It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Michael Tsarion - Age of Manipulation 70 part lecture. Wow! Must See!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:00 PM
Have any of you seen Michael Tsarion's new 70 part lecture "Age of Manipulation"? It's very long and takes a while to go through, and it's fascinating and mind blowing.

But at some point, he seems to go overboard in finding Illuminati/Occult symbols everywhere, even implying that people who wear necklaces with pendants on them are wearing Illuminati symbols are are members of the Illuminati.

Not sure if he was claiming that or not, but he sure finds occult symbols on everything. He could probably find them on every single item in the supermarket. lol

I'm not sure if he's claiming that everyone in the entertainment industry is part of the Illuminati or not, but often it sounds like he is saying that. Hard to say.

Here is part 1 of 70 if you want to see it:

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by WWu777

video is gone.

i`ve been watching a lot of tsarion lately and it seems his research is so exhaustive it`s hard to prove him wrong. i think he makes a lot of assumptions but it all makes a lot of sense. origins and oracles blew my mind. leaves me wanting more.

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:46 AM
Just did another search and here it is again. I have some of his books for kindle, and he is a wonderful researcher and this information is crucial.

Michael Tsarion - Age of Manipulation - 1/3

Michael Tsarion - Age of Manipulation - 2/3

Michael Tsarion - Age of Manipulation - 3/3

Also would like to point out that on his main site, he has a video section where all these videos are listed. I'll look for it.

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:47 AM
I've enjoyed watching Tsarion before as well, taking it all with a grain of salt. He's an engaging speaker with a lively mind.

But a 70-part series of Tsarion? Woah. I like to think I'm a partient person but we are talking Great Wall of Video wih those kinds of numbers. How could i justify not reading something like Proust's Remberence of Things Past if I gave that much of my time to such a long series? Couldn't he have managed to say whatever it was he had to say in ten or fifteen parts instead? The vids, they burn us, precious! Yesssss....

edit on 8/4/2012 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:53 AM
I have several of his books including the trees of life.

And a lot of good video's.

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:54 AM
reply to post by Unity_99


just to watch all his videos and interviews available would almost take a lifetime. this guy is amazing.

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:31 AM
reply to post by WWu777

Symbolism is very interesting but (I haven't see them all yet), from the first 38m of the videos of Michael Tsarion (that I had never heard about till now). To me it becomes evident that a) he is into mysticism b)he is only expressing (he may have beliefs/understanding more vast that what he is saying) a very limited angle about the meaning of symbols, in other words he speaks only about a very restricted spectrum of the subject.

I do not dismiss mysticism, it is the root of all knowledge and so it is knowledge in itself, valid to me as any other type of hypothesis, it permits to provide an answer to the unanswerable in a way that permits one to transcend the small problem and create a richer image (even if, to me, in all things mystical, there is no magic at all only lack of understanding), that can be correct even if incomplete. It helps us fudge the understanding of reality...

Symbols are as old as man, from the outline of a human hand painted on the walls of a caver to monuments such as the pyramids. But symbols by definition, require an informed observer someone that a)understand the idea of the creator (when there was one) b)can extract useful information from it. There is no power on symbols the power created on that understand the symbolism. Symbols can have a large number of interpretations, but then we get to where Michael Tsarion to me fails (or at least does not make it clear), that it is the culture (and society) that established the meaning of the symbols. Therefore what he is stating when he clearly attacks the collective (society is a collective), is that he is defending an anarchic view (no problem with that I like anarchism) but he does not provide an alternative functional social structure.

Monkey sees monkey does, symbols and gestures are often just that repetition, the number of original ideas is always dwindling, we reuse, mix and elaborate on what was there before, symbols are no different...

I agree with him in all the stuff he says except the "mystic" interpretations he does.

He even states clearly that beyond individual self awareness to the issues he presents there is no benefit to it or any concept that could reshape the structure of society as is, to the point of hypothesizing a state of symbiosis (mutual benefit) between the masters and slaves. (Revolutions happen when that symbiosis is broken)

Human societies have always been hierarchical, and there is an intrinsic benefit in having a leader (this is also observed in nature). People should be individualized and welcomed in their diversity but symbols and other sort of structural aggregates (culture) need to exist if not only to permit us to understand each-other and collaborate for mutual benefit.

In summary I liked the content, share some of the ideas (none of them are new or original, he makes that clear, providing useful refs) but dislike the base "message" (his base interpretation) as non-constructive and at times contradictory. I do not see as viable path (in relation to uplifting the human condition) the simple deconstruction society and focus on the self, individual. I strongly believe that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few (even if I agree that there are not many chances in implementing that view in today's society, the ephemeral public good). The problem resides not in collectivism but in the goals of the collective.

[edit] seen a bit more... besides real references here and there, its all a mix bag of speculation, imagination, opinion with a large bit personal view but none too creative or original... interesting, but can be confusing to the uniformed...
edit on 4-8-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

new topics


log in