Into the Mind of Simon G. Powell – a study in fallacious “logic”.

Share

Into the Mind of Simon G. Powell – a study in fallacious “logic”.

I was recently humored, and also simultaneously distraught and upset, over the recent interview over at Red Ice with Lana of Radio 3Fourteen. I should say upfront that I’m a huge fan of Red Ice, well usually –

 

Red Ice Radio’s Radio 3Fourteen interviewed Simon G. Powell, the author of The Psilocybin Solution: The Role of Sacred Mushrooms in the Quest for Meaning, where in, clearly without studying any of my work or citations, Powell went on a 24 minute tirade, committing such a huge number of fallacies against my work that I figured that rather than lose this opportunity and let it go by, we can utilize it for the listeners/readers to apply their trivium skills and help spot Simon’s fallacies. The word fallacy comes from the Latin: fallare – to lie.

My papers on Wasson and Darwin, Huxley, McKenna, etc, for those interested in what my claims actually are, may be read here:

“Magic Mushrooms and the Psychedelic Revolution: Beginning a New History” – or “The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms” by Jan Irvin – #144

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/magic-mushrooms-and-the-psychedelic-revolution-beginning-a-new-history-or-the-secret-history-of-magic-mushrooms-by-jan-irvin-144-2/

How Darwin, Huxley, and the Esalen Institute launched the 2012 and psychedelic revolutions – and began one of the largest mind control operations in history.
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/how-darwin-huxley-and-the-esalen-institute-launched-the-2012-and-psychedelic-revolutions-and-began-one-of-the-largest-mind-control-operations-in-history/

See more on fallacies in my interview with Dr. Michael Labossiere, and in the Trivium studies information:

Michael Labossiere – Logical Fallacies:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/dr-michael-labossiere-interview-logical-fallacies-the-critical-thinking-meme-part-1-062/

Trivium study:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/triviumstudy

I’ve gone through and marked a large number of the fallacies from Simon Powell’s interview in the transcript below, but it’s exhausting work with so many, so no doubt I haven’t caught them all (about half), and I may have misidentified a few, but I think this is a worthy mental exercise for a study in fallacious logic and spotting the logical fallacies.

 

The full Radio 3Fourteen interview may be heard here:

Radio 3Fourteen – Interview Simon G. Powell

“The Psilocybin Solution vs. Elite Psychedelic Psyops”

September 12, 2012

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3fourteen/2012/R314-120912.php

 

In the following transcript any spelling errors, missed words, etc, that aren’t blatantly Simon’s stuttering and run ons heard above, are then our own fault.

It may be helpful to hear Simon’s interview as you read along (if you’re able to bear it).

 

Good luck and happy fallacy hunting!

 

Jan

 

3:33

Lana: So you are also a Gaiaphiliac.  So what do you think about agenda 21 which is pushing for humans to be rounded up into the cities, living in apartments?

Simon Powell:  What’s that? Age.. say that again?

Lana: Are you familiar with Agenda 21?

Simon Powell:  I’m not familiar with Agenda 21.

Lana: (Gasp) Ok well you need to research this. Because basically the UN is pushing for Agenda 21, which is about climate change, and changing different things for the environment, for the health of the environment and one of those things is rounding people up out of the rural areas and into the cities, living in apartments, because it’s better for the environment.

Simon Powell:  Well I, uh, I wouldn’t be able to comment on that.  I mean, I mean, uh, I think the majority, I mean, there are mega cities, actually defined as mega cities because so many people live in them. Um, yeah, I mean I don’t know, how, it raises the question of how best to manage 7 billion people, 7 billion is a lot of people, and growing, the population is growing.   (4:42)

 

15:08

Lana: And if we get to the heart of the psilocybin experience, what is the message?“

Simon Powell:  Well it’s interesting.  I was listening to, someone posted a uh Terence McKenna clip on my Facebook wall today or a few days, yesterday I think.  And I listened to it this afternoon.  And he said something that, I have listened to, I don’t listen to McKenna so much at the moment, I listened to all of his stuff 10 years ago I went through all of his stuff [ironically, Simon doesn’t know that I’m the one who put out about 70 hours of McKenna archives about 10 years ago.], um so I have heard most of his stuff, I mean he is a great guy, a tremendous influence on my own work. But he said one of the, he said and I agree with him, one of the most important things about psychedelics like psilocybin is this concept of unity.  If you look at scientific research that has been done and …. The interconnectedness of all things becomes apparent.

 

23:42

McKenna rightly said that all of our theories about the psychedelic experience, or the psilocybin experience, are provisional, ***even what I have written in The Psilocybin Solutions, I don’t know if I still agree with what I wrote in there, they are provisional ideas***.

26:20

Lana: There’s also many biblical references to what many say could be psychedelics such as John Allegro’s mushroom cult theory. Are you familiar with that?

Simon Powell: Well how can I not be familiar with that when I have to plow through that Jan Irvin’s [Simon intentionally mispronounces my name throughout the interview despite Lana’s repeated attempts to correct him.] 2 hour – I don’t know what to call it..? [appeal to ridicule] Yeah, can we get on to this? I’ve got to get it out of my system. [appeal to emotion]

Lana: Yeah sure, so…

Simon Powell: It’s your, it’s Red Ice Radio’s fault, so uh… [blame casting]

Lana: [laughs] that’s right. Let me just let the audience know, that we had Jan Irvin on Red Ice radio and he pointed out Gordon Wasson’s involvement with the CIA, claiming that the psychedelic hippie movement was a psy-op, and provides a window into how the elites run their mind control systems. So would you like to comment on that?

Simon Powell: yeah well, I’d rather not [appeal to ridicule], but uh [laughs], I listened to Jan Irvin’s [intentionally mispronounces my name - again] two-hour diatribe last night [appeal to ridicule], and I put it off for a long time because I didn’t want to listen to it because it’s just going to be horrible. [leaping to an assumption – argumentum ad ignorantium – killing the messenger – arguing the arbitrary] and I listen to it. First of all, and I could say a lot, but let me just say about John Allegro, and these are my honest opinions about John [he ignores my writings and research on this that Henrik and I specifically discussed – argumentum ad ignorantium]. This is what I know about John Allegro and his Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, and all that sort of thing [dismissive appeal to ridicule]. A long long time ago before I started looking for mushrooms, at the point when I was learning about mushrooms, and decided I would go and look for them, I got a copy of John Allegro’s book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross from this local library, and this was a long time ago, about 1985. I then started… ***I couldn’t understand his book. It was too academic.*** But I started to read about these Fly Agaric mushrooms. And I went out and looked for them for months. And then I found Fly Agaric mushrooms in abundance in this hanold forest in the outskirts of London. So this is going back to like 1985. I brought shopping bags full of them back to this flat I was staying at with these punk rockers. We were in like a punk band. Um, and I tried every conceivable way of ingesting these Fly agaric mushrooms. And I dried the caps. I mix them with milk. I dried them in an oven. I dried them slowly. I tried every single possible way. So keen was I to get in the facts. And I got no effect whatsoever.

[Note: Simon’s ignorant of Prof. Carl Ruck’s work – who’s come out and fully endorsed Allegro (2009), not to mention Clark Heinrich’s work where Clark explicitly explains the issues of having a full blown experience with the Fly agaric (2002). He’s also ignorant of the works of Wolfgang Bauer and Edzard Klapp, and also Herman de Vries, Okluvuaha Native American Church head James Flying Eagle Moony who discusses this, and Professor John Rush’s 3 books on this, and also Dutch mycologist Gerrit Kaizer’s work. Simon also falsly assumes that Allegro was the first to publish on this, he’s not aware of John G. Bourke (1891), the French Mycological Society (1910 or so) the Wolfe’s (1920s) or Ramsbottom (1953), or Robert Graves (1950s) or Wasson (1956) before him. He tried every way but the way that’s it’s supposed to be done… In fact, I wonder if Simon’s studied a single thing from the entire field of ethnomycology aside from Gordon Wasson and Terence McKenna, whom he’s cited about 20 times to this point  – much less ANY of my own work – so, in fact, everything Simon says is entirely an argumentum ad ignorantium.***]

Lana: I heard you’re supposed to drink your pee. Like eat them and then drink your pee, and then you get an effect.

Simon Powell: Well that was a Siberian thing …they said… Because the active ingredients which I think is Muscimole, passes through your system and so your urine will be psychoactive. And so that’s where that comes from.

[Note: Simon misses the blatantly obvious, that the Siberians used in this way to get a psychoactive effect! The recycling of urine has a dual purpose in the process of consuming Amanita. Both ibotenic acid and muscimol are excreted via the urine, which scientific studies have clearly shown for some time. The purpose of recycling the urine is essentially to increase the potency via decarboxylation of the remaining ibotenic acid into muscimol, thus increasing the high. The ibotenic acid is what is primarily excreted, along with small amount of muscimol, in the urine. However, between the following article by Jonathan Ott and The Botany of Chemistry of Hallucinogens by Schultez, 1980, it is clear that it is the decarboxilation of Ibotenic Acid into muscimol that is responsible for most of the high.

EFFECTS OF IBOTENIC ACID AND MUSCIMOL

Ibotenic acid evokes entheogenic effects in human beings at doses ranging from 50 – 100 mg (Chilton 1975; Theobald et al. 1968). An equivalent effect is produced by 10-15 mg of muscimol (Theobald et al. 1968; Waser 1967). After oral ingestion, the onset of the inebriation is rather slow, and generally 2-3 hours elapse before the full effects are felt (Chilton 1975). This delayed response has also been reported following ingestion of Amanita pantherina (Ott 1976a). The effects last for 6-8 hours, depending on dose. Effects are characterized by visual distortions, loss of equilibrium, mild muscle twitching (not convulsions, as has erroneously been reported), and altered auditory and visual perception (Chilton 1975; Ott 1976a).

It would appear that muscimol is the psychoactive constituent, and that following ingestion of ibotenic acid, a fraction of the material decarboxylates to muscimol, which then produces the inebriation. After oral ingestion of ibotenic acid, a substantial percentage of the drug is excreted unaltered in the urine, but small amounts of muscimol are also excreted (Chilton, unpublished). This mechanism would potentially explain the Siberian urinary drug recycling practice. After ingestion of the mushroom, the celebrant would excrete substantial amounts of ibotenic acid in his urine. A second user ingesting the urine of the first, would cause some of the ibotenic acid to be decarboxylated to muscimol during digestion, producing inebriation when the muscimol was absorbed; and the bulk of the ibotenic acid would be re-excreted in his urine in turn. Thus a 100 mg dose of ibotenic acid might potentially represent four or five 10-15 mg doses of muscimol, and Steller’s 1774 report that one dose of mushrooms could be recycled through four or five persons is certainly feasible. Muscimol itself probably does not play a significant role in urinary drug recycling, since it was found that only a small percentage of injected muscimol was excreted in the urine of mice (Ott et al. 1975a). This hypothesis has yet to be verified quantitatively in human beings, though it has been demonstrated qualitatively in preliminary experiments (Chilton 1979).

The Botany and Chemistry of Hallucinogens by Richard Evans Schultes, 1980 (Harvard)

Pg. 49

Subsequent investigations of Amanita muscaria by Eugster and others in Switzerland and by Takemoto and others in Japan led to the isolation of various amino acid derivatives with characteristic psychotropic activities corresponding to the psychic effects described following ingestion of this mushroom. These were ibotenic acid, muscimole, muscazone, and ®-4-hydroxy-pyrrolidone-(2).

Ibotenic acid is the zwitterion [A molecule or ion having separate positively and negatively charged atoms or groups] of a-amino-a-[3-hydroxy-isoxazolyl-(5)]-acetic acid monohydrate. It occurs in the mushroom in the racemic [b. Composed of dextro- and lævorotatory isomers of a compound in equal molecular proportions, and therefore optically inactive.] form (Good et al., 1965; Muller and Eugster, 1965).

It separates from water in colourless crystals, mp 145o C. Ibotenic acid must be considered a principal active constituent of Amanita muscaria, being present to the extent of 0.3-1 gm/kg of undried carpophores of material of this species collected in southern Germany and in Switzerland . Ibotenic acid easily decarboxylates and loses water to be transformed into muscimole, which is the enol-betaine of 5-aminomethyl-3-hydroxy-isoxazole.

Muscimole forms colourless crystals, mp 174o-175o C, which are extremely soluble in water. Muscimole is probably not a genuine constituent of living Amanita muscaria. It is produced mainly during extraction of the mushrooms by decomposition of ibotenic acid (Eugster, 1968; Eugster and Takemoto, 1967). ]

Lana: okay.

Simon Powell: Um, so that was my first exposure. I then got Allegro’s book again. I don’t know I saw it… I got up from a secondhand bookshop about five years ago. And tried to read it again and again. Unless you’re a philologist, experts on languages, it’s an intractable book. ***I just couldn’t, you know, understand it.*** It’s a book for philologists, language experts. [Note: He’s admitting his own inability to understand the work, which bears nothing on my or Allegro’s works.] I suspected, and I’m not alone here [appeal to popularity], and I’ve always suspected that he was a sensationalist [Note: Simon omits that I dealt with these exact claims in my book The Holy Mushroom (2008) – which deals specifically with this issue using 100%, primary documentation! He's simply regurgitating Jonathan Ott's unsupported claims (1993/96) that were also refuted with primary documentation (see pp. 89ff). He ignores that these issues were also discussed in my interview with Henrik.]. The fact that he, and others have pointed this out [only Ott], the fact that he published, it first got published in a newspaper called the Sunday mirror [Simon would only know this through my work, as I republished it with Allegro’s daughter, Judy Brown] and I think 1970, and that’s a rubbish newspaper [ad hominem], you know, it’s not a highbrow newspaper [appeal to authority]. And he would’ve got paid a lot of money [circumstantial ad hominem] because they serialized it over sort of eight issues or something [Incorrect – it came out over 4 issues - http://johnallegro.org/popular-press/popular-press-by-john-allegro/sacred-mushroom-and-the-cross-sunday-mirror-1970/ ]. And it’s a sensational book to say that Christianity, that Jesus was the Fly agaric mushroom [irrelevant]. It’s so, so sensational, but sensational equals book sales [just because something is sensational, or never before published, doesn’t make it wrong].

[Note: Simon omits that I dealt with these very claims in my book The Holy Mushroom, using all primary documentation (pp. 89-91). Simon further omits that there is no evidence for these claims of the amount of money that Allegro supposedly made, and omits that this claim originated from Wasson himself. Simon then makes an appeal to ridicule and a guilt by association, making it appear that anything published in the Sunday Mirror is of no value. He omits that Gordon Wasson too published in Life magazine and not in anthropological journals. He omits that the fact of this and the publication of Allegro’s book has been addressed by Prof. Carl Ruck and Allegro’s own family.]

 You know, if you want to sell millions of books, you write a sensational book, you know [no irony there]? But here’s the thing, right? Here’s my, this is the, this is the the the nub of it. If you, if you… On, on YouTube, there is a film of John Allegro, it’s about a 15 min. interview with him. I think it’s from about 1976, it’s an interview with John allegro, where they’re talking about this fly agaric mushroom, was he Jesus, was it Jesus and all this kind of thing. In that film there is a tell. You know when people play… In my opinion it’s a tell [his unsupported opinion doesn’t make it so.] You know when people play poker?

Lana: yes.

Simon Powell: You know a tell in poker?

Lana: yes.

Simon Powell: You know if you’ve got a bad hand and you’re bluffing you might scratch your nose or something, you know, you’ve got a tell.

Lana: give it away.

Simon Powell:

[scratching the nose is typically a sign of nervousness – Allegro was in a TV interview].

A poker player will spot your tell, you’re giving the game away through a tell. [Here Simon is attempting to make a guilt by association and red herring fallacies that are totally unrelated to Allegro’s work, not focusing on Allegro’s own citations, etc. He seems incapable of staying focused on the topic he’s discussing.]  Here’s another example of a tell, is uh, that numbskull [ad hominem], what he called? The spoon bender guy, the guy who bends spoons, Uri Geller! Uri Geller made a career on pretending that he could bend spoons. Yeah, I mean it’s just an illusion as James Randi… it’s a cheap trick, you know?  It’s an illusion that, you know, that magicians can do. But he made his career on bending… you know, this mysterious pa… now he’s got… the fact…that he he he never wanted to admit that he, uh, you know, conned people. And his tell is the fact that about, I don’t know, about 5… Because I detest people like Uri Geller… about five years ago he started calling himself…. He stopped saying he had paranormal abilities and mystical powers, and called himself a mystifier. Now that’s a tell!  Because what he’s saying is yes, I trick people and it’s not real. But I can’t admit it fully. I’ll just change the way I described myself. So he calls himself a mystifier. He mystifies people. That’s a tell! Yes?

[Note: During this long red herring about Geller, who pertains absolutely nothing to Allegro’s work, he doesn’t notice that Geller is the man  who worked with Andrija Puharich, who worked with Wasson. Puharich was in charge of “The Nine” – at the Esalen Institute. No irony there! As I wrote in my book The Holy Mushroom:

Wasson attacked Allegro for citing the work of Dr. Andrija Puharich, whom he simply calls “a man”. He doesn’t mention that Puharich was in fact a medical doctor who had worked with the US military and had left his post as Captain of the Army Chemical Center at Edgewood, Maryland in April 1955 (Levenda, 2005).  It was only two months later in June 1955 that Wasson himself worked with Puharich, though they had already met in February of that same year (Puharich, 1959). It appears that Puharich was in charge of collecting psychoactive compounds for government research. There is strong evidence to suggest that Puharich was actually working with the MK-ULTRA program, US Army Intelligence and the CIA (Levenda, 2005).”]

 

Lana: uha.

 Simon Powell: He’s giving the game away. He just doesn’t want to fully admits that he’s a bullshitter. [Notice how Simon is attempting this elaborate red herring in attempt to tie a fraud like Geller to Allegro – who’s completely unrelated.] Right now back to the Allegro thing. You go on YouTube – watch that uh uh 1976 interview with Allegro [this is an interview that I published with the help of Dutch mycologist Gerrit Keizer – who happens to support Allegro’s work and has researched it extensively. Watch it here: http://johnallegro.org/john-allegros-the-sacred-mushroom-and-the-cross/2011/01/]. And there’s a… in my opinion, there is a tell in there. Because at one point they.… Now bear in mind that he’s written this book saying that Jesus [laughs] was this fly agaric mushroom [appeal to ridicule]. That’s a massive claim! [irrelevant] That fly agaric mushroom must be phenomenal [post hoc fallacy – does not follow. His level and understanding of it bears nothing on how other cultures reveared the mushroom – like the Siberians, for instance.], it must make psilocybin… the psilocybin mushroom trivial in comparison [red herring - again, his conclusion does not follow his premise]. This must be a divinely powerful, supremely powerful mushroom! I didn’t get any affect when I tried it.

[Note: Just because the Amanita rejected Simon, and that he doesn’t use it correctly, doesn’t mean that it’s not a valuable tool. He’s trying to compare apples to oranges. He’s furthermore ignorant of ALL of the research on this topic by ALL authors outside Allegro, Wasson and McKenna – likely regurgitating McKenna’s long ago debunked argument in Food of the Gods. Simon’s clearly ignorant of The Epistle to the Renegade Biships, a canonized Orthodox Christian text that I was the first to publish in 2008 that specifically discusses “the holy mushroom” – see The Holy Mushroom, pp. 149 ff].

 

Simon Powell: And uh, I don’t think wor… Gordon Wasson… Even Wasson admitted that the psycho activity is a bit questionable [Wasson admitted to having prepared them improperly and not having drank his urine, just like Simon. We covered this in A&S – 2005/2009]. It’s not even classed as a psychedelic, muscimol, the active ingredient.

[Note: circumstantial ad hominem – Simon further omits that we went into psilocybe mushrooms in the works as well, and between myself and Prof. John Rush, we’ve published over 240 Christian icons showing the mushroom. Also, did you notice how Simon doesn’t attack Wasson for being one of the first to propose the fly agaric! – see notes above on Ibotenic Acid and muscimol.]

It’s classed as a -  as a sedative or hypnotic. You know, it’s not in the same league as psilocybe and anyways. [irrelevant]

[Note: He attacks Allegro for not trying the mushroom. This is a circumstantial ad hominem and bears nothing on Allegro's work. It's well known that Allegro never even had a drink in his life. See Brown, 2006]

33.01

Simon Powell: “anyways imagine that this Allegro wrote this book saying that this whole Christian religion got it all came back to this Fly Agaric mushroom.  Now in 1976 when they interviewed him, it was legal that mushroom, it still is legal to consume, but yet when the interviewer was asking, “have you ever taken this mushroom?” This is the tell-tail, he laughed, he got nervously, he sort of laughed nervously, ‘oh no I would never take that.  They’re strong.’ Or something. That is the acid test! [this is a circumstantial ad hominem and is irrelevant] if you are going to say that this thing is at the heart of Christianity, and it’s legal to take and they grow within 10 miles of where you live, lived in, you’re gonna take it. That’s the acid test. You take it.  You go and see.  That’s the acid test.  [Allegro based his reports of the experience from available academic journals. See the exact breakdown of this in The Holy Mushroom – 2008] If he didn’t it’s absurd [circumstantial ad hominem, appeal to ridicule], it’s like someone writing a book proclaiming that some ayahuasca [red herring] is the greatest thing in the world or something and they’ve never tried it [red herring – Allegro was a biblical scholar and was only interested in reporting what he saw.]. You know. Yeah.  I think you’ve got to try the thing.  [That’s Simon’s opinion. Allegro felt it was a poison by what he’d read.] The fact that he… it’s a tell!  So I think. [yeah, so? That’s all you’ve got is a red herring to support your argument?]  My opinion and it’s the same Jonathon Ott [appeal to authority – who’s been refuted on this issue – see my book The Holy Mushroom, pp. 89-91] and probably a lot of others [appeal to popularity], a lot of other critics is that he was a sensationalist [what is a sensationalist, someone who says Christianity was based on mushrooms? Or someone who says they can solve the world’s problems with mushrooms?].  I don’t think he believed it himself [based on what? Arguing the arbitrary].  And of course Jan Irvin, he has, he’s republished the book, so it’s like he has given over to that guy now so he’s gonna follow that path through.  So that’s why he is coming out with all this [non sequitor – Simon’s reasoning is baseless] , scarred…, That two hour thing, it’s the worst, it’s like trolling through mud [appeal to ridicule – based on what?].  I can’t believe, I can’t believe, I saw that he had raised $3,000 to make this film about this wacky theory [ad hominem  / appeal to ridicule] that that Gordon Wasson was part of the CIA. It’s just so absurd [arguing the arbitrary / argumentum ad ignorantium].

Lana:  Why is it absurd to you?

Simon Powell:  The I…  When I wrote the Psilocybin Solution. [red herring] I read, in the index, there is about 5…, if you wanna know about a guy. Get a feeling for someone, and they’re an author, then read their books. [Note: the irony here is that Simon has not read my books.] I have read most of Gordon Wasson’s books and he wrote, he published lots of ugh papers.  And he was a scholar you know [irrelevant – a scholar can be CIA – and many are.] and he wrote really, really good.  Like, like his fir.., Yeah, this is unfor, this is unfor, well it’s almost unforgivable [appeal to emotion]. Jesus said [red herring / appeal to belief].  I think Jesus was a teacher [appeal to belief]. Christ means awakened one [no – it means anointed one – Christ is from crisco, or oil.].  So I side with Morris Nickels [appeal to authority] who suggested that and Gergiev that suggested that Jesus came from an esoteric school that taught self-knowledge [red herring].  Jesus taught to forgive and I guess that’s what stops from having chips on your shoulder [Simon, try to practice what you preach], but what Jan Irving said, what he did at one point, that was almost, almost unforgivable [appeal to emotion – here comes the whambulance!], he quoted Gordon Wasson  about how Gordon Wasson discovered this mycophobia or mycophillia with his Russian wife.  She had a tradition of liking mushrooms and he was an Anglo Saxon, who didn’t wanna.  And the way he, Jan Irving was readying Wasson in this horrible voice to poke fun and that’s a terrible thing [OMG, Gasp! Can you believe it?! Because Wasson is an unquestionable god, and Simon is a religious Zealot selling his religion!] because Gordon Wasson wrote some good scholarly works [irrelevant]. And I am indebted to Gordon Wasson [irrelevant/appeal to emotion/ hidden agenda to protect. He should be indebted to truth, not vacuous, fallacious tirades] as a lot of people are in the, who are interested in the history of psilocybin [and Amanita too, let’s not omit that fact].  His, his scholarly work is uh, is first class [irrelevant, appeal to authority. It’s Wasson who’s in question here.].  So you know someone has to speak up.[Appeal to emotion – Wasson’s Cheer leader yay!] It was awful listening to that. It was almost unforgivable. I don’t know why he came out? [If Simon had bothered to read the material, this would have been obvious] You know?  But um. Yeah, alright. I did write some notes down.  [incredible!] He went on about the Century club saying that it was a front for the CIA.   Well I mean it…  I think he said he got letters from the secretary there [the librarian].   You can check on Wikipedia that the club is still there.  It’s for literacy, social, wealthy people, you know.  Ah, you can get, they sent him letters, records.  You know. What are we to conclude that the CIA has got really lax security that you can just get copies of letters from them [no, this is 60 years ago. It’s not current. Ever hear of FOIA or Freedom of Information Act request, Simon? Try contacting the librarian instead of making up lies and suppositions.] this is information.  Um what else?  Yeah well I wrote down this $3000 that Jan Irvin raised.  I, I, I’d love it if some people started up a Kickstarter project to stop Jan Irvin [the irony is .  Let me put that out there, anyone out there listening. Ah maybe 99.9% of your audience are really behind Jan Irvin and thinking who the fuck is this British guy talking here. You know.  But if there is anyone out there [laughs] who’d like to see Jan Irvin’s project stopped wants this stopped, then start a kick starter thing to stop, [laughs] raise money to stop Jan Irvin’s ugh.

37:52

Lana:  But you have to admit that the CIA does have a history of using psychedelics for nefarious purposes.

Simon Powell: Yeah

Lana: yeah

Simon Powell: It’s not…Wasson knew about it.  It’s well known that Wasson’s second trip to Mexico was funded by the Geschickter Fund, I mention this in my book, was funded by the Geschickter Fund which were a CIA organization and they sent a chemist out there under the guise of being an anthropologist or something. He had no empathy whatsoever and he had a horrible time on the mushroom, which is good, um and it’s because the CIA were interested in psilocybin to see if it could be used as a truth drug, but it can’t. It can’t be used as a truth drug or anything.  So they gave up their quest on it. So I am not denying MK-ULTRA that they gave LSD to unsuspecting prisoners or soldiers or whatever.  But um all the other stuff is… We have a word it.  Jan Irvin’s 2 hour diatribe could be, there is a single word in the English language that sums up his whole 2 hours and that word, that word is bullocks.

