We Need to Talk About James Casbolt aka Michael Prince

[Selkie]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
.
Thanks to all for this debate — it is (very genuinely!) interesting. I'm not just saying that. And by saying it's interesting, I'm not trivializing the various strong opinions, either.

The other mods will confirm that I have just now posted this to them privately on the [internal] report thread that was generated by several complaints. This is an exact copy-and-paste:

Ouch! (At the slap. ) I really didn't think what I reported was out of order — and I still don't. I'm a researcher, journalist and (kind of) historian, and facts are pretty important in a field where there is often just 99% hearsay and gossip. So I was intending to post an apparent fact, with all the circumstances accurately reported except the source's name. It was in support of Agape's post when she first cited that Casbolt had wrestled with mental illness (her words). I felt I knew this to be correct.

Here's an honest-to-God question to my friends here. Was I out of line? At least three members think so. I'm happy to hear all views, and will apologize (as opposed to excuse/explain!) if it's best for the forum, and the right thing to do.

I don't think you were out of line, Bill, but I was horrified to learn about the abuse of trust and authority by the NHS former Avalon member who passed the info on to you. He/she should not have done what he/she did, and he/she should certainly never included you in what he/she did. My actual first thought was that by passing that info onto the forum, it could have compromised both you, personally, as well as the forum.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by ERK (here)

Posted by Citizen No2 (here)
Thank you Agape.

I just feel that there is a lot more to this...........

12 years for this type of offence is bordering on manifestly excessive in my view, although we have to take in to account that Ms. Meijer is from a wealthy, and no doubt, powerful family.

Regards.

IMHO- he gets what he deserved. IMHO he is a psychopath.

Yes, he certainly sounds like it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Citizen No2 (here)
I was shocked at the way in which you worded the information without any background Bill. I did state that it could be considered due diligence, and in your field, as you state, you have to corroborate facts.

In a later post you revealed the circumstances relating as to how the information was relayed to you.

I don't think you were out of line. As I have just said to someone privately, and stated by a member above in this thread, you are of honourable intent.

Regards.

P.S. this is healthy debate, I don't sense any malice or ill intent, so as far as I am concerned I do not require an apology.

I don't require an apology, either.

[Citizen No2]

I am not excusing his behaviour.

Anyone that abuses, threatens or harasses others needs to be punished within the scope of the law. I do have empathy for the victims in this sorry state of affairs.

Do not get me wrong on that point.

But......... If this whole story has been a figment of James's mind, I will be shocked and will have to question my discernment. I am not saying that I bought into everything he had to say, not at all.

There is just something about this whole affair that doesn't sit easy with me.


Regards.

[Selkie]

Posted by Citizen No2 (here)
I am not excusing his behaviour.

Anyone that abuses, threatens or harasses others needs to be punished within the scope of the law. I do have empathy for the victims in this sorry state of affairs.

Do not get me wrong on that point.

But......... If this whole story has been a figment of James's mind, I will be shocked and will have to question my discernment. I am not saying that I bought into everything he had to say, not at all.

There is just something about this whole affair that doesn't sit easy with me.


Regards.

Could you say what it is that makes you uneasy? For me, it is that on the one hand, he sounds so much like the perfect MK-Ultra victim, while on the other hand, he sounds like a psychopath.

addition Btw, psychopaths never show their true face when you first meet them. They don't let that aspect of their personality show until they have you hooked.

[Agape]

I suggest moving this thread to 'member area' would ease certain aspects of this discussion unless it's forcibly attacked and removed
by NSA authority.

[Citizen No2]

Silkie wrote:

Could you say what it is that makes you uneasy? For me, it is that on the one hand, he sounds so much like the perfect MK-Ultra victim, while on the other hand, he sounds like a psychopath.

Exactly. He sounds like the perfect MK victim. Up to and including the 12 year prison sentence.

These powerful families, that just don't let any Tom, Dick, Harry or James into the fold. It is possible that Hayley was rebelling against the family, would not be the first time a rich girl marries someone just to p*ss off the family, but from deeper reports this was not the case.

And what about Max Spears? I have asked this already. What now for him? Is he a total liar too? Seeing as he was with James for periods throughout his life, what are we to make of that?

The prison sentence. 12 years. You only need 5 mins to find murderers, rapists, paedophiles that receive far, far less. I know this is not proof of anything, in and of itself, but it does fit with the 'system' i.e. the PTB, stamping down, hard, and a total character assassination. He will never be believed again. Ever.

