Hi friends:
I'm a gay white male from SA and interested in all things conspiracy. Perhaps at a later stage I hope to focus on homosexuality in conspiracy texts. My first mail was quite detailed and mentioned some well-known and much accepted conspiracy text on the topic, which is probably why it was deleted (not quite sure). Perhaps I can understand after the first posts dived straight into allegations of orgies and illegal sex acts, which hardly mean that lesbigay or transgendered people are "welcome" in so-called secret societies (perhaps we can go there later again guys). By "gay people" I actually meant adult same-sex expressions that openly campaign for equality, and a variation of energy, love and sexuality in nature. Anyway, I hope to post on some other topics first. Well, bark at the moon (or NASA bombs for that matter), or let your soul swim with the dolphins, and do tell someone how much you love them. Stay blessed.

Boo-hoo: it appears nobody wants to welcome me!
Well, I was just thinking about how we divide language (and according to structuralists, experience) into binary opposites. We like darkness/light (I eshew the term "blackness" for post-colonial purposes), life/death, official story/conspiracy story, male/female, hetero/homo. The strange thing is that "conspiracy theory" is the only popular means of subverting official power and thinking. Yet, I find, so often it reinscribes power, patriarchy and received stereotypes. Much contemporary conspiracy text dotes on certain groups, yet it wastes lengthy passages on how it is NOT chauvensistic. I suppose this is because real challenges to "priviledged discourse" is boring and academic. So, concentrating on where I walk in MY shoes is a kind of counter-cultural unravelling for me. As Lyall Watson discussed in "The Romeo Error" the clinical destinction between life and death has been fraught with unclarity and errors. "Darkness" can be merely what has been hidden from the mainstream. Perhaps male and female are just constructions that must always have a (often despised) "other" category for those that do not fit in. So, all we can attempt perhaps, is to throw light on the darkness. Welcome all, and merry meet.

welcome to ats

enjoy thr site, theres lot of what will interest you.

go wild

but stay within the rules

have fun

Thecrow001

Hi, thanks so much, Finally!
I'll try to obey the rules, and I believe in "do what though wilt" responsibly (as far as possible). I'll never upset anyone purposefully outside reasonable debate, I can just be pretty "blonde" sometimes. Well, thanks for that!

Reviewing a lot of the posts, it appears that a great many people here have an interest in "truth". We were told in my first year of German studies that truth does not exist, there is only the search for the truth, and that is always noble. (I think that's paraphrasing Goethe.)
Official history has some truth, perhaps, and many lies. So this site begs an ontological question about whether truth can be objectively defined. Do witnessess in a text prove its veracity, even if they are sorely lacking outside those texts? (Like most religious people try to prove the veracity of their scriptures). Do social truths prove knowledge, rather than giving cures for cancer that provably work, or for other diseases? (No text that claims "knowledge" can provide this without major, problematic conditions.) How can we define a conspiracy site, when the "average Joe" still believes in past racial/gender stereotypes that are now delineated from currently defined theory into extreme politics? Food for thought, I suppose. And then, how does society change its views on what is socially acceptable, why is it no longer polite to conspirate on race, but with gay/gender issues any Tom, Dick or Harry can pull out some verse and hateful opinion? Enjoy the banquet!

Hi again: I was thinking again a bit on rules (ha, ha) and Crowley's "do what though wilt" (with the wiccan addition of: "As long as you harm none"). Is it possible to destoy yourself without harming others? I think not in most cases. The wierdest thing is the atheistic view on life (not that I discount it, or attack it per se). There is a chapter in "Will Storr vs The Supernatural" (see Chapter 5: "Distrust the Mystic", Ebury Press, 2006, where Storr interviews a philosopher on the existence of ghosts). In a confusing conversation (that is ultimately meant to debunk the supernatural) they dismiss the Cartesian split between spirit/mind and matter. They then decide that even if spirit existed, it would be a totally different "matter" and would not be able to influence the material plane (as in poltergeists). However, from a different world-view it seems that matter comes form spirit, and that spirit is still evolving matter and creating life throughout the material universe. To my mind, this cannot be refuted. Well, topics for later perhaps.

Eureka! So one could say from all general evidence from the common supernatural: sprit can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without spirit. If this be truth then proving "spirit" by natural means or posivitist proof is misguided. We'd have to turn science topsy-turvy, although we might be on a long way around. Enjoy the long and winding road. The questions should be more human, as in Will Storr. when we die, does all the info we gathered become nothing? I would say: not so. That info influences our conscience, and according to many beliefs the state of consciense determines our "life" post "death". Oh well, that's life, a real conscious effort. Enjoy the threads!