Lana: Well there you go. After…

Simon Powell:  Wasson’s first book.  The idea is just so absurd that it was a contrived cover.  Wasson’s first book, Russia Mushrooms and History, which was published in 1957, he only met, and I had the honor of reading it, cause it’s a really rare book and I read it at the British library. There are only 500 books made.  It’s a genuine, it’s a, you read that book and you realize this someone very interested in the history, the cultural history of, ah, of mushrooms in particularly psychoactive mushrooms and the last chapter is about his psilocybin experiences.  And then he, he then went on after he retired from JP Morgan back, he went on to write a number of important scholarly books about psilocybin, so his work is very important. And ah, Jan Irvin is just, ah, I do not blame, he contacted Wasson’s family about the archives or something, I can’t blame them to, for wanting to keep him at arm’s length you know.  I don’t know what’s governing.  I don’t know if Jan Irving [intentionally mispronounces my name] knows its bullocks or if he actually believes it. He has got this stupid thing on his site, this brain program, he’s got a chart with Gordon Wasson in the middle with all these lines leading out to Hitler and the JFK assassination.  I am surprised he didn’t have links to Genghis Khan and Stalin and maybe, maybe Gordon Wasson was involved with the HIV virus and maybe Gordon Wasson is behind earthquakes or something you know. It’s just absurd, absolutely absurd.  And it just messes, it dirties the whole psychedelic movement.  It tarnishes it, you know.

Lana: Are you someone who’s into

Simon Powell:  It’s absolutely expletively ridiculous.

Lana: Are you someone who is into conspiracy?

41:00

And He then starts going on about, how absurd can this get, he then starts talking about the Esalen Institute, whatever it’s called, that sort of new age, where all these new age people go.  He mentioned Alan Watts and then mentioned that Alan Watts had a handler. That is, there aren’t words for how crass that is. You go on, you look at, there are some wonderful wonderful ah, audio clips of Alan Watts he was a wonderful chap, really great wisdom there, the idea that he had a handler, a CIA handler, is Fucking crass.

Lana: Are you someone who is normally into conspiracy or you kind of shrug that off?

Simon Powell: There is only one conspiracy that we should really, really, really be concerned about. And it leaves all the other conspiracies behind but people don’t really want to know about it, and they think I’m crazy.  That’s the conspiracy of nature, or the whole systems of the Universe, the forces of nature, the laws of nature, to self-organize on every single thing single scale, and to self-organize life into existence.  And then to evolve life to the point of consciousness, so that we can be, we are in this privileged position where we are the universe waking up to itself.  That’s a big conspiracy, that’s a conspiracy that I’m interested in. Not this idea that… look, my, my Metanoia film, right, which I spent years making that film, I did all the music and everything. Some, this is how stupid some people are now, someone commented on there, someone said to me on this Youtu.., on this Metanoia thing,  “Ah Simon G Powell, I thought you were the real deal and then you mentioned about  population control and then this person then suggested that I was part of some sort of elite or something, you know. All I mentioned

Lana: I saw that comment.

Simon Powell:  All I mentioned at the end, it was just a casual thing, at the end of the film I was saying, I said that we need a new relationship with nature, we need a new clean renewable energy, and population control.   I didn’t mean rounding people up and shooting them Nazi style, I mean that population is an issue.  Cause there is an optimum carrying capacity of the earth. You know.

Lana: Well a lot of times, a lot of times…

Simon Powell:  It’s an issue to be talked about, population is.

Lana: yeah, I think a lot of times its…

Simon Powell:  Every time we bring new people into existence and they use a lot of resources you know.  But the fact that this person that I was part of this some shadowy elite,

Lana: Yeah people can reach for…

Simon Powell: Someone rightly said, someone rightly answered, they gave a quote from, I think it was  Thomas Coon, the philosopher Thomas Coon, and Thomas Coon rightly, I think, said that in the old days when your crops failed or your house fell apart or you got ill, you blamed demons, you would say there was demons  or an angry god, or some witch had put a hex on me, that’s just, that superstitious nonsense is just now being replaced by these shadowy groups, you know the groups of bankers meeting in Temples underground with their trousers rolled up.

Lana: Oh but Simon, you need to do some research, and, there is quite a bit of that going on, but if you’re not researching into it, you’re not seeing it.

Simon Powell: If, if you say so.  Nobody knows what’s, Terence McKenna had it right when he said, “nobody’s in control, nobody knows what’s happening”.  The big bang, you know the big bang theory, this idea that there was this creative event 145 billion years ago, that creative explosion is still happening, life is part of that, consciousness is part of that, nobody knows what is happening, something incredible is happening cause here we are and were conscious beings on this fucking incredible biosphere, nobody’s controlling that, not people, it’s bigger, bigger than people.

Lana: Yeah, well ultimately the only thing that someone can control is your consciousness.

Simon Powell:  The idea that there is a group of people that is running history is crap.  Yes, there are bad people, people, get obsessed with money and power and they do bad things, history’s always been like that.  This is getting out of hand now, everything is a fucking conspiracy.

Lana:  So if humans keep up on the bad track, you know disconnected from nature and the soul, what will we involve into then?

Simon Powell:  Sorry?  Um, I’m sorry, I’m just looking at my notes, to see if there is anything else I wanna say, cause it was so bad, yeah, let me just say one more thing about his ridiculous diatribe, the whole point of the psilocybin thing, and I, his called, his organization is called Gnostic Media, and Gnosticism is all about knowledge direct knowledge and that’s what mushrooms can give you.  Ah, the whole point of the mushroom is not history and all this kind of thing, it’s the actual experience itself, higher states of consciousness, everything else is beside the point, everything else is looking the wrong way.  Psilocybin is a tremendous natural resource because it empowers you.  That’s what we should be talking about the actual experience, it’s a shame McKenna is dead you know. It’s the actual experience and all this crap that people like Jan Irvin’s coming out with and you, you, you’ve got some responsibility because you broadcasted, it just muddies the water.  The psilocybin experience itself will empower you and that’s what we should be looking to and talking about and making something whole.

Lana: So did you go through Jan’s entire article?

Simon Powell:  No, I listened to the 2 hour thing, I, went to, I saw another video of him that I flipped through before, it’s an overview of thing.

Lana: Ok

Simon Powell: Look, I, I, I think, I might be wrong, but I think I’ve got a good sense of bullshit. I really believe that, the older I get I think I can detect bullshit.  I think I’ve got a good.., it’s just my opinion I can’t prove it, it would be quite difficult to prove it, but I think I can detect  bullshit, and there’s lots of bullshit ideas about there and you don’t pursue every single whacky idea you come across.  And it’s just bullshit.  I know, I know because I, well I don’t know, “know” is.., I’m convinced as convinced can be, having read.., like I said that thing about Allegro, the tell and all that, what I said about Allegro and having read Gordon Wasson’s book, he was you know, his life, the later part of his life, was dedicated to ah, ah, ah, unearth, unearthing the, the, the, the use of psilocybin in Mesoamerican culture.

Lana: Well at the end of the day if you get something good out of it, I guess that’s all that really matters.

Simon Powell: That’s what I’m saying the experience is the most important things.

Lana:  So if humans keep up on the bad track were on, disconnected from nature and the soul, what will we involve into then?

Simon Powell: We won’t, we’ll go down the pan like the dinosaurs.  Nature…, you know, I have tried to introduce, people have heard of the survival of the fittest, in my book Darwin’s Unfinished Business and in my Metanoia film I talk about the survival of that which makes sense.  What that means is that nature will only preserve in the long run, sensible behavior.  A sensible behavior means that you, you behave in a way that fits in with the larger environment, which is a larger web of life.  If we continue, not if, if human culture continues to not make sense, within the large context, it will be pruned away.

Lana: Do you think maybe Mother Nature will have a big depopulation event wipe out a bunch of humans, maybe leave some.

Simon Powell: Yeah, I mean I don’t know.  But we won’t, can’t carry on in this business as usual, cannot carry on indefinitely.

Lana: So speaking on psilocybin, should everyone try it?

Simon Powell: No I wouldn’t advocate everyone. No, you should be over 35 and you should have a science degree or an art degree.

Lana: (chuckle) Are you joking?

Simon Powell: I am covering myself.

Lana: (chuckle) so,

Simon Powell: Um no, no, not, they are not for everyone.  I mean, you have to, no, it’s for everyone? No, if you want to, they should, they, what you need, I recently went to, back in April, I went to this forum in America, it was partly about the near death experience but they also had psilocybin researchers there who done, you know the latest John Hopkins research, they’re giving psilocybin to people dying from cancer and this kind of thing, um and I met all the main psilocybin researchers and I think there is a general agreement, I have been pushing this for, I don’t know, maybe the last 6 months or so in interviews and such, what we need, cause at the moment, people… for instance there is an interest in ayahuasca and people who have got the money are going all the way out to Peru to take ayahuasca and have these therapeutic experiences.  Not everyone can afford to go all the way to Peru, to take ayahuasca.  What we need, and I call them revitalization centers, we need places in culture all over Europe and America, where people can go and have a guided.., so what I’m saying to you, everyone should have the opportunity to take them in a civilized fashion.  Yes.

Lana:  There are actually ayahuasca churches actually in America.  There is one in Bend, Oregon that I know about.

Simon Powell: Right. Well that’s good.

50:44

  166 comments for “Into the Mind of Simon G. Powell – a study in fallacious “logic”.

  1. gus
    September 14, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Was Anne Frank’s Diary a Hoax? i need help.

    • Phil
      September 15, 2012 at 11:12 pm

      Yes.

    • truth
      November 11, 2012 at 8:19 pm

      Why should it be that? Where you heard/read that?

      From time to time there is a flux of some very strange and absurd notions about the world that disseminates, devolves and evolves while accumulating other ideas in an immoral if not in a disingenuous, ferocious or barbarous manner.
      Tace care, mate; are we tools of extrinsic ideas, the impalpably means of meaning or are we adressed as the meaning itself?

    • truth
      November 11, 2012 at 8:43 pm

      to get maybe closer: there are charges and rationalisations of historical revisionists and interconnected instances that have to be dealt with very attentive and carefully

  2. Taylor
    September 14, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    What was his website? I thought he said http://www.imawalkingfallacy.com. haha. Thanks for posting this Jan, This really helped me understand fallacies better. It just sucks that he disrespected you like that. Anyways I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you do. It has definitely changed my outlook on the world. I’m looking forward to future podcasts and I’m hoping to get some money together soon (I’m a poor 22 year old) to help support the podcast. I mean feel like I should, since you have given me an insane amount of information plus the trivium. Well anyways thanks and keep up the good work man.

    • Nopal
      September 15, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      I to have few funds. But if you could meet Jan, would not buy him a beer or two? Donating 10 bucks would be like buying him 4 starbucks coffees or two beers.

      Supporting his work is the least we can do if we benefit from it. This is not a guilt thing just a appeal to that fact he needs our help to keep his work up. I very much agree with your comments about this interview and it is good to see you have grown from this work as I have.

      Be well,
      Nopal

  3. goatstaog
    September 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    The guy is one of 2 things but not both. Behind the times and full of himself for being on a pseudo quest for knowledge or A complete lying scumbag.

  4. goatstaog
    September 14, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    OMG that was one of the worst exposes of anger and contempt I have heard in a long time.

    He wants to GET FUNDING TO STOP JAN?? WTF? This guy spent the past 15 years crafting his little niche and the problem for him now is that Gnostic media and others have blown away that house of cards he worked so hard on for so many years ( he admitted that many times-those horrible movies ect) yikes. I think we won’t hear from this guy any more – he just Jumped the Shark

    • Jan Irvin
      September 14, 2012 at 8:55 pm

      Jumped the shark…. that is fucking HILARIOUS!

      (edit: now I don’t know if I’ll be able to stop seeing Simon as The Fonz)

      • Phil
        September 15, 2012 at 9:10 am

        Haha, The Fonz, I think ‘Simple Simon’ has a better ring to it…all things considered.;)

        • Jan Irvin
          September 15, 2012 at 9:12 am

          I like Simpleton Simon.

          • goatstaog
            September 24, 2012 at 3:54 am

            Right on! – I recently had a dialogue with SS and he’s a master at acting stupid and deflecting.
            Unless he’s stupidly deflected.

      • Michael Walker
        October 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm

        Hi Jan, hope your well buddy… I have been so busy recently not found time to keep upto date with your latest podcasts. But as somebody who lives in England, felt ashamed that this guy Simon G. Powell was using many fallacies through out this Red Ice podcast and tried to put you down. He has the most annoying voice ever aswell, so it was hard to spend 60sumin mins listening, but found it most rewarding in the sence that I could tell the fallacies he used. Its funny how him trying to put you down has back fired so badly lol I am going to Amsterdam on 15th October this year, going to try raise funds for you to come to UK/Netherlands for some well needed lectures from yourself! I also found something intresting in a auction house the other day in London which thought you might find intresting.. Its a old cigarette card from early 1900′s with none other than Cecil Rhodes, it has a intresting read on the back. I will try photo copy and email you it..

        • Jan Irvin
          October 7, 2012 at 7:31 pm

          Thanks for the note, Michael.

  5. sndesign
    September 14, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    Simon (AKA) Polly Shore escaped from the bio dome ate mushrooms fell asleep watching sacred geometry videos
    and figured it all out through Wasson
    just doesn’t add up, sounds all disconnected from nature

  6. sndesign
    September 15, 2012 at 12:19 am

    But What about the Wheat quote later down the road. around 60min.
    That’s the part where I just thought this was some kind of Prank.
    Wheat,DNA, aliens, crop circles, ahhhh now we are getting somewhere.

  7. dude
    September 15, 2012 at 2:33 am

    You of course read Simon’s books, articles, and all his citations, before you attacked him, correct? You wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite and not do this FIRST, correct?

    • Jan Irvin
      September 15, 2012 at 9:09 am

      Dude, as is blatantly obvious for any intelligent mind, I’m not attacking Simon’s published book here, which I have read much of – but as I’m not attacking Simon’s book as he is my work, there’s no need for me to read it. I know that’s a bit too much common sense for you to understand.

      I’m attacking Simon’s attacks that he published on the interview with Lana that pertain to MY WORK. If I’ve read his book is irrelevant to his attacks on my work where he clearly didn’t read my work, nor does he cite his book in refutation of my work. IF I were attacking his book, then of course logic would require that I read his book all the way through. As I’m not attacking his book or published work here, but his ATTACK on MY work, your BS Simon logic does not follow – and I assume that you’re likely Jonny Enoch who sent me this same retarded shit yesterday (below), not comprehending that since I’m not attacking Simon’s book, there’s no need for me to read it to address his attacks here, which are clearly quoted word for word. If you’re going to try to use logic, then use logic.

      Terence McKenna was a man, not a god, not a saint. He started and led a cult of hippies who couldn’t think critically, down the path of eugenics, humanism, and feminism for elite and totalitarian control – controlled opposition – found under Agenda 21 and the UN’s UNCED and Fourth World Wilderness Conferences. Terence sold the world citizen for the elites – the core plan of which was developed by the Huxley’s themselves. Terence always claimed that no one was in control, as Simon regurgitates. Ask your self, Jonny, who benefits from you holding that belief? From you not fact checking and verifying the facts of reality before you leap to false conclusions, before you appeal to emotion and thoughtlessly regurgitate “what McKenna said”.

      I’ve only got to study what I’m attacking to avoid argumentum ad ignorantium / etc.

      It’s amazing how we’re focused on Simon’s attacks on my work, and some how you come up with a red herring that I’ve got to read his book as well to dissect his arguments against my own work. That’s about as dumb as it gets. Congratulations.

      Here’s Jonny Enoch’s vacuous screed that he sent me yesterday:

      Jonny Enoch

      Hi Jan,

      I just want to drop you a note and let you know that Simon G. Powell is not alone in his current frustrations with your crusade against psychedelics and the great minds who discussed them in the counter culture. I am a researcher and an author into these subjects, and I am also well aware of your current contention with Simon’s statements. I was in fact the one who asked Lana over at Red Ice radio to bring Simon on. However, I did not know that he was going to rant about you at the time, but someone had to do it. In fact, it would appear as though you yourself have been experiencing some kind of existential crises or cognitive dissonance, as you seem to be attacking your previous work which validates the usage of mushrooms and such things.

      In recent statements you seem to be transcribing Simon’s interview so you can attack him for not reading your work, yet you attack him venomously without reading his. With all do respect, did you have a bad trip or something? Did you invent some kind of pseudo research to support your delusional ideas that the mushroom are evil because it peeled back your ego and forced you to view parts of your shadow self? Your new body of work makes it look like the mushroom was invented by the CIA, and all great pioneers in this area were funded by the powers that be. I am well aware of MK Ultra and other CIA programs, but this recent diatribe you are on is disgraceful, and I for one will be opposing it with facts on all our available sites. If this is the kind of slanderous work you wish to represent towards these sacraments and pioneers, then you are not going to get away with it on my watch.

      I think Simon has a right to be upset, because your latest work and statements are carelessly demonizing a holy sacrament that has been used by indigenous cultures in Mexico and Central America for thousands of years. I myself have used psilocybin and DMT sparingly and have had profound spiritual awakenings just like these great teachers and philosophers talk about. I don’t see what the CIA would have to gain from Mckenna encouraging people to look deeper into themselves. If anything, it is the opposite of what you say, having studied clinical hypnotherapy and psychopharmacology myself, such substances can help break mind control. If anything, LSD was found to be more psychoanalytical, while most of these natural substances have proven to make people more empathic and psychologically/spiritually more aware. Hence the recent John Hopkins study. I guess Dr. Andrew Weil has a CIA handler now?

      Most certainly with Terrance Mckenna, Gordon Wasson, and Alan Watts, we see brilliant minds sharing intellectualism and philosophies that are beyond some ‘CIA scripting’. These minds were deeply inspired by these aspects, and I still get inspired and stimulated every time I listen to/read their materials. Although I can see where people connect Huxley/Orwell to the Fabian society, and there are pretty clear agendas we see with work like Brave New World/1984, there is no great prize for world domination with Alan Watts. I guess the CIA handler told him to write, “do we breathe the air, or is the air breathing us?”

      If you were the with the house of Rothschild, and were an active controller of the world, would you want people to question their own existence, or accept the reality they are being forced fed by the TELL-LIE-VISION? The merits of Mckenna or Wasson’s work was clearly inspired from passion and personal experiences when you read them. That indeed was the message Simon was passionately trying to get across when he was frustrated. Having shared a beautiful spiritual experience with psilocybin and Gai, I understand the passion Simon has to defend these topics.

      Surely we don’t judge the philosopher Martin Heidegger for being around the nazi party because he lived in Germany during a certain part of history. Being in Time is not a secret nazi book, and phenomenological observations have nothing to do with concentration camps. I’m sure the nazis were interested in his work at the time. Sure the CIA was doing tests on psychedelics, but they doesn’t mean the mushroom was even usable for mind control, if anything it does the opposite and shows a person a sense of compassion, love, and unity.

      I think you owe the spirit of Terrance Mckenna an apology, the psychedelic community an apology, and only then can you reverse the damage of your current nonsensical, blasphemous, and libelous accusations to mushrooms and these great minds. All people have to do is listen to Terrance for five minutes, and they will get more out of that man then all your recent interviews and works combined. Moreover, if anyone takes mushrooms, they will see that these sacred experiences are profound and special, and cannot be limited by some governmental agency.

      Lastly, while Simon lost his ‘cool’ on the recent Red Ice interview, someone had to do it. I don’t fault the guy for not being up on Agenda 21 and other matters, as he is more concerned with Gai/Mother Earth, science, and scrutinizes outlandish claims. He doesn’t have to know conspiracies, but unlike your current speculation of others, Simon bases his work off research validated by personal experiences. Simon and I draw a difference of opinion on the veracity of conspiracies, as I do believe there have is a controlling elite, bankers, and intelligence agencies manipulating the system. However, I find the conspiracies you present to be inconsistent and full of holes.

      In the case of hermeneutics, people can pickup facts and spin them to look like anything to match their current view. However, there is an awakening right now, and these substances are put here on earth as bread crumbs to act as a ‘permission slip’ to open parts of us that are really important right now. I just think your message is that of fear and condemnation and does not coincidence with the current awakening of human conciousness taking place in humanity right now. So what now Jan, psychedelics are bad, and we should go be back to sleep? CIA was here, nothing to see. Sounds to me like maybe you yourself could be an agent with a handler who does not want people to “WAKE UP” from their programming.

      Why don’t you check Graham Hancock for his CIA handler or David Icke, because both of them had an ayahausca trip recently!

      Clearly the mushroom has benefits for all users, whether they are spiritually inclined, physicists, atheists, and persons of every walk of life. If it calls out to people, there is possibly a ‘psilocybin solution’, as Simon suggests. I think that is the message that Simon has, and as a naturalist, he is going to defend mother earth. I wish you all the best on your current work, and I hope you have a change of heart into why you feel it necessary to desecrate the name of natural substances, great scholars, and pioneers.

      All the best,

      Jonny Enoch
      http://www.jonnyenochshow.com

      Also notice how Jonny’s got that Fullbright scholar/Harvard boy on his website… that Harvard Lawyer who sells his UFO BS, Alfred Webre, also tied to 4th world, that Jonny here helps him promote. No wonder Jonny’s in here attacking us. This work makes visible their entire agenda, whether or not Jonny is cognizant of that fact is irrelevant. Interview with a time traveling lawyer, etc.. what a bunch of thoughtless, mind control horseshit. It’s incredible that arbitrary crap some people believe with ZERO evidence, because someone like these guys said so.

      • September 16, 2012 at 1:22 pm

        Hi Jan,

        With just a quick scan over this article and post, I want you to know I believe you’re sincere, but your frustration and anger seems to get the better hand off you. Obviously you spend a lot of time in your replies, to people who refuse to see the value you bring. You got an intelligent audience, who will have enough ammunition with your two or three best arguments.
        Jonny clearly misses your expansion and nuance you’re adding to(!) the use of mental expanding substances, namely having a good skill in critical thinking.
        I think Jonny is choosing to see things and imagine things as he does, because he either doesn’t have the courage to, or things it’s better to retain the more simplistic view of the history of psychedelics. Thirdly it could also be a way to generate more publicity, stirring the hive, and at the same time push back the critical thinking meme, that is starting to get more popular.

        Maybe offer the audience a round table interview explaining on what drugs do, and how a person can manage all the waves of impressions one has? Having had 1 spacecake trip lasting 16 hours. My impression is that these mind expanding drugs simply act like superconductors, overcoming internal mental barriers, leading the user to have a deep look into their subconscious when they manage to retain their calm and tidal wave of mental connections. Paradoxes and contradictions will demand a logical and honest reflection. One cannot hide from ones own conscious.

        From all the passion in your postcast and your loyalty for truth, I would recommend to limit your defense to a few irrefutable points, inviting the antagonist(s) to have a phone call (so you can hear their voice) and clear up their and possibly your misunderstandings, offering all this as a voluntary service to pupils who’ve clearly not managed to have an open mind, seeing the beauty in you and your work. (Non Violent Communication)

        For the rest, keep to reality and people who truly want to see it.

        Love, Courage and Water,

        Kars

  8. TCR
    September 15, 2012 at 4:10 am

    Thanks for posting this Jan. It’s good to see Powell’s righteous indignation. You honor independent scholarship. Powell honors direct knowledge. You have independently found the place where you will not come together for higher understanding. You both feel compelled to silence each other. It’s just another illustration of how and why humanity is destined to go down the pan.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 15, 2012 at 9:02 am

      TCR, try to have a rational statement here. Don’t assume I don’t honor direct knowledge. This is a lie that people like you and Simon have drempt up. For your false, assumptive, mind I’ve done mushrooms about 700 times. The way to come together for higher ***understanding*** is by getting on the same page and not judging things before we’ve studied it – and not make up lies where we haven’t.

      Knowledge asks who what where and when, and is the processing of gathering information, UNDERSTANDING answers WHY and is the art of non-contradictory identification, WISDOM explains HOW via the knowledge and understanding we’ve gathered and processed.

      Before you make some fallacious assumptions about understanding and not meeting, first get a clue as to what you’re talking about. There’s a very simple process to get on the same page, discussed and explained thoroughly throughout this site, and in my interview with Henrik. But someone who goes on and literally lies for 25 minutes, without ever reading a thing, isn’t going to find it. This isn’t an either / or fallacy here with your “independent scholarship / direct knowledge” bullshit. KNOWLEDGE, again, is asking who what where and when. If he hasn’t done that, then it’s not knowledge… it’s something he channeled from the Pleiades or Uranus, and pertains nothing to my work or anything else.

      If Simon honored direct knowledge, as you claim, then he would have simply put his ego aside and read the work and citations through his own 5 senses before reaching a conclusion – seeing what was actually written for himself, gaining direct knowledge, rather than putting his logic (Why) first, and then spewing a bunch of lies.

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 26, 2012 at 1:38 am

      TCR, Listen to any of Jan’s podcasts and It’s obvious he uses both “direct knowledge” and “independent scholarship”.

      I think Powell is way out of line attacking research he clearly hasn’t even properly read or understood. It makes him come across as a total ignoramus. And his ad homonym attacks are pointless and give no weight to his argument.

      “humanity is destined to go down the pan” because people put logic before grammar and let a bunch of psychopaths make all the rules and control all the power.

  9. Mat
    September 15, 2012 at 5:03 am

    I heard both before reading this.
    A few weeks ago I also downloaded your big brain file.
    Jan, I commend your smarts and all that.
    I also think and thought Simon was kinda immature and, as you note, prone to making many errors of reason.
    But…
    I also think he has a point in that it’s hard to see how you distinguish between connection, causation and correlation. For example, Alan Watts being in some sense involved in this grand conspiracy. Where is the evidence for that?

