect mythology,faith,pseudo historical extrapolations, interpretations, fabrications,and genuine historiography.

The man you mentioned was probably an historical figure,but I am having difficulty reaching the consensus,that he was the historical Jesus.since I have no idea what a historical Jesus is.The definition of an historical Jesus, is as cryptic as the definition of Lapis Philosophorum.

9/21/2014 10:34:24 am

When I speak of the "historical Jesus" (and I believe the same is true of Jason), we are both assuming that miraculous and supernatural elements are not part of factual history.

Compare Socrates, again. There is no agreement whether either Plato or Xenophon (to say nothing of Aristophanes) report the personality or teachings of Socrates in a way that resembles those of the actual Athenian dude from the generation preceding theirs. But it would be truly odd if all these people weren't departing from their acquaintance with the same flesh-and-blood human being. Something analogous may be claimed about Jesus (with slightly less confidence, perhaps). On the other hand, it cannot be claimed about Homer or Zarathustra.

9/21/2014 12:41:27 pm

@ spookyparadigm

"Where is the politically weaponized "liberal" equivalent to the radical right? There isn't one"

Just noticed this comment... First, I don't think that's quite true. Occupy was (is?) a thing, after all. Race riots don't just make themselves happen either. In fact, I would (rather more controversially) classify Obama's nomination (and some of the creepily cultish discourse from a segment of his grassroots supporters) as a borderline instance of the same phenomenon. (And I say that as someone who is, broadly speaking, on his side - imagine what it must have looked like to conservatives!) The individuals involved are less disciplined and organized, but that's because it's generally much harder (almost by definition) to herd progressives outside of undeniable crises. (And even the latter don't guarantee it - recall the Spanish Civil War.)

Which is why it's not such a bad thing that the weirdos are not really in the conversation at the DNP. (Though some of the voices of the major demographic groups supporting the Democrats pervert the sensible core of the ideology just as much as the Tea Partiers - it's just that the latter's ideology is more alien to us and backward to begin with.)

Tea Party happens because the non-idiots among the Republicans can't really make their case to the people at this point. That is why someone like Dick Cheney, who would have been an awesome *Republican* president, was stuck at "an unidsclosed location" exercising some unclear amount of influence. That's also why people like Charlie Crist are permanently on the verge of just saying fuck it.

Meanwhile Democrats bemoan the rise of the radical right, even though they can get an African-American who "pals around with terrorists" to carry Virginia. Why on earth would they want to bother taking the reigns of Occupy? What is it to them other than a high-risk liability?

Again, what I'm saying is that optimism isn't entirely unfounded.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 02:55:04 pm

"Occupy was (is?) a thing, after all. "

Occupy never remotely captured the Democratic party. It might be compared to Ron Paul, minus the weird hero worship (though I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren run). The only significant overlap between Occupy and the liberal side of American politics was that they successfully pointed out wealth concentration. If in the midst of the Great Recession, when a CEO on average makes 500x what a worker does, when that number was 50:1 in the 1960s, it is fringe to point that out, I really don't know what to say.

"Race riots"

How has that been a Democratic party operation? Ferguson is the only "race riot" that might even merit the name, and that has had a lot of people, black white etc. coming out to protest police brutality. And last time I checked, more than a few right-wing libertarians were nodding their heads. Fox News wasn't but that's a different story.

"In fact, I would (rather more controversially) classify Obama's nomination (and some of the creepily cultish discourse from a segment of his grassroots supporters) as a borderline instance of the same phenomenon. (And I say that as someone who is, broadly speaking, on his side - imagine what it must have looked like to conservatives!) The individuals involved are less disciplined and organized, but that's because it's generally much harder (almost by definition) to herd progressives outside of undeniable crises. (And even the latter don't guarantee it - recall the Spanish Civil War.)"

I honestly can't even touch this. Politically, Obama is a center-rightist. His foreign policy has largely been praised by neoconservatives in the security field and think tanks who aren't Dick Cheney (GOP politicians and pundits play up anger at it but that's because they're playing into a different narrative). His domestic policy is solidly in the pro-corporate moderate position staked out decades ago by the Clintons and followed by most Democrat politicians who aren't from Vermont or parts of Massachusetts. And on social issues, he's lagged behind his party's base on gay marriage, immigration, health care exceptions for religious businesses (pre Hobby Lobby).

So what exactly is fringey about Barack Obama? And regarding his supporters, what fringe are you talking about? The cultic behavior comes almost entirely from the frame of Drudge/Breitbart media, the folks that gifted us with the jackass distortions of O'Keefe.

I'm trying to parse the rest, but I'm not really sure what makes Dick Cheney so awesome. I mean, if you mean being a partner to Rumsfeld's treachery with the Office of Special Plans, helping to manufacture useful intelligence (say like Italian-Nigerian yellowcake) for a pre-planned war (my favorite part being the plan to paint a U-2 in UN colors and get the Iraqis to shoot at as causus belli), of personally signing off on Haliburton's no-bid contracts for that war, of purposely using his status as being part of the Senate and the Executive to evade demands for documents, etc. as awesome in a Blofeld way, I guess. From 2001-2006, the argument that Cheney and his crew were not in charge, and that Bush was, just doesn't seem all that plausible.

