spirituality - physics - conspiracy - philosophy - wisdom - and more...
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Noble Realms → Conspiracy → Stewert Swerdlow radio interview
This is such an important interview guys! He covers so much what we talk about on this forum. To get the interview from the archives you have to sign up on the website it is free though.
So sign up first and look for his name on the archive list to download:
Swerdlow's been talked about before here at NR, and one of the big things that was discussed was that he got his info. from other people and lied about his background. He's apparently not a Montalk Boy as he claims, and all his knowledge about the archetypes and the colors and whatever else he talks about was taken from a blind psychic woman named Maryanne who was an abductee (Tom knew her personally.)
Swerdlow was in jail for embezzlement (keep that in mind...dude has a pattern of theft in all its forms...) and Maryanne was working at the jail as a volunteer, doing social work or something, and they struck up a friendship. Soon she was tutoring him in the various things she knows, and next thing you know, Swerdlow's out of the pokey and now marketing all of her info. as his own without so much as a nod in her direction. There was another guy who was locked up with Swerdlow, and if I remember correctly, that guy had mind control stuff going on in his life. He told Stewart his story, and then Stewart later claimed it as his own.
But I hear in person he's very charismatic and likable. 
cough.
His info. may be worthwhile but it bothers me when people lie and steal their material from others. Because his whole foundation is set up on a lie I can't be bothered to read or listen to anything he says, regardless of whether it may have value.
If you don't think people talking out about these kinds of things aren't going to be attacked and framed you've got another thing coming. I'm not going to let personal prejudices against certain people keep me from listening to what they have to say. A lot of what he says is what I myself have been thinking. I realize that this forum depends heavily on channeling and Stewert reveals what that actually is. But, if we really are trying to go beyond the 'matrix' we will listen to all the people we are told not to listen to. Otherwise we are just as closed minded as any of the ops or sheeple we attack.
If you don't think people talking out about these kinds of things aren't going to be attacked and framed you've got another thing coming.
(waiting for that thing to come.....whatever it is......looking around.....hmmm....shrugs....okay.) 
So I guess what you're saying here, if I'm understanding you correctly, is that Maryanne, an old blind psychic woman, was framing Stewart. Surely you jest? I talked to this woman on the phone for over two hours, (about other things, not Stewart) and trust me, she had better things to do than be "framing" Stewart. In fact she's never gone public with this. She just kept quiet and let him do his thing, kind of like watching a kid being a screwball, while the wise adult just stands there shaking their head on the sidelines. If he wants to steal the material....fine, was her head shaking reaction. The exact opposite of what you describe.
I'm noticing a pattern here though - the conspiracies are rubbish for people you're fans of, be it Tori Amos, or Stewart. Don't want to hear at all how they may be tainted in any way shape or form. It's interesting. The ego identifies something as an extension of its own self and then takes it personally when that extension is under question. For me, if there was somebody I was reading or listening to, I'd WANT to hear if they're not honest or legit. This has come up several times for me recently with material I was reading. The first book was "Unshackled" by Kathleen Sullivan. Her daughter is claiming that a bulk of the material is made up. The daughter herself sounds troubled, so when I saw that I just neutrally considered it and put it on the back burner and kept going. But it's good to know. I want to know if there's a possibility that the author is knowingly being dishonest, and I'll keep that in mind. The second book was called "The Long Walk." I came across a free copy and started reading it, having never heard of it, and was devouring it and getting all into the story. Then some small part of me way down started questioning the validity of the details I was reading. I got home and hopped online to do some research....and come to find out that the author's story is mostly all rubbish. He may have been in a Russian internment camp, but the whole story from the time they broke out to the time they reached India wasn't legit, couldn't have happened according to people who know the geography of that region and compared it to what he described. Which is funny because it was at the point in the story where they broke out that my gut was like, hmmmm....something feels off here. There were also other things that researchers had turned up when trying to validate the story that showed it most likely wasn't real. But I wasn't going to start making wild claims that the questioners and detractors were "framing" the author of the book. I just neutrally nodded my head and thought, Yeah, something seems a little screwy here, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the story was made up.
I'm not going to let personal prejudices against certain people keep me from listening to what they have to say.