    Thanks

    Mat

    • Jan Irvin
      September 15, 2012 at 8:49 am

      Hi Mat, Simon clearly didn’t read the citations. If you actually READ the things in the database, you’ll see how they’re connected and related. If you just look at the strings, and don’t bother to click anything, no, of course you wouldn’t see it – and you’ll be left as befuddled as Simpleton Simon. As I’ve repeated many times already, all of these guys were tied to Esalen and Huxley. We furthermore have the death of Hall and that’s when Pacifica gets taken over as a mouth piece for socialist propaganda – about the same time that Watt’s comes in from Esalen. Watts has major influences from Theosophy. It’s a flat out lie from Simon’s that I ever said Watt’s had a CIA handler. If you believed that, you’re an idiot. Try reviewing what I actually said. I was going connection by connection through the database showing how they were connected and what was there – how each of these guys ties to Esalen and also Huxley – and how the Huxleys all tie directly into eugenics, humanism, transhumanism and feminism. These hippie new age ideas that Watts was selling perfectly fits with the World Citizen agenda and the other stuff Esalen was selling. What I said was that it APPEARS that Huxley was Watts handler – along with 10 or 15 other people that Simpleton Simon omitted there when I was discussing this. Simpleton Simon furthermore ATTACKED the database being on my website, seeming oblivious to the fact that Henrik and I had gone through many of these connections on his show that Simpleton Simon omitted.

      Now fast forward to Watts’ Boat where he and Ginsberg et al are helping Leary design his “Turn on, Tune in, Drop out” – that was first developed by McLuhan. See Psychedelic Salon, ep. 193.

      Watts also has ties to MI-6, as well as being Ram Dass’s publisher, which I’ve already shown his agenda behind the material. He’s also tied into promoting psychedelic orientalism – created, apparently, at the Macy Conferences where MKULTRA was created – which as all about Agenda 21, etc.

      Try not to IGNORE the fucking citations, and try not to believe Simon’s lies of things that I never ever said.

      If you downloaded the database, read it. The connections are right there in your face, but you have to read EACH AND EVERY ONE.

      As Simon was also too stupid to read the instructions or follow along with the interview, then like you, he wouldn’t be able to see connections, causation and correlation. This has already been posted around here a half a dozen times, but for those of you who don’t read, here it is again:

      How to view the information in the database:

      Connections Above each data point are things that influence that data point: Such things can be parents, or organizations like the CIA, or fraternities, employers, etc. Below each data point are things that the data point created or influenced – such as children, books they authored, programs they started or directed, company’s they ran or directed, or people they had serious influence over, etc. To the far left are friends and associates of each data point and leads to related information. To the far right are 3rd hand investigative leads that are pulled up by the other related entries in the data base. On the bottom of the screen, if not minimized, will show citations, links, videos and other information relating to that data point and how it relates to the others around it. If you don’t find the citation there, usually a quick online search will be all you need to find the information.

      And Mat, if you believe Simpleton Simon’s straw man lies about things I never fucking said, not checking his drivel yourself, then you obviously aren’t going to find something in the database that I never fricking said. Maybe that should be obvious, no?

      Start by using the database, reading the citations, and not just there, but through the others surrounding it as well. If you pay attention, things will be a lot easier for you to understand.

  10. Daryn
    September 15, 2012 at 6:09 am

    Good work Jan. I guess you dont have to be a “Rocket Sceintist” to see that Simon Powell clearly hasent read a book..So, so many Misleading Vividness Fallacies..He is just not sure on anything..I would say that he puts Logic before Grammer, however there doesnt seem to be much logic comming from him…I would say maybe a couple of Questionable Cause Fallacies and a bunch of Realitivist Fallices..Like you said Jan, there are so many its a lifetime of work…Are there still people who put belief before arriving at the destination of knowledge???

  11. robert42
    September 15, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Not to mention that he rarely proceeds from facts, to reason, and finally to an articulation of his understanding. Instead his characteristic style of communication is just opens his yap and give his impressions.

  12. sndesign
    September 15, 2012 at 11:10 am

    I am just a man.
    I read a book that tells me to put my shoes on backwards.
    So I put them on as described in the book. I have a direct experience and it feels “right”.
    Another man comes along and tells me my shoes are on backwards.
    I call him a liar and a heretic.

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 26, 2012 at 1:48 am

      @sndesign Hahahahahahahaha :-)

      • Jan Irvin
        September 26, 2012 at 11:48 pm

        I like Ashley’s replies. :)

  13. robert42
    September 15, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    The thing is that what makes for mind control in all of this is that the world view being presented is a “package deal,” of otherwise tenuously related concepts (feminism, eugenics, omega point, population control) accompanied by the claim that no-one is behind it. And yet the connections implying an overarching “project” are clearly there, as documented by Jan. Repeat the packaged concepts often enough, and from enough supposedly unrelared sources, particularly while the subjects are in an altered state (and it doesn’t have to be chemical: McKenna’s monotone rambles had a hypnotic quality) and it all sticks together as a worldview inculcated into a large mass of people.

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 26, 2012 at 1:52 am

      Agreed. I think unless you have previous grammar on these subjects most people just won’t understand the “overarching project”.

      • Jan Irvin
        September 27, 2012 at 12:00 am

        I agree, even though I’ve made every attempt to provide a massive amount of research in this regard – with 152 interviews, articles, and a database with over 6k citations. But it seems that if I do a written piece, I’m attacked for it not being visual. If I present visual, then they ignore the citations and say it’s all guilt by association. If I do a video, they won’t watch it and slander it in the first 5 minutes. It’s a lose, lose situation here for anything but lies.

        It’s clear now that there is also a concerted effort to distort my work and misinform people about what it is. Jonny Enoch and these others intentionally spreading their lies, oh, and Jonny’s comment about facts being from Mars! WTF?! Such total, utter, idiocy. And of course Jonny is blocking all comments that don’t support his lies, and has deleted others I’ve made.

        Furthermore, Jonny lied and claimed that he had invited me to debate on his or Red Ice’s show, when he never actually did. And if you read his Twitter page, he admits there that he WAS GOING TO ask me. So why lie to everyone and say that he did? These guys are immature, emotionally driven bullshitters – or they’ve got an agenda, which I’ve not ruled out, though it could be shear stupidity. They also intentionally misquote me, slander me, name call, etc.

        Also, if you watch the view counter on Jonny’s video, it’s clear that they’re intentionally driving the hit numbers, as in a couple days the views went up 30k, but the thumb ups and thumb downs stayed EXACTLY the same… impossible.

        Lastly, they also sent a crew of people to thumb down my video, of course with no valid reason, just to suppress it while they falsely drive Jonny’s numbers up.

        These guys are frauds, cheats and liars. And the pathetic thing is, they claim their enlightenment, and knowledge is only about experience… never mind those facts of reality that come from Mars!

        Though I think Jonny’s pseudonym, his “Enoch”, is very revealing about his agendas – and hence his constant lies with zero remorse.

  14. adc
    September 15, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Red = blood
    Ice = death
    Creations

    Blood death Creations..

    Masonic sigil sorcery.

    British Media rebranding itself on the web, tie-ins, The Daily Lies Mail, The BBC, probably the ones who trained Henrick Palmgren.
    Alan Watt from cutting through the matrix, commented they were a consortium, about 5 years ago. Search Outlaw Journalism forum. Alan Watt’s (CTTM,) transcript is there.
    just my opinion for what its worth.

    • Greater Nowheres
      September 15, 2012 at 8:04 pm

      I’m sure that Henrik will be honored to know that he is on the growing list. Alan Watt exemplifies what happens to someone who stays too long in the conspiracy realm. There’s only so many times you can be told that “we’re all fucked”, and still buy into his brand of “empowerment”.

      Also, a sigil is a written magical symbol. I am often amused to read the comments from fans of Alex Jones and Watt when it comes to their understanding of the occult. What people don’t seem to understand is that Alan Watt and Alex Jones are using a form of mesmerism to build his their base. The use fear, which, especially to the growing number of marginalized, strikes a deep chord. I think this has to do with the desire many have to see the injustice of the world get blasted away. If/when that happens, those two purveyors of low-brow doom porn will be out of business, although Alex has carved out quite a lucrative career in the genre, while Watt sits in solitary out in the sticks screaming at all of the imaginary demons he sees,desperately wanting the rest of humanity to be as miserable and bat-shit crazy as he is.

      Apparently, there’s an audience for that.

      • adc
        September 16, 2012 at 10:36 am

        1.0 you have ‘jumped to fallacious conclusions’ about a connection or affiliation I have with Alan Watt or Alex Jones, which is assumptive & wrong.
        Rarely have I listened to Watt and Jones I don’t listen to. It’s the evidence and data regarding factual information based in reality.

        2.0 its interesting Red Ice didn’t directly attack Gnostic Media, instead pretending to be friends (the British tactic) instead creating a surrogate station to facilitate vilification’s from unknown talking heads.

        That is the evidence against Red Ice:- that they like to set themselves as the platform and from there, become the point of reference – for the ill-informed to go to & get a handle on what’s going on in the world. Unfortunately for them, they are merely guided up the path, over the hill and into a field where nothing’s going on. Monty Python’s, ‘Life of Brian,’ illustrates the point to perfection, with the anthropomorphic character, ‘Brian’ representing, ‘Jeeeesus.’

        Ask them about any of the people who know anything and Red Ice can comment, oh we had him on Simon Powell & Jonny Enoch spoke about him on Radio 3Forteen.

        And that’s how it works. Don’t sully the Red Ice platform directly, use a surrogate, because Red Ice is influential. But that’s just what they’ve done here with Jan Irvin. And it interests me why they would even bother, if they truly intend liberating this planet from the, dupes and willing, to force the rest of us to pay taxes to the robbing murderer’s, as suggested by, ‘Blow_In, ‘ in the comments section of the, ‘Why in the World Are They Spraying,’ podcast, Gnostic Media published a few days ago.

        ‘Blow_In’
        quote, ‘Ordinary people have been paying property taxes for thousands of years.’ [appeal to tradition fallacy] (The word fallacy comes from the Latin: fallare – to lie.)

        The reason they pay is because they’ll be butchered if they don’t. I know because I’m one of them.

        ‘Greater Nowheres,’
        Quote,
        ‘Also, a sigil is a written magical symbol.’

        Like.. Red Ice Creations.
        Or should it be reversed, like say, Create Blood Death Radio.

        Fire & Ice is their symbol right? So it’s like symbolic for burn them to death with Fire and Ice. The man stands over the Fire on Ice in their video. I’m just saying what I see in their own production.

        I mean they were the ones promoting Brian Gerrish and the Holly Greg scandal that Freedom Central on you tube has recently exposed both, as a psy-op, to distract everyone’s attention. Which really, that’s the name of the game. Keep-em all occupied with trivia you control the dissemination of.
        Nothing important, like learning the Liberal Arts, for example..

        In your overt attempt to redefine my definition of what a sigil is, which is a symbol with meaning attached and a sensible sign.. ..In the case of the Masons they connote magical meaning & or empowerment of those symbols speaking directly to the subconscious.

        Greater Nowheres
        Quote,
        ‘The use fear, which, especially to the growing number of marginalized, strikes a deep chord.’ [so dramatic]

        Who are the marginalized? [appeal to ridicule]

        The List, please tell, haven’t heard about a list Red Ice is on. {sounds like paranoia] Maybe they’ve been into conspiracy’s too long. ha-ha. that’s so funny.

        Has anyone noticed, the Psychotic always accuse you of being what they are?

        Pot.. Hello kettle..

        • Greater Nowheres
          September 17, 2012 at 1:31 pm

          I think it’s more like Pot, meet orange, actually.

          At what point in my post did I address you personally outside of your misunderstanding of what a sigil is? At what point did I directly infer that you have some affiliation with Watt or Jones, outside of the fact that you brought Watt up? I simply stated an observation of a profound lack of understanding in that community in regards to a subject they seem to be enamored with, yet refuse to independently verify.

          Being that your entire diatribe was based upon a false premise (ie that my criticism of Watt’s body of work was actually criticism of you), it is interesting that you see fit to bring up fallacies. Nowhere in my post did I attack you, yet you saw fit to attempt to attack me, in an albeit rambling and quaintly incoherent way.

          When exactly did I call you psychotic?

          The irony in your assessment that Red Ice is a platform for the ill-informed is that, well, you seem to be very ill-informed. About many things, especially when it comes to the esoteric use of symbolism.

          Getting back to the topic at hand (your taking great liberties to shoehorn images into your preexisting bias), a sigil is a written symbol. Whether that be in the form of runes (the written form of the English language was created using Nordic and Celtic runes), or in the form of a stylized representation of statement of intent, usually reduced to the non-repeating consonants, and then linked into an image. The image of fire and ice are not sigils. They are however symbols of elements that do, indeed carry meaning in the subconscious of humanity due to the fact that we live on a planet where earth, air, fire, and water seem to be of profound import. These elements are also critical to the study of alchemy and the hermetic arts, which, counter to the sloppy modern conspiracy narrative, predate Freemasonry by thousands of years.

          I’m not attempting to redefine what your definition of a sigil is, I’m simply stating what the actual definition is. Whether you conclude that that definition is erroneous or not really doesn’t make a difference to. However, when you spread that fallacy to others and someone who actually creates sigils regularly comes across your error (like myself), you can expect to be confronted about it. That’s kind of what the comments section is for.

          On to the subject of the list. Years ago Watt compiled a list of all of the “Cointelpro/Disinfo” groups who were leading humanity astray. Which defines paranoia. I don’t have such a list. I just think that Alan Watt and the purveyors of doom porn are actually doing the bidding of the exact forces that they are supposedly in a battle to the death with. They often point out that mass media utilizes fear and that many of the mind control programs were rooted in forcing people into dark places in order to get them to move from a parasympathetic neurological state into a sympathetic neurological state. This has filtered down to most levels of the control system, be it religion, government, or law enforcement. If this is indeed the case, exactly what are Alex Jones and Alan Watt doing using the exact same template? They sell fear. And people buy it. There is no solution offered forth for the problems they discuss, outside of spending money to directly sponsor their narrative or stock up on MREs and gold.

          What they and their ilk have tapped into is actually an artifact of the conditioning of the control system that they are directly exploiting. And that pretty much defines hypocrisy to me. Obviously many need their fix, or their ilk would be out of business.

          As to “who are the marginalized?”

          Seriously? When enough antidepressants are being consumed by the populous to actually show up in the water shed, I’d say that a large percentage of humanity feels marginalized. Feeling marginalized isn’t a bad thing, per se, but actively seeking out ideas to keep one in that state are profoundly destructive. Whether that be in the form of watching the local news religiously, taking massive dosages of psychedelics regularly, or spending one’s time trying to convince everyone who will listen that the world is fucked and we’re all doomed.

          Back to Blood/Death/Banana Slug/Masonic Marshmallow/Flying Spaghetti Monster Creations. Henrik has interviewed people on just about every subject one could think of. That includes the doom porn maestro Alan Watt himself. That includes shows on the Trivium. That includes bat-shit crazy people talking about being former super-soldiers from the Montauk Project. That includes guests with diametrically opposed points of view. They don’t “promote” anything, outside of their show. I don’t care for many of their previous guests, and there have been many times when I wanted Henrik to be more confrontational. But I also respect him a great deal for not doing that, because he tries to distance his own bias from the subject and simply ask questions. That used to be called journalism.

          In the Radio314 interview Lana tried several times to interject, but was steamrolled by Simon’s ramblings. Jan’s a big boy. I’m fairly certain that he can handle criticism, although at times it doesn’t appear that way. That’s his cross to bear. When you’re dealing with a subject that so many have invested in, I suppose it is difficult to not step on toes.

          • Ashley Wildman
            September 26, 2012 at 2:20 am

            Yeah well said. I would be astounded if Henrik had a malevolent agenda. Alex Jones on the other hand i’m not so sure about. “Doom porn” hehehehe

      • Charlie Prime
        September 16, 2012 at 11:59 am

        Ha! Well said G.N. I’m stealing your comment for use elsewhere so don’t get angry i you see me using it. :-)

  15. jimkirk
    September 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    quote: ‘done mushrooms 700 times’
    ???

    Please…

    • Jan Irvin
      September 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm

      Do you have a problem? If you’re going to appeal to ridicule me, “You’re wrong because “please” – you’re going to have to come up with something intelligent here to substantiate your empty attacks. Seems to be an errant problem with each one of Simon’s fans. I need no mindless trolls around here. I’ve studied this subject for 25 years, extensively. Get over yourself. Unless you have something to back your empty screed, take off.

  16. asol
    September 15, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    I listened to the interview last night, complete waste of time. The transcription must have been torturous.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 10:59 pm

      Pure hell… And having to play it over and over to get it correct… a few times I actually felt nauseous.

      • Happy Days
        September 22, 2012 at 12:03 am

        LOL … I found the Simon-interview to be a very hard listen and was amazed that it was even put online, and the amount of fallacies delivered per sentence was staggering, hence it was a brilliant idea by Mr. Irvin to utilize the interview for basic training in fallacy-detection. Kudos! LMAO just thinking of how many unfinnished sentences Simon started, and when thinking how it must have been for an impeccable truthseeker, like Mr. Irvin, to transcribe all that bullshit must have been tormenting, hence I had to LOL when reading that he actually felt nauseous, as that would be a real truthseekers reaction to Simons attack. You’re a legend, Mr. Irvin, keep up the good work and know that you’re not alone, especially when presented by such childish attacks. Thank you for sharing your truthseeking-skills. Happy Days!

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 26, 2012 at 2:32 am

      I totally agree. I also feel bad for the girl doing the interview.

      Holly shit Jan you did that manually? Whoa that’s mind numbingly nauseating. Can’t you use a dictation app or something? Or is Simon’s grating english accent too difficult for it to understand?

      • Jason O'Dwyer
        September 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm

        I agree. I only lasted the first 3 minutes before I switched off as Mr. Powell came across as a total twat in that short time.

  17. dude
    September 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Did you read Simon’s books, and go over all his citations?
    Or, are you attacking him on a personal level without having studied anything his done at all? Are you a hypocrite, or not? Will you censor this comment? LOL

    • Jan Irvin
      September 15, 2012 at 5:58 pm

      I already responded to you very clearly. Continue and you will be banned. As Simon was attacking MY WORK, I don’t need to read his book, which I said I am anyway. But what I’ve read isn’t very good and has no citations, and as far as all of his Wasson history, it’s erroneous – see my article on Wasson if you’d like to know why. It’s already published. But what you’re having difficulty understanding is that Simon attacked MY work, my articles and my books without reading them. The onus of proof falls on HIM to read the works he is attacking. This is very simple. See if you can understand. If I was attacking Simon’s book, I would need to read it and cite his book. Do I need to repeat this to you a third time? You’re thinking backwards. Again, I only need to read his book if I’m citing something from his book. I’m not attacking his book, so your point is irrelevant. It’s simple logic here. Simon didn’t use any citations to his book in his attack. I’m attacking his lies from his INTERVIEW. If you read over everything, this is very clearly explained in the transcript. Again, I’m not attacking his book – that’s a separate issue, a red herring.. I’m attacking the quoted material above. Not his book. When I debunk his book, then I will cite him line by line, his citations to eugenicist Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, Huxley, Darwin, etc. Thanks again for not comprehending simple logic. Might you try studying logical fallacies and maybe a logic book so that you don’t continue to make yourself look foolish, Jonny Enoch… what ever your reference to Enoch or what ever you hide behind is supposed to mean. It’s really sad when things are explained to you in clear English without fallacies and you still come back repeating the same gibberish, seemingly incapable of understanding the most basic concepts of logic and the onus of proof. Might I suggest heading over to the trivium study section and study everything there – as this is a study in fallacious logic, Jonny, and you and your show are about to become our next focus of study.

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 26, 2012 at 2:34 am

      dude your an idiot.

      • Ashley Wildman
        September 26, 2012 at 2:40 am

        Wait that’s harsh. I take that back. Your clearly not understanding the issue here. I think Jan is explaining things pretty clearly why can’t you see that? He has every right to respond to Simon’s allegations and fallacies regarding his research.

  18. Janet Windsor
    September 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Attack the man, attack the work.
    The one who does the research and changes the road.
    Watch out.
    Simon and Enoch–What is with the Names?
    They both have done their job all roads are now closed.

    Research and we are still are our way down the road.
    Making new roads to travel.

  19. Shane
    September 15, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink it. All you can do is present the facts and let them stand for themselves.

    Perhaps you can use this opportunity to try to get Simon into the Wasson archives??

  20. dude
    September 15, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    I didn’t see my original comment on here to you, Jan. And I still don’t. I assumed you didn’t approve it. Which is fine. This also means that I did not see your reply to that comment either. They’re not here.
    You in fact did attack him on a personal level and called him all kinds of names. You in fact did attack his books without having read them. This is a fact. You did this on your facebook page for all to see. Do you deny that? I hope not. Do you like it when the government uses censorship? If so, do not use censorship yourself. because that to is hypocritical.
    Simon was asked by Lana to listen to your red ice interview before coming on the show. He said he had no idea who you were, and that he only listened to that one interview that was requested of him by Lana. He said he did end up watching a couple of videos you have, but not much. He was only given one day notice about your interview that he was asked to address. The two of you did not research each others work before you both began your attacks. You are both wrong to do that. You are. Had you stuck to your work only. You have him dead to rites. He messed up by not researching the excellent work you have done on Wasson. I say some of your conclusions/speculations are wrong. I have pointed some of them out on Red Ice. But that’s not my point here. My main point is with you. Is you accused him of attacking your interview without having done the research into the claims. You were correct to call him out on that. But for you to accuse someone of that, and then turn around and do the very same thing yourself. Is ridiculously hypocritical, period.
    I’m not Jonny. I’m not a fan of him or Simon. I know them both though, and i have been following your work since 2005. I’ve done my homework. When I have the spare time I will go over each of your claims, that I’m already very familiar with anyway. Having been a fan of Peter Levenda and many others.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 11:09 am

      Both of your claims are here. Use the search. Stop lying and making things up about censorship. I notice about half your claims here are flat out lies:

      It’s a lie that Simon had only heard of my work the day before:

      Simon Powell: Well how can I not be familiar with that when I have to plow through that Jan Irvin’s [Simon intentionally mispronounces my name throughout the interview despite Lana’s repeated attempts to correct him.] 2 hour – I don’t know what to call it..? [appeal to ridicule] Yeah, can we get on to this? I’ve got to get it out of my system. [appeal to emotion]

      Lana: Yeah sure, so…

      Simon Powell: It’s your, it’s Red Ice Radio’s fault, so uh… [blame casting]

      Lana: [laughs] that’s right. Let me just let the audience know, that we had Jan Irvin on Red Ice radio and he pointed out Gordon Wasson’s involvement with the CIA, claiming that the psychedelic hippie movement was a psy-op, and provides a window into how the elites run their mind control systems. So would you like to comment on that?

      Simon Powell: yeah well, I’d rather not [appeal to ridicule], but uh [laughs], I listened to Jan Irvin’s [intentionally mispronounces my name - again] two-hour diatribe last night [appeal to ridicule], and I put it off for a long time because I didn’t want to listen to it because it’s just going to be horrible.

      Where did I attack Simon’s book? I said on FB that his book is a regurgitation of McKenna’s work, and I’ve already said TWICE now that i am in fact reading it. I don’t care how much time Simon had, he went into a 25 minute screed of 100% lies against my work – and he admits in his own words “and I put it off for a long time because I didn’t want to listen to it because it’s just going to be horrible.“. So why are you here trying to lie? That’s his fault. He did in fact know who I am, and has known my former co-author, Andrew, for years. I don’t appreciate you trying to misconstrue and lie about what’s right in the transcript above.

      I am not attacking anything in his book that I have not yet read, and again, I’ve read much of his book. I’m attacking the points I have read. His statements of Wasson in the beginning are completely erroneous and a regurgitation of all of the lies out there.

      I in fact did research Simon’s attacks – as Simon is attacking my work. When I’m done reading Simon’s uncited book, I’ll tear it apart too (including his bibliography that cites Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, one of the key people in our investigation), though I think some of the Amazon reviews have already done a fairly good job.

      Furthermore, Simon was asked to debate me on all of these points, and he refused. So he went on the air, made up at least 100 lies or more about me and my work, name calling, making personal insults, calling me stupid, unforgivable, etc.

      I have in fact called him Simpleton Simon after his interview, as it’s very clear from the above transcript that this is a fact, and so therefore it’s SUPPORTED – and not some empty ad hominem attack. Anyone who would go on the air and attack someone’s work for 25 minutes that they never studied is a complete and 100% moron. Let me repeat, anyone who would go on the air and attack someone’s work for 25 minutes that they never studied is a complete, 100% moron.

      As defined by Oxford dictionary:

      moron orig. U.S.

      (ˈmɔərən)

      [f. L. mōrus, Gr. µωρός stupid.]

      a.a One of the highest class of feeble-minded; an adult person having a mental age of between eight and twelve. Also attrib.
         The term was first adopted and given this meaning by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded in 1910.

      b.b colloq. A stupid or slow-witted person; a fool. Also attrib.

      So moˈronic a., moˈronically adv.

      simpleton

      (ˈsɪmp(ə)ltən)

      [A fanciful formation on simple a. Cf. idleton in the Eng. Dial. Dict.]

      1.1 One who is deficient in sense or intelligence; a silly or foolish person; a fool.
         Characterized by Johnson (1755) as ‘a low word’.

      2.2 U.S. The American dunlin or sandpiper, Tringa (Pelidna) pacifica.

      Hence (chiefly as nonce-words) simpleˈtonian, simpleˈtonic, ˈsimpletonish adjs., characteristic of or resembling (that of) a simpleton; simpleˈtonianism, ˈsimpletonism, character or quality characteristic of a simpleton.

      Identifying someone by what they technically are – doesn’t necessarily make an ad hominem attack. I could call someone a thief, for instance. That doesn’t mean they’re not a thief.

      Again, I’ve attacked NO POINT in his book that I haven’t already read. If you’re going to say that I have, then post up the quote. The onus of proof is now on you. Thanks. I note here that you’ve now changed your tactic in approach twice, changing the mode of your argument. Those sophist tricks can be taken somewhere else.

      Oh, and btw, I should mention that you’ve made this charge here twice, where nothing of the sort has happened. Please quote from the above any place where I’ve attacked his book flat out.

      I’ve read through FB and the only thing I can find about his book are quotes from the cover of his book, and from the transcript above:

      “”A worthy successor to Aldous Huxley’s “The Doors of Perception”, Powell takes the reader behind the grand curtain of reality with a compelling hypothesis that approaches a unified field theory of human consciousness in an intelligent and interconnected universe.”
      Bill Linton, CEO of Promega and a Director of the Heffter Research Institute”

      “Even what I’ve written in the Psilocybin Solution – I don’t know if I still agree with what I wrote in there. They’re provisional ideas.” ~ Simon Powell (23:40)
      26:20

      I’ve simply attacked Simon’s screed and fallacious, empty-headed, fool’s logic. So I don’t know what your agenda is or why you keep lying, but I’m about to investigate your background.

      Simon was his own undoing.

