Jose Barrera Interview, Pt. 2 – “Supernatural: Magic and Spelling as Mind Control” – #157


1-9-2013 4-36-45 PM
Today we’ve got a very explosive show for you, and this is our first show for 2013, and what a way to kick it off.

This episode is an interview with Jose Barrera, Pt. 2, titled “Supernatural: Magic and Spelling as Mind Control” and is being released on Wednesday, January 09, 2013. This interview with Jose was was recorded on Saturday, January 05, 2013.

Jose Maria Barrera was born in Bogota, Colombia and came to the United States eighteen years ago to do research in Neuroscience. He is a photographer and creates graphical user interfaces for software applications. Jose holds a B.S. in Systems Engineering and a M.S. in Computer Science from NYU. He recently moved from New York back to South America, this time settling in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


Download video:

Audio only version:

  57 comments for “Jose Barrera Interview, Pt. 2 – “Supernatural: Magic and Spelling as Mind Control” – #157

  1. robert42
    January 10, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    An excellent presentation, but one small caveat: It finishes where it might have gone a step further. I wouldn’t diss these things as only tools imposed upon oneself by others. They can also be employed to gain greater power over oneself. Years ago I studied magick/magic/NLP and then, looking around, came to realize, amongst other things, that the state (for example) is a magical construct that is conjured into existence by ritual and symbols and reinforced by fear. And breaking a habitual pattern of behavior may require more than simply the understanding of what is going on. On a mundane level, one may understand intellectually why one has a strong, self-destructive habit, but getting rid of it may require the further step of replacing the old pattern with a new one, at least until the old one has atrophied from disuse.

    • Exentius
      January 11, 2013 at 1:29 pm

      Stellar discussion, as always (hi, robert42!)

      It seems like the problem is what I would call religious thought, as opposed to rational thought, as a purveyor of superstition, schizotypal tendencies, compulsive behavior, authoritarianism, dogma, disempowerment, etc., which are not exclusive to religious institutions (Darwinism for instance). Part of the deprogramming is depolarizing and changing our way of thinking, ridding these barbarian relics of their unwarranted mystique, for the purposes of empowering ourselves so we can negotiate these things intelligently.

      To clarify, religious thought shouldn’t be conflated with phenomena it attempts to portray. Religious thinking can pervade any social structure, as we see in politics, science, and banking.

      Likewise, rational thought can be applied anywhere, including so called supernatural phenomena. So far as “extra” sensory perception goes, I would like to point attention to the government’s own psychic spy programs. Coincidentally, I’ve been reading Ingo Swann’s “Secrets of Power”, relevant to the discussion since it deals with the concepts of sensory perceptions, power structures, societal impositions of power upon the individual, cult of power, depowerment, and so forth. If you want to know why Hollywood went Scientologist, I would say look up Ingo Swann and Hal Puthoff. An intriguing cast of characters to say the least.

      But from my own experience with the pen and paper remote viewing, there isn’t anything “extra” sensory about ESP (really a misnomer), because information gained is basically experienced via 5 senses (quintivium). There are then additional layers placed on top of that. What is exceptional, however, is where it all comes from. The TV dial metaphor is appropriate here. Like reading a book, deprivation tank, or any other altered state, the senses and the mind can be reoriented towards a particular source, and interesting things can happen.

      But I wouldn’t call that magical, though it is, but yet it isn’t.

      Yet if superstition is a fallacy, why use the language of superstition to describe these phenomena? Though, when it comes to the customs of our society, which invariably go back to the affectations of a “magical” ruling cult, whether Masonry, the Levant, Egypt, Druidism, commerce, etc., residue is unavoidable. Paying the bills, paying the Ba’als, and what have you.

      • robert42
        January 13, 2013 at 3:51 pm

        It’s like this: It might as well not matter if there is a supernatural component to magic. That is, being agnostic on the supernaturality of magic while respecting the power of its effects upon behavior, ones own and that of others, is probably a much more useful stance than adopting the arrogant, know-it-all stance of the puerile debunkers.

    • oats tao
      January 16, 2013 at 12:38 am

      Why do you feel an old pattern may require to be replaced ? Some people function at their best by eliminating patterns to focus on their strengths , I speak from my own experience and that’s how I prefer, I go the opposite way and break down some of what turn out to be trained habits and I go back to my basics and my inherent creative output which ends up being marred if I adopt new patterns. It is complex yet simple as it can be. The kind of paradox that we all have mixed feelings about I’m sure. When I think of what you say , I’ll take a common every day society issue with habits such as Cigarette smoking. It is constantly put into a new context by Media and Health corporations to diverge into a new pattern (Patches-gum-and E-cig) so this is base level manipulation and marketing combo. So then take that into a deeper context so I can understand how your statement is something that my be required.