It's a perfect ending.

So. Do we believe that people are mind controlled, used, sanity discredited, character assassinated and cast aside, OR is it all fantasy?


Regards.

[Selkie]

Posted by Citizen No2 (here)
Silkie wrote:

Could you say what it is that makes you uneasy? For me, it is that on the one hand, he sounds so much like the perfect MK-Ultra victim, while on the other hand, he sounds like a psychopath.

Exactly. He sounds like the perfect MK victim. Up to and including the 12 year prison sentence.

These powerful families, that just don't let any Tom, Dick, Harry or James into the fold. It is possible that Hayley was rebelling against the family, would not be the first time a rich girl marries someone just to p*ss off the family, but from deeper reports this was not the case.

And what about Max Spears? I have asked this already. What now for him? Is he a total liar too? Seeing as he was with James for periods throughout his life, what are we to make of that?

The prison sentence. 12 years. You only need 5 mins to find murderers, rapists, paedophiles that receive far, far less. I know this is not proof of anything, in and of itself, but it does fit with the 'system' i.e. the PTB, stamping down, hard, and a total character assassination. He will never be believed again. Ever.

It's a perfect ending.

So. Do we believe that people are mind controlled, used, sanity discredited, character assassinated and cast aside, OR is it all fantasy?


Regards.

There is simply no way to know.

[Citizen No2]

This from a thread Cidersomerset has just authored:

Among the suspected war criminals released was Oskar Groening – dubbed the
‘Bookkeeper of Auschwitz’ – who was handed a four-year prison sentence for
his role in the Holocaust earlier this month.

Just think about that. 4 years.


Silkie, I agree, there is simply no way to know. But that is why this forum is so good. Intelligent debate. From all angles, all view points, all things taken into consideration without (rarely) personal attacks.

Regards.

[Elainie]

Posted by Citizen No2 (here)
I am not excusing his behaviour.

Anyone that abuses, threatens or harasses others needs to be punished within the scope of the law. I do have empathy for the victims in this sorry state of affairs.

Do not get me wrong on that point.

But......... If this whole story has been a figment of James's mind, I will be shocked and will have to question my discernment. I am not saying that I bought into everything he had to say, not at all.

There is just something about this whole affair that doesn't sit easy with me.


Regards.

He was abusive to his wife and then tried to blackmail her family. The way it sounded to me (from her) was similar to abuse I had gone through with a psychopathic ex. Very scary stuff indeed. I now have a 6th sense when it comes to these type men.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Citizen No2 (here)
Silkie wrote:

Could you say what it is that makes you uneasy? For me, it is that on the one hand, he sounds so much like the perfect MK-Ultra victim, while on the other hand, he sounds like a psychopath.

Exactly. He sounds like the perfect MK victim. Up to and including the 12 year prison sentence.

These powerful families, that just don't let any Tom, Dick, Harry or James into the fold. It is possible that Hayley was rebelling against the family, would not be the first time a rich girl marries someone just to p*ss off the family, but from deeper reports this was not the case.

And what about Max Spears? I have asked this already. What now for him? Is he a total liar too? Seeing as he was with James for periods throughout his life, what are we to make of that?

The prison sentence. 12 years. You only need 5 mins to find murderers, rapists, paedophiles that receive far, far less. I know this is not proof of anything, in and of itself, but it does fit with the 'system' i.e. the PTB, stamping down, hard, and a total character assassination. He will never be believed again. Ever.

It's a perfect ending.

So. Do we believe that people are mind controlled, used, sanity discredited, character assassinated and cast aside, OR is it all fantasy?


Regards.

Correct they don't just let any Tom, Dick or Harry and in most cases an arranged marriage is what some of us ran from (I come from a family like this as well) but yes, some of us rebel (I certainly have and did similar err exactly the same) and from the point of view of the family, these men are always after money. Haley is lucky to be alive (I am too for that matter). From my understanding (what I was told) he went absolutely psycho.

[Selkie]

Psychopaths are very cunning creatures. If he was abusing her, then I am glad that her family believed her, which often is not the case. Very often, because they are so charming and so good at impression management, the family believes the psychopath.

[Elainie]

Posted by Silkie (here)
Psychopaths are very cunning creatures. If he was abusing her, then I am glad that her family believed her, which often is not the case. Very often, because they are so charming and so good at impression management, the family believes the psychopath.

From what I understand the family was never fooled by him.