      Oh, I also mentioned Simon’s lying, shit mouth. Fallacy is from the Latin – fallare – to lie. As you can see by the above transcript with only about half of the fallacies pointed out thus far, and his own admission that he’d never read the work, he is in fact a shit mouthed liar. To use an old cliche – “It’s not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of the mouth that defileth the man.” Every time I read Simon’s words, I literally imagine shit pouring forth – as it’s all just crap. Simon has certainly defiled himself. Again, this is completely, 100%, supported and not some empty ad hominem attack.

      And for good measure, here’s the definition of “fool”:

      fool, n.1 and a.

      (fuːl)

      Forms: 3–4 fol, (3 folle), 3–6 fole, (4 foyl), 4–6 foule(e, (4 fowle), 4–7 foole, (6 foolle), 4–9 Sc. fule, 5–6 full(e, 5–7 Sc. fuil(l, -yll, (5 fwle), 4– fool.

      [ME. fōl n. and adj., ad. OF. fol n. and adj. (mod.F. fou n., insane person, madman, fou adj. masc., before vowel fol, fem. folle), corresponding to Pr. fol, folh, It. folle:—L. follem, follis, lit. ‘bellows,’ but in late popular Lat. employed in the sense of ‘windbag,’ empty-headed person, fool.]

      A.A n. I. 1.A.I.1 a.A.I.1.a One deficient in judgement or sense, one who acts or behaves stupidly, a silly person, a simpleton. (In Biblical use applied to vicious or impious persons.)
         The word has in mod.Eng. a much stronger sense than it had at an earlier period; it has now an implication of insulting contempt which does not in the same degree belong to any of its synonyms, or to the derivative foolish. Cf. F. sot.

      b.A.I.1.b Phrase. to be a fool to: to be every way inferior to, to be as nothing compared to.

      †c.A.I.1.c Used as a term of endearment or pity. Obs.

      d.A.I.1.d In various proverbial expressions.

      2. a.A.I.2.a One who professionally counterfeits folly for the entertainment of others, a jester, clown.
         The ‘fool’ in great households was often actually a harmless lunatic or a person of weak intellect, so that this sense and sense 4 are often hard to distinguish.

      b.A.I.2.b to play the fool: to act the part of a fool or jester; hence gen. to act like a fool (sense 1).

      c.A.I.2.c Feast of Fools [=med.L. festum stultorum]: properly the burlesque festival which in the Middle Ages was sometimes celebrated in churches on New Year’s Day; hence in various allusive uses.

      3.A.I.3 One who is made to appear a fool; one who is imposed on by others; a dupe. Now somewhat arch., exc. in phrases to make a fool of (formerly also †to put the fool on), to dupe, befool; to be a fool for one’s pains, to have one’s labour for nothing.

      †4.A.I.4 One who is deficient in, or destitute of reason or intellect; a weak-minded or idiotic person. Obs. exc. in natural fool or born fool, a born idiot (now rare exc. as a mere term of abuse). to beg (a person) for a fool: see beg 5 a.

      Not also that “Dude” is hiding behind a fake email addy and domain: dude@yoursmama.com – this guy is all troll.

  21. Ryan Caron
    September 16, 2012 at 1:25 am

    Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever been so pissed off after listening to this interview with Simon. When he starts talking about Allegro, I really wanted to pull my hair out. Referring to allegro as a sensationalist? He wants to STOP your work? Are you fucking kidding me? You’ve done more research than anyone regarding this topic, and he’s just constantly appealing to emotion and sounds so hopelessly ignorant. My god this is really hard to finish listening to.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 11:54 am

      It’s quite literally the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard someone from this field do… or any other for that matter.

      That’s why we’ve turned it into a study of fallacious logic, so that at least people can learn SOMETHING from Simpleton Simon’s Screed.

      • Ashley Wildman
        September 26, 2012 at 10:58 pm

        Indeed. hahahahahaha

  22. MarkDuran
    September 16, 2012 at 9:21 am

    This was all I could think about while listening to this interview: what would Jan’s response be. Being familiar with logical fallacies (and Jan’s work) I knew right away of course.
    It seems like Pinchbeck and Powell were sent to the front lines after Jan’s Red Ice Radio interview wherein he exposes this Wasson material.

    Its very interesting to see their positions start to dissolve.

    Here’s an interesting aside, I think:
    I listened to a Terrence Mckenna talk recently from ’93 (not exactly sure when) courtesy of the psychedelic Salon (equiped with this Wasson material and Hariman’s “Philosophic curruption of physics” work). In it it seems that Terrence mentions the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church and the fervor with which scientists cling to their Aristotelian logic in the same breath. And it seems like he does this constantly, equating science (as a whole) to the Catholic Church institution, and then he launches into promoting the psychedelic “movement”(?) as a remedy.
    I believe its:
    The Psychedelic salon episode is #223 – Mckenna Explores Hermetic Pt.1.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 11:52 am

      Very interesting. Thank you.

      • MarkDuran
        September 17, 2012 at 7:21 am

        From the Terrence McKenna talk “Hermetica and Alchemy Pt. 1,” courtesy of the Psychedelic Salon episode 223.
        This says it all for me as far as McKenna is concerned.

        [around minute: 37:00]

        “…Scientists claim such a devotion to truth that decency must never stand in the way, because they serve a higher god than human values, they serve the golem of the truth, in some weird way that makes the the truth okay even if it kills you.
        I studied philosophy from Paul Fireoff(SP?) and he used to say at the beginning of his epistemology 101 course “I will teach you to recognize the truth, and I will teach you to ask the question: What’s so great about it,” you know, so now you’ve got the truth so now what’s so great about it?…”

        • Don
          October 17, 2012 at 4:51 pm

          I think you’re referring to Paul Feyerabend where you wrote Paul Fireoff

          plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/

          He’s the one who’s known for that intro to philosophy tone. His anti-methodology stance is right in line with Mckenna.

  23. Max
    September 16, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Hi Jan,
    I have followed your work over the last – maybe 2 years and would consider myself a quiet student of many researchers like yourself. I know very little on the subject of the mushroom. However, to me the true learning experience – the true nugget – in my opinion is to be found in a thread like this ( I did listen to the redice interview with Lana ).
    I deeply respect individuals like yourself who commit so much of their lives to not only shine light in to the dark, but more importantly offer the tools to gain true understanding for oneself. I have always had trouble with the term ‘Truth-seeker’ or seeking the Truth. I have decided some time ago not to try and do that any longer. I made the choice to seek out the Lie – and therefor have become I guess – a ‘Lie seeker’. In my very humble opinion the Truth can not be sought out. It simply un-veils itself if enough lies have been peeled off the subject.
    It is divine. It is partly amusing as well as deeply disturbing when entering this vast jungle of lies and deception in the so called Truth Movement and one starts to see the inability of so many individuals to even partially overcome ones own Ego – let alone trying to present facts that are based in Truth. People claim all the time they are now ‘awake’ or ‘see the truth’ just because they see some dark agenda. Fact is, once the mind enters this new trap without consideration of the possibility this could just be another prison that it becomes exponentially harder to find the Lie and more importantly retain the ability to accept it. My only way forward in this life is to constantly remind myself that I simply KNOW NOTHING at any given point of this crazy, crazy journey. Thank you Jan……
    Max

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 11:51 am

      Rather than know nothing, study the trivium and learn to use critical thinking. Who does it benefit for you to think you can’t find truth? That’s all Kantian nonsense. See my David Harriman interviews.

      • Happy Days
        September 22, 2012 at 11:05 am

        In my (marketing-educated) thinking, I compare being a truth-seeker to the Vision Statement-part of an organisation’s strategic planning ["... an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy" (Wikipedia)], while being a lie-seeker can be likened to organisation’s mission statement, in that:

        “Many people mistake the vision statement for the mission statement, and sometimes one is simply used as a longer term version of the other. However they are meant to be quite different, with the vision being a descriptive picture of a desired future state, and the mission being a statement of a business rationale, applicable now as well as in the future. The mission is therefore the means of successfully achieving the vision.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_planning]

        The Vision Statement (like being a truthseeker) is supposed to be a formulation of an almost unattainable goal, but it still serves an important overall purpose (see Wikipedia-link). Similarly, Altruism (the opposite of selfishness) is also said to be an unattainable personal goal (like the Vision Statement), if one recognizing that there are no such thing as an unselfish act (except the accidental act), but, despite its fundamental unattainability, Altruism is (in my opinion) still among the most impeccable goal a person can aspire to, and the same goes for truth-seeking, while lie-seeking seems to work better as a more contemporary hands-on approach towards finding this ultimate (unattainable) Truth (Vision). Again, thanks for sharing your brilliant insights so impeccably, Mr. Irvin:) Stay Real’n’Keep It Happy!

        Happy Days!

  24. Stephen
    September 16, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    I have finally listened to Simon’s interview. I don’t have much to say, aside from what others have mentioned above. One thing that stood out:

    “I, I, I’d love it if some people started up a Kickstarter project to stop Jan Irvin. Let me put that out there, anyone out there listening. Ah maybe 99.9% of your audience are really behind Jan Irvin and thinking who the fuck is this British guy talking here. You know. But if there is anyone out there [laughs] who’d like to see Jan Irvin’s project stopped wants this stopped, then start a kick starter thing to stop, [laughs] raise money to stop Jan Irvin’s ugh.”

    I want to know what would this entail? How do you go about implementing raised funds to “stop” someone? Is he so concerned about people’s pocketbooks? Otherwise, if the information is so obviously “bollocks” why worry, it will come out in the wash, right? The lady doth protest too much, Methinks…

    The rest was unsubstantiated conjecture, and so I won’t bother commenting on any of it.

    Finally, before anyone goes on the assault towards red ice, or Lana and radio 3fourteen, imagining vast conspiracies, or consortium, or whatever, remember what they say at the beginning of almost every show: They are presenting information. You make up your own mind. Like it says at the beginning of gnostic media, views are the guest’s and not those of the host, or the program. They provide a forum for people to display their data, or lack thereof. It should be easily apparent whether further reading is warranted, agree, or disagree, or if it is arbitrary, nonsense.

  25. Sill Bimpleton
    September 16, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    Mr. Jan, Simon is saying you are being ‘fucking crass’ for dragging McKenna and other people like Alan Watts’ names through the mud. Is it true you do not respect their work?

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm

      Sill, it would be much easier if you actually studied the work than regurgitating Simon’s screed that’s quoted directly above already. Don’t look past the evidence right in front of you and ignore it. Thanks.

      Both my papers on Wasson and McKenna, et al, are here – which Simon very clearly admitted that HE DIDN’T READ. My interviews with Red Ice and what I ACTUALLY said are also posted on the front page of this very website. Please listen to them, go over the evidence I present in the articles, read the citations, and then see if Simon is speaking one single word of truth, or if he’s lying in an emotional tirade:
      http://www.gnosticmedia.com/SecretHistoryMagicMushroomsProject

  26. September 16, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Jan — I’ve been perusing this — I was going to listen to the Red Ice interview first – then suddenly I realized – Hey I’ve actually gotten a response — actually a couple responses from Simon G. Powell from his realitysandwich (Pinchbeck) blog.

    http://www.realitysandwich.com/synchronicity_selforganisation#comments

    Now — Simon says I am being paranoid or something but he “consults” for a genetic engineering company and then he says that genetic engineering is natural yet when done in science it is not so natural…I mean he sounds confused about it and then says it could be used for good purpose but it if had bad ecological consequences then it’s not good.

    Hello? There is not “if it’s bad” for the environment — it’s already proven toxic and once it’s created and released it’s too late — because it’s self reproducing. Anyway personally I think if a person is going to “consult” for a company that is genetic engineering then they have a responsibility to research whether they support genetic engineering or not. So then he says — he doesn’t work for the company but he does personal work for the CEO — and then he says if he gets a chance to discuss genetic engineering with the CEO then he’ll bring up his concerns.

    Fair enough. I mean I suppose he has to pay his bills and he can’t be an idealist.

    Or can he? Whole nations BAN genetic engineering!! The British medical association is against genetic engineered food. http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf Ah I see now the BMA watered down their 1999 statement which inspired me to protest against genetic engineering at the University of Minnesota! Here’s an article on one of my protests: http://www.mndaily.com/1999/10/06/genetic-engineering-protest-disrupts-address

    I discovered that City Pages quoted from my research report in an article on Phil Regal, a biology professor who supported my work.

    http://www.citypages.com/2000-04-26/books/agribusiness-as-usual/

    So ten years later one of the main genetic engineered crops is creating a stronger parasite requiring more and more pesticide use:

    Monsanto Loses to a Tiny Foe: Corn Rootworm

    by Cathryn Wellner
    September 6, 2012
    2:30 pm

    Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/monsanto-loses-to-a-tiny-foe-corn-rootworm.html#ixzz25x0h45ga

    O.K. anyway I’m now listening to Simon’s Red Ice interview — he’s going off on we need to live in harmony with the biosphere. Clearly he should take a stand against genetic engineering if he wants to live in harmony with the biosphere.

    I’m not surprised he would make logical fallacies about your work Jan — because it seems like Simon has done a lot of psychedelics but he is just now beginning to develop his left brain critical rational and radical free thinking analysis.

    I think Jan you can encourage him to do this – I think Simon has the potential to learn from your critiques of his work because I think he’s learned from my critiques of his work.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 10:48 pm

      Thanks, and great work, Drew. By the way, I saw an article come out this week in a Spanish Zine with you in it – we’re both in it. They published my interview in Spanish with Prof. Jay Fikes on the Carlos Castaneda fraud. BTW, I think the only way Simon will pick up critical thinking skills will be due to what’s happened here. I may eventually go through and do the rest of the fallacies above, but it’s so much work – and then digging up all of the citations too.

    • RevJFKThadeus
      September 17, 2012 at 1:23 pm

      have you read this jeremy narby’s text?
      he goes into saying that facing tobacco genetic engineering, it’s tobacco spirit plant itself who should decide!

      • Jan Irvin
        September 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm

        What they’ve done to tobacco is just hideous. It’s a sacred entheogen/psychedelic. They’ve completely polluted it. You get the real thing and it’s incredible stuff.

        • David Llewellyn Foster
          September 20, 2012 at 3:23 am

          Profoundly agree with that. Arguably the most powerful plant of all.
          I’ve just read through Drew’s exchange with SP on realitysandwich. Two intriguing things emerge from this.
          The first is Simon’s debt to Gurdjieff due to his association with Alex Ward whom he refers to as the guru (listen to the LondonReal interviews) and says introduced him to those teachings in 1985, with the ensuing synchronicities etc. that Michael Shermer might attribute to “patternicity” see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns
          The second is Powell’s “Promega” connection qv http://www.heffter.org/board-linton.htm

          Small world eh?

          Jan, can you elucidate on the alleged Alan Watts MI6 connection please?

          • Jan Irvin
            September 20, 2012 at 10:10 am

            Haven’t I already in the comments here and in the database????

            Indeed.

            If you actually READ the things in the database, you’ll see how they’re connected and related. If you just look at the strings, and don’t bother to click anything, no, of course you wouldn’t see it – and you’ll be left as befuddled as Simpleton Simon. As I’ve repeated many times already, all of these guys were tied to Esalen and Huxley. We furthermore have the death of Hall and that’s when Pacifica gets taken over as a mouth piece for socialist propaganda – about the same time that Watt’s comes in from Esalen. Watts has major influences from Theosophy. It’s a flat out lie from Simon’s that I ever said Watts had a CIA handler. If you believed that, you’re an idiot. Try reviewing what I actually said. I was going connection by connection through the database showing how they were connected and what was there – how each of these guys ties to Esalen and also Huxley – and how the Huxleys all tie directly into eugenics, humanism, transhumanism and feminism. These hippie new age ideas that Watts was selling perfectly fits with the World Citizen agenda and the other stuff Esalen was selling. What I said was that it APPEARS that Huxley was Watts handler – along with 10 or 15 other people that Simpleton Simon omitted there when I was discussing this. Simpleton Simon furthermore ATTACKED the database being on my website, seeming oblivious to the fact that Henrik and I had gone through many of these connections on his show that Simpleton Simon omitted.

            Now fast forward to Watts’ Boat where he and Ginsberg et al are helping Leary design his “Turn on, Tune in, Drop out” – that was first developed by McLuhan. See Psychedelic Salon, ep. 193.

            Watts also has ties to MI-6, as well as being Ram Dass’s publisher, which I’ve already shown his agenda behind the material. He’s also tied into promoting psychedelic orientalism – created, apparently, at the Macy Conferences where MKULTRA was created – which as all about Agenda 21, etc.

            Try not to IGNORE the fucking citations, and try not to believe Simon’s lies of things that I never ever said.

            If you downloaded the database, read it. The connections are right there in your face, but you have to read EACH AND EVERY ONE.

            As Simon was also too stupid to read the instructions or follow along with the interview, then like you, he wouldn’t be able to see connections, causation and correlation. This has already been posted around here a half a dozen times, but for those of you who don’t read, here it is again:

            How to view the information in the database:

            Connections Above each data point are things that influence that data point: Such things can be parents, or organizations like the CIA, or fraternities, employers, etc. Below each data point are things that the data point created or influenced – such as children, books they authored, programs they started or directed, company’s they ran or directed, or people they had serious influence over, etc. To the far left are friends and associates of each data point and leads to related information. To the far right are 3rd hand investigative leads that are pulled up by the other related entries in the data base. On the bottom of the screen, if not minimized, will show citations, links, videos and other information relating to that data point and how it relates to the others around it. If you don’t find the citation there, usually a quick online search will be all you need to find the information.

            And Mat, if you believe Simpleton Simon’s straw man lies about things I never fucking said, not checking his drivel yourself, then you obviously aren’t going to find something in the database that I never fricking said. Maybe that should be obvious, no?

            Start by using the database, reading the citations, and not just there, but through the others surrounding it as well. If you pay attention, things will be a lot easier for you to understand.”

    • David Llewellyn Foster
      September 20, 2012 at 3:42 am

      Drew you may find this worthwhile as it raises important new questions about genetic modification from the website of one of the most staunch advocates of independent science opposed to GMO’s Dr Mae-Wan Ho
      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Photosynthetic_Bacterium_Converts_CO2_into_Petrochemical_and_O2.php
      Also you may be interested in my reply to Jan below in due course as it is presently awaiting moderation, referring to your exchange with Simon on realitysandwich

  27. Sill Bimpleton
    September 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    I just ate a great meal so I’m not regurgitating anything if I can help it. Well I guess you didn’t enjoy Terence Mckenna’s talks. I found them pretty interesting. Best Regards.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 11:09 pm

      For your information, Sill, I released 70 hours worth of those talks you heard to the internet back in 2002 ff, as already mentioned above. Try to read through what’s here, seriously, and education yourself and don’t get caught into false beliefs. I once believed as you, and after years of research and not putting my emotions before the research and citations, I discovered that McKenna was selling eugenics, humanism, transhumanism and feminism – all of which are listed on this site with interviews – such as Karen of Girl Writes What, if you’re seriously interested in how McKenna is fooling you.

      Sill Bimpleton – I get it… Bill Simpleton. haha, very funny, troll. Go worship your saint. I leave you to McKenna.

  28. Matthew Thomas Lombardo
    September 16, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    Jan your suggestion is well taken. Simon’s response is great fodder for fallacy spotting . I lost count more then halfway through his admitted ill-informed screed.

  29. Marcos
    September 16, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    I was talking about chemtrails with a friend of mine a couple of days ago and I came across the same pattern of thinking that Simon displayed in that interview.

    Unfortunately this is not uncommon at all.

    To me the following statement is one of the most representative of the inverted logic that dominates his flawed pattern of logic:

    “And of course Jan Irvin, he has, he’s republished the book, so it’s like he has given over to that guy now so he’s gonna follow that path through”

    This shows that the way in which he arrives to conclusions operates in the following manner:

    1 – He gathers superficial information on the conclusions of any other person’s work.
    2 – He compares this new information with his overriding reality paradigm.
    3 – When/If this new information creates inconsistencies in his overriding reality paradigm (usually referred to as cognitive dissonance), he then proceeds to discredit the information.
    4 – The sophism used to discredit the information is to claim that the messenger is committed to a cause (in this case it would be Jan’s allegedly following Allegro’s path through) that is different and in direct conflict with telling the truth.
    5 – During the conception and execution of the sophism, no reference is made to the method used to arrive to such conclusions (the grammar).

    The conversation about chemtrails with my friend went something like this:

    Me: [...Half hour description of the facts I collected from various sources...]

    My friend: I don’t BELIEVE this could be happening because it doesn’t make sense. I don’t understand WHY they would be doing this. They would have to not be humans in order to avoid the negative effects of what they are setting in motion.

    Me: Belief is not required, you can KNOW that this is happening by looking at the evidence. I don’t claim to understand why this is happening, I am trying to put the pieces together myself.

    My friend: Well, it would only make sense if you BELIEVE what David Icke and all those people say about the elites not being human. Otherwise, there’s no way. I can see WHY you BELIEVE it, you spend all this money in water filters and travel 3 hours to get your raw milk.

    Like Simon, my friend was shutting down information that created cognitive dissonance in his world view.

    Like Simon, he was justifying a statement being described as truth, by referring to the messenger’s allegedly ignoring the facts (the grammar) in the interest of achieving perfect consistency within a predefined pattern of behaviour (the reference to raw milk and David Icke was an attempt to characterize me as a follower of a predefined model of thinking and behaving.)

    So I could see at that point that he was wired into inverting the knowledge process, and putting his logic ahead of his grammar. In other words, he was conditioned into spewing an emotional conclusion, and then browse through some facts that could be put together with the purpose of discrediting the messenger.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 16, 2012 at 10:52 pm

      Marcos, this is exactly why we teach the trivium here. These people are all victims of the compulsory education system. They’ve been taught to appeal to authority for about everything they think, and can’t put their grammar, or who what where and when, before their logic, or why. So, therefore, they’re always prone to false beliefs and ideas because they simply won’t ask who what where and when before they leap to false conclusions. Simon is quite exemplary of this greatest sickness in our society today. IF he can learn to put his grammar first, there’s hope.

      BTW, you’ll find that older friends and family are the hardest to actually get to look at anything.

      • Marcos
        September 17, 2012 at 12:20 am

        Very likely we gravitated towards these old friends when we were in another state of consciousness. And family… we don’t choose them :)

  30. Nick
    September 17, 2012 at 4:09 am

    I was pretty disappointed with the Powell interview. He didn’t come across as all that knowledgable on his subjects. Even the host sounded bored pretty quickly. I must have mentally switched off by the time Jan got criticised as i never noticed!

  31. David Llewellyn Foster
    September 17, 2012 at 5:17 am

    Just finished a long comment and then lost it! I’ll try again…

    Powell’s ideas are not unique, he does not acknowledge Jeremy Narby who has published excellent material about “Intelligence in Nature,” nor Stamets among others, notably Benny Shanon. This is surprising unless it is in his books, as there is now such an enormous deep ecology & mystical-environmental orientated literature, not all of which necessarily implicates psychoactive plant teachers of course. Listen to Elisabet Sahtouris for example or Bruce Lipton, and Mae-Wan Ho for pure independent science about nature. So let’s get the horse in front of the cart, and remember the massive context of this discussion, that Powell elides, going way beyond Leopold’s Sand County Almanac, in 1948. It is disingenuous to say the least. We should also recognise and understand the gigantic tsunami of thought post-Darwin and at least acknowledge the complex discourses about science and society that emerged from James, Bergson, Whitehead, Russell, Jeans, Eddington, Shaw, Crowley and so many others like Julian Huxley, who was far more than merely an imperialist and “eugenicist”. It doesn’t achieve anything being sophist about all this. The impact of mathematical science on society has been revolutionary over the past few hundred years. In the UK it really all begins with the Royal Society. It is an exceptionally challenging business to write intelligently and coherently about these matters, as it requires encyclopaedic expertise and libraries of contextual reference. Thousands of books have been written, even the BBC archives are replete with material going right back to the beginnings of radio in the 1920′s and the public science debates of the twenties and thirties. So let’s not be disingenuous or naive. I’ve been to the Linnean Society in Piccadilly where Darwin’s paper was first read, when I was kindly invited to Mae-Wan Ho’s book launch in 1998. So I have visited their library. There are hundreds like it in London alone. You have to go deeply into it all this, it can’t just be dismissed as nonsense. Sound byte/bit “scholarship” & vlogs just don’t impress. They are microscopic gnat shit in a limitless intellectual landscape of vast universal topological contexts. For a clear introduction to the eugenics debate re Huxley et al., read this excellent paper for example (cited in a previous post by Joseph Pierce) http://theburningtree.wikispaces.com/file/view/BNW+Eugenics+Politics+Fiction.pdf

    Powell makes three basic claims in his rambling, occasionally interesting but bombastic and ill-mannered grandstand.
    1. Wasson was a great scholar, the inference being he should be immune from criticism.
    2. Allegro was playing a sardonic game (with the Vatican, obviously…though Powell does not discuss this important fact)
    3. Alan Watts was an independent mystical thinker, not run or “handled” by anyone.

    [Re Watts, Snyder, Ginsberg, Leary by the way: essential listening (already cited by Pierce) is http://matrixmasters.net/archive/Various/193-WattsLearyHsbtSumit67.mp3

    My view on Wasson is that Jan is 100% correct. Wasson was not only a “big money” man, he was deeply implicated in propaganda and also at the core of US “intelligence.” He enjoyed cosy relations with the Vatican & the Luce empire cabal, so was thus deeply implicated in CIA circles. One thing is abundantly clear, this “CIA” was a Vatican proxy from the start, and has always been controlled by Roman Catholic interest right to the present. Much of it goes back to Sicily at the close of hostilities. Always the invisible hand at both ends of the social divide. These convolutions were well documented by Avro Manhattan, although himself a right-wing extreme “protestant.” ‘Fifties Mccarthyesque cold-war America was utterly satiate with Vatican intrigue. Hoover’s FBI was no different. Luce, Wasson, all of these characters were tight with the “catholic” hierarchy. Need one say more? What’s new? Wake up Mr Powell.

    My views on Allegro are more nuanced. He was in my estimation a truly great philologist, probably a genius; but his experience with the Scrolls fiasco meant he would always be under constant attack. He fought back in the only way he knew. Personally I am not entirely convinced about the mushroom-Jesus notion. I read the book in 1970 and was fascinated and impressed, but I still find it highly implausible that such a prominent cult existed in the Levant at the time of Vespasian. It may indeed be the case that fly agaric use was practised, but I would surmise it remained a vestige of an obscure cultural lineage tracing back to the far Northern tribes and Siberia, possibly Druse or Sabaean (baptist) related or connected to esoteric Zoroastrian sects. This is a huge geographic cauldron of likely cultural components worthy of detailed scrutiny and careful identification.