Hell, I'll be charitable and as a former New Orleans, assume he wasn't particularly involved in the lack of response to Katrina.

9/21/2014 03:20:53 pm

I think we're losing track of what's being disputed. I never suggested that race riots are a "Democratic party operation" or that Occupy "captured the Democratic party".

And I wasn't saying Obama is a radical or a "weaponized" liberal. He certainly isn't. I was talking about the Change/Hope/etc. crowd that worked so hard to propel him to the top only to be (comlpetely predictably) disappointed. As far as the excesses of his fans, I certainly didn't mean to evoke the exaggreated picture painted by the right, but as someone who lived through that whole thing, I can say confidently that my perception was shaped by my interactions with the educated, progressive Obama supporters. I wasn't really exposed to right-wing media at all at that time. As a *caricature* the exaggerated image produced by some conservtive commentators is apt - that's just not how they meant it.

I also never said Cheney "wasn't in charge". I just don't pretend that we're already in position to assign power rankings to the Bush insiders. I suspect that on many issues (not on Iraq, perhaps) Rove had Bush's ear more than did Cheney. Also, I wasn't expressing any support for their politics (let alone their ethics!). I thought I'd made it sufficiently clear, but I guess not...

Also, not that you have to, but you really didn't address the main thrust of my post at all.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 03:34:24 pm

I am not a partisan political person, but arguably an anti-partisan (not a "lets all be friends" or "they're all crooks" but a "do not speak to me of those people again in my lifetime" type).

I'll just leave this here, and note that in a country where the information unveiled here, especially in light of what happened in the 200s, doesn't bring charges of high crimes, I can't take seriously discussion of some starry-eyed* emotional partisan supporters as "fringe" very seriously. That's not fringe, calling out demons is fringe. Working for Dominionist theocracy is fringe (defined by idea if not numbers). Pleasing your base by throwing state money at a Noah's Ark theme park is fringe. Yelling in a textbook meeting "We need someone to stand up to all these experts!" is fringe. And so on.

Anyway, this is worth a read

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/13/usa.pakistan

*maybe we should instead prefer the National Review editor Rich Lowry's reaction when Sarah Palin winked at him through the tv, that little starbursts shot around the room (I'm sure you can find the quote). Considering he was wanking it to the VP candidate for the GOP, a candidate whose spouse IS A SECESSIONIST, you can see why I find the idea of both-sides fringe a little hollow.

9/21/2014 03:54:48 pm

I think you're not attending sufficiently to the fact that what is and isn't fringe is multiply relative (to the other extremes of the spectrum, to what is "mainstream", etc.).

If you have some pre-determined center point and then say "the guys on this end are more distant from it than the guys on that end", you at the very least cannot assume that others agree with you about the center point. Any such disagreement must be addressed first, otherwise people end up talking past one another.

(And, just so we're clear, I'm sure I share your reaction in all the essentials when it comes to the cases you mention. I just think that, fortunately, we don't need to fight crazy with crazy.)

9/21/2014 03:56:34 pm

And the composition of the spectrum is itself contingent and evolving with time, of course.

The Other J.

9/24/2014 08:09:21 am

"I was talking about the Change/Hope/etc. crowd that worked so hard to propel him to the top only to be (completely predictably) disappointed."

When ISN'T that the case? Every political campaign is an attempt to distill reasoned ideas and policy positions down to emotive catch-phrases and crow-management, the promise of which is always a little beyond what can honestly be expected. People were similarly disappointed in W. Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan -- I don't think I can think of a single president in my lifetime who won an election and sufficiently satisfied the majority of those most motivated to get that person elected.

On the other hand, centrists who don't tend to get that worked up by emotive speechifying also tend to look more closely at what's being achieved rather than the rhetoric, and are less likely to be disappointed. (I suppose that doesn't necessarily have to be centrists.) And its the achievements they recognize that become the foundations for the emotive activators in the next election.

9/24/2014 08:21:28 am

If you think that the phenomena I was referring to are just like "every political campaign", then either you aren't addressing what I was talking about specifically, or we have been left with radically different impressions of those days. I don't know how we could reconcile them, or even if you care to. It's certainly not the first time something related to Obama strikes me as obvious while its negation or even its opposite strikes other intelligent observers as equally obvious. (That happened with the first Obama-Romney debate, which I thought was undeniably an epic fail on Romney's part from beginning to end. Then the talking heads began weighing in...)

The Other J.

9/24/2014 08:51:45 am

Well, I quoted you, so I'm not sure how that could be misinterpreted.

You're saying there was cultish behavior by some of those supporting Obama's election, and they were inevitably disappointed, presumably because their perceived cult leader did not end up matching their exalted image.

I'm saying that's not all that unique or particular to one side or the other. If you're saying that's not the case in other campaigns, then yeah, we do have radically different impressions of those days. I've heard motivated progressives express utter disappointment in Obama when he didn't live up to their perceived image of him, and I've seen the same thing happen with both Bushes and Clinton (it was those disappointed progressives who sheared off and went for Ralph Nader). If you're saying something else, it wasn't clear.

