Manufacturing the Deadhead: A Product of Social Engineering… by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin

Share

250px-LightningBoltSkull

Manufacturing the Deadhead:

A Product of Social Engineering...

By Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin

May 13, 2013

Version 3.7, May 17, 2013

  
Articles in this series:
1) R. Gordon Wasson: The Man, the Legend, the Myth. Beginning a New History of Magic Mushrooms, Ethnomycology,and the Psychedelic Revolution. By Jan Irvin, May 13, 2012
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. Some brief notes. By Jan Irvin, August 28, 2012
3) Manufacturing the Deadhead: A Product of Social Engineering, by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin, May 13, 2013
4) Entheogens: What’s in a Name? The Untold History of Psychedelic Spirituality, Social Control, and the CIA, by Jan Irvin, November 11, 2014
5) Spies in Academic Clothing: The Untold History of MKULTRA and the Counterculture – And How the Intelligence Community Misleads the 99%, by Jan Irvin, May 13, 2015
  

Introduction:
In 2012 Jan Irvin made an important discovery.  In the course of re-publishing The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross by the Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John Allegro,[1] Irvin had been researching the letters of one of Allegro’s most prominent critics, Gordon Wasson, at various university archives (including Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, and the Hoover Institute at Stanford) when he came across primary documents--letters actually written by Wasson--showing that he had worked with the CIA.[2]

Though Gordon Wasson was both chairman for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Vice President of Public Relations for J.P. Morgan Bank, he is most famous as the individual who “discovered,” or more accurately popularized, magic mushrooms. An article in Life magazine described fantastic visions and experiences Wasson claimed to have had while under their influence (see Life, May 13, 1957 – Seeking the Magic Mushroom). Wasson’s claims were the first description of the effects of psilocybin (“magic”) mushrooms presented to the general public.

Irvin saw troubling implications in his discovery. He was aware, of course, of the CIA’s infamous Project MK-ULTRA, in which the organization had given LSD to unsuspecting U.S. citizens. He also knew of the many conspiracy theories claiming that the government has been somehow involved with the creation of the “drug culture.”  He was also aware of Dave McGowan's research on the drug and music movement that had come out of Laurel Canyon in the 1960‘s, which showed that many of the “rock idols” who created it were the children of members of military intelligence.[3]

So the fact that a member of the CIA had also been involved with the discovery of Psilocybe mushrooms fit into a large collection of troubling linkages between the American government and the drug culture that emerged during the 1960’s. Irvin decided to do further research into the government's involvement with the “psychedelic movement”.  An obvious question he hoped to answer was: Had Wasson been somehow involved with MK-ULTRA?

During this research, Irvin came in contact with another scholar, Joe Atwill, author of Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Atwill’s research into the origins of Christianity had led him to conclude that Rome had invented the religion. Further, he believed that the Caesars had deliberately brought about the Dark Ages. They had used Christianity as a mind control device to give slavery a religious context intended to make it difficult for serfs to rebel.  Like Irvin, Atwill had become suspicious of the U.S. government’s many connections to the psychedelic movement, which reminded him of the Caesars’ intellectual debasing of their population to help bring on the Dark Ages.

When comparing the results of their research, Irvin and Atwill developed a theory about the origin of the psychedelic movement of the 1960’s: The “counterculture” had been developed by elements within the U.S. government and banking establishment as part of a larger plan to bring about a new Dark Age; or, as it was marketed to potential victims, an ‘archaic revival.’[4]

In 1992 Terence McKenna published in his book Archaic Revival:

These things are all part of the New Age, but I have abandon that term in favor of what I call the Archaic Revival—which places it all in a better historical perspective. When a culture loses its bearing, the traditional response is to go back in history to find the previous “anchoring model.” An example of this would be the breakup the medieval world at the time of the Renaissance. They had lost their compass, so they went back to Greek and Roman models and created classicism—Roman law, Greek aesthetics, and so on.[5] [emphasis added] ~ Terence McKenna

In another chapter regarding his timewave theory, he states:

Within the timewave a variety of “resonance points” are recognized. Resonance points can be thought of as areas of the wave that are graphically the same as the wave at some other point within the wave, yet differ from it through having different quantified values. For example, if we chose an end date or zero date of December 21, 2012 A.D., then we find that the time we are living through is in resonance with the late Roman times and the beginning of the Dark Ages in Europe.
Implicit in this theory of time is the notion that duration is like a tone in that one must assign a moment at which the damped oscillation is finally quenched and ceases. I chose the date December 21, 2012 A.D., as this point because with that assumption the wave seemed to be in the “best fit” configuration with regard to the recorded facts of the ebb and flow of historical advance into connectedness. Later I learned to my amazement that this same date, December 21, 2012, was the date assigned as the end of their calendrical cycle by the classic Maya, surely one of the world’s most time-obsessed cultures. [6]  ~ Terence McKenna

Notice that the date McKenna chose – 12-21-2012 – was earlier falsely claimed to be the date of the Apocalypse foreseen in the Mayan calendar by professor and CIA agent Michael Coe in his 1966 book The Maya[7], although it was changed by McKenna in 1993 from Coe’s 2011 date to December 21, 2012.[8] Moreover, McKenna sees this date as resonating with the beginning of the Dark Ages. If, as the authors believe, the psychedelic movement was part of a general plan to usher in a new Dark Age, this suggests that McKenna’s promotion of a drug-fueled “archaic revival” was also a part of the plan.

I guess am a soft Dark Ager. I think there will be a mild dark age. I don’t think it will be anything like the dark ages that lasted a thousand years […][9]
~ Terence McKenna

Most today assume that the CIA and the other intelligence-gathering organizations of the U.S. government are controlled by the democratic process. They therefore believe that MK-ULTRA’s role in creating the psychedelic movement was accidental “blowback.” Very few have even considered the possibility that the entire “counterculture” was social engineering planned to debase America’s culture – as the name implies. The authors believe, however, that there is compelling evidence that indicates that the psychedelic movement was deliberately created. The purpose of this plan was to establish a neo-feudalism by the debasing of the intellectual abilities of young people to make them as easy to control as the serfs of the Dark Ages. One accurate term used for the individuals who were victims of this debasing was "Deadhead," which is an equivocation for a "dead mind" or "a drugged, thoughtless person."

Aldous Huxley predicted that drugs would one day become a humane alternative to “flogging” for rulers wishing to control “recalcitrant subjects.” He wrote in a letter to his former student George Orwell in 1949:

But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.
Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. [emphasis added] [10]
~ Aldous Huxley

Decades later, one of the CIA’s own MK-ULTRA researchers, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, while citing Huxley had this to say on the matter:

The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or “no knock” entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations.
But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.
To a large extent the numerous rural and urban communes, which provide a great freedom for private drug use and where hallucinogens are widely used today, are actually subsidized by our society. Their perpetuation is aided by parental or other family remittances, welfare, and unemployment payments, and benign neglect by the police. In fact, it may be more convenient and perhaps even more economical to keep the growing numbers of chronic drug users (especially of the hallucinogens) fairly isolated and also out of the labor market, with its millions of unemployed. To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome--and less expensive--if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modes of expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent. […] The hallucinogens presently comprise a moderate but significant portion of the total drug problem in Western society. The foregoing may provide a certain frame of reference against which not only the social but also the clinical problems created by these drugs can be considered.[11]

~ Louis Jolyon West

The idea of drugs for control seems to be an ancient one. Italian professor Piero Camporesi, writing on Medieval Italy in his book Bread of Dreams, says:

Adulterated breads had been put into circulation by the untori of Public Health: criminal attacks orchestrated by the ‘provisionary judges’ who were supposed to oversee the well-balanced provisioning of the public-square.

On the 21st, a Sunday, with Monday approaching, Master … [blank in the manuscript] Forni, Judge of provisions in the square of Modena, was arrested, along with the bakers, for having had forty sacks of bay leaf ground to be put into the wheat flour to make bread for the square, where it caused the poverty to those who brought it to worsen, so that for two days there were many people sick enough to go crazy, and during this time they could not work or help their families.[12]

Camporesi later continues:

It would be wrong to suppose that one must wait for the arrival of eighteenth-century capitalism, or even of imperialism, in order to see the birth of the problem of the mass spreading of opium derivatives (first of morphine and then, today, of heroin) used to dampen the frenzy of the masses and lead them back – by means of dreams – to the ‘reason’ desired by the groups in power. The opium war against China, the Black Panthers ‘broken’ by drugs, and the ‘ebbing’ of the American and European student movements (supposing that hallucinogenic drugs were involved in the latter, as some believe), are the most commonly used examples – we don’t know with what relevance – to demonstrate how ‘advanced’ capitalism and imperialism have utilized mechanisms which induced collective dreaming and weakened the desire for renewal by means of visionary ‘trips’, in order to impose their will.

The pre-industrial age, too, even if in a more imprecise, rough and ‘natural’ manner, was aware of political strategies allied to medical culture, whether to lessen the pangs of hunger or to limit the turmoil in the streets. Certainly we could laugh at interventions which are so mild as to appear almost surreal, amateurish or improvised; but we must not forget that both in theory and in practice the ‘treatment of the poor man’, cared for with sedatives and hallucinogenic drugs, corresponded to a thought-out medico-political design.[13]
~ Piero Camporesi

A key element in the creation of America’s drug counterculture was “The Grateful Dead,” a rock band that passed out LSD to people attending its concerts in the 1960’s.  At their concerts listeners were encouraged to take LSD and to “tune in, turn on, and drop out.” An expression that instructed the LSD takers to abandon the modern world and join what McKenna coined the “archaic revival.”

There is a recording of Dr. Timothy Leary actually describing the retrograde culture that those who dropped out would participate in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKi4zoJPfFs. In this talk, Leary, Alan Watts, Alan Ginsberg, Gary Snyder and Allen Cohen describe how those that “tune in, turn on, drop out” would abandon modern culture and return to the status of a peasant.

It is important to note that marketing and PR expert Marshal McLuhan, who had a strong influence on Leary and later McKenna, is the one who actually developed the expression “Tune in, turn on, and drop out”:

In a 1988 interview with Neil Strauss, Leary stated that slogan was "given to him" by Marshall McLuhan during a lunch in New York City. Leary added that McLuhan "was very much interested in ideas and marketing, and he started singing something like, “Psychedelics hit the spot / Five hundred micrograms, that's a lot,” to the tune of a Pepsi commercial. Then he started going, “Tune in, turn on, and drop out.”[14]

It is also notable that two individuals associated with the Grateful Dead were once employees of the CIA’s MK-ULTRA program--band member and lyricist Robert Hunter [15], and author Ken Kesey[16] whose “Merry Pranksters” were often at the Grateful Dead shows promoting LSD use to the “Deadheads.” Kesey’s novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest promoted the archaic revival by concluding with a heroic American Indian escaping from modern tyranny and returning to a primitive culture. Furthermore, Grateful Dead song writer John Perry Barlow, in 2002, admitted in a Forbes magazine interview ironically titled “Why Spy?” that he spent time at CIA headquarters at Langley.[17]

MK-ULTRA ran a number of its operations near Haight-Ashbury, the San Francisco district where LSD would become commonly used. Declassified CIA records show that there were at least three CIA “safe houses” in the Bay Area where “experiments” – the giving of LSD to unsuspecting citizens - went on. This subproject of MK-ULTRA was code-named “Operation Midnight Climax.” Chief among Operation Midnight Climax’s  safe houses was the one at 225 Chestnut on Telegraph Hill, which operated from 1955 to 1965.

While the odd role that MK-ULTRA played in launching the psychedelic movement is well known, its involvement in bringing about another part of America’s descent into intellectual neo-feudalism is not. Incredibly, MK-ULTRA was also involved in bringing about the “New Age” quasi-religious movement, which debased the reasoning of anyone who succumbed to its philosophies.  Another progenitor of this movement, which believes in “channeling” and other fictional elements, was the book A Course in Miracles, written by two MK-ULTRA employees; William Thetford and Helen Schucman.[18] In the book the reader is asked to believe that Helen Schucman, a Jewish scientist hired by the CIA to study how to control the mind, was chosen by Jesus Christ to channel his current ideas to humanity.

At the same time the Grateful Dead was promoting LSD use in San Francisco, another music drug counterculture scene with many suspicious connections to military intelligence began promoting the drug to the young people attending the music clubs on the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles. The counterculture scenes in LA and San Francisco were part of a larger whole that included Britain and New York. The media gave the new music drug culture almost unlimited exposure, which reached its zenith with Life magazine’s coverage of the Woodstock music festival. Although Life presented Woodstock as three days of “Love and Understanding” it was in fact a culturally debased event – a true archaic revival - that featured drugged teenagers fornicating in the mud while their rock idols provided encouraging background music.

Many of the events that led up to the counterculture and Woodstock have been presented as accidental. For example, the string of occurrences that led to the publication of Life magazine’s cover story about Gordon Wasson’s experiences upon taking the psilocybin mushroom. Irvin has shown, however, in his paper Gordon Wasson: The Man, the Legend, the Myth, that there were too many contradictions in his story line for Wasson to have had the “chance meeting” with the editors of Life that led to the publication of the article:[19]

Wasson’s direct boss at J. P. Morgan was Henry P. Davison Jr. Davison was a senior partner and generally regarded as Morgan’s personal emissary.[20] As it turns out, it was Henry P. Davison who essentially created (or at least funded) the Time-Life magazines for J.P. Morgan in 1923. After a row with Henry Luce for publishing an article against the war for Britain in Life, Davison “became the company’s first investor in Time magazine and a company director.”[21]

Another J.P. Morgan partner, Dwight Morrow, also helped to finance the Time-Life start-up.

Davison kept Henry Luce in charge of the company as president, as he and Luce were both members of Yale’s Skull and Bones secret society, being initiated in 1920. In 1946 Davison and Luce then made C. D. Jackson, former head of U.S. Psychological Warfare, vice-president of Time-Life. It seems to me that the entire operation at Time-Life was purely for spreading propaganda to the American public for the purposes of the intelligence community, J.P. Morgan, and the elite. […]

Yet another Skull and Bonesman behind the establishment of Time-Life was Briton Hadden, who worked with Davison, Luce and Morrow in setting up the organization.  Hadden was also initiated into Skull and Bones in 1920. The list of Bonesmen that tie in directly to Wasson and his clique is astounding, and also includes people like Averell Harriman, initiated 1913, who worked with Wasson at the CFR[22], and was a director there.[23] […]

Documents also reveal that Luce was a member of the Century Club, an exclusive “art club” that Wasson had much ado with and may have held some position with, and which was filled with members of the intelligence and banking community.  Members such as George Kennan, Walter Lippmann and Frank Altschul appear to have been nominated to the Century Club by Wasson himself.[24] Graham Harvey in Shamanism says that Luce and Wasson were friends, and this is how he came to publish in Life:

A New York investment banker, Wasson was well acquainted with the movers and shakers of the Establishment. Therefore, it was natural that he should turn to his friend Henry Luce, publisher of Life, when he needed a public forum in which to announce his discoveries.[25]
~ Graham Harvey

[…] However, the most common version of the story is the one told by Time magazine in 2007:

Wasson and his buddy's mushroom trip might have been lost to history, but he was so enraptured by the experience that on his return to New York, he kept talking about it to friends. As Jay Stevens recalls in his 1987 book Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream, one day during lunch at the Century Club, an editor at Time Inc. (the parent company of TIME) overheard Wasson's tale of adventure. The editor commissioned a first-person narrative for Life.

[…] Since this article was written in the post-Luce and Jackson age, the author was a little more candid about the Wasson/Luce/J.P. Morgan/psychedelic revolution connections:

After Wasson's article was published, many people sought out mushrooms and the other big hallucinogen of the day, LSD. (In 1958, Time Inc. cofounder Henry Luce and his wife Clare Booth Luce dropped acid with a psychiatrist. Henry Luce conducted an imaginary symphony during his trip, according to Storming Heaven.) The most important person to discover drugs through the Life piece was Timothy Leary himself. Leary had never used drugs, but a friend recommended the article to him, and Leary eventually traveled to Mexico to take mushrooms. Within a few years, he had launched his crusade for America to "turn on, tune in, drop out." In other words, you can draw a woozy but vivid line from the sedate offices of J.P. Morgan and Time Inc. in the '50s to Haight-Ashbury in the '60s to a zillion drug-rehab centers in the '70s. Long, strange trip indeed.[26]

In The Sacred Mushroom Seeker, a third version of this story was told by Allan Richardson:

Sometime just before or soon after our return from the ’56 expedition, Gordon and I were dining at the Century Club in New York. He noticed Ed Thompson, the managing editor of Life magazine, alone at a table nearby, and asked him to join us. We talked about the article Gordon was working on to publicize what he’d discovered in Mexico. Thompson said Life might be interested in publishing it, and invited us to make a presentation at his offices.
~ Allan Richardson

As we noted above, nowhere do these accounts mention Valentina’s write-up of her and Gordon Wasson’s mushroom experiences in This Week magazine, which was released that same week (May 19, 1957) to 12 million newspaper subscribers. Also coincidently, This Week was published by Joseph P. Knapp, who was a director of Morgan’s Guarantee Trust, where Wasson had begun working for Morgan in 1928.  If Wasson’s claim that the publication of the Life article was the result of a chance meeting, how had it come to pass that Valentina’s parallel article was published in the same week?

In light of the above, the idea that Wasson published his “Seeking the Magic Mushroom” article in May, 1957, in Life, due to a “chance meeting with an editor” seems ridiculous. In fact, Abbie Hoffman is quoted as saying that Luce did more to popularize LSD than Timothy Leary (who first learned of mushrooms through Wasson’s Life article). Luce’s own wife, Clare Boothe Luce, who was a member of the CFR, agreed:

I’ve always maintained that Henry Luce did more to popularize acid than Timothy Leary. Years later I met Clare Boothe Luce at the Republican convention in Miami. She did not disagree with this opinion. America’s version of the Dragon Lady caressed my arm, fluttered her eyes and cooed, “We wouldn’t want everyone doing too much of a good thing.”[27]
~ Abbie Hoffman

If one compares the culture of Woodstock and the music drug scene of the 1960s with that of America at the beginning of the century, a number of distinct differences are visible:

1. Overt sexual images in the popular media (pornography)
2. Wildly uninhibited dancing
3. music idols
4. feminism
5. integration
6. psychedelic drug use

Culture normally changes slowly and for many reasons, and the 60’s American drug counter culture was certainly a long time in the making. But, incredibly, most of the events that led to it can be traced back to two men: Gordon Wasson and his close friend Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda. Given Bernays’ background and political perspective, his role in bringing about the drug culture is highly suspicious.

Bernays wrote what can be seen as a virtual Mission Statement for anyone wishing to bring about a “counterculture.” In the opening paragraph of his book Propaganda he wrote:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.[28]

Bernays’ family background made him well suited to “control the public mind.” He was the double nephew of Jewish psychoanalysis pioneer Sigmund Freud. His mother was Freud's sister Anna, and his father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud's wife Martha Bernays.

When considering his influence on his nephew, it is important to bear in mind that though Freud is famous for his theories of individual psychoanalysis, he and the group that surrounded him developed the first theories concerning how to “pull the wires which control the public mind.” Among the key members of the Freudian psychoanalysis movement in England, most of whom were associated with the Tavistock Institute, were Gustave Le Bon, the originator of the term “crowd psychology”[29]; Wilfred Trotter, who promoted similar ideas in his book Instincts of the Herd in War and Peace[30]; and Ernest Jones, who  developed the field of Group Dynamics.[31] Bernays refers to all of these theorists in crowd control in his writings.

Crowds are somewhat like the sphinx of ancient fable: It is necessary to arrive at a solution of the problems offered by their psychology or to resign ourselves to being devoured by them.[32]
~ Gustave Le Bon

Freud often pointed out the positive effects of sublimation. In other words, that in order to maintain civilization, individuals needed to sublimate many sexual and violent urges. For example, Freud cited the need for males to sublimate what he named the Oedipal Complex, which he claimed was the innate desire of young males to kill their fathers in order to have intercourse with their mothers.

Certainly Bernays knew of Freud’s theories on civilization’s requirement for sublimation, as he constantly promoted his uncle’s work. Therefore, the fact that Bernays helped bring about so many of the destructive elements that led to the music/drug counterculture in the 1960s demands an explanation.

Prima facie it seems that Bernays used his uncle’s insights to deliberately break down the structure of American civilization. To understand this requires recognizing that none of the elements of the counterculture of the 1960’s described above occurred without some prior events that shifted culture and made them permissible. This is self-evident because anyone acting like a “Deadhead” in 1920 would have been arrested. All of the aspects of the counterculture had been preceded by events that led to the subtle cultural shifts that permitted the public to accept them. And Edward Bernays was at the root of these cultural shifts.

  • 1. Overt sexual images in the popular media 

In 1913 Bernays was hired to protect a play that supported sex education against police interference. Typically, Bernays set up a fictitious front group called the "Medical Review of Reviews Sociological Fund" (officially concerned with fighting venereal disease) for the purpose of endorsing the play and intimidating critics. When reviewing the play the New York Times glowed: “It is ‘sex’ o clock in America.”

  • 2. Uninhibited dancing

Bernays produced the performances of Vaslav Nijinsky, who mimed masturbation onstage, causing an outrage and sometimes actual riots. “The whole country was discussing the ballet,” Bernays wrote. “The ballet liberated American dance and, through it, the American spirit. It fostered a more tolerant view toward sex; it changed our music and our appreciation of it... The ballet scenarios made modern art more palatable; color assumed new importance. It was a turning point in the appreciation of the arts in the United States. ”

An example of how the elements Bernays introduced would eventually blossom into the counter culture is Jim Morrison of “The Doors” (named after Aldous Huxley’s book The Doors of Perception). Morrison performed the same on-stage miming of masturbation that Nijinsky had but to a far larger audience. To further debase his listeners, Morrison sang about a young man acting out Freud’s Oedipus complex in “The End,” an ode to an apocalypse of a culture where “all the children are insane”:

The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hall
He went into the room where his sister lived, and...then he
Paid a visit to his brother, and then he
He walked on down the hall, and
And he came to a door...and he looked inside
Father, yes son, I want to kill you
Mother...I want to...WAAAAAA

While Morrison sang about a young man acting out the Oedipus complex, another culturally debasing activity was taking place right in front of him. Uninhibited “freak” dancing was part of the counterculture’s promotion of drug use and appeared on the Sunset Strip music clubs at the same time that LSD did. Freak dancing, as it was called, was introduced through the efforts of Vito Paulekas. Notice in the following video clip that though Paulekas seems to be dismissing LSD, he actually provides a number of reasons for taking it. At the end of the clip his wife Szou, who seems to be a victim of mind control, cites Vito’s belief that people learn from those younger than themselves and that she has learned from her child, obviously a culturally destructive pattern of learning. Moreover, she claims at the end of the clip that LSD is a “military plot.” This begs the question of how someone who appears mentally deficient came up with this idea.

“[LSD] it’s a military plot” http://youtu.be/VPrc4kzZSM0

*Note: the cited video has been repeatedly removed from Youtube since we posted this article. For educational purposes, the audio is reposted in Gnostic Media's exclusive interview with Szou Paulekas:

- and we also post the video here and encourage everyone to download it so that it doesn't disappear: www.gnosticmedia.com/videos/Vito_Szou-WhickersWorld_TheSummerofLove.mp4

People who are loaded behind that kind of thing don’t do anything. This heavy kind of insistence everyplace you go with all the media about “Wow, look at the colors, look at the lights, look at the strobe things blinking! Man, you can really find a trip if you get loaded behind this stuff.” There’s a lot of that kind of thing insisting that we become aware of it, that we become sensitive to it. And a lot of the young people are sensitive to it, and they become curious about it. So they say “Which of it is bad?”, and I say “Man, all of it’s bad”. […] “I’m just going to get wiped out and I’m going to stay wiped out baby, and nothing’s going to get through to me.”
~ Vito Paulekas

The following video clip of Vito’s freak dancers shows that their dancing obviously led people into LSD use, a fact that he could not have been unaware of.

“Vito’s Freak Dancers” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVIO5k6U46o

Vito made sure that his freak dancers attended the shows of the fledgling rock idols to assist the LSD promoting bands of Laurel Canyon to become as popular as the Beatles.

Vito was in his fifties, but he had four-way sex with goddesses … He held these clay-sculpting classes on Laurel Avenue, teaching rich Beverly Hills dowagers how to sculpt. And that was the Byrds’ rehearsal room. Then Jim Dickson had the idea to put them on at Ciro’s, on the basis that all the freaks would show up and the Byrds would be their Beatles.
~ Kim Fowley http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr98.html

  • 3. Music Idols

Bernays wrote: Human beings need to have godhead symbols, and public relations counsels must help to create them.”[33] Bernays saw his idol-making as vital to the salvation of society: We have no being in the air to watch over us. We must watch over ourselves, and that is where public relations counselors can prove their effectiveness, by making the public believe that human gods are watching over us for our own benefit.” These human gods, created by astute public relations, would keep order by giving their followers reasons to live and goals to accomplish.

Bernays manufactured the public's adoration of Enrico Caruso, who is often called the first American pop star.  Bernays wrote: “The overwhelming majority of the people who reacted so spontaneously to Caruso had never heard him before.”  “The public's ability to create its own heroes from wisps of impressions and its own imagination and to build them almost into flesh-and-blood gods fascinated me. Of course, I knew the ancient Greeks and other early civilized peoples had done this. But now it was happening before my eyes in contemporary America.”[34]

In his 1980 interview in Playboy magazine John Lennon also claimed that the military and the CIA created LSD, though this did not stop him from encouraging its use:

We must always remember to thank the CIA and the Army for LSD. That's what people forget. Everything is the opposite of what it is, isn't it, Harry? So get out the bottle, boy -- and relax. They invented LSD to control people and what they did was give us freedom.

In light of the discovery that the CIA funded Gordon Wasson’s trip to Mexico, Lennon’s comments begs the question as to how he came to his understanding about the CIA popularizing LSD, and raises additional questions about his assassination.

The research of David McGowan has shown that the connections between military intelligence and the music idols that promoted drug use to America’s youth were too numerous to have been accidental. Among the many examples, Frank Zappa was the son of a specialist in chemical warfare. Jim Morrison’s father was Admiral Morrison, the same Admiral Morrison who oversaw the false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident that launched the Vietnam War that was genocide against the Vietnamese, and killed tens of thousands of American boys. Other rock idols with direct connections to the military included the Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, the Mamas and the Papas, the Grateful Dead and the Police.

The father of Police band member Stewart Copeland was the founder of the Office of Strategic Service (OSS), the precursor to the CIA, and he also co-founded the CIA. Ian Copeland, Stewart’s brother, went on to start the “New Wave” music movement, promoting bands such as his brother’s The Police, and also Squeeze, B-52s, The Cure, Simple Minds, The English Beat, and The Go-Go’s. David McGowan also pointed out that Ian Copeland deliberately associated government power with the pop music counterculture by the names he gave his organizations: “I.R.S. Records,” the band “The Police,” and his “F.B.I.” talent agency. [35]

We would note that this is just a small part of McGowan’s research and hope that our readers study his work.

Many of the so-called leaders and pioneers of psychedelic research became media idols: Gordon Wasson, Terence McKenna, and Timothy Leary have been virtually worshipped as gurus or gods. It is of note that two professors: one who taught at Harvard and wishes to remain anonymous, and Prof. Bart Dean who studied there, have informed Irvin that, aside from the Wasson library, there is actually a chapel at Harvard dedicated to Wasson worship.

Ironically, as this article was being written, a new book of this genre was being published: Albert Hofmann: LSD and the Divine Scientist.