    Jo Atwill’s brilliant thesis however, brings everything into much sharper focus. He has extended the late Northrop Frye’s massive contribution to scholarship and applied the concept of typologies with great efficacy. Both Harold Bloom and Margaret Atwood were students of Frye by the way who, incidentally, received 28 doctorates during his academic life. Does this mean he was a Canadian “handler” or on the pay-roll of some devious American front? I doubt it.

    The same applies to Alan Watts who began his adult life as an Anglican priest, listen to the house-boat recording. It is genuinely enlightening. Great insights there. The only “handlers” Watts was exposed to in my opinion were booze and fags (English slang folks!) I spoke to him in 1969/70. He was witty and precociously intelligent, and also extremely entertaining with a charming Zen (Ch’an) luminosity. So I actually agree with Powell, it is somewhat preposterous to suggest he was on the Vatican gravy-train, but show me the evidence and I’ll accept the thesis! The great danger is attributing to one-eyed idiots absolute authority in the kingdom of the blind. Powell was right about one thing, nobody really knows what the hell is going in the universe, even if they think they do. One of Watts’ lesser known writings was published by Beacon in 1968, “Myth and Ritual in Christianity” an extremely interesting early work, de-constructing the liturgical elements of high church symbolism.

    This ridiculous world of “secret” intelligence is like living the Japanese board game Go (http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/howto/htm-e/howto1.htm)
    no sooner than you think it’s all wrapped up, and you’ve captured your territory than ~ surprise, surprise! quite the opposite has happened. You never know who is telling the truth in that world of lies, deception, psychopathy, avarice, crime and fraud. The final issue is really about one’s own ethical position, and the most honest and natural way to manage and conduct our own lives. Money tends to corrupt everything, so mega-banks and intelligent operatives are all basically diseased cells in a cancerous system that is doomed.

    (PS check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBxQm4_vuDs&feature=player_embedded#! Weather modification politics in Oz. Rupert Murdoch was miffed that he didn’t receive a knighthood in Britain, so he wangled a gong from the “Knights of Malta” ~ another colossal bunch of crooks!)

    It might be worthwhile Jan, to interview both Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) and Ralph Metzner (Professor Emeritus at CIIS ~ lots of Esalen links there) who contributed a particularly subtle discourse about entheogens in M. Schultz’ Spirit Molecule.

    I hope you get to read this comment.

  32. James
    September 17, 2012 at 7:20 am

    Hi, I listened to both red ice interviews and came to have a read of this thread. I just wanted to address the point raised by Jan that:

    “Terence McKenna was a man, not a god, not a saint. He started and led a cult of hippies who couldn’t think critically, down the path of eugenics, humanism, and feminism for elite and totalitarian control – controlled opposition – found under Agenda 21 and the UN’s UNCED and Fourth World Wilderness Conferences. Terence sold the world citizen for the elites – the core plan of which was developed by the Huxley’s themselves. Terence always claimed that no one was in control, as Simon regurgitates. Ask your self, Jonny, who benefits from you holding that belief? From you not fact checking and verifying the facts of reality before you leap to false conclusions, before you appeal to emotion and thoughtlessly regurgitate “what McKenna said”.”

    Firstly, obviously he is not a god or saint and only a fool would view him as such and is there really any hard evidence that he was ‘controlled opposition’ or is it just the fact he knew some people or was influenced by people who may have been involved in a specific agenda based on there associations?

    Secondly I would like to make a point about this idea of McKenna’s that ‘no-one is in control’ and put it in a little more context. My view, is that when he states that ‘no-one is in control’ He is referring more to the big picture ie: processes underway on this planet, in nature and the universe at large. I also think the type of conspiracy theories he is referring to are the huge overarching all knowing all powerful type, not for example conspiracies like 9/11 etc. He is clearly not denying the fact that there are groups of people in society and through out history whom have and do wield power and influence and seek to dominate and control humanity. But he also points out the inherent problems and difficulties in taking on such a task. I just feel that this point has been taken some what out of context in this debate by both Jan and Simon in his interview. Hopefully the below quotes may shed a little clarity on the issue.

    “Change is accelerating. Invention, connection, adumbration of ideas, mathematical algorithms, connectivity of people, social systems, this is all accelerating furiously, and under the control of no one – not the Catholic church, the community party, the IMF, no one is in charge of this process! This is what makes history so interesting: it’s a runaway freight train on a dark and stormy night! This is why I’m not particularly sympathetic to conspiracy theory – because I can’t make the leap of faith that would cause you to believe anyone could get hold of the beast enough to control it! – I mean, conspiracies, of course, we have conspiracies up the kazoo; but none of them are succeeding! – they’re all being swept away, compromised, astonished by new information, and endlessly agonised!” (TMK)

    “Drugs are enormous big business. But not the psychedelic drugs. Psychedelic drugs – the only one that ever amounted to anything as a financial enterprise was cannabis. And cannabis is many things besides psychedelic. The deep, dramatic psychedelics, which are all Schedule 1, the most repressed Schedule – don’t produce great amounts of money at all. What they do produce is questioning minds. They cause people to ask questions. They cause people to ask for clarification. They cause people to challenge cultural values, because they de-condition you. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Hasid, a communist apparatchik, a rainforest shaman, if you take psychedelics you will question your first premises; and that is a business that all governments – right, left, middle – are in the business of repressing. They don’t want to have to explain why things are done as they are. But if we don’t begin asking for that explanation, they’re going to run this planet right into ruin.

    And we are the generation responsible. You are the generation that is responsible. You can’t claim that you grew up in a village in Nigeria and you didn’t know. You can’t claim that you are the child of poor Bangladeshi parents and you had no opportunity. The responsibility rests upon the educated and the financially capable of doing something about it; and by that measure, you and I are probably in the upper 3% of people on this planet, and if we don’t take responsibility then that responsibility will devolve to others – beady-eyed others, with an agenda that would stand your hair on end.” (TMK)

    Finally the core of McKennas message, in my humble opinion, is that of; psychedelic exploration within a spiritual context, a deep appreciation for nature, self empowerment and the mistrust of all ideological frameworks and belief structures. Not a message pushing the aforementioned political ideology as outlined by Jan.

    I have listened to hours of his talks and feel no way inclined to support a one world government, eugenics policies, or the growing police state and totalitarian control structures we find expanding all around us, in fact I feel the exact opposite.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm

      Hi James, did you not read the Wasson or McKenna articles BEFORE you posted?

      • James
        September 17, 2012 at 1:11 pm

        Hi Jan, thanks for your reply. Not sure which is the ‘McKenna article’ you are referring too. I listened to both radio shows and have read your article entitled ‘The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms’.

          • James
            September 18, 2012 at 4:42 am

            Thanks, just read it it’s certainly interesting and I found your info on Wasson and the CIA/CFR fascinating in the other article.

            But as you even admit in the article your self, there is no proof McKenna was an agent or controlled opposition and I would still view that conclusion as guilt by association.

            Also as I stated in my first post I feel the elements of McKenna’s work you are outlining, with the the exception of the feminisation of culture, as real fringe elements of his output and do you disagree that western culture as a whole could do with embracing some of the more stereotypical feminine values in the sense McKenna often spoke of?

            I am not too fond of some of the trans-humanist tendencies which he swayed towards later in his life but as I said in my original comment, for me at least this and the issues you outlined are not at the core of his message.

            Anyway all the best, James.

          • Jan Irvin
            September 18, 2012 at 10:02 am

            No, it’s not a guilt by association, as when you study the database and citations, he’s clear that these are all his primary influences. What I said was that he was AT LEAST a willful idiot. But this is irrelevant, as the ideas he was selling exactly fit the larger agenda.

            I’ve already posted Karen of Girl Writes What a dozen times to this Feminism BS. Study it before you ask questions that are already covered. Feminism has been entirely refuted. Anyone who associates with their hatred and bigotry can get out of her – now.

            The 2012, the Habit and Novelty, all of this comes directly from Tielhard, Coe, etc, and is a part of the same agenda. Don’t miss the forest while staring at the tree.

            Again, James, before you go support the slaughter of male children, and if you do support it being a man, then immediately go out and shoot yourself. However, intelligence would suggest that you study my citations that covered this AT GREAT DEPTH already. Please don’t ignore the citations right in front of you. Thanks.

  33. Jan Irvin
    September 17, 2012 at 7:30 am

    How totally sad and pathetic:

    Joe Rogan: “Not sure if this is you, or someone that handles your website (if you even have someone like that) but I heard this interview where you addressed Jan Irvin, and I thought it was on point and hilarious. I know Jan really well, and I think he might have blown a circuit. The “brain” thing with all the dubious yet supposedly ominous connections that I don’t understand at all was something I was really laughing at you covering. The whole theory he’s working on is a fucking mess. Anyway, I just wanted to say I enjoyed your conversation, although that host was asking you some fairly annoying questions.”

    My reply to Joe this AM:

    The database that you don’t seem to understand – because you didn’t spend any time looking, instructions are here:

    How to view the information in the database:
    Connections Above each data point are things that influence that data point: Such things can be parents, or organizations like the CIA, or fraternities, employers, etc. Below each data point are things that the data point created or influenced – such as children, books they authored, programs they started or directed, company’s they ran or directed, or people they had serious influence over, etc. To the far left are friends and associates of each data point and leads to related information. To the far right are 3rd hand investigative leads that are pulled up by the other related entries in the data base. On the bottom of the screen, if not minimized, will show citations, links, videos and other information relating to that data point and how it relates to the others around it. If you don’t find the citation there, usually a quick online search will be all you need to find the information.
    Just because you’re incapable of inderstanding something, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    If you’re going to go around saying my work is wrong, you might want to at least have the balls to back your statements. I’ve done a full transcript of Simon’s screed, where I’ve been showing his lies and disinfo throughout. I’m halfway done noting it. It’s amazing when a bunch of dumb dumbs go around patting each other on the back for what they clearly don’t understand. I offered to go to your house with the documents and show you line by line how it all works.

    I suggest before you go around lying that my theories don’t work, that you first have the brains to study the data and citations. Either that, or after selling this shit for years, rather than truth, you’re only focused on continuing your agenda. Now that you’ve gone down this path, you’re too fucking lazy to admit you’re wrong and research, so it’s easier for your lazy ass to make ad hominems around the internet about me. How is it that I’ve blown a circuit, Joe? Because you won’t look at the documentation? That reflects on you, not me.
    Here’s what I posted to my site. You might want to try READING it so that you see how full of shit this Simpleton is whom you endorse. This is the most vacuous shit I’ve ever heard you support. Go figure. Go tell more fart jokes. You’d better get Daniel Pinchbeck on to sell his BS too. When you read it and figure it out, you’re going to have one of those, “I’ve been such a dumb ass” moments. Good luck with your cognitive dissonance.

    • Ryan Caron
      September 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm

      Is Joe talking to Simon when he says you’ve “blown a circuit”?

      Joe is much dumber than I thought if he’s actually endorsing what that moron is saying.

    • Happy Days
      September 22, 2012 at 3:22 pm

      I thought Mr. Joe Rogan was a truthseeker, but now I have to reconsider:(

  34. September 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Guys,

    It is really astounding – in this day and age – that there is no room for conversation or debate – without all the animus and put downs. Simon expressed himself. You expressed yourself. People heard it. They will decide for themselves – no matter how much anyone screams, yells, debates, tries to convince or demean the other guy. Demeaning someone – based on a short interview as the “end all” of a person’s views – is so limiting. It is so discouraging to see such limitation of mind and spirit in the community – period.

    Let’s be honest – and end this very stupid debate.

    1. There is no question that the CIA has put their finger in much of our current “understanding of politics, history, etc.” ….. but let’s not forget #2.

    2. People used the mushroom for esoteric and spiritual purpose – WAY BEFORE the CIA ever came to be or was even a thought – in some evil minion’s mind.

    Can we Agree on that and shut Shut Up now?

    These not relevant get hung up on “that” — instead of viewing the “big picture” — debates take away from the serious aspects of – Both – topics mentioned in 1 and 2.
    It makes you all sound like a bunch of angry little girls on a playground.

    If you make a statement – leave it be – and let other people accept it as their reality – or not. Do you want to be the Thought & Free Expression Police now?
    Everyone.
    Can we just Agree to Disagree and stop pointing angry fingers because someone sees it Differently?

    Frankly – I thought there was truth to be gleaned from both Jan’s and Simon’s interviews.
    I also believe that both of you are probably correct in some aspects – and off in others.
    To debate that is to demean the aspects of Truth – which “Are” Accurate.

    Leave what you say — up to people to decide – and let’s stop trying to shove what others should believe down throats – with these angry missives and responses.

    And to the the person – who obviously did his “due diligence” about Red Ice ….. (shaking head) just, “oh my” …. and “so much for you being awake and aware” ….. it’s very akin to being 5 kicking a kid in the shins and running away. No facts. No truth. No shame about making such statements.

    Let’s all grow up – move on – and find some common ground to work together.

    If anything – these angry, demeaning debates simply work Right Into The Hands of social engineers and controllers — you know — the very guys you are talking about above – controlling “others”.

    Otherwise – This ends up not being an intellectual or valid debate – it ends up being “who has more numbers to slam and beat up the other guy”. Not appropriate for this hour in our hopefully … spiritual evolution ….

    Peace to all – let’s focus on our own Spiritual Path – and let everyone else worry about their own.

    Vera Lokteff

    • Jan Irvin
      September 17, 2012 at 12:25 pm

      Thanks, Vera, but Simon never studied my work, so therefore how could his opinions of it be of any value what so ever?

      “Let’s be honest – and end this very stupid debate.

      1. There is no question that the CIA has put their finger in much of our current “understanding of politics, history, etc.” ….. but let’s not forget #2.

      2. People used the mushroom for esoteric and spiritual purpose – WAY BEFORE the CIA ever came to be or was even a thought – in some evil minion’s mind.

      Can we Agree on that and shut Shut Up now? ”

      It would be nice if it was an honest discussion, but since Simon didn’t read my work first, how could it be? This thread, in case you missed it, is a STUDY IN FALLACIOUS LOGIC. See Trivium study section to the left.

      Your points here are irrelevant to the discussion – especially #2. As I’ve shown the elites have used them for control in the major religions throughout history as well – such as at Elusianian mysteries. The elites dispensated the drug once in a lifetime to the crowed. This isn’t to say that mushrooms don’t have value, this is about understanding how they’re also used for control.

      What part of Simon’s unread lies are true? How could they be true if he committed argumentum ad ignorantium?

      How does one discover truth, Vera? This was explained on your brother in law’s show back when he interviewed me on the trivium, also discussed.

      I’ve not attempted to “shove” anything. I’ve simply asked for people to be respectful enough to read something before they go on for 25 minutes committing over 100 lies during the interview. Fallacy is from Latin – fallare – to lie, and when Simon committed argumentum ad ignorantium, everything else that followed was lies. If you can find truth in his screed, then fine. But those of us who use critical thinking and fact checking the citations and see his emotional appeals – we don’t buy it.

      What buys into the hands of social engineers is exactly what Simon has done – NOT calling attention to it. The logical fallacies were posted at the top. Simply study them and then go back through Simon’s interview and see if you can spot ANYTHING that wasn’t a fallacy, or lie. Thanks.

      I know that your sister has bought into the Quantum stuff, and I sent her Harriman’s work to study. I don’t know if she has… but there is a way to find truth and check citations and not believe what ever mealymouthed nonsense is posted by someone just by what they feel. It’s basing our decisions on emotion and not the facts of reality that has gotten us here – into this mess – beleiving what ever emotional drivel comes our way.

      We CAN fact check reality, regardless of those, who, like Kant, etc, want you to believe otherwise. Who does it benefit to believe in this quantum stuff that you can’t find truth? Is it really science? See my interviews with Harriman and his lecture series The Philosophic Corruption of Physics – and then study the trivium information and then lets work to move forward based on facts and things that were actually said, not things made up out of sheer ignorance.

      Thanks.

      • September 17, 2012 at 4:53 pm

        Dear Ian,

        Not arguing with you. It would literally – take a book – to address all of your statements.
        The point was that — Everyone Involved in the topic within the parameters as you state – for the purpose of discussion – are working with “partial truths” …. depending on which slant of study – or belief regarding “people/events/facts/limited science” involved – in the roots of this topic – or investigation and research conducted. We are not “all things” do not “know all things”. neither is the science and voices of the past. Yesterdays facts are today’s proven fallacies. Everyone can provide a Mountain of Evidence to support their position — given the time and effort. But in the Big Picture .. what does it avail or create?

        The problem with all of it is that – Individual Experience – trumps – other people’s Experience and History and Science – and Previous Facts – of the past. Because of that – None Of Us – can be arbiters of the “full/entire” truth.

        In essence we can say that no science or physics – quantum or otherwise – is/are stable/stationary …. there may be stability in a specific “pressed into That Time” – limited with limitation aspect of a Truth – to that “pin point in time” … only …. and is why I encourage everyone to find the areas where people can agree within the greater context of the subject – so they can move on to something that – IS – Immutable. Sorry you missed my point.

        Like I said – Peace.
        Vera

        • September 17, 2012 at 5:45 pm

          P.S. Jan – the elites used the TOILET as well. Do we throw that out now too? We cannot become paranoid about Everything. We have to leave — loads of room for Truths to expand and reveal themselves – as time progresses – in greater measure than we know them – Today. And gads, if we lose our Patience — and sense of humor with our fellow Humans – then what is the point – of Any of It?

          • Jan Irvin
            September 17, 2012 at 6:07 pm

            And this is an entirely emotional rant here. This is what I’m talking about. Detach from your emotions for just a minute and study the citations. It’s really quite simple, Vera.

          • Jan Irvin
            September 17, 2012 at 6:46 pm

            sndesign on September 15, 2012 at 11:10 am (Edit)

            I am just a man.
            I read a book that tells me to put my shoes on backwards.
            So I put them on as described in the book. I have a direct experience and it feels “right”.
            Another man comes along and tells me my shoes are on backwards.
            I call him a liar and a heretic.

        • Jan Irvin
          September 17, 2012 at 6:04 pm

          Vera, you’re making all sorts of red herrings there. No one ever said we are all things. The point is to simply read the words for themselves BEFORE attempting to judge what they say. If you’re ON THE SAME PAGE with someone, you can GO OVER EACH DETAIL AND DISCUSS DISAGREEMENTS AND DEFINITIONS. If the person entirely refuses to read anything and wants to believe in what ever BS they’re channeling from the Plieades, then this is unacceptible. Again, please study the trivium material as well as the David Herriman material and ask yourself who does it benefit for you to believe that you can’t trust your own 5 senses to check a citation for what it ACTUALLY SAYS?

          I’m all about INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE – and I’m not against it at all. However, if you don’t understand how mind control systems work, and you sit here refusing to read anything, going off “feelings” for everything rather than what you can verify, then you’ll miss the boat. Science is what you’re using RIGHT NOW to type on this computer. Science is in the present and always growing. It’s irrelevant if something is in the past, as we can learn from it. To block information out and judge it without reading it is called IGNORANCE. How would you like a judge in a court of law to refuse to hear your case before he decides it? How would you like a teacher to give you an F on a paper because she refused to read it? How would you like to go to the grocery store and every time you NEVER get the correct change, because in your world, you could never count. That’s flipping ridiculous. Again, learn to trust yourself and your 5 senses. Learn to trust your spirit as well. This isn’t one or the other – it’s BOTH. Both large face and small face exist. You don’t negate one for the other.

          In essence, if nothing was stationary, your computer wouldn’t work. Science can evolve and grow and learn now things by actually looking at the evidence.

          If you don’t believe that 1+1=2 then I feel sorry for you, and I really think you should consider who fooled you into believing that, because they’re taking advantage of you. Study the Harriman material and stop with this dreamy I can’t know a damned thing in my life, so I’ll do nothing but pillow sit and think positively. Have you ever considered who these actions of yours benefit?

          I’ve never said to throw anything out with the bath water and I’ve very clearly stated that we need to check each and every citation. It’s very frustrating when people can’t see that this very attitude of yours, your refusal to look at anything – IS MIND CONTROL. SNAP OUT OF IT. Please!

          • Ashley Wildman
            September 27, 2012 at 3:55 am

            Vera i appreciate your open mind and open heart but i have to agree with Jan.

            It’s funny when you say we should stop this debate and move on towards our spiritual evolution when compared to certain ancient cultures we seem to be de-evolving. Our diet and health is clearly worse than our ancestors and we are using technology to create even more efficient ways to kill each other and the planet. We have become more narcissistic and detached from ourselves and nature than any other moment in human existence yet you believe we are evolving spiritually? I think the ancient mystics and sages of Asia would laugh out loud at your above statement.

            I know your heart is in the right place but it will take more than heart to move humanity forward don’t you think?

  35. Stephen
    September 17, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    I hear people making claims all the time, about how mushrooms, or psychedelics, or whatever, have been used for consciousness expansion throughout history. I would like to refute that concept. First, if somebody could point me in the direction of where society has not progressed towards totalitarianism, irrationality, and degradation? Second, anecdotally, I have known many people throughout my life, who have taken many psychedelic drugs. Those people have not woken up to anything. The drugs are used for recreation. Third, the Hippy generation used them, in the direction of Leary and his ilk, and we can see what has come of this. Writers such as Steven Hager have insinuated that the revolutionary movements of the 60′s are not gone, citing examples like the Rainbow Family. I would beg to differ. The vast majority of that generation of revolutionary thought was co-opted, or has settled down into perceived comfort, sated with entertainment and an onslaught of fear and guilt, rendering them helpless, unable to act in their own defense. The Rainbow Family promulgate all the concepts we have been talking about here: Humanism, De-population, Feminism, etc. plus unfounded religious concepts such as Gaia. Not to mention pacifism in the face of tyranny.

    Just a few off the cuff examples. How have psychedelics helped? Please enlighten me. I would say that without critical thinking, entheogens behave exactly as their etymology imply. They create irrational concepts, belief in Gods, belief in Quantum Physics theories. With critical thinking, and the trivium in particular, they can be used to enhance creativity, and to balance mental processes, from right to left brain. However, I really am not convinced that they are necessary for any understanding. This is coming from someone who has taken many psychedelic trips. I am in no way against their use. I would not limit anyone’s ability to do anything, to their own body. It’s just that I have talked to so many people over the years who have taken psychedelics and still carry the most erroneous belief systems. The common denominator is that they do not have critical thinking. They may think they do, but in actuality they run from it, because they do not want to admit how wrong their beliefs are, that have been given to them by their beloved authorities.

    Listening to Terrence McKenna, over many years, I have always found problems with his conjecture (admittedly conclusions being absent from his talks…) along with that of many, many speakers, who include truth with fallacious concepts, or lies. This is the definition of counter-intelligence, dis-information. Poisoning the well. This is 99% of the so called “truth movement”. I have noticed these people, speaking about ideas, which they claim to be their own, but are actually plagiarized. They insinuate that they have gained them through “direct experience”, from the mushroom, from God, from the fairies. What it seems to me is that they are trying to create false corroboration, through the illusion of multiple verification. Just ask the question: why else would these speakers repeat quotes and ideas, without citing the source, thereby leaving it to the audience to decide whether it is theirs or not? Like dead end links functioning as proof in online articles, it is known the vast majority of people will not attempt to verify the alleged facts they are presented with, especially if it is by a perceived authority.

    • David Llewellyn Foster
      September 18, 2012 at 3:56 am

      Stephen, you make some excellent points.
      In fact you present a great argument for scholarship and respect for “learned magick.” The chasm that opens up with this whole question of “non-ordinary” states, is how these experiences can be reconciled with more conventional modes of cognitive understanding ~ ranging from the vernacular to the highly formalised and mathematical. Once we embark on astral adventures into “unknown worlds” we either must seek existing strategies and symbolic maps, or struggle to find our own way. Frankly it makes a lot more sense to avail ourselves of those methods and methodologies that already exist before we decide to reinvent the technology of the wheel or the wisdom of the curandero/a. If we test them coherently and methodically, we can identify where they are inadequate, and thereby improve them. Jan talks a lot about control, and indeed he should. The big question is whether controls actually do exist, or whether the real regulators are cosmic, biospherical, subliminal and biological, not ego-reflexive symbolic constructs promoted through politicised agendas. Walter Lippmann’s justly celebrated ideas about the “manufacture of consent” have served us well. However, the crucial point about psychoactive experimentation, is that the highly sensitised states that these substances can elicit, render us even more susceptible, potentially, to outside influences, but also, critically, to our own unexamined tendencies. The function therefore of any legitimate method of self-knowledge or self-awareness, must address these deeply embodied cultural and epigenetic gestalts. There are many ways to go about this. It is entirely a matter of self-determination and individual choice, how we decide to implement them. In a truly civilised open society (Popper’s phrase,) the first moral responsiblity of its (ideally diverse) educational contexts are to facilitate this process. Anyone who says otherwise, be they agents of entrenched religious hierarchies or the secular state, are deceived and deceiving. Those who are capable of thinking and acting for themselves, should be free to do so, those who cannot need help, guidance and if they are still unable to be responsible for their own actions, encouragement to seek appropriate ethical leadership and governance.

      • Stephen
        September 18, 2012 at 7:39 pm

        Thanks for the response. It’s a bit to digest, but I appreciate it. I’ll just adress one part here:

        “The big question is whether controls actually do exist, or whether the real regulators are cosmic, biospherical, subliminal and biological, not ego-reflexive symbolic constructs promoted through politicised agendas.”

        I agree that this seems to be a big question. Is this not a dialectical fallacy though? We are confronted with the apparent choice between two alternatives, presented as thesis and anti-thesis. My big question would be, why can it not be both, or neither? My guess, the answer is both, along with other factors not defined in the question.

        • robert42
          September 19, 2012 at 2:22 am

          “It’s a bit to digest”

          LOL. Foster reminds me of Joseph Pierce on a previous discussion: the art of learned-sounding, unintelligible rhetoric that apparently seeks to jam the cognition of ones opponents and silence them by getting them to try to scrute the inscrutible.