This isn't personal prejudices, and you're manipulating things by using this word choice. A personal prejudice would be like, "Oh, he's white, and I don't like white people." or "I don't like when people write the name as 'Stewart.' I prefer Stuart!" or "He's tall. I only like midgets." I'm pointing out that he got his material from other people and isn't who he claims to be. So that does beg one to tread cautiously when proceeding with the information. That's not a personal prejudice. That's just what it is.
A lot of what he says is what I myself have been thinking.
And that's fine. Just consider the source and tread cautiously is what I'm saying.
I realize that this forum depends heavily on channeling
Not sure where you get that from. Possibly you're getting this forum confused with another? This forum is part of the Montalk.net site, a site done by Tom who writes all his own articles about alternative science and physics, spirituality, conspiracy and "the matrix," and has never channeled entities from other realms in his life. Channeling has been covered, everything from Barbara Marciniak to Laura and the C's to the Ra material, Matthew, good ol' "Irish Leprechaun" Bashar and others. But out of a forum with 4,878 topics and 53,597 posts, covering every weird subject under the sun, then channeling was sure to find it's way in there. But that's not the same as "depends heavily on channeling." So yeah, sounds like there may be some confusion here with another forum, maybe one that was founded on some particular channeling material, and where every topic has to tie into it in some way or something, or a forum where only channeling is discussed...you know....versus the bezillion of non-channeling topics that are covered here at NR on a regular basis.
and Stewert reveals what that actually is.
If I remember correctly, Stewart says that all channeling is government-based. And while that seems to be true in many cases - it's a possibility that I've warned about a few times in my own writing - not all of it's going to be. What Stewart is doing is taking the extreme false two choice polarity route - All or nothing, black or white, good or evil, etc. etc. etc.
Have you considered the possibility that Stewart promoting the idea of 100% government-based channeling is in itself his own form of attack and discrediting against others who would actually be legit? You know, the same thing you say that others are doing to him? Just a thought......
But, if we really are trying to go beyond the 'matrix' we will listen to all the people we are told not to listen to.
You make it seem as if we're being "told not to listen" to him because he is in fact legit and the real deal, and we're the disinfo. attackers and framers makin' up wild yarns to keep the public away from his material. When in fact I'm just pointing out that the dude stole other people's material and isn't who he claims to be. So therefore, his material needs to be viewed through that lens of cautious awareness.
And just to clarify, I'm not telling anybody else not to listen to him just because I choose not to. We're all adults here. Nobody tells anybody what to do. But there is a clear difference between telling somebody not to do something, and then pointing out that he stole his material and lied about who he is. One is being an immature jerk who can't respect that others are sovereign adults. The other is giving people more information to work with so they can make better and more informed choices as they proceed.
Otherwise we are just as closed minded as any of the ops or sheeple we attack.
No, although that sounds all well and good. Nice try.
And one becomes two. Always such a tone of hostility from you Lyra, must you always be so right?
And one becomes two. Always such a tone of hostility from you Lyra, must you always be so right?
Sounds like you're still peeved because a long time ago you and I had a debate about whether TV magician Criss Angel was actually really flying. You kept insisting that he was. I disagreed and explained why I didn't think so. And you apparently didn't like that.
http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?id=3496
I walked away from that conversation seriously concluding that you might be intellectually impaired. You popped up in the chatroom not too long after that; I saw your name when you logged in and rolled my eyes thinking, "Oh...it's the dude who believes Criss Angel actually flies." Didn't say anything to you, just went about the conversation I was having with others, then you directly addressed me, trying to bring up the Criss Angel thing yet again. I said something like "Oh yeah?" as you broached the topic, and you said Yeah, and continued, trying to show and prove how he really might actually be flying. After that I didn't respond to you. Just kept talking to everybody else. And that was the end of that.
So I'm thinking all of that combined MIGHT be explaining your reaction here. You know, just maybe.
The only people who I see jumping into conversations I'm having with others are those I've debated with or had an outright issue with in anther threads. They decide they don't like me, hold a grudge so now I'm "on their radar", then get triggered when they see me discussing something with somebody else. And it's always the same sort of comments. You're so mean! You're so hostile! You always have to be right! - which all sounds very juvenile. Like a child.
There's so much to say about this I don't even know where to begin. People holding their own in a discussion instead of being a wilting flower - gets mistaken for "having to be right." People who aren't afraid to state their opinions and who stand by them - gets mistaken for being hostile.