[Hip Hipnotist]

Here's an honest-to-God question to my friends here. Was I out of line? At least three members think so. I'm happy to hear all views, and will apologize (as opposed to excuse/explain!) if it's best for the forum, and the right thing to do.

Well, I'm not embarrassed to say ( or should I be? ) I've never heard of James Casbolt/Michael Prince. Just so much time in the day. And I don't frequent PA that often. Again, just so much time in the day.

But I'll respond to your question: Just the fact that you are diligent and concerned enough to 'perhaps' doubt your own judgement and address the forum as you felt compelled to do catapults you ( IMO ) above many others here and elsewhere in the 'alternative media'. There's a reason why, "You the man!" Keep up the great work you do, my friend!

[Selkie]

Posted by Hip Hipnotist (here)
Here's an honest-to-God question to my friends here. Was I out of line? At least three members think so. I'm happy to hear all views, and will apologize (as opposed to excuse/explain!) if it's best for the forum, and the right thing to do.

Well, I'm not embarrassed to say ( or should I be? ) I've never heard of James Casbolt/Michael Prince. Just so much time in the day. And I don't frequent PA that often. Again, just so much time in the day.

But I'll respond to your question: Just the fact that you are diligent and concerned enough to 'perhaps' doubt your own judgement and address the forum as you felt compelled to do catapults you ( IMO ) above many others here and elsewhere in the 'alternative media'. There's a reason why, "You the man!" Keep up the great work you do, my friend!

Quite so

[Agape]

I have a 'jaw lock'. I'm not joking , it's a bad thing . Guess what , today I recalled , first time in my life i have acquired that at some tiny age when i was badly slapped to side of my face by my human parent .

Later I've re-experienced the same thing as teenager, then through many years in India, warm climate, peaceful civilisation the problem seemed to disappear ..except on few occasions .

I remember it caused me a hot few hours when we were transiting through United Emirates with my boyfriend , that time , what happens is .. it's fairly painful , you need to yawn for example and jaws stay locked in open phase and can't close the mouth .
My dentist taught me a grip on how to fix it back, inserting both thumbs under your tongue and moving jaw to correct position.
It works ... unless you're stressed . That time i kept walking around the airport whose name i can't remember for good 3 hours with jaw lock.

It happens when i am stressed so virtually, i feel i am being prevented to talk too .



Can't tolerate chemicals a lot and other forms of cruelty based human treatments .


This civilisation is starving .. people here they look bad at me because they think I should fatten up but in my life , I've seen so many people starving in this world that local fads really don't amuse me a lot,
together with logos on t-shirts , except for pluto .


Think about that, what's the difference between pluto and Pluto . Is Pluto a real word , is it a sound , is it an object . This is not a fun , it's part of what's called 'valid reasoning' in Buddhist dialectics , it's an analysis of a phenomenon and how it appears to any relativistic observer .



How that's for download very bad.

[Aspen]

If it is true that he suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder (used to be known as Multiple Personality Disordre) then it is sad that he would be jailed for 12 years. With the proper treatment he probably could be helped to be far less violent or manipulative. He may not be a psychopath at all, just appear that way.

I was horrified when visiting someone in the psychiatric ward to find a dear friend there. She visited with me in a separate room and admitted to me that she thinks she has another personality. This person is a very intelligent gentle and lucid person most of the time. She suffered horrific sexual abuse as a child from a close relative. She was not believed by her family. At a family gathering years later she was expected to spend time in the same room with this man that had raped her as a young girl. Since that time she has been suffering from serious mental illness. It started off presenting as depression. She starting dissociating and missing time. She started to have seizures at night. Then she lost her license to drive because of that. She has often been suicidal. Now she is becoming aware that she has this alternative self. It is an aggressive person that abuses others.
She showed me texts of ranting and sentences that do not sound like they are written by her and yet there they are, right on her cell phone! She warned me that my relatives belongings are not safe here , that someone is stealing on the ward. Then in a horrified whisper she said that she believed that one of those people was her - at night! This person has done incredible things in the past, been an activist, been in charge of political campaigns and did a good job.

Apparently DID is often misdiagnosed as a lesser form of mental illness such as PTSD or anxiety or depression. It is a very serious disorder and difficult to treat, but not impossible. Advances had been made.

[araucaria]

The debate with Bill raises a wider issue relating to whistle-blowing in general, and the alternative, complicity in secrecy. Many whistle-blowers, unless they are retired, are in breach of some oath or secrecy requirement, and often openly admit as much. This means that their conscience faced them with a dilemma: which is worse, keeping an oath or breaking it? And the usual answer fell short when the imposed secrecy was being used against the public good.