          • David Llewellyn Foster
            September 19, 2012 at 4:52 am

            If I am unintelligible to you Robert 42, apologies. I assure you I am not attempting to be learned-sounding, but expressing a coherent point of view, albeit imperfectly perhaps; so I shall try and make it clearer for you and prune any alleged “rhetoric.” My point is this: is there a satisfactory way to negotiate and compensate for what has been described by Aleister Crowley in particular, as the perennial liabilities associated with “confusion of the planes” (ie of symbolic thought/logic or discourse, and direct experience?) This has been explored for example through the research methodologies advocated by Francisco Varela, who adopted the approach described as neuro-phenomenology. This is not being “learned-sounding,” it is just a legitimate branch of science. What happens when you smoke DMT for example, or ingest any type of powerful entheogen, assuming of course that you do, or have, or might have considered it; can you travel with the trivium in your pocket for handy reference so to speak, or only exercise it on your return from the psycho-activated trance, when you are able to reflect upon what you actually experienced? At what point do the laws of one plane become redundant if applied in another? Fallacious logic is one thing, but direct experience (some mystics call it immanence, others, transcendence for example) seems to be beyond the scope of such dualism, dialectic or rational dichotomies. Since Popper in particular, there has been great debate as to whether all experience (or primary “observation”) is predicated by some sort of cognitive theory, or culturally conditioned disposition as many philosophers and cognitive neuro-scientists actually contend. The plain fact is we do not know the answer to every question, if we did, why would we bother to ask? All we can do is muster the most coherent strategies at our disposal and utilise the best tools available to explore the possibilities. This is how science proceeds. It is heuristic or self-corrective. Anything short of that would be merely a dogmatic posturing based on sheer assumptions and conditioned behaviours. The basis of all science is scepticism, or skepticism if you prefer the US spelling. Is that any clearer?

          • David Llewellyn Foster
            September 19, 2012 at 5:28 am

            PS r42, Joseph Pierce posted some extremely worthwhile links. I strongly recommend these two, as I have not had time to check all the others
            http://theburningtree.wikispaces.com/file/view/BNW+Eugenics+Politics+Fiction.pdf
            the above is highly recommended, a fine exemplary scholarly essay
            http://matrixmasters.net/archive/Various/193-WattsLearyHsbtSumit67.mp3
            this is great stuff, digitally remastered, excellent authentic, contextual material direct from the “horses’ mouths…” in Sausalito Feb. 1967; even if it has been edited, and if it has I don’t know how much ~ the psychedelic salon people will have the details ~ it still stands, because the conversations are spontaneous, characteristically original and self-consistent.

          • robert42
            September 19, 2012 at 7:12 am

            Awesome, thanks. You have quite a talent there, turning the air blue with opaque flatulence. If you don’t mind, I’ll quote this to anyone that I encounter who doubts that clarity of expression and pertinence to the topic of conversation (both of which are necessary components of adequate rhetoric) are every bit as important as adequate grammar and logic.

          • David Llewellyn Foster
            September 19, 2012 at 2:40 pm

            Seems like you have not read my post-script yet that appears to be awaiting moderation, but no worries, it’s not likely to make much impact on your arrogant and ill-mannered know-it-all bravado. Frankly Robert you are a bit full of yourself. Inscrutable, has an a. Have you finished Will Durant’s History of Civilization yet? Better get a move on my friend before it’s too late.

          • robert42
            September 20, 2012 at 2:54 am

            Finally, some clarity, brevity and on-pointedness. Well, there’s hope.

        • David Llewellyn Foster
          September 19, 2012 at 5:15 am

          Thanks for the acknowledgement Stephen, it’s a tricky business keeping up with all these conversations and communicating complex and nuanced comments in effective digestible, appropriate portions, including adequate references and citations! I don’t know how Jan does it frankly. He is something of a cyber-athlete. Perhaps my reply to robert42 below can add some clarity.

          • Ashley Wildman
            September 27, 2012 at 4:15 am

            David, I think robert42 was too harsh on you but you do tend to sound a bit ‘long winded’ for a comments section.

  36. Sarah
    September 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    I acknowledge that it is depressing to have our heroes become humans, and especially for all of us who were soothed by Terence Mckenna’s voice in Shpongle – Molecular Superstructure, “Nothing is wrong, nothing is wrong, everything is on track… You know, William Blake said, uhm, nothing is lost… nothing is lost and I really believe that, we only move on.” Of course who didn’t feel comforted to hear that “everything is on track” and that nobody nefarious is in change?
    But then you hear McKenna in his own words say that the male population should be reduced. He has a son, by his own measure and opinion he should have only kept his daughter. I wonder how those statements make his son feel? Men and Women are both great and 50/50 is life in balance. He was advocating for a world off balance, for whatever other cozy, interesting, inspirational things that he said.
    It’s interesting that there are comments here defending Simon who was the one to go on the attack of Jan’s work with admittedly only having listened to a 2 hour thing and skipped through some video. It’s ok to not be familiar with all of Jan’s work, but then why go publicly, on someone else’s show, and spend 20 minutes on the attack, using the “bullshit detector” as his main argument against the work?
    That’s just silliness.

  37. Miroslav
    September 17, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Jan,

    As I listened to Simon G. Powell’s interview on Radio 3Fourteen last week, I, too, wondered how you would respond to his claims. Congrats to you for taking the high road, and for using the opportunity to flip that sorry-ass rant into a trivium lesson. Simon had as much standing with his claims as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. I kept waiting for him to substantiate his claims against you, but all I heard were stall tactics and emotional drivel (talking over Lana and diverting away from answering her question was quite telling). I really enjoyed this interview, because the exposure to your trivium research revealed Simon’s character highly emotional, ill-prepared, and without substance.

    I imagine that as you dig deeper into your research the attacks will increase and intensify, as well as the cognitive dissonance.

    Keep doing what you’re doing, and watch your back.

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 27, 2012 at 5:06 am

      Totally agree Miroslav.

  38. Marcos
    September 17, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    One other thing that surprised me was the contradiction Simon indulged on, while attacking Allegro’s work.

    He said two things, and the two things contradict with each other, yet he stated them with the same passion, and with the same objective of attacking Allegro’s work. Also, one immediately after the other.

    He said that:

    1 – It was boring, almost unintelligible for non-academic readers.

    “Unless you’re a philologist, experts on languages, it’s an intractable book. ***I just couldn’t, you know, understand it.*** It’s a book for philologists, language experts.”

    2 – It was sensationalist.

    “I suspected, and I’m not alone here, and I’ve always suspected that he was a sensationalist.”
    “And he would’ve got paid a lot of money”

    Logic suggests that if statement number 1 is true, then statement number 2 is false. Conversely, if statement number 2 is false, then statement number 1 is false.

    Moreover, neither of these statements address the grammar of Allegro’s work, so they are both red herrings. This just shows how convoluted his arguments are to the point that he accepts self-evident contradictions within his own logic.

  39. Lee
    September 17, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    I am not sure critical thinking is very helpful in conducting a life worth living. As an artist, I am very clear that “thoughts” simply interfere with the creative process. A life worth living is a creative process. A mind unshackled by self-referential thoughts is one full of power and vitality. Critical thinking might be useful when deconstructing someone’s (or our own) theories, but not much needed for breathing air, walking by a river, planting and harvesting food, sewing clothing, singing, dancing, playing with children, petting a dog, making love, building a lean-to, kayaking.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 17, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      Hi Lee, thanks for your feedback. I’d like to point you to the trivium study section over on the left. As you’ll discover by studying the trivium material, on this site and at http://www.triviumeducation.com, there is no area in life, really, that we can’t use critical thinking.

      Critical thinking is essentially this (the Trivium – essentially the input from the 5 senses): Grammar, or KNOWLEDGE, which simply asks WHO, WHAT, WHERE, and WHEN – this is our data gathering process. Logic, or UNDERSTANDING, answer WHY and is the art of non-contradictory identification. And then Rhetoric, or WISDOM, answers HOW – and is the process of explaining something to someone after we’ve gathered knowledge and processed it to understand.

      For instance, with art, you might need to know about the paints, what colors to use, the canvas, where you’re going to paint, when. You might want to know why you’re making the painting so that you have direction. Every artist, painter musician, writer, etc, should have a clear understanding of the tools of their trade.

      Critical thinking is simply INPUT/PROCESSING/OUTPUT – obviously we can’t have output before input, or processing before or after output.

      Now with your other items, actually, many have practiced proper arts and techniquees of breathing. When walking by a river, you might want to know when you’re going, what the weather’s like, who you might meet, where the river is, and how to avoid falling in, or first aid, etc. Planting food is very important to use critical thinking as most farmers will tell you. You don’t plant your seeds in the middle of winter or a snow storm. You plant in spring, harvest in fall, typically, and you need to have knowledge and understanding of all of the tools of farming and harvesting and storing the food. Lack of critical thinking you could lose your crop, it rots, etc. Sewing clothing you might need to have an idea of what you’re going to sew, what type of faberic, where you’re going to get it, or make it, etc. You’d need to know the tools of a sewing machine and proper use so you don’t sew your hand, how to put in the thread and needle, etc. This is all a process of critical thinking. We don’t just channel this information from the stars. The same goes for singers, there are voice articulation and singing classes to help one better sing, or playing with children one, as a parent, should most certainly know children! Petting a dog – well, ever lack critical thinking while approaching a vicious or rabid dog? Making love – well, if you don’t use critical thinking there, I feel sorry for your lovers. Ever had sex with a virgin? Not sure what a lean-to is, I’d have to do grammmar on it. And well kayaking, would you just jump in a kayak without knowing how to use one? Without ever having used an oar, or ever been in a boat, or if you don’t know how to swim, or without a life vest? Would you kayak in a rapid during the middle of the night? Not take first aid?

      I’m sorry, Lee, but you’re entirely wrong, or maybe you just don’t understand what “thinking” is. What is it than to process information before we send it on to others? Input/processing/output. Who what where when why and how. You’ve been taught it your whole life.

      Now for those interested in the quadrivium, that’s when it gets real fun: Arithmetic – number in itself, Geometry – number in space, MUSIC – number in time, and ASTRONOMY – number in space AND time.

      The musician who masters these arts, is a master musician – etc.

      In the trivium study section you’ll also find that this all ties into the Qabbalah and from there we find Taroh, astrology, etc – all connected via the formations in the tree.

      Think of the trivium as sort of like an owners manual to anything – your kayak, etc. It explains the parts, how they go together – and the manual itself is the rhetoric.

      Enjoy!

      • David Llewellyn Foster
        September 19, 2012 at 5:06 am

        Well stated Jan.
        I’m not entirely persuaded about the “virgin sex” though; surely love is more of an art than a science? although science is a welcome hors d-oeuvre ~ providing it does not diminish sensitivity. An excess of cold logic may kill passion. Otherwise I like what you say, one of your best responses in my opinion. Interestingly enough, thinking about the whole eugenics and “breeding” question this morning, it did occur to me that the entire thing from Darwin on through is all about sex. So Crowley was absolutely right when he said the New Aeon would produce world changing effects. impacting in three principle domains: education, economics and, most intensively, sex.

  40. sndesign
    September 17, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    Greetings Jan,
    After spending the time… looking at your citations regarding the original Red Ice interview you did and upon doing further research,
    I find your work hard to refute except on an emotional level.
    Not so much for myself having the trivium allows one to suspend those issues that can cloud the mind.
    Knowledge, understanding and truth is what I believe we strive for in this reality.
    But here in this physical world our minds and bodies can be leveraged to the point of virtual enslavement.
    What you are unearthing is one part of a broader pattern that exist in our educational system, government, religion and virtually
    all places where there are people to move, sales baby !
    It takes many years of reading and digging into things no one seems to care about to see these points clearly.
    Many ball games missed, novels not read,television unwatched because
    the world we live in is far more fascinating. However the more you come to understand the more you see how people like Terrance and Simon
    lead or are led astray.
    So it’s a good thing you have pointed this out and gone to great lengths to help people see the facts.
    Now they just need the time to figure it out.

    In regards to Simon or case in point: Emotional
    I wanted to peer into his work a bit in order to try to see where he was coming from.
    So I found this movie he made in 2003.

    http://psychedelicadventure.blogspot.com/2012/03/manna-psilocybin-mushroom-documentary.html

    At about 13:20 there is a nice quote:
    ” the entheogenic mushroom is part of mother natures more undercover operations”

    I guess the plant is smarter than you or Wasson and has it’s own agenda ? The plant can’t write checks to country XXXXX to go kill people….or can it ?
    Just trying to show without logic we become a slave, tool or fool.
    The site that it came from has “smart” ads for “document what matters” ironic indeed.
    And then the first related links tab is to another doc on the very “spotty” mushroom Simon dismissed as having no spark.
    Amanita Muscaria : Fly Agaric Documentary, maybe Simon missed this one too.

  41. Jan Irvin
    September 18, 2012 at 10:03 am

    My response to Simon this AM:

    “Simon G. Powell Jan (and apologies for mispronouncing your name on air) – for reasons that are hopefully self-evident, the last thing I want to do is debate you.”

    Yes, I would assume you don’t want to debate simply because, as you’ve shown everyone, you’re completely ingorant of the information and facts. Lana repeatedly attempted to correct you, and my name was pronounced properly on their show, and in my work, had you look at a single iota of it.

    “The phrase ‘wide berth’ comes to mind. If though, in future times, your current fantastical conspirational notions prove correct beyond all reasonable doubt, I will issue an apology.”

    I would appreciate that you stop using fallacies, or lies, to dismiss things you haven’t studied. Saying something is “fantastical” with no foundation or citation on your part to back your statements is simply an appeal to ridicule, killing the messanger, etc. And what’s this beyond all reasonable doubt bit? How would you even judge what beyond reasonable doubt is if you don’t read it?

    You’re like the judge in a court of law who refuses to hear a case before deciding your guilt, or the professor who refuses to read your paper before handing out an F. How you could believe this type of “thinking” is ok is just absurd.

    “But no, I did not intentionally make up lies about you (though I doubt you will believe this).”

    Again, Simon, you lie. You said that you intentionally didn’t study my work. That means you committed the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium – which means that everything that followed out of your mouth by intentionally not reading – was by very definition a lie. So no, I don’t believe your false twists of logic to avoid the facts of your actions.

    “I just felt that someone had to speak up.”

    It’s too bad that you were completely IGNORANT of what you were speaking up about, and then make ignorant lies for 25 minutes, destroying your reputation and making yourself look foolish to everyone who doesn’t think only with their emotions, and detached form reality – the world we live in. You’re so full of your own ego that you can even see how going on a screed out of ignorance is the worst disgrase you could possible give to this entire field.

    “And look what it has stirred up! It is better to get certain things out in the open (this, in fact, is one of the key actions of the psilocybin mushroom – so maybe all this is a an example of mind-manifesting on a larger scale than usual…).”

    Irrelevant – and a sorry excuse for your lying for 25 minutes.

    As the Buddha said:

    “The cause of all pain and suffering is IGNORANCE.”

    What is ignorance, Simon? When we choose to IGNORE something before we judge it – as Plato’s Allegory of the Cave made clear – 2500 years ago.

    As the very first page of my Holy Mushroom book says, that 100% refutes all of your outdated claims regarding Allegro:
    Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
    ~ Albert Einstein

    “Then again, I never, ever, expected things to blow up like this. I don’t even solicit interviews (and only started doing them in the last 5 months or so).”

    I don’t care what you expected, Simon, you still lied out of ignorance. You defiled yourself. You slandered me, and then when you’re called out, you use all of these mealymouthed excuses. You’re ego is so huge you can’t even admit your error:

    “ Someone recently asked me if I regretted saying what I said. I think my personal jury is still out on that one. BTW – I request that you cease these long rambling bitter protestations – at least not here.”

    I’ll stop my protestations when you stop your lies and ignorance and fallacies against me and others in this field whom you’ve never studied, deal? Any time you attack a work you haven’t read, I’ll be right behind you, breathing down your neck, ready to expose your fallacious lies.

    “You have made your views *crystal clear* – you really don’t need to keep saying them.”

    Obviously I do, because you still haven’t gotten the point of not committing ignorance and lies against others, as you excuse yourself here and there for your actions.

    “One last thing – as I think I said on that interview, it is the psilocybin mushroom experience itself that warrants the bulk of our attention.”

    I only agree partly with this, and used to agree with you 100%. However, once you stop using all of these fallacies to do your thinking for you, you’ll see that this is entirely incorrect, and in fact MKULTRA, et al, did find a way to utilize them – into the present, by promoting this thoughtless positive thinking that refuses to fact check anything and pillow sits anytime something “negative” comes along that you so perfectly exemplify. Your killing the messenger, your argumentum ad ignorantium, your failure to ask simple questions like who what where and when, BEFORE you try to determine why something is. So that leaves you with nothing but empty, unsupported, fallacious attacks (lies):

    “As it stands, attempting to link Wasson, Huxley, McKenna and the whole 1960s hippy thing with CIA psyops serves, in my opinion, to create an atmosphere of fear, suspicion and paranoia around psilocybin – which, in my opinion, is not to be encouraged.”

    What causes fear, Simon, is ignorance, the very ignorance and lies you spread. Having the intelligence to read something before we judge it is not fear or paranoia, but acting out in the way you have, lashing out at something for 25 minutes in a vacuous screed, voice raised in obvious fear – THAT, Sir, is promoting fear and paranoia, and not to mention – IGNOR-ANCE.

    If you’re going to make this claim, Simon, then have the self respect, the intelligence, to support your claims against my paper and show how my citations are wrong. Simply stating something without evidence is nothing but arguing the arbitrary – empty nothing – and is automatically dismissed as a vacuous, unsupported screed.

    “ If the mushroom and ayahuasca really are gifts of nature – eco-psychological catalysts as it were – then that should be the area of focus.”

    Truth is what should be our focus, period. Not fallacies and lies – as you exemplify and fool your readers with.

    I agree that mushrooms and ayahuasca are gifts of nature, and they’ve been defiled by lies and ignorance.

    “One last thing – I have fond memories of reading Wasson’s Mushrooms, Russia and History in the (old) British Library back in the day.”

    I read it too. Your appeal to emotion here is irrelevant. Try to think with facts rather than mealymouthed emotions and fallacies for every thought you have. Try to free yourself from the lies that swarm your mind.

    “It struck me as being a very auspicious book and pretty much a work of art.”

    Irrelevant. This is a red herring, Simon. Many fine works of art can be created by intelligence people – as the Century Club itself – a CIA front, was an art club. The quality of the book is irrelevant to the facts and citations and primary documents presented that you flat out ignored.

    “I also enjoyed his other books. Even though he would doubtless call me ‘riff-raff’ ( I was once in a thrashy punk band, and was also a busker on the London Underground for 20 years), I felt curiously compelled to speak up for his scholarly psilocybin work.”

    And only, you intentionally ignored his Fly agaric work, while you pretended it was all Allegro…l and by the way, half of Wasson’s theories were developed by John G. Bourke who published in 1891. Had you read, you’d have already known that. But you love to argue from the position of ignorance and emotion, don’t you?

    “ BTW – deconstruct this reply if you must – but I think it would be silly to do so.”

    No, I don’t think it’s silly at all to reveal to everyone your fallacious BS and twisting words and sophism you’re likely ignorant of even using. But being that a sophist is an intentional manipulator, I’ll hold off on final judgement.

    But I pitty a man who uses fallacies – from the Latin: fallare – to lie, to base every one of his decisions in life. If you think this is the path of enlightenment, or evolution – and anything OTHER than IGNORANCE then I pitty you, and you’re misleaing those who follow your screeds down this path of ignorance and control – because you’re teaching them to be too lazy to look for truth, and to just ignore everything but what feels good and positive to you – ignoring BALANCE – IGNORNING TRUTH – all the while never asking who that benefits, all the while pretending that you’ve no predators. And because you can’t understand the minds of the pyschopaths in this world, you pretend they don’t exist. But they don’t care, Simon, if they kill you or anyone else. The mind of the psychopath is their own agenda, and by you promoting ignorance and not looking at thing before you judge them and using fallacies, rather than thinking, you promote these very agendas and the degridation of us all.

    Promoting ignorance is not promoting intelligent design, or intelligence in nature, or what ever you sell it as.

    Rid the fallacies from your mind and free yourself. A fool is the slave who thinks he’s free.

    • Greater Nowheres
      September 18, 2012 at 6:57 pm

      “Someone recently asked me if I regretted saying what I said. I think my personal jury is still out on that one.”

      Really? Either he is a glutton for punishment or his pride knows no bounds. I love the Red Ice interview because it gave him a forum where he could completely shit his pants for everyone to see, and subsequently lay waste to the notion that his refutations of your research were rooted in anything other than his belief in a fairytale.

      For him to fall back on the “at least it brought the discussion out into the open” angle is somewhat pathetic from a personal accountability standpoint, but actually rings true upon further inspection. What better example of a true believer could anyone possibly find than him? And I’m sure that many who follow his “work” will find their way here, even if initially to debunk the material.

      You put your neck out on the line with an entire mass of humanity because you felt it was the right thing to do. That alone doesn’t reflect integrity, but the detailed, methodical way that you have gone about it, with citations that check out, certainly does. Anyone can make claims that later turn out to be true, but you spent countless hours making sure of what you had before you dropped it like a flaming arrow right into the hornet’s nest.

      Kudos again, Jan. I know that this isn’t the first time that you’ve taken heat for your work, nor will it be the last, but I hope that the number of listeners and people leaving comments here lets you know that it is making people think. And I appreciate that greatly and respect you for it.

      • Jan Irvin
        September 19, 2012 at 9:04 pm

        Thank you for UNDERSTANDING.

      • Happy Days
        September 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm

        Give Simon enough rope … :)

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 27, 2012 at 5:35 am

      Excellent letter Jan. Kudos for standing up against this ignorant emotional tirade. I’ve lived in England and sadly there are many people like Simon. I think the shitty weather and hundreds of years of tyrannical oppression are to blame.

  42. Marcos
    September 18, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Analysis of Jonnyenoch’s video: http://youtu.be/jSz-iHprQgY (I gave up after minute 13, if anyone wants to pick up the rest…)

    First point he makes about Jan:

    He used to be quite ‘positive’. To further support this, he mentions that he offers Terence McKenna audios on his website. [it’s irrelevant whether he feels Jan’s research was positive or negative. What’s relevant is how close it is to the truth.]

    But then….

    “It seems, as of recently, he’s done a 360” “I don’t know if it was some sort of existential crisis, or there’s some sort of cognitive dissonance happening right now” [again, irrelevant, not addressing the research, making unsubstantiated claims on the character of the messenger.]

    “He made a lot of incredible claims and to be honest with you I find them really funny” [appeal to ridicule, and again irrelevant. It could be funny and true.]

    “Sometimes you hear something and in your heart you know it is true.” [appeal to emotion, and self-admission lack of critical thinking]

    “He says I need to read all his citations and the Trivium” [he makes it sound like it’s an unreasonable request made by a snobbish researcher, while in fact is the only thing that would allow him to address the issues in hand]

    Then he goes on to say that there is another person who did read the citations, and that he still doesn’t agree with Jan’s conclusions. [appeal to popularity, jumping to conclusions because some other person made a claim that he happens to agree with based on his non rational emotional judgement]

    Then he says that in the 60s there was a real awakening and expansion of consciousness in a lot of people. These people are “fantastic individuals who are really spiritually awakened” [appeal to emotion, appeal to popularity, and irrelevant]

    Then he refutes an argument which is not made by Jan, asking rhetorically: “are we to refute every idea, every suggestion from any scientist that came from that time or that read a book from Huxley?” [strawman]

    Then he romanticizes McKenna, praising his imagination, passion, etc., and the fact that he entertained so many ideas. This is used to minimize the quote from McKenna where he defends male genocide.

    After minimizing this quote, he then defends this idea, saying that “I see where he was coming from”, because he was “taking all this psychedelics and having these amazing realizations and downloads”. [again, admitting that he accepts knowledge based on unsubstantiated feelings and spontaneous thought pattern formations]

    Then we go on to the McKenna impersonation, which is, in all honesty, superb. I have nothing to criticize about it, and it suggests that this person should be doing stand-up comedy and impersonations; he definitely has a talent for it. I’d love watching him doing Bill Hicks. The “rant” within the impersonation does nothing to further support the debunking other than build up the mystic characterization of McKenna.

    “Yes I am making this video because I love Terence McKenna” [again, admitting that his mind was already made about this issue because he loves McKenna, no need to address the issues being raised]
    After minute 13 he goes on to Wasson, and then Simon. I give up, maybe someone wants to do the rest.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 18, 2012 at 8:54 pm

      well done! Thank you! That’s more than half.

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 27, 2012 at 10:18 pm

      Kudos indeed Marcos. I watched the whole interview and agree 100% with your analysis.

  43. Jan Irvin
    September 18, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    This was in ’67 when I was a sophomore in college. The interest in altered states of consciousness came simply from, I don’t know whether I was a precocious kid or what, but I was very early into the New York literary scene, and even though I lived in a small town in Colorado, I subscribed to the Village Voice, and there I encountered propaganda about LSD, mescaline, and all these experiments that the late beatniks were involved in. Then I read The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell, and it just rolled from there. That was what really put me over. I respected Huxley as a novelist, and I was slowly reading everything he’d ever written, and when I got to The Doors of Perception I said to myself, “There’s something going on here for sure.”
    ~ Terence McKenna

  44. September 19, 2012 at 9:29 am

    I have just started listening
    within 5 minutes I notice
    Hasn’t heard of Agenda 21??
    That’s a bit stunning, but, ok.
    Bizarrely he says: “It raises the question of how best to manage 7 billion people”
    Which is of course Agenda 21.
    He then goes on to quote Lovelock..who I have little respect for other then as a salesman for the carbon agenda
    He clearly is into the global warming cult.
    However he spins it, it comes through loud and clear
    Just my opinion based on the first few minutes of listening
    The rest should certainly be interesting

  45. September 19, 2012 at 9:31 am

    It seems Jan is challenging this persons preconceived notions
    Or causing him some uncomfortable sort of cognitive dissonance?
    That observation is based on reading through the comments here
    Still listening…

  46. September 19, 2012 at 10:21 am

    “This wacky theory”
    He takes great exception to your interpretation of Gordon Wasson’s walk in the woods.
    Your interview…
    “It was awful”
    “Unforgivable”
    Gan, Gan
    Admits second Wasson trip was funded via a CIA front group, but, that had nothing to do with Wasson (oh really?)

