An Interview with Prof. Jay Courtney Fikes, pt. 3 – “MK-ULTRA Continued… The Carlos Castaneda Deception” – #189



Today Prof. Jay Courtney Files returns for his 3rd time to the Gnostic Media podcast, and this episode is titled “MK-ULTRA Continued… The Carlos Castaneda Deception”. This episode is being released on Sunday, January 19, 2014, and was recorded on January 08, 2014.

After completing his doctorate in anthropology at the University of Michigan in 1985, Jay Fikes taught in several universities and wrote the biography of Reuben Snake (a Native American activist and spiritual leader) while lobbying to pass national legislation to protect the religious freedom of peyotists–some 300,000 members of the Native American Church. Since 1999 he has been a Professor of Social Anthropology at Yeditepe University in Istanbul, Turkey. In his latest book, Unknown Huichol: Shamans and Immortals, Allies against Chaos, Jay Fikes summarizes what he learned from four Huichol shamans during 34 years of ethnographic research, including participation in peyote rituals and making pilgrimages to contact their gods. He is now translating Huichol myths and songs recited in various rituals, preparing a biography of Jesús González (a shaman from Tuxpan) and writing a sequel to his expose; Carlos Castaneda, Academic Opportunism and the Psychedelic Sixties.

Previous interviews with Prof. Fikes:

Prof. Jay Fikes, Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin – “A Conversation about Mind Control” – #155

Prof. Jay Courtney Fikes interview – “Huichol, Peyote, and the Carlos Castaneda Deception” – #118

Donations. This episode is brought to you by:
Lee and Shelley

  42 comments for “An Interview with Prof. Jay Courtney Fikes, pt. 3 – “MK-ULTRA Continued… The Carlos Castaneda Deception” – #189

  1. steve naive
    January 20, 2014 at 3:47 am

    jan, why are comments disabled on the you tube video postings these days? i’m sure you get cheesed off with some inane comments but many people want to share thoughts on the video content – and i guess most of the viewers of said videos watch them via you tube rather than here. cheers

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 10:15 am

      i so about to diverse myself from youtube. our relationship isn’t what it used to be. you should come here to comment anyway. imo

  2. John Richards
    January 20, 2014 at 4:58 am

    Excellent work as always Jan! Just a couple of minor fact-checking errors i noticed, it’s important to get your facts and citations correct. At around the 30 minute mark, Fikes claims that Castaneda was using ‘psilocybin mushrooms’, however this is incorrect, there is no mention of psilocybin mushrooms anywhere in Castaneda’s writings. Also at around the 30 minute mark you claim that Terence Mckenna “called himself a bard” however that is also incorrect, the term ‘bard’ has been applied posthumously to Mckenna, but he never called himself a bard in any of his books or lectures.

    Anyway keep up the amazing work Jan, we are counting on you!

  3. cwtch mahboner
    January 20, 2014 at 9:03 am

    As someone who has EXPERIENCE not a couch spectator with nothing more than opinion and weak denial, there are a number of relevencies in castanedas work, stopping the world, and, your doing and not doing, are very powerful truths.
    Try telling me that your will is not the function of your mind and the direction it is taking, and i will call you a liar and a fool, and it is not about casteneda, they are the teachings of don juan, not casteneda.
    i defy anybody to take peyote on a regular basis and attempt to be anything other than true with yourself, this state of mind is a counter polarity, absolutely opposed to the function of psychedelics on the human psyche and creates in itself extremely bad experiences.
    peyote is medicine for people who don’t realise they need medicine.

    One thing i do find rather funny about all this is, kesey and the pranksters, (read the electric cool aid acid test) and others may have been working for mk ultra (they can say whatever they like to discredit and deny an aspect of the truth, isn’t this what the prevailing state of mind has become on this planet) but they were also willingly working for the spirit of pyschedelia, if it wasn’t for them, the personal truths i in turn uncovered, i never would have.

    Don’t listen to those who would deny the ocean of truth without even getting into the water out of their depth, they are liars and afraid of everything that the truth has to offer.
    get on with it.

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 11:15 am

      the point here is not that entheogens are the devil.

      the point here is that agents of the CIA are using cultural personalities in Literature, Art, Science, and Social Engineering to create and manufacture the entire generation of people, or CULTure…..people you maybe have developed a deep, personal identity with.

      this is the truth. Im sure the Plants have told you this. Maybe you just have yet to understand it.

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 11:31 am

      “One thing i do find rather funny about all this is, kesey and the pranksters, (read the electric cool aid acid test) and others may have been working for mk ultra (they can say whatever they like to discredit and deny an aspect of the truth, isn’t this what the prevailing state of mind has become on this planet) but they were also willingly working for the spirit of pyschedelia, if it wasn’t for them, the personal truths i in turn uncovered, i never would have.”

      Are you saying that these MEN, led you to discover “your personal truth”?
      or are you saying that these(Plants) led you to discover “your personal truth”?

      And, can you tell me what knowing the truth–the truth that the source of your inspiration was part of a social experiment you engaged in UNWITTINGLY—means to you? Or is that “MY personal truth” so it matters not to you?

      And are you saying that its ok, that there is an agency that knowingly participates in providing (promoting)an environment for mind expansion in our Popular Culture? You know, grammys Income Taxes probably fund it….?

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 11:37 am

      LOL “couch spectator” lol….sounds like you havent even came in off the porch yet, brother!

      Jan could premise every podcast with “i have over XXX amount of experience with XXX, and this is the sours of his experience” but that would be so lame. Everyone knows, if you HAVE to say it–its probably NOT true about you.

      CHECK, mah boner.