If I was hostile I'd be cussing people out and calling them names. I've seen NR posters 1. Threaten to shoot other posters with their Smith and Wesson; 2. Tell the forum that they felt like punching another poster in the face; 3. Cuss other posters out and call them names - And other assorted craziness. So, if you think I'm "hostile," think again. Seems like you've missed much of the fun around here in the past 3 years and have little basis of comparison. !
All of this is sidetrack diversion though. I post my comments about Swerdlow, belljar responds, I respond to her points...then the third party jumps in and personally attacks me, calling me hostile and saying I "have to be right." So now what happens? The conversation veers wildly off topic onto "lyra nonsense." Something wants the round and round attacking/defending thing going on here. Figures too it's in a topic concerning somebody dark and shady. Many of the more negative topics concerning negative subjects or shady and questionable people seem to spawn side topic round and round. So that's all I have to say in my own defense, not interested in further round and round. And as far as Swerdlow goes, I've said all that I can think of to say on that subject as well. People now have a bit more information to work with and can make a more informed choice when proceeding with his material.
You're so mean! You're so hostile! You always have to be right!
Yep, Lyra, you're on my radar. You're starting to see your Shadow. I have hope for you yet.
The only people who I see jumping into conversations I'm having with others are those I've debated with or had an outright issue with in anther threads.
Who haven't you had an issue with on this forum? 
lyra: My ego still is a little incensed over the whole Criss Angel thing. While I really don't care in the end, I guess your tone bit hard, it's hard to convince my ego to forget it. I find you have an amazingly broad and thorough understanding of things, it is frustrating to constantly run into your harsh rebuttals of others and their ideas. It appears others have told you this before, so I suppose this message won't mean anything either.
Of the few metaphysical concepts I have picked up, Unity seems to be of utmost importance, as opposed to reinforcing the duality.
If you agree with the person, great, if not, then no big deal and you shouldn't take it personally. That's the way I see it. 
I see similar situations like this happen to me and others around me outside of NR in my real life lately, like people who react to what I say and try to edit what I say, or sway me into making me feel guilty for what I say, even though there's nothing to feel guilty about. I think it all boils down to...we have a right to say what we think/feel is right, whether people agree or disagree. Think about it. Given, of course, you should consider your audience and say it clearly and with class..the best possible way you can say it. But how can we live, going along and keeping our mouths shut, without showing another perspective, all in the name of being a nice person? We all like free will, right? So we should allow others enjoy it too.
(...) I'm pointing out that he got his material from other people and isn't who he claims to be. So that does beg one to tread cautiously when proceeding with the information. That's not a personal prejudice. That's just what it is.
(...)(...)
And just to clarify, I'm not telling anybody else not to listen to him just because I choose not to. We're all adults here. Nobody tells anybody what to do. But there is a clear difference between telling somebody not to do something, and then pointing out that he stole his material and lied about who he is. One is being an immature jerk who can't respect that others are sovereign adults. The other is giving people more information to work with so they can make better and more informed choices as they proceed.(...)
In a world made of lies and fantasies truths always hurts...
I personally feel that bringing up other threads that have no bearing on the discussion at hand is counterproductive. If it's related to the topic, then that's fine, but as a tool to discredit another poster's point of view? Not cool.
I personally feel that bringing up other threads that have no bearing on the discussion at hand is counterproductive. If it's related to the topic, then that's fine, but as a tool to discredit another poster's point of view? Not cool.
I emailed you on the side, but I'll just go ahead and say it here as well since you've gone ahead and jumped on the "Let's sidetrack this discussion onto Lyra!" bandwagon. Those past threads have everything to do with the current exchange in question, which is exactly why I mention them. No bearing? Have you been paying attention? Like I told you in the email, you apparently haven't debated/discussed things with people in a thread, only to have them pop their tops at you later on in another thread - while not admitting to what the real reason is for them popping at you. Had I not had that past issue with them in the other thread then they would never be saying what they're saying in the current thread in question. Period. And the reason I point out those past threads is so that everybody reading the exchange can be on the same page as to what's really happening here since not everybody here reads every single post. There are going to be people reading the exchange going, "Gee, that seems a little odd for that person to be so snappy...." because they never saw those past posts. Maybe they're brand new to NR so it was before their time. Maybe it happened in a thread they didn't read. But whatever the case, I mention it so it will suddenly make sense when placed within the context of past exchanges.