      • robert42
        January 16, 2013 at 7:25 am

        “I go the opposite way”. That is an example of a new pattern to break an old one.

  2. Matt Moloney
    January 10, 2013 at 5:36 pm

    This was fantastic, a real eye-opener! Thanks fellas!

    Jose should perhaps consider putting an image of Bush Jr. reading the children’s book about the pet goat on 9/11 with the other “fatherly” images, it is an image we are all familiar with and now we know why he needed to present that image at that moment in history.

  3. Charles Frith
    January 11, 2013 at 1:29 am

    A fantastic interview. The last twelve months here have been high quality research, top notch discoveries and first rate stories of welcome intellectual disruption. Keep it up Jan.

  4. steve
    January 11, 2013 at 2:06 am

    Great show and like you said Jan it gels perfectly with Larkens’ work. “is that Edward Bernays” haha great call. AB-RA-CA-DAB-RA

    • oats tao
      January 16, 2013 at 12:30 am

      Funny coincidence, just as I read your last word – the same song came on the radio by Steve Miller . ha!

  5. david llewellyn foster
    January 11, 2013 at 5:27 am

    Thank you both, and to Jose in particular for this very neat presentation. Splendid work! A thoroughly agreeable conversation, admirable in every respect. Very enjoyable, both informed and immensely informative. No closure here, only opening to wider, deeper and ever more coherent contexts and themes. The explanatory unpacking, deconstruction and analysis are superb. Very impressive.
    I’ll only mention one point that Jose might have enlarged upon in his masterful summary, about the way society is organised and manipulated: that is the true meaning of the arcane expression “the Great Art.” He shows us exactly how what may be passed of as “good” and great magic(k,) is more often than not simply “bad magic,” not art at all but only artful sleight of hand (escamotage) & artifice; or perhaps even worse, fake “science.”
    Thanks guys, in any language.

    • robert42
      January 14, 2013 at 2:14 pm

      “is more often than not simply “bad magic,” not art at all but only artful sleight of hand”

      That estimate is your opinion, for which you offer no evidence. All that has been shown is that ritualistic magic has been used in mind control. The podcast did not even address, let alone prove, that it s, as you claim, mainly, let alone entirely, “sleight of hand.” Note that we’re not talking about a dichotomy: Something can be used as mind control while also being something more.

      On the other hand, if one at all concedes the reality of psi phenomena in any way (i.e., that the human mind can affect the world in ways not explainable by current physics), then combined with the obvious psychological power of magical rituals and symbology, one reasonably arrives at at least a position of not being sure that magic is not “real” despite the certain existence of charlatanry to cloud the picture.

      • david llewellyn foster
        January 14, 2013 at 6:48 pm

        You completely misunderstood this. The point is that this noble expression, the “Great Art,” is a way of inferring the legitimacy of “learned” or scholarly theurgy, whereas the manipulative abuse of arcane knowledge through the sophist appropriation of sacred symbols and their debasement, is what the MKUltra types and vulgar commercial exponents of cheap “sleight of hand” tom-foolery delight in.
        You can call it the folly of the Black Lodge if you want.

        • robert42
          January 15, 2013 at 7:18 am

          Well thanks for the clarification, which was absent from your original message; your original message implied that all that could ever be described as magical “is more often than not simply “bad magic,” not art at all but only artful sleight of hand”

  6. robert42
    January 11, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    It should be noted though that an explanation is not a definition. That is, coming up with an appealing model of something in no way proves that that is all it is. So, his previous discourse on the resemblance between the endocrine system and alchemy does not prove that alchemy is nothing but a metaphor for the endocrine system. At the risk of stating the obvious I just wanted to point that out, in case anyone at some future time was inclined to say “Alchemy? Oh, that’s the endocrine system. I heard this podcast that explained everything..”

    • david llewellyn foster
      January 11, 2013 at 6:46 pm

      robert42, you might like Noga Arikha’s work

      • robert42
        January 12, 2013 at 3:16 pm


        • david llewellyn foster
          January 14, 2013 at 6:37 pm


          • robert42
            January 15, 2013 at 7:12 am

            Supply a summary and I’ll tell you.

          • david llewellyn foster
            January 15, 2013 at 3:38 pm

            She summarised her research interest at Google Mountain View (in 2009) her book Passions and Tempers was based on her doctoral thesis Adam´s Spectacles: Nature, Mind and Body in the Age of Mechanism
            if you find this worth considering, she contributed to an
            episode of In Our Time about the Four Humours with Melvyn Bragg and guests on BBC Radio 4 (2007)
            her unpublished thesis is available here

          • robert42
            January 16, 2013 at 2:59 pm

            That’s about what I expected, the response of someone who is inattentive to the use of simple terms such as “summary.”

