• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Richard Smoley

wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
As usual, a good interview. He struck me as well grounded and scholarly.

Here's a question, do you guys read interviewees works before a show?
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
As usual, a good interview. He struck me as well grounded and scholarly.

Here's a question, do you guys read interviewees works before a show?
As much as we can. Chris is more thorough about it. I will read or scan most books for the most significant content, but have to concentrate on the 1,001 other jobs I do to keep this show -- and the tech show -- running.
 

Schuyler

Misanthrope
It was, you know, an interesting, you know, show covering, you know, a bunch of, you know, topics. I enjoyed his stance on, you know, Atlantis, in that, you know, there's no reason to invoke the, you know, paranormal to, you know, explain it.
 

Wade

FeralNormal master
I haven't heard the interview yet, I'm guessing he is big into the surfing culture ?
 

DaveM

Paranormal Adept
Are you sure this guy went to Harvard? All I kept hearing was his 'ah well, ummm, you know' repeatedly. I had to stop half-way in because it got so annoying.....
 

starise

Paranormal Adept
Richard Smoley was a good guest on the show . It appears that Richard took up belief in the Kabbalah ... put more in the spotlight by Madonnas affiliations with it, is right up there with Scientology. Tracing its roots and the path of Richard Smoley all leads to the same place.

Richard Smoley is a part of the Theosophical society, are you familiar with Helena Blavatsky?
His background in Kabbalah and his associations with the theosophical society are a dead give away to the views being presented...new age and further roots and connections to the occult.

The comments Richard made regarding the"so called" unfulfilled Biblical prophecies were slightly disturbing to me . I agree that many have thought they were in an apocalyptic time and that indeed many early Christians thought that the apocalypse was to happen in their time, however the fact that it hasn't yet happened has no bearing on the fact that events are still to happen and his comments do not disprove any of that.

The fact that there have been Biblical prophecies made thousands of years earlier and been fulfilled should be some indicator to Richard that the others he discounts should be given some serious consideration. The philosophy he presents is not in keeping with Christianity in any genuine form. I only bring this out because he seems to be attempting to make the two mesh somehow. At least, this would seem to be the case from a look at his other authored works.

I just wish these people would be more honest and say outright, " I am a new age occultist who wrote a book attempting to combine my beliefs with some of the concepts presented in Christianity" Of course it won't fly in any sincere Christian circles, but at least the truth would be out there. This is what Richard did in writing the book ," Inner Christianity"

Richard seemed unprepared to address the UFO phenomena to any detail. I guess this is understandable if this isn't really in his line of study. I thought the questions were good from Gene and Chris. The whole super hero idea was an interesting thing to ponder.

I don't come here intending to cut on guests...really....I thought Richard was a good guest and a good example of some of the thought trends that are becoming a part of the mindset of many individuals. The only problem I have with him is that the more I learn about him the more I disagree with him.Can't help it.
 

nameless

Paranormal Adept
Richard Smoley was a good guest on the show . It appears that Richard took up belief in the Kabbalah ... put more in the spotlight by Madonnas affiliations with it, is right up there with Scientology..

dude . your confusing Kabbalah with the Kabbalah Centre, ones an ancient tried and tested belief system based on philosophical precepts filtered through the lens of learned Jewish thinkers predating modern christianity, the other is a money making cult who use a bastardised version or kabballah lite to fleece celebrities. Kabballah is not a religion in as much as mathematics is. It is just a tool. Thats why it was adopted by other religions.

Most Gnostics from a western occult tradition will no doubt dabble in Christian Kabballism from the 14 thcentury as much as the Hermetic Qabballah. The original Golden Dawn Society that Richard described pretty much derived their ritual magick tradition from Christian Kabbalism and it wasn't until Florence Farr became pratermonstrix that The GD broke away from their male dominated patriarchal monotheism to Egyptian symbolism and goddess deities and the exploration of other symbolism. Yeah its the same "Golden Dawn" that David Bowie references through out Hunky Dory, with most future albums and imagery based on Kaballistic precepts, in fact most artists that we like have explored the Qabballah.
 

Goggs Mackay

Administrator
Staff member
I really enjoyed this show, despite the umm's etc. In fact, it's a '2-er' or possibly even a '3-er' -by which I mean, there is quite a lot to take in and in the same manner that sometimes I have to re-read pages of a novel, having not taken it all in first time around. I usually listen to shows in bed, but of course sleep can get in the way, so it may be a few listens before I've taken it all in, but cos it is a good show, I enjoy mulling over the info I gain.:D
 

Konrad Hartmann

Paranormal Maven
During the show, there was a brief discussion of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail suing Dan Brown for plagiarism. Wikipedia says of this:
The 2003 conspiracy fiction novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown makes reference to this book, also liberally using most of the above claims as key plot elements;[20] indeed, in 2005 Baigent and Leigh unsuccessfully sued Brown's publisher, Random House, for plagiarism, on the grounds that Brown's book makes extensive use of their research and that one of the characters is named Leigh, has a surname (Teabing) which is an anagram of Baigent, and has a physical description strongly resembling Henry Lincoln. In his novel, Brown also mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail as an acclaimed international bestseller (chapter 60) and claims it as the major contributor to his hypothesis. Perhaps as a result of this mention, the authors (minus Henry Lincoln) of Holy Blood sued Dan Brown for copyright infringement. They claimed that the central framework of their plot had been stolen for the writing of The Da Vinci Code. The claim was overturned by High Court Judge Peter Smith on April 6, 2006, who ruled that "their argument was vague and shifted course during the trial and was always based on a weak foundation." In fact, it was found that the publicity of the trial had significantly boosted sales of Holy Blood. The court ruled that, in effect, because it was published as a work of (alleged) history, its premises legally could be freely interpreted in any subsequent fictional work without any copyright infringement.
This makes sense to me. If you write something and call it fiction, you are claiming creative ownership of it. If you write something and call it non-fiction, you are claiming that you didn't make up the material, and that the material could be verified by others.

Any good historical fiction story will have been researched by the author. It would seem that a fiction writer would be pretty safe using (at least alleged) non-fiction as source material for a story, unless one is actually stealing text. Or am I wrong? Is anyone aware of a precedent for someone successfully suing a fiction writer in such a case? I find the question relevant because there seems to be a quantity of factualish, maybe-sort-of-true non-fiction on the market. It often doesn't seem to be necessary to substantiate research claims and I sometimes see a hazy sort of non-fiction definition. I wonder how often this sort of legal dispute comes up.
 

starise

Paranormal Adept
dude . your confusing Kabbalah with the Kabbalah Centre, ones an ancient tried and tested belief system based on philosophical precepts filtered through the lens of learned Jewish thinkers predating modern christianity, the other is a money making cult who use a bastardised version or kabballah lite to fleece celebrities. Kabballah is not a religion in as much as mathematics is. It is just a tool. Thats why it was adopted by other religions.
I'll look into this,thanks.
 


Top