9/24/2014 09:14:18 am

I certainly agree that it's not unique and I don't believe I said anything that should have suggested that I hold such an uninformed opinion. I do think that it was prominent enough to stand out in a way in which it doesn't in most (let alone all) campaigns. And I don't just mean rallying around an inspirational figure. I mean the details of the representation of that figure by his supporters.

I'm sure you're right about me being unclear, since that's the best explanation for why intelligent people didn't get what I was going for. But being quoted has nothing to do with being understood :)

The Other J.

9/24/2014 09:39:01 am

I guess I'd like to see some examples those inspirational-figure details that make that historical moment unique (beyond his ethnicity, which of course is unique). I'm not sure there was anything that quite matched the fervor of Bush ushering in world-changing events that would lead to the temple being rebuilt in Jerusalem, thus ushering in the second coming of Jesus and wiping-out of all other faiths (that whole Gog and Magog thing). Certainly the voters who thought Bush was fulfilling eschatonic biblical prophecy were disappointed, maybe even more than progressives who lined up behind Obama.

(For what it's worth, I'm not trying to say these parallels are equal in quality or kind.)

9/24/2014 01:52:31 pm

I'm sorry I'm not giving this the attention or word count that it merits (I'm too absorbed by the African-American versions of Illuminati/UFO/etc. right now...), but I here is how I take it the Bush case is different. Bush had broad and explicit support of the Evangelical establishment, who marketed him to his followers by drawing on familiar Christian eschatological themes, which were already prominent for their audience. Bush just got plugged in as the candidate of choice.

Obama, on the other hand, was about Obama. Or, to be more precise, about Obama as the return of Hope and the harbinger of Change. (I don't think he was consciously presented as a "Black Jesus" figure, in spite of some suggestive Biblical allegories on the part of Rev. Jackson and others.)

Obama's supporters were intrinsically less fanatical than the Evangelicals who happened to get sold on Bush. But unlike Bush, he was not primarily a figurehead for antecedent beliefs. He was, to a significant extent, their original, nebulous, not-quite-conscious manifestation

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 03:19:39 pm

Now, had you said Condi Rice, that would have been a discussion. While she holds some of the same ideologies I strongly disagree with, she was a moderating force on Bush I in helping bring the first Cold War to a quiet end, and showed some of that same professional calculation in the second Bush II term.

AFAIK, unlike late 1980s Dick Cheney, she didn't help the Pakistanis (you know, the same military elite that looked so hard for bin Laden, the Americans a few years after Cheney left office found him in a nice house down the street from their military academy in a neighborhood full of military and intelligence types) hide their nuclear program so as to help smooth over a sale of F-16s to their military.

9/21/2014 03:26:50 pm

Condi could have made an alright VP :)

Byron DeLear link

9/21/2014 01:33:26 pm

I look forward to hearing Jason’s interview, two hours is a lot to fill. It was natural for the topic to move around a bit. This happened in a recent two hour interview I did for Revolution Radio / Electric Pyramid with Michael Parker, the link above to a YouTube if anyone wants to check it out. Parker has done a fair amount of UFO media, but emphasizes a more reasoned, rational, and empirical approach. For example, he did an EP on the America Declassified series on the Discovery Channel which was about the “Marfa Lights” in Texas—they did some data collection, had a theory, tested for it, and the evidence confirmed their theory. Imagine that happening on AA! Our interview we did covered my history book on the American Revolution (due out in the academic journal Raven end of 2014, and as a standalone) and some of the discoveries therein such as the first documentary evidence of the name of our nation, etc.

Regarding the insightful back and forth concerning the ideological predilections of right and left political groups in the U.S., I agree with conclusions made by Spooky and EP and Not the St. The political brain is a very malleable substance as Drew Westin aptly frames in his book of the same name. People morph their perception of time and space to reach emotionally satisfying conclusions. One of the benefits of having our current political echo-chamber compartments is kooky ideas can flourish relatively unchallenged for a time and sometimes bypass the consultants’ filters. When these ideas break free and are brought to the mainstream, we get to view in full light the absolute insanity of taking seriously anyone so intellectually challenged. Todd Akin is a good example, who I ran to oppose in 2008 in a U.S. House campaign. He said crazy stuff back then as well; one being a story I put in a fundraising letter.

Akin said one morning in 2007 on CPSAN’s Washington Journal that the reason we were in Iraq was essentially to prevent an EMP nuclear device from detonating in an atmospheric burst over Kansas City thereby rendering all our electronics useless.

Sarah Palin is another example of stupidity gestating away from the mainstream and when allowed in the room, her, and her thinking, are roundly discredited and delegitimized.

I agree the right wing flamethrowers on talk radio—who profit off of raising people’s blood pressure—are largely responsible for the extreme polarization. Parties play for media time and Limbaugh and Hannity et al are the gatekeepers in a sense—they know what kind of political red meat their audience craves. Sadly, our discourse is driven downward, and Congress folks from different parties never go get drinks together anymore.