            Look, this is how it is: I would never do anything on your recommendation since you have proven to be incoherent more often than not, and therefore there is little reason to consider that any recommendation from you would be a wise investment of my time.

        • david llewellyn foster
          January 20, 2013 at 5:43 pm

          Your loss friend.

          • robert42
            January 22, 2013 at 5:58 am

            No, it’s my gain (of my precious time), fool.

          • david llewellyn foster
            January 22, 2013 at 6:15 am

            Are you really that stupid?

          • robert42
            January 22, 2013 at 4:38 pm

            I’m not so stupid as to go off on a likely wild goose chase at the behest of an evidently Eliza-machine-like troll devoid of intelligibility.

          • david llewellyn foster
            January 23, 2013 at 5:35 am

            robert42: “Eliza-machine-like troll devoid of intelligibility.”
            Is that supposed to refer to me or to N. Arikha, who is anything but a fool?
            You seem to delight in escalating potentially intelligent and constructive dialogue into potentially childish tit-for-tat trivialisations of the subject at hand.
            I have no problem with legitimate criticism and personally, I welcome any coherent response; but I take exception to your personal abuse, and obvious hostility that is quite unjustified, and neither dignifies you nor educates me.
            I have browsed back in the record to review some of your previous comments on the Mind Control discussion for example, that I found relevant and interesting. Others adopted responses that displayed unfriendly attitudes to you however, that I for one, cannot condone.
            Don’t you think we benefit more from “grown up” civil exchanges and intelligent observations rather than personalised insults?
            Moreover, what’s so unacceptable about an opinion? I am not a logic machine, I’m a human being with insights and perceptions that are shaped by a lifetime’s experience.
            Don’t you think it is important and legitimate to recognize our experiential diversity at the same time as respecting the coherence of our critical apparatus?

          • robert42
            January 24, 2013 at 9:53 am

            Amazing! You really are bereft of ordinary understanding, just like an automaton. You really don’t understand any part of “I have no interest in your opinion or recommendations, so fuck off and die.”

          • david llewellyn foster
            January 24, 2013 at 11:30 am

            Do you have some mental health issues?

  7. robert42
    January 11, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    Or as a modern mage said, the map is not the territory.

  8. Ryan Caron
    January 12, 2013 at 4:40 am

    This was great stuff.

    I think that alchemy and magic go hand in hand with entheogens.

    Jan, I would really like your opinion on how you think the elite have been secretly using entheogens for a long long time. I think it’s pretty obvious that they’ve been using these secret substances throughout history.

    • oats tao
      January 16, 2013 at 12:32 am

      That is not a new topic with Jan or others that have hung out at GnosticMedia. ;) Have you not listened to the past 6 years of archives? Suggested, some breadth of that topic covered.

  9. Paul Jaroszewski
    January 12, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    What a great start to the new year Jan! I’ve seen similar presentations from people like Mark Passio and Michael Tsarion, but Jose totally nailed it!

    These techniques of mind manipulation have been with humanity for thousands of years, only to be re-discovered by those who gain knowledge of the occult or can otherwise explicitly define and use these concepts in their own way. If I understand this correctly then it means that Freud and Jung did not develop anything new. They merely applied there own interpretations when they re-introduced these concepts to western civilization.

    • Jan Irvin
      January 13, 2013 at 2:02 pm

      Freud like Bernays were really just developing forms of manipulation. Freud’s greatest contribution was that he created a new form of hypnosis – putting on a white coat and getting people to tell him their darkest secrets – and a new form of intelligence gathering, er – psychology was born!

      John Bernays lurks here. Beware… he’s Edward’s nephew.

      • robert42
        January 14, 2013 at 4:01 pm

        And since Edward was Sigmund’s nephew, then John is The Man from U.N.C.L.E.*, squared. ;-)

        * “United Network Command for Law and Enforcement”

        • robert42
          January 14, 2013 at 4:18 pm

          What I mean is, Sigmund was the Great Uncle of mindfuck, at least according to Thomas Szasz, serving the interests of the ruling elite, diagnosing all those frustrated Viennese women as “hysterical,” amongst other things.

          It is also worth noting that Sigmund did a fair job himself of conjuring previously non-existent entities into existence: Ego, Id and Super Ego. A century of shrinks made a firtune off that stuff, and a century of literati nattered about it at their cocktail parties.

