I'm a bit confused by some of the comments on this discussion. I didn't get any impression that either contributor was unduly defensive or avoidant of subject matter.
If an interviewee is asked "do you think there is anything significant/suspicious about X" and they don't think there is, their responsibility is to answer honestly to this effect - they don't have a duty to manufacture some content for us all to feast on, or disingenuously conjure up avenues down which we can find fulfillment in speculatively wandering.
Other than that, EN shared a fair bit of personal/family history that might be considered private, or even painful. How many of us are willing to effectively talk about that kind of thing to a horde of unseen, anonymous strangers? Likewise, most people one might speak to amongst the masses would struggle to acknowledge the reality of child sacrifice, for instance, or even evil as a general force.
As for myself, I found the discussion worthwhile, and thought EN's summation of the need to address the 'darker stuff' and then walk away from it, mindful of the potential 'taint' of such energies, particularly well put.
I got the impression she wasn't too happy, whether that was with the interview per se or something else going on with her, who knows; hard to judge having not heard/read anything of her's before..
To me she seemed a bit defensive at times, which meant little was achieved in terms of synthesis between you; more thesis Vs antitheses as opposed to something more productive. This could potentially be due to how you both showed up energetically on the day, the subtleties around and aside what was actually said..
Seemed to be alot of wisdom in there though, for e.g. the neutrality piece in regards to (non)reacting to "evil" - opposition, disgust, horror, recoil, all just keeps the pendulum swinging. Yet, when she again brought neutrality to the nature of the elites tech (MRNA) - towards the end of the interview - she lost me; as if it were designed without an intent, hmmmm..
Re your podcasting in general, there seemed to be a disconnect here which was a little jarring and unfamiliar, yet something in the transmission kept me listening to the end..
Her interview came across like she didn't want to be interviewed. I understand she's a reporter and has a pedigree. But, even some knucklehead like me knows that are scholarly, well documented accounts of Trauma based mind control and ritualized abuse. Start with "A Nation Betrayed" by Carol Rutz. I can list many more. But, I don't want to be redundant. I would offer to her, "If you don't want to talk about certain things, don't talk about them" that's not the responsibility of the interviewer.
Reading these comments must be, for Elizabeth, what it was like for me reading comments at my first appearance on The Higherside Chats (I didn't go back to read them for my second appearance!) Different audience bases have different expectations, standards, levels of discernment, etc. I haven't listened back yet (too busy prepping for Lent) but I invited EN on because of her background experience as an insider & was curious to hear more about it
I think my listeners have come to expect a degree of ease and chemistry between myself and guests because I tend to choose people based on a feeling of affinity more than anything; recently, I wanted to branch out and cast the net a bit wider, even if it means inviting a bit of friction into the mix....
Wow. All the smartest people I know merely pride themselves on not being dumb. So when Elizabeth referred to herself as "very, very, very fucking smart," I got excited at the prospect of an hour and a half of truth bombs. Instead, all she delivered were rhetorical evasions. Her juvenile responses to the comments are further evidence of her intellectual depth, or lack thereof. I'm sure this overestimation of her own intellectual abilities, coupled with her pedigree, is what qualified her for a job at Time.
Elizabeth is awesome. Her two part pod with Kunstler is worth listening to. Eco-Fascists is ahead of its time. Her other work looks fascinating and insightful. Jasun is one of the best conversationalists. This is one of the few podcasts I still regularly listen to and why I subscribe. The chemistry seemed to fizzle out around the issue of condemnation. Elizabeth may have a point.
Absolutely 2nd Matrix. Coupled with with a high handed, 'don't you know who I am vibe', found this one a tough listen. She talks a lot about USAID, but won't mention the likes of Peter Thiel and his TheilBucks flooding into the wider "Dissident" narrative.
No, just presenting the likes of Kash Patel, Trump Vance and co as some sort of good actors...
I'm a bit confused by some of the comments on this discussion. I didn't get any impression that either contributor was unduly defensive or avoidant of subject matter.
If an interviewee is asked "do you think there is anything significant/suspicious about X" and they don't think there is, their responsibility is to answer honestly to this effect - they don't have a duty to manufacture some content for us all to feast on, or disingenuously conjure up avenues down which we can find fulfillment in speculatively wandering.