Though like many of those associated with the origins of the psychedelic movement, Albert Hofmann is called “divine,” evidence has come to light which exposes him as both a CIA and French Intelligence operative.  Hofmann helped the agency dose the French village Pont Saint Esprit with LSD.  As a result five people died and Hofmann helped to cover up the crime. The LSD event at Pont Saint Esprit led to the famous murder of Frank Olson by the CIA because he had threatened to go public. It was the exposure of Olson’s murder and his involvement with the MK-ULTRA program that caused the national uproar leading to the Church Commission.[36]

Incredibly, a paper to be published in Time and Mind this July by English researcher Alan Piper shows that LSD was known about years before Albert Hofmann supposedly “invented” it on 16 November 1938 (Hofmann claims to have not been aware of LSD’s properties until 16 April 1943). Piper has noted that in 1933 Jewish author Leo Perutz wrote the novel Saint Peter’s Snow, wherein a new drug made from a fungus from wheat is secretly tested and used in a failed attempt to bring about a return of religious beliefs and return a Roman Emperor to his throne, with a priest who warns that it’s instead the worship of Molech. Rather than a return of Christian belief, the book ends in a communist rebellion. The relationship between psychedelics and communist or socialist political leanings is not uncommon and should be noted. Piper sees the parallelism between Perutz’s psychedelic drug and LSD as an unsolved mystery, but provides cultural historical background to the conception of the novel and the scientific study of ergot. The authors maintain that in light of the evidence showing that the psychedelic movement was part of a multi-generational plan, Perutz’s book clearly shows an awareness of that agenda. It’s ironic too that Perutz chooses the name of St Peter’s Snow for the title of the book from the following quote, as it states on page 93 that “in the Alps it was called St Peter’s Snow” and of course the Alps are primarily in Switzerland – where Hofmann supposedly invented the drug:

A few months later I came across the incomparably more important testimony of Dionysus the Areopagite, a fourth-century Christian Neo-Platonist, who states in one of his works that he imposed a two-day fast on the members of his community, who longed for the real presence of God, and he then regaled them with “bread made with holy flour.” […]

I came across an ancient Roman rural priests’ song, a solemn invocation of Marmar or Mavor, who at that time was not yet the bloodthirsty god of war but the peaceful protector of the fields. ‘Let your white frost invade the crop so that they acknowledge thy power,’ it said. Like all priests, Roman rural priests knew the secret of the hallucinogenic drug that produces a state of ecstasy in which people ‘become seeing’ and ‘acknowledge the power of the god’. The white frost was not a kind of wheat, but a wheat disease, a parasite, a fungus that invaded the wheat and fed on its substance.” […]

“There are many kinds of parasitic fungi,” the baron went on, “the ascomycetes, the phycomycetes, and the basidiomycetes. In his Synopsis Fungorum Bargin describes more than a hundred varieties, and nowadays his work is regarded as out-of-date. But among that hundred I had identified the only one that produces ecstatic effects when it is introduced into human food and thus finds its way into the human organism.” […]

There is – or was – a wheat disease that was often described in earlier centuries and was known by a different name wherever it appeared. In Spain it was called Mary Magdalene’s Plait, in Alsace it was known as Poor Soul’s Dew. In Adam of Cremona’s Physician’s Book it was called Misericord Seed, and in the Alps it was called St Peter’s Snow.[37]

The book continues later on with the same theme we’re discussing here, where two of the main characters of the plot argue over whether they should test the drug on themselves:

I did not at first realize that she was talking about the baron. “I’ve been quarrelling with him,” she went on. “A very serious quarrel. With whom? The baron, of course, about the hallucinogen. He maintained that we two, he and I, should not take it, but I disagreed. We were the leaders, he said, we must remain clear-headed and dispassionate and be above things, our task was to lead and not be carried away. That’s what the quarrel was about. I said that being above it meant being out of it, and just because he was the leader he must feel and think what the crowd thought and felt.[…]” [38]

Later in the story we discover that the woman, Bibiche, who created and tried the drug, is the one who headed the communist rebellion.

  • 4. Feminism

In the 1920s, working for the American Tobacco Company, Bernays sent a group of young models to march in the New York City parade. He then told the press that a group of “women’s rights marchers” would light “Torches of Freedom.” On his signal, the models lit Lucky Strike cigarettes in front of the eager photographers. The New York Times (1 April 1929) printed: "Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of “Freedom.”

The study of the origins of feminism itself is an important one. A semi-anonymous Canadian researcher and author, Karen, who calls herself “Girl Writes What,” has spent the last several years investigating the history and origins of feminism, and found, like the ‘psychedelic movement’ many of the claims concerning its foundations are fraudulent.[39]

  • 5. Integration

1920 Bernays produced the first NAACP convention in Atlanta, Georgia. His campaign was considered successful simply because there was no violence at the convention. Bernays focused on the important contributions of African Americans to Whites living in the South. He later received an award from the NAACP for his contribution. During this decade he also handled publicity for the NAACP.

Though this is an obviously sensitive issue, it must be remembered that at the beginning of the twentieth century rock and roll was almost strictly African-American music. If Bernays saw that music as helping to release sexual restrictions, integration would have been useful. Moreover, since they were emerging from slavery, the culture of African Americans in the 19th century was much closer to the archaic revival promoted by the creators of the counterculture than that of white America. Thus, Bernays’ promotion of integration was likely an attempt to debase the culture of white America, rather than uplift African Americans.

  • 6. Psychedelic drugs

Though Bernays is not known to have overtly promoted LSD, as noted above, he did assist in establishing smoking tobacco as a socially desirable act, thereby seeding the ground for other drug use. Moreover, Bernays created the propaganda that enabled a destructive drug to be accepted by the American public - the PR campaign that fooled the country into believing that water fluoridation was safe and beneficial to human health. As Health Freedom News related:

The wide-scale U.S. acceptance of fluoride-related compounds in drinking water and a wide variety of consumer products over the past half century is a textbook case of social engineering orchestrated by Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the “father of public relations” Edward L. Bernays. The episode is instructive, for it suggests that tremendous capacity of powerful interests to reshape the social environment, thereby prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways that are often harmful to themselves and their loved ones. […]

In fact, sodium fluoride is a dangerous poison and has been a primary active ingredient in a wide variety of insecticides and fungicides. The substance bioaccumulates in mammals, has been linked to dulled intellect in children, and is a cause of increased bone fractures and osteosarcoma.[…]

In the 1930s, Edward Bernays was public-relations adviser to the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). Alcoa’s principal attorney, Oscar Ewing, went on to serve in the Truman administration from 1947 to 1952 as head of the Federal Security Agency, of which the Public Health Service was a part. In that capacity, Ewing authorized water fluoridation for the entire country in 1950 and enlisted Bernays’ services to promote water fluoridation to the public.

Bernays recalled the fluoridation campaign in which he was involved as merely another assignment. “The PR wizard specialized in promoting new ideas and products to the public by stressing a claimed health benefit.” […]

One such approach to prompting public opinion involved correspondence from the City’s Health Department to the presidents of the NBC and CBS television networks, informing them “that debating fluoridation is like presenting two sides for anti-Catholicism or anti-Semitism and therefore not in the public interest.” Another method involved laying the ground work for making fluoridation a house-hold term with a scientific patina. He advised his clients to send letters to the editors of leading publications discussing what the specific aspects of fluoridation required. “We would put out the definition first to the editors of important newspapers,” Bernays recalled. “Then we would send a letter to publishers of dictionaries and encyclopedias. After six or eight months we would find the world fluoridation was published and defined in the dictionaries and encyclopedias.”

In 1957, the Committee to Protect Our Children’s Teeth suddenly emerged to tout fluoridation with several celebrity figures on its roster…[40]~ James F. Tracy

But the most direct connection between Bernays and the psychedelic movement is that he was a close friend, adviser and promoter of the above-mentioned Gordon Wasson – the so-called discoverer of magic mushrooms.  Bernays wrote:

Gordon Wasson was one of those newspapermen who consciously or unconsciously recognized the implications of the contacts he made in that capacity. He found these contacts important, outstanding. This led to other places and other things. In the New York Tribune financial department he had made contact with the house on the corner, Broad and Wall – J. P. Morgan. Then he had given up newspaper work and become associated with the home [Morgan’s “house on the corner”]. First he was in the publicity department. When Martin Eagen died, he assumed the function of publicity man with J. Pierpont Morgan. He was highly respected by his own people. He was intelligent, smooth. His mind was a highly, splendidly geared functioning mechanism. […] Wasson made it his business and he got pleasure out of it too, of associating with a broad segment of society. This was not unimportant in maintaining contacts for the house on the corner [Broad and Wall – J.P. Morgan], with the rest of the world.

Not until long after I knew him did I find out in [Prof. Raymond] Moley’s book “The First Seven Years” [sic] published in 1939, a reference to Gordon Wasson. Moley wrote a memo in 1934 and made recommendations for the Stock Exchange Commission membership. Next to Gordon Wasson, whom he recommended, he added, “a resident of New Jersey, handled foreign securities for Guaranty Company, has acted a liaison between Wall Street and Landis, Cohen and Corcoran because his friendship with them was known downtown. Knows security business and the Act thoroughly having helped in its drafting, very well-liked by treasury and commerce, would certainly be recommended by the Guaranty and Stock Exchange and therefore would be acceptable to Wall Street. I saw Wasson very often between 1934 and ’44[…].[41]
~ Edward Bernays

An example of Bernays’ influence on Wasson is Wasson’s article of September 26, 1970 in the New York Times, wherein Wasson claimed to feel remorse regarding the reports of “hippies, psychopaths and adventurers and pseudo-research workers” that had descended on Huautla de Jimenez in Oaxaca, Mexico to take magic mushrooms:

Huautla, when I first knew it as a humble out-of-the-way Indian village, has become a true mecca for hippies, psychopaths, adventurers, pseudo-research workers, the miscellaneous crew of our society’s drop-outs. The old ways are dead and I fear that my responsibility is heavy, mine and Maria Sabina’s. […]

As for me, what have I done? I made a cultural discovery of importance. Should I have suppressed it? It has led to further discoveries the reach of which remains to be seen. Should these further discoveries have remained stultified by my unwillingness to reveal the secret of the Indians’ hallucinogens?

Yet what I have done gives me nightmares: I have unleashed on lovely Huautla a torrent of commercial exploitation of the vilest kind. Now the mushrooms are exposed for sale everywhere—in every market-place, in every village doorway. Everyone offers his services as a “priest” of the rite, even the politicos. […] The whole of the countryside is agog with the furtive movements of hippies, the comings and goings of the “federalistas,” the Dogberries with their blundering efforts to root them out. [42]
~ R. Gordon Wasson

However, in a later letter to Bertram Wolfe that was found at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, Wasson remarks:

October 13, 1970:

Dear Mr. Wolfe: [...] Do you remember your last letter to me? I was asking you where Tolstoy had said the printing press was a mighty engine for disseminating ignorance. This Mazatec affair is a case in point. [emphasis added][43]
~ R. Gordon Wasson

We can be certain now that Wasson was engaging in a Bernays-style misdirection to hide the truth with his claim to be sorry that he had ruined “lovely Huautla.” Within the trove of documents made public by the CIA on MK-ULTRA are some brought to the attention of Jan Irvin by MK-ULTRA expert Dr. Colin Ross. These documents prove that Wasson’s journey had been financed by the infamous organization. In other words, the resulting magazine articles from Life and This Week, cited above, were describing an operation funded by the CIA’s MK-ULTRA Subproject 58. These documents will be analyzed in a separate article but show that Wasson lied to conceal his agenda.

For brevity we’ll only include three of the CIA letters here. Other documents include financial information for the camera and recording equipment, a note stating that J.P. Morgan Bank and the National Philosophical Society were the subcontractors, and letters from Wasson requesting MK-ULTRA reimburse his expenses for his trips to gather hallucinogenic mushrooms, and several letters between Wasson and Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA, in the weeks before the Life magazine article was published – including an invitation from Dulles to Wasson to come and visit him.

February 8, 1956

Attention, Dr. [redacted – Sidney Gottlieb or Charles Geschickter?]

Dear Sirs,

Over recent months, as Dr. [redacted] will inform you, I have had conversations with him and Dr. [redacted – James Moore?] of the [redacted – Geschickter fund?] concerning certain pioneering inquiries that we are [unintelligible] hallucinatory fungi used by some of the more remote [redacted – Mexican Indian cultures] in association with their indigenous religious practices.

I am planning a fourth expedition to the mountains in the [redacted – Oaxaca region of Mexico] for July. I should like to hope that the expenses involved with this expedition would be borne by a [redacted - fund?] in the medical aspects of the research. With this in mind, I take the liberty of applying to you by this letter for a grand-in-aid of $2000 for the purpose of gathering the specimens in the field, identification thereof, their conservation either in liquor or in the dry state, and their conveyance to [redacted – CIA or Albert Hofmann?].

For your further information, Professor [redacted – Roger Heim], leading [redacted - French] mycologist and Director of the [redacted – Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle] has committed himself to accompany us on this trip. His great experience in mycology generally and in tropical mycology in particular will be of very great value to us. In order that we may plan accordingly, I should hope that your decision on this matter could be communicated to me before too long. I am leaving for a trip to [redacted - Europe] at the end of March to be gone for two months, and before my departure for [redacted - Huautla de Jimenez, Oaxaca, Mexico] I should like to settle on all details concerning the equipment we shall take and the personnel of our expedition.
I remain Respectfully Yours

Gordon Wasson [name redacted in the original]

The following letters show exactly how close DCI Dulles was to Wasson. Obviously, as the head of the CIA Dulles would have known of and, as subproject 58 documents reveal, actually approved the secret agenda of MK-ULTRA’s “subproject 58” – the promoting of psychedelic drugs to America’s youth.

21 March 1956

MK-ULTRA [unreadable]: COMPTROLLER
ATTENTION: Finance Division
SUBJECT: MK-ULTRA, Subproject 58

Under the authority granted in the Memoranda dated 13 April 1953 from the DCI to the DD/2, and the extension of this authority in subsequent memoranda, Subproject 58 has been approved, and $2,000.00 of the over-all Project MK-ULTRA funds has been obligated to cover the subproject’s expenses and should be charged to Allotment 6-2502-10-001.

[redacted – Acting Chief] TSS/Chemical Division
APPROVED FOR OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.
Research Director [redacted] Date: [redacted]

3 April 1957

Dear Gordon:

It was a great pleasure to write a letter of recommendation on behalf of my good friend, Ellsworth Bunker, to the Century Association. I enclose a copy. It was good to hear from you. Let me know if you are in Washington.
~ Allen Dulles[44]

An example of how Wasson’s activities for the CIA have been kept hidden is the work of MK-ULTRA “expert” and author Hank Albarelli, a former lawyer for the Carter administration and Whitehouse who also worked for the Treasury Department. Though Albarelli presents himself to the public as a MK-ULTRA ‘whistleblower’, he apparently attempted to derail Irvin’s investigation into Gordon Wasson. Over a 3-year period – which Irvin has carefully documented – Albarelli pretended to help Irvin file CIA FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. During this period Albarelli repeatedly claimed that the FOIA requests had come back empty, or that the Agency had not responded and had not yet filled the FOIA requests. Albarelli’s claims were untrue. The agency had filled separate FOIA that Irvin had filed on Wasson in just 90 days.

Though several pages on Wasson were released to FOIA requests by the CIA in 2003, eventually Albarelli sent a fake CIA response to Irvin, wherein Albarelli stated that the CIA’s response was: “0 on Wasson. “All pages most likely destroyed in 1973 MK/ULTRA destruction of documents.”” Then, after his many claims that the FOIA request hadn’t yet been filled by the CIA, Albarelli changed his story and claimed that the delay was due to the fact that he had never filed it, even though Irvin maintained numerous email records where Albarelli had claimed to have done so. Suspicious, Irvin filed his own FOIA request with the CIA, which was promptly filled by the Agency and exposed Albarelli’s cover story as, apparently, a fabrication intended to slow Irvin’s research. Here are just a few of the conversations regarding the matter that Irvin recorded:

On February 16, 2010, Irvin wrote:

Hi Hank,

Question, would you be willing to help me do a FOIA request on Wasson? I have no idea where to begin or who to send it to. I've looked a few times and it all was so intimidating for me - which is what they want I suppose. But that seems the best way to get to the core of this issue.

Best,
Jan

On February 16, 2010, Albarelli replied:

Sure. The first thing we need is an obit on Wasson from a major newspaper like the NYT's. After that, I can do the rest for you.

On May 04, 2010, Albarelli wrote:

0 on Wasson. All pages most likely "destroyed in 1973 MK/ULTRA destruction of documents."

On Oct 22, 2010, Irvin wrote:

I also asked if you would send me the CIA FOIA response so that I have it in my Wasson records?

On Oct 22, 2010, Albarelli replied:

[Y]ou can't without my revealing all those other files/documents/subjects I requested and I have no intention of doing that... that simply was not part of our arrangement which is a bit one-sided thus far...

On July 04, 2011, Albarelli, contradicting his email of May 04, 2010, claims:

[Y]ou need to read more carefully-- FOIAs have NOT been answered: these [are] the refiled FOIAs.

I will share nothing with you that does not involve your writings or work...

[…] Please do not keep bothering me with this stuff... I do not share your interest in Wasson: I don't care if he worked for the CIA; I am only interested in Pont St. Esprit and the French use of LSD, matters you know nothing about as far as I know.

On February 22, 2013 Albarelli wrote:

Huxley and MK/ULTRA: a pipe-dream on your part. Wasson was not CIA. I challenge you to document that.
[...] 90 days for a neophyte filing, but look at what you got in response; documents that were released 25 years ago.
[...] I did NOT file a FOIA for you because I did NOT want to be associated with you in any way.

During the above conversation on February 22, 2013, Albarelli threw insult after insult at Irvin and refused to answer any direct questions. Though Albarelli claims that he did not want to be associated with Irvin in any way, after the above emails regarding the FOIAs and requesting his help, Albarelli did a full interview on Irvin’s podcast show to promote his book A Terrible Mistake, and he also agreed to publish this interview in print and did the editing of the interview himself. Albarelli accuses  Irvin for being a neophyte for getting a response from the CIA in 90 days, but from the above February 16, and May 04, 2010 missives, it’s clear that Albarelli too received the response from the CIA within 90 days. Albarelli also claimed that the files had been released 25 years ago, when they had actually been released on 5/5/2003 – 6 years and 9 months before Irvin’s first request to Albarelli for help. When Albarelli claims: “you can't without my revealing all those other files/documents/subjects I requested,” in fact the CIA answers each FOIA request individually by postal mail.

Between the CIA FOIA request documents that Albarelli apparently attempted to withhold from Irvin, and also the CIA documents from MK-ULTRA subproject 58, it’s quite easy to document that Wasson was involved with the CIA and MK-ULTRA – as we’ve already revealed above.

In our opinion, in light of the above and the documents showing that MK-ULTRA funded Wasson, Albarelli’s description of Wasson’s relationship to the CIA below can be seen as clever disinformation intended to hide the truth from the public.

Albarelli wrote:

Especially significant in the history of LSD and psychotropic drugs is the work of Gordon Wasson and his wife Valentina Pavlovna. The couple traveled the globe in search of exotic and rare psychoactive mushrooms, and they were the first to use the term ‘ethnomycology’. Over a forty year period, the two collected and catalogued the “food of the Gods.” In 1977, Wasson commented that throughout his many excursions to Mexico from 1952 through 1962, “I didn’t send a single sample to an American mycologist. I didn’t get a penny, not a single grant from any government sources. I’m perfectly sure of that.”

There is no reason to doubt Wasson, but what he did not know at the time of his excursions was that the United States government was closely monitoring every one of his trips and that each and every one of his collected samples found their way back from Mexico to CIA-funded laboratories. Wasson also sent his samples to Albert Hofmann at Sandoz Labs in Switzerland. Hofmann, according to Wasson, “was doing the key work synthesizing the active ingredients” of the samples. What Wasson again did not realize was that the fruits of all of his and Hofmann’s labors were being plucked from the vine by the U.S. Army and CIA both of whom, since at least 1948, had covert operatives working in the Sandoz Laboratories.[…]

Wasson also reported that he had once been approached by either the CIA or FBI. “I’m not sure which,” he said. They wanted him “to do work for the government.” He turned them down, saying he thought the effort “patriotic,” but did not want his work being classified secret. “I wanted to publish all my findings,” he explained. [emphasis – ours][45]

Albarelli’s “research” seems to only expose insignificant aspects of the overarching MK-ULTRA programs, sacrificing older operations to keep the more important and more current ones separate and hidden.

Also of note is that the CIA FOIA request that Irvin filed behind Albarelli’s was on Gordon Wasson, and several of the files received from the CIA are personal letters between Wasson and Allen Dulles (one is quoted above) – from just 5 weeks before Wasson’s Life magazine article was published.

Bernays – The Government Operative for Social Control

Bernays was also directly linked into another government effort to shape culture. In 1917, Woodrow Wilson engaged George Creel to influence the American public opinion in favor of WWI. Creel founded the Committee on Public Education and hired Edward Bernays. It is noteworthy that after the death of his wife, Creel resided at the Bohemian Club in San Francisco, the secret society that also has members of the Grateful Dead – Bob Weir, Mickey Hart.[46] As well, Alexander Shulgin, the famous psychedelic chemist, is also a member of the club. In his book Pihkal he refers to the Bohemian Club as “The Owl Club” for its famous mascot:

I happily rejoined the Owl Club and, to this day, I put on a polite shirt and tie and carry my viola to the City [San Francisco] and play in the orchestra every Thursday evening, without fail.
I should add that I’m the only Club member who wears, and always has worn, black sandals instead of shoes, having decided a very long time ago that sandals were infinitely healthier for my feet than the airless, moist environment offered by the kinds of footwear worn by my fellow Owlers. They are used to my sandals, by now, and they are used to me.[47]
~ Alexander Shulgin

The Bohemian Club is the West Coast sister club of the CIA’s Century Club (cited above), formerly headed up by none other than DCI Allen Dulles and, apparently, Gordon Wasson.[48]

One cannot understand Edward Bernays’ and Gordon Wasson’s influence on American culture by regarding each piece in isolation or as “one thing.” Their work must be viewed as a whole. From this perspective it is clear that they were part of a “tide” that eventually overwhelmed the youth of America. The authors would argue that given Bernays’ totalitarian political perspective and his understanding of group behavior, and Gordon Wasson’s now proven role in MK-ULTRA, the collection of destructive elements they introduced into American culture could not have been by accident. The turning of America’s youth into “Deadheads” was a longstanding project created by a secret organization within the US government that intends to usher in a new Dark Ages.

As the Cohen brothers wrote in their film “No Country For Old Men”:

Ellis: You know,
if you'd have told me 20 years ago.
I'd see children walking
the streets of our Texas towns.
...with green hair, bones in their noses...
I just flat-out
wouldn't have believed you.
 
Bell: Signs and wonders.
 
Ellis: But I think once you quit hearing "sir"
and "ma'am," the rest is soon to foller.
 
Bell: - Oh, it's the tide.
 
Ellis: - Yeah.
It's the dismal tide.
It is not the one thing.
 
Bell: Not the one thing.

Terence McKenna and the Esalen Institute

Terence McKenna eventually became the key promoter of the Huxleys' and the Esalen Institute’s New Dark Age, or neo-feudalist, post-modernist agenda to enslave the masses and turn back history. McKenna’s book The Archaic Revival is essentially a rundown of nearly all of the items promoted by the Fourth World Wilderness agenda to accomplish these goals.[49]

In the introduction to The Invisible Landscape by the brothers McKenna, Jay Stevens, author of Storming Heaven, makes clear the true agenda of their work:

Our appetite for simplicity has caused us to compress the chaos of the ‘60s into one monolithic “Youth Revolt.” But there were two philosophies then among the revolutionaries on how the world might be remade. One path, endorsed by political power and using the vantage to raise consciousness and save the world. The other path proposed an attack on the consciousness itself using a controversial and soon outlawed family of psychochemicals-the psychedelics. [emphasis added][50]
~Jay Stevens

Confirming Stevens’ statement, in The Archaic Revival Terence McKenna admits:

You know, I am very much at variance with the wisdom of hindsight in looking back at how Leary and Alpert and Ralph Metzner handled it in the sixties. But to try to launch a “children’s crusade,” to try to co-opt the destiny of the children of the middle class using the media as your advance man [i.e. Henry Luce and Time-Life] was a very risky business. And it rebounded, I think, badly.
I think Huxley’s approach was much more intelligent—not to try to reach the largest number of people, but to try to reach the most important and influential people: the poets, the architects, the politicians, the research scientists, and especially the psychotherapists. Because what we’re talking about is the greatest boon to psychotherapy since dreaming. [emphasis added][51]

Later McKenna admits that Aldous Huxley was a key player behind MK-ULTRA and this neo-feudalism, all the while relating the official version of the story:

When you go to the Amazon or when you take peyote with the Huichol it is quite a chore to get sufficient material for twenty people. So the release of so much LSD into modern society caused the powers that be [who released it] to assume that the whole social machine was being dissolved in acid—litterally, before their very eyes. I think that this was a mistake, to go at it like this. There were many voices at the time, with many theories of how it should be handled. If Aldous Huxley had lived another ten years, it would have been very different.[52]

Recently it has come to light that Aldous Huxley was also a member of the Century Club with Gordon Wasson and Allen Dulles.[53]

In August 2012 Irvin published a short overview of some of his research points on Esalen, Huxley and McKenna, which revealed that Aldous Huxley and the Esalen Institute had long been a key center for distributing this New Dark Age, as well as Fourth World Wilderness agenda to dumb down the masses, essentially being a sort of MK-ULTRA headquarters with Michael Murphy apparently running the entire MK-ULTRA show today.

Is it coincidence that Terence would hang out with the great grandson of one of the key promoters of Darwin’s theories, Francis Huxley (1), who had ties via his own family to Darwin’s via his cousin (2), and was influenced heavily by Tielhard (3) – who was involved with the Piltdown Hoax (4) – who happened also to have an intro in his book written by Julian Huxley (5), Francis’s father (6), and should then come up with the Stoned Ape theory (7), and promote it and the 2012 meme that was developed by a CIA agent, Coe (8), who just so happened to be in-laws with a friend of Julian’s, Dobhzanski (9), and then dispense the entire meme from Esalen (10), where he spent time with Aldous’s wife, Laura (11), and Esalen happens to have been co-created by Aldous Huxley himself (12)? [54]

The Invisible landscape, which is essentially an attack on thought, an attempt to get the youth of America to believe there is no truth, also talks about using psychedelics and ending critical thinking to bring about the apocalypse:

Achievement of the zero state can be imagined to arrive in one of two forms. One is the dissolution of the cosmos in an actual cessation and unraveling of natural laws, a literal apocalypse. The other possibility takes less for granted from the mythologems associated with the collective transformation and entry into concrescence and hews more closely to the idea that concrescence, however miraculous it is, is still the culmination of a human process, a process of toolmaking, which comes to completion in the perfect artifact: the monadic self, exteriorized, condensed, and visible in three dimensions’ in the alchemical terms, the dream of a union of spirit and matter. Presumably, were such a hyper-spatial tool/process discovered, in a very short time it would entirely restructure life’s experience of itself, of time, space, and of otherness, and then it would be these effects which would follow rather than precede the concrescence, and which, through their atemporal influence on the content of visionary experience, would be seen to have given rise to the “apocalyptic scenario” in the expectation of so many ontologies. The appearance in normal space-time of hyper-dimensional body, obedient to a simultaneously transformed and resurrected human will, and able to plumb the obligations and opportunities inherent in this unique juncture in energy’s long struggle for self-liberation, may be apocalypse enough. [emphasis added] [55]

Eleusis

In 1978 Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann, and Carl A. P. Ruck published The Road To Eleusis, a book which argues that the ancient Greek Eleusinian Mysteries were based on a derivative of ergot, or early LSD. In the forward of this book Wasson states:

The initiates lived through the night in the telesterion of Eleusis, under the leadership of the two hierophantic families, the Eumolpids and the Kerykes, and they would come away all wonder-struck by what they had lived through: according to some, they were never the same as before.[56] [emphasis added]

In chapter one, Wasson continues:

Early Man in Greece, in the second millennium before Christ, founded the Mysteries of Eleusis and they held spellbound the initiates who each year attended the right. Silence as to what took place there was obligatory: the laws of Athens were extreme in the penalties that were imposed on any who infringed the secret, but throughout the Greek world, far beyond the reach of Athens’ laws, the secret was kept spontaneously throughout Antiquity, and since the suspension of the Mysteries in the 4th century A.D. that Secret has become a built-in element in the lore of Ancient Greece. I would not be surprised if some classical scholars would even feel that we are guilty of a sacrilegious outrage at now prying open the secret. On 15 November 1956 I read a brief paper before the American Philosophical Society [an MK-ULTRA Subproject 58 subcontractor – see CIA files] describing the Mexican mushroom cult and the ensuing oral discussion I intimated that this cult might lead us to the solution of the Eleusinian Mysteries.[57] [emphasis added]

In the above two paragraphs Wasson admits that the entirety of the Eleusinian Mysteries were controlled by two families: the Eumolpids and the Kerykes. He states that initiates would come away “wonder-struck” and that they were held “spellbound.” He admits that everything regarding the mysteries was a secret under threat of penalty or, in the case of Socrates, death. But Wasson ironically claims the secret was “kept spontaneously throughout Antiquity” – which is absurd. If the mysteries were kept secret by force, they were, therefore, entirely controlled—state sanctioned. As Irvin has shown in lectures, secrecy and occultation are nearly always used against, or to control, those who don’t have that secret information.[58] Why would these two families need to keep something that’s supposed to be a spiritual or religious experience a secret, unless it was in actuality only for control?