  10. david dureault
    January 13, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    The spell which captivates most and all who look to word is the biblical derived notion that “word is flesh” meaning it is truth. However it is only symbols upon a page.
    The Eng- leash which you are looking here upon is a construct, devised by scientific method, based on natural magic, and created using the techniques of the ancient mystery schools.
    Those Templar institutions with great architecture, closed doors, and “art official light” cast down upon the initiates through the glass stained in colors.
    When Sir Francis ba-con and the other men of letters at Grays inn created this word construct we utilize, they did so with the understanding of symbols and how they work.
    They were the “G”wizards and we are susceptible and influenced when we are accepting of the “G”, no longer are we the “O” whole and complete, reliant upon our sensory perceptions.
    Being under the spell of the “G” we are controlled by the “Angles” and the “Rules”, with “Grammar” but no one sees the “G” and the two “rams” which are any of various guided pieces for exerting pressure to force passage or acceptance of.
    The acceptance of the word is through the delusion of gifts or media of the three Magi.
    Oil (myrrh)
    Drugs (Frankincense)
    The common misconception of the origins of library go along way to maintaining this mythos.
    While the Europeans go to the Bibliotech to consume words North America visits the library, but fails to notice the only other “brar” is a rabbit, and a trickster at that.

    • david dureault
      January 14, 2013 at 3:30 am

      We are creatures of oral tradition, in that we use language to tell of our story. How we live in the world, and where we came from, painting a portrait not graphic, past down generation upon generation.
      The word has supplanted this tradition with cunning linguistics and fallacious interpretations, an abstract graphic of portrait to smear our knowledge of who we are, what we do to live in our world, when we arrived where we live, and instead of knowing inherently these things we now just have some time for why.

      • david dureault
        January 16, 2013 at 12:03 am

        THEY who have presumed to dogmatize on Nature, as on some well-investigated subject, either from self-conceit or arrogance, and in the professorial style, have inflicted the greatest injury on philosophy and learning. For they have tended to stifle and interrupt inquiry exactly in proportion as they have prevailed in bringing others to their opinion: and their own activity has not counterbalanced the mischief they have occasioned by corrupting and destroying that of others. They again who have entered upon a contrary course, and asserted that nothing whatever can be known, whether they have fallen into this opinion from their hatred of the ancient sophists, or from the hesitation of their minds, or from an exuberance of learning, have certainly adduced reasons for it which are by no means contemptible. They have not, however, derived their opinion from true sources, and, hurried on by their zeal, and some affectation, have certainly exceeded due moderation. But the more ancient Greeks (whose writings have perished) held a more prudent mean, between the arrogance of dogmatism, and the despair of skepticism; and though too frequently intermingling complaints and indignation at the difficulty of inquiry, and the obscurity of things, and champing, as it were, the bit, have still persisted in pressing their point, and pursuing their intercourse with nature: thinking, as it seems, that the better method was not to dispute upon the very point of the possibility of any thing being known, but to put it to the test of experience. Yet they themselves, by only employing the power of the understanding, have not adopted a fixed rule, but have laid their whole stress upon intense meditation, and a continual exercise and perpetual agitation of the mind.
        Francis Bacon, Novum Organum 1620

        • robert42
          January 16, 2013 at 7:26 am

          What are you talking about? Please be a bit more specific.

  11. Seth Wallace
    January 16, 2013 at 8:59 am

    Jan and Jose,

    Thank you for this remarkable presentation. What a start to the new year.

    Best Wishes,

  12. robert42
    January 17, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    I would be interested in Barrera’s take on the “Secrets in Plain Sight” video:

    It is a delight of either esoteric, monumental design, or surprising synchronicities. Many people went to an awful lot of effort to plant these geometric “Easter eggs” all over the place. Why, and is it mind-control in some way?

    • Jan Irvin
      January 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm

      Yes, I’ve had scott on my show. I’m pretty sure that Jose’s aware of it.

  13. dave greenfield
    January 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm

    I enjoyed this podcast, one of the best Ive heard. Nails being hit on the head again and again, I always find it reassuring how some people are able to independently arrive at similar conclusions.

    The BIG problem we have is that 90%+? of people aren’t even close to being able to think for themselves, I’m not a defeatist but this hurdle is why I think Larken Rose is in theory correct but idealistic in reality.

    I would love to know Jans opinions on Lucifer being the “light bearer” or bright star, how he teaches “we” or our masters I should say can become Gods through knowledge. This tale is old but it seems to be the path the elite are following what with the power of death, A Bombs, the power to create life through genetic engineering, space travel, and life extension technologies in the pipeline. How can a story so old seem to be playing out as if scripted.

