I have a confession to make. I do not believe most of what I hear. That doesn’t at all mean I think it is false or untrue, I just don’t believe it is true—neither true, or untrue—neither fact or fiction.
Since all this Covid caca began I have adopted the phrase, “consider everything, believe nothing.” Which basically means I don’t commit to much of anything but I keep an open mind. This has worked pretty well for me, albeit a bit wishy-washy.
I don’t really start believing something unless I have seen some pretty compelling evidence in support of it, or someone I trust says or writes it, or there is so much science behind it, it would be impossible not to “believe.”
Also things that I have experienced directly I tend to believe, but even that can be dicey.
Now, I can be pretty sure of some things, or even pretty sure something isn’t Kosher. But I tend to always keep an open mind unless something moves into the “believed” category or the “not believed” category—even then I can always change my mind. Believable and unbelievable stuff can be found on the sheep side as well as on the shrew side.
As you all know, the shrew side can have some pretty scoogley stuff to assess. Don’t get me wrong; I love it when people have theories and ideas that contradict the mainstream, even really weird ones. But honestly, can’t I save judgment for later? Do I have to say I believe everything to stay in the clubhouse?
On my substack I wrote an article about Geert Vanden Bossche’s theories regarding the immune escape of the virus. I got an angry comment informing me that there is no virus and there never has been a virus and my article was completely whacked because to believe anything I said one would have to believe an untruth—that viruses actually exist.
I tried to defend myself as well as the point of my article but to no avail. She unsubscribed in a huff. The irony is that if I had to pick a side right now I would probably pick Terrain Theory over Germ Theory—I was introduced to this concept 20 years ago when my wife was dying of cancer. I did a deep dive into Royal Rife’s work and was convinced a lot of his theories and methods were right on. Germ Theory vs. Terrain Theory is a big part of that Rife world, and it fascinated me.
My article on Bossche and his virus exploits? Well, yeah, I cover all sides. I think Bossche’s work is very interesting, even though it resides in the forbidden realms of germ theory. That doesn’t mean I can’t look at it, write about it, and ponder about it…does it?
How about you reading this? Do you believe everything, on this side of the fence, we are expected to believe? How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go? Where do you stop believing, and where do you stop even considering? And where down there do you say, “this is all nonsense!”
For some reason I don’t seem to get to the “nonsense” point…I am fascinated by everything, and am willing to look at it all…flat earth, fairies, aliens, lizard people, the Pope being a pedophile, I consider everything—but I don’t believe all of it. Do you?
There is some old bit of wisdom that says nothing is 100% anything. Meaning that the entire world can’t be evil, or the entire government can’t be corrupt, or all of medicine cannot be off base and ineffective. On and on.
I think in a broad sense this is probably truer than not. But I do wonder about nuance and detail. Was there a good side to Adolf Hitler? He did like dogs, or so it seemed. How about Stalin? He read a lot, how could anyone who reads a lot be all bad?
I sprinkle a little bit of this wisdom into the consideration of strange ideas and theories. Dr Carl Jung, the eminent Swiss psychiatrist and founder of archetypal “depth” psychology, said the true spice of life lies in the tension of the opposites…and probably truth lies there as well in most cases.
This tension is the grey area between two opposing dogmas.
I suppose it is dogma that sets me off. I shy away a bit from people who are so rigid they can’t even discuss a controversial situation. The same goes for information. For example, I do not spend a lot of time “looking” at the sheep side of all of this (been there, done that)…I don’t try to find “the good” or the “facts” in the mainstream agenda about the virus, or the good side to vaccines, or censorship, or corruption.
Maybe I am wrong not to spend more time “seeing their point of view.” But, if something came along that was significant, I certainly would give it a peek.
I do entertain the very slight possibility that many of these puppet masters are ignorant and don’t really know what they are doing—that is largely how cult psychology works. I even believe that Big Pharma has done some good things in the world! Same with Big Medicine.
I also don’t spend a lot of time going too far down the rabbit hole. Maybe that is wrong as well, but I just don’t have the time. I don’t bash the believers down there, but I don’t say much about what they believe, either because I simply have not thoroughly investigated their position.
I was interviewed on JermWarfare a while back and made some comment about Epstein and his notorious island. Everyone associated with Epstein is largely being considered a pedophile. I said I am not so sure that is true, but then added that I have not really investigated the whole thing that thoroughly.
I was blasted for this. “I should know more about Epstein, and then I would know the truth.” Maybe so, but I choose not to investigate everything that thoroughly, not because it doesn’t matter, but because I am interested in other things.
So what do we do with all of this?
I know I am afraid often to express even an opinion about a lot of things found in the depths of that rabbit hole. I do not say it is all crap, and I do not say it is all solid truth. I simply do not know.
I think every “movement” consisting of a large group of people has within it many conflicting ideas. That is pretty obvious.
I do not think we have to believe, and be on board, with every one of these ideas in order to consider ourselves devoted to the cause. Personally I think it is best not to call out things we do not have a positive opinion about unless we are very sure of them.
We should allow ideas to breathe, and rub our chin about weird ones we don’t fully understand at our first encounter with them. But I don’t think we have to claim loyalty to everything that comes along within our circle. And at the same time, we should refrain from bashing contradictory ideas that come into the discussion.
Todd Hayen is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here
For direct-transfer bank details click here.