    Gan
    Bullocks
    Acknowledges Wasson’s connection to JP Morgan bank
    Almost as an after thought…or as if it is a non issue
    “Dirties the psychedelic movement”
    Absurd
    Absurd
    Crass
    Fuckin’Crass

    That’s a lot of labeling. That is a lot of name calling
    That is a lot of guilt by association.
    Jan, you have been very, very bad ;)
    He also interrupted the interviewer quite a bit.
    She seems a bit put off
    Speaks right over her
    He actually is rude and overbearing at 40 minutes in
    He uses “conspiracy” quite a bit

    Odd enough for someone who did not want to talk about what you had said Jan
    He spends lots of time berating you. Your site. Your work
    Etc
    Crap
    Jan Irvin
    Red Ice has responsibility for broadcasting your work
    Over the top
    Oh and he has a good sense of bullshit
    I can detect bullshit
    Lots of bullshit
    It’s just bullshit

    This guy understand what he is doing by using that type of language

  47. September 19, 2012 at 10:44 am

    Jan, if you wouldn’t mind me asking
    Does any of this really surprise you?
    From Simon Powell to this Jonny Enoch- you tube video

    Your seriously challenging deep set beliefs.
    The equivalent of religious indoctrination.
    Your challenging these individuals personal dogmas

    dog·ma/ˈdôgmə/
    Noun:
    A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 27, 2012 at 10:22 pm

      Good review Penny! I came to the exact same conclusions myself whilst listening.

  48. David Llewellyn Foster
    September 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    OK thank you Jan for pulling me up short re the Watts MI6 association, I have gone deeper into the linkage you have generated and am beginning to grasp the whole picture that you present, better. Disclosing specific evidence that illustrates a jump from casual association, or professional camaraderie, to implementation of a coherent agenda through direct patronage is difficult to demonstrate when you are talking about such a huge web of connections, but you are doing a good job. The influences are clear enough, but “secret” intentions are harder to identify, except through studying very perspicuously the actual works and lives of individual protagonists. It is clearly an impossible task to be an expert on so many different intellectual vectors. Just studying Gregory Bateson’s work could occupy years, for example. And he is only one of very many independent minds in evidence. My own view is that the entire epic of LSD was channelled by opposing forces into a rear-guard action against Aleister Crowley’s Thelema. If you examine the responses of each of these individuals to Crowley’s Great Work, it is instructive. More often than not, the response is muted and disingenuous at best, deliberately disinformative at worst. Moreover, this programme continues to the present day, and is characterised by a high level of manipulative controlled opposition.

  49. Jan Irvin
    September 21, 2012 at 1:30 am

    “Turn on, turn in, and learn” ~ Simon Powell
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s48hS1HOdRA&feature=related – just after the 8 min mark.

    I’ve just got to ask, WTF?!

    • robert42
      September 21, 2012 at 6:16 am

      Thanks for that link. A couple of observations:

      1. In fairness to Simon, I learned something from that interview and from the follow-up searches that it prompted me to undertake: That a very common UK mushroom, psilocybe semilanceata, aka the Liberty Cap) is comparable in effect and potency to its more famous Mexican cousin, p. cubensis. I had no idea of this. These things are everywhere, and I’ve seen them in local meadows.

      2. Simon is not a halfwit, and he was surprisingly, even suspiciously, systematic in his narrative. That suggests that his apparent obtuseness regarding your research is intentional – as someone else commented in this thread, he knows exactly what he is saying.

    • robert42
      September 21, 2012 at 7:01 am

      There was an interesting clip near the end: an excerpt from his film Metanoia. That clip was a very striking “political” statement. I transcribe his narrative below, with my comments in square brackets:

      “On the other hand, we shouldn’t kid ourselves that we need more foestry manager, more ecosystem managers, or, God forbid, that we need to take over management of the entire planet. The biosphere worked perfectly well before we arrived on the scene, and that’s the point, nature is its own best management, and the more land that we can give over to nature, the more nature can do its thing. By allowing biodiversity and wilderness areas to flourish, more strands of natural intelligence can flourish. And the more strands of natural intelligence that flourish, the more strong and healthy does the biosphere become.”

      [That coincides perfectly with the eugenicist meme: Human beings are an invasive, pest species (cf. "before we arrived on the scene").]

      [Then there was a series of nature scenes, accompanied by trance music, and a succession of slogans that were overlaid on the nature scenes]

      “strength through connectivity”

      “strength through interdependence”

      “strength through organic wisdom”

      “strength through biodiversity”

      “strength through self-organisation””

      “strength through a right relationship with the biosphere”

      [Those slogans scratched a recollection somewhere in my memory - at first all I could think of was Orwells' "ignorance is strength," but then it struck me:

      "Strength Through Joy"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy
      ]

      • September 21, 2012 at 8:16 am

        @ robert42 Wow, that is really interesting!!

        “God forbid, that we need to take over management of the entire planet”

        Who is “we”? Of course that is not mentioned in that jingoistic statement.

        When he began his interview with Lana @3/14 by making this statement “It raises the question of how best to manage 7 billion people”? A red flag went up, for me personally.

        He very clearly reinforces a specific narrative in the movie and in the interview, noting the similarity of these two above quoted statements

        These types of statement simply reek of a eugenics agenda or Agenda 21, which he claims, non credibly, to never have heard of.

        “The biosphere worked perfectly well before we arrived on the scene, and that’s the point, nature is its own best management”

        Before we (repugnant humans) arrived on the scene?

        Clearly human bashing. I find this so odd, as a phenomena, that humans are being encouraged to see themselves or perceive themselves as separate or other worldly or usurpers of the planet.

        We, the human species are not any of those things and anyone who uses that type of language, that specific language is suspect.

        As you mentioned he is systematic in his narrative. I don’t doubt that.
        In fact he would have to be choosing or parsing every word very carefully, after all he is presenting/promoting a specific narrative.

        Anyone can call themselves a “Gaiaphiliac” or whatever other label he has attributed to himself is using those labels to present am image. This is marketing. Pure and Simple.

      • robert42
        September 21, 2012 at 9:28 am

        On a hunch I searched on various names (e.g., Bernays) PLUS “strength through joy”, you would not believe the mountain of stuff that comes up, far more than I can process.

        Seems that “strength through joy” was more than a vacation club; it was a systematic program to break down class-consciousness. No more us, workers, middle class, etc, and “them” – we are all one.

        I sense that there is so much to this strength through (whatever) theme, some key, that I’m too modestly equipped to plumb correctly.

    • Happy Days
      September 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      Thanks for the link to the “One Step Beyond” interview with Powell, he seemed very uncomfortable. “One Step Beyond” was also the name of the ‘documentary’ entitled “The Sacred Mushroom” (1961), in which actors play the roles of Wasson & Co. when re-enacting how the sacred mushroom was discovered in Mexico: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz7k00544PA Do you know if there’s any connection between the two? Keep up the Good Work & Stay Real! Happy Days!

      • Happy Days
        September 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm

        My apology, please disregard my lousy description, when stating “in which actors play the roles of Wasson & Co. when re-enacting how the sacred mushroom was discovered in Mexico”, it was a long time since the last time I saw it and i was probably high, and it all seemed so staged and pre-arranged. I should have written that “the documentary explores Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) in relation to the magic mushroom in Mexico.” My apology, for wasting your time, although my question remain. Happy Days!

  50. September 21, 2012 at 4:05 am

    “Simon is doing a fantastic job talking about psilocybin. His new book is an absolute must read. Two thumbs way up. Recently he went on Red Ice & spoke out against some ridiculous claims being made by Jan Irvin. Irvin says that Mckenna, Wasson, Watts, & the psychedelic movement were all CIA. Apparently the movie the Secret and the new age movement is also mind control. Simon never attacked Jan personally, but opposed these ideas. Now Simon is being childishly attacked by Jan & his followers.

    jonnyenochshow 4 days ago”

    Odd in that I didn’t note anyone “childishly” attacking this Simon person?
    “Spoke out against some ridiculous claims”
    Is that what he was doing? Well, I misunderstood that! My bad.I listened and typed his language use verbatim it appeared to me to be much more then speaking out.

    Perhaps some Larken Rose is in order? The cult of authority kind of stuff.
    He just popped into my head, since I am listening to him right now on RIR
    Still think this all boils down to challenging dogma/religious or cult indoctrination.
    For what it’s worth I hope you keep pushing forward with your work

  51. Sill Bimpleton
    September 21, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Why is Mortimer Adler’s name tossed into this mix?

    Adler inspired Sister Miriam Joseph to teach the Trivium in the first place, so it seems contradictory that his intentions were a dumber population.

    Explain the connection between Mortimer Adler and ‘anything malevolent’ please.

  52. September 21, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Jan,

    I agree with you as far as Simon Powell’s attacks on your work being totally out of line, and he really demonstrated his own ignorance with regards to your work and the geopolitical situation moreso than successfully attacking your work. I would have thought that this would have been more obvious and negated such a war, which is not a useful way for anyone to spend their energy.

    however

    I still don’t understand why you put together the work you did. What was the intent behind producing the work that you did? How is it that you justified the work you put into it? What exactly are you trying to say? I respect the effort put into it – it was a massive undertaking obviously, but I don’t get it. Even if Mckenna worked for the CIA, it doesn’t negate the intelligence behind a large portion of his thought. The applies to Huxley, Leary, and others – they’re still intelligent individuals with many interesting thoughts.

    It seems to me that you’re giving the CIA quite a large scope of power with what you’ve set up in the brain – which is very cool, but I don’t understand why we need it or how it will get us out of the mess we’re in. And the sorcerers at the CIA are not all powerful..thank you Universe.

    Are you yourself because of your own psychedelic consumption now part of a mind control phenomenon? Could your thought patterns be the result of a CIA experiment? It seems as though you are demonizing all those associated with these substances.

    I am a fan of your work, and I have an intense amount of respect for anyone doing what you do, but as I mentioned earlier I’m not sure of the point of any of this. The world is so riddled with conspiracy and connections that you could put this amount of effort into any number of aspects of life in the last 5000 years.

    From my point of view, this seems to distract from the situation at hand in the same way that politics, or the news does.

    My experience with Universe is such that the most plausible explanation is that NO human is really in control.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 22, 2012 at 9:42 am

      Hi, Scott. I’ve just released a new video explaining a lot of this. I’m sorry that you feel the need to quote Mckenna that no one is in control. see the video where I deal with this.

      Obviously any true investigation is taken where the leads take us, not coming up with an idea and trying to prove it. Truth will out. Truth abores a vacuum.

      Obviously the purpose of putting this information out is to bring attention to it.

      I’m not just giving the CIA the power if you read through the material. I hope you’ve studied it and the database before making this post?

      Where did I say that McKenna worked for the CIA?

      His intelligence is irrelevant to the eugenics / humanism / transhumanism / feminism he was selling. What do their interesting thoughts have to do with the fact that they’re all selling the same agenda?

      If you look through the brain, you’ll see many sources of power there, not just the CIA. Try not ignoring the other thousands of citations.

      Obviously how it applies to getting us out of this mess we’re in is by giving you a map of the territory to see who your predators are.

      What do the citations and evidence that I presented have to do with your unsupported claims that I’m part of a CIA experiment? Wouldn’t it be easier to just read the work than to make up dreamy hypthesis? I’m showing how we’ve ALL been mind controlled by this. Obviously, if you can’t see how your mind controlled, you can’t get out of it.

      Where did I say the sorcerers at the CIA were all powerful? Why do you ignore my research and then put words into my mouth?

      I’m not demonizing anyone. The citations demonize these guys all on their own – from their own words. If you could show me where I’ve taken their own words, their own citations, out of context to “demonize” then I’d appreciate it. Otherwise, keep your unsupported accusations to yourself.

      Obviously ignorance is the path they want you on. Who does it benefit for you to ignore (IGNOR-ANCE) politics and the news, and to thougthlessly believe no one’s in control – and that you’ve no predators.

      Again, please don’t put words in my mouth, read the work and citations before you leap to conclusions, and learn to question your beliefs. I very clearly discussed in the video to learn to put your grammar first. Mmmkay?

    • Ashley Wildman
      September 27, 2012 at 11:14 pm

      Yeah Scott do more research as you clearly don’t get it. It took me years and years to get to a point where Jan’s research into this subject makes perfect sense to me. Good luck! :-)

  53. September 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Having listened to Simon’s interview, and also being well familiar with Jan’s research, I’m in total agreement with Jan that his arguments were completely bogus. It is one thing if someone wants to disagree with Jan’s research, but that means YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE RESEARCH. Simon displayed willful ignorance, a complete lack of knowledge about Allegro and amanita mushrooms, admitted not having read Jan’s research, and basically passed himself off as an opinionated ignoramus who is unwilling to consider information that is counter to his pre-established beliefs. I think it sad, given that Simon had some interesting things to say about his own work – something I would have liked to have heard more of in his tirade against Jan. For anyone wanting to disagree with Jan, I recommend taking the time to actually get to know Jan’s meticulous work and research – and read the damn footnotes!! He’s got lots of them. Then, if you want to disagree with his conclusions or present a different interpretation, then by all means do so. Simon’s attack on Jan was total garbage, however. As a university professor, if he were to turn in a paper like that, I’d give him an F, without any hesitation.

    • Jan Irvin
      September 22, 2012 at 1:21 pm

      Thanks, Martin. I really appreciate those who’ve actually taken the time to get to know my work.

  54. goatstaog
    September 24, 2012 at 4:06 am

    Wow a huge thread has grown. Lots of emotion here. INteresting!

    Off topic, Jan have you interviewed or focused on the work of the guy that wrote the (history?) of the Magic Mushrooms (blue cover with stars was distro’d
    in mainstream bookstores a few years back) – You mentioned it but so far I have not heard some other views on the book.

    Also a book I have owned for some time, which I received as a gift from a Mushroom grower (commercial) that I worked for in the late 80′s
    by Lucy Kavaler . Do you know much about her? The book is a good read and I notice Paul Stamets has reapprorpriated little stories from the book into his
    seminars. They are good little folk stories! Just a bit of query to see how possibly she fits in with this schematic other than writing the book Mushrooms, Molds and Miracles
    right at the time when the psychedelic era was just heating up mainstream – she does have a dim view of the psychedelic aspect – if you have not read it so it’s not out and out propaganda at face value. 3 pages are topical on Wasson in the book.- 1965 first print.

  55. October 2, 2012 at 10:43 am

    I haven’t read through all of the comments here, so I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned this, but I’m pretty sure the “Thomas Coon” referred to in the transcript should actually be spelled “Kuhn.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

  56. Jan Irvin
    October 6, 2012 at 1:35 am

    Simon’s latest screed:

    For instance, he completely ignores all of Bruce Adamson’s research, and all of my citations to the CFR archives at Princeton on the entire JFK assassination. His quote about the Morgan family, et al, was cited in the Prof. Andrews Archives from Yale and that was also very detailed in the article. Nope, no acknowledgement of any of that. No acknowledgement of the Hall Carbine affair, nor the Bertrand Russell missives – completely omitted – as well as Wasson’s decade long working relationship with Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda. No mention that Wasson co-authored the Stock Exchange Act – especially in light of all of the recent economic scandals. He completely avoids that I published primary documents on Wasson’s involvement as a chairman to the Council on Foreign Relations. He ignores the coinciding publications of Valentina’s article, that’s omitted, and that went out to 12 million news paper subscribers that same week, the publishers of both happened to work with Wasson, or his boss, who was Skull and Bones. Why was all of this omitted?

    Also, I get a kick that Simon quotes Tommy of all people… the most unlearned of all in the trivium. “The trivium is used to debunk conspiracy theories” Sad, sad, sad.

    Tommy is an internet troll that does nothing but go around the internet and cause trouble, misquote and distort everything he comes across. That Simon would cite him without fact checking him is absolutely hilarious and further reveals Simon’s incompetence and inability to fact check a single citation.

    The trivium is a systematic method of verification. It’s not to debunk anything but poor research and unsubstantiated fallacies… that Simon completely relies on in his screeds, so of course he’s going to distort what the trivium really is – otherwise he’d have to face his own constant use of fallacies – from Latin: fallare – to Lie.

    I explained that to Simon in my email. He ignored all of it. Also, I had sent Simon my citations regarding Bruce Adamson to his Facebook account, though he seems to have intentionally ignored the citations there too. He also quotes Tommy on his analysis that my only support is George de Morhenschild. This, again, is a lie and an omission of the citations.

    On Simon’s comments regarding Kennan, this, again, is hilarious, as at first Tommy went around the internet claiming that Kennan had denied joining the Century Club and NOT the CIA, when in fact I had quoted the letters to cite his recruitment that it was in fact the CIA. After a dozen mentions to Tommy, he finally admitted that he distorted it all. This of course was also omitted by Simon and Tommy. But then, after I had pointed out that Tommy had repeatedly distorted the contents of the letter, then Tommy came out with this updated distortion (thoughtlessly quoted by Simon) that Kennan was against the CIA, which Tommy had omitted that Kennan was complaining to Wasson about these issues as to why he was refusing the recruitment to the CIA, but of course this, again, is omitted. Neither Tommy nor Simon bothered to ask me for the letter, nor has either of them quoted it – as it would reveal them as completely incompetent or lying. Simon’s repeated quoting of Tommy there is in fact a red herring – not using any of my citations – and Tommy blatantly distorts the letter and doesn’t at least quote my reading of it at all. Why didn’t either bother to ask for the letter? And why did neither of them quote me? Because it doesn’t fit with their distortions, omissions and lies of my work.

    I get a kick out of the fact that nearly every comment on Reality Sandwich is ad hominem attacks, wild accusations, and unsupported claims – but hardly any seem capable of going to my site and reading my article and seeing if Simon is even telling the truth – which he’s obviously not. It would take all of Simon’s fans but a few minutes to discover that his entirely misleading them and lying to them and is in fact repeatedly distorting my work.

    But I actually don’t think that Simon even read my article, even though he claims here that he has. Maybe he read only the conclusion or a few paragraphs at the end – where, for instance, he took my quote out of context from the end of the article, pretending as though the entire article didn’t provide 70 citations supporting those claims with great detail, and instead he simply cited Tommy’s distortions! Gasp! He’s not even capable of getting primary documents and relies on an internet troll for his work.

    Come on folks! Anyone who’s intelligent enough to read my work for themselves will know that Simon’s, Tommy’s, Jonny Enoch’s supposed deconstructions of my work, don’t in fact, even address my work or what was said – AT ALL. These are complete distortions – lies.

    Anyway, fricken hilarious. Simon just keeps burying himself deeper and deeper into his world of incompetence.

    Also, as I pointed out previously to Simon, he could have just called the librarian at the Century and asked for the documents, rather than making up wild speculations and conspiracy theories about me. That’s just incredible that he’s too incompetent to call the librarian there and ask.

    Even the title is an appeal to ridicule and ignorance…

    I told Simon that he’s promoting ignorance when he distorts information and promotes fear against people who might otherwise read my work on its own merit. I won’t bother with further response. I’ll just take all of the free advertising from Reality Sandwich. Anyone who’s intelligent enough will just read the work themselves and know that you’re all lying. As I told Simon the other day:

    “Condemnation without Investigation is the Height of Ignorance” – Albert Einstein

    - who Simon quotes extensively in the opening of his book. Indeed, pure irony.

    Simon’s psittacism is rather sad, as is his blind ignorance of ponerology.

    I’m still undecided if Simon is just completely incompetent, or a sophist liar.

    Shakes head and walks away.

    http://www.realitysandwich.com/paranoia_psychedelic_mushroom_community

  57. Sill Bimpleton
    October 7, 2012 at 11:21 am

    The title: “An Outbreak of Fear and Paranoia in the Psychedelic Mushroom Community” isn’t an argument–it’s a clause–so it can’t be representative of any logical fallacy.

    If the title instead is assumed to be the conclusion of the argument:

    Jan’s conclusions about Wasson/McKenna are scary
    Jan’s conclusions are being read and believed by people in the psychedelic community
    Therefore there is fear and paranoia in the psychedelic community

    Then that is a valid argument and there is no logical fallacy.

    How do you figure the title is fallacious?

  58. Mediahound
    October 8, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    Saw these posted in replies and thought they were interesting…

    “Kennan opposed the existence of the CIA
    Submitted by Tommy Decentralized on Sun, 10/07/2012 – 16:30.
    Kennan opposed the existence of the CIA. He was, however, friend’s with people in the CIA, and worked with many in various elite circles. He wrote new proposals for containing communism. He clearly sates his previous proposals, and talks, were taking wrongly. He was against the arms race, nuclear build up, and he was against the militarization of cold war conduct and the CIA. He no longer felt a secret service was needed, and he believe that nations should be dealt with as a whole nation and not on an individual basis. He was not happy about is past, and how his ideals were misunderstood, and he spent the rest of his life being against all of that. People can change. Irvin claims Kennan is saying he will work for the CIA. And that is completely untrue. Kennan never joined the CIA. It doesn’t matter who funded his future, or past projects, that is completely irrelevant when looking at what Kennan was actually doing in them, which was making peace with Russia, that communism would collapse on it’s own. He promoted the idea that capitalism is better than communism. Kennan committed no crimes, and he did not work for the CIA. His new proposals were about a completely different approach. People change. And by 1953 Kennan did change, and was not a part of Irvin’s conspiracy, whatever it is, as I’m not sure what crimes Irvin has listed, aside from Wasson’s PR crap for JP Morgan senior during the civil war in concerning the carbine affair. That was dishonest revisionism that Wasson did. Is it a crime? Oh sure, I believe it is. Is it an important crime? Not hardly. Morgan loaned some money out to a man that bought defective guns from the US gov. then he fixed the guns and sold them back for a huge profit, so Morgan expected a big return in his investment. “bankers care about money and not so much political views or morals” -Peter Levenda (Paraphrasing)
    Wasson favored the white Russians. If your a fan of Peter Levenda like I am, you should know this already. The white Russians opposed the red Russian communist. The white Russians were Christians, and they viewed communism as atheism. They wanted the church to be in control of Russia. George de Mohrenschildt also favored the white Russians. And was friend’s with Jackie Kennedy and JFK who were also Christians that opposed communism. The popular conspiracy is that Oswald was FBI. And back then the FBI and the CIA did not get along. The theory goes something like Dulles found out that Oswald was an FBI agent that infiltrated the CIA’s inner circle. JFK supported the CIA and the white Russians. In fact JFK approved the bay of pigs. But after that embarrassment from the failure of the bay of pigs, he wanted to distance himself from the CIA. The theory claims that the CIA killed JFK and blamed if on FBI agent Oswald. To teach the FBI a lesson. I don’t believe that theory, but at least it has actual claims of who, what, where, when, and why, unlike Irvin’s failure to use grammar first in his grand conspiracy.”

    ———-

    “Stop lying Jan
    Submitted by Tommy Decentralized on Sun, 10/07/2012 – 18:25.
    I clearly said my first comment that the letter was to join the century club was an honest mistake on my part. That I was going from memory of the red ice radio interview, the one where you attacked Christopher Knowles for pointing out the fact that the theory you’ve latched onto, is a very old one. When going back and listening again, I realized that one particular letter, out of many, was about joining the CIA, and not the club. It was an honest mistake, and not even a big deal at all. Again Jan, what you fail to realize is that Kennan felt his previous ideals were misunderstood. And he wanted nothing to do with them. So your claim that Kennan said he would work for the CIA, is incorrect. Man up and admit it. You made a mistake, it happens, it’s not a big deal. No need for you to name call, and make other bogus claims about me. Why can’t you just discuss topics, and leave your name calling, and personal attacks out of it. It’s hard for anyone to take you serious when you act so immature. And cause people trouble with their accounts on various websites, by reporting them and making false claims on them. When one dares disagree with a theory of yours, ones that require giant leaps of faith, you flip out, block, block, delete, delete, must not compute. LOL
    I’ve said many times I believe your citations are what they appear to be. But if you want to prove they’re legit, that’s your burden of proof, you’re making the claim they are, do not switch the burden of proof. But the main problem is, you wrongfully interpret some of them. And you used a lot of logical fallacies in doing so. In fact I pointed out 8 of them, which were clearly identifiable, in one 40 second clip of yours, which is just WOW. But you flipped your wig over that. You dish it out, and dish it out with such ruthlessness. But you cannot take any criticism at all. So very hypocritical of you. In fact every name you call, and every accusation you make, is actually what YOU do and are. Which is clear as day to me, and I’m sure others as well. It’s ridiculous. Try and act like a decent human being, treat people with respect, and that alone will demand they do the same all on it’s own. You treating people like garbage, only says you want to be treated like garbage. And now look at you, trying to come up for dignity’s air, in a pile of garbage that you created.”

    • Jan Irvin
      October 9, 2012 at 11:11 am

      I had written a reply to Tommy’s distortions again, but it got lost. Having to rewrite.

      But I should point out that NO PLACE did I say that Kennan worked for the CIA – I very clearly said he REFUSED recruitment, which of course Tommy distorts, and again, notice how he refuses to quote what I read on Red Ice, as it entirely exposes him as a fraud and liar. Furthermore, Kennan was behind the Marshall Plan, Operation Mockingbird, and Operation Paperclip. What does Tommy mean when he says that he committed no crimes? And these guys operate above the law. Tommy wants you to believe that he’s got the inside scoop on Kennan’s actions and emotions, all the while ignoring the hundreds of pages of personal letters I have of the guy. Kennan’s promotion of capitalism, etc, is irrelevant to the facts presented.

      Tommy’s mention of the Christopher Knowles’ idiocy is funny too, as Knowles refused to read my work and then said that because Lyndon Larouche came up with a similar theory 30 years ago, that I had somehow plagiarized LaRouche, even though my article was on Wasson and LaRouche didn’t even mention Wasson to my knowledge. When I asked Knowles to support his accusations of plagiarism and how my article on Wasson pertained anything to LaRouche, he couldn’t, and then yelled that I wouldn’t take his criticism – of my article that he hadn’t even read. And besides, if someone else did the research before is entirely irrelevant. What should be brought into question is how would LaRouch and I come to similar conclusions from entirely different research? I address this already in my video, but of course Tommy ignored this – and also ignored the fact that Knowles, like Simon, Jonny Enoch and the others, REFUSED to read my article. This idiocy of citing someone’s opinion who REFUSES to read the work is just hilarious and complete incompetence. Knowles argument was based entirely on ignorance and guilt by association and he entirely failed the onus of proof to give a single quote to substantiate his claims. I hadn’t even heard of LaRouche’s book until Chris’s attack and I got the book only a couple weeks ago – still unread.

      But Tommy again lies when he claims that I said Kennan would work for the CIA, as I’ve already very clearly explained this to him and others many times, which can be heard on Red Ice, that he’s in fact distorting everything said – as that’s what he does, he’s a troll.

      Kennan was in fact an OSS agent, the precursor to the CIA.

      Tommy tries to play down the Hall Carbine affair, and how that plays into current international banking and politics, as this is the very origin of the Morgan’s banking empire, which Wasson covered up, and in my opinion, that and his work with Bernays for a decade shows that this is what earned him his vice presidency of JP Morgan bank in charge of propaganda.

      Tommy’s ignorant that Wasson’s boss also funded the Bolshevik revolution – see Douglass Reed.