Concerning the propensity for the New Age left to be less political, perhaps, than the Tea Party right—there is truth to this. An example would be the Occupy movement which defined itself as non-electoral and leaderless (to a degree) as contrasted with the Tea Party which was quickly co-opted by Koch money and political consultants and media demagogues. Dem operatives tried very hard to co-opt Occupy but were rebuffed. The thought held by Occupy was that a leaderless movement is more pure and that the internets would rule in the end. This may eventually be the case, but not yet. We still live in gerrymandered voting precincts and districts where corporate lobbyists orbit deliberative assemblies like wolves. The lack of political savvy and realpolitik on the part of the progressive left echoed my experience in the United States Green Party, which sees its largest branch in California without a party leadership office and only passes things internally with an 80% super-super majority as an attempt to approach a purist consensus process. In reality though, what happened was the ‘no’ votes had 4x the political power of a ‘yes’ vote so getting anything passed was an impossibility due to the presence of factions within the party. This is a classic case of “realos” versus the “fundis” and is emblematic of the current state of the nation, how constant campaigning in a partisan media environment has made governing exceedingly difficult.

Only crISIS seems to mitigate the breach in cooperation as evidenced by the last vote in D.C. before the break.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 02:32:52 pm

I listened to the first 40 minutes of the show before giving up.

Appalling. I'd call it sad if he hadn't been so clearly trying to goad you into a political and religious agenda.

Byron DeLear

9/21/2014 02:54:17 pm

Wow, I'm surprised it was such a hatchet job! Jason deserves much better. I hope I can make it through more than 40 minutes.

CHV

9/21/2014 02:53:40 pm

Ott's reasoning for a rejection of global warming sounds very much like that used by creationists who believe the Earth is 3000-ish years old (e.g. "If these experts in the minority reject GW, that means they've got a much greater argument than the majority holds.")

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 02:57:11 pm

From the little I heard about his disbelief in biological anthropology or comparative anatomy, he certainly sounds like a Creationist.

9/21/2014 03:22:07 pm

Gotta be. That and his take on global warming are extremely strong indicators.

CHV

9/21/2014 02:57:13 pm

In looking at the Twitter feed behind Ott, a favorite talking point of global warming skeptics appears vis-a-vis that those who support it are secretly being fed a steady supply of major cash by persons unknown (AKA: George Soros).

9/21/2014 03:23:10 pm

If George Soros had the resources to finance everything conspiracy theorists have accused him of financing over the years...

titus pullo

9/22/2014 02:27:26 am

Or the Koch brothers? showing your bias here.

9/22/2014 05:46:21 am

That's a pretty silly remark, considering we were talking about Soros and not about Koch brothers...

9/25/2014 02:36:06 pm

Yes and No. Fatcat slush funds dominate our national elections.

CHV

9/21/2014 03:18:32 pm

In response to Ott's question about which religious texts have most positively affected world history, IMO, Jason hit it right on. Any religious text can be used for good or evil and has for centuries.

But once again, his slant for an evangelical worldview is painfully obvious - as is Ott's inability to separate the Ten Commandments from the Bill of Rights and his clear desire to turn the US into a theocracy.

9/21/2014 03:26:04 pm

While I agree with Jason for the most part, some texts arguably have more intrinsic potential for misuse or are intrinsically harded to put to good use.

Don't know if either really counts, but if I had to pick the most "positive" ones I'd go with Hesiod and Confucius.

Old Testament and some of the Hindu scriptures would be near the bottom.

CHV

9/21/2014 03:38:59 pm

Finally, was anyone else irritated by the cutesy cartoons that Ott posted behind him on his little PowerPoint presentation (examples - a cartoon thought balloon about craving a beer, and a shot of Ott as Oz - The Great and Powerful)?

How old is this guy? Twelve?

That his program gets more than 10 hits per month is both baffling and completely understandable if the majority of his audience originates from the South.

spookyparadigm

9/21/2014 03:53:34 pm

Go to his website and read the about, how he got his job and what that job is. Prepare to be appalled.

9/21/2014 04:02:34 pm

"In his own unique interview style Daniel has endeared his audience with his own brand of humor, knowledge and spontaneity. He has created a growing intelligent and dedicated fan base. Daniel will ask questions no other host could even think of. Enlightening, Entertaining and Controversial... Daniel's mix of knowledge, spirituality and zeal makes him the perfect interviewer for getting to the truth of the known and unknown reality. Daniel gets to the truth no matter where it leads. Daniel also offers his views on The Edge as well as interviewing many knowledgeable guests. You will also get a few surprises along the way. "Discovering the Truth Together", is exactly what The Edge Radio Program is all about."

My favorite part is how literally none of the above even begins to approximate the truth.

CHV

9/22/2014 05:17:55 am

>>>>"In his own unique interview style, Daniel has endeared his audience with his own brand of humor, knowledge and spontaneity.

The "interview style" in question reminded me of a drunk driver swerving over seven lanes of an eight-lane highway. It was pure chaos.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

9/21/2014 04:52:22 pm

Hey … It's just a TV show ...

Only Me

9/21/2014 05:20:11 pm

Phil Gotsch: "It's just a TV Show"

From the article:
"a paranormal internet and radio program hosted by Daniel Ott"

Awesome. Just awesome.