People have a tendency to want to compartmentalize exchanges...act like what's said in one thread doesn't spill over into others, doesn't carry over into the future in any way. Newsflash: it does. And no, I'm not going to hesitate to point that out if it's relevant, so that other people reading it will understand what's really going on.
And to clarify - I've debated subject with people on message boards who brought up other threads for the purpose of "Straw Man" fallacies. Big difference. There's a difference between pointing out how a past exchange is adversely affecting a poster's attitude in a current thread versus bringing up non-related shit for the purpose of creating a straw man that one can tear down triumphantly.
So, anybody else want to jump on the "Let's sidetrack this onto Lyra!" bandwagon, feel free.
I for one really appreciate all that Lyra has shared in this thread.
Her and Tom's firsthand knowledge of the lady who Swerdlow appears to have stolen a lot of his info from is very important, I think, in giving people more background as they approach his material.
And I think when she was in the middle of trying to address why and how this material was relevant, when someone jumped in on her who appeared to have -- let's say -- "issues" with Lyra - that it was entirely relevant for her to quote a relevant thread in which this person seemed to express those same issues with her...to reveal that person's bias, so that people realize that people aren't really responding to issues mentioned about Swerdlow, but instead making it an "I've got a beef with Lyra" reference.
Because the thread could have easily been derailed into being about that person and Lyra and not the material itself -- which is the discussion of whether Stewart Swerdlow's material might be based upon questionable acquistion of information, if not outright illegal behavior.
And I think that's important info to have put out there, whether people choose to "believe" in Lyra and Tom's source material - the apparently nice blind social worker psychic who knew Stewart and imparted her knowledge to him -- or not.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Perhaps we can turn this thread more into a discussion of what value people have found in Stewart's material, and where they think it is "off?"
I noticed that in his latest site redesign he recently reintroduced his questions and answers and news sections, where he sometimes makes some interesting posts.
But in a recent post he talked about the physicality of Jesus, and in my opinion, he was just plain wrong about it. Couldn't have been more wrong in his physical description of Jesus.
(Okay, sidenote, who are you to say he was wrong, Jennifer -- I base this on two sources of information in my own life: vivid past life recollections of a lifetime in which I was a woman who for a time was helping organize secret gatherings in caves where Jesus could meet with groups of people and teach them; and also vivid spiritual "encounters" with him in prayer and in various peak spiritual experiences throughout my life. Absolutely, feel free to take those with a grain of salt because there's no possible way you could evaluate those experiences, having not had them. And it's not like we have access to archived video footage of Jesus to compare my perceptions against.)
I'm just mentioning that because there have been many times over the years when I've read something of Stewart's and his material goes from being plausible NWO/Illuminati/ET control material in the vein that many people here find valid to posting something completely WRONG....or, that seems wrong to me, based on my own personal discernment.
That would seem to add credence to the idea of someone who is parroting another's point of view about a lot of stuff, writing things that sound perfectly nice, but without truly OWNING the wisdom he tries to espouse in a way that would allow his material to be consistent across all subjects.
Just my take, anyway. Thought I'd throw it out there.
LipstickMystic aka Jennifer
PS He's also really off -- in my opinion - with his whole "Jupiter is turning into a sun" thing. He just won't back down about that one, either.
LM, you're absolutely right about the way this thread has gone; Belljar posted something and Lyra gave interesting evidence about its validity. Belljar responded... then it turned into a catfight. This goes to something more important than this thread.
We are not simply logical minds exchanging information and trying to maximize strategies. We are human beings, and as such we try to form communities. This community is unusual because all of us here are deeply involved with attempting to examine and understand our own inner beings and hopefully to improve them. Doing this as a community requires that we trust both the reason and the emotional stability of the other members of the community. How can we believe anyone's insights, creativity, intuition or logic if their unstable emotions cause them to repeatedly attack other members for what are obviously false reasons?
We do have certain tools that other groups don't have. Most of us attempt to find insight into our own psyche using meditation, intuition, contacts with (hopefully) wiser beings and self-examination using procedures developed by spiritual and psychological practitioners. I have to be specific here; Lyra must do her best to find and understand what Jung called her Shadow or I for one cannot trust her contributions as a member of this forum.
Noble Realms → Conspiracy → Stewert Swerdlow radio interview
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.