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 3:08 pm

      So if you do any amount of research into this subject of mind control via military protocol, you may see some considerable proofs of conspiracy….can you tell me what knowing the truth–the truth that the source of your inspiration was part of a social experiment you engaged in UNWITTINGLY—means to you? Or is that “MY personal truth” so it matters not to you?

      Have you had enough time to try to grasp the fullness of this if true? It’s not going to ruin your experiences with plant spirits. At least I don’t think it would.

  4. John Richards
    January 20, 2014 at 9:34 am

    *update* – Sorry i got it wrong about the psilocybe mushrooms in Castaneda, apparently he did refer to psilocybe mexicana in some of his later books.

    However my point still stands about Mckenna, he never referred to himself as a ‘bard’, that is only what other people have since referred to him as.

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 10:13 am

      yes, i think because. the actual things he was saying, define him as “a Bard”

      so what is a bard, do you know?

      • John Richards
        January 20, 2014 at 1:46 pm

        Mckenna used to talk poetically and eloquently about aliens, mushrooms, eschatons etc etc, that is why people call him a ‘bard’, they mean something like ‘poetic eloquent speaker’ when they say Mckenna was a bard. Mckenna never referred to himself as a bard.

        • el
          January 20, 2014 at 3:11 pm

          Kind of like how people refer to what people are like en toto, generally– people are know by their actual works in this world, not what they claim or hope to be.

          I only call myself an artist because, well…..I’ve made a lot of paintings…..there’s no proof that I was a plumber or anything else….

  5. el
    January 20, 2014 at 10:18 am

    maybe someday (when the mckenna/castenada issue is sussed out) we can look closer at Frank Waters and his Hopi Book, with its prophecies of White Brotherhood as saviors……which i now realize, follows the very same pattern as Castenadas (propaganda) work…

  6. John Michael
    January 20, 2014 at 10:28 am

    Great interview except for promoting the Joe Atwill drivel. I’m so surprised that Jan keeps promoting that guy, and no I’m not some christian apologist. Bible scholars such as Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price have both written extensively about the blatant miss-characterizations and Bible Code theorizing of Caesar’s Messiah. Sorry, I know this wasn’t necessarily the topic of this show but I think it is important to point out, that by associating oneself with Atwill Jan is discrediting his other work, and please don’t tells me I making some logical fallacy for stating the obvious.

    • January 20, 2014 at 10:53 am

      That’s hilarious… You may want to try to read it YOURSELF, rather than relying on the opinions of others for all your decisions. Robert Price lost a debate on the Infidel Guy show to Atwill. Why don’t you discuss that? But of course you have to rely on the opinions of those whose careers are on the line if Joe is correct, rather than reading it and citing a single issue yourself. Epic fail!

      • Ryan Caron
        January 29, 2014 at 5:29 pm

        Hi Jan,

        Loved the interview. Courtney is an awesome and extremely smart dude. The only thing I’ve ever disagreed with you is about the Mckenna blurb, and I had to comment after listening to the interview and hearing you going after the people that disagree with what the FOIA said, as well as the blurb about him being in deep cover. I’m almost tempted to write a syllogism to prove why you’re wrong, but this might take some time. First of all, I could care less if Mckenna worked for the CIA, it means literally nothing to me. I only discovered him like five years ago and thought he was brilliant, which he was. It makes absolutely no difference to me, at all, if he worked for the CIA. I’m repeating this so you can’t accuse me of being a Mckenna fanboy.

        I’m going to take the FOIA request to a lawyer and one of my Philosophy professors in Logic to see if it’s truly saying that they have information, but are unwilling to share it. I don’t think it’s impossible that he was dirty, but I really don’t think the proof is there. If the lawyer and my professor both agree with you, then I will apologize and admit I was wrong. The audio clip of him admitting that he’s in “Deep cover”– I think is a glaring mistake by Courtney and yourself. I’ve now listened to that lecture about 5x, and there is absolutely no way he is talking seriously about working for the CIA, or FBI.

        I know you laugh every time someone brings up the fact that he’s talking about the mushrooms who recruited him (As you say. HOW CAN MUSHROOMS RECRUIT SOME ONE? THAT ISN’T EVEN LOGICAL), but thats…exactly what he’s saying. Your assumption that he didn’t think we would ever have such a thing as youtube, and that it was said in a room full of people who loved him doesn’t really lend anymore credibility to your argument.

        If you can honestly listen to that entire lecture and tell me with a straight face that he’s NOT talking about his experience with MUSHROOMS–and how THEY, the MUSHROOMS gave him advice on what to do with his life (Hence traveling the globe talking about mushrooms–the advice that THEY gave to him then I’m just stuck. You both laughed about this in the interview and you’re both wrong about this. Let’s presume that you’re right and that he was saying that he was recruited by the CIA or whatever. What?, he just chose to admit this to a room full of his sycophantic followers and didn’t expect a SINGLE person in the room to say “Did you just say that you work for the FBI/CIA”? These are his loyalist of fans. He cannot just admit that he’s an agent to a room full of his die-hard fans and then have them say nothing. This is BEYOND incredulous. The reason for that is because they ALL understood exactly what I DO. He’s saying that his numerous experiences on mushrooms, as he always refers to speaking with them, much like I have experienced while tripping, and much like you have, (I’m sure having tripped over 1,000 times as you’ve stated)–TOLD him that he should go around giving seminars on how powerful and special these things are. I’m not throwing away the baby with the bath-water. It’s still entirely possible that he is dirty, and there is NO DOUBT that Huxley and all the other goons you mentioned were dirty, and that Leary was an agent. Ill mention it again: I don’t give a shit if he was an agent or not, it doesn’t change my perspective. Let’s use some very basic logic here. An agent is NOT going to admit that he’s an agent in a room full of people that he’s apparently trying to manipulate–which is why no one stopped him and said…. “wait…what”. They didn’t stop him because they knew what he was saying…and it’s being incredibly blown out of proportion.