Take the uncontroversial subject of physical health in our political leaders. Here in France, we had a president (Mitterrand) who served two terms (14 years) in the knowledge that he had a slow-developing cancer of the prostate. Given that Pompidou had died in office only seven years before, he promised medical transparency by issuing a regular bill of health; he kept the promise but at some stage his cancer was diagnosed, then worsened, and finally became hugely obvious near the end when he excused himself from an important meeting to go and be sick. All we know in hindsight is that for some indeterminate period of time, he was in no condition to govern and for a longer period his personal physician had been playing along. After Mitterrand died, the doctor, Claude Gubler, published a book revealing that he had been ill since he was elected in 1981, and incapacitated from 1994 (his term ended in May 1995). The book was banned, and Gubler was convicted both for breaching medical secrecy and also for faking medical certificates. Only ten years later did the European Court of Human Rights overturn various French court awards, restoring his right to publish, in the name of freedom of speech. Above and beyond the particulars of any given case, you have the open issue of how much people need to know: no doubt more than we are generally told, and certainly more than a private citizen would want to reveal.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Gubler

So there is this grey area, and unavoidably so. Even a politician rightly held in the highest esteem might face the above dilemma of brushing off illness and how far is too far. We see it in other areas as well. If you are private messaging with someone, you are free to post your own comments, but not the other person’s. But even this restricted freedom betrays the fact that you were exchanging at all and suggests something about why, and when etc. There is always a point where privacy spills over into publicity, and there is nothing necessarily unfortunate about that because, if you view it from a different angle, why would you want to communicate privately with someone in the first place if not a) to ‘air’ a problem as we say, and get help with it, and b) to say something slightly indiscreet to the extent that nothing is ever totally about just oneself? Do we ever have issues that don’t involve someone else and our personal take on who they are?

Most people will be annoyed about a leak, unless some good comes of it. A child will resent his parents talking about him, but not if it leads to something really cool happening. Often personal secrecy needs to be breached in order to make progress. I was once able to talk a former Catholic priest through a difficult situation he had been through with a paedophile colleague. He was bound not by some coverup but by professional/confessional secrecy, which was lifted, to his great relief, by my reading on the Internet about the man’s conviction (little publicized but no coverup). Too many people are bowing under the crippling weight of all kinds of secrecy; and for me, disclosure in the broadest sense means removing that burden in every acceptable way we can. Research means picking up pieces and putting them together in various unexpected ways, and wisdom means applying that to real instances where it can be of help – not necessarily to one particular person, but to whomever it may concern, possibly a great many. That is precisely what Bill is doing and I have absolutely no problem with that. Au contraire, the system is leaky, and messy, and that is our lifeline. The only way you can ‘get through’ to anyone is when their defences come down, as they surely must.

[greybeard]

Think it all comes down to intention.
Im not of any religion but Christ had some good sayings.
" He who is without sin throw the first stone"
No matter what one does some will see it as inappropriate and of course they are right from their perspective.
Very hard to judge what is for the greatest good--I cant.
I can only do what feels right, at that time, given the context as I see it.
I might think I was right or wrong to have done so later.

Chris

[araucaria]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Think it all comes down to intention.
Im not of any religion but Christ had some good sayings.
" He who is without sin throw the first stone"
No matter what one does some will see it as inappropriate and of course they are right from their perspective.
Very hard to judge what is for the greatest good--I cant.
I can only do what feels right, at that time, given the context as I see it.
I might think I was right or wrong to have done so later.

Chris

One can intend the greatest good in a general way, but when it gets down to hard details, the problem is that well-intended actions can backfire; on the other hand you also have well-intended but ill-judged actions that ‘forwardfire’, so to speak, i.e. perversely turn out for the good; and the same goes for ill-intended actions, which when they are ill-judged can do good. A ‘blessing in disguise’ can be either of the above. What we are seeking beyond this mixed bunch or lucky dip is greater alignment with general good intent whereby an undisguised blessing can shower down as many blessings for all. How can this be achieved?

