← New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast
New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast
InPresence 0265: New Thinking Allowed and The Epstein Files
00:25:09
Loading summary
Transcript7 lines
- [00:00]
A
Even though the officials at the San Quentin prison didn't like to admit it, the inmates in that prison were human beings just like you and me. I would hear instead phrases from, for example, my supervisor there, who would say, these people, they're a different kind of cat. They're not like us. And it's true, they're not like us in every respect because many of them committed horrible crimes. But 99% of the time, they are like us. They're just like us. Keep watching. To learn more, you can now download all nine copies of the New Thinking Allowed magazine for free or order beautiful printed copies. Go to newthinkingallowed.org new thinking allowed is
- [00:49]
B
presented by the California Institute for Human Science, a fully accredited university offering distant learning graduate degrees that focus on mind, body and spirit. The topics that we cover here. We are particularly excited to announce new degrees emphasizing parapsychology and the paranormal. Visit their website@cihs.edu Book 4 in the New Thinking Allowed Dialogue series is Charles T. Tart, 70 years of exploring Consciousness and Parapsychology, now available on Amazon.
- [01:35]
A
Thinking Aloud Conversations on the Leading Edge of Knowledge and Discovery with psychologist Jeffrey Mishlove. Hello and welcome. I'm Jeffrey Mishlove. Hello and welcome. I'm Jeffrey Mishlove as well. You could say I'm Jeffrey's conversation partner and alter ego in some sense. The reason I like to have two of me is I find that it's easier for me to flow and provide a narrative. Today we're going to talk about a difficult topic, a potentially difficult topic, which is the fact that New Thinking Allowed and a number of the guests on the New Thinking Allowed series have been mentioned, sometimes prominently, in the Epstein Files. Now, to begin with, before I dig into the Epstein Files, let me say that this is not a new problem for New Thinking Allowed. Even going back to the original Thinking Allowed television series, which ran from 1987 to 2002, on various occasions we have interviewed psychotherapists or gurus who have subsequently been caught in scandals of one type or another. To be honest, we've interviewed two psychotherapists who had their license revoked for ostensibly ethical reasons. We've interviewed a couple of gurus who have subsequently been caught in sexual scandals of different types. This is not a new problem, and it's useful to talk about how we've handled it. Typically, when this happens, we don't rerun or reboot old videos with these people, but sometimes we have done so. Sometimes, in my opinion, psychologists have had their licenses removed because they were engaged in alternative forms of therapy, such as past life regression therapy, which were disapproved of by mainstream licensing bodies. Sometimes their licenses were removed for other reasons of a more ethical nature and of serious concern. Nevertheless, I can tell you that in some of these cases, we have re released those videos on the New Thinking Allowed channel because I felt that what they had to say was interesting and important. Now, with regard to the Epstein files, I can tell you that my name is mentioned several times in the Epstein files and I have never had any contact with Mr. Epstein whatsoever. But it turns out that a number of people who have been guests on this channel have also been involved in email discussion which Deepak Chopra, who was an intimate correspondent with Epstein and perhaps for all I know, even served as a therapist or medical doctor to Epstein. I don't know all of the details, but it's quite clear that Epstein had a strong interest in consciousness. And there were many, many discussions about the nature of human consciousness between Deepak Chopra and Mr. Epstein that got into the files. As a result of that. Chopra shared with Epstein conversations that took place on an email discussion list about physics and consciousness. He would share comments, including comments by me and several other people who have been guests on this channel, part of a general discussion with Epstein. We also know now that Epstein contributed $50,000 for the science of Consciousness conference at the University of Arizona. He contributed $50,000, I believe, in 2017, as a result of that supposed scandal, the University of Arizona decided to cancel the 2026 conference. I can tell you right now I don't think that was a good move to make. I don't think the conference should have been canceled because Epstein donated money eight years ago to the same organization. I don't believe in Cancel Culture. Let me explain a little further. I've conducted numerous culture interviews on this channel with my old friend Darrell Schoon, whom I met when he was the proprietor of the great Shanghai Iron and Steel Works restaurant in Berkeley, California. Darrell and I have been pals since 1971. As a matter of fact, I've known him a very long time. But in fact, Darrell spent seven years out of a 10 year sentence in prison for dealing cocaine. He's very open about it. He talks about his prison experiences. He is now a spiritualist minister. He had something of a conversion experience or an enlightenment experience while in prison and he discusses it. So I'm very happy to have Darrell on the New Thinking Allowed channel. He's been a very popular guest with the audience because of his. But because Darrell has Been a guest on New Thinking Allowed. Does that mean that we're encouraging people to do what he did to become a drug dealer? Absolutely not. New Thinking Allowed is an intellectual channel. It is about thinking. And so we put people on this channel. Because we find