CHV

9/22/2014 05:20:32 am

Phil also forgot to remind us for the 10 billionth time that Scott Wolter is his longtime friend and colleague.

9/22/2014 05:45:05 am

STOP WATERBOARDING PHIL EVERYBODY!!!

Dave Lewis

9/21/2014 05:13:01 pm

Listened to the entire program. Even given my meager intellectual capabilities, I am confident that Jason kicked Ott's ass! I was embarrassed for Ott at the end of the interview.

FrankenNewYork

9/21/2014 06:29:47 pm

I think that you did an admirable job maintaining your composure in the face of his odd, loaded questions, insane logic and, what seemed to me to be, personal attacks. I don't think I could of stayed on the phone, but given a comment the host made after you said goodbye, that may be what he was hoping for the whole time. Good work.

A.D.

9/21/2014 09:44:47 pm

That was hard to listen to....

9/22/2014 12:41:41 am

To inject a bit of fairness if there is any to be had, I do believe that Jason might have been well advised to do even a cursory amount of investigative research (i.e. checked out The Edge site or watched a few minutes from a few shows) before agreeing to be a guest or at least before the interview began. Had he done so, he'd have been well prepared for Daniel Ott's style which is consistent throughout each episode. He maintains the same style whether he's talking to a skeptic or to someone with whom he tends to agree. He will always use humor and over-the-top questions to test his guests, even if it just just their patience he is testing. While I often disagree with him, I tend to find him quite entertaining, which is largely to goal of his broadcasting endeavors, it seems.

His "Cosmic Cowboy" routine is clear schtick, and he plays to/ keeps running jokes with his regular listeners. He has a live chatroom which he's ever checking throughout the program, and a large percentage of his questions come from said chat.

He's loud and abrasive, but there was no ambush here. I would say, if being exposed to millions of listeners was your only goal, mission accomplished. If you were looking to speak with a seasoned scholar with academic credentials.... you probably should have taken a closer look at the show's contents prior to sealing the deal.

Overall, I think that people need to lighten up.

spookyparadigm

9/22/2014 03:47:51 am

I didn't listen far enough into the program, but did Jason accurately portray the blood libel bit about Muslims being blood drinking subhuman vampires.

Is that humor?

Jason Colavito link

9/22/2014 06:10:29 am

He asked me about zombies, and I was talking about how they grew out of the idea of vampires. At that point, Ott said that vampires and/or zombies were just like "the Muslims" who drink rat blood and behead people. I challenged him on the idea that it was "Muslims" in general who behead, and said that I wasn't aware of any Muslims with blood-drinking rituals. That claim was apparently taken from an online video of what looks like a young man slitting open a mouse and drinking its blood, though there is no indication this is part of any larger movement. The rest of his claim is plainly a reference to ISIS, which he did not want to say was not representative of Islam as a whole. As far as Ott was concerned, comparing Muslims to blood-drinking vampires or zombies was a throwaway joke.

9/22/2014 06:50:55 am

I ain't no big city imam, but I'm pretty sure that Islam forbids what that guy did to the rat.

Byron DeLear

9/22/2014 07:12:29 am

I listened to as much as I could last night, and woah, the interviewer and format left much to be desired! He was all over the place, and I guess that's his schtick to some degree, but I commend Jason for riding the rough waters of quackery with a modicum of grace. The global warming denial is just unbelievable---I'm sure these opponents of the conclusions made by 97% of climate scientists do not oppose the conclusions of aeronautical engineers as they find their seats on Southwest. But they have well-honed muscles of denial, don't they? Subscribing to the literal interpretation of Stone Age authors' myths and stories in scripture gives them a good skillset in denial. Combined with the fringe right's fearful idea of being separate from the mainstream, of being "out of control" and that they're losing their country to the rise of LGBT, women, and pot politics only adds to their isolation. I only hope that the avoidance of fact and findings will time out someday....but I'm an optimist.

The Other J.

9/24/2014 08:32:21 am

"I ain't no big city imam, but I'm pretty sure that Islam forbids what that guy did to the rat."

Yep yep. Not a Muslim, but I know drinking blood isn't halal, and an animal has to be drained of blood after it's slaughtered. That's some screwy logic -- just because someone who identifies with a particular faith does something stupid doesn't mean that the faith approves of what they did, let alone mandates it.

9/24/2014 09:15:56 am

Though any faith to *mandate* what he did woud be the most metal faith EVAH! :)

Film Review Guy

9/22/2014 12:59:57 am

I do some writing for a film review site and, inspired by Jason's mention of him, decided to email Sector 5 Films to find out about the new Jim Marrs doc, to see if I could get hold of a review copy, etc.

Well, all appears not to be well at Sector 5, as their email addresses bounced back undelivered, it's not been updated for a while, etc.It's a shame, as I was looking forward to watching their stuff :(

Titus Pullo

9/22/2014 02:24:34 am

While I have empathy for anyone dealing with these unfortunate people who lack critical thinking ability, I would caution so many of these posts are using a broad brush to label "right wing" anyone who has libertarian, classical liberal, or conservative views. Some of the posts fall into the same category of left wing dogma (end of white male dominated society showing their "true colors").