We typically grow wiser through learning non-intervention; all too often, things go south through people putting their oar in, and things can improve simply by stepping back. The ‘matrix’ is the imaginary extreme instance of interventionism when the masters have absolutely everything under full control. But counter-intuitively, non-intervention is the cause of this mess in the first place (the unbridled influence of controllers), leading to passive acceptance, silence taken as consent, and so on. This is because in these parts non-intervention is not an option: someone else will intervene if you do not, and you cannot prevent intervention without intervening; this is the fundamental dilemma that gets anarchy a bad name. So we are basically here to get involved, even if that means occasionally getting our hands dirty. I think ‘less is more’, active inaction or non-meddlesome intervention is what is meant by the Taoist term wu wei. Effort is tiring because of all the parasitic movements it adds to what needs to be done. Effortlessness means getting the job done without the parasitic interference. It is something of a misnomer because it usually takes great practice to achieve. Since the infamous archons behave like parasites, it may be that their influence can be overcome by practice, much in the way you might smooth out your golf swing with practice. In other words, intention is something you can work at. It is not an ultimate gift or talent, you develop it through conscious awareness. There is of course an aspect of infinite regress to this: you apply good intentions to intending well, you have to intend to intend to intend, and so on. This can be offputting, but only in proportion to the undisguised blessings becoming ‘onputting’, so to speak. Which is why intention is no sinecure and why most people are relatively happy with their current mediocrity: a closer to ideal world is literally too good to be true – until their mediocre world proves too bad to be viable any longer.

[21g]

Agree with Greybeards take, Intention is our only paddle, when sailing down this murky creek.
I second H.H.`s appraisal also, Bill Ryan, you the man !! ( .. but not THE man,obviously, ` places fist in mouth ` ).

As regards the O.P. i too find it hard to believe that this is near 100 % fabrication. If it is,
then the Stephen Kings, J.R. Tolkiens of this world have some serious competition, hey.

[Delight]

Posted by araucaria (here)
Research means picking up pieces and putting them together in various unexpected ways, and wisdom means applying that to real instances where it can be of help – not necessarily to one particular person, but to whomever it may concern, possibly a great many.

Research sounds so innocent. Just ask the question and find out the answer. Is recording people's conversations, looking for buzz words on the internet, surveillance etc. of all kinds considered "research"? I betcha it is by those who think for the higher good they "should" monitor everyone. Entrapment is even probably research to see if a person "might" do a criminal act.

What I note is that in trying to filter the "story", James Casbolt became a person of interest. Bill stated (and this isn't about Bill but the attitude of a given "society" that has any agenda) that he did not "dig" but passively received communication from someone who "in his job" has access to medical records. This set off alarm bells for me.

What is fair when people become "persons of interest"?

Why should I care? You can say, "she is not a person of interest". Actually a great many people do not want any chance of being a "person" of interest because of the consequences.

Does looking at James Casbolts records (and its energetic support for spying) have any effect? Does behind the back investigation lead to the same means that make most people stay quiet? I am CERTAIN, every POV on this issue of privacy thinks they "specially" have a right to know and they are going to defend the position.

IMO, I would not like for Bill to discuss my medical records or his contact to look them up under any circumstances. I do think my privavcy there is my privilege backed by responsibility to afford others privacy. Therefore, I will not look at Bill's medical records or discuss them anywhere. That seems very simple to me.

Intention was mentioned and also reflected in the bit I grabbed of araucaria's post. The problem with the way society is constructed is that people can be very sure they mean well. They have no idea even that what they consider good for the "whole" is not "good". They can ask a number of people "is this for the good" and if they get a majority rule in their community, think...it's good.

IMO the "PT that....." are made up of many units (individual) of people (not bad psychopathic monsters) who sincerely believe the behavior they do is based on a "higher good". The fact that they are all mentally ill and twisted about to see the world the way it is perceived is my interest.

IMO the slippery part of "benefit" to the many is who decides and garden variety insanity has schooled the collective.

LOTs of people like James Casbolt are telling TALL tales and expect ME to believe them including people in my own small world. I think it may be necessary to decide that it is not YOUR story that matters but mine. Am I willing to manipulate YOU? Am I willing to lie to get a benefit from YOU? Would I spy on YOU? Is my desire for power (including control, authority, fame, money, sex, excitement etc...paybacks of the visceral kind) greater than my desire for YOUR well being?

What I believe is true and necessary will be what I do. That is IMO the ONLY way we can handle the case that control and manipulation and invasion of rights of individuals is justified everyday of the week for someone's "reasoning"

I will use a personal example here. It might be that my experience is part of a microscosm of "do the ends justify means"? I believe I have first hand experience with people of the lie. My family produced my mother who was paranoid, manipulative (narcissist), delusional, miserable, had two or more personalities, hurt people, hurt herself. Public-ally she was civil and kind. Privately she was a well of rage spewing. I just thought she was evil until I began to question "Is she mentally ill". As she aged, she became more "crazy" looking. She is now dead.