Wasson goes on to discuss a paper he read on 15 November 1956 to the American Philosophical Society. CIA MK-ULTRA documents reveal that “10. National Philosophical Society” was a “Subproject 58 – Cosponsor,” but then go on to say “Unable to locate – not sent.” Why would the CIA be unable to locate the National Philosophical Society, unless the name is wrong? I think it’s highly likely that this reference to the National Philosophical Society is actually referring to the American Philosophical Society. There doesn’t appear evidence of a National Philosophical Society ever existing, and there is much for an “American Philosophical Society” – which was founded by Benjamin Franklin in 1743. So was the American Philosophical Society also behind MK-ULTRA Subproject 58? Online searches for a “National Philosophical Society” automatically pull up the “American Philosophical Society” – where Wasson gave his lecture on this very topic in 1956 – during the height of his MK-ULTRA activities.

CONCLUSION

The authors are in disagreement about the use of mind-altering drugs. One believes that we do should not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control. He recommends they not be used without a prior thorough study in something such as the trivium method, and suggests that, like a knife which may be used to cut your food, and also used to kill; psychedelics can be used to empower or control. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don’t use them for spiritual purposes. The other believes that given their provenance, they should not be taken under any circumstances.

We must consider: Does the predator think that these substances are tools for spiritual awakening, or for the control of others? What the reader may believe is not necessarily the whole truth.

How the elite of ancient Athens controlled the masses was through drug mystery initiations at Eleusis that they managed to keep secret for 2000 years during their reign, and the secret agenda of how the mysteries were actually used for control hasn’t been revealed for all to see until now – nearly 4000 years since the mysteries at Eleusis began.

Huston Smith in the introduction to The Road to Eleusis says:

The Greeks, though, created a holy institution, the Eleusinian Mysteries, which seems regularly to have opened a space in the human psyche for God to enter. The content of those Mysteries is, together with the identity of India’s sacred Soma plant, one of the two best kept secrets in history […] For by direct implication it raises contemporary questions which our cultural establishment has thus far deemed too hot to face.
The first of these is the already cited question Nietzsche raised: Can humanity survive godlessness, which is to say, the absence of an ennobling vision – a convincing, elevating view of the nature of things and life’s place within it?
Second, have modern secularism, scientism, materialism, and consumerism conspired to form a carapace that Transcendence now has difficulty piercing?
In the answer to that second question is affirmative, a third one follows hard in its heels. Is there need, perhaps an urgent need, to devise something like the Eleusinian Mysteries to get us out of Plato’s cave and into the light? [emphasis added] ~ Huston Smith – Intro Road to Eleusis, p. 10.

Apparently that’s what was actually done: The elites and oligarchs, based on their own arrogance and ad vericundiam, or false appeal to authority, recreated the Eleusinian mysteries to pull the masses from one of Plato’s caves, and not into the light but, rather, into another cave.

The meaning of “the noble lie,” referred to as “an ennobling vision” by Smith, above, is defined: “In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.”[59]

. . . the earth, as being their mother, delivered them, and now, as if their land were their mother and their nurse, they ought to take thought for her and defend her against any attack, and regard the other citizens as their brothers and children of the self-same earth. . . While all of you, in the city, are brothers, we will say in our tale, yet god, in fashioning those of you who are fitted to hold rule, mingled gold in their generation, for which reason they are the most precious — but in the helpers, silver, and iron and brass in the farmers and other craftsmen. And, as you are all akin, though for the most part you will breed after your kinds, it may sometimes happen that a golden father would beget a silver son, and that a golden offspring would come from a silver sire, and that the rest would, in like manner, be born of one another. So that the first and chief injunction that the god lays upon the rulers is that of nothing else are they to be such careful guardians, and so intently observant as of the intermixture of these metals in the souls of their offspring, and if sons are born to them with an infusion of brass or iron they shall by no means give way to pity in their treatment of them, but shall assign to each the status due to his nature and thrust them out among the artisans or the farmers. And again, if from these there is born a son with unexpected gold or silver in his composition they shall honor such and bid them go up higher, some to the office of guardian, some to the assistanceship, alleging that there is an oracle that the city shall then be overthrown when the man of iron or brass is its guardian.[60]

All of this leaves us asking… Was the field of ethnomycology founded not, necessarily, to study the myths and legends of cultures that utilized these substances, but rather to study how they used them for control – the noble lie? Was it also founded to promote this neo-feudalist, archaic revival? Were MK-ULTRA Subproject 58, the psychedelic revolution, and the Deadhead an expression of that control? Are these systems of control being continued today through the rave culture and “Burning Man”?

So it appears.

Just as the ancient Greek hierophants created the mysteries of Eleusis, just as Emperor Titus created the story of Jesus and Christianity, just as the Levitical priests created Judaism and the “chosen” ideology; today the elites have spun a new religion, the New Dark Age, a.k.a. the Archaic Revival –and they call this reverse direction into history “evolution.” Wasson, McKenna, Leary, and Hofmann are but the hierophants of this New Dark Age, and its new mystery religion, which is nothing but mind control in disguise.

As John Uri Lloyd, one of the first to actually experience psilocybe mushrooms in the 1800s, warns us in a footnote in his novel Etidorhpa (Aphrodite backwards):

NOTE.- […] If, in the course of experimentation, a chemist should strike upon a compound that in traces only would subject his mind and drive his pen to record such seemingly extravagant ideas as are found in the hallucinations herein pictured, would it not be his duty to bury the discovery from others, to cover from mankind the existence of such a noxious fruit of the chemist's or pharmaceutist’s art? Introduce such an intoxicant, and start it to ferment in humanity's blood, and before the world were advised of its possible results, might not the ever increasing potency gain such headway as to destroy, or debase, our civilization, and even to exterminate mankind?[61]
John Uri Lloyd, 1895 - Etidorhpa

Though it seems incredible, Esalen, and Huxley, McKenna, Bernays, Wasson and Dulles appear to have been part of a secret agenda within the U.S. government that intends to usher in a post-modernist, neo-feudalism Dark Age and slavery in America. What makes this particularly difficult to believe is the unanswered question of the organization’s motivation. What would motivate such a group? Racism? Classism? Religious fervor? Power? All of the above? And how would it be able to maintain such secrecy, involving certainly hundreds, if not thousands of individuals over such a long time?

One thing is clear.  Whatever is the basis for this organization, it resides within identifiable secret societies. The number of individuals that can be demonstrated to have taken part in creating the Deadhead who are also members of Skull and Bones, the Century Club and the Bohemian Club is simply too large to have been circumstantial. Moreover, Dr. Colin Ross has shown that high level Freemasonry was responsible for funding the original LSD research[62] and this group should also be inspected closely.

We appeal to scholars and to the public to help us find the truth behind MK-ULTRA and the creation of the Deadhead and the post-modernist, neo-feudalism movement.

The authors are not looking to bring anyone out of one cave and into yet another, but to free humanity from this insanity. And only the truth is capable of that. Esalen, Aldous Huxley, Gordon Wasson, Timothy Leary, Terence McKenna, and the peddlers of this agenda: The spell is now undone and the true secrets of Eleusis, of the CIA and the psychedelic revolution, are now revealed for the entire world to see.

Epilogue

As we were concluding this article, the following letter arrived. We share it to drive home the importance of bringing to light all of the MK-ULTRA and related military/intelligence programs.

Terry Parker Jr.
2209-55 Triller Ave.
Toronto, Ont.
Canada. M6R-2H6
416-533-7756

Dear Jan,

As an unwitting subject of unauthorized lobotomy and brain implant experimentation,
I do suspect that this intrusion is CIA MK-ULTRA related.
Medical records and X-ray at http://www.thewhyfiles.net/mkultra4.htm#update discloses
unauthorized lobotomy and brain implant experimentation, (Dec. 9,1969 & Jan. 27,1972, at 14 & 16
years of age) without informed consent, nor parental knowledge, while under the guise of treating
epilepsy. (ie-"scar tissue removal") This information correlates with the CIA MK-ULTRA project of
psychosurgical and brain implant research upon unwitting subjects. Those subjects being myself,
and other children who suffer epilepsy at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children.

I recall neurosurgical wards 5-G and 6-G, full of children with various cranium incisions and casts
on their heads.  Despite my efforts to address this criminal assault with the College of Physicians
& Surgeons, Ontario Health Professions Board, Toronto Police, Ontario Provincial Police, RCMP,
CSIS, INTER-POL, and our members of parliament, one is subject to major damage control and
concealment of this covert operation.

Just as we have a cloud of secrecy in respect to JFK's missing brain tissue, after his assassination
in 1963, we have a similar cover-up in respect to Dr. Harold Joseph Hoffman's covert brain surgical
experiments upon unwitting children who suffer epilepsy.
Would appreciate any info relating Toronto Sick Kids with the CIA MK-ULTRA  projects.

I believe we have further insight as to why former CIA Director Richard Helms destroyed all the
MK-ULTRA  files back in 1973.

For your attention, I remain.

Truly,
Terry Parker Jr./aka Robertson
http://www.thewhyfiles.net/mkultra4.htm#update
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/parker.htm

Photo and X-ray enclosed-scroll down

 

Please see the next article in this series, "Enthoegens: What's In A Name? The Untold History of Psychedelic Spirituality, Social Control, and the CIA":

Article_Nov2014
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

Articles in this series:

1) R. Gordon Wasson: The Man, the Legend, the Myth. Beginning a New History of Magic Mushrooms, Ethnomycology,and the Psychedelic Revolution. By Jan Irvin, May 13, 2012
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. Some brief notes. By Jan Irvin, August 28, 2012
3) Manufacturing the Deadhead: A Product of Social Engineering, by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin, May 13, 2013
4) Entheogens: What’s in a Name? The Untold History of Psychedelic Spirituality, Social Control, and the CIA, by Jan Irvin, November 11, 2014
5) Spies in Academic Clothing: The Untold History of MKULTRA and the Counterculture – And How the Intelligence Community Misleads the 99%, by Jan Irvin, May 13, 2015


[1] John Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, Gnostic Media, 2009.
[2] Jan Irvin R. Gordon Wasson: The Man, the Legend, the Myth: Beginning a New History of Magic Mushrooms, Ethnomycology, and the Psychedelic Revolution, May 13, 2012, Gnostic Media: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/SecretHistoryMagicMushroomsProject
[3] Dave McGowan – http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr98.html
[4] Terence McKenna, Archaic Revival, 1991, HarperSanFransico
[5] Ibid, p. 243
[6] Ibid, p. 110
[7] Michael Coe, The Maya, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1966
[8] Terence McKenna: The Invisible Landscape, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993, pg. 171. This citation is not found in the 1st, 1975 edition, of The Invisible Landscape.
[9] Terence McKenna, Archaic Revival, 1991, HarperSanFransico. P. 215
[10] Rob King, In the future, I'm right: Letter from Aldous Huxley to George Orwell over 1984 novel sheds light on their different ideas. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111440/Aldous-Huxley-letter-George-Orwell-1984-sheds-light-different-ideas.html
[11] Louis Jolyon West (1975) in Hallucinations: Behaviour, Experience, and Theory by Ronald K. Siegel and Louis Jolyon West, 1975. ISBN 978-1-135-16726-4. P. 298 ff.
[12] Piero Camporesi, Bread of Dreams, University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN: 0-226-09258-5. p. 84
[13] Ibid, p. 137
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out
[15] Around 1962, Hunter was an early volunteer test subject (along with Ken Kesey) for psychedelic chemicals at Stanford University's research covertly sponsored by the CIA in their MK-ULTRA program. [McNally 42] He was paid to take LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline and report on his experiences, which were creatively formative for him: "Sit back picture yourself swooping up a shell of purple with foam crests of crystal drops soft nigh they fall unto the sea of morning creep-very-softly mist...and then sort of cascade tinkley-bell like (must I take you by the hand, every so slowly type) and then conglomerate suddenly into a peal of silver vibrant uncomprehendingly, blood singingly, joyously resoundingbells....By my faith if this be insanity, then for the love of God permit me to remain insane." [McNally 42-43]
[17] An interview with John Perry Barlow in Forbes: "Why Spy?", October 7, 2002. - "A few weeks later, in early 1993, I passed through the gates of the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and entered a chilled silence, a zone of paralytic paranoia and obsessive secrecy, and a technological time capsule straight out of the early '60s. The Cold War was officially over, but it seemed the news had yet to penetrate where I now found myself."
[18] See http://www.miraclestudies.net/BillCIA.html
[19] Irvin, R. Gordon Wasson The Man, the Legend, the Myth - http://www.gnosticmedia.com/SecretHistoryMagicMushroomsProject - May 13, 2012.
[20] Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve, 1993. p. 1
[21] Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan, 2001 p. 466
[22] The CFR archives, Princeton University, Mudd Library: MC104, box 451: folder 1 - Mikoyan
[23] CFR Historical Roster of Directors and Officers - http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/appendix.html
[24] Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Wasson Archives, Harvard Botanical Museum. Foreign Affairs (CFR) letterhead, dated November 10, 1950. "Dear Gordon: I have written these Century members to say that you and I are proposing George Kennan for membership: Boris A. Bakhmeteff, Charles C. Burlingham, Allen Dulles, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Philip C. Jessup, Geroid Tanquary Robinson, William L. Shirer, Dean G. Acheson, James B. Conant, Edward Mead Earle, Herbert B. Elliston, Joseph C. Grew, William L. Langer, Robert A. Lovett. In addition George gave me some other names: Imrie de Vegh, John Foster Dulles, Thomas S. Lamont, Russell C. Leffingwell, Vannevar Bush, Everett Case […]
[25] Graham Harvey, Shamanism, 2002. p. 433
[26] John Cloud, When the Elites Loved LSD – Time Magazine, April 23, 2007
[27] Abbie Hoffman, Soon to be a Major Motion Picture, New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1980, p. 73
[28] Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, Ch. 1, P. 1.
[29] Gustave Le Bon, Psychology of Crowds, 1895, Sparkling Books LTD, 2009.
[30] Wilfred Trotter, Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, T. Fisher Unwin LTD, 1919.
[31] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Jones
[32] Gustave Le Bon, Psychology of Crowds, 1895, Sparkling Books LTD, 2009. P. 95.
[33] http://www.worldmag.com/world/olasky/Prodigal/appendix.html
[34] Larry Tye, The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and The Birth of Public Relations, Macmillan, 2002. P. 15ff
[35] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Copeland
[36] Hank Albarelli, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments, Trine Day, 2009. P. 359
[37] Leo Perutz, Saint Peter's Snow, Arcade Publishing, 1990. P. 92ff.
[38] Ibid. P. 121
[39] Gnostic Media podcast episode #146: Karen of GirlWritesWhat – "The Feminist Fallacy".
[40] James F. Tracy, Poison is Treatment: Edward Bernays and the Campaign to Fluoridate America, p. 15 ff in Health Freedom News. Summer 2012/ Vol. 30 / No. 2
[41] US Library of Congress, Bernays collection: Part I: Book File, 1890-1965, n.d. BOX I:459, Wasson, Gordon
[42] Gordon Wasson. "Drugs: The Sacred Mushroom." The New York Times, 26 Sept 1970, p. 29.
[43] Hoover Institute, Stanford University. Bertram D. Wolfe papers. Box: 15, Folder: 72
[44] Documents and letters from the CIA archives on R. Gordon Wasson – FOIA request, February 2012. Approved for release 2003/05/05 : CIA-RDP80R01731R000700100003-5
[45] Hank Albarelli, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments, Trine Day, 2009. P. 359
[46] Bohemian Grove 2008 Guest List, courtesy of TruthAction.org
[47] Alexander and Ann Shulgin, Pihkal: A Chemical Love Story. Transform Press, 2000, ISBN 0-9630096-0-5. Pg. 65
[48] Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Wasson Archives, Harvard Botanical Museum. Foreign Affairs (CFR) letterhead, dated November 10, 1950. "Dear Gordon: I have written these Century members to say that you and I are proposing George Kennan for membership: Boris A. Bakhmeteff, Charles C. Burlingham, Allen Dulles, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Philip C. Jessup, Geroid Tanquary Robinson, William L. Shirer, Dean G. Acheson, James B. Conant, Edward Mead Earle, Herbert B. Elliston, Joseph C. Grew, William L. Langer, Robert A. Lovett. In addition George gave me some other names: Imrie de Vegh, John Foster Dulles, Thomas S. Lamont, Russell C. Leffingwell, Vannevar Bush, Everett Case […]
[49] George Hunt, UNCED, Earth Summit, 1992. http://youtu.be/JUdgiehz9d, see also George Hunt's interview with Gnostic Media: "Say What Is UNCED – The Elite and the Environmental Movement" – #13, by Gnostic Media.
[50] Jay Stevens, introduction to The Invisible Landscape, 1993 edition, by brothers McKenna, p. XII.
[51] Terence McKenna, Archaic Revival, 1991, HarperSanFransico. P. 9
[52] Terence McKenna, The Archaic Revival, 1991, HarperSanFransico. P. 243.
[53] Gordon Wasson presenting to the Century Club, The Century Club, 04-01-1971. Audio. Hear the introduction by the president of the Century discussing Aldous Huxley's membership along with Gordon Wasson's. Available through the Century Association library archives.
[54] Jan Irvin, How Darwin, Huxley, and the Esalen Institute launched the 2012 and psychedelic revolutions – and began one of the largest mind control operations in history. Some brief notes. Gnostic Media, August 28, 2012.
[55] Terence McKenna: The Invisible Landscape, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993, P. 188
[56] Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann, Carl Ruck, The Road to Eleusis, North Atlantic Books, 2008. P. 19
[57] Ibid, P. 22
[58] Jan Irvin, The Trivium – How to Free Your Mind, Free Your Mind Conference, April 10, 2011.
[59] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
[60] Plato, Republic, Book 3, 414e–15c.
[61] John Uri Lloyd, Etidorhpa, The Strange History of Mysterious Being, 1895, p. 276. Forgotten Books, 2007. P. 273
[62] Colin Ross, The C.I.A. Doctors , Manitou Communications, Inc., 2006, pp. 132. ISBN: 0-9765508-0-6. Colin Ross states: "The 1961 Annual Report of the Human Ecology Foundation lists John C. Whitehorn, Professor and Director, Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University as a Director. John Clare Whitehorn was born on December 6, 1894 in Spencer, Nebraska. He was Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Johns Hopkins from 1941 to 1960. Dr. Whitehorn corresponded extensively with the Scottish Rite Research Committee and received research grants from them, as did MKULTRA and MKSEARCH contractor, Dr. Carl Pfeiffer."

  168 comments for “Manufacturing the Deadhead: A Product of Social Engineering… by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin

  1. oats tao
    May 12, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    I recently had a short dialogue with pauline butcher bird who was Zappa’s secretary on her youtube channel (Lestatkatt) during the Log cabin years. I simply asked if Frank recorded audio at the Cabin. She replied as if I insinuated it happening and stated ‘I wonder why you think he ran a tape recording full time at the log cabin?’ well – I just asked, not thought- though it is or was a strong possibility.
    Just a little ancedote about recollections. Someone like frank with his vaults of audio recording – this would be a simple task to perform – rolling 1/4″ tape with a few well placed mics would be gold.

  2. Jim Slim
    May 12, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    Hey Jan, can you do an episode on Richard Dawkins and the militant atheist movement.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 12, 2013 at 11:08 pm

      Why not you?

      • Jim Slim
        May 12, 2013 at 11:24 pm

        Because I don’t have a website, podcast and thousands of listeners. Just a suggestion on maybe doing a show on darwinism, eugenics and how it ties in with this stuff.

        • Jan Irvin
          May 13, 2013 at 8:20 am

          How do you think I got a website and a podcast show?

          But I already did a show on that topic just recently.

  3. Benjamin Steigmann
    May 13, 2013 at 1:12 am

    This is very good work. My only disagreement is with the following:

    “The Invisible Landscape, which is essentially an attack on thought, an attempt to get the youth of America to believe there is no truth, also talks about using psychedelics and ending critical thinking to bring about the apocalypse:

    Achievement of the zero state can be imagined to arrive in one of two forms. One is the dissolution of the cosmos in an actual cessation and unraveling of natural laws, a literal apocalypse. The other possibility takes less for granted from the mythologems associated with the collective transformation and entry into concrescence and hews more closely to the idea that concrescence, however miraculous it is, is still the culmination of a human process, a process of toolmaking, which comes to completion in the perfect artifact: the monadic self, exteriorized, condensed, and visible in three dimensions’ in the alchemical terms, the dream of a union of spirit and matter. Presumably, were such a hyper-spatial tool/process discovered, in a very short time it would entirely restructure life’s experience of itself, of time, space, and of otherness, and then it would be these effects which would follow rather than precede the concrescence, and which, through their atemporal influence on the content of visionary experience, would be seen to have given rise to the “apocalyptic scenario” in the expectation of so many ontologies. The appearance in normal space-time of hyper-dimensional body, obedient to a simultaneously transformed and resurrected human will, and able to plumb the obligations and opportunities inherent in this unique juncture in energy’s long struggle for self-liberation, may be apocalypse enough. [emphasis added] [55]”

    There are two citations I can see from that that would seem to support your argument:
    “…actual cessation and unraveling of natural laws, a literal apocalypse” – this might signify an end for the search for objective reality and a bringing into being, for popular consumption, the Kantian solipsism you talk about.
    The other citation is: “the dream of a union of spirit and matter. … The appearance in normal space-time of hyper-dimensional body, obedient to a simultaneously transformed and resurrected human will, and able to plumb the obligations and opportunities inherent in this unique juncture in energy’s long struggle for self-liberation, may be apocalypse enough.” – This has the mystical jargon you are averse to, but I don’t think it supports your argument as well.

    Other than that, great work.

  4. Mario R. Williams
    May 13, 2013 at 6:49 am

    Great Article Guys…

    Very elucidating explanation of what is behind the scenes of these “Secret” Groups in contemporary history… and their relation to the Stablished Elites.

  5. ned angelo
    May 13, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Oh man you have outdone yourself on this one….its gone from paranoid strangeness to pure comedy! Wow…I can only speak from personal experience but the grateful dead and rave culture were two guiding lights in my world that lead me away from nasty consumerism/materialism/capitalist system BS.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 13, 2013 at 1:48 pm

      Isn’t that what the intellectually bankrupt always do? To attack the researcher rather than any of the facts or citations of the research itself? To put our own beliefs of the situation in front of the facts, in order to cloud them? If you could show how the citations are wrong, and therefore “comedy”, it would be helpful. Saying something’s wrong because “hahaha”, or “paranoid” is not an intelligent argument. Intelligent people understand that they must simply focus on the argument itself, rather than name calling and attacking the researcher like a small child name calling on the playground. The research and citations are presented, and each one is there for you to study and verify one by one and show us how they’re comedy in the face of your sacred cows.

      It has been said that great minds debate ideas.
      Mediocre minds talk about events.
      Small minds attack people.

      Which are you?

      Did you read the article and citations BEFORE you made your attack? That will give you your answer.

      It sounds like you’ve only gone from one extreme to another… And when you lead yourself around with fallacies and name calling, it’s no wonder.

      I pity those who can’t read things and study them before they reach conclusions and name call – the very victims which this article identifies.

      Have you ever studied the Stockholm Syndrome?

      • ned angelo
        May 16, 2013 at 6:41 am

        Hi Jan, apologies if that seemed rude but this is just ludicrous to me. I have read the article and the citations, and like much of your recent work, it seems you may be exaggerating the meaning of certain connections you find…who knows, there is a tiny chance you are right, however in that case I would say their plan backfired as the healthy influence of these ‘evil cultural influences’ you are describing is obvious to me and my community. I grew up in these ‘rave’ and ‘deadhead’ cultures and the creativity, health, and balanced lifestyles that most members of these communities demonstrate is undeniable from my personal experience. I will agree that woodstock was a shit show and that indeed, lurking around these cultures is some darkness (ie, media and predatory individuals), but I think their basic function is one of goodness. I am just not seeing the support for the allegations you are making, and your conclusions do not line up with my experience of my friends and family. They are way more interesting than the average american. Maybe we disagree because personally, I think feminism, wild dancing, sexual attitude liberation, and integration are good things and while some hippies were troublemakers and bums, they would have been that way without the influence of alternative cultures. I’m not sure why I still read your blog after the past year or so, but I think it is because you have an interesting analytical perspective and I do appreciate your attempts to back up your ideas with evidence, but as a professional trained in evidentiary matters, I just don’t think you are making a strong case by any means. I’d hope you would apply your skills more objectively as you have in the past. I do generally appreciate your work and hope you have a great summer.

        • Cameron Anima
          June 24, 2013 at 10:04 pm

          I absolutely agree, I think it’s incredibly paranoid to go down that line of reasoning, and I’m starting to doubt Jan’s understanding of other things given the incredible misunderstanding this article presents. I thought Jan understood psychedelics, nothing I had heard up to this point suggested otherwise. Now let me address some basic points that seem paranoid and completely unfounded.
          First of all, psychedelics are a completely unique class of chemically-induced experiences, if you don’t have a good understanding of the sociobiology of different classes of drugs you certainly can’t write an article like this without getting some thing critically wrong. Read ‘Prometheus Rising’ by Robert Anton Wilson (available free online) if you want to understand the sociobiology of drug classes.

          Psychedelics, when used properly, are psychotherapeutic and intellectual tools linked with amazing personality-change feats such as effective treatment of alcoholism (the worst drug-induced disease poor if not deliberate social engineering has created), increased propensity towards self-reflection and critical thinking, and at least two Nobel prize winning scientists (Francis Crick and Kary Mullis) have been inspired by psychedelics (both LSD). Psychedelics often de-condition people from unhealthy culturally programmed reality tunnels and re-empower the individual to understand themselves as someone who can gain their own life meaning separate from the social hive which only feeds classism and serfism.
          There is ample literature concerning the health and intellectual/insightful benefits of the use of psychedelics, to suggest otherwise is completely unscientific. Psychedelic experiences inspired the computer technology and internet revolution, and of course Steve Jobs said that taking LSD was one of the most meaningful experiences of his life in shaping innovative values that weren’t solely focused on profitability.

          In my opinion psychedelic culture presents (along with the internet) the greatest chance of humans surviving and evolving via the metaphysical realization (one arrives at with high doses of psychedelics) that we are all fundamentally connected (consciousness) metaphysically speaking. This changes our interaction style from a competitive (fear-based) to a collaborative (more love-based) interaction style.

          Terence McKenna was a great intellectual, he might have gotten the timewave zero theory wrong, but his ideas about an archaic revival are about a rejuvenation of values centered around compassion and balance with the environment. McKenna was interested in empowering people as individuals to wake up to the bullshit being peddled by the materialist culture through excessive brainwashing at the expense of human dignity and intelligence. He was at the forefront of innovative thought when it comes to cybernetics and thinking intelligently about serious social problems, as well as highlighting the political corruption that has and still is occurring. He was effectively an activist for human rights and the exploration of the greater potential of humans.

          I think this article takes some things way out of context, Terence was completely against dark-ages sensibilities and saw the march towards greater restrictions on freedom as an inquisitional force that is an incredibly disturbing tendency.

          In short, from a sociobiological perspective, psychedelics, when used correctly, will only create a smarter, more peaceful and intelligent society that celebrates all humans as equal in this circumstance we call life. They are pro-evolutionary agents.

          Yes, psychedelics, when abused, can programme new realities that may be detrimental in some way, this is the dark side of them, but without a dark influence (set and setting), they are generally liberating.