        Wasn’t he on the run for making books about how to grow psilocybe mushrooms etc? I don’t know the entire history as well as you do so please inform me. If Mckenna was an agent then he is easily the best sophist in the history of the world, even more so than the characters in Plato’s Gorgias (The best work on sophism around). So please answer my questions.

        #1–Why did nobody say anything once he admitted that he was an agent? We’re they too stoned/stupid to notice that he said “Hey everyone, I actually work deep cover in the FBI–and they are paying me to lie to you right now…or is it more logical that he’s talking about how his numerous experiences on entheogens inspired him to get the word out about the importance of the mushroom..after dedicating the last what… 20 odd years of his life endorsing them?

        For every one example you can find about him saying he’s an “agent in deep cover”, I can give you twenty others of him speaking about the world state and those that run it–which is confusing when he says he doesn’t believe in “Conspiracy theories.” This is also another HUGE misunderstanding of what he’s saying. He’s saying that this is just how the world has always worked. Money buys power etc etc. But I disagree with him when he says that he doesn’t think anyone is in “Control”–because that’s absolute we all know. I wonder what he would say today about 9-11 especially with the advent of youtube etc.

        #2– Is there any evidence of Mckenna living somewhat of a lavish lifestyle? I mean.. assuming he’s an agent.. one who likes to admit it in front of his own audience who adores him. He would have been making a little bit more money–but instead he dies of a terrible disease as a young man.

        #3– Do you think it’s possible to convince someone as smart as Mckenna, who had more trips than even you probably, to join the darkside and become an agent and forget everything that he worked so hard to endorse (assuming he’s not an agent)? After one trip you couldn’t convince me to even vote again. So a man who tripped an incalculable number of times, and spent his life endorsing something he believed in just decides to become an agent out of the blue and laugh at the people whom come to his conferences? The only way that it is seemingly possible is if they just gave him millions of dollars and said do this or we will kill you. But as I said previously…where is the evidence of him having money and living a luxurious life? The money he made while being an agent sure would have come in handy when he got brain cancer….yet he continued to try and keep fooling everyone even until his agonizing death. His “Last interview” posted on youtube must have been his last attempt to fool us then. Him sitting there after losing about 40 pounds, sick as shit, literally looking like he could die at any moment, but man–he must have known that he didn’t care about the books he wrote, or how he spent literally his entire life trying to promote entheogens. He was thinking Muahahaha. All you idiots believe that I’m for real!! When in reality I’m an agent in deep cover and have been misleading you for years!!!

        In closing: your work has changed my life, and I appreciate everything you do. You’re a really smart dude. but you guys really have to take a second look at this. As I said, I’m going to find out what the FOIA request really says by asking a Lawyer and my symbolic logic teacher (something you should really look into as it ties directly into the trivium) about the use of the word “Responsive”.

        After reading all of this, do you wonder why his brother got angry with you? You’re accusing his brother of having lied to him his whole life and claiming you know more about him than he does when he knew him better than almost anybody (which doesn’t mean he couldn’t lie). If someone did this to me with this apparent “evidence” I would be extremely pissed as well. I would really appreciate a response to this post because I spent about an hour writing it up. If you’re just going to resort to ad hominem attacks then please just don’t bother. All I’m saying is that if this is even going to be considered evidence, it’s EXTREMELY spotty.

        I love your work, and I respect you Jan–and that will never change, but I’ve never heard you say that you’re wrong once in all the time I’ve listened to you. So I’m going to take the FOIA request to people who understand and teach logic for a living, and a lawyer who understands all this strange wording. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it and donate 500$ to your show just because you’ve done so much for me. I will not however, accept the idea that he’s admitting to being an agent in one of his lectures in front of his fans—where nobody seemed to bother and say “Did you just admit to being an agent”? The only suspicious thing of Mckennas I’ve heard is when he talks about how the mushrooms told him that a 1 child policy would help save the world. You and Atwill’s talk about the archaic revival is also very feasible–and it fits…but if this is the evidence then….I wouldn’t go to court about it.

        All the best Jan.

        I will await your response. Have a good evening.

        • el
          February 22, 2014 at 11:50 am

          Why do you need to take anything to a lawyer or a professor? Can’t you read it on your own?

          Such trust! I remember when I was like that!

        • el
          February 22, 2014 at 11:53 am

          How hard is it to be a good Sophist these days? You realize we are all taught Sophist Logic in college? And your professor? He’s good at it too, I bet.

          U realize the dumber you make people, the easier it is to persuade them? ya?

          Have you graduated your place of higher learning yet?

        • el
          February 22, 2014 at 12:04 pm

          IMO, all McKenna would have had to believe to deceive people is that he was doing what he was doing because he thought it made the world better.

          Herin lies the problem. This entire thing about the CIA and the 60s boils down to govt mind control of your innocent, trusting, and destroy ed minds. The reason u should care about this, is because it has happened many times before in history, and EVERYTIME the govt involves it self in manipulating culture in any way, OUR entire identity as a people, our culture, AND EVERYTHING you and I create is just a repetition, a copy– of what culture those in control want. It leads to less imagination, less art, less music, less intellence and less FREEDOM- not to mention the downfall of that people and everything they created. And you and I help, because we think that kind of thing doesn’t matter and is normal.