Please, if you want fringe ideas on the left just look up CIA AIDs or CIA drug pushing in the black community. And some of the rather wacky statist "multicultural" ideas that people should be judged and results determined based on victim hood is about as anti freedom as one can get.

I've worked for various political causes over the years (supporting both Democrats when I was younger and later Libertarians later), and you get crazies in all stripes. I headed up a local economics club and you always got a few "focused" folks who for whatever reason were drawn to some minor event as the proof of their theories. JFK killing and Vietnam seem to be a favorite (forget that JFK was an interventionist, overthrew the Diem govt and didn't listen to the Eisenhower "generals" who warned against putting US troops on the ground-just like Bush if you think about it)

Is there a fundamental biblical segment out there,sure but there are the anti GMO crowd as well. When I have spoken to these types of folks, they really don't support one "economic view" or another and most of the time make no sense. They are just like the rest of us trying to get by in life albeit with poorly reasoned views. I once had a girlfriend who was in a PhD program in Womens' Studies who was sure she was abducted by aliens as a kid. No matter how much I tried to reason with her, she believed this as well as ESP and other paranormal activity.

As for the attacks on classical liberals or libertarians, their views (and I count myself as one) are not fringe. The idea of natural rights, limited govt, sound money, and peace are hardly the sins of the white power structure whatever that is. Most libertarians I know have hard science or engineering backgrounds and are very well versed in macroeconomics and history. You are free to question other's views but when you paint broad strokes with preconceived notions, you come across as most of the "social science" majors I used to deal with in academia driven by an almost irrational hatred of free society. You want to watch people you should be afraid of? Watch the EU Parliment- it often sounds like the old Soviet Poltiburo. A rigid world view.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, it allows people to express their beliefs and act in their own interest (you do have a right to your body-the oldest of all writs). The fact that fringe believers exist is in some way good,, it shows liberty does work. You can't always hammer common sense into people (I've tried to do that with keynsian economists for years) but they have a right to speak. As long as they are not impinging on your natural rights, it's fine.

Oh and as a former research scientist (I worked in inertial laser fusion focused on plasma physics), I would suggest the impact of human CO2 production on climate isn't as defined or understood as the political types would admit. Or are you as guilty as these fringe folks you despise,after all you seem to have your ideology first and then find "facts" to fit your notion that we all should live the way you want us to.

So relax a bit and hone your skills and reasoning to debate these folks, the debate never really ends and that is part of the fun in living.

spookyparadigm

9/22/2014 03:45:30 am

I'm not going to answer this entirely because I don't have the time, and I'm not going to get into the same talking points of well-worn denialist movements etc.

And as for libertarians and their free society, feel free to buy all the gold and survival seeds you want. I won't restrict your freedom to give those companies your money.

But for the discussion that's been on

1) Many of the "liberal" beliefs listed above are extremely common on the right-wing fringe. Anti-GMO, anti-vax are found at least as commonly on places and venues that are also virulently anti-immigrant, traffick in Birtherism, etc. etc. etc.. 9/11 Truthers are an excellent example as well. The stereotype was that they were all disaffected liberals. Some were. But anecdotal as well as quantitative research (I know I've seen some basic work on this, though I can't cite it, it has been a number of years) showed a large amount of 9/11 Trutherism on the far right. Think Jim Marrs. Alex Jones isn't exactly a liberal figure. Etc.

Part of this is the moebius strip effect EP first noted here. Part of it is the fact, as Barkun notes in his Conspiracy Culture book, that once something is marked as forbidden and rejected, people will more easily discover it from other rejected things. Other work, including psychological experiments, have found that people willing to believe one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe others even if they are contradictory (the study I'm thinking of used several examples, one being people who believed bin Laden had been dead for years were more likely to also believe he was still alive, but they were less likely of all to believe the mainstream story that he was killed by a SEAL team).

2) And part of the issue is again, the acceptance thing. Birtherism, various kinds of open contempt for science, Creationism, these can be routinely found amongst elected GOP officials, well-known pundits and speakers, etc.

How many elected Democrats are openly antivax? How many major liberal pundits are openly antivax? The only ones I can think of are Huffington (and her site has gotten an antiscience stigma from liberals as a result) and her friend Bill Maher, who got scorched by condemnation from his fellow liberals on this issue, so that he doesn't talk about it anymore.

That's my point. You knew a wacky girl who believed in ESP and votes Democratic? Fine. How many elected Democrats make that a key part of their platform? How many rev up their base with it?

Because I can point you to hundreds of elected GOP who do and will work to enact grossly Creationism and other antiscience agendas.

As a former research scientist, do you concur with the National Review's ridiculous attack on "nerd culture" and Neil DeGrasse Tyson for being too smug (which given the choice of using him, I wonder if they had to suppress in the office the use of the word uppity, but anyway).

spookyparadigm

9/22/2014 03:50:13 am

This from the National Review, the same publication edited by Rich Lowry and his eww-enducing Palin-starbursts

"An astrophysicist and evangelist for science, Tyson currently plays three roles in our society: He is the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History; the presenter of the hip new show Cosmos; and, most important of all, perhaps, the fetish and totem of the extraordinarily puffed-up “nerd” culture that has of late started to bloom across the United States."