          Once again, if you want to understand all of this, read Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson.
          http://www.rawilsonfans.com/downloads/prometheus.pdf
          And just in case my point didn’t get through, there’s a random psilocybin mushroom experience report that just might:

          http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=88538

          I know of many social activists that have been inspired by psychedelics to be more productive and innovative, not to mention fearless in their pursuit of human rights and intellectual freedom.

          BTW, it is my understanding that MK ULTRA tried to use LSD as a truth drug, but found it to be ineffective, and ‘turn on, tune in, drop out,’ has nothing to do with anything other than rejecting the disempowering values of social conformity.

          • Cameron Anima
            June 24, 2013 at 10:24 pm

            BTW I apologize to Jan if it was mostly Joe Atwill suggesting that psychedelics had a detrimental effect.
            Aldous Huxley was also a brilliant intellectual who contributed so much to our understanding of both the corruption of government power and the nature of consciousness. Him and his wife, in my understanding, were brilliant people, I can’t speak of the rest of the family but those two seemed rather enlightened and Huxley is one of the most valuable intellectuals to read a book by. If you want an interpretation for understanding the idea from Huxley that drugs would be used to control – you need go no further than television (the effects of a hypnotic drug as Terence McKenna said), alcohol (dumbing people down and keeping them in emotional and territorial states of consciousness, and psychoactive pharmaceuticals prescribed by doctors – allowing people to be content with degraded conditions of employment and the general disempowerment.

          • Jan Irvin
            June 24, 2013 at 10:40 pm

            Yeah, thanks, Cameron… it seems you ignore that he was a Fabian Socialist, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and designed most of the programs he warned about… maybe you should study all of the details of Aldous that we’ve already laid out in videos and other articles here… there’s always someone to rush in to defend their heroes.

            Ignore all the evidence because you have all the answers… It’s the old zealot mentality of the religious fanatic “don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind”.

            It’s funny to watch how much cognitive dissonance this information has caused in you. You’re allowing your emotions to entirely control you, rather than simply studying the work and looking up the citations – rather than ignoring them right in your face.

            Good luck.

          • Jan Irvin
            June 24, 2013 at 10:42 pm

            Blah blah – repeat unfounded shit that you heard somewhere else and have never bothered to study yourself. Ignore every detail that contradicts your beliefs and then just make up what feels the best to you and your religion. I get where you’re coming from, as I tried to hold on like you, but eventually you’ll have to learn to remove the fallacies and wishful thinking from your thoughts so that you’re not controlled by them and just look up the citations for once. Truth is there for you to find, no matter how often the charlatans tell you it doesn’t exist.

            You can go back to sleep now. Everything is ok.

          • November 14, 2013 at 6:20 am

            Liberation through the use of entheogens means utilizing your experiences in a pragmatic way – in your life, in your family’s life, and via social change. Many people who get consumed by drug culture do none of these things – no one here, I am sure, is debating the positive influence that these historically sacred substances CAN have. But there is surely a dark side, I speak from experience, and any substance that SHOULD be used for safe and personal intellectual growth that begins to have its own culture built up around it with the connections that Jan is RESEARCHING (not simply giving you ‘his understanding of things’ based on one book and a single random drug experience as you have done) should be questioned deeply, just like any other major social change.

      • Anon Ymous
        June 7, 2014 at 4:15 pm

        I think you miss the meaning of the Deadhead, in ways it holds different meanings for different people, at it’s most basic it’s just a symbol of fans of the Grateful Dead, and for allot of people it’s a symbol of rejecting the establishment altogether and being “dead to the world”. That “world” that’s being rejected could mean different things to different people. I know for some it’s the world of; consumerism, pop-CULTure, a corrupt establishment and government, a society bent on keeping us all cogs in the machine.

        So to say the Deadhead is “debasing” or “an equivocation for a “dead mind” or “a drugged, thoughtless person.”” is a little off depending on who you ask. Basically you made a generalization that isn’t universally true.

        Also your attacks on illicit drugs in general is a little harsh. We have an establishment that pushes pharmaceutical drugs on 70 Million Americans. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555950/70-MILLION-Americans-mind-altering-drugs-shock-statistic-shows-extent-use-illegal-legal-narcotics.html And I’d be the first to agree that to many people are on to many dangerous drugs all too often.

        What the article seems to be lacking is the positive aspects of things like psilocybin mushrooms, or MDMA, and possibly even LSD (though I won’t make the claim LSD is potentially all that beneficial). Studies have concluded that mushrooms and MDMA can help greatly people with depression, or PTSD, and other things. And when someone has a genuine need for something standard medicines, or therapy aren’t the best option for, why be so down on legitimate, natural (in the case of mushrooms anyway), viable alternatives?

        http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/03/24/could-mushrooms-lead-to-new-depression-treatments/67552.html

        http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/mdma_ptsd_u.s._study_veterans_of_war/

        I’ve had experiences with psilocybin mushrooms, they’ve have had a real positive effect on how I felt for a long time afterword. And there was no urge to do them all the time to the point of not being able to function. I’ve heard firsthand accounts of people having similar experiences with MDMA. The important thing is to understand with these substances, as with virtually all substances, is moderation and context or setting of use.

        Not being a big fan of our CULTure, both mainstream, and in many cases counter-CULTure, I get where you’re coming from. I don’t like our CULTure of debasing, hyper-sexualization, consumerism, the whole CULT of self worship, idol worship, hedonism, none of it…. Still I really feel some amount of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is going on in this article.

        If a person were suffering from depression, or personal tragedies, whatever it is, and is given the option between a life time of antidepressants from their doctor, or maybe 3-4 mushroom trips a year to treat it. It’s hard not to see how the mushroom trips would be far more preferable from a multitude of angles. That’s not to say you could just take mushrooms and heal yourself, but they could be an integral part of healing.

        Even from a real Christian standpoint, Jesus made wine for his disciples, he could have just made the water potable, but he had them drinking wine to help them not be bothered by their troubles. Now whether or not you believe in Jesus, or anything else, it’s easy enough to see how their isn’t even a legitimate religious argument against using substances that our establishment has deemed forbidden, as long as it’s used responsibly.

        Further, given the choice between becoming a “Deadhead” and actively rejecting our system finding ways to thrive without it, or playing things out jumping through hoops hoping to make it to middle management or better, while rapidly approaching a Brave New Orwellian Distopia (where we haven’t already reached it), with “Singularity” on the horizon, I’d chose “Deadhead” every time.

        • June 7, 2014 at 4:21 pm

          HI, thanks for your feedback. We totally understand where you’re coming from and have experienced the same cognitive dissonance as you. We’re very well familiar with MAPS and their studies and their agenda to get the government handing out these substances – like Eleusis. There’s a major campaign going on right now to remarket all of the mind control substances as spiritual, etc. While there may be some benefit, have no doubt that the very same schools that were involved in the CIA’s programs, such as Johns Hopkins, and UCLA, are leading these very studies today.

          Please study through all of the research and facts that we’ve presented. Focus on the facts, rather than what you think you know through their own media. Study the database, listen to our 30 or so shows on mind control where your exact points are covered, and you’ll begin to see the larger picture.

  6. Benjamin Steigmann
    May 13, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    Jan Irvin, I suggest replacing your Water Fluoridation embedded link with this: http://archive.org/details/OnFluoride

    The formatting will be fixed next week, and more will be added, but it is the nucleus of a clear explanation of the dangers of that compound – that refutes very well the claims of the defenders of the practice.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 13, 2013 at 7:36 pm

      That was a mistake, thanks. But maybe I will.

      • Benjamin Steigmann
        May 14, 2013 at 1:26 pm

        The mistake is still up there.

        • Jan Irvin
          May 14, 2013 at 2:39 pm

          That’s because I just put a new version up a bit ago. I’ll edit that again now.

  7. John Richards
    May 14, 2013 at 4:57 am

    There seems to be a giant explanatory hole in this version of events, – there is not even one sentence about the actual (psychological/internal) effects of LSD and mushrooms, and how that links in to the whole conspiracy; – ie how does this conspiracy account for the fact that people commonly experience spiritually uplifting and positively life-transforming/healing experiences on LSD/mushrooms/ayahuasca etc?

    For example, where you say: “We must consider: Does the predator think that these substances are tools for spiritual awakening, or for the control of others? What the reader may believe is not necessarily the whole truth.”

    This seems to directly ignore the vast weight of evidence we have about what the psychedelic ‘tools’ actually do to people who take them. Erowid has thousands of LSD and mushroom trip reports, and they give a pretty clear indication of the effects of these drugs, and it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with being able to mind-control other people, so how does your theory explain this?

    The CIA didn’t invent mushrooms or LSD, and they weren’t able to change the way these drugs effect people. They tried to use psychedelics to fit into their evil agenda, but they completely failed simply because they have no use for them. Psychedelics didn’t have any effects that the CIA considered to be useful, so they abandoned their psychedelic research programs and moved on. Your speculations about Wasson are completely unconnected from your assertion that MK-ultra still exists and still uses psychedelic drugs to this present day. Psychedelics completely dropped off of the American elite’s agendas decades ago, nowadays Obama doesn’t care about psychedelics, and neither do the CIA. The ‘predators’ have no use for psychedelics.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 14, 2013 at 10:36 am

      You seem to have ignored the quote in a sentence just above… And the CIA was certainly involved with the invention of LSD. It’s absurd to think they invented mushrooms, which grow from the ground. That’s just stupid that you’d suggest such a thing. This is irrelevant to their use for dumbing people down and misleading them, as is clearly explained. Furthermore, if you study the trivium, you’ll realize that they don’t wake people up… As is explained, withoutsomething like the trivium hippies are very easily controlled because they lead themselves around with fallacious positive thinking, killing the messenger, and don’t verify facts right in front of them that they deem “negative”.

      But don’t quote a sentence just after the one previous that addressed your very statements:

      The authors should be clear that we do not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control. Like a knife may be used to cut your food, it can also be used to kill. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don’t use them for spiritual purposes. We also recommend they not be used without a prior thorough study of something such as the trivium method, so that people aren’t misled by those with ill intentions into a New Dark Age.

      We must consider: Does the predator think that these substances are tools for spiritual awakening, or for the control of others? What the reader may believe is not necessarily the whole truth.

      But would you show where we claimed that the CIA invented mushrooms? That’s completed horseshit and we never said any such thing. I would appreciate you sticking to the facts of what was WRITTEN and not make up bullshit statements that were never said. If you’re not capable of reading the entire article, then maybe it would be better not to comment. We addressed this asburd and unverified regurgitation of “blowback” in the article. People repeat this ridiculous nonsense over and over without ever even considering to question if it’s true – as the citations above prove it’s not, had you read them. Try to read the article and citations and put your beliefs aside for a second and think, not with fallacies, but with facts.

      Most today assume that the CIA and the other intelligence-gathering organizations of the U.S. government are controlled by the democratic process. They therefore believe that MK-ULTRA’s role in creating the psychedelic movement was accidental “blowback”. Very few have even considered the possibility that the entire “counterculture” was social engineering planned to debase America’s culture – as the name implies. The authors believe, however, that there is compelling evidence that indicates that the psychedelic movement was deliberately created. The purpose of this plan was to establish a neo-feudalism by the debasing of the intellectual abilities of young people to make them as easy to control as the serfs of the Dark Ages. One accurate term used for the individuals who were victims of this debasing was “Deadhead,” which is an equivocation for a “dead mind” or “a drugged, thoughtless person”.

      Aldous Huxley predicted that drugs would one day become a humane alternative to “flogging” for rulers wishing to control “recalcitrant subjects.” He wrote in a letter to his former student George Orwell in 1949:

      But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

      Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. [emphasis added] [10]
      ~ Aldous Huxley

      Decades later, one of the CIA’s own MK-ULTRA researchers, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, while citing Huxley had this to say on the matter:

      The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or “no knock” entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations.
      But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.
      To a large extent the numerous rural and urban communes, which provide a great freedom for private drug use and where hallucinogens are widely used today, are actually subsidized by our society. Their perpetuation is aided by parental or other family remittances, welfare, and unemployment payments, and benign neglect by the police. In fact, it may be more convenient and perhaps even more economical to keep the growing numbers of chronic drug users (especially of the hallucinogens) fairly isolated and also out of the labor market, with its millions of unemployed. To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome-and less expensive-if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modesof expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent. […]
      The hallucinogens presently comprise a moderate but significant portion of the total drug problem in Western society. The foregoing may provide a certain frame of reference against which not only the social but also the clinical problems created by these drugs can be considered.[11]
      ~ Louis Jolyon West

      Next time please think and read and study before commenting and wasting our time. You’ve clearly never even considered to question this thought that you were fed – that’s entirely unsupported by anything but fantasy.

      • James French
        May 23, 2013 at 2:51 pm

        “You seem to have ignored the quote in a sentence just above… And the CIA was certainly involved with the invention of LSD. It’s absurd to think they invented mushrooms, which grow from the ground. That’s just stupid that you’d suggest such a thing.”

        John Richards neither thinks nor suggests, even for a moment, that mushrooms were ‘invented’. Sometimes, Jan Irvin, you’re as mean as a junkyard dog with people when it is often you who is wrong on many points. It is so painful to see you do this when we all really only come here for good info., and yes perhaps even something friendly in this painful world. Please, Jan, stop this gratuitous hurting of people like this.

        • Jan Irvin
          May 23, 2013 at 10:03 pm

          Actually, James, in one of his earlier comments he did suggested that I thought mushrooms where man made… I don’t see it now. But why the need to call me names here and then ask me to be nice? John at any time could have just asked me for the citation, rather than making up accusations as he did.

        • Richard Barrett
          June 4, 2013 at 5:02 pm

          Jan is still angry at his wife and with himself. This is why he’s mean. Jan, you’re a nice person, you don’t need to be mean to anyone.

          • Richard Barrett
            June 4, 2013 at 5:04 pm

            [EDIT] Ex-wife

  8. John Richards
    May 14, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    You place all of the focus on positive thinking ‘hippies’ using psychedelics, as if hippies are the only people who use psychedelics. But what about the many regular people, like you or I, who use psychedelic drugs to experience the trippy state of consciousness? It is abundantly clear from the thousands of trip reports on erowid for example, that when ordinary people like us take psychedelics, we experience powerful altered states of consciousness. But you do not mention the altered states anywhere in your theory. How does your theory account for the psychedelic state of consciousness?
    Even if we do accept your implicit suggestion that everyone who uses psychedelic drugs is a positive thinking ‘hippie’, what reason is there to think that it is the drugs themselves that are the cause of their positive thinking and logical fallacies? Psychedelic drugs never made me think positively in particular, so what reason do you have for asserting that psychedelics have anything to do with positive thinking?
    Please don’t get me wrong Jan, I only discovered your theories a few months ago, I am merely applying some critical thinking to your theories to try to ascertain how accurate your version of events is likely to be. What I am mainly pointing out, is your complete failure to address the subject of the psychedelic ‘trip’ experience, what it is and what effect it has on people in the real world. There is abundant evidence of the effects of psychedelic drugs, for example on erowid, which reveals that these drugs typically cause powerful, intense alterations of consciousness. You do not ever address this point, or try to explain how the psychedelic altered state of consciousness fits into your theory. I suspect that if you would look into this issue and address it, you would realise the reason why MK-ultra failed and was abandoned. You have provided no substantiation to your claim that MK ultra is still going on today, which is a major part of your whole theory. – HOW exactly does the psychedelic experience relate to mind control?

    • Jan Irvin
      May 14, 2013 at 3:08 pm

      What is abundantly clear is the evidence… and people have been conditioned to see them as spiritual, rather than biological tools.

      If you have some questions about my citations, and how they don’t add up to the conclusions, vs. your sacred cows, then simply provide them.

      Referring to a bunch of Christian fanatics who speak in tongues, for instance, is no justification of the religion’s veracity. You have to think relative to the information provided and not your religious biases.

      If you study the many posts on this website already provided, you won’t make me waste my time regurgitating things that are already covered in depth, such as the trivium method already cited to you.

      But the psychedelic state is not something that’s proved. It’s something that people experience, and if you read the researchers own works, they don’t actually believe it is spiritual, such as West’s quote already provided to you.

      What you think is spiritual, they see as putting you in a dream state to control you, one of which you’ve never before questioned, and hence your inability to deal with the citations in this article, instead reffering to irrelevant information that’s already covered and discussed here in this very paper.

      Just because you’re hallucinating that you’re god, doesn’t necessarily mean you are… I’ve done psychedelics well over a 1000 times, and I thought like you for many years…

      but one day I decided to look at the facts and citations and put my religious beliefs aside. You should try it… and study that trivium and get those fallacies out of your thoughts too.

      But what you’re applying is not critical thinking. What you’re doing is putting your preconceived conclusions before the research in your face.

      And regarding positive thinking, the entire new age: spiritualist, hippie movements are based on it. Any time facts are brought up, these types claim you’re being “negative” and refuse to review the evidence… the positive thinking pillow sitters are found throughout the New Age and junk such as “The Secret”. They’re your deadhead types who like to spend their lives only high and not actually acting and creating, which is the purpose. See my interview with Barbara Ehrenreich so that we don’t need to rehash this info. It’s been in the trivium study section for years, which is the foundation of everything presented on this website after Oct. 2009, so if you haven’t studied the trivium section, you need to do so first. BTW, you do realize that there are over 50 interviews with leading psychedelic experts here on this site?

      http://www.gnosticmedia.com/053-bright-sided-an-interview-with-dr-barbara-ehrenreich/

      • Benjamin Steigmann
        May 14, 2013 at 4:39 pm

        Jan Irvin,

        in addition to again bringing your attention to the Fluoride embedded link, which I suggest updating, I also have a question for you – why do you think Timothy Leary was arrested, and subject to other negative treatment, in light of the information you have presented?

        Also, you have expressed your displeasure over “the mystical” – which I can empathize with given the definition of it that you use. I have used the term “Gnostic” because that is associated with what I feel that pursuit is, although in spite of the fact I have some dispositional affinities to Gnosticism, I do not bind myself to that, or any, belief structure. I have, however, involved myself in “esoteric religious” pursuits for a few years (primarily a combination of choiceless awareness, intuition, and a few metaphors that helped me work through my process – in addition to the trivium method, which helped me to sort through external information). I used this stuff to cure myself of severe psychological traumas and recover from a serious crisis. Now, internally, there is a much greater freedom than I could have previously envisioned. However, this has nothing to do with New Age delusions and avoidance of internal and external problems. If we were to describe it – the best description might be “a regime of psychological purification.” Rather than avoiding problems, we directly confront them, so as to fundamentally solve them. This has for a while been my primary focus – to fundamentally solve problems, internally and externally. You have a friend, Bernhard Guenther, who brings up many points of interest, but who I feel lets himself get caught up in some beliefs that have not been validated with the rigor necessary to embrace them. Nevertheless, he has given an excerpt from a text that (though it might have problems elsewhere, I have not read it yet, nevertheless) lucidly summarizes this – a psychological process that might open one up to greater internal strength and freedom: https://www.facebook.com/notes/bernhard-guenther/the-parable-of-the-coach/387358543907

        In the comments section to the Ehrenreich interview, I wrote, “It seems that there might be actual spiritual power that comes from going through what is, rather than living in a delusional periphery.” Whether this psychological power translates into other forms of power is something that remains to be discovered.

        • Jan Irvin
          May 14, 2013 at 5:50 pm

          That’s a really good question regarding Leary. He might have been like Lennon and turned. Robert Forte and i have discussed it often. He knew Leary well and I went to Leary’s house once and met him a couple times. There’s too much to show that he was dirty, and he even wrote the entrance exams for the CIA.

          Mystic is to mystify, where as gnostic is from gnosis, to know, and are juxtaposed/opposite meanings.

          Interestingly, I think the strongest support for something spiritual or what ever name you give it, is found in the study of the quadrivium. I don’t dismiss the possibility of these substances as tools, but their use for control without the trivium and quadrivium is astounding and terrifying. If there is something there, and IMO there probably is, there is no religion, or anything out there today that presents what it really is without an agenda, because anyone without an agenda would never try to present it. It’s not found in a book, though you can learn about it from books… you can’t see it, though you see it represented in the Fibonacci of a pine cone, or flower, or so many other things that can only be grasped but it seems should never be told. That only the trivium and quadrivium themselves should be provided for any such discovery.

          All of these guys have there agendas, whether they turned at some point in the game or not. But when Lennon comes out and says that he’s no longer going to do construction or what ever it was he said, implying some link to Masonry, and then a month or so later he’s killed, and we see him begin to expose the population myth and all, well, it leads to the conclusion, in my opinion, that they had to take him out. He had far too much power and was ready to expose them. He switched teams.

          It may be a case where Leary just got really high off his ego trip of being a guru and went off the deep end for a while. They had to get their boy back under control, which he in fact agreed to.

        • Jan Irvin
          May 14, 2013 at 6:05 pm

          ““It seems that there might be actual spiritual power that comes from going through what is, rather than living in a delusional periphery.” Whether this psychological power translates into other forms of power is something that remains to be discovered.”

          This is well said. I forgot to comment. When you look at the symbol of the trivium, what you see there is the 3, the grammar, logic, rhetoric. When religions usurp the power of the trivium method into the classical trivium, truth in the middle gets replaced by god, or Dues. Then around the edges, rather than grammar, logic, rhetoric, you get the trinity: the father, son, and the holy ghost, etc.

          So by rediscovering truth and placing it back into the center of the trinity, you rediscover the trivium and certainty with yourself and reality and the totality of being, and the layers of occultation are thrown to the wind as the trickery they are.

          Truth always belongs in the center. That’s why there’s so much effort to sell this idea that there is no truth, that truth is arbitrary; because it behooves the frauds and hucksters of the world for you to believe that. And those who don’t think they have predators are left to be fools and ignorami of their own making.

          • Benjamin Steigmann
            May 14, 2013 at 10:10 pm

            First of all regarding integration – this is a really touchy subject, I agree, but the leaders of these movements really have envisioned it as an instrument in debasing society. This goal was expressed by the Freemason Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan-Europe movement, which led to the EU. He stated that, “The man of the distant future will be a mongrel. The races and castes of today will fall victim to the conquest of space, time and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, outwardly similar to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” There are some quotes from the text not given in the original link of excerpts I got that from, where he stated that Jews, who he referred to as the “spiritual nobility of Europe”, would keep their “racial traits”, while the others would loose theirs – that “From the European quantity-people, who only belief [sic] in numbers, the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and Jewry. … In both of these heterogenic merited races lies the core of the European nobility of the future” (follow the links in the second comment for more citations – more info is here: http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.php) – the original link is here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/03/spiritual-leader-race-fuhrerrasse-of.html

            For what follows, I would like to request that you read all of what is provided below before making a statement about it, as later items make sense of previous items. You have requested the same of your readers – it is a very good practice to not make judgements before actually having absorbed the information being given – to not jump to conclusions, etc.:

            I agree with you that religions usurp and invert the spiritual impulse in human beings. Personal experience has informed me that there may be something more – though this has nothing to do with what I feel is a psychological projection of the domineering impulse that is presented as the “God” of the various religions. One of the reasons I have said that is because of the experience in the mall in December 2010 that I told you about, which informed later decisions that seemed to be counter-intuitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be beneficial: https://www.facebook.com/ben.steigmann/posts/497983056917666?comment_id=5129686&offset=0&total_comments=3

            That link expresses a hypothesis that is yet to be proven (some might call it a play on “magical thinking” – a corollary to the statement ““It seems that there might be actual spiritual power that comes from going through what is, rather than living in a delusional periphery.” Whether this psychological power translates into other forms of power is something that remains to be discovered.”) Because it has not been proven, I do not expect you to believe it, nor would I desire you to believe it, as it is an “extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence”, and at this time I have not supplied that evidence. If the proof is not provided, it will just be another failed hypothesis. If it is, we will perhaps have discovered the meaning of Teilhard de Chardin’s statement – “The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.”

            This in no way negates your statement, “Truth always belongs in the center. That’s why there’s so much effort to sell this idea that there is no truth, that truth is arbitrary; because it behooves the frauds and hucksters of the world for you to believe that. And those who don’t think they have predators are left to be fools and ignorami of their own making.” It is possibly an extension of that statement. But remember, my proposition means nothing unless I can personally prove it.

            The reason why I would even entertain such hypotheses is because of experiences I had in 2011 and afterward with a girl who was also from my high school named Ivy Smyth, who also attends my university. As you know, I had a very negative mushroom trip that involved the experience of “demonic attack”. I also had a similar, less horrifying experience that involved a “spirit” on mushrooms, when she was with me and other friends in an area when I was tripping on in 11th grade of high school. I am not defending the veracity of spirit possession, just relating my experience, and it is interesting to note that from that point onwards, there was this really warped obsession with her that has only recently dissolved. I can give you a copy of a letter that later circumstances required me to write to her, but that even though it is in her possession, she did not read – it is of interest to you because it provides background information on me, a full spectrum view of my history. I will email it to you if you are interested.

            This is why, on my Facebook page, in the part where I advertised your work: https://www.facebook.com/ben.steigmann/posts/349738678459880

            I provided the following citation:
            “Nowadays most people interested in the spirituality of the East desire the “experience,” though they may call what they are after intimate communion with God. Those familiar with the standards and norms of spiritual experience set down by disciplined paths like Sufism are usually appalled at the way Westerners seize upon any apparition from the domain outside of normal consciousness as a manifestation of the “spiritual.” In fact, there are innumerable realms in the unseen world, some of them far more dangerous than the worst jungles of the visible world. … [Al-Arabi himself said:] “So preserve yourselves, my brothers, from the calamities of this place, for distinguishing it is extremely difficult! Souls find it sweet, and then within it they are duped, since they become completely enamored of it.”” – William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge

            So – the interesting thing is that my interactions with Ivy were historically not positive. Then, in the Summer of 2011, I had this impression of her, and an image that was very similar to one I would later see on her Facebook page before she blocked me from it (due to circumstances that would transpire in early 2012) – except in this she had taken off all the masks that she hid yourself with, and she was astonishingly beautiful. This impression would lead to an image of her that became a focal point of desire, and a very warped obsession, informed by aspects of what had occurred in the aforementioned trip in high school (I remember they day after I first met her in Fall quarter of 2011 there was internal imagery with this hideous being that had imitated “her” and I was in the state where I said “I will serve you” – I did my utmost to negate things like this. I would also have dreams, etc. in which I would be with “her”, but “her” face would turn into a leech and begin to devour my face, and so on). But there would be real life correlations to this. I mentioned a meeting with her at the beginning of Junior year of College – this was in the Farmer’s market – I didn’t know that I would meet her then, but I asked myself – “what is right action?”, and got the intuition to go to the Farmers Market and I met her. And when I was there I got this strange thought that just arose – “she wants this emptiness in me”. I really desired to see her at the end of the year, before the quarter ended, and, this just happened, at the exact last date of the end of the quarter. On Feb. 2nd or 3rd. of 2012 I had an image of her saying the words “February 10″ and “On Love and Loneliness.” I previously had this image of meeting her on a bus after finishing a book that emerged in October of 2011, and so I thought “I will read this book “On Love and Loneliness” and then see her on the bus.” I wanted to have dinner with her, but this didn’t work, and there was a creeping incoherence (I was becoming unaware of what she was saying to me), so all I could get out was “I was told I would see you today”, and when she asked who told me I said, “intuition.” I ended up meeting my friend and mentor of the time in the exact restaurant I wanted to have dinner with Ivy at (Cafe Gratitude in Santa Cruz – I also had the desire to have dinner with him there). As you might know (even if you were unaware of the other information), everything went downhill from there. What happened next is captured in the following email exchange with my mentor of the time: http://www.scribd.com/doc/123582258/A-personal-problem-circa-Feb-10-2012?secret_password=2kokjretfeymj3dkrzv5

            In that email correspondence, I expressed weird ideas about her, possibly from psychological projection, or possibly from intuitive perception, and also I used terminology harkening back to the experience in the mall, as I was trying to figure out what on Earth was happening to me.

            I post that because it is historical information, which I already publicized elsewhere, an artifact that I gave to others to help them understand what I went through. I cannot at this time have Ivy or my mentor of the time corroborate my account, because due to later events, the university imposed a no-contact directive between myself and that mentor, and between myself and Ivy – so I cannot contact them through a third party either.

