UnSpun 111 – Holly Seeliger and Mark Warhole   altCensored
Channel: greedy first algorithm last
Date: 2022-11-24

Gnostic Media looks like Another Project by Miles MathisBasically, the video is fluff. It is 100 minutes of hamhanded misdirection from anything solid. My reader had been offended that Irvin didn't mention me or credit me, but that wasn't a problem. There was nothing to credit me for, since Irvin and Seeliger manage to steer off-topic the entire time. They barely mention the Salem trials, except briefly and tangentially. But I encourage all readers and viewers to come to their own conclusions. Read my paper and then listen closely to Irvin and Seeliger.     Then decide who has the real content and who is leading you away from any real content.I show that Samuel Parris is the central character here, but in 100 minutes, I don't think Irvin mentionshim once. Seeliger mentions him once in passing, but gets his name wrong, calling him John Parris. Very strange.The first half of the video is about diverting you into vaccines, which is also strange. I don't know what the trials had to do with vaccines, and Irvin and Seeliger never get around to telling us. It is true that diseases were introduced by white people upon the natives in those years, expressly to wipe them out, but that's not really to the point here, is it? The second half of the video is about diverting you into a dozen other topics, some of which have some merit on their own, but which again have nothing to do with Salem. Irvin concludes by telling us that the event was flipped, but he doesn't mean what I meant when I showed you that. I meant the event was faked, that no one died, and that it was used as a false flag in another war of the elites among themselves for power. Irvin tells us the event was flipped because the Puritans were the real witches, casting a long spell over us to promote their own agenda.Because that is kind of sort of true in a way, it may sound deep. . . but it isn't. I say that it isn't, becausein the present case that comment is just another diversion. Irvin's analysis keeps you off my analysis,keeps you off Samuel Parris, keeps you off a close study of the people involved in Salem itself, andkeeps you off all the other central facts of this case. Not only do Irvin and Seeliger miss what Idiscovered about Samuel Parris, they miss all other pertinent facts.I had never seen what Irvin looked like or heard him speak, either, and I have to admit that helped mepeg him. I got a bad feeling from both these people from the first minute. Seeliger doesn't addanything to the mix but a pretty face, and I was never clear what she was doing there.I guess Jan Irvin and Holly Seeliger missed my recent paper entitled If you run Projects against me Iwill out you and everyone around you. Until today, I had pretty much ignored Irvin and Gnostic Media,  since I don't like to squabble with fellow researchers. Intelligence likes to manufacture squabbles in the Truth community, because if we are squabbling we aren't doing new research.


 The first time I heard of Irvin was a couple of years ago, when I tripped across something he hadposted about Terence McKenna's connections to the FBI. I included it in a paper and credited Irvin. Soon after, I got an email from him. He wanted to connect. I sort of begged off, one since I like toremain completely independent; and two because I don't trust any other researchers. That is why I started doing my own research. When I research a topic, I don't read what other researchers have previously said about it. Instead, I start over from scratch, coming in as close to the ground as possible and sticking as much as possible to uncontested data. I don't promote the alternative theories of others:I use mainstream data against the mainstream. That is to say, I read closely the mainstream account, combing it for errors and inconsistencies. That is usually enough to blow any story, without having to resort to secondary sources.So up until today, I hadn't read anything Irvin has written, except for a snippet here and there that I accidentally ran across in general research. I simply don't have time to read all the current things being written. I have more than enough to do in unwinding the major hoaxes of history, and I can't be bothered judging the works of my fellow researchers. I figure that is up to you, the readers. But this afternoon one of my readers alerted me to a new Youtube video by Irvin and Seeliger on theSalem Witch Trials. It just went up yesterday and is one hour and forty minutes long. Since I have had a long paper up on the same subject for about 2.5 years, this naturally interested me. I was curious tosee what Irvin had discovered. Nonetheless, the first time I dove into the video, I get shit. I watched less than a minute before I quit in frustration. I am used to working very fast, and for that reason I don't like videos. I can read far faster than anyone can talk, so watching 100 minutes of slow talk is excruciating for me.