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/381871/smarter-thou

spookyparadigm

9/22/2014 04:03:39 am

Actually, I will address the CO2 issue.

I trust climate scientists, on the whole, to do their jobs just as I trust plasma physicists, on the whole, to do their jobs.

Not everyone seems to agree with that shocking notion, I know.

spookyparadigm

9/22/2014 04:16:18 am

This doesn't mean science is infallible, there are plenty of examples to show how paradigms have been proven wrong in the past. It generally wasn't by cherry-picking political activists and conspiracy theorists.

9/22/2014 09:39:10 am

It's not really correct to speak of paradigms as being "disproven" (assuming you mean anything even remotely resembling the Kuhnian sense of the term - and if you aren't, why not just say "theory"?)

spookyparadigm

9/22/2014 10:28:43 am

I'm probably mixing the two to some degree.

I had Continental Drift in mind when I wrote that.

9/22/2014 05:55:24 am

"as a former research scientist"

Do you also have a sympathy honorary Masters?

titus pullo

9/22/2014 07:25:11 am

For the record: BS chemistry and minor in physics University of Rochester, Masters in Management (focus on operations management and finance) Georgia Tech.

Neither of these degrees make me right about everything or make me smarter or more of an expert than anyone on this blog, they did give me a core base of knowledge and more importantly taught me how to learn and reason. It also taught me the difference between the natural world and human actions...physical laws don't apply to human behaviour...which is the biggest complaint I have with social sciences..

9/22/2014 09:31:10 am

Yeah yeah, I remember all about your degrees...

"physical laws don't apply to human behaviour"

LOL

titus pullo

9/22/2014 07:19:40 am

I should have just not written my opinion between work tasks this morning. What I was trying to articulate (not that well) in a society of freedom in speech and representative democracy the probability of open discourse and adoption of policies which are as fact based as any human actions can be.

I'm sure many of you were upset when the GOP was in the White House and executive agencies made "fiat" decisions that were not approved by the legislative branch. Bush's DOJ view of tourture and both the Bush and Obama view that the 4th amendment didn't apply in certain situations are examples of "fiat" decision outside the normal representative process (executive branch can't create law), EPA ruling on CO2 as a pollutant is another.

This is dangerous as it supports substituting "elite experts" in lieu of discourse, debate, disagreement and compromise in a free society. You wonder why people are not engaged or move to the fringe? I would suggest this occurs when we decide not to let the process of public debate occur and allow the Constitution to work (Congress not the Executive branch creates laws). Sure we all have our views and the other side is "dangerous" to our views and too easily accept govt agencies making decisions as fiat law.

Either you trust the people or not. It doesn't always work out the way you want to or even nominal but it has the best chance to work given other forms of govt elites running the show. The "corruption" costs of elites running things is at least as high as the democratic approach.

When I hear people say we can't allow debate or use public funds to stifle debate..that is a concern. Where do you draw the line. I'm all for exposing the flaws in say Mr. Wolter's logic but I don't have the right to keep him off the public stage. I have very critical views of central banking versus free banking...many of you would disagree with my views, does that mean I should be silenced?

Cheers,

Mike

spookyparadigm

9/22/2014 07:29:49 am

No one (at least I don't) wants Wolter silenced.

We want him or others to respect evidence, including relevant evidence presented by people who research this material as their primary professional work. And to not throw a temper tantrum and cry conspiracy (or threaten legal action, or try to gin up political inquiries) when people fairly point out when he ignores or twists evidence.

Regarding democracy vs. scientific evidence, do you believe it was appropriate for scientific education in Texas to be decided by a dentist yelling "Some one has to stand up to all these experts!" as he fought tooth and nail to get religiously-inspired ideology in state guidelines for science education?

If not, why not? If so, why?

Byron DeLear link

9/22/2014 08:07:05 am

"Either you trust the people or not." --- Titus, this is hyperbole and Pollyannaish. More apt, would be either you trust the dollar or not. Because Big Money rules the roost in D.C., stifling the open, free debate you would like by enabling some folks to buy a lot more “Free Speech” than others. I reviewed a book called “Dollar Democracy” a week ago by a 30 year college professor that illuminates this issue. --- the link is above. I don’t fault you for believing in our constitutional frame and that the opportunity for popular redress is there, but only ignored because “we decide not to let the process of public debate occur,” but the facts to not bear this out. The climate change issue is a perfect example—when the market share of massively powerful fossil fuel conglomerates is threatened, all of a sudden the science becomes “not settled” and “questionable.” This is the power of Big Money to distort the field of ideas and the open debate that you crave into serving select interests.

titus pullo

9/22/2014 09:49:51 am

So you know what is best for us? Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That covers States that want to use public tax dollars to teach religion in the classroom and global elites who decide that they know how we should work and what we produce we are allowed to keep. Get in the arena and fight for your beliefs but we tried the "we are smarter than you so shut up and we command you to do the following" so many times from feudal to communism to statism..a free people offer the best defense for liberty. Goethe said the truth must be repeated again and again, the fight for reason isn't ever over....just like the fight for liberty is never over.

michael hughes

9/23/2014 06:46:54 pm

"I was operating way outside my area of expertise and was not entirely comfortable discussing the intricacies of evolutionary biology or astronomy." What exactly is your expertise? If you were uncomfortable with the questions, why did you continue to say with 'authority' that there is no evidence to support this and that. After every question, you would rephrase it with a snort of arrogant derision that was pretty annoying after 10 minutes.