          Sorry to break it to you, but reading is a form of slavery, until critical thinking is applied. Go tell that to your teacher.

        • el
          February 22, 2014 at 12:14 pm

          The best thing that can happen now, for the sake of truth– is someone files a defamation claim against Jan. IMO.

          But, bet they won’t seek defamation, or liable– because in doing so, the entire thing would be brought out into the light of day, in a Court of Appeals.

          So it’s best if you have something to hide to act dumb. Come on– you have to see the game being played perfectly between fictitious agents and Natural Men who have truth on their side, don’t you?

          One does wonder at the state of the higher learning centers, based on your rhetoric here.

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 11:44 am

      lots of things Men have wrote turned out to be wrong.

      How does this have any bearing on the truth, ultimately? Do we just disregard our errors in spite of knowledge?

      this kind of thinking reminds me of driving on the highway to understanding. Its a long trip, you’d rather be doing something else, and since the next off ramp has a new Applebees or something, you cut the trip short, just to taste those damn baby back ribs…..

      Its just not the point of getting in the car in the first place!

      • el
        January 20, 2014 at 11:49 am

        i guess i could have used Red Lobster or McGraths to illustrate a better red herring…

  7. cwtch mahboner
    January 20, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    Are you saying that these MEN, led you to discover “your personal truth”?
    or are you saying that these(Plants) led you to discover “your personal truth”?

    Both of these, though they are only a part of it, a part of my personal journey into what i hold as the truth.
    My personal truth is a state of mind, not an understanding of it, many things have brought me to where i am now in my non understanding, i know all things ARE possible, and in my real understanding, i know i don’t know how to prove it to anyone else but myself.
    The electric cool aid acid test had a massive impact on me as a kid and no doubt contributed to my conscious decision to explore the hidden abilities and aspects of our mind (body connection) and soul ( our true “spirit” state)

    el why try and belittle someone for expressing that they are not a passenger in life?, you know nothing about me and yet are prepared to attempt to malign my character by calling me a liar and opining the sentiment of my statement false?.
    all this from a desire to stereotype me in the search for affirmation on the internet that you are correct in this, because, you know.
    it seems to me you have something of an ego problem, something a prolonged course of peyote use could help you with.

    when i have them i take mushrooms once a month as an act of devotion to the universe and the higher intelligence behind it.

    Thought is the container of every possibility, isn’t it stupid that people don’t really explore it in every way possible?.

    Isn’t true gnosticism the acceptance only of the truths you can prove for yourself?,
    get on with it.

    • el
      January 20, 2014 at 2:50 pm

      Y know, I am so glad you responded.!

      “My personal truth is a state of mind, not an understanding of it, many things have brought me to where i am now in my non understanding, i know all things ARE possible, and in my real understanding, i know i don’t know how to prove it to anyone else but myself.”
      —ok, herein lies a problem. If it can’t be proven, outside of a persons metaphysical experience– then it cannot be “true”, because real truth is that which IS– things you and I can look at, see the proof, and agree– that that which is, is TRUE. And if the thing in question were true, we would see the proof, and agree on TRUTH, NOT what we believe it to be– that which is OPINION. In other words, if you experience something with peyote spirit, and spirit says to you ” this is what is true”— and I had a different opinion- you really can’t prove anything. I mean, I’d have to take what you were saying with a grain of salt. FAITH. Even if we had the same sacrament, it’s not given that we will know the same truths based on our experience with peyote spirit. This isn’t how you know what is true. This is how you form an opinion based on an experience. It’s different than what you are calling “truth”. In fact, from my experience with helper plants, the spirit tells the truth, but it’s expected that you take what you’ve learned and prove it to be true. You don’t just take what spirit says at face value, do you?

      Snake is a great teacher, but still very dangerous, as he’s a snake, and can kill you. True or false?

      “el why try and belittle someone for expressing that they are not a passenger in life?, you know nothing about me and yet are prepared to attempt to malign my character by calling me a liar and opining the sentiment of my statement false?.”

      Well because you are misrepresenting truth! What you are calling your truth is an opinion, and you site it as fact. And also, you are not being a leader in your life, if you are following Gurus. It’s all right there, in your grammar!

      I have a duty to truth, nothing else. It’s not even personal. I hope we come to understand each other better. And I am calling you a liar, because you are committing logical fallacies, or “little lies we tell ourselves to rationalize inconsistencies in logic.” Or— “don’t bother me with facts, I’ve made up my mind”. And if you knew you were committing fallacies in your grammar, you wouldn’t do it.

      What you are perceiving as ego is my confidence in knowing the difference between what is true and what is not. And I’m a woman. I just hope you let your ego down long enough to hear me.

      “Isn’t true gnosticism the acceptance only of the truths you can prove for yourself?,”

      This is a good question. I would say yes. But it’s incomplete. Knowing truth is universal. It’s not up for debate. It either is, or it isn’t. But not going all the way, PROVING truth, is the great lie. If I cannot prove what you say to be true , than I must take it on faith. This is something the plant spirits don’t even do! YOU HAVE TO PROVE WHAT YOUVE LEARNED IN REAL LIFE. Otherwise it’s just an organised religion of cultish believe systems. Something our Creator would never allow in its creation. True or false?

      “Knowing is half the battle.” Oh really? What’s the other half?

  8. nick noel
    January 23, 2014 at 11:52 pm

    Jan great work. Saw how upset people over at reality sandwich got so mad at your accusations about Mckenna. But there it is, in his own words WoW! Does anyone really need more evidence? And as for Castaneda while I hate the deception, his books are well written and trigger something. As to the sorcery thing I wonder what is going on there even Alan Moore speaks of sorcery what is their endgame and why in your opinion the psychedelic infiltration? Thanks again!