            Anyway, during the apex of this crisis on Feb. 13, I discovered the power of prayer, as it lessened the incoherence I was going through. This is something I had previously ridiculed. And so, on Feb. 23, I made the following prayer: “I will do anything to get rid of this disease, and surrender my life to God, so that love can act of its own accord through this body.”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/137690477/UC-Santa-Cruz-Mail-Please-Re-Send-Picture?secret_password=lcae4khpn5mo85e50kw

            What happened next was quite hellish. I had tried to “save” Ivy, who I felt was in danger because of an enthusiasm for these substances that was similar to the one I had before I came upon problems in Junior year of high school, so I sent an email to her where I had attempted to convey what happened, but due to incoherence and a social awkwardness of the time (a mistakenly sexually aggressive comment that was in response to a previous message, that occurred before I had given the message where I tried to present the problem), she gave a violent response, stating that she never wanted to contact me again, and told me to get psychiatric assistance. This was hours after I made that prayer on Feb. 23.

            During this period, there was a whole chorus of people telling me to get psychiatric assistance – before February 23rd, people were silent, but suddenly, after that date, all these voices started singing that tune (admittedly, I considered these to be extremely offensive shocks, as they were equivalent to telling a rape victim to go into prostitution – I was a belligerent and reckless kid and thus suffered trauma at the hands of the psychiatric establishment, my actions as a “problem child” were dealt with “American style” – but nevertheless the effects of these shocks after Feb. 23 were transmuted – in the very way described in that excerpt from “Gnosis I” that Berhnard Guenther posted, that I linked to previously). I risked homelessness or worse not once, but several times. I broke with friends and family, only later to resume contact with them, this time at a much higher level. Throughout all of this, I was suffering, but I kept coming across signs that I was protected, and from that, proceeded to continue my process, which was immensely strengthening. There is a phrase “per ardua ad astra”, that I feel is appropriate here. Alex Grey has a painting that symbolizes it – The Journey of the Wounded Healer (really the healed healer) – the commentary on it describes the process I went through with striking accuracy: http://alexgrey.com/art/paintings/soul/journy-of-the-wounded-healer/

            The only thing I disagree with in the commentary to that painting it is the part about “reintegration” – I don’t think, particularly in this culture, that people are “integrated” to begin with, but that with many, that might come about via such a process.

            The above might have been a bit intense, but still, I would like to add the following – I also feel that choiceless awareness – or proprioception of thought – might bring one into contact with what you have said “can only be grasped but it seems should never be told”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91194346/Start-of-log-%E2%80%93-week-of-11-1-2011-11-8-2011

          • Benjamin Steigmann
            May 15, 2013 at 4:21 pm

            Also – again these are touchy issues – with regards to the psychedelic movement being fraudulent, well, much of “respectable” culture is averse to it, though a duped subculture is enamored of it. This “respectable” culture doesn’t, however, mind criticisms of the psychedelic culture as much as it does criticisms of its other sacred cows.

            So, my comment regarding Coudenhove-Kalergi’s desire to wipe out racial distinctions except for those of the “higher beings” – Jews (who other Jewish supremacists like Samuel Untermeyer called “the aristocrats of the world”), and old bloodline nobility (incidentally, according to Burke’s Peerage genealogists, “The presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has, up to now, always won the White House.”: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82279&page=1). This is something many would not like to admit, but for those new to this issue – the obvious reality is that the major powers ruling the world today are dynastic Jewish banking families, old European “aristocracy” and Eastern Establishment “nobility”, as well as Zionists (see the first President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann’s, revelation of what Zionism really is: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2013/03/international-jewry-is-power-after-all.html) and militants (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/joint_vision_2020.pdf). Their attitude towards the “lesser races” of worker bees, who, if we are to take Kalergi’s word for it, are to be “mongrelized” with intended “dysgenic” results, is very well summarized by documents taken from Maurice Strong’s and Edmund Leopold de Rothschild’s 4th World Wilderness Congress that you briefly mentioned: http://archive.org/details/GeorgeHuntUncedEarthSummit1992cobdenClubsPapersaldousHuxleythe_125

            “The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction.
            Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970’s recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected.
            “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. …
            Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist “cultures” and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose.
            The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. …
            We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 … We stand with Lord Milner’s credo. We too are “British Race Patriots” and our patriotism is “the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race”. Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system?
            …The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. …
            outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council.
            The Security Council of the U.N. will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. …
            All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution.”

            As I explained in this post covering what is best described as “World Zionism” or “Zionist Globalism”, which is at the apex of the movements you have begun to analyze here, which was partially intended to cover for a more immature, provocative, polemical style that I previously engaged in (as you know Jan, I had a Jewish Great-Grandmother and Grandfather, and this had a significant impact on my family, and I was also in revolt against some of my family for a while – and used some of the citations I found as weapons to create shock in this revolt), and partially intended to provide an introduction to these difficult topics (like the Weizmann citation given above): http://bensteigmann.blogspot.com/2013/04/disclaimer.html

            “on the subject of race – I have opposed racism, though I feel that much of the so-called “anti-racist” movement is itself flawed, based as it is on a type of cultural Marxism that ignores/advocates a radical ethnic consciousness in opposition to Europeans from other groups, but propagandizes to Europeans that they should destroy their own ethnic consciousness – I hate to be blunt about this, but it was created by Jewish supremacists in order to destroy competition. I do feel that evidence of racial differences has been ignored – these differences being similar to differences between various breeds of dog, which would each have their own aptitudes. With the above stated, I feel that White Nationalism is based on hypocrisy, in many respects so-called “primitive” cultures had things together much better than so-called “civilized” people in contemporary society (see this and this). For the time being, especially given my understanding of Globalism, I oppose policies allowing uncontrolled influxes of immigrants dispossessing the Natives. I think this would be solved by a cessation of parasitism on the “third world” by high finance, so that third-worlders might enjoy the fruits of their countries, and not be pawns in a divide and conquer game – that way, countries would not be impoverished would be via a concerted effort against the international debt system on their part, and development of their own productive apparatus. For instance, with regards to illegal immigrants from Mexico – which Mexican would want to risk worse situations, if his own country was in optimum production, and not victim to the parasitism of dominant institutions (and Americans should do well to understand that in the current system, they might be the next generation of Nomads – as noted by Jacques Attali, an individual familiar with the higher echelons of the power elite, in his book A Brief History of the Future – and face difficulties from other countries who might be hostile to them). I advocate an undivided humanity, but this does not mean a humanity submerged under top-down globalism, which would imply the disappearance of distinctive traits while the dominant minority would keep theirs – a proposition sickeningly spelled out by the Freemason Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, in Praktischer Idealismus. I feel that decentralized, rhizomic, bottom-up globalization may be a healthier trend. I also advocate positive (though abhor negative) eugenics – admittedly many people I feel are degraded by design, though in their state, unless they show the initiative to transcend it, I would not feel that being with them is worthwhile. I believe that positive changes that percolate through one’s genetic lineage come from nutrition, which creates epigenetic modifications, and I have found that choiceless awareness induces profound psychological changes that for me have been reflected physiologically.”

            Also, I respect first wave feminism (the suffragist movement, though I feel that that is ultimately irrelevant, as we live in a de-facto totalitarian democracy), but second wave Feminism is obviously a part of this Solve et Coagula on a societal scale. You have cited Karen of “Girl Writes What”, a more relevant citation is the following: http://mailstar.net/engagement.html

            On second wave Feminism, I am reminded of the citation of the UNESCO (headed by … Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous) book “Toward World Understanding” that I give in my post, which states: “As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family which infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes.”

          • Benjamin Steigmann
            May 15, 2013 at 7:55 pm

            I will re-post my comment of 4:21 PM, as sometimes this site has errors with posting comments. Jan, or whoever else moderates comments, can redact the comment of 4:21 and use this as a replacement.

            again these are touchy issues – with regards to the psychedelic movement being fraudulent, well, much of “respectable” culture is averse to it, though a duped subculture is enamored of it. This “respectable” culture doesn’t, however, mind criticisms of the psychedelic culture as much as it does criticisms of its other sacred cows.

            So, my comment regarding Coudenhove-Kalergi’s desire to wipe out racial distinctions except for those of the “higher beings” – Jews (who other Jewish supremacists like Samuel Untermeyer called “the aristocrats of the world”), and old bloodline nobility (incidentally, according to Burke’s Peerage genealogists, “The presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has, up to now, always won the White House.”: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82279&page=1), might cause some to cringe – as it goes against previous conditioning that they downloaded from the culture. This is something many would not like to admit, but for those new to this issue – the obvious reality is that the major powers ruling the world today are dynastic Jewish banking families, old European “aristocracy” and Eastern Establishment “nobility”, as well as Zionists (see the first President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann’s, revelation of what Zionism really is: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2013/03/international-jewry-is-power-after-all.html) and militants (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/joint_vision_2020.pdf). Their attitude towards the “lesser races” of worker bees, who, if we are to take Kalergi’s word for it, are to be “mongrelized” with intended “dysgenic” results, is very well summarized by documents taken from Maurice Strong’s and Edmund Leopold de Rothschild’s 4th World Wilderness Congress that you briefly mentioned: http://archive.org/details/GeorgeHuntUncedEarthSummit1992cobdenClubsPapersaldousHuxleythe_125

            “The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction.
            Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970′s recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected.
            “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. …
            Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist “cultures” and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose.
            The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. …
            We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 … We stand with Lord Milner’s credo. We too are “British Race Patriots” and our patriotism is “the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race”. Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system?
            …The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. …
            outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council.
            The Security Council of the U.N. will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. …
            All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution.”

            As I explained in this post covering what is best described as “World Zionism” or “Zionist Globalism”, which is at the apex of the movements you have begun to analyze here, which was partially intended to cover for a more immature, provocative, polemical style that I previously engaged in (partially because of rebellion – I have mostly European, but some Jewish ancestry – through my Great-Grandmother and grandfather, and this has effected my family – so last year, when I was in revolt, I used some of this as weapons against them, as a means of attempting to “overcome” them, though I eventually overcame myself), and partially to introduce these difficult facts in a reasonable manner: http://bensteigmann.blogspot.com/2013/04/disclaimer.html

            “on the subject of race – I have opposed racism, though I feel that much of the so-called “anti-racist” movement is itself flawed, based as it is on a type of cultural Marxism that ignores/advocates a radical ethnic consciousness in opposition to Europeans from other groups, but propagandizes to Europeans that they should destroy their own ethnic consciousness – I hate to be blunt about this, but it was created by Jewish supremacists in order to destroy competition. I do feel that evidence of racial differences has been ignored – these differences being similar to differences between various breeds of dog, which would each have their own aptitudes. With the above stated, I feel that White Nationalism is based on hypocrisy, in many respects so-called “primitive” cultures had things together much better than so-called “civilized” people in contemporary society (see this and this). For the time being, especially given my understanding of Globalism, I oppose policies allowing uncontrolled influxes of immigrants dispossessing the Natives. I think this would be solved by a cessation of parasitism on the “third world” by high finance, so that third-worlders might enjoy the fruits of their countries, and not be pawns in a divide and conquer game – that way, countries would not be impoverished would be via a concerted effort against the international debt system on their part, and development of their own productive apparatus. For instance, with regards to illegal immigrants from Mexico – which Mexican would want to risk worse situations, if his own country was in optimum production, and not victim to the parasitism of dominant institutions (and Americans should do well to understand that in the current system, they might be the next generation of Nomads – as noted by Jacques Attali, an individual familiar with the higher echelons of the power elite, in his book A Brief History of the Future – and face difficulties from other countries who might be hostile to them). I advocate an undivided humanity, but this does not mean a humanity submerged under top-down globalism, which would imply the disappearance of distinctive traits while the dominant minority would keep theirs – a proposition sickeningly spelled out by the Freemason Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, in Praktischer Idealismus. I feel that decentralized, rhizomic, bottom-up globalization may be a healthier trend. I also advocate positive (though abhor negative) eugenics – admittedly many people I feel are degraded by design, though in their state, unless they show the initiative to transcend it, I would not feel that being with them is worthwhile. I believe that positive changes that percolate through one’s genetic lineage come from nutrition, which creates epigenetic modifications, and I have found that choiceless awareness induces profound psychological changes that for me have been reflected physiologically. I don’t know if the ladder changes one’s genetic lineage, but it can certainly facilitate individual transformation.”

            Just because I cited Kalergi doesn’t mean I have qualms with the civil rights movement. There was much legitimate sentiment (though some manipulated sentiment, discussed above). It is important to remember though that here extremists are taking the premises of legitimate sentiment, and warping them for their ulterior motives.

            In a similar vein, I respect first wave feminism (the suffragist movement, though I feel that that is ultimately irrelevant, as we live in a de-facto totalitarian democracy), but second wave Feminism is obviously a part of this Solve et Coagula on a societal scale. You have cited Karen of “Girl Writes What”, a more relevant citation is the following: http://mailstar.net/engagement.html

            On second wave Feminism, I am reminded of the citation of the UNESCO (headed by … Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous) book “Toward World Understanding” that I give in my post, which states: “As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family which infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes.”

            It doesn’t mean, as those who would like to look at this argument out of context might state, that “rights for women” are bad, but that second wave feminism was an extremist perversion of a kernel of whatever legitimate sentiment there may have been, that it had false foundations (if we consider the points that “Karen” brought up), and was likely artificially encouraged, to facilitate this Solve et Coagula on a societal scale.

      • John Richards
        May 15, 2013 at 4:19 pm

        “people have been conditioned to see them as spiritual, rather than biological tools.”

        This is an oversimplification, who are “people”?

        If you look at the way people use psychedelic drugs in the modern world, some people see them as spiritual, but many people dont. For example the kind of people who take LSD on a Friday night and go to some rave party, typically dont attach any ‘spiritual’ meaning to the experience, it is a recreational, fun experience. Then you have the kind of people who drink ayahuasca at ceremonies in South America, in that scene it is common to see psychedelics as spiritual tools.

        So you see, the world isnt necessarily the way you insist it is. People interpret psychedelics in different ways, it is a pointless oversimplification to say that “people have been conditioned to see them as spiritual, rather than biological tools”

        “And regarding positive thinking, the entire new age: spiritualist, hippie movements are based on it. Any time facts are brought up, these types claim you’re being “negative” and refuse to review the evidence… the positive thinking pillow sitters are found throughout the New Age and junk such as “The Secret”.”

        But none of this ^ has anything to do with psychedelic drugs and tripping. For example ‘The secret’ doesnt mention psychedelics once, and the New Age for the most part doesnt touch psychedelics.
        I see this same exact oversight in much of your work, you fail to realise that the New Age has very little connection to psychedelics.

        • Jan Irvin
          May 15, 2013 at 4:28 pm

          Next time read the article before wasting our time.. . for fuck’s sake, man. The psychedelic movement IS the new age… all of the shit being promoted out of Esalen, which also promotes this, IS the new age. Why the hell would you come here wasting people’s time without reading the article first? If you’re not capable of grasping what’s said, read it again and get a dictionary so that you understand what the words mean.

          “When comparing the results of their research, Irvin and Atwill developed a theory about the origin of the psychedelic movement of the 1960’s: The “counterculture” had been developed by elements within the U.S. government and banking establishment as part of a larger plan to bring about a new Dark Age; or, as it was marketed to potential victims, an ‘archaic revival.’[4]

          In 1992 Terence McKenna published in his book Archaic Revival:

          These things are all part of the New Age, but I have abandon that term in favor of what I call the Archaic Revival—which places it all in a better historical perspective. When a culture loses its bearing, the traditional response is to go back in history to find the previous “anchoring model.” An example of this would be the breakup the medieval world at the time of the Renaissance. They had lost their compass, so they went back to Greek and Roman models and created classicism—Roman law, Greek aesthetics, and so on.[5] [emphasis added]
          ~ Terence McKenna

          In another chapter regarding his timewave theory, he states:

          Within the timewave a variety of “resonance points” are recognized. Resonance points can be thought of as areas of the wave that are graphically the same as the wave at some other point within the wave, yet differ from it through having different quantified values. For example, if we chose an end date or zero date of December 21, 2012 A.D., then we find that the time we are living through is in resonance with the late Roman times and the beginning of the Dark Ages in Europe.
          Implicit in this theory of time is the notion that duration is like a tone in that one must assign a moment at which the damped oscillation is finally quenched and ceases. I chose the date December 21, 2012 A.D., as this point because with that assumption the wave seemed to be in the “best fit” configuration with regard to the recorded facts of the ebb and flow of historical advance into connectedness. Later I learned to my amazement that this same date, December 21, 2012, was the date assigned as the end of their calendrical cycle by the classic Maya, surely one of the world’s most time-obsessed cultures. [6] ~ Terence McKenna”

  9. j sorrien
    May 14, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    If psychedelic music is a covert psyop, then country music is a overt psyop.

  10. Vigilius
    May 15, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    I’ve always viewed DeadHeads as preppies, who think they have become hippies.

  11. Benjamin Steigmann
    May 16, 2013 at 12:52 am

    It is hard for people to accept that culture is weaponized. But this is an understanding that comes not only from intuitive perception, but also from an understanding of “technique” as defined by Jacques Ellul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul#On_technique

    and political psychopathy as looked into by Łobaczewski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponerology

    (this is one of the few times I feel that I can cite wikipedia in good conscience)

    Thus, relating this to the “conspiratorial” analysis provided here, and broader social analysis, we could consider the various destructive elements in our society today as efficiency maximizing techniques by which psychopaths achieve power. So for instance, the parasitic financial system, where money is created by loans as debts, could be considered a technique whereby those who wish to express their violence via parasitism may achieve power (by rising to the top of the Usurocracy – with usury being the antisocial use of the monetary system in order to acquire further domination over society). Clubs (like Masonry) and Secret Societies with blood oaths could be considered to be techniques to achieve power over subordinate members, to dominate them, and to network with them to dominate those outside of the group. Religious Fraternities (like Judaism as mentioned, Catholicism, etc.), could be considered techniques to dominate adherents and cause harm to society, and so on. We could extend this to military, medical, academic, and other systems – where ruthlessness as a prime factor will achieve maximum efficiency.

    The only mistake I feel that Łobaczewski makes is that he assumes psychopathy is a biological trait of a minority. It seems to me to be a trend expressed in varying degrees in a great majority, perhaps all of us – typical of a fragmented humanity. Thus the Lenins and Weizmanns of the world express the same fundamental impulse as the rest of us, but via cunning have seized power at opportune moments and projected their violence upon great masses of people. These apostles of violence have become increasingly drunk on the “power” they obtain, and thus increasingly corrupt and violent, in a self-perpetuating positive feedback loop. If we revolt against the most successfully violent among us, then a new group of people, totally compelled by this robotic, fear based, dominating drive, will emerge, and continue this process. And the weaker people, also compelled by this process, will follow them as “leaders”, and dominate and continue to be dominated. With the increasing destructive power of our technology, this will continue until we totally destroy ourselves. Or maybe not. Perhaps attention can be brought to this underlying process itself, stripped of the imagery that we layer upon it, which occults and confuses our understandings.

  12. alex goltzen
    May 16, 2013 at 9:16 am

    fascinating stuff. Can’t wait to digest it all.

    “Moreover, Dr. Colin Ross has shown that high level Freemasonry was responsible for funding the original LSD research (citation?) and this group should also be inspected closely.”

    would really be interested in a citation for that last quote.

    thank you for all the work that you do Jan.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 16, 2013 at 9:46 am

      Colin’s out of town and will get it to me asap.

  13. david llewellyn foster
    May 19, 2013 at 6:24 am

    In a word ~ stimulating.

    Good investigative scholarship should be provocative, controversial and necessarily disruptive. Fomenting informed debate by challenging uncritically received assumptions are de rigeur in my opinion, & therefore the sine qua non of intelligent discourse. If we can’t take the heat as the saying goes, then we should get out of the kitchen. There is also an apt old (buccaneer) advisory ~ “ten dead cooks tell no tales.”
     
    I admire the work Jan and Joe are doing here, if for no other reason than it is a powerful example of intellectual courage; sheer dogged determination to get to the truth, and also a willingness to communicate radical interpretations of the (always partial) public record. So bravo to you both. As Bernard Lewis loves to remind us when dissembling about providing visions of the future ~ any future ~ the professional historian has enough difficulty “predicting the past.”

    I want to underscore the fact that those of us who are the fortunate recipients of this research will miss the point entirely, if we simply agree with everything that is laid out here and do not question the arguments and check the facts. For then we are only endorsing but one (albeit salutary and informative) perspective and enshrining it as a new authority. By doing so uncritically, we shall only be endorsing yet another potential exercise in diabolical mind binding.

    It is healthy, necessary and desirable therefore to analyse and compare, discuss, question further; evaluate and contextualize as deeply as time and available data will allow.

    So this said, I’d like to add my own considerations to this ample discussion. I refrained from posting anything until I had also read through the extensive comments, which seem to me to indicate genuine engagement & for the most part appear both candid and honest.

    My first observation has to do with David McGowan’s hypothesis. As I have not read the book, so I am responding to the information provided here; but it does strike me that one obvious fact needs to be acknowledged. The parents of anyone born after WW2 would have been profoundly implicated in the global militarization of industrialized societies. In the US, that became so hyper-militarized and dependent on its war economy, this grew ever more pronounced and exaggerated. In the UK, “national service” or “call-up” was abolished in the fifties. While in the US, the draft was notoriously contentious right through the Vietnam era. The sixties cohort in Britain were exempted from compulsory military service, and this made an enormous cultural difference. Elsewhere in Europe it was different of course. As a teenager I grew up knowing more about Russell’s CND, the partition of India, African decolonization, apartheid & commonwealth than the Franco-Chinese politics of S. East Asia and elsewhere that for various reasons were kept outside the UK populist radar.

    Several of the comments have raised significant questions, so I want to draw attention to some of the more salient contextual “givens” that may not be as empirical as is frequently assumed.

    This is big stuff that suggests a real need for an intellectually adequate conversation, but the constraints of space and attention spans require us to be as brief and concise as possible.

    Alan Piper’s material is very interesting and new to me, but vis a vis early clinical LSD research, it pays to study Stan Grof’s voluminous data from the fifties in Prague; that was then still well under the Soviet communist thumb (& quisling jackboot.) There was nothing like that research in the West until Grof himself brought his ideas and experience to Maryland. Huxley as we all know was very influenced by Humphrey Osmond’s therapeutic research in Saskatchewan, so it is important to acknowledge the pioneering professional methodologies that were being trialed within the psychiatric community. MK-ULTRA was, I suspect, in many respects a panic-response to perceived advances in the USSR that reached its almost manic apogee in the ’70’s with the psi experimentation, remote viewing etc. and general communist hysterics.

    R D Laing in Britain was rethinking schizophrenia prior to that, (a suitable cold-war propensity perhaps) and in San Francisco we had the pioneering experimental work of Weir-Perry. This was the age of professional and academic psychiatry and psychologizing par excellence. It is significant that the author of the Open Society, Karl Popper was so deeply opposed to psycho-analysis on the grounds that it was only ever a pseudo-science and consequently alienated those who were by then obsessively protective of Freudian ideas, not the least of whom was Freud’s surviving wife, Anna.

    It is necessary to go right back to the influence of William James (the divided self, the twice-born etc) to get a better grasp of the intellectual context for all of this. Moreover by the time we get to McLuhan and Leary, it is James Joyce who is lionized and played as the literary trump card.

    As for Timothy Leary and his colleagues at Harvard, I think it is helpful to listen to what Robert Anton Wilson had to say about Leary’s cat and mouse game with the FBI and the US “intelligence” establishment. After his encounter with the Panthers in Algeria, Leary became superficially acquainted with Aleister Crowley’s comprehensive revised synthesis and ground-breaking holistic initiatory system of Thelemic discipline, that was increasingly being appropriated, sampled, and transformed into a new-age marketing exercise by unscrupulous elements in the West. The entire culture was permeated with this fanatical cold-war climate of corporate-capitalist ideology and a religiously motivated reactionary obsession with “security.” In that respect I think it is unequivocally clear that the USA dramatically devolved and mutated into a paranoid, delusional and psychopathic force in the world. What had hithertoo been largely an escalation of internal domestic mania, was exported internationally, and scaled up to the genocidal proportions we witness today.

    Personally, I found Leary’s early writings very compelling and insightful, but by the time he had become a counter-culture (Roszak’s term) franchise, and was talking about planetary migration and neuro-politics, it all became a bit too glib, pretentiously gimmicky & self-consciously clever for my taste. The problem with making a career out of dissent, is that one’s “revolutionary” posture soon gets appropriated, branded and marketed as a sales pitch. Esalen typified this, with it’s prevalent tendency to extol rabbinical gurus like Perls. The conceit lives on in otherwise what ought to be promising contexts like the California Inst. for Integral Studies.

    Re psychedelic experience in and of itself, as I have suggested, it is helpful to confer with Grof’s valuable early corpus. The serious point is really two-fold: first ~ LSD was so immensely powerful and concentrated, exponentially more powerful in its ratio of dose to effect than mescaline and secondly ~ the mind is never a blank slate; Betty Eisner’s rule of set, setting and matrix always applies. Everything subsequent was (as Whitehead said of philosophy’s relationship to Plato,) actually a massive footnote to that seminal operating principle.

    I rather disagree with Jan’s characterization of mysticism being opposed to gnosis. Mystery is not the same thing as mystification. One is communion with an unknown, the other a reductive pretense to know. In my view, true gnosis is actually derived from “pure” mystical experience through the very adequate and demanding process of (learned) yogic integration.

    In general principle I understand “legitimate” mystical experience as a spontaneously occurring, frequently unsolicited phenomenon; that may also be induced and symbiotically directed by some deep cultural methodology and contextual praxis, or be mediated by acquired ceremonial and formal theurgical means.

    Gnosis, in its most undogmatic vernacular characterization, may therefore be approached cognitively and symbolically, as a neuro-phenomenological (autopoietic) realization of “biosemiotic” experience, but also as the subsequent doctrinal repository of such experiences; these unfortunately so often get appropriated and fossilized into “tradition.”

    Truth is, it is impossible to adequately “describe” ultimate truth because it is so evasive, like ourselves, it changes, evolves and mutates, so is always an aspiration to be sought after energetically and conscientiously; lived as a personal affirmation and genuine expression of what we as ethical beings are capable of contributing to the world. If that is held to be spiritual so be it. Others might call it an evolutionary process; or even a heuristic experiment in philosophical pragmatism through the moral exercise of a fully realized will.

    • david llewellyn foster
      May 19, 2013 at 7:26 am

      Something I almost forgot, that I meant to raise with Jan is the role of Robert Graves in the Wasson escapade. I get the impression he simply used Graves, ran with his ideas and played him for an eccentric, overly fanciful temperamental fool.

      So far as I can determine the entire retrogade shambles of reactionary “western” society, whatever some astrologically inclined academic sophists like Richard Tarnas (or the late Terence McKenna for that matter) and others project, really amounts to a big argument about God, Jesus and “manifest destiny.” For “Jesus” Adonis or whomever I tend to defer now to the investigations of Joseph Atwill and Acharya S. As for “God” I’ve come to rethink this notion lately, since it occurred to me only this morning that this “god” of the old testament was really introduced into popular consciousness through the Greek translation of the Hebrew books known as the septuagint allegedly in the 2nd century bce.

      There seems to be plenty of evidence for multiple extant (gnostic) apocalypses so far as I am aware, that clearly predate the NT canon, examples of eclectic spiritual epiphanies and prophetic visions ~ presumably induced by austerities and entheogens associated with various “pagan” traditions. It simply suggests a revelation or epiphany of an intimate personal nature, that Jewish sects like Zelots identify with revolutionary political goals extrapolated to infer catastrophic changes to society at large. In that sense, psychedelic experience is obviously apocalyptic. The problem is always how to translate those revelations into meaningful social improvements.

  14. Micah C
    May 24, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Hey Jan,

    As usual your research and line of questioning has completely made me question my model of reality that I cling to so dearly sometimes. Psychedelics have done damage to me in some ways, but they have also made me a more critical person. Most of the boundary dissolving experiences I’ve had on psychedelics have made me question many of the models of reality that I took for granted.

    I personally experienced that in times when I over used these substances I was left completely blank. Conversely In periods where I have taken sparse amounts throughout a year they have led to long periods of lucidity, and clarity in my life. When used correctly, these substances were a gateway to critical analysis of life for me. They allowed (or facilitated maybe) me to shed pervious notions of mysticism and seek for the objective reality which we humans can share.

