Hi FASTWALKER, there's no taboo. Don't be taken aback by the comments. It's just, I think, that some of us here have seen quite a bit of this kind of thing as Tsarion presents. By "this kind of thing" I mean, how can I describe it, sort of a scattered, unfocused rendering of truths mixed with what look like possible misconceptions (that would be subjective for each listener, of course), without the back research being presented. This is difficult to express, so I hope you'll let me ramble a bit, but hopefully not so much as Tsarion does! :)
I've watched the video -- it is 3 hours, 24 minutes long, by the way, folks. I'm reminded a bit of a David Icke talk (a video of which I saw a few years ago). It's a long, long monologue, in which the speaker riffs off of a basic script of "presumably researched" topics (so many that listing them would go into the hundreds), combining quotations, news clippings, personal observations, personal philosophy, etc. -- that's fine, but it's tied together with an enormous amount of free association and giant leaps of assumption to sometimes surprising conclusing, each frustratingly unexplained, each of which made me uncomfortable. I say "presumably researched" because Tsarion sounds confident and authoritative, and speaks very well, but we simply don't get what's behind his leaps of logic, thus the conclusions tend to ring hollow because they're just not backed up very well, and I'm not sure why he doesn't feel he needs to back them up. And he doesn't focus. There's too much. It's almost like there are so many points that there's no point.
I believe there are many, many bits of truth spoken by Tsarion (and many others) that I'm sure, put together the way he does it, has a mind-blowing effect on folks who haven't been exposed to or looked into much of what's hidden. Yes, you can take some of the "insightful things" you mentioned and research them yourself to open your mind. The C's said that there is value in everything if examined with proper perspective. "Can you weed?" they asked.
I definitely do not find that his presentation distilled large concepts in a concise manner, as you suggest. Quite the opposite. For me, it was more like many, many concepts in an overly wordy manner. Again, so many points it's like there's no point -- the opposite of distillation. Like Icke, he makes things very complicated -- not that it isn't -- but what makes a good presentation? What's the message? I don't feel inspired, but very much drained by listening to him -- worn down by the torrent of words. Sure, it's possible that I don't "get it" or take it or relate to it as you do, but I think I've been exposed to most of the ideas he presents, and I think I've weeded much of it already, and he presents a lot of weeds indeed, IMO! :)
He starts out with, "Your president is a liar. Your administration is a liar. Who are these people and how did they get into power?" Okay, bold statements and an excellent question. But, he follows this by going just a few feet down two hundred different roads, not really sticking to the question, IMO, yet using "this is important" again and again. He calls himself a synthesist, putting together bits from a plethora of sources, thus he presents hundreds of tidbits but he says he doesn't particularly believe all of some of them, nor does he agree with a lot of totality of the works that he quotes or the philosophies of their authors. So, it's hard to know, for me, what he's synthesizing. Other than the idea that the rabbit hole is very deep, what am I to take from the guy when he says he doesn't quite believe in the photon belt, but believes there was no moon landing in 1969, and believes that it's brilliant that America has Alex Jones, whom he believes represents true "opposition" and the spirit of rebellion? Again, sure there are lots of good stuff in there, but so many incomplete thoughts, like "don't blame your psychopathic leaders for their existence if you've allowed them to rise." Michael, focus for second -- could it be we've allowed them to rise for some purpose gainful for the social complex? Nothing's explored fully. I haven't read his books, but his live presentation leads me to doubt that they represent thorough research, which is known to be a major problem with Icke, BTW.
I guess the question to ask is, "how does Tsarion's material help you?" beyond the thought-provocation and inspiration you've mentioned. That's a personal matter. Since you know more about Tsarion's work than I do, and have corresponded with him, it'd be great if you could convey what you believe his core messages to be, and what the goal or aim of his work is, or maybe some admission on his part about what he doesn't know or is trying to figure out. I realize this may not be easy to answer. Personally, I didn't get any suggestion about what to DO from Tsarion's presentation, not that I'm looking for a "leader" -- I wasn't inspired but was left with more an impression of hopelessness.
I noted that, unlike Icke, he did take a few questions at the end, which I thought was perhaps more revealing than the presentation:
-- his air of authority puffed up uncomfortably
-- his answers steered several questioners to purchase one or more of his products
-- associations with Noory and Rense were revealed
-- he conveyed the idea that the PTB were now under pressure, "being watched," maybe providing a sense that we are somehow "winning the contest." Without somehow suggesting how others might help in this effort, I think it usually imparts the idea that the average person doesn't have to do anything, that the "good guys" have their backs, thus neutralizing them. Isn't this a possibility? Please feel free to comment.