  9. Eric Mueller
    January 25, 2014 at 11:05 am

    I used to listen to a podcast by a guy named Marcus Leader, who claims to be a toltec shaman and disciple of Carlos Castanada. When I heard Castaneda, my ears perked up. On one of Leader’s podcasts, he included several chapters of audio from one of Castaneda’s books, where he talked about learning from Don Juan.

    I’ll have to put Dr. Fikes’ book on my reading list.

  10. david llewellyn foster
    January 25, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Well I find Jay Fikes extremely interesting, always instructive, inquiring and measured in his approach, it’s a pleasure to listen to him.

    I guess we all know quite enough about use and abuse, or should; so equally important is the notion of agendas and influence ~ who is doing exactly what, for whom… (to whom…) and why. My experience has been that it is the exception, not the rule, to find honest brokers in this world. Very few have the courage to really go the distance and work hard at becoming a human being. Not only can we be fooled, but it is often ourselves who do most of the fooling.

    As Blake is so often quoted, the fool who persists in his folly will become wise. The thing is to keep going and never become complacent, thinking that we “know it all.” We all have blind spots & the biggest of all is the self. Hence the legitimate Islamic concept of Greater Jihad. Arab civilization had its share of genius.

    We seem though to have worked ourselves into an ever deepening state of most savage perpetual war, since the US decided to assume the mantle of post WW2 imperial big-shot; and frankly, things have gone from (very) bad to almost unimaginably worse in very short order. So, of course deception has ruled, just as Sunzi decreed.

    My own political morality accepts the pragmatic understanding that any system that tries to deny, curb or attempt to restrict in any way the sovereignty of the individual, is doomed. I don’t believe we’ve ever had a truly free society, at least, not in a genuinely universal sense, but if we were to envision it then it would have to be based on unequivocal principles of transparency, accountability and the highest standards of rectitude. A tall order perhaps, but then what else is worth fighting for?

    The real problem therefore as I see it, is how to properly recognize and define the sacred and thus distinguish it from the profane, or even any subtly contrived simulacrum of holiness. I think we really need to re-invent “intelligence” literally from the ground up.

    This lethal and insidious idea of weaponized anthropology is profound, and moreover as certain as the day is long. Now that the entire Earth has been declared a battlefield by the White House terror divines, it is timely to consider the wider implications for those of us who can still retain our sanity. In a certain sense, or at least so far as our genetically confused Western oligopolists are concerned, their precious notion of full-spectrum dominance is synonymous with “christianizing,” and in my opinion this is the toxic root of the really big problem we face; and also whence the heinous rot originates ~ so that the most successful saprophytic feeding ground of all has been that institutional establishment we call academia; most egregiously, because of the big bucks and its super-capacious celebrity-culture colosseum mentality, in the good ol’ US of A.

    The power of the CIA (& its occult handlers) has resided in its generic capacity to corrupt, seduce and co-opt erstwhile independent scientists and scholars by various sinister and suspect means. You pay the piper and call the tune; it’s a simple enough formula. The tragedy is that so many have swallowed the bait. Some I’m sure have been too myopic to realize just how they have been gamed, duped and manipulated; others were clearly complicit, and yet others, particularly those who had experienced transcendental psychedelic trance, thought they were enlightened enough to game the gamers. Temporarily enlightened perhaps ~ but not necessarily wise. Power, as Kissinger boasted, is the greatest aphrodisiac & all is vanity…

    I enjoyed Joe Atwill’s recent film, but such a brilliant thesis must remain open to critical evaluation and I note that Acharya S has raised some important questions, as she does not subscribe wholly to Joe’s interpretation. So I’d really like to hear a thoroughly adequate discussion of these issues, without core elements getting overly digressed or completely swallowed up in the maw of christist apologetics. It is a topic that still deserves a perspicuously forensic dialogue.

    One other thing: I recently watched a Canadian documentary about the Philippine cultural phenomenon called the Aswang. I’d be very keen to hear Jay’s opinion about this

  11. alexander rados
    January 26, 2014 at 7:55 am

    Greetings all, I am looking for clarification on basically one point with several minor ones, and this is open to all and sundry to answer. Jan I noticed that when you clicked on Wittgenstein in the brain data base, the early Wittgenstein came up, the “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”. I am curious as to why this is. That he knew Bertrand Russell well, is common knowledge, as he was the leading philosopher at Cambridge at the time most of the professorial staff knew him. It’s also common knowledge that he saw the young Wittgenstein as his intellectual heir. Make of these facts what you will, what concerns me is why the Tractatus?

    Wittgenstein rejected this work in the latter part of his career namely, language as symbols or signs which had a direct and veridical relationship to the objects in or of the world. It’s important to keep in mind that Wittgenstein saw philosophy as being a problem of language. To be exact, he was attacking the Cartesian doctrine of the mind as substance. A substance characterized as not being extended, an inner world of subjectivity ( arguably; except for his “clear and distinct ideas” which were imprinted by a divine creator).
    Further, he was also attacking the Platonic idea of forms, pure ideas which exist as an unchanging, perfect and eternal reality which can only be perceived by the mind’s eye, and of which the material world participates in imperfectly. The common thread for Wittgenstein is that both positions are subjective, contextualized by a private knower contemplating ideas in the mind, separate from the reality they portend.
    Having said all this, why the Tractatus and not the Philosophical Investigations which reveals his latter thought and marks his rejection of his early work the Tractatus. The rejection consisting in his concept of language games, or language as form and reference. In other words, language is a public event, engaged in and understood by all those engaged in it’s interchanges, and all the problems of philosophy stem from thinking it is rooted in subjectivity concerned with Cartesian “clear and distinct ideas” or Platonic essences.