      Next Tommy presents a straw man / red herring argument on JFK – presenting what he thinks the arguments are, ignoring the 11 books I cited to Bruce Adamson, and then claims he doesn’t “believe this theory” – when it’s nothing I presented in the first place – another straw man — another of Tommy’s distortions and lies. Again, he presents NOTHING that I presented, and this is an entire STRAW MAN argument.

      Rather than quoting, as I already pointed out to do, he claims to have gone by memory, not putting grammar first, and then continues on with his distortions. Why not quote NOW? He fails to mention that he had to be told this more than a dozen times as he went around the internet spreading his lies intentionally to forum after forum. Kenna’s previous ideals are irrelevant to the facts that he clearly stated he would work for the DCI and president directly, but not for the CIA – as well as his involvement in bringing Nazi criminals into the US. Tommy wants everyone to believe his appeals to emotion, all the while ignoring Kennan’s history and own letters.

      Tommy also wants you to believe that Kennan didn’t already work with Wasson and Dulles at the CFR and Century – both already cited to primary documents.

      But being that I NEVER EVER claimed that Kennan would work for the CIA, his comment here: “your claim that Kennan said he would work for the CIA, is incorrect. Man up and admit it. You made a mistake, it happens, it’s not a big deal. No need for you to name call, and make other bogus claims about me.” is completely absurd. This is Tommy’s own error, his own lies and distortions, which he then falsely tries to put on me. This is shear idiocy. Simply listen to my red ice interview and you’ll hear that in fact Tommy’s lying and distorting the facts intentionally – yet again. That’s all he does. Tommy is completely untrustworthy.

      Next Tommy goes into an appeal to ridicule, trying to put his constant aggressive internet attacks on me. What he won’t admit, however, is that he’s personally initiated every single instance of problems with him over the last 2 years. When ever there’s some ruckus online, you’ll be sure to find Tommy in the middle of it. Notice how he also doesn’t attack Simon or the others for their blatant ad hominems and distortions of my work.

      Tommy tries to pretend that I’ve deleted and ignored people who’ve read my work and give constructive feedback. Again, this is a distortion as I’ve ONLY banned people who slander and name call, create straw man arguments and don’t deal with my work AT ALL – just as Tommy, Simon, Jonny, etc. Jonny’s initial contact with me was a 3 page attack on me and my work that he’d never read – it’s posted here somplace. Simon, obviously never read it either – as he admitted, and then was still incompetent, after he claimed to have. Though I don’t believe he really ever did read my work, as his “debunking” solely relies on the utter incompetence of Tommy. Their attacks bear nothing on my actual work and what was really written.

      Tommy flips the burden of proof upside down as well. He wants me to prove that my citations are legit, in other words – not a fraud. He wants me to prove a negative, which is of course impossible. In logic, as in a court of law, those who are making the accusations must support them. It’s up to him to support his claims that they’re anything other than legit, and being that he can just call the libraries and archives and get the documents, he’s got ZERO excuse, and therefore his accusations are unfounded and arbitrary and are automatically dismissed.

      He claims I’ve wrongfully interpreted some, but he’s incapable of quoting me and showing how without creating entirely bogus arguments – and again, this is why he didn’t quote what I read on Red Ice as it exposes him as a fraud or entirely incompetent.

      Tommy furthermore tries to cite his video and his 8 fallacies – of which I entirely refuted him, showing how he didn’t even know the basic definitions of the fallacies, and then he again regurgitates that here. See my FB wall for a complete debunking of his nonsense here.

      But as Tommy’s never seen, nor asked, for ANY of the documentation, he’s got no grounds to stand on. His application of logic and the trivium is a complete failure. Notice how he claims that I flipped my lid, when he intentionally distorted and suppressed mine and others debunking of him and his 8 fallacies. If he was interested in an honest discussion, why suppress everyone who refutes his nonsense and then strut around like a pigeon playing chess, knocking over all the pieces and then claiming victory? It’s just completely moronic. But again, anyone who wants to see how completely incompetent Tommy and Simon are, only need to hear my Red Ice interview and read my articles for themselves. Tommy’s and Simon’s incompetence will become immediately apparent.

      Tommy thinks criticism of my work comes in the form of straw man arguments, ad hominems and distortions, when in fact, as these guys all admit that they’re incapable of going point by point through my work, and Tommy’s refusal to quote shows that in fact they’re not even addressing my work. If they were intelligent to read it first and go point by point over the citations, without intentionally distorting them, then I’d be happy to do so with them, to go through their counterarguments – but the whole of them, even with invitation, are incapable of doing so. This is why they just spread their unfounded and un-cited lies online. They have NEVER ONCE attacked what I actually wrote, but their own delusional creations of my work, and then they go around claiming that “you cannot take any criticism at all. So very hypocritical of you. In fact every name you call, and every accusation you make, is actually what YOU do and are.”

      Again, their attacks have NEVER addressed MY work and what it actually said. EACH of their so called “criticisms” are 100% distortions of my work. And when I delete and ban their lies, this is what they come up with to distort the facts of reality and their own incompetence.

      But again, that Simon would quote Tommy is the biggest laugh of all, as Tommy’s one of the most incompetent people I’ve ever had the displeasure to know.

      Feel free to post this over there. I won’t waste my time. You can’t soar with eagles when you flock with turkeys.

  59. Mediahound
    October 9, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    I sent it to him on youtube, here is his reply:

    “Wow, he just goes on and on. sorry if I make this short, he’s really quite boring to me. Especially with his constant name calling. ‘sigh’ The letter he read on red ice and has not posted online, is the one that he claims was sneaked out of Harvard by a friend. Well, maybe he doesn’t want to post it, because of how it was obtained, understandable. I’ve said all along I believe every “citation” he got is what he claims they are, i believe him on that. I just thought it was funny that he’s asking others to prove his citation are real. When he hasn’t even showed them all ie posted them online.
    Anyway, this is what he said on red ice: “In other words he’s (Kennan) saying I do not want to be an agent but I will work for you directly, for the president and for the director of the CIA”
    Irvin is saying Kennan will work directly for Allen Dulles the head of the CIA. He also went on to say “Kennan was involved in the assassination of JFK”
    What I say is what the majority of historians say, quote: “Soon after his concepts had become U.S. policy, Kennan began to criticize the foreign policies that he had seemingly helped launch. Subsequently, prior to the end of 1948, Kennan was confident the state of affairs in Western Europe had developed to the point where positive dialogue could commence with the Soviet Union. His proposals were discounted by the Truman administration and Kennan’s influence was marginalized, particularly after Dean Acheson was appointed secretary of state in 1949. Soon thereafter, U.S. Cold War strategy assumed a more assertive and militaristic quality, causing Kennan to lament over what he believed was as an aberration of his previous assessments.
    In 1950, Kennan left the Department of State, except for two brief ambassadorial stints in Moscow and Yugoslavia and became a leading realist critic of U.S. foreign policy. He continued to be a leading thinker in international affairs as a faculty member of the Institute for Advanced Study from 1956 until his death at age 101 in March 2005.”

    Kennan and JFK were friends. Not close friends, but they wrote each other, and spoke in person a few times. Kennan was upset that JFK approved the pay of pigs, and with the direction the cold war build up was going. JFK told Kennan that he agrees with him, but has to put on a front. Again I’m just repeating what historians say about Kennan and JFK.
    Communism was seen as a real threat back then. Kennan helped bring over many defectors of communism and Nazi Germany. Kennan himself cannot be held responsible for other people’s crimes that they may, or may not have committed. The main point I had been trying to make, which Kennan himself made very clear in the letter, is he wanted nothing to do with them. Unless they wanted to take his new advice directly or indirectly. His new advice included disbanding the CIA, pulling out all spies from around the world, and dealing with nations as a whole. In negotiations for disarmament, and peaceful solutions.

    I will never try and defend Gordon Wasson, I think he’s a peace of shit.

    as for Irvin debunking my popup fallacy video. Not on your life!

    1. Hasty Generalization: Irvin suspects Mckenna might be an “agent” (vague description) based on Mckenna saying one child per family could reduce the use of Earth’s resources. And that it might be better, in his opinion, if the world had more women and less men. Many NWO conspiracy theorist consider “depopulation” as part of their™ “plan”. Irvin also claims entheogens are used for mind control, in that they can get one to accept eastern religious ideologies of all being connected to one, all is one, and that we are destroying mother earth. And that positive movements are also part of their™ plan. Mckenna talked about a lot of things, Irvin cherry picks ideas and opinions, and then makes a hasty generalization that Mckenna must be an “agent” or a “willful idiot”.

    2. Straw Man: Saying someone doesn’t have critical thinking skills, and not discussing the actual topic, is a straw man attack.

    3. Anecdotal Evidence: Irvin doesn’t know what all McKenna has studied, and or took a deep interest into. Irvin doesn’t know if McKenna studied the Trivium or not. Irvin’s claim is based on what little he has found out about the man in the public arena.

    4. Ad Hominem: Calling McKenna an “agent” in the manner being used, is a personal attack. Irvin is name calling, despite admitting he doesn’t know if it’s true.

    5. False Dilemma: Leaving only these two choices “willful idiot” and or “agent”, is a False Dilemma. Maybe McKenna was being blacked mailed by someone, and was unwilling. Maybe his brain tumor, or some other brain defect like a chemical imbalance, caused him to think irrationally at times, who knows, it could be any number of thing’s. But Irvin makes an attack while ignoring the actual topic- starvation and the biosphere. “Willful idiot” is an Ad Hominem personal attack, and Irvin used it for a choice. And the other choice “agent” is a fear mongering Ad Hominem attack, one Irvin says he cant prove anyway. Therefore, Irvin clearly made a False Dilemma. (only two choices, when there could be many)

    6. Argument from Ignorance: Irvin has already left only two choices. That McKenna is either a “willful idiot”, or an “agent”. But he doesn’t know that, and so he argues for those two choices by using the ignorance card, of not knowing. But more research might revel the truth he claims. The reason this is a fallacious argument, is because Irvin has already left only two choice. He didn’t use grammar first. He gave only two choices but then says the research has to been done after the fact, and not before the fact of his false dilemma of only two choices, “agent or willful idiot”.

    7. Circumstantial Ad Hominem: Irvin suggest it’s a mighty strange and fishy coincident, that McKenna’s archives were burned in a fire. He uses this fallacy right after stating his appeal to ignorance that more research into McKenna needs to be done, so that Irvin can then prove the claims he’s already made. But it’s Irvin’s attitude of how convenient that the fire happened, is what makes it a Circumstantial Ad Hominem. Irvin hints that the fire was done to cover up something that might prove the claims he’s already made. It’s a conspiracy!

    8. Appeal to Rumor: It’s a popular rumor that the fire was in Big Sur, California, at the Esalen Institute. And or that Esalen owned the office building in Monterey, California, which is where the fire actually happened. The truth is that the building was owned by musician and former city Planning Commissioner Mike Marotta. The fire broke out in the basement of the Jugem Japanese Restaurant. The building wasn’t owned by Esalen, and it didn’t happen at Esalen. That is an untrue rumor.

    Anyway, I’m getting bored of Irvin’s fallacious personal attacks and his group think conspiracy bandwagon. :D
    I got some work to do back at the studio, we have two new artist coming out next month. It’s getting hectic around here. Catch ya later man, and thanks for the heads up.”

    • Jan Irvin
      October 10, 2012 at 2:33 pm

      He simply needs to quote my radio interview, already provided, that he’s already falsely distorted and attacked twice, and show how he’s not lied and manipulated the facts. If you want to see how incompetent he is, just play the interview again so that you can hear that he’s lying. There’s no need for me to provide him the letter. He and Simon can just call up Harvard and tell them that they’d like to debunk Jan Irvin’s attack and need Kennan’s April 5, 1953 letter – and then they’ll get it directly from Harvard and will have no way to lie and distort things and try to claim it’s been faked or anything else.

      Since this seems to be ongoing and Tommy is intentionally avoiding the issue, and notice that he’s saying he wants to see the original, that’s irrelevant, and he never asked for it before his first two distortions. I provided the university archive that stores it and he can contact them and in fact, that’s the only way he’d ever believe it’s real, is if it came straight from Harvard. But he fails to understand that my only obligation is to cite where the material came from. I have NO obligation to PROVIDE it to him. His argument would be like claiming that anyone who publishes a thesis must go out and buy the books and supply every researcher all of the material to follow up. NO, that’s not how it works. I provided the CITATION – hence the name, and the researcher then must go out and track it down from the source provided. It’s simple standard academic protocol.

      Here’s the clip of my reading the April 5, 1953 Kennan letter from Red Ice. And being that he’s falsely based all of his attacks on distorting this reading, he can also go back and quote from this reading just the same. His logic saying I’ve got to prove it’s real and provide it, etc, is false. Again, I’ve given the citation. He just needs to give Harvard a call and go get it. This is standard stuff here.

      The excerpt is from 22:40 to 26:24 from hour one of the Red Ice interview. Here is the clip in full. (Note – immediately following 26:24 is my rebuttal of Chris Knowles that he also omitted):
      http://www.gnosticmedia.com/audio/RedIceRadio-120809-KennanLetterExcerpt.mp3

      Right click and save as, or you may post the link to the RS website so that everyone may see Tommy’s lies. Let’s see how he twists and turns this one… again, he can just call Harvard, as if I gave it to him he’d just make up more lies – as that’s all he’s competent of doing.

  60. Mediahound
    October 11, 2012 at 1:16 am

    Jan, thanks for your response. This is getting quite interesting. Here’s what he had to say.

    “Is this for real? I mean seriously this must be some kind of joke, right? When I quoted Jan in that last email, I quoted him from that same exact show, just like you guys asked me to. That’s what makes his response extremely bizarre and erratic. The mp3 you just sent me cuts off right when he says exactly what I quoted the last time, and will quote Jan once again:

    “In other words he’s (Kennan) saying I do not want to be an agent but I will work for you directly, for the president and for the director of the CIA” -Jan Irvin (on the red ice radio show)

    I have no idea why Irvin cut that mp3 clip off right before he said that. he either didn’t read what I had to say, or is the stupidest person on earth. The fact that he continues to cry about his letters, when i said from day one i believe they are legit, is a complete distraction. I don’t question the letters, or the content. The problem is Jan is clueless to what is being talked about. Because it’s more than obvious he didn’t know much about Kennan. Irvin is saying Kennan will work directly for Allen Dulles the head of the CIA.
    What I say is what the majority of historians say, quote:

    “Soon after his concepts had become U.S. policy, Kennan began to criticize the foreign policies that he had seemingly helped launch. Subsequently, prior to the end of 1948, Kennan was confident the state of affairs in Western Europe had developed to the point where positive dialogue could commence with the Soviet Union. His proposals were discounted by the Truman administration and Kennan’s influence was marginalized, particularly after Dean Acheson was appointed secretary of state in 1949. Soon thereafter, U.S. Cold War strategy assumed a more assertive and militaristic quality, causing Kennan to lament over what he believed was as an aberration of his previous assessments.
    In 1950, Kennan left the Department of State, except for two brief ambassadorial stints in Moscow and Yugoslavia and became a leading realist critic of U.S. foreign policy. He continued to be a leading thinker in international affairs as a faculty member of the Institute for Advanced Study from 1956 until his death at age 101 in March 2005.”

    Now either people can do their own research into Kennan, He was on meet the press and quite a number of other shows, and wrote extensively about his involvement in government. And how he felt his ideals were misunderstood. Kennan was very outspoken about not needing a CIA. So Irvin’s speculation is completely wrong. And so Irvin distracts from that, and babbles on like a madman about proving the letters, when i said I believe there are legit several times. The fact the Irvin made an mp3 and purposely left out what I quoted, just goes to show what type of a conniving little pip-squeak he is. Do me a favor dude, please do not email me about anything Irvin related. He is a complete waste of time with his bullshit distractions and trickery.
    I have better thing’s to do then to repeat myself a million times like a broken record for the deaf, dumb, and blind.
    If he’s your friend and you care about him, get into into some concealing, or at least force him to take a critical thinking class.
    But seriously man, please do not bother me again wit this nonsense kids shit. Thanks!”

    • Jan Irvin
      October 11, 2012 at 7:31 am

      That’s another lie and distortion. As already mentioned, it goes directly into Chris Knowles screed directly after. Anyone is free to hear the original.

      He continuously uses a red herring to our own research here, avoiding facts about Kennan that directly debunk his so-called “analysis”. Again, hear the full interview for yourself, and see if Tommy’s at all telling the truth. That clip is the ENTIRE section discussing Kennan’s letter. Again, Tommy is lying. Just hear it for yourself. He’s twisting and spinning and doing a song and dance because he’s caught in a lie. He can’t just admit he’s wrong.

      Again, this piece is the FULL quote of everything I said on Red Ice regarding the Kennan letter. Nothing’s edited out. We go directly into the empty Knowles attacks after this clip.

      Anyone is free to hear the full interview so that they know Tommy is an incompetent moron.

      “In other words he’s (Kennan) saying I do not want to be an agent but I will work for you directly, for the president and for the director of the CIA” – this is NOT what Tommy wrote before – as his own quotes of the matter are posted on this very page – either that or I wasn’t sent his latest distortion – the 3rd distortion now of what was actually said on Red Ice. Again, Tommy is an internet troll and professional liar. He’s completely untrustworthy. Here’s what Tommy actually said:

      “Irvin claims Kennan is saying he will work for the CIA. And that is completely untrue. Kennan never joined the CIA. It doesn’t matter who funded his future, or past projects, that is completely irrelevant when looking at what Kennan was actually doing in them, which was making peace with Russia, that communism would collapse on it’s own. He promoted the idea that capitalism is better than communism. Kennan committed no crimes, and he did not work for the CIA.”

      “Again Jan, what you fail to realize is that Kennan felt his previous ideals were misunderstood. And he wanted nothing to do with them. So your claim that Kennan said he would work for the CIA, is incorrect. Man up and admit it. You made a mistake, it happens, it’s not a big deal.”

      Again, I never claimed, ANYWHERE, that Kennan worked for the CIA. This is another of Tommy’s lies.

      He wants you to believe I don’t know what Kennan’s talking about, when the issue at hand here, is why are Wasson and Kennan discussing top US/CIA security issues, and Kennan’s recruitment to the CIA? I never once said that Kennan worked for the CIA – ever. Kennan is clearly saying that he does NOT want to work for the CIA after leaving the OSS and wants a clean break. There is NO WAY Wasson would have this information unless he was a high level agent. Kennan very clearly says that he’ll work for the DCI and president directly, but not for the CIA. That’s a huge difference.

      Tommy is more than welcome to post up the full transcript of that quote and prove that I’ve omitted anything. as has repeatedly been proved, Tommy’s nothing but a liar. He will never own up to his lies and incompetence and stop this.

      But in fact, as everyone can hear, Tommy’s quote above is not even verbatim of what I said. He sort of reworded it a bit. But I’ve provided the ENTIRE excerpt, not just one quote of a 3+ minute discussion on the letter as he’s done. I’ve asked him to post up the full quote of that for a week now, not just one sentence distorted out of it. Again, ***ANYONE intelligent enough*** to do so is free to check me. Hear my quote, then go to red ice, I’ve already provided the minutes in the interview, and just go there and LISTEN for YOURSELF if I’ve edited ANYTHING. Again, as I’ve stated before, anyone is free to go back to the original so that they may hear Tommy and Simon’s constant incompetence and lies. GO TO THE ORIGINAL. TRUST NOTHING TOMMY SAYS! ANYONE WHO GOES TO THE RED ICE INTERVIEW AND COMPARES MY FILE TO THE ORIGINAL WILL SEE THAT TOMMY IS LYING. If you’re incompetent to go to the original, then don’t waste my time with more of Tommy’s nonsense. He will never own up to ANYTHING. He, Jonny, and Simon are fully invested in their lies and distortions. Their egos have committed themselves and have no interest in truth whatsoever.

  61. Mediahound
    October 11, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Hi Jan, I’m not going to bother Tommy anymore about this. It seems clear to me you have lot of anger issues, and have not been an honest person, as you accuse others of lying when they clearly have not. Tommy was correct, you claimed Kennan would work for Dulles the head of the CIA directly or indirectly. I heard the red ice radio interview in full, and went back several times to listen to that part. I agree with Tommy in that Kennan was referring to his new strategies for cold war containment that he had proposed to congress, which is why he would say directly, or indirectly. And I disagree fully with your speculation that Kennan “would” work for Dulles. It’s quite clear Kennan already made new proposals by the time the letter was sent, and he was referring to those proposals in the letter. Most people familiar with Kennan, like apparently Tommy is, would get that right away. Jan you obviously made a mistake, you got called out on it, and instead of just admitting it, you throw a hissy fit and call everyone names. This appears to be a patter of your ego, and not theirs. I also agree with Tommy that talking with you is a waste of time. You cant even follow a simple dialog very well, and make everyone repeat themselves over and over. This is a complete waste of time. It was my mistake to try talking with you. It wont happen again. Take care in all you do, I will no longer bother myself with gnostic media. Unless Andy comes back, and you leave. Bye

  62. Louis
    October 21, 2012 at 8:08 am

    As a listener from the UK I am not surprised that Jan is constantly attacked by so called truth seekers in the US. To an outsider looking in it seems strange that people in the US seem oblivious to the influence of the Dallas based Council for National Policy. Peter Dale Scott (2007) described the Dallas based CNP as a more powerful and influential group than the CFR; yet the vast number of alleged truth seekers have no knowledge of this group.
    Many of the US alternative media operations are set and controlled by the CNP. The CNP probably set up media stars like Alex Jones (apply the trivium to Jones’ rhetoric and you will give up counting the fallacies after ten minutes). Edward G Griffin from the CNP controlled John Birch Society, Dr Stan Montieth full blown CNP member and his fellow member Paul Craig Roberts.
    Any researcher in the US that is genuinely independent and is providing information that really does challenge the elite will not only face ridicule by the mainstream but is always targeted by the so called truth movement (in many cases funded by the CNP). Ergo Jan’s latest attackers. So called big hitters in the truth movement have put Jan in the spotlight and seem to be going for the kill. It is interesting as the latest ad hominem attacks should enable us to apply the trivium to these characters and link them to a controlled opposition meme.
    I urge all listeners and fans of Jan’s great work to research the CNP. Members of the CNP have included:Rev Tim LaHaye, Michael Aquino, General John Singlaub, shipping magnate J. Peter Grace, Edwin J. Feulner Jr of the Heritage Foundation, Rev. Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Jerry Falwell, Senator Trent Lott, Southern Baptist Convention activists and retired, and the Rev. Paige Patterson , Senator Don Nickles, former United States Attorneys General Ed Meese and John Ashcroft, gun-rights activist Larry Pratt, Col. Oliver North, and philanthropist Else Prince, mother of Erik Prince, the founder of the Blackwater private security firm, and the Hunt Brothers.
    Come on the Hunt brothers, Oliver North, Michael Aquino, Paul Craig Roberts, Stan Montieth and the Academi (previously known as Xe Services LLC, Blackwater USA and Blackwater Worldwide) gang all rolled in to some bizarre group whose membership includes right wing Christians, alternative media and billionaires.
    Membership is by invitation only. The membership list, previously made public, is now “strictly confidential.” Guests may attend “only with the unanimous approval of the executive committee.” Members are instructed not to refer to the organization by name, to protect against leaks. New York Times political writer David D. Kirkpatrick suggested that the secrecy since its founding was intended to insulate the Council from the “liberal bias of the news media.
    Do not take my word for this. If you want to get to the bottom of the attacks against Jan research this group and make your own mind up; the grammar is there for the taking. I found the CNP’s link to the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics to be fascinating but never talked about. See what you think!

    • Jan Irvin
      October 21, 2012 at 9:48 am

      Ironically, a few of the attackers are from the UK….

      • Louis
        October 22, 2012 at 10:29 pm

        Jan you are upsetting the planners at Tavistock! You could always have a word with Ted Anderson and see if he will let you sell some gold or maybe a couple of water filters.

  63. Diaphanic1
    October 25, 2012 at 5:07 am

    (tried posting this on his youtube, don’t know if it stuck, but keep up the good work, this is some of the craziest funniest far out expletive i’ve found on the net in a long damn time…keep up the good work…and if Simon’s shilling for you, nice work! Give him pat on the back for me…)

    Simon G. Powell,

    Wow, clearly “they” felt Graham Hancock was used up to have him sign off on this “bullocks.” That or he was reprogrammed on was his highly touted trips in the jungle. He actually made a good case at one point about the pyramids being 10,000 years old only to appear recently on my history channel saying that his hypothesis now is that the 2 or 3 thousand year old “Ancients” built the pyramids to show us how they would have been built 10,000 years ago instead of maybe just chiseling whatever they meant by that into a rock and being done with it.

    I doubt you know what I’m talking about, but I’ll send another one over your head that it may find its way out of your arse. By hook or by crook you and indirectly Graham are the anthropomorphic embodiment of exactly what Jan’s intellectual curiosity was leading up to. (Well there’s actually a number of possibilities at play here including synchronistic ones which are less far fetched considering the subject matter) Beautifully played by the Universe or the “they,” be you an actor or just a broad based brainwashed victim of whatever Jan’s getting at. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to trip in the same county as you, much less earshot, no offense, but as expert on all this, vibes and whatnot you’d surely understand. Apparently, Joe Rogan thinks your great, but his head is growing like Barry Sanders, and he thinks wrestling around with a sweaty grown man for an afternoon is “fun like a video game.” Yet somehow he’s supposedly one of our generation’s most esteemed psychonauts. He allegedly says that he knows Jan well yet can’t understand him. (know-ledge…under-stan-ding) That’s just BFS he’s smarter than that, and actually you probably are too. You may be trying to become his British equivalent, but don’t bother, he’s actually at least really funny and sincere some of the time, and makes an effort. And, Jan has clearly made an effort. I don’t know WTF you call what we just saw. Even if its just as a NWO shill, put some love into it, whatever it is.

    Peace.
    (F off Trolls)

    PS-I’ll be back to hit the tip jar…gotta know where this goes…

  64. Diaphanic1
    October 25, 2012 at 5:17 am

    Honestly though, the fact that they published this guy proves much of your thesis, or should at least be duly noted next to the librarian stuff.

    I use use to dig on some graham hancock….WTF?

  65. Everett
    October 25, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Jan,

    I made a comment earlier that took a stupid shot at Joe Rogan. I saw your interview with him and I’m making an about face. I was wrong.

    I still say that Simon is the anthropomorphic embodiment of everything you’ve laid out. I would like to know your thoughts on Robert Anton Wilson sometime. Love what you’re doing….keep up the great work!

Leave a Reply