    Was Lucifer an ancient alien, to me its the only explanation that seems not to contradict.

    As a side note as well as Albert Pikes references in Morals and Dogma, Obamas mentor Saul Alinsky dedicates his book Rules for Radicals to Lucifer. Iam Convinced the Elite wish themselves or their progeny to eventually become immortal through knowledge.

    Of course all this Occult stuff is supposed to be hidden so we shouldnt be looking at it lest we burn in hell, lol.

    Anyway thanks for the good work Jan

    • Jan Irvin
      January 26, 2013 at 9:47 am

      We already wrote on this in A&S 8 years ago.

      An alien?

      If you want to see the critical thinking you discuss above, start applying the trivium – to the left – and realize that such things as aliens and what not is not the thinking you were just talking about. The onus of proof always falls on the person making the claim, so you’d need to prove that Lucifer is not just light (Venus) and is not anything other than the corruption and irrationality and violation of natural law that it is. – Luc, lucy, etc, are all words that are derived from light, where as the dark is occulted. It’s a bit of sophist spin.

      If you rather understand Joe’s work on a deeper level, as well as understanding all of Joe Atwill’s work, you’ll understand that people write things down to play out their agendas… if you have one religious group that writes shit down, say the Levitical priests, then they would have their agenda there. Fast forward to Zionist and its racism and NWO and everything it hides behind and you have many of your answers.

      Obviously you have to be a Christian or a Jew to believe in Lucifer. You have to buy their version of the story.

      If you look up in any dictionary, you’ll see that Lucifer is just the planet Venus, so you’re conflating many different issues.

  14. robert42
    January 19, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Then again, Barrera is just another person with an opinion, and it doesn’t really matter. I’ll just have to consider the question myself.

  15. robert42
    January 20, 2013 at 12:30 am

    “He recently moved from New York back to South America, this time settling in Sao Paulo, Brazil.”

    I’m old enough to remember when the US was a great place to move to, and now it’s evidently a great place to move out of. How the mighty have fallen.

    • Adrian Sutton
      February 22, 2013 at 1:21 pm

      perhaps it lost it’s magic

  16. January 20, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    Cool presentation. Reminded me of a passage from Aleister Crowley’s Magick in Theory and Practice. There Crowley defines Magick as “the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will.” Jose unveils some of the ways in which people in government practice this science and art.

    Here’s the passage from Crowley, in which he illustrates his definition:

    “It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my knowledge. I therefore take ‘magical weapons’, pen, ink, and paper; I write ‘incantations’ — these sentences — in the ‘magical language’ i.e., that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth ‘spirits,’ such as printers, publishers, booksellers, and so forth, and constrain them to convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this book is thus an act of Magick.”

    Which is to say that there is not the mundane world of day-to-day activity and a separate dimension of occult forces and spirits. They are two appearances of the same thing.

  17. robert42
    January 21, 2013 at 11:37 am

    “Which is to say that there is not the mundane world of day-to-day activity and a separate dimension of occult forces and spirits. They are two appearances of the same thing.”

    There you go: someone I agree with.

  18. andreas aas
    January 28, 2013 at 5:00 am


    thank you for a thought-provoking podcast.
    been listening for some time, this podcast is amongst the most instructive i’ve encountered.

    made me think of a quote by Einstein;
    “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”

    must say that if one really reflects about the true meaning of our lives being to such a point “conjured”,,,
    it is quite scary ! (& makes me smoke,,,)

    If we, as a civilisation, already live in a “magic” setting, and seing all ancient artefacts turn up with writings in stone, is there any reason to believe that there ever was a civilisation that was NOT ruled by magic ?
    >or that change can occur by any other means than magic (albeit white) ?

    • david llewellyn foster
      February 8, 2013 at 7:34 am

      I think that is really the point of all this andreas, particularly if conscious intention as willed change is the accepted definition of rational theurgy.

      My question is, what would a (more advanced) civilisation actually be like, that was the authentic expression of educated ie learned “high magick” rather than the morally debased type of corrupt “PR” escamotage that seems to predominate at present.

      How would such a society organise itself?

      What kind of hierarchical systems do you think would emerge, or “holarchies” if you follow Wilber’s ideas (for example,) if our governing or determining systemics were based on open-source metaphysics and an ethical rule of law, that was genuinely representative of human and animal (ie “natural”) diversity?

  19. John Foamhead
    February 16, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Soooo, is he dead or something…?

    • Jan Irvin
      February 16, 2013 at 3:13 pm

      Nope. Just got a new system up.

Leave a Reply