    The clarity that I am seeking is, why one and not the other, what does this mean, did you mean both, if so why, and finally do you think language is subjective or a linguistic game open to all to see-Why/why not..


    • david llewellyn foster
      January 26, 2014 at 3:42 pm

      I welcome this comment as it invites us to consider some very abstruse philosophical matters.

      Personally, I have never been especially convinced of Wittgenstein’s exceptional importance as a philosopher, probably because I have never really understood what he was on about or seriously tried to understand it. However, I shall eventually make that effort in due course; I studied Russell’s works in some depth about 25 years ago and more recently have found Popper’s very demanding writings (in English) acutely relevant and stimulating. Any writer of his intellectual calibre has to be read quite extensively before one can venture a coherent opinion about their work.

      It seems evident that Russell did regard Wittgenstein as “the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived; passionate, profound, intense, and dominating.” (The source for this quote is cited in Wikipedia as McGuinness, Brian. Wittgenstein: A Life : Young Ludwig 1889–1921. University of California Press, 1988, p. 118.)

      It might have been a simple matter of his not being a native English speaker that has made Wittgenstein so difficult (for me) to follow, whereas I now see he was also exceptionally able, musically, as he had “absolute” or perfect pitch, supposedly only occurring in one in 10,000 people according to Oliver Sacks His family background is also quite intimidating. Mind you, Popper came from a similar background but in a different epoch and without the privilege of inherited wealth, that indubitably tends to make a marked psychological difference in outlook.

      So it is tempting to speculate as to whether his genius might have been misplaced and his true gift lay in sound as musicians are frequently said to also display mathematical aptitude and vice versa. Russell (who was a Lord) had an enviable command of the English language, although of course his collaboration with Whitehead on Principia Mathematica was an abstract work of pure symbolic logic ~ a daunting challenge for even the most athletic thinker.

      There are a few fascinating insights into Wittgenstein’s abrasive personality in Karl Popper’s magisterial “Intellectual” Autobiography ~ Unended Quest (the updated 1986 Flamingo edition of the original 1974 Open Court “Autobiography.”)

      Something that has occurred to me while contemplating these intriguing enigmas of genius (& gender…) is how rare it seems that in single individuals from European backgrounds we ever ~ if at all ~ find an equal ability in both philosophical discourse and poetic mastery, whereas among Arabic (also Persian, Indian and Chinese) creative thinkers these capacities do not seem to be so incommensurate; so perhaps there is such a thing as greater and lesser genius, perhaps distinguished as superior gifts endowed by the Muse, while our lesser lights are bestowed through sheer determination and unflagging commitment, to slogging hard work.

      • alexander rados
        January 27, 2014 at 5:46 am

        Hi Eric and thank you for your comments. I did not know about Wittgenstein’s perfect pitch. It seems that he did come from quite a musically talented family. For example, his mother and sister’s love of opera, his brother the pianist who was quite a virtuoso from all given accounts, and for whom Ravel composed a one handed piece for him ( apparently he lost a hand in the first world war).

        As for Wittgenstein being a misdirected genius, all I can say is “perhaps”. He was born into a family of immense wealth, if he had wanted to pursue music, it would have been an open path for him, However; his original career and interests were in engineering and not philosophy. I believe it was while reading Russell’s “Principia” that he felt the inspiration to pursue philosophy. As for his importance, I think it is fairly well established, with professors like Searle, Quine and Ayer’s either carrying on the Anglo-American tradition following in his footsteps or having to demarcate their point of departure from him. Professor Searle, wrote a book titled “Intentionality” where he carries on Wittgenstein’s ” reference” ; meaning language is about use or language games and not about trying to find metaphysical forms or clear and distinct ideas i.e. Descartes. It’s been years since I read it, unfortunately I can’t tell you at this time how phenomenologicaly oriented it is, other than to point out the idea of “directed otherness” being the key characteristic of any given conscious experience.

        As for his inscrutability, the only I can think to say about it, is to just read and reread him until his style clicks with you. Wittgenstein being Austrian, did write in the style of his Prussian predecessors, i.e. Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, which is to say aphoristically. It helps a bit to keep this in mind while reading him.

        Considering your comments concerning differences between western and eastern thinkers, and the issue of multidimensionality. Tony Buzan’s radiant thinking or mind mapping does deal wit h this issue. Basing his research on current psychobiological knowledge ( very similar to Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory), he interestingly enough gave the top honor to Leonardo Da Vinci as being the best example of someone functioning with multiple intelligence fully engaged. It would be greatly appreciated if you could cite me a few examples of eastern thinkers for me to ponder over. Personally, I am most at home with Advaita Vedanta, consequently and not surprisingly, I like Schopenhauer a lot; also, I have always been more interested in the continental tradition than the Anglo-American one.

        Finally, Wittgenstein was in touch with the logical positivists, though never a card carrying member, as it were. For myself, having spent the last 12 years in applied linguistics in Asia, there is seldom a day when I don’t leave the classroom wondering about the early and latter aspects of his work. It may come as a bit of a surprise to you to know, that socio-linguistics can be traced back to him. This in itself is a valuable contribution coming from a philosopher and not a linguist per se.

        Thank you again for your comments and a few eastern examples for me to reflect upon would be appreciated – Cheers!!!