Other than that, EN shared a fair bit of personal/family history that might be considered private, or even painful. How many of us are willing to effectively talk about that kind of thing to a horde of unseen, anonymous strangers? Likewise, most people one might speak to amongst the masses would struggle to acknowledge the reality of child sacrifice, for instance, or even evil as a general force.
As for myself, I found the discussion worthwhile, and thought EN's summation of the need to address the 'darker stuff' and then walk away from it, mindful of the potential 'taint' of such energies, particularly well put.
I got the impression she wasn't too happy, whether that was with the interview per se or something else going on with her, who knows; hard to judge having not heard/read anything of her's before..
To me she seemed a bit defensive at times, which meant little was achieved in terms of synthesis between you; more thesis Vs antitheses as opposed to something more productive. This could potentially be due to how you both showed up energetically on the day, the subtleties around and aside what was actually said..
Seemed to be alot of wisdom in there though, for e.g. the neutrality piece in regards to (non)reacting to "evil" - opposition, disgust, horror, recoil, all just keeps the pendulum swinging. Yet, when she again brought neutrality to the nature of the elites tech (MRNA) - towards the end of the interview - she lost me; as if it were designed without an intent, hmmmm..
Re your podcasting in general, there seemed to be a disconnect here which was a little jarring and unfamiliar, yet something in the transmission kept me listening to the end..
Be interesting to get her take on that interview
Her interview came across like she didn't want to be interviewed. I understand she's a reporter and has a pedigree. But, even some knucklehead like me knows that are scholarly, well documented accounts of Trauma based mind control and ritualized abuse. Start with "A Nation Betrayed" by Carol Rutz. I can list many more. But, I don't want to be redundant. I would offer to her, "If you don't want to talk about certain things, don't talk about them" that's not the responsibility of the interviewer.
Reading these comments must be, for Elizabeth, what it was like for me reading comments at my first appearance on The Higherside Chats (I didn't go back to read them for my second appearance!) Different audience bases have different expectations, standards, levels of discernment, etc. I haven't listened back yet (too busy prepping for Lent) but I invited EN on because of her background experience as an insider & was curious to hear more about it
I think my listeners have come to expect a degree of ease and chemistry between myself and guests because I tend to choose people based on a feeling of affinity more than anything; recently, I wanted to branch out and cast the net a bit wider, even if it means inviting a bit of friction into the mix....
Prickly, defensive, and unwilling to open up about anything. Why on earth did she consent to an interview if she didn't want to talk? Psycho vibes.
That's the question I had. I'm not sure about psycho vibes. But, I was puzzled as to why she wanted to engage with these issues.
Wow. All the smartest people I know merely pride themselves on not being dumb. So when Elizabeth referred to herself as "very, very, very fucking smart," I got excited at the prospect of an hour and a half of truth bombs. Instead, all she delivered were rhetorical evasions. Her juvenile responses to the comments are further evidence of her intellectual depth, or lack thereof. I'm sure this overestimation of her own intellectual abilities, coupled with her pedigree, is what qualified her for a job at Time.
Wow US aid for the Nosferatu class!
Boring interview. SRA probably has a huge amount of operatives pretending to be "victims", grifters, liars etc.. Hard pass
Elizabeth is awesome. Her two part pod with Kunstler is worth listening to. Eco-Fascists is ahead of its time. Her other work looks fascinating and insightful. Jasun is one of the best conversationalists. This is one of the few podcasts I still regularly listen to and why I subscribe. The chemistry seemed to fizzle out around the issue of condemnation. Elizabeth may have a point.
So she did agree to the co-author tag? Anyway, she definitely was triggered by something and bolted for the door at the end.
More bored and busy pal
Could exit with more grace in that case. And maybe manage your time better if you're that run off your feet.
Cordially GFY
Absolutely 2nd Matrix. Coupled with with a high handed, 'don't you know who I am vibe', found this one a tough listen. She talks a lot about USAID, but won't mention the likes of Peter Thiel and his TheilBucks flooding into the wider "Dissident" narrative.
No, just presenting the likes of Kash Patel, Trump Vance and co as some sort of good actors...
One to avoid frankly.