    So, I was wondering if you think that psychedelics could still be used as tools (individually) to help humanity get past mysticism and into reality. Or if they are simply to wild to be harnessed and lead to some kind absolute degradation of consciousness. I think history has displayed clear examples of both outcomes. My inclination is that in the long run they will benefit our development as a culture into a more discerning and compassionate population.

    • Jan Irvin
      May 25, 2013 at 11:01 am

      The authors are in disagreement about the use of mind-altering drugs. One believes that we do should not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control. He recommends they not be used without a prior thorough study in something such as the trivium method, and suggests that, like a knife which may be used to cut your food, and also used to kill; psychedelics can be used to empower or control. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don’t use them for spiritual purposes. The other believes that given their provenance, they should not be taken under any circumstances.

  15. Ben Justice
    May 29, 2013 at 3:59 am

    Jan Irvin, I believe I found a flaw in your argument. If so, you’ll be interested in it.

    You say that Esalen, Huxley, McKenna, Bernays, Wasson and Dulles are all part of a CIA agenda to create a counter-culture that, through the adoption of certain values associated with that of the “deadhead”, creates an inherently weak-minded sub-culture that is easy to control. You further posit that these CIA or secret society programs are still possibly happening today, manifest in things like Burning Man.

    I’m going to single out McKenna, since out of the aforementioned names, I am the most familiar with him. It is important to note that what I’m about to say next will work with any one of the people mentioned in this conspiracy.

    Simple question: Was McKenna (or anyone) aware of the conspirator’s goal? Because if not, or even if so, you’ve got a huge problem.

    The problem is that you’ve entirely ignored the independent minds of these men. If McKenna understood with and agreed with the conspirator’s agenda, that’s one thing. That would be a chilling truth with serious implications; it would certainly mean that the McKenna I think I know, the McKenna that Joe Rogan thinks he knows, or the McKenna that anyone who has listened to him thinks they knows… is not the real Terrence McKenna. If Terrence were in on it, it would mean that all his speech was very deliberately crafted towards a single end, one designed by the CIA and/or Secret Societies. When McKenna says something like, “You are a divine being. You matter, you count. You come from realms of unimaginable power and light, and you will return to those realms.” those words have a hidden, underlying meaning. One that is ultimately designed to get us to adopt a value system that will ultimately cripple us.

    HOWEVER, if you’re claiming that McKenna has been influenced by a culture the CIA and/or Secret Societies seeded through the invention of the “Deadhead”, the manufacture and distribution of the LSD molecule, and the carefully tuned message of other prominent counter-culture mouthpieces like Tim Leary, then you are concurrently calling McKenna a fool who lacks critical thinking capacity — a dumb ass. For if the agenda of the CIA/Secret Socities is working its way through “conduits” like McKenna, and McKenna is not complicit, then he is merely a message replicator and nothing more. That would mean that every speech he ever gave was handed to him. Otherwise it would be his original thought. When he is interviewing Richard Alpert in Prague or walking and talking with Alexander Shulgin, how much of that off-the-cuff dialogue is the “real” Terrence McKenna and how much is the CIA/Secret Society spokesman McKenna?

    Either way, your making claims about McKenna, Huxley, Wasson, et al. that are pretty damning and incidentally run counter to the message most people understand when they read/hear the words of these men.

    You gotta go where the evidence takes ya, man. To do the opposite may make for compelling fiction. That’s not what we’re here for…

    • Jan Irvin
      May 29, 2013 at 8:29 am

      Please study the trivium to the left.

      • Ben Justice
        May 30, 2013 at 6:09 am

        What part, specifically?

        What is your response to my argument? If I was unclear, allow me to restate: According to you, McKenna was either a conscious CIA operative (complicit conspirator) or he unwittingly became a conduit for the transmission of CIA propaganda. My understanding of his many speeches do not seem to advance a CIA/Secret Society agenda. And if they do, then it is one I happen to agree with. Perhaps, Jan, the CIA is actually a good thing? If they’re responsible for Terrence McKenna, Huxley, Leary, et al., then we owe them a debt of gratitude.

        Your response of “please study the trivium” is tantamount to you saying “you’re wrong because I have knowledge that you do not have. I don’t care to elaborate, but trust me, if you took the time to read _____ you’d see.” This is an Argument from Authority, the “authority” in this instance is the trivium.

        • Jan Irvin
          May 30, 2013 at 8:45 am

          My response is for you to study the trivium because you’re thinking in fallacies and ignoring the evidence. I wonder how much of McKenna you’ve even studied? You’re using a neglected aspect fallacy, and not having studied the database or much else further, you buy his words at face value, but when you look into his BACKGROUND it’s very clear that he’s selling the same 4th world wilderness agenda as the others. We’ve put out so much work and so many videos covering such ill-founded notions from people who only study his work topically but don’t actually hear or look up the words that he’s using.

          He sells feminism, humanism, eugenics, transhumanism and a new dark age. If you had paid attention to the articles provided here, as well as the videos, you’d see that this was the CIA’s agenda, and you’re entirely uninformed of the matter, even though you seem to have just read the article. Go back and read it again, as well as the others cited on the matter and stop leading yourself around with fallacies. Do some grammar. .. hence study the trivium before you go forward. Removing the fallacies or lies from your own thoughts is key to seeing how these guys manipulate you and lie.

          The trivium is not an argument from authority. I didn’t tell you to go to this person and get his opinion. I’m telling you to study the trivium because it teaches you HOW to think and remove these ill-founded fallacies from your thoughts so you don’t continually reach false conclusions from your narrow scope of understanding – and wishful thinking.

          Maybe you should get a clue as to what the CIA’s agenda is before you say if he’s selling it or not. Seems pretty common sense to me.

          But if you’re for eugenics, humanism, transhumanism, and all of these lies he sells from his own false appeal to authority, and if you think his disinformation is something you agree with, then you’re either extremely ignorant, and again, have never once even considered to look up the actual meanings of these things he sells, or your part of this agenda.

          But if you’re for a new Dark Age and humanism and eugenics and this other disgusting shit and lies he sold, then you’ll not be permitted here again. The world has enough disgusting tyrants in this world who want to use their own ignorance to control and manipulate others with lies… if you’re for that then I have no respect for you or your “cognizant” capacities.

          Terence McKenna quotes:

          “The Mushroom said. […] But since you brought it up. […] I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies, tax incentives, medical policies, insurance policies, put in place to limit male birth. […]
          This is the way to feminize the human race. […] I’m a feminist. […] AS A HUMANIST I advocate a reduction in male birth.”
          ~ Terence McKenna

          Is Terence actually trying to claim that the mushrooms wanted to promote eugenics and tyrannous government policies, taxes, and medical and insurance policies specifically against men, and limiting male birth, the exact antithesis of the hideous communist policies in China? Are we to believe Terence that the mushrooms would promote more hatred and the murder/limiting of men and baby boys? Does a mother not naturally nurture her offspring? As someone else pointed out to me, what greater evil could there be than to put words like this in the mouth of the sacrament – the mushrooms? What care could the mushrooms possibly have in tyrannical, communist government policies that promote hatred against half the population? Notice how Terence says the mushrooms said, but then switches it to “I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies…”. Nice try, Terence.

          Maybe you were just too ignorant to look up the other article that was cited in this specifically on these topics, or maybe you’re a Zionist fraud who’s a part of this sick, racist, hate agenda…

          But continue to sell his lies in such ignorance and you’re no longer welcome here.

          In the future I recommend you gain the mental clarity to look up the words and definitions of things you hear and not just buy them because they sound pretty and you’ve never fact checked a damned thing…

          Start with these, the first was already cited, that you clearly didn’t read. If you did read and you’re still for this shit, then simply leave and don’t come back, and I’ll be sure to add you to the list of those peddling this agenda who need to be exposed.

          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/

          http://www.gnosticmedia.com/turning-the-tables-on-the-huxleys-gordon-wasson-terence-mckenna-esalen-psychedelics-2012-mind-control-151/

          • Ben Justice
            May 31, 2013 at 8:09 am

            Thanks for taking the time to reply. It is appreciated.

            “How much McKenna have you even studied?” = Shifting the Burden of Proof, Argument by Question.
            You can attack my personality, my grammar, my assumed motives, and my knowledge or lack thereof… but you still haven’t addressed my original critique of your article, which I’ve now stated twice.

            “Maybe you should get a clue as to what the CIA’s agenda is before you say if he’s selling it or not. Seems pretty common sense to me.” = Reification. Look it up.
            The CIA’s agenda? The “CIA agenda” is an abstraction treated by you as something real. Where’s your proof? Oh, that’s right, if I simply read enough I’d know.
            That, friends, is an Argument Demanding Impossible Perfection; I just don’t have the specialized knowledge you do. Knowledge that you seem unable to reiterate here. Yet you can point out that it resides mere mouse clicks away. Well, Jan, if you check out MY website and study the “Quintrivium” (don’t worry, it’s only 2,000 pages and 846 hours of videos) you’ll see how WRONG and IGNORANT you are!

            “But if you’re for eugenics, humanism, transhumanism, and all of these lies he sells from his own false appeal to authority, and if you think his disinformation is something you agree with, then you’re either extremely ignorant, and again, have never once even considered to look up the actual meanings of these things he sells, or your part of this agenda.”

            False Dichotomy. I am neither extremely ignorant nor am I part of “this agenda”. Also, Strawman. I never claimed to be any of these things. I merely said that I don’t understand McKenna’s message to be one that would enable greater control by the CIA or Secret Socities. I don’t have to defend whether or not I believe in transhumanism, feminism, eugenics, or the 4th world dark age because my beliefs are not what is being debated.

            “But if you’re for a new Dark Age and humanism and eugenics and this other disgusting shit and lies he sold, then you’ll not be permitted here again.”

            Appeal to Force. Granted, the scope of things you can do to me here on the Internet is quite limited. Banning me, which I fully expect you to do, is the only power you have to threaten me with.
            For the record, I don’t agree with any of the “disgusting shit” or “Zionist fraud” that you’re accusing me of. If you ban me, it’s because you’ve become a petty man who can’t stand when someone has successfully pointed out errors in his thinking. You must fancy yourself a fellow of immense intellect. After all, just look at how often you’ve attempted to belittle mine own! You can often discover a person’s insecurities in the very insults they hurl at others.

            “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/”

            This is ridiculous! Your own article is self-contradictory! An excerpt from the above cited article which I READ:

            “He [Terence] knew Francis Huxley, an anthropologist and one of Julian’s two sons. The other, Anthony, was a botanist. Francis lived in Santa Fe and we knew him through personal circles there. Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea. Not well. I only met him once or twice myself, so it was more of an acquaintanceship than a friendship. Laura, of course, was Aldous wife and was a beloved figure in the psychedelic community as a result. I’m sure she probably hung out at Esalen and may have been there when T was there, which was regularly in the 80s and 90s.”
            ~ Dennis McKenna
            So here we see that Terence even hung out with Francis Huxley, son to Julian Huxley. And of course Julian is one of the key suspects in this entire investigation. Coincidence?”

            You draw the conclusion that Terence hung out with Francis Huxley, even though Terence’s own brother says, verbatim, “Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea. Not well.” DENNIS SAYS TERENCE DIDN’T KNOW HIM WELL. Yet you say, “here we see that Terence even hung out with Francis Huxley, son of Julian, who is a key suspect…”

            Do you know what fallacy that is, Jan? The Association Fallacy.

            Laura Huxley was a “prominent figure” and “probably” hung out at Esalen and “may have been” there when Terence was there too. This is your damning evidence that Terence was pushing a Aldous Huxley agenda which is really an Esalen agenda? Because his Brother said that they went to the same place regularly in the 80’s and 90’s?

            Well, shit, I must be pushing a Ray Kroc agenda, since I frequented the McDonalds play land in the 80’s and 90’s. Wait a sec… you’ve been to McDonalds too. Do you deny this? And Terence went to McDonald in the 80’s (check the archives on Quintrivum.com for further reading). Hot damn! You’re in on it as well! You advocate mushrooms, Wasson advocated mushrooms, Laura Huxley did mushrooms. OH. MY. GOD. It goes deeper: You —> Joe Rogan’s Podcast —-> Stanley Krippner was a guest —-> Krippner knew Timothy Leary —-> Leary knew Aldous Huxley —-> Huxley co-founded Esalen.

            COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

          • Jan Irvin
            May 31, 2013 at 9:56 am

            You wrote:

            I’m going to single out McKenna, since out of the aforementioned names, I am the most familiar with him. It is important to note that what I’m about to say next will work with any one of the people mentioned in this conspiracy.
            Simple question: Was McKenna (or anyone) aware of the conspirator’s goal? Because if not, or even if so, you’ve got a huge problem.
            The problem is that you’ve entirely ignored the independent minds of these men. If McKenna understood with and agreed with the conspirator’s agenda, that’s one thing. That would be a chilling truth with serious implications; it would certainly mean that the McKenna I think I know, the McKenna that Joe Rogan thinks he knows, or the McKenna that anyone who has listened to him thinks they knows… is not the real Terrence McKenna. If Terrence were in on it, it would mean that all his speech was very deliberately crafted towards a single end, one designed by the CIA and/or Secret Societies. When McKenna says something like, “You are a divine being. You matter, you count. You come from realms of unimaginable power and light, and you will return to those realms.” those words have a hidden, underlying meaning. One that is ultimately designed to get us to adopt a value system that will ultimately cripple us.

            Obviously, as we’ve shown, McKenna’s book The Archaic Revival is a full discussion of this agenda, which he could not have been ignorant of. He’s selling it and titled his book after the fact, and has the intro from Jay Steven’s discussing it. So he had to have been fully aware.

            I’m not ignoring the independent minds of these men at all. They worked and sold this agenda period, as is found in their own books. I turned Rogan on to McKenna originally, but so what? What these people think about McKenna vs. his own quotes and agendas are irrelevant. If he’s working with these people he’s obviously intentionally misleading them.
            Obvious Mckenna was one of the conspirators, as his own quotes reveal, and so then he would have to be aware of them. But apparently Aldous Huxley was running most of the show, whom McKenna associated with his family on many levels and admits the influence.

            Much of their goal is to sell the mind control as spirituality. If he’s saying you’re a divine being, then why is he saying we should limit male birth and have communist policies to insure this?

            You wrote:

            HOWEVER, if you’re claiming that McKenna has been influenced by a culture the CIA and/or Secret Societies seeded through the invention of the “Deadhead”, the manufacture and distribution of the LSD molecule, and the carefully tuned message of other prominent counter-culture mouthpieces like Tim Leary, then you are concurrently calling McKenna a fool who lacks critical thinking capacity — a dumb ass. For if the agenda of the CIA/Secret Socities is working its way through “conduits” like McKenna, and McKenna is not complicit, then he is merely a message replicator and nothing more.

            Either that, or we’re all the fools for believing him and not fact checking his words. But anyone who would do such things to fool the masses based on their own ad vericundiam fallacies is obviously a fool, no matter how you look at it.
            We don’t have a documents that says “I’m an agent” – as they’re covert ops, so there are only 2 possibilities here, an agent or willful idiot. Look in the database, his background is laid out there.

            Yes, it is possible that many people get caught up into selling the lie without being aware of it. But from Mckenna’s own writings and the agendas he sells, he becomes more clear that he was aware… but anyone who would sell such things without fully informing every one of their intentions is nothing but a sophist and a fool. But yes, either way, McKenna is a dumbass, as you put it. Just read his books, they’re filled with contradictions, and constantly using hypotheses as facts throughout. Then there’s his lies of 2012 and the Timewave that he pulled from the thin air and took from the CIA and Jesuits… His nonsense on the Stoned Ape, were he provably faked his citations, was pointed out by Dr. Akers. But asking you if you’ve actually read McKenna is not shifting the burden of proof. Since we’re discussing McKenna here, have you read him or not? These are things he discusses throughout his books and lectures and should therefore be no shocker to anyone who has read his books and understands the definitions of the words he uses, like “bard”. What is a bard? When we look it up we see:

            “In medieval Gaelic and British culture a bard was a professional poet, employed by a patron, such as a monarch or nobleman, to commemorate the patron’s ancestors and to praise the patron’s own activities.”

            So in fact he admits that he’s selling their agenda.

            “How much McKenna have you even studied?” = Shifting the Burden of Proof, Argument by Question.
            You can attack my personality, my grammar, my assumed motives, and my knowledge or lack thereof… but you still haven’t addressed my original critique of your article, which I’ve now stated twice.

            When you’re all over the place bringing up irrelevant red herrings, unable to stick to the facts or understand them clearly, this is when I get dismissive of you. As we’re discussing McKenna, it’s most certainly not irrelevant.

            How is asking you how much of his work have you studied attacking your personality and motives? That’s the fallacy of the lesser to the greater. You’re very defensive and seems you’re not able to stick with the topic here.

            You wrote:

            If McKenna understood with and agreed with the conspirator’s agenda, that’s one thing. That would be a chilling truth with serious implications; it would certainly mean that the McKenna I think I know, the McKenna that Joe Rogan thinks he knows, or the McKenna that anyone who has listened to him thinks they knows… is not the real Terrence McKenna. If Terrence were in on it, it would mean that all his speech was very deliberately crafted towards a single end, one designed by the CIA and/or Secret Societies.

            But what matter is Joe Rogan’s opinion? That would be a false appeal to authority. This is a guy who makes public attacks on work that he’s admitted he’s not read. The irony is that 10 years ago I made the mistake of turning Rogan on to McKenna, and now he’s his cheerleader. If one reads carefully McKenna’s book, and realizes that he is in fact selling a new dark age, then it becomes clear his agenda, regardless of what people like these think of the matter. A million Frenchmen can be wrong. These people’s own citations from their own books stand on their own.

            You write:
            “McKenna was either a conscious CIA operative (complicit conspirator) or he unwittingly became a conduit for the transmission of CIA propaganda. My understanding of his many speeches do not seem to advance a CIA/Secret Society agenda.”
            I wrote:
            “Maybe you should get a clue as to what the CIA’s agenda is before you say if he’s selling it or not. Seems pretty common sense to me.” = Reification. Look it up.
            The CIA’s agenda? The “CIA agenda” is an abstraction treated by you as something real. Where’s your proof? Oh, that’s right, if I simply read enough I’d know.

            Have you read through the MKULTRA documents and others showing that they’re selling this 4th world agenda and Agenda 21? Maybe you could just start with the documents so that you don’t have to pretend it’s not real. Their own documents and their own words are what’s real.

            Did you study the database that was provided on the website? I think the agenda of the new dark age is well supported, as are the others to the 4th world. If you’re not grasping the agenda, just study their works more. I’ve based my abstraction on their agenda by official CIA documents, university archives from people they worked with, as well as letters we’ve sourced and doing serious study looking into the matter from their own writings. The proof of their agenda is in their own words – the citations… so just study them. Study their backgrounds. That’s why there are citations. If you don’t read the proof that’s provided, then don’t whine about it. You have failed the onus of proof to show us how what we’re revealing in this article and the others is not there agenda. At this point the onus falls on you to disprove the citations and database provided, which you’ve not done.

            You wrote:

            That, friends, is an Argument Demanding Impossible Perfection; I just don’t have the specialized knowledge you do.

            Since his books and our citations were already provided, we certainly didn’t move the goalpost. You are the one who stated what the CIA’s agenda was in the first place. “My understanding of his many speeches do not seem to advance a CIA/Secret Society agenda.”

            So was it not you who stated that you know the CIA’s agenda in the first place, which you then turned and attacked me for? Seriously? So in one moment you claim to know the CIA’s agenda, and in the next you claim:

            The “CIA agenda” is an abstraction treated by you as something real. Where’s your proof?

            – and then you attack me for the very thing you just committed. Which is it? You know their agenda, or it’s an abstraction? You can’t have it both ways and then attack me for your contradictions.

            That’s an irrelevant appeal to emotion. You have the trivium and can look the things up just as I did. Start with grammar.

            You write:

            Knowledge that you seem unable to reiterate here. Yet you can point out that it resides mere mouse clicks away. Well, Jan, if you check out MY website and study the “Quintrivium” (don’t worry, it’s only 2,000 pages and 846 hours of videos) you’ll see how WRONG and IGNORANT you are!

            No, I’ve reiterated it clearly. The trick is getting you past your own fallacies to the facts that you haven’t studied and just ridiculed above.
            It’s simply asking you to take the onus of proof and show how our thesis is wrong. But if you’ve not read his work and are only appealing to what is popularly believed, then these are fallacious arguments, not based on his own words admitting that he’s a humanist, transhumanist, feminist and eugenicist, etc. You then must ignore his own largest influences which he himself states. You must ignore the letters written between these people, etc.
            His claims are in his own words in his own publications.

            Terence McKenna quotes:

            “The Mushroom said. […] But since you brought it up. […] I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies, tax incentives, medical policies, insurance policies, put in place to limit male birth. […]
            This is the way to feminize the human race. […] I’m a feminist. […] AS A HUMANIST I advocate a reduction in male birth.”
            ~ Terence McKenna “Speaking the Unspeakable” (begins at 1 hour 11 minutes – the Q&A):
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IO7pHD3X9M

            Is Terence actually trying to claim that the mushrooms wanted to promote eugenics and tyrannous government policies, taxes, and medical and insurance policies specifically against men, and limiting male birth, the exact antithesis of the hideous communist policies in China? Are we to believe Terence that the mushrooms would promote more hatred and the murder/limiting of men and baby boys? Does a mother not naturally nurture her offspring? As someone else pointed out to me, what greater evil could there be than to put words like this in the mouth of the sacrament – the mushrooms? What care could the mushrooms possibly have in tyrannical, communist government policies that promote hatred against half the population? Notice how Terence says the mushrooms said, but then switches it to “I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies…”. Nice try, Terence.

            “- The feminizing of culture. Culture would be feminized on a level that has yet to be fully explored.”” – Archaic Revival pg. 220.

            Terence: 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.
            From Mushrooms, Elves, and Magic.

            And when you realize that Julian Huxley created these very ideas that Aldous sold in the novels, it completes the circle.

            Then you go into some appeal to ridicule about citations.. and not wanting to read them. If I read them, and provided them, you can too. Why make excuses here? I’ve already provided the database and many many hours of citations and work that substantiate this. Your appeal to ignorance here bears not on the work and citations already provided, nor your lies about how much is actually there to study. The citations in each paper are there for all to read. How the hell do you think I got them? But it is a fact that if you ignore them, you’re committing argumentum ad ignorantium.

            You state:

            Either way, your making claims about McKenna, Huxley, Wasson, et al. that are pretty damning and incidentally run counter to the message most people understand when they read/hear the words of these men.

            I wonder how many have actually read his words? Most seem to just regurgitate what they think he’s saying, but ignore his statements regarding feminism, humanism, transhumanism, et al, that were developed mostly by the Huxleys.
            Most of the so-called “claims” that I’m making is just citations from their own work… their own words. I’m just pointing out what others who chose to ignore the citations don’t find.

            You write:

            “But if you’re for eugenics, humanism, transhumanism, and all of these lies he sells from his own false appeal to authority, and if you think his disinformation is something you agree with, then you’re either extremely ignorant, and again, have never once even considered to look up the actual meanings of these things he sells, or your part of this agenda.”
            False Dichotomy. I am neither extremely ignorant nor am I part of “this agenda”. Also, Strawman. I never claimed to be any of these things. I merely said that I don’t understand McKenna’s message to be one that would enable greater control by the CIA or Secret Socities. I don’t have to defend whether or not I believe in transhumanism, feminism, eugenics, or the 4th world dark age because my beliefs are not what is being debated.

            Again, you contradict yourself, and pretend to know that you do know what the CIA’s agenda is:

            “I merely said that I don’t understand McKenna’s message to be one that would enable greater control by the CIA or Secret Socities.”

            And I’ve shown you how that’s false.

            I’m sorry, did you not say that you’re for what he promotes? Can’t find your quote now.

            FYI, You seem to regularly confuse and conflate the meanings of fallacies, etc… It’s a bit confusing at first to get them all memorized, but keep working at it. You’ll get there. Telling you to study the trivium to correct this is not an appeal to authority. I’m not saying you must believe this person because he’s an expert.

            But you bring in all of these irrelevant people and topics, red herrings, rather than sticking to what’s being discussed.
            You wrote:

            “But if you’re for a new Dark Age and humanism and eugenics and this other disgusting shit and lies he sold, then you’ll not be permitted here again.”

            Appeal to Force. Granted, the scope of things you can do to me here on the Internet is quite limited. Banning me, which I fully expect you to do, is the only power you have to threaten me with.

            No, this is not an ad baculum fallacy. Again, you confuse what the fallacies are. I’m not telling you to do XYZ or else. I’m telling you that if you’re for this shit, then I’ll simply ban you. I’m simply telling you that if you’re here to sell eugenics and humanism and feminism and all of this other shit that McKenna and these guys sell, you’ll not be permitted here. Capiche? I’m not saying change your mind or you’ll be banned… I’m saying you’ll be banned for promoting these horseshit agendas.

            You wrote:

            For the record, I don’t agree with any of the “disgusting shit” or “Zionist fraud” that you’re accusing me of. If you ban me, it’s because you’ve become a petty man who can’t stand when someone has successfully pointed out errors in his thinking. You must fancy yourself a fellow of immense intellect. After all, just look at how often you’ve attempted to belittle mine own! You can often discover a person’s insecurities in the very insults they hurl at others.

            Wow, really? You’ve not pointed out any errors. You’re using fallacies and not pinning down the right ones, but I applaud your effort. But notice how you just distorted my points and then use that to try to attack me as petty? Where have I hurled insults at you? You admitted you were for this shit. Did you not say in one of your responses that you’re for much of what McKenna says? You seem to be selective then in which of his ideas you promote and are ok with. You have not pointed out any errors… Then notice how you turned this into an ad hominem and attack on me, which is what you did coming here trying to prove a flaw that you’ve not yet proved.

            You must fancy yourself a fellow of immense intellect. After all, just look at how often you’ve attempted to belittle mine own! You can often discover a person’s insecurities in the very insults they hurl at others.

            I thought we were discussing McKenna, and his agenda…? Why turn and try to attack me now? I’ve even provided the quotes to his own work, from his own mouth, etc. Revealing your fallacious statements just shows them as fallacious, period. If you’re using fallacies they’re lies. I’m just pointing out which ones your using. Lies are lies and they should be pointed out – with quotes, accurately, having studied all the work and citations … as our article, above… If you have citations that actually show how the work is wrong, other than their own “mental independence”, when the Classical trivium itself shows how to mind control people using these fallacious alone, then provide it. But the trivium study, which I pointed out first, shows how this is done, and people are not so independent as they think, as we discussed in the article with Bernays and the crowd control material we cited there. Mckenna studied McLuhan who wrote is PHD on the Classical Trivium – or mind control. The Trivium method is the inverse of that.

            “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/”
            This is ridiculous! Your own article is self-contradictory! An excerpt from the above cited article which I READ:
            “He [Terence] knew Francis Huxley, an anthropologist and one of Julian’s two sons. The other, Anthony, was a botanist. Francis lived in Santa Fe and we knew him through personal circles there. Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea. Not well. I only met him once or twice myself, so it was more of an acquaintanceship than a friendship. Laura, of course, was Aldous wife and was a beloved figure in the psychedelic community as a result. I’m sure she probably hung out at Esalen and may have been there when T was there, which was regularly in the 80s and 90s.”
            ~ Dennis McKenna

            So here we see that Terence even hung out with Francis Huxley, son to Julian Huxley. And of course Julian is one of the key suspects in this entire investigation. Coincidence?”
            You draw the conclusion that Terence hung out with Francis Huxley, even though Terence’s own brother says, verbatim, “Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea. Not well.” DENNIS SAYS TERENCE DIDN’T KNOW HIM WELL. Yet you say, “here we see that Terence even hung out with Francis Huxley, son of Julian, who is a key suspect…”

            Do you realize what you just proved here? :

            You admit that Dennis says: “Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea.” Then he goes on to state how well Terence knew Francis just after admitting that “I have no idea” – “not well”. Either he does, or doesn’t, not both. This is a contradiction in Dennis’s own statement.

            The issue here is that Terence did in fact hang out with Francis Huxley, and, as Dennis admits, he has no idea how well they knew each other..