      • alexander rados
        January 27, 2014 at 6:48 am

        Please excuse my haste, David, I addressed my comments to Eric, when they should have been addressed to your self, so for this, I humbly apologise.

        As for your comments concerning Professor Fikes, I concur with you, however, I keep coming back to the idea that government is an atavistic idea, an impediment to be overcome, though in principle I see the virtue of transparency, non-aggression, the abandoning of hidden oligarchical agendas and programs, etc. Daily I am becoming more convinced, that the way to achieve these ideals is to transcend the primitive belief in the need for government. In short, either people are possessed of reason or they are not, either they own themselves and the fruit of their own labour or they don’t, and so on and so forth. At times I find my self wondering, if humanity will achieve true liberation and freedom considering how the oligarchical and corporate interests are dead set on never letting this possibility emerge or happen. Yes, I agree with you, that the church or Christianity, Judaism and Islam all contribute to humanities serfdom, along with mainstream scientific reductionistic materialism. Needless to say, I will check out both links on your posts.

        Finally, I too would agree that it would be great to see a round table discussion with Jan, Joe Atwill and Acharya S.

        • david llewellyn foster
          January 27, 2014 at 4:49 pm

          Alexander I appreciate your response and will pick this up when I get back in two weeks! I’m off in a few hours to work away from home on an animal rescue project with friends in Andalusia. So it’s impossible for me to follow up on your very interesting remarks as I need an hour or two’s rest before embarking before dawn…I’ll think about it all while I’m away, all the best.

          • david llewellyn foster
            February 12, 2014 at 3:46 pm

            I am back in the UK now, Alexander, after an intense fortnight in Spain, so should like to pick up your thread, as your thoughts about government interest me, and I want to thank you for your welcome thoughts.

            My own view, is that self-governance is indeed the true ideal but, until we have introduced and established reliable esoteric criteria for an authentic system of “initiatic education” (that is to say, an enlightened formula that condones and endorses “open source” spirituality as an empirical scientific ideal, possibly engaging recent biological principles of neuro-phenomenology & organismic microbiotic/entheogenic ecology,) it seems unlikely to me that such a desired authenticity of being/becoming can prevail.

            We may therefore have to accept the pragmatic need for some sort of transitional, ethical compromise that can pave the way toward such a political horizon of legitimate self-determination. As a student and scholar of Aleister Crowley’s (real, unexpurgated) work and method, and also of Daoist philosophy ~ that I encountered and absorbed some time prior to being introduced to the occult dispensation of the Beast ~ it struck me as apposite that A.C. regarded the Dao De Jing of Laozi as the greatest treatise on government ever produced.

            So my allusions to oriental science and poetry were very much minded of that recognition, also of the Hermetic/Gnostic tradition of the Neoplatonists & subsequently, the great Sufi adepts and well-known philosopher-scientists of Islam. I think the point is that true (mystical) science IS the purest poetry ~ something the West seems only now, lately, willing to entertain and contemplate more fully & seriously.

            Re Vedanta of course (and the ancient Greeks,) I have found The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilley (the fruit of his thirty years research) a worthwhile reference source, also I admire the extraordinary & unique contributions of the late Lithuanian classical philosophical scholar, Algis Uzdevinys.

            As a “non-linguist” I am fascinated with ancient languages, and would be grateful for your thoughts about the present state of Proto-european linguistics research.

          • alexander rados
            March 19, 2014 at 6:45 am

            Hello David, Alexander here, please excuse the lateness of my reply. Regarding your comments below, I’ll venture the following observations.

            In the past, I thought that Liber Oz was sufficient in and of it’s self. These days, ( though I still agree with Liber Oz) I think that the basic precepts of anarcho – capitalism are broad enough to accommodate most people with various metaphysical perspectives. Basically, humans are free or self ownership is a given, from this it follows that one owns’ the fruit of their own labour. Further,one has a right to acquire their own private property (all tax upon it being purely optional at the legal owner’s discretion), however, externalities do hold. As for commerce and trade, contracts with agreed upon third party arbitration with open public access, so as to ensure reputation is necessary. I fully realize that this is all rather sketchy, but in certain respects it really is just this simple. Most important is, the non aggression principle is always binding. (Yes, owning your own firearm is necessary!! Remember “Liber Oz” you do have the right to defend yourself against an aggressor, provided that it is they who transgress the non aggression principle.)

            Getting to the heart of the matter, I think what we are all up against, as it were, is the current prevailing scientific paradigm. In that, it is this paradigm that seems to control and explain the thoughts and behaviour of current philosophical discussions, oligarchs and the steering committees of international globalism, i.e. Ray Kurzweil, Ted Turner, the British/Dutch monarchy, the Rothschild’s etc. Please follow the following link for a better sense of what it is I am getting at




            I do realise that this is all very sketchy, but their is enough here to get a context of a reply regarding your comments about initiatic education and open source science.

            Finally, I am unsure what you mean when you say “being/becoming can prevail” this is a purely existential idea, this makes it superior to the Anglo-American tradition in my view, but, look at the science set free video, especially Sheldrake’s exposition of the middle ages understanding of nature. I don’t see “dead matter” anywhere in the universe. How about you? I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I study philology, I don’t, my own area is in applied linguistics.

            Cheers and it’s good to see you back!!!

  12. Kerri Bodie
    February 4, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    I am hoping I am wrong, but it seems painfully obvious to me, after listening, once again, to Huxley’s description of Soma, that cannabis fits this description perfectly. I’m sure it wouldn’t have been difficult to “leak” some sort of GM cannabis onto the market decades ago.

    Is this just one more deception/betrayal that I need to face here??
    This is not a joke, I am seriously asking.