You said there is 'no evidence to support giants.' When and where was your last archeological dig? When was the last time you took a sample of a giant bone and did the scientific study? If someone does dig up a giant, who are you that they will actually notify to come and investigate their findings? Are you in contact with any archeologist who are currently is looking for giants or has found giants? Do you have special credentials to explore the vaults at the Smithsonian?

You made fun of LA Marzulli but what about his scientific evidence of DNA and alien implants that were removed by Dr. Leer? Examined under an electron microscope. You blew right past that. It seems that you read other people's work, pick and choose through your worldview and regurgitate it as a scholarly work. What have you discovered?

Also, as a 'researcher' shouldn't you have 'researched' the Daniel Ott program? Seems elementary to do so.

9/23/2014 07:04:11 pm

I got a giant bone. Would you like to take a sample?

Only Me

9/23/2014 07:23:46 pm

Behold! Large walls of text! All that effort for nothing.

I have a wonderful idea, Mikey boy! Since you want to play the credentials game and list previous experience, how about you go first?

"scientific evidence of DNA and alien implants"
You didn't really just pull THIS all glistening and stinking out of your ass and then flip and tell Jason "It seems that you read other people's work, pick and choose through your worldview and regurgitate it as a scholarly work", did you?! I'm always amused by marks like you.

Michael Hughes

9/28/2014 01:30:11 pm

I am not the one claiming to be a 'Xenoarchaeologist,' nor am I asking people to spend their hard earned money on my worthless opinion. Nor am I wasting people's time on a podcast with answers like, "I see no evidence for such and such...ad nauseam.' Nor do I make up new titles for myself that has nothing to do with my education and experience. For a critical thinker, you should have included those glaring facts, keyboard warrior. Video documentation of the entire surgical procedure and the electron microscope of the alien implant should be acknowledged as 'evidence.' Remove your lips from Jason's crack and join the real critical thinkers, start with growing a spine and stop hiding behind fake monikers for instance.

Jason Colavito link

9/28/2014 03:02:05 pm

My opinion is free. I even said on the radio that I didn't give myself the title of "skeptical xenoarchaeologist." The origin of the term is on the front page of this website, which I'm sure you never bothered to read. I'm not making up or hiding anything to fool anyone.

Only Me

9/28/2014 04:24:06 pm

I need a surgical team here, STAT! We need emergency stick removal from a rectal cavity ASAP.

You're a real sucker, but that's par for the course with the soft-headed . Let's just take it one at a time, shall we?

1) Jason isn't asking for payment for his opinion. People either read his articles or choose to buy his books or they don't.

2) Since we're talking about wasting time, podcasts of the very nature of the one Jason agreed to visit are a waste of time. Like this conversation with you.

3) "wasting people's time" =/= fact. "Nor do I make up new titles for myself" is a false accusation, not fact. I do understand your unfamiliarity with what is known as a fact, however. Fringe beliefs require abstinence from facts.

4) Video documentation should be acknowledged as evidence? Well, then that means every monster and alien to ever appear in a Hollywood movie MUST be real, since there is video documentation to prove it.

5) You're awfully cute when you resort to insults :) All out of arguments, then?

Run on back to Smilin' Dave's Pig Squeezing Country and Western Comedy Show...I mean, alternative "science".

9/28/2014 05:35:35 pm

Only Me, quit being a cyber bully! :)

Joseph Foresti

9/25/2014 10:15:29 am

Dear Mr. Colavito,
thank you for being on that show.
Let's just hope that a few people have opened their eyes.
Thank you for your "suffering".
Regards and keep up the good work.

J.A Dickey

9/25/2014 01:18:50 pm

Jason probably feels he took a trip in time back to 1924 or 1925
and he just encountered a guy who is quite a local character in
a Texas drug store of the era with its own soda fountain. Nearly
every major scientific advance since the year 1900 seems to be in doubt by his host. Again, Scott Brown has a body language i
am now comparing to Scott Wolter's in that they both are at ease
in public, whether at a small or large venue, and they are equally
good at pitching their ideas to any given audience. I read this as
Mr. Ott deciding by the program's end to be polite about politely
disagreeing, he did look sorta stunned & had happy expectations
about the shows with his upcoming guests. He missed out on a
very good interview where the 'inside skinny" on HPL's Old Ones
via their context to the plethora of "pulp mags" circa the 1920s
would have been a Sci-Fi or Horror fan's moments of bliss and
epiphanies in a greatly stimulating way. HPL impacts H.Ellison!

paul

10/23/2014 03:47:16 pm

I just listened to the podcast. I am impressed with how you comported yourself. For 70% of the show he was way off topic, but you did really well. The guy is a kook. I think some regular listeners of his were converted to reality. Keep up the good work!

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.