Growing up with her and as a descendant of a family who was proud of itself, primed me to be very was sensitive to how generations pass down the horrors of mundane psychopathy. SHE did not start the ball..... Without resorting to parasites, aliens, MK Ultra or any other explanation, these family people of good social standing were awful to each other. SO, at the hands of social family psychopathy, a woman named Ann was IMO a poster child for the antithesis of "good" by way of "normal".

IMO, Ann was a woman who lied but believed her own lies.

My mother might have been the victim of severe DELIBERATE trauma at the level of torture as a young child. She may have been the un-deliberate recipient of stupid health care but she was isolated in a crib for months with a skin condition...not touched, not comforted....I know for a fact she was subjected to at least one PTSD inducing experience when she birthed a child and had to care for the baby/breast feed for three months at a Florence Crightendam Home then give up the baby, then return home and pretend she never had a child....just one more way that people can be tortured by family/community and for the good of the greater means of managing "society".

Poor Ann felt like a victim and victimized out of her pain. Feeling she HAD to marry my father, she punished him. She believed she had no skills so she continued playing helpless. She was prepped to be compliant but she would rebell and still believed what she rebelled against. Then she was my Mom and my brother's Mom parenting us...OMG. We all did admire her though we were hurt and then hated too. Amazing being Ann was: sensitive, artistic, beautiful and "aware" as she had many social "causes" she supported. She "cared" deeply about the world, animals, suffering. It was very confusing when she acted mean and then wooed us back.

Verbally convincing with a huge vocabulary, Ann talked and talked. Mom lied all the time. She told as tall a tale about herself as any "whistle blower" (Heroine very good and beleagered), my siblings and me, her husbands, her parents all were evil (at least half the time. Everyone she was talking to at the moment heard about the others). She told huge unbelievably strange stories of encounters (much like the stories here of aliens, of Nazis, of those out to destroy the world). She had an imagination that was entertaining unless one wished to research her facts. The facts never could be pinned down.

This is what is happening everywhere with people in their houses because IMO this "fracturing" has amped up to a high pitch. IMO no amount of disclosure is the point because what appears in reality is a mental projection. The speed of information quickens and information is splintering. Information is becoming a burden clogging up a subtle realm of "direct experience". Lots has been said about "how to figure out" if someone is telling the truth and focused on what others do.

My question is "Am I telling the truth?" as I know it and can I change my mind, even lose the mind? Lots has been said about others and their behaviors. But I am only responsible for my behaviors arising from my authentic being. We can't figure out what others will do and we need to observe what "I DO" to see what i am being. We have to CHOOSE to hold our own line of ethics IMO based on our values because they inform us. As a human, not a social unit, will I steal or create my own? Do I allow transparency concerning myself or am I afraid? Will I manipulate "to gain a result" as an expediant?

Do I really live what i value or just talk? My ideals are not what I look like as I persuade others but who I am being in my inner world.

If I know what my ideals are but fail (as I will hehe), will I KNOW it? Does my conscience ask me to restore my will for being on the path of my ideal. I am not talking perfection but talking about endogenous values as opposed to regurgitating training for social value.

To me what is displayed outwardly when it is a lie feels like pretty much all superficial "society" of the artifice. The result of what I experience as I live my personal introspection/contemplation and WILL to BE feels like the real world.

The amazing part is what I sincerely practice becomes my reality more and more concretely as I perceive it. Life seems to be speeding up to almost instant reflection. Maybe I am unreasonable but I think this instantaneous experience of a variation on "the golden rule" is what is UP NOW on planet earth.

[Timewaster]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Agape (here)

years of mental illness

This appears to be true. A former Avalon member worked for the British NHS (the National Health Service), and was able to look at his medical records. He had apparently received extensive psychiatric care.

Regarding his testimony, I personally regard it as so unreliable as to not spend time trying to figure out what he is saying. (He claimed publicly once that Kerry Cassidy and I worked for the CIA, so that told me something about the reliability of his statements.)

Thanks Bill. I'm glad you posted this, I think its a good to research on weather someone is credible or not by finding any information you can.
I hope if you get insider info on future whistleblowers you will tell us too, and not be worried if some members get upset.

So many liars and cons out there, we need all the help we can get