    • el
      February 22, 2014 at 12:21 pm

      Well it would fit the Dutchs 300 year history of genetic horticulture to do such a thing, wouldn’t it?

      However ALL gm seeds need farmers to plant or clone. Without that- a gm organism won’t reproduce.

      Im more concerned with the high taxation and cost of pot to people with Aids, Cancer, and real life threatening access to medication due to that taxation.

  13. forky
    February 12, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    Howdy Y’all

    I thought I’d share this link while it’s still accessible. Sometimes web pages just disappear. It’s a series of college radio broadcasts from 1986 and ’87 that discuss in great depth the history of government involvement with the import/distribution of drugs into Americen culture. Hours and hours in mp3 audio.



    AFA 24–28: The CIA, the Military & Drugs

    “Beginning with the Bayer company’s development of heroin as a cough-depressant and cure for morphine addiction, the program sets forth the same firm’s invention of methadone, now used to treat heroin addiction. Part of the I.G. Farben chemical firm that served as the backbone of Third Reich industrial production, Bayer (the developer of aspirin) developed methadone as a synthetic opiate for treat­ing casualties prior to World War II. It was originally called Dolophine, in honor of Adolph Hitler!”

  14. boss baxter
    February 14, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    Does anyone have a link to the jim morrison image on his father ship? I would like to see this image. thanks Jan

  15. Eunice Farmilant
    February 16, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    This interview is an amazing tapestry of how we were snookered in the 1960s and beyond by a carefully chosen ensemble of agents…not that everyone accepted the dogma hook line & sinker… I saw Timothy Leary about three times in person in the 1960s. The first time was at the University of Chicago in an open forum (the audience was mainly students) I was quite shocked to hear him recommend giving LSD to young children –he was very clear about this, children as young as three. I laughed out loud at the absurdity—the audience was deadly quiet and everyone turned around to see me.

    Later, when I was living in Boston, around 1969 he turned up one day at the Boston Commons in the summer, word of mouth allowed him to draw a large crowd despite his allegedly being on the lam from the cops; he appeared the next day, a Saturday at the Cambridge Commons, drawing a very large crowd. I thought both appearances to be highly suspicious, and had put up my guard against him because of his recommending LSD to children. In short, I thought he was nuts.

    In between his appearances I did take acid twice, in 1968 and later in 1969. My first trip was pretty interesting and exceedingly long, the second one extremely upsetting and involved a lot of crying.
    However, today my preferred method for getting high is fasting on juices, meditating and staying very healthy. I get a nice endorphin rush from working very hard physically outdoors on my farm, not just in summer, but all four seasons. I find a lot of those seeking a mental high rarely are in touch with their physical bodies. Another thing that happens when you are healthy is the ability to not only remember your dreams (pineal gland) but also to have really truly amazing experiences.

    • el
      February 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm

      I find it funny how much LSD or Acid is being done these days, but none of the descriptions of the trip sound anything like and acid trip! More like Speed or some kind of “White drug”. Dirty!

      Most common comment to ” I did acid and was tweaked out, but there were no visuals” is ” well, that’s wasn’t acid, then!”

      Be weary of “LSD”. It’s a drug, um k?

      • david llewellyn foster
        February 24, 2014 at 3:54 pm

        Good point el.

        My first acid was orange sunshine in 1968. I had read Robert de Ropp’s Drugs and the Mind that summer after moving to Canada in 1967, since I was already very interested in mysticism and Chinese thought, and had met people who were Leary buffs; so I made the conscious decision to take it with friends.

        Thereafter for a decade, I ran the gamut of all the available variations, from blotter to speckled, to purple microdot, to ice 9 and so on. Although I have to say the only really pure LSD I’m now sure that I ever encountered may have been some material originating from Sandoz I took in 1970, when I was living in Nova Scotia. Those same friends who were also growing their own unadulterated grass, sent it to me in 2 capsules saying they thought it might be mescaline.

        It was a sort of pale mushroom-like powder, that seemed close to the description Michael Hollingshead later gave in his 1973 book The Man Who Turned on the World, about his celebrated mayonnaise jars of Sandoz-laced icing-sugar. This is an interview by Hollingshead with R A Wilson in High Times back in 1980 that is quite interesting, apart from the ill-considered allusion to Capricorns and “Jesus.”

        Those early experiences are still extremely vivid and readily accessible, and I really have no regrets as it was a truly spiritual adventure back then; I wrote everything down in meticulous detail. Unfortunately, I subsequently lost most of the original record, but revisited much of it again from memory, and when I read Stan Grof’s (1980) LSD Psychotherapy, recognized that the dynamic phenomenology of my own experiences was very consistent with his very diverse initial work in Prague from 1960 onwards.

        The point is really this, whether it’s courtesy of God or the “devil” the outcomes of any such conscious experimentation are entirely of our own making.

        I invited a neighbour to sample one of the capsules, who was a university botanist and specialist in lichens. When we compared notes a few days later, he was convinced it was actually high strength LSD, and very pure. I did not disagree, as it was the smoothest psychedelic experience I had so far enjoyed, and strongly reinforced the recognition that to be really effective, these substances if they are pure and naturally derived should be treated as sacraments.

        • el
          March 10, 2014 at 10:26 am

          Great story!

          Really makes you think…or know….it’s people, real flesh and blood people, people who care, and love–that HAVE the actual experience we are calling mind control…

          Govt manipulation aside– because that’s a given, obviously– “you cannot stop an idea that’s time has come, nor can you account for the Spirit of Man.”

          So I know it will all work out in the wash.

Leave a Reply