            Do you know what fallacy that is, Jan? The Association Fallacy.

            No, it’s not. But did you see what you just did? You created a straw man argument and selected one thing out of the 40+ coincidences proved by that paper. More than 40! Here are just 12:
            Is it coincidence that Terence would hang out with the great grandson of one of the key promoters of Darwin’s theories, Francis Huxley (1), who had ties via his own family to Darwin’s via his cousin (2), and was influenced heavily by Tielhard (3) – who was involved with the Piltdown Hoax (4) – who happened also to have an intro in his book written by Julian Huxley (5), Francis’s father (6), and should then come up with the Stoned Ape theory (7), and promote it and the 2012 meme that was developed by a CIA agent, Coe (8), who just so happened to be in-laws with a friend of Julian’s, Dobhzanski (9), and then dispense the entire meme from Esalen (10), where he spent time with Aldous’s wife, Laura (11), and Esalen happens to have been co-created by Aldous Huxley himself (12)

            You wrote:

            Laura Huxley was a “prominent figure” and “probably” hung out at Esalen and “may have been” there when Terence was there too. This is your damning evidence that Terence was pushing a Aldous Huxley agenda which is really an Esalen agenda? Because his Brother said that they went to the same place regularly in the 80′s and 90′s?

            It’s actually well acknowledged in Terence’s own books that he was there when Laura was there, so Dennis’s caveated remark is irrelevant.
            No, that’s not at all my damning evidence, and is again a straw man argument on your part, omitting his own statements regarding humanism, feminism, transhumanism, and the fact that he admits that his largest influence was Aldous Huxley. His own words prove he’s publishing their agenda, and since Julian Huxley came up with Modern humanism and transhumanism, and developed much of the eugenics, there can be no doubt where Terence got these ideas from. If you’ll study the database and their books, this is clearly laid out and you’ve no need for creating false, straw man arguments of the evidence we presented.

            Well, shit, I must be pushing a Ray Kroc agenda, since I frequented the McDonalds play land in the 80′s and 90′s. Wait a sec… you’ve been to McDonalds too. Do you deny this?
            I haven’t been to McDonald’s since the 90’s in Europe to take a piss. I boycotted them in my early 20s and never went back. But why your red herring and false interpretation of the evidence which leads you to fall back on irrelevant examples as this? Providing their own backgrounds and words from their own books is not a false guilt by associating. You’re the one creating the straw man arguments and misapplying the meanings of several fallacies here.

            And Terence went to McDonald in the 80′s (check the archives on Quintrivum.com for further reading). Hot damn! You’re in on it as well! You advocate mushrooms, Wasson advocated mushrooms, Laura Huxley did mushrooms. OH. MY. GOD. It goes deeper: You —> Joe Rogan’s Podcast —-> Stanley Krippner was a guest —-> Krippner knew Timothy Leary —-> Leary knew Aldous Huxley —-> Huxley co-founded Esalen.
            COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

            The problem with your little thing here is that you’re ignoring the citations and database where they admit in their own words their own largest influences. If you had studied the database you’d realize that friends are marked as such, but don’t lead to a conclusion. This is your own misrepresentation of the evidence from the misapplication of the fallacies. Which is at least a start. You’re trying to use them. Just get them right and memorize them and don’t use nonsense appeal to emotions from your own confusion of the matter after you’ve already admitted above that you were too lazy to read the citations… grammar goes first, so go study the primary sources and don’t make excuses or attack others who’ve done so.

            But that paper, had you actually read it, covers about 40 coincidences which is a statistical impossibility, which was also noted. Now you’re just off into crazy land. I’ll leave you to Jesus. Whether McKenna was a dumbass or not is irrelevant to the facts that he was selling this agenda. And that Prague interview with Shulgin from Bohemian grove, where they’re discussing all of the chemicals that they don’t know how to implement yet, and Shulgin says that he just invented them to put up on the shelf for others to figure out how to use… hmmm read between the lines of their entire conversation! And they’re at a Jewish Cemetery in Prague… no tongue and check in that conversation at all! yeah, right!

            Terence Mckenna: “The purposes of which are probably multiple. In other words, I suppose we can use psychedelics to shape personalities and brainwash people and control them. And I suppose we can use it to lead people to make peace with death, mortality, their own limitations. It seems to me it’s a morally neutral dimension and it can be used for good or ill and maybe slightly edging to the good because it’s very hard for egomaniacs to do anything with this stuff.”

            Did Terence just admit all of the things he knows that psychedelics can be used for – and is himself using them for – then add a shallow caveat about egomaniacs having a hard time? Incredible. This is the same stunt that Wasson and Huxley and some of these others always pull. Aldous is constantly “warning” people about this agenda, that he runs! In his book Moksha, if you read this book carefully, you’ll realize that it’s more tongue and cheek. Throughout the book he’s constantly warning about this or that new thing coming about, but he’s always right on top of that latest research, traveling to this or that lab, and, more importantly, recommending the studies that be done! When reading guys like Huxley you have to keep in mind at all times that he’s a Fabian Socialist. A Fabian Socialist’s logo is the “Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing”. Look, for instance, on page 56…

            Now here we have Godel, and other reports talk of Huxley pretending to be a doctor and making rounds with him in Egypt… the doctor they gave their mescaline too… hmmmm.

            But look right below that… Dr. Andrija Puharich… now this is Oct. 25, 1954, and right there he’s telling us about Puharich’s LSD experiments…

            Now how the fuck would he have that information…??!!!

            Puharich ran the Army’s chemical division at Edgewood Maryland… he was MKULTRA, followed Wasson around in Mexico, etc. Furthermore, he knows about the ESP experiments… now let’s not forget that Wasson invited Puharich down to Mexico to do ESP experiments with the mushrooms, which he actually later reported himself regarding stories of his son in NY. For what ever reason, Puharich didn’t go on that trip. It’s in his book. See THM for the citations. It’s all quoted.

            Einsenhower, who worked with Wasson and Huxley at the Century Club, uses this same trick, warning people about the “Military Industrial Complex” all the while he’s one of the key guys doing this shit…

            The wolf in sheep’s clothing is key to understand these guys. Check this out – The Fabian logo:

            images/FABIANSOCIETYGLASS.jpg

            You assume that even as a willful idiot, someone had to hand him all of his lectures, etc.. .but even if he’s only a willful idiot selling this agenda as most of the hippies do, he can still write his own shit, being ignorant… I gave him the benefit of the doubt in the older articles, but by reading Invisible Landscape it’s clear that the book is nothing but an attack on thinking, and the Archaic Revivial is just the entire package as per the 4th World Wilderness and Agenda 21 – so after scouring his books I can no longer argue well that he was ignorant about it… and then there’s the issue of his being chased by interpol and the FBI – no conclusion of which is ever mentioned, and suddenly he’s out promoting psychedelics.

            In 1969, McKenna traveled to Nepal led by his “interest in Tibetan painting and hallucinogenic shamanism.”[6] During his time there, he studied the Tibetan language and worked as a hashish smuggler, until “one of his Bombay-to-Aspen shipments fell into the hands of U. S. Customs.” He was forced to move to avoid capture by Interpol.[6] He wandered through Southeast Asia viewing ruins, collected butterflies in Indonesia, and worked as an English teacher in Tokyo. He then went back to Berkeley to continue studying biology, which he called “his first love”.[6]

            Note he fled to avoid capture by Interpol but then after a time he casually returns to Berkeley?

            True Hallucinations page 166: “This decision to depart California (Henk:and return to the Amazon) was hailed by my circle in Berkeley. Concern for my mental state was rife among my friends, and rumor had reached us that the FBI was aware that I was somewhere back inside the country and had begun looking for me.”

            First of all, why would Terence friends hail the idea of him returning to the Amazon because they were concerned about his mental state while the cause of his mental state was his prior trip to the Amazon? That’s a contradiction. Why would Terence make up a reason to go back to the Amazon? Him being wanted by the FBI should be plenty reason I think.

            Anyway, I really appreciate your effort to step things up and try to point out fallacies, even if you got them wrong. Keep pushing yourself and keep trying. And most importantly, always remember that grammar and the primary citations go first – no matter how many there are. It takes a lot less time to check them than to believe nonsense for a lifetime. Kudos for your attempt – seriously.

          • Thomas Dean Nordlum
            June 3, 2013 at 7:43 am

            You know, I wonder why people think that, in China, for example, there are not enough girls and too many boys ? These women I work with were talking about how awful and sexist the world is because, in China, they don’t value girls and now there are too many boys and not enough girls in that country. I wonder where this way of thinking comes from ? They are are proabably just talking out of their asses, who knows.

  16. mark urban
    May 31, 2013 at 8:03 am

    Jan,

    What about the impressionists, Igor Stravinsky, and Picasso?

    Were they in on it too?

    And what about Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, James Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Henry Miller and Jack Kerouac?

    I am sure that the Amazonian shaman who can tell a visiting researcher that his father just passed away has never heard of Gordon Wasson or Jolyon West.

    I am sure that the Kahuna who retires to his tent in a trance and emerges to lead his people to the water’s edge to watch as dozens of dolphins beach themselves so the people can eat has never heard of Aldous Huxley nor read The Doors of Perception.

    Is all expression that deviates in any way from strict formalism a sign of decadence and manipulated dumbing down?

    The trivium cannot explain consciousness, inspiration or the vision of a man like Kekule who saw a snake grabbing its tail in a dream and discovered the atomic structure of the benzene molecule.

    The trivium is the most important tool we have as human beings; however, it is subject to abuse just like anything else. The powers that be certainly do not want you to use it to analyze what they are doing to you; however, when somebody comes along and inspires you to question authority and the goals and aspirations of a life that appears to have been dictated to you since birth, are they necessarily doing the devil’s work?

    Graham Hancock has written extensively on the very psychic explorations that McKenna spoke of. Hancock’s TED video was banned – apparently using psychotropic drugs to explore ones own mind has become a taboo subject.

    SO! whose ox has been gored here? Has society come to its senses or are we even deeper in the pit?

    • Jan Irvin
      May 31, 2013 at 8:18 am

      Aparently you didn’t read the article very clearly…

      But why the need for all these read herrings? Obviously Pound worked with Mullins to expose all of this shit… didn’t say they were all involved, certainly there are wilful idiots though like Joyce and Kerouac.

      You clearly didn’t read the conclusion while you were reacting emotionally to what was said.

      and Hancock… lmao.

      Hancock is most certainly selling the horseshit, and admits his largest influences are the very guys we’re investigating. See the database…

      next time try to comprehend what you’re reading more carefully:

      The authors are in disagreement about the use of mind-altering drugs. One believes that we do should not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control. He recommends they not be used without a prior thorough study in something such as the trivium method, and suggests that, like a knife which may be used to cut your food, and also used to kill; psychedelics can be used to empower or control. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don’t use them for spiritual purposes. The other believes that given their provenance, they should not be taken under any circumstances.

      We must consider: Does the predator think that these substances are tools for spiritual awakening, or for the control of others? What the reader may believe is not necessarily the whole truth.

      How the elite of ancient Athens controlled the masses was through drug mystery initiations at Eleusis that they managed to keep secret for 2000 years during their reign, and the secret agenda of how the mysteries were actually used for control hasn’t been revealed for all to see until now – nearly 4000 years since the mysteries at Eleusis began.

      It’s incredible the ignorance and emotional absurdity people like you display… apparently completely unable to comprehend the words your reading…

      And where do you think these control structures came from, but from Shamanism?

      But just notice how you have to bring up all of these emotional red herrings… sad. And I wonder if you’ve ever read McKenna.

      • mark urban
        May 31, 2013 at 9:11 am

        For the most part, I agree with your conclusions; however, I wish to know if you believe in anything not verifiable by the five senses?

        The insults you throw do not compel me one way or the other, but they do make you appear to be an angry person.

        • mark urban
          May 31, 2013 at 9:28 am

          Pound got Joyce money to live on while he was writing Ulysses.
          So, by the brilliant deductive capabilities I have as a result of my Trivium studies, Pound is responsible for Joyce becoming Joyce. Pound made the wilful idiot Joyce. Therefore Pound was in on it. Non sequitur! Pound exposed this! Non sequitur! Non sequitur! (KIRK: Mr Spock. put the probe into the transporter and send it as far from the Enterprise as possible! (probe explodes in the distance) MR. SPOCK: That was a brilliant display of logic. )

          Pound actually thought that culture had reached its climax in the 14th century. DO you think that is the case?

          Pound also blamed the Jews for society’s ills.
          Do you agree?

          Pound thought Mussolini was a great leader.
          What do you think about Benito?

          Do you follow Mike Piper?

        • Jan Irvin
          May 31, 2013 at 10:43 am

          Which insults, where? Would you cite them? Oh, you mean all of this name calling from people who’re upset for having their religious beliefs challenged? Here’s a good example of people who come here attacking me, and then pretend that I’ve somehow attacked them:

          The insults you throw do not compel me one way or the other, but they do make you appear to be an angry person.

          Can you believe the underhanded comments and BS from people like these? Insulting me and then accusing me of insults… it’s incredible! Always the same tactics…

          Saying someone is acting LIKE something is not saying they ARE something. People often get confused the difference. You can act LIKE a child, but the person isn’t saying “You’re a child”. You see? But please don’t come here making loaded statements and attacking me and then whine about it. It’s just stupid.

          If you can show me what we should believe in without the 5 senses, that would be helpful. Do you have some examples? How do you prove they exist? How do you know it’s not your own delusion? What are they? How would you know?

          I have seen a couple issues come up with Pound, but then Pound did a load of work with Mullins to expose this stuff. I’d have to map out his background and see what more is there beyond Mullins and if Mullins overlooked anything. Mullins was a very thorough researcher.

          Zionism is beyond any doubt a major problem behind all of this. Anyone who can’t see it isn’t thinking clearly. Are all Jews involved? Most certainly not. There are many who work very hard to expose this shit. But Zionism and the “Chosen” ideology and racism that Judaism hides behind is beyond any doubt a major factor in this.

          But why are you taking what Pound thought and then asking me what I think? Why not just verify Pound’s own statements and see if they’re accurate rather than appealing to my authority? or is this just some lame way of trying to implement some sorry excuse for a guilt by association on me with irrelevant questions and appeals to authority?

          But notice how you accuse me of so-called insults all the while you’re insulting me?

          “The insults you throw do not compel me one way or the other, but they do make you appear to be an angry person.”

          How about rather than attacking and insulting me with your coy little remarks like these others, who then turn and blame me for their underhanded remarks just as you’ve attempted here, try to focus on the work. Why is it that people like you include their attacks on me in their posts and then attack me for them – pretending they’re my attacks? Have no doubt that this is your attack, your caveated ad hominem against me, not the other way around. Every one of these is the same… and then you have the nerve to dare talk about some so-called insults I’ve thrown out.

          Just try to focus on the work and not attack me, as is the points of my replies in each of the other attacks by others just as your own here.

  17. Ben Justice
    June 2, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Alright, I’ll bite. I’m going to abandon hashing out the minutia of the prior posts we’ve exchanged. This is a reboot and it will be short and sweet.

    There are two reasons I had for criticizing your “Manufacturing the Deadhead” article: first, I’m having a difficult time reconciling what I understand Terence McKenna’s “message” (there are many) to be with what you are claiming is his through-line (CIA endorsed 2nd Dark Age). Second, I don’t like the way the article is written. To me, it lacks coherence and ease of reading.

    I don’t think this is an issue with my ability to read; I have two degrees, one of which came from a well known “public ivy” university. This doesn’t prove that I’m smart or superior or anything like that — it simply proves that I can read at a college level or greater. I’m an avid reader. The only difficulty in properly understanding a text that I’ve ever had is when the material is either incredibly dry or simply fallacious — so pretty much just Ayn Rand and academic journal articles.
    Yes, I’m fully aware that I am liberally using contractions and not giving too much of a shit about sentence structure. I can write much better than I’m choosing to right now because this is the Internet and I have an audience of just one: you. I know you understand me perfectly. Any effort I’d put into making this resemble a former academic paper is needless.

    So, hopefully I’ve proven my ability to read. That said, your paper still seems like a garbled mess to me. I truly mean no offense by this. In sifting through that mess, there are some incredible claims. My mind is open to them, yet I remain a vigilant skeptic.

    Can you point me in the direction of of clear, concise evidence of a government agenda to promote a drug-enthusiastic counter culture that doesn’t rely on the co-opting of “counter-culture gurus” like the men you implicated in the ‘Deadhead’ article. Unless, of course, the co-opting of influential people is the only policy lever. My skeptical mind needs to see evidence of a psychedelic drug based conspiracy first before I can accept that I’ve been lied to by people whose words I’ve enjoyed hearing and reading.

    I knew who Terence McKenna was long before I even knew who Joe Rogan was. One of my high school friends was a total hippie and let me borrow “True Hallucinations”. I downloaded .WAV and .RA files of his speeches on BBS boards back when the Internet was still mainly CompuServe and AOL. His appeal to me then and I believe his appeal to Joe Rogan now is self-evident; his rhetoric is clever, elegant, and his message is fundamentally humanist and critical of power structures. It is shocking to consider that he may have been part of a conspiracy to enslave the masses under the control of the CIA. I say ‘enslave’ as a guess because I don’t understand what the CIA agenda is and you’ve alluded to it with the phrase “2nd Dark Age” but beyond that I don’t know. Would you point me in the direction of further reading on the 2nd Dark Age?

    I’m someone who abhors the consolidation of unchecked power and the simultaneous disempowerment of individuals. If there are organized and effective groups who are working towards that goal, I want to know about it. And I’d like everyone to know about it. Such information should be made easily accessible to the masses. Let’s see those smoking guns.

  18. Ben Justice
    June 4, 2013 at 9:29 am

    Damn it. Terence McKenna’s words have brought me so much comfort and clarity. I don’t want there to be a nefarious agenda behind them. I’ll accecpt it if that turns out to be the truth.

    I listened to the Corben Report podcast. There’s a lot of names thrown around. I’m no more convinced than I was before the Podcast. I still don’t see the conspiracy beyond these prominent figures knowing one another. Is Andrew Weil in on it? Huxley sent him a letter a year before he died…

    How does Wasson become V.P. of J.P. Morgan? And does this automatically make him one of the schemers? Or is he just a banker with a passion for psychedelic mushrooms? For THIS American society, it was always fated that there would be a “first” — for anything! The first to trip on mushrooms, the first to take LSD. The first to drive 150mph. The first to eat freeze-dried food. Why wasn’t Wasson the first? Why wasn’t Albert Hoffman the first? If not them, then who?

    If the gov’t wanted more people to do LSD and mushrooms to better subjugate the population, why make them illegal? Why make it hard to obtain? If Aldous Huxley had alterior motives for the promotion of LSD, why take it on his deathbed?

    The first stage is denial. This is why you get attacked. Now I need to see it for myself. And if I do, I’ll spread the word. This thing needs a “for dummies” guide.

    • Jan Irvin
      June 4, 2013 at 9:56 am

      That’s because you’ve put your beliefs ahead of the available facts and citations for your study.. you may also study the brain database. If you don’t see it it’s because you’re choosing not to:

      “I don’t want there to be a nefarious agenda behind them. I’ll accecpt it if that turns out to be the truth.”

      Put truth and facts ahead of belief. That’s what the trivium’s for. .. detach yourself from the study and look at it objectively without getting emotionally / religiously attached.

      Wasson became VP of JP Morgan for writing the Hall Carbine affair – this was covered last year in the first article. There’s no doubt he was VP of PR and trained by Edward Bernays. How could Wasson have been the first when he took it from indigenous indians? That’s ridiculous… and Hoffman was Swiss, not American, in the first place…

      Obviously the book by Perutz raises serious questions – and a contradiction is always a sign of a lie… there are no contradictions in nature…

      If you had read the article, we covered why making drugs illegal makes them more popular… when cannabis was outlawed in the 1930s there were 60,000 approximate users, and now there’s many millions… But please read the work and citations.. and NEVER EVER substitute an interview for the work itself … as this was already covered in the article extensively:

      The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or “no knock” entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations.
      But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.
      To a large extent the numerous rural and urban communes, which provide a great freedom for private drug use and where hallucinogens are widely used today, are actually subsidized by our society. Their perpetuation is aided by parental or other family remittances, welfare, and unemployment payments, and benign neglect by the police. In fact, it may be more convenient and perhaps even more economical to keep the growing numbers of chronic drug users (especially of the hallucinogens) fairly isolated and also out of the labor market, with its millions of unemployed. To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome–and less expensive–if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modesof expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent. […]
      The hallucinogens presently comprise a moderate but significant portion of the total drug problem in Western society. The foregoing may provide a certain frame of reference against which not only the social but also the clinical problems created by these drugs can be considered.[11]

      ~ Louis Jolyon West

      You’d better start hitting the books.. .this is why I always say that grammar, or who what where and when, goes before logic, or why…

      Now you’re beginning to wake up and understand the importance of this. You’re starting to see the light at the opening of Plato’s cave… Now if you’ll apply the trivium you’ll free yourself the rest of the way.

      Best wishes and glad you’re starting to see the picture – the light outside the cave.

  19. John Cokos
    June 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Well, you’ve done a yoeman’s job on research, BUT it lacks the Boot’s on the ground feel of someone who was just not here. The topic of “linkage is missing at the crucial point of just how the counter-culture
    came into being. It’s not a linear progression of a to b to c, it’s a Mobious Strip that turns on to itself
    and true to the CIA’s modus operandi of compartmentalization and cut outs and assets. The 60’s were a pitre dish, a medium that the culture pretty much grew into, somewhat self-generating. You don’t just drop a pre-packaged counter-culture on a population. It’s a PHd study to go back and gather up all the seemingly
    disconnected piece’s to get a coherent picture of the times. The other shoe for the most part hasn’t dropped yet. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not are own facts…

    • Jan Irvin
      June 7, 2013 at 6:28 pm

      Your argument is a bit of a straw man. We never claimed it was or wasn’t a pitre dish, but regardless, as the evidence you haven’t addressed shows, it was just dropped on the culture, regardless of your statement of the contrary with no supporting evidence. Then you bring up an appeal to authority regarding a PHD study, when in actuality, most of the PHDs have over looked this, and for that matter, we worked with several PHDs, and in fact, it is a PHD level study. But that’s an interesting circumstantial ad hominem on your part as well. So if you could actually provide how these connections don’t add up, rather than just dismissing them in one big swoop and straw man, that would be more beneficial to everyone. Joe was, in fact, at ground zero with this, and I’ve been in the field of study myself for 20 years.

      So how do you just dismiss all of the evidence that proves they did just drop it? To quote the whole of your argument, which is actually circular reasoning:

      “It’s not a linear progression of a to b to c, it’s a Mobious Strip that turns on to itself and true to the CIA’s modus operandi of compartmentalization and cut outs and assets. The 60′s were a pitre dish, a medium that the culture pretty much grew into, somewhat self-generating. You don’t just drop a pre-packaged counter-culture on a population.”

      So you start with a false straw man “a to b to c” argument, then, ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary, you lead to your own false conclusion and then say “You don’t just drop a pre-packaged counter-culture on a population” – because I say so and pitre dish blah blah. And of COURSE it’s been self perpetuating. That’s the entire point of this humanist, neo-feudalist movement.

      My opinions are based on the primary documents of the key people who were involved and orchestrated this, as their own work shows. You were on the ground, a victim of it, and you don’t want to see how you were manipulated. It’s ok. I get it. I’ve been there and I see it every day.

      Truth is not arbitrary, and isn’t just made up on a whim. Just look up their own citations and their own words, look through and study the database that’s provided, and put your beliefs aside to do so. when we gather information it’s like this:

      Who what where when why and how- always in this order:

      [1] General Grammar

      (Answers the question of the Who, What, Where, and the When of a subject.) Discovering and ordering facts of reality comprises basic, systematic Knowledge

      [2] Formal Logic

      (Answers the Why of a subject.) Developing the faculty of reason in establishing valid [i.e., non-contradictory] relationships among facts, systematic Understanding

      [3] Classical Rhetoric

      (Provides the How of a subject.) Applying knowledge and understanding expressively comprises Wisdom or, in other words, it is systematically useable knowledge and understanding

      So notice what you did? You started with a pre-concieved conclusion, or “why”: “You don’t just drop a pre-packaged counter-culture on a population” – (like that old saying “don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind”) and then, not having done any grammar, and skipping over all of the citations that were contradictory to your beliefs, you applied logic first. And you avoided the citations that contradicted you because they cause cognitive dissonance in your belief structure.

      It might feel good, but we can’t just avoid the evidence that causes contradictions in our thoughts and beliefs because it makes us uncomfortable. We have to deal with and remove those contradictions, those fallacies, or lies, in our own thinking and move on – free of the dogma.

      Please feel free to check out the trivium study section to the left.

  20. Jeanmarie Todd
    June 9, 2013 at 9:49 am

    Hi Jan. Thanks for all your work. I’m just starting to read but I wanted to point out a glitch:
    “He was also aware of Dave McGowan’s research on the drug and music movement that had come out of Laurel Canyon in the 1960‘s, which showed that many of the “rock idols” who created it were the children of members of military intelligence.[3]”

    I clicked on this link and it simply opened up this very article again, so it’s a circular reference. Thanks.

    • Jeanmarie Todd
      June 9, 2013 at 9:59 am

      So far, the first 10 footnote links embedded in the text all open up this same article, Manufacturing the Deadhead. I know the real references are listed in the footnotes, but you might want to fix the links. Thanks.

      • Jan Irvin
        June 9, 2013 at 10:01 am

        Yes, obviously “footnotes” are at the foot of the article on this same page… the citations…

    • Jan Irvin
      June 9, 2013 at 10:00 am

      yeah, the hyper links to the footnotes didn’t take… just scroll down the page to #3.

      • Jan Irvin
        June 9, 2013 at 10:03 am

        Funny though, you had to scroll right past them to post a message. 😉

  21. David Wilson
    July 4, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    Jan-
    Where/how did you learn of Trivium and Quadrivium?

    • Jan Irvin
      July 4, 2013 at 5:03 pm

      See Trivium Study section to left. :)

  22. mishelle
    August 12, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    Just brilliant–so incredibly well-researched, will have to read it again and again! In the meantime, it inspires me to pass it on in whatever feeble way I can: http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/homesteading/2013/08/12/so-what/

  23. mishelle
    August 19, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    And again this week, and maybe next week too?!
    http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/homesteading/2013/08/19/so-what-part-2/

  24. Amar
    August 20, 2013 at 6:19 am

    Hi Jan and everyone,

    came across this article from an author : very interesting stuff , some of it is the same theme as yours , worth checking out :

    THE SUFI CONSPIRACY
    Submitted by David Livingstone on Sat, 08/17/2013 – 11:52

    http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/blog/sufi-conspiracy#.UhMp3nsfgXa

    • Jan Irvin
      August 22, 2013 at 9:27 am

      Would you please email me this and put me into contact with David. Thanks, Amar.

  25. Pingback: Misc. | Fed up USA
  26. Allen Kracalik
    August 26, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    I haven’t had the opportunity to read all 87 previous comments, so bear with me if I’m reiterating matters already addressed.

    I’m well aware of suspicious incidents and “coincidences” of the “revolutionary” and “psychedelic” ’60s. I find the late Gene (The Byrds) Clark’s draft disqualification due to “Osgood Schlatter’s Disease,” for instance, more than a little suspect. And Tommy James admits in his autobiography that his “mental” failure of the draft physical was engineered by an organized crime-connected higher-up at Roulette Records.

    However, a few points on contention:

    “Overt sexual imagery in the popular culture” is a positive, not a destructive development (though, admittedly, you didn’t state clearly whether or not you considered this a negative). Sex repressed or “sublimated” leads to neurosis and, in worst case scenarios, dangerous psychoses.

    The “uninhibited dancing” (also a positive, not a destructive development) began before the popularization of LSD. Fellow high school inmates and I gyrated freely and suggestively to the music of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Johnny Rivers, etc. at our teen clubs, and Vito Paulekas and his “freakers” hadn’t taken their first dancefloor steps.

    With the possible exceptions of The Byrds (“5D”) and Jimi Hendrix (“Purple Haze”), the Laurel Canyon bands didn’t endorse LSD in their music (play me one “drug song” from a Buffalo Springfield album, for instance), and Frank Zappa lectured vociferously against it.