that their ideas stimulate thought. We don't always agree with everything that our guests say. And nor do we necessari the types of people our guests are. I can tell you another example. We have a couple of interviews with James Alcock. Now, Alcock is a prominent. Not just a skeptic, but a scoffer of parapsychology. Somebody who has gone on record to say it doesn't matter, as far as he's concerned. How good the evidence is for paranormal phenomenon. Because he already knows in advance that they're impossible. So as far as he's concerned, nobody has to bother to even look at the evidence. Because it can't happen anyway. Now, I totally disagree with James Alcock about that. But I felt it was important for our readers to understand his position. With regard to other guests on the New Thinking Allowed channel. Who have been in contact with Epstein. It hasn't always been pleasant. At least person has lost their position at a university. Whether or not that was a justifiable decision, of course, is up to the board of trustees of that university. These days, there's so much, you could say, hysteria. Going on around Jeffrey Epstein and what he has done. That people who have had indirect association with them have been attacked publicly. Jack Sarfatti is such a person. Now, Jack has been Original Thinking Allowed series. We have occasionally re release some of his videos. He's a very provocative physicist. I disagree with him about his physics. I disagree with him about his politics. But I have to say in his defense. That just because he was mentioned by Deepak Chopra. Apparently without his knowledge or permission. And his name is in the Epstein files. Is no reason for anybody to disassociate with Jack. Of course, one could find other reasons, but that's besides the point right now. What I'm saying is that knowing what we now know about certain people. We would prefer not to put them on our channel. Particularly when those people pose as spiritual teachers. Some do. When a spiritual teacher has been caught abusing sexually the disciples, their devotees. People who are giving them a measure of trust. It's very unfortunate, and we don't want to provide a platform for such people. When we learn about things after the fact, we tend to refrain from rebooting, rebroadcasting, republishing their material. However, when those Older interviews were conducted with people before this information became public. We're not necessarily going to take it down either. If what they had to say was interesting and valuable in its own terms, and that they in no way were encouraging people to engage in unethical or illegal behavior, that doesn't mean that we're holding them up as role models. Because New Thinking Allowed is basically a channel about ideas, about thinking, about looking at things in new ways. It's very important to give a voice to marginalized people who don't often get a chance to express their opinions and whose opinions are often very shaky, sometimes very controversial, perhaps completely incorrect. But even an idea that is completely incorrect can be thought provoking, can stimulate deeper thinking in our audience, and that's what we're going for. I will say, however, that 95%, at least, of the people that we put on the New Thinking Allowed channel are people who we admire and respect. And we're very happy that our viewers will hold them in a positive light. I will also say that while there are guests with whom we disagree and whom we hold, you might say, a certain amount of disrespect, people whose videos we wouldn't continue to re release, we also feel that they deserve a measure of respect. We would encourage our viewers not to get caught up in the hysteria. Almost a witch hunt going on. Right. Concerning people whose names are in the Epstein files. I'll give you another example that's come up recently. We have some 35 interviews on this channel with my friend Jason Reza Giorgiani. Jason identified himself as politically very close to, if not actually being, a fascist. At one time I had a falling out with Jason because he called on the United States to unprovoked war against China. As a pacifist myself, I found that too uncomfortable to bear. It seemed like warmongering to me. I still hear from viewers who say we've been very unfair to Jason because what we did is we took. All of his videos are still up on the New Thinking Allowed channel. Some of them have even been rebooted occasionally. Once a year or so, I will reboot an old video with Jason Rezajurjani. I disagree with Jason politically just about 100%, but I do admire him as a scholar, even though many times, according to viewers who comment on his videos, he puts up things that are inaccurate, or at least things that other mainstream audiences having to do with, for example, ancient Persian culture would disagree with. I think Jason's ideas are provocative and stimulating and deserve more attention. I have even invited Jason to come on the New Thinking Allowed channel and publicly discuss with me his position that the US should launch a war against China unprovoked in order to put them in their place. I think the way Jason expressed it at one time is to get them down on their knees so that they can never get up again. Well, I totally disagree with that, but I love Jason. I think in spite of what many people regard as some of the horrible positions that he's taken, he deserves to have a voice. Although, to be fair, when I heard from a viewer about Jason recruiting people into Prometheism cult and it was unsavory, I took those videos and put them in unlisted status rather than public status. They're all available. They can all be accessed from the listings page. But the point being that they don't show up as an unlisted video. They won't show up in search engines. So you could say he's been, I think some people would call it shadow banned for that reason. But I have never withdrawn the invitation for Jason to come on New Thinking Allowed and defend his position publicly. If he wishes to, we can have an open discussion about the merits of conducting unprovoked wars. I'm happy to do it. In any case. The point I'm making here is that just because a guest has been platformed on the New Thinking Allowed channel does not mean that we endorse everything about them or consider them a person of spiritual and moral values whose example should be followed. That is not always the case. It's largely the case, I will admit. But I want our viewers to understand that as I put it earlier, first and foremost, we are an intellectual channel. We are a channel about ideas. Our goal is to stimulate thinking, real, genuine thinking amongst our audience. Naturally, we're very open to the paranormal, and it's a good thing we are, because almost all mainstream academic and scientific institutions shy away from it for reasons that I would say are more of a sociological nature than a logical nature. But above all, my philosophy is to love everyone and everything all the time. It's a goal to which I aspire. It's not a goal to which I could say I have attained. I'm far, far away from it myself. But I can say this because I began my graduate work in academia in the School of Criminology at Berkeley. I actually have a master's degree in criminology. And early on in my academic career, I was a volunteer at San Quentin Prison in the psychiatric unit conducting group therapy sessions with murderers and rapists. And the one thing that stuck with me from that experience is that even though the officials at the San Quentin prison didn't like to admit it, the inmates in that prison were human beings, just. Just like you and me. I would hear instead phrases from, for example, my supervisor there, who would say, these people, they're a different kind of cat. They're not like us. And it's true, they're not like us in every respect, because many of them committed horrible crimes. But 99% of the time, they are like us. They're just like us. And as far as I'm concerned, even if you're a murderer or a rapist, you are still a human being, and you deserve a measure of respect. Sure, you're in prison, you are paying your debt to society, but that doesn't mean that you are a nonentity, that you are less than human. Now, there's a lot of hysteria going on right now around Epstein. How could people have anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein knowing that he has been convicted of soliciting sex from an underage prostitute, which was his conviction early on, I think around 2006 or so. But look at the case of Martha Stewart. She also went to prison. She came out of prison, she served her time for illegal stock trades, insider trading, and now she's resumed her role as a public figure once again. So it seems to me that the people who interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, even after his first conviction, were justified in the sense that they believed he had served his debt to society. I'm reminded of my own childhood. You see, my parents were very active in the local community theater in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, where I grew up at the time. Another active member of the theater group was an attorney. Peter Porath was his name, and he was a good friend of the family. But he was ultimately convicted of tax evasion, spent a couple years in prison as a result of that. And when he got out of prison, he was an invited dinner guest at our home. And the way my father explained it to me at the time was, he has paid his debt to society. It's over now. And he was our friend, and he will remain our friend. I think we have to understand that at a very deep and a very real and very important level, you and I are one with each other, and we're one with everyone else. In fact, we're one with everything else, including. Including things that are entirely repulsive to us. Spiders and snakes and rats and all sorts of creepy, crawly creatures, for example, who do things that you wouldn't even want to contemplate. But we're one with all of those. And it's very important from my point of view that we acknowledge our oneness and that we don't start othering people, because it has become a social fad, a time in history when people are inclined to go on witch hunts for different reasons. You and I are one with every witch, with every criminal, with every murderer, with every thief, with every kidnapper and robber, and with every saint. We share that one consciousness. It's part of who we are. To the extent that we can love ourselves, then we can love everyone else, regardless of what they say, what they do, what they think, what they feel, and how we say, do, think or feel with regard to them. Well, love can be unconditional and greater than all of our social fabrications about good and bad, right and wrong, up and down, and the various dualities in which we are immersed. So having said all that, thank you for listening to me. Thank you for being with me and with us.
- [23:38]
B
New Thinking Allowed is presented by the California Institute for Human Science, a fully accredited university offering distant learning graduate degrees that focus on mind, body and spirit. The topics that we cover here. We are particularly excited to announce new degrees emphasizing parapsychology and the paranormal. Visit their website@cihs.edu.
- [24:06]
A
you can now download all nine copies of the New Thinking Allowed magazine for free or order beautiful printed copies. Go to newthinking allowed.org book4 in the
- [24:20]
B
new Thinking Allowed Dialogue series is Charles T. Tart 70 years of exploring Consciousness and Parapsychology, now available on Amazon.
- [24:34]
A
For early access to our videos and live stream events, sign up for our free weekly newsletter@newthinkingallowed.org.