    How did Bernays manufacture “the public’s adoration of Caruso” if “the people reacted spontaneously,” and the public demonstrated its “ability to create its own heroes….”– Bernays’ own words.

    Rock “n” roll was basically about two things–sexual liberation and the erasure of color lines–both positive and desirable goals. No wonder the reactionaries abreacted to this “jungle music,” a racist term if ever I heard one!

    The reproduced letter regarding MK Ultra Subproject 58 with the redacted signatures is dated March 21, 1956–a little early in the game for a drug-music connection. Or were Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Bill Hayley, Chuck Berry and Pat Boone (!) promoting psychedelic substances?

    Your (Jan Irvin’s) nemesis Hank Albarelli was a lawyer for the Carter administration? Carter is rumored (and I repeat: RUMORED) to have discouraged record companies from promoting “New Wave” rock. You’ll notice that relatively conservative acts like The Cars, The Police and the B-52s were promoted to the detriment of bands like Eddie and the Hot Rods, The Runaways, The Ramones, Mink DeVille and The Clash. How Elvis Costello managed to slip in those strong political statements is beyond me!

    Wasn’t Huxley’s Brave New World, like Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 and Orwell’s 1984, a warning of a possible and distinctly undesirable future? This book and at least one other–ever read Island?–seem at odds with the background you present. “Here and now, boys!” Of course, Robert Heinlein did write both Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land. We human beings can be damnably contradictory!

    I have a copy of Etidorpha among my tomes fantastic and will have to re-read it. I did read it upon purchase (not long after my experiences with LSD) and the point, if any, eluded me. It began interestingly enough with some scientific (or pseudo-scientific)speculation, but seemed to degenerate into pure mythology. That, however, was over forty years ago, and I may discover some points that I missed upon first reading. I bought it at the time because it was a relatively rare book (still is?) and thought I’d better grab it while the opportunity presented itself.

    I’ve read Dave McGowan’s chronicle of Laurel Canyon in the ’60s and await the next chapter. As both you and he point out, things are not always–in fact, are seldom–what they seem. And with that, I’ll continue digging further into people and events noted in both of your discourses.

    • Jan Irvin
      August 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm

      When you make blanket statements about what things are positive, without considering how they destroy the backbone of the family, etc, then you fail to see how these things are used to the DETRIMENT of the public. Look at the larger picture. As the article says, IT’S NOT ONE THING. http://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-4993

      We have to put our research ahead of ideas, and not just because we think they sound good or groovy. What were the true agendas behind the people who promoted these ideas. If you ever read Edward Bernays, he wasn’t looking out for you, for fuck’s sake. He was intentionally reeking havoc on society.

      Of course you might that that’s a good thing, but then when you realize that a society can’t be dominated and controlled with a strong family background, and when smut and pornography and crap is sold in it’s place, it all works to break down society.

  27. Allen Kracalik
    August 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    Talk about a quick reply!

    Since you didn’t respond to all of my points, probably lacking the time to do so, I’ll confine my comments to those you did address.

    I don’t dispute that Bernays’ “public relations” efforts were damaging in the extreme. Persuading young women to light up Lucky Strikes as an expression of female liberation can hardly be called progressive! Unfortunately, many young ladies took up smoking along with getting their hair bobbed as a gesture of independence in the ’20s. Remember the “women’s” brands of the ’60s, Eve and Virginia Slims? Commercials trumpeted “You’ve got your own cigarette now, baby, you’ve come a long, long way!” Yeah, right– very possibly to the grave!

    I merely question that Bernays could have “manufactured” Enrico Caruso’s public idolization when he himself admitted that Caruso’s audiences reacted “spontaneously” to his performances. I can’t objectively appraise Caruso’s abilities, since I flat out hate opera. But icons like Caruso, Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson are the products of their own charisma and not promotion. While it can justifiably be argued that artists who created massive catalogs of original classic songs, songs being “covered” by other artists to this day, like Little Richard Penniman, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and hillbilly cat Hank Williams have a more legitimate claim to the title of “King of Rock ‘n’ Roll,” Elvis had that indefinable “something” that won him overwhelming public adulation and legendary status.

    While popular music is indeed managed to a great extent, undoubtedly more so today than ever before, and many “teen idols” over the years have been largely, if not complete, fabrications–“The Fabulous Fabian” Forte springs immediately to mind–these entertainers, whatever their abilities, generally fade from popularity within a year or two, lacking the “staying power” of a Presley or Jackson. And no amount of Bernays-styled “public relations” can prevent their descent into obscurity–or maybe I should say “nostalgia.”

    A most memorable incident occurred while I was working in a photo-finishing plant in Los Angeles. One of the printers came up to me with an order from a camera store and a smirk on his face, asking “Didn’t this guy used to be somebody?” The customer name space on the envelope read: “Forte, Fabian.” I wonder if the clerk asked him to spell it!

    As for my “blanket statements,” I’m afraid I’ll have to stand by them. Sexual suppression is an inherent evil with disastrous personal and social repercussions and ultimately fails of its own dementia. In short, sexual feelings are innately human and irrepressible and cannot–and should not be contained or regulated. Sexual expression stifled at one outlet immediately “rears its head” (I’ve eliminated the “ugly”) at another. Freedom of expression, including sexual expression, is a cornerstone of civilization and must be guarded at all costs.

    Granted, some may find certain explicit sexual materials or productions distasteful. Newscaster and talk show host Tom Snyder succinctly described “hard core” porno films as “plumbing movies.” Or, as someone whose identity escapes me declared, “There is erotic entertainment and then there is pornography, which is erotic entertainment badly done.” Nonetheless, all such expressions are and should be protected under the First Amendment.

    Regarding your concern for the “backbone of the family,” overt sexual expression and imagery will have no impact on a truly healthy family unit–one in which no aspect of sexuality is a “taboo” subject. Having suffered hideous guilt over sexual feelings in my youth, I can say categorically that open sexual information and expression would have saved me much grief. At the time I was left to my own devices to discover the truth about sex–my parents definitely weren’t going to enlighten me. Thank you, Mr. Hugh Hefner, and bless you Miss Bettie Page!

    While families are generally regarded as the building blocks of society, I know all too well from my own observations and bitter experience that many, if not most, parents do their offspring major damage by trying to impose their frequently narrow and prejudiced worldview on them. As a psychologist whose name I’ve forgotten declared in a PBS broadcast, “Most families are dysfunctional–to some extent.” You very probably experienced some of these “dysfunctions” yourself by thinking “outside the box” at an early age. Someone else whose name I’ve forgotten put it aptly, “My parents created a world for me to rebel against.”

    So what’s the solution? Humankind needs to lose its prejudices and dogmas–a “tall order” and then some!

    I’ll stand pat on my defense of rock ‘n’ roll and “uninhibited” dancing as well–it’s a healthy exercise and a wonderful emotional release. A very inhibited dancing acquaintance of mine still insists that “Only weenie boys did The Twist,” while I counter “Just because you’re afraid to shake yer ass a little–whatta ya got it for, anyway? You want to let the girls have all the fun?”

    And, as I pointed out, rock ‘n’ roll, at least at its inception, erased color lines, a most positive development. We need to erase ethnic and national lines as well. One of these days one of those flying saucers is gonna land and we won’t be Russians, Yanks, Chinese or African-Americans anymore–we’ll all be Earth People, or more correctly, Universal Citizens. John Lennon nicely put my view “in a nutshell:”

    “Imagine there’s no countries…”

  28. Robert Allwood
    October 2, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    Yoko wrote those words I believe

  29. Robert Allwood
    October 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy has a Dark Age deliberately created.

  30. Robert Allwood
    October 2, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    Which brings us to science fiction.
    And L Ron Hubbard.
    Who was apparently linked to Thelema…

  31. mazigazi
    October 10, 2013 at 6:48 am

    Wow, great article!

    As a fan of the Grateful Dead’s earlier music, I’m always curious about their alleged connections to the Feds. Their infamous bust in New Orleans has lead to countless speculation about them cutting a deal to escape charges, etc. Also, a Dead concert was basically the safest place to buy, sell, and consume all drugs (not just LSD) for the duration of their touring career. You would have to be quite stupid (as some were, no doubt) to get busted at a Dead show. I always wondered how this traveling “acid test” could remain in business for so many years without any major run-ins with the Feds (minus the New Orleans bust, of course).

    And now I learn that Mickey and Bob were members at the Bohemian Grove!? But, one question, in the notes to this article, it says that they were on a “guest list”. Does this mean that they were guests or members? And if guests, who invited them?

    • October 10, 2013 at 11:42 am

      There’s a video of Bob Weir bragging about his membership there, all tongue and cheek, using sophism to justify it. It’s down on my FB wall maybe 3 months or so. Try there first.

  32. john p
    October 17, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Good. I was reading Moksha and came across this:

    [Huxley’s wife Laura writing]: ‘Especially after his psychedelic experiences, Aldous often mentioned the Bergson theory – that our brain and nervous system are not the source of our ideas, but rather a reducing valve through which Mind-at-Large trickles only the kind of information that is necessary for us to survive on this planet.’ [223]

    So, according to this strain of pantheism — we’re not even responsible for our own thoughts. In fact, we can thank the “Mind-at-Large” for putting anything in our heads at all!

    Here’s Huxley in his 1958 Saturday Evening Post article:

    ‘And this revival of religion will be at the same time a revolution. From being an activity mainly concerned with symbols, religion will be transformed into an activity concerned mainly with experience and intuition — an everyday mysticism underlying and giving significance to everyday rationality, everyday tasks and duties, everyday human relationships.’ [156]

    “Experience and intuition”, of course, being bergsonian terms of the upmost importance to his (Begson’s) philosophical system. So Huxley was a devoted Bergsonite. And who was Henri Bergson, whose system elevated time or duration (durée) to the status of a god?
    For one, he was the great-grandchild of the “Rothschild of Warsaw,” Samuel Zbitkower (c. 1730–1801), who we might assume brushed shoulders with good ol’ Mayer Amschel in the business of loaning vast sums to princes and governments, employing all the usual usurious deceits. That Zbitkower was a Zionist we can deduce from his tombstone, whose bas-relief reportedly alludes to the infamous Psalm 137.

    I suggest you get your hands on a copy of Wyndham Lewis’ Time and Western Man (published in 1927 – the same year Bergson received his Nobel), in which he excoriates Bergson’s philosophy, showing it as not only fatally flawed, but also deliberately dishonest. That book will reveal to you the philosophical machinations that in many ways set the stage for the conspiracies you detail above. I can send you one of my extra copies if you can’t find one.

    And yes, the aim is, and has been since at least Bergson, to obliterate the notion of the autonomous individual, and reduce the average man-in-the-street to a state of dream-like action (that is, work), unable to think beyond the ‘ecstatic’ sensation of the moment, a creature capable of feeling and regimentation by imposed rhythms, but not of real thought, certainly not of the far-seeing kind employed against him.

    This Deadhead type is indeed a sort of New Human, a slave fit for the third millennium. Suffice to say, in the future I’m afraid our social edifice will be substantively indistinguishable from that of the caste system of the mound-building termite.

    Right now I’m interested in the role the Internet is and will be playing in this process. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s a positive one, even with your website on the scales.

    • Mark OBlazney
      November 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm

      Most extraordinary.

  33. j sorrien
    January 8, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    Anyone else find it funny Bob Weir has something to do with a new young band called Slightly Stupid?
    The music isn’t bad for today’s standards.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0m7nVuvHFA

    • January 9, 2014 at 9:29 am

      They love to just put it right in your face. Thanks for the find.

  34. wolly wolcott
    February 16, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    I heard you on dave aspreys podcast. I was blown away and a bit sad to hear that the last thing I would ever imagine to be bs is bs. So, I come to your site with an open interested mind. But, the web address on your third citation can not be found and the first YouTube video is listed as private and can not be viewed. I’m asking, honestly, should I finish reading or are you planning to update this page. Because you just blasted to the world on this recent podcast some serious accusations about seemingly legit and incredible people. Seriously, should I finish? How can I trust your research?

    • February 16, 2014 at 10:49 pm

      Since there is 1 bad link of some 70 citations, most of which aren’t links, you’re asking if you should stop reading because of that? Really? Why not just ask if there’s an updated link, or use google? You may also be interested studying the trivium section to the left.

      Number 3 is apparently Dave McGowan’s site, not ours. And if you look on the front page of the website, there’s a recent interview with him, in which he discusses readying for his new book on all of this, and he’s apprently taken down many of the pages from HIS site. Of course this is not our site, but his. Of course we interviewed him and discussed all of this, and the book is listed on this website. So you could also search Dave McGowan’s research on Laurel Canyon, you could wait for his book to come out. You could listen to our interview with him and many others he’s done online regarding this same research.

      But your conclusion that you should stop reading, do you feel that that is applying your critical thinking skills to their fullest extent?

  35. Jasun Horsley
    April 15, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Hi Jan, et al.,

    I wanted to address briefly the question raised here repeatedly about psychedelics, specifically, how it can be argued that they are part of a “dumbing down” agenda when they have such powerful inspirational/”spiritual” qualities. I haven’t done 1000s of psychedelics like Jan claims to, but I’ve done my share. My conclusion is that, under anything but the most optimal conditions (and maybe even then), and regardless of how inspiring or “empowering” the “trip” may be, they do serious harm to the nervous system. I can’t be sure how purely physical (i.e., detectable) this harm is, however, so it might be safer to say (at the risk of sounding woo-woo) that they negatively impact the “biosphere” of the body, specifically by destroying subtle connections between the physical body and the energy body.

    An alternate, perhaps more useful, description is a psychological one: since psychedelics tap into the unconscious (the total psyche), they work by bringing unconscious matter into consciousness, like a waking dream state. This allows us to have a deeper experience of ourselves and reality, sure. But what they don’t do is help us integrate that unconscious matter (much of which is traumatic), so we can process it into/with our ordinary awareness and turn it into something workable, functional, at an everyday level. I think that psychedelics work by causing a form of dissociation, and while this can allow access to genuine “psychic” realms, the price is that it does so by disconnecting still further us from our bodies.

    I wrote a long piece about it which ended up appearing at the Reality Sandwich site – and was not well received, unsurprisingly. If anyone wants to hear a fuller description it’s here: http://www.realitysandwich.com/serpents_promise_oldest_exchange_all (or PDF here: http://auticulture.com/go/the-serpents-promise/ )

    • April 15, 2014 at 5:30 pm

      This has already been answered here and elsewhere, but basically it’s like a knife, cut your food or kill. There’s also the issue of “spiritual vs. biological” and how they were sold to us. I’ve often sighted Leary and crew on this matter:

      Leary: I think, you know, sometimes it’s interesting to think too, as you’re going around the country, I’m sure you’ve all experienced… you talk to, uh, middle-aged, fairly respectable people in Tucson Arizona, and they say “this is where the acid thing really happened.” [Laughs] Tucson! In San Francisco “this is where it really happened.” The lower East side, you know, they say “that’s where it really happened.” And, uh, no one has ever really, uh, uh told us what was really going on in Los Angeles during those, uh, years. And I think there was much more done down here, there was a much wider range, there were more doctors involved. There were more scientists, and we…

      Cohen: You’re talking about Gerald and all of us.

      [Comment: Leary describes the organization as having cells an accurate description of the various groups that were recruited to create the counter culture. Intellectuals like Huxley, psychiatrists, drug promoter like Leary and Ken Keasy and rock idols like Ken Hunter and Jim Morrison. Regarding cells, in David Black’s book Acid, it says: ]

      Leary: Yes, right right. Yeah. And, uh, Ivan. Uh, of course…uh, then, there of course, was part [break in audio – mic muffled] coolness of the Los Angele [break in audio – mic muffled]s, uh, [break in audio – mic muffled] cell, whatever you want to call it. But they kept a, you kept a, uh…

      Cohen: Would you mind not calling it a cell? Let’s call it a cluster!

      Leary: All right. [Room laughs] Our undercover agents in Los Angeles were very cool about, uh, and yet they did more in a very laid-back way, uh, and it’s every bit as public as some of the other, you know, the buses running around the country [Ken Kesey he and the Merry pranksters – here identified as undercover agents]….

      Janiger: Yeah, and then Zinnberg says that the visionary experience, and all of the things he was doing at Harvard, and the others, his residence, and the rest he was giving LSD to, they never had a visionary, or ecstatic, or mystic experience. That the whole thing was a California invention, he said.
      Leary: Wonderful, They’re right!

      Janiger: The only time it happened, was when you cross the Colorado River.
      [Room laughs]

      [Comment: Cohen brings up the book the Manchurian Candidate and the CIA to deflect investigation into this area. In fact virtually everyone in the room had some relationship to the CIA or military intelligence.]

      Cohen: I’m reading John Marks book on, the Manchurian… The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, in which he says the CIA turned us all on, you know. But,

      Anyway, to make a long story short, the “spiritual ideas” coupled with the new age and neo-shamanism are far removed from how the indigenous used them, they’re a product sold to us as Leary and Janiger make clear – while Leary admits he’s an agent. They all were. It doesn’t matter to the predator if they really are “spiritual” or not, all it matters to them is that YOU believe it. The rest is irrelevant. Get someone to pillow sit and not think or act or verify information. That’s the key.

      In the 1950s every CIA agent was required to trip… it didn’t turn the agency into hippies… they had PR people who did that: Huxley, Wasson, Leary, and McKenna.
      The military called entheogens “psychotomimetics” which means psychosis mimicking. They label your experience, tell you what it means -and you remain in their box.

      After the CIA did their MKULTRA LSD tests on the entire village of Pont Saint Esprit, they realized that their applications methods weren’t effective (created by Dr. Frank Olson – murdered by the CIA for threatening to go public – eventually exposing MKULTRA and leading to the Church Commission), so they had to come up with a way to get everyone to self-administer the drugs. Aldous Huxley, the MKULTRA architect and CIA / MI6 man, came up with a name that was unmarketable, called “phanerothyme”. It fell on deaf ears.
      From there they remarketed them. They changed the name from psychotomimetic to psychedelic (properly psychOdelic “to manifest the mind”), a name made up by Huxley’s close buddy, Dr. Humphry Osmond, another with many MKULTRA and CIA / MI6 ties.
      Osmond was also at the same meeting (above – A Conversation On LSD, 1979), where Leary admits he and the others were agents.

      “Pg. 174
      1960
      Then, in November, he and Humphry Osmond journeyed to Cambridge where they met Dr. Timothy Leary and his colleagues who were then conducting large-scale experiments at Harvard (the Psychedelic Research Project). There Huxley took psilocybin for the first time, in a group consisting of five other persons.”

      Moksha – Pg. 186
      “Leary

      DEAR Tim,
      6 February, 1961

      Thank you for your letter of Jan. 23rd, which came during my absence-first in Hawaii, then at San Francisco (where we had a good conference on Control of the Mind.
      Alas, I can’t write anything for Harpers-am too desperately busy trying to finish a book.
      At S. F. [San Francisco] I met Dr. [Oscar] Janiger, whom I had not seen for several years. He tells me that he has given LSD to 100 painters who have done pictures before, during & after the drug, & whose efforts are being appraised by a panel of art critics. This might be interesting. I gave him your address, & I think you will hear from him.
      I also spoke briefly with Dr. Joly West (prof. of psychiatry at U. of Oklahoma Medical School – killed “Tusco” the elephant – MKULTRA), who told me that he had done a lot of work in sensory deprivation, using improved versions of John Lilly’s techniques. Interesting visionary results-but I didn’t have time to hear the details.”
      ~ Aldous Huxley

      David Blacks’s book Acid – pg. 49:
      “The speaker was Arthur Koestler, and also present was the anthropologist Francis Huxley. Koestler was also bound for America, for a conference on ‘Control of the Mind’ organized by the Joshua Macy Foundation – now known to have been secretly sponsored by MK-ULTRA.”

      There’s more to this story to be found in Huxley’s “Moksha”. There it’s clear (along with the video “A Conversation on LSD”) that he and Osmond went to Cambridge and interviewed Leary for the position. Otherwise, there’d be no way that Stoloroff would have known all the details. At first they weren’t sure if Leary was the right fit.

      181
      Aldous Huxley: stooped, towering, gray Buddha. A wise and good man. Head like a multi-lingual encyclopedia. Voice elegant and chuck­ ling except when the pitch rose in momentary amused indignation about over-population or the pomposity of psychiatrists.
      We talked about how to study and use the consciousness-expanding drugs and we clicked along agreeably on the do’s and the not-to-do’s. We would avoid the behaviorist approach to others’ awareness. Avoid labeling or depersonalizing the subject. We should not impose our own jargon or our own experimental games on others. We were not out to discover new laws, which is to say, to discover the redundant implications of our own premises. We were not to be limited by the pathological point of view. We were not to interpret ecstasy as mania, or calm serenity as catatonia; we were not to diagnose Buddha as a detached schizoid; nor Christ as an exhibitionistic masochist; nor the mystic experience as a symptom; nor the visionary state as a model psychosis. Aldous Huxley chuckling away with compassionate humor at human folly.
      And with such erudition! Moving back and forth in history, quoting the mystics. Wordsworth. Plotinus. The Areopagite. William James.
      •Ranging from the esoteric past, back to the biochemical present: Humphry Osmond curing alcoholics in Saskatchewan with LSD; Keith Ditman’s plans to clean out Skid Row in Los Angeles with LSD; Roger Heim taking his bag of Mexican mushrooms to the Parisian chemists who couldn’t isolate the active ingredient, and then going to Albert Hofmann the great Swiss, who did it and called it psilocybin. They had sent the pills back to the curandera in Oaxaca state and she tried them and had divinatory visions and was happy that her practice could now be year-round and not restricted to the three rainy mushroom months.
      Aldous Huxley was shrewdly aware of the political complications and the expected opposition from the Murugans, the name he gave to power people in his novel, Island.
      “Dope … Murugan was telling me about the fungi that are used here as a source of dope.”
      “What’s in a name? … Answer, practically everything. Murugun calls it dope and feels about it all the disapproval that, by conditioned reflex, the dirty word evokes.We on the contrary, give the stuff good names-the moksha medicine, the reality revealer, the truth-and­ beauty pill. And we hnow, by direct experience, that the good names are deserved. Whereas our young friend here has no firsthand knowledge of the stuff and can’t be persuaded even to give it a try. For him.it’s dope and dope is something that, by definition, no decent person ever in­ dulges in.”

      182
      During the weeks of October and November of 1960 there were many meetings to plan the research. Aldous Huxley would come and listen and then close his eyes and detach himself from the scene and go into his controiied meditation trance, which \vas unnerving to some of the Harvard people who equate consciousness with talk, and then he would open his eyes and make a diamond-pure comment. …

      183
      1960
      Harvard Session Report

      Huxley and Osmond visited Dr. Timothy Leary at Harvard where the Psychedelic Research Project had gotten underway. The following report of a psilocybin session from unpublished laboratory notes exhibits the methodology of the Harvard researchers,and reveals Huxley as a semi-anonymous subject in a group experiment.
      DATE: Sunday, Nov. 6, 1960.

      SITUATION:
      At this session the remaining members of the research group were exposed to the psilocybin experience. The session began at noon on Sunday and lasted until 8 p.m. The scene was, as in the preceding, the large and comfortable home of the principal investigator.

      PARTICIPANTS:
      #1, 4: from previous sessions.
      #11: Mr. Aldous Huxley.

      So here we see Huxley involved in the research and helping to guide it, and this is still 13 years before anyone in the public had ever heard of MKULTRA. Huxley was the first to sell this idea of SOMA spirituality through his book Brave New World.

      So Leary is HIRED to stigmatize the word psychedelic… to popularize it – and the drugs… Kids don’t retaliate with legal drugs.

      Osmond: Remember the first time we met, which was in Cambridge? On the night of the Kennedy election.
      Leary: 1960.
      Osmond: 1960. We went out to this place. And Timothy then was wearing his gray flannel suite and his crew cut. And we had this very interesting discussion with him. And when we went.. . and I don’t think I told you this, Timothy. But the night we went we both said “what a nice fellow he is”. He says “he’s a very nice man”, and Aldous said “it’s very very nice to think that this is what’s going to be done at Harvard”. He said “it would be so good for it”. And then I said to him, “I think he’s a nice fellow too. But don’t you think he’s just a little bit square?” [laughter – no mention of “too square for what?”] Aldous said “you may be right”, he said “but after all isn’t that what we want?” [laughter]
      Timothy, when I’m discussing the need for understanding human temperament this is the story I tell. Because I said, yeah Aldous and I were deeply interested in the nature of human temperament and we meet someone who I think that was probably the least satisfactory description of you ever made, Timothy. I think even your greatest enemies would never make that description. And we made it. We were very very concerned because we held that perhaps you were a bit too unadventurous. [for what?] You see what insights we had.
      – A Conversation on LSD – 1979.

      Then, reenter Gordon Wasson, whom we have the primary documents for from the CIA that he headed MKULTRA Subproject 58 – which became Seeking the Magic Mushroom in Life Magazine May 13, 1957.
      In the 1970s R. Gordon Wasson and Prof. Carl A. P. Ruck of Boston University (with the help of Jonathan Ott and Jeremy Bigwood) rename them to “ENTHEOGENS” – “to generate god within”

      (Find a better quote from Ruck)
      … again, they label your experience and tell you the experience you’re going to have:

      “Janiger: Yeah, and then Zinnberg says that the visionary experience, and all of the things he was doing at Harvard, and the others, his residence, and the rest he was giving LSD to, they never had a visionary, or ecstatic, or mystic experience. That the whole thing was a California invention, he said.
      Leary: Wonderful! They’re right!”
      Janiger: The only time it happened, was when you cross the Colorado River.

      So after Pont Saint Esprit, they decided to do a much larger test on a city instead – with a population of many millions.
      They had already done the Port Chicago atomic bomb tests and other underground tests there… so in 1965 they launched the world’s largest mind control test on the city of San Francisco, California.

      DEAR HUMPHRY,
      740 North Kings Road,
      Los Angeles 46, Cal.
      30 March, 1956

      Thank you for your letter, which I shall answer only briefly, since I look forward to talking to you at length in New York before very long. About a name for these drugs-what a problem! I have looked into Liddell and Scott and find that there is a verb phaneroein, “to make visible or manifest,” and an adjective phaneros, meaning “manifest, open to sight, evident.” The word is used in botany-phanerogam as opposed to cryptogam. Psychodetic 4 is something I don’t quite get the hang of it. Is it an analogue of geodetic, geodesy? If so, it would mean mind-dividing, as geodesy means earth-dividing, from ge and daiein. Could you call these drugs psychophans? or phaneropsychic drugs? Or what about phanerothymes? Thymos means soul, in its primary usage, and is the equivalent of Latin animus. The word is euphonious and easy to pronounce; besides it has relatives in the jargon of psychology-e.g. cyclothyme. On the whole I think this is better than psychophan or phaneropsychic.
      I expect to be flying east on the tenth, or eleventh, and will let you know before then where we shall be staying-possibly not in a hotel at all, but in a borrowed apartment.

      Yours, Aldous

      4 Osmond had mentioned psychedelics, as a new name for mind-changing drugs to replace the term psychotomimetics. Huxley apparently misread the word as “psychodetics,” hence his mystification. Osmond replied: “To fathom Hell or soar angelic, Just take a pinch of psychedelic
      Huxley still did not get the spelling, which he made psychodelic. [Smith’s note] Huxley invariably uses psychodelic for psychedelic, as he and others thought the latter term incorrect. Huxley’s spe1ling has been retained, as this was undoubtedly his preference. However, it fails one criterion of Osmond, which is that the term be “uncontaminated by other associations.”
      In a letter to Dr. A. Shulgin in 1969, Osmond provided a variant reading of the co1laborative verse:

      “To make this mundane world sublime,
      Take half a gram of phanerothyme.
      To sink in Hell or soar angelic,
      You’1l need a pinch of psychedelic. •
      Phanerothyme-substantive. Phanerothymic-adjective.
      To make this trivia] world sublime,
      Take a half a gramme of phanerothyme.”

      You have to learn to approach a new subject by questioning your premises about it. Is it really spiritual? Who told me that? What was their agenda? What is spirituality? How do we verify this? If we can’t, is it a fallacy? etc.

      When we realize that the agenda behind our current perceptions (including my former) we see clearly that these ideas were sold to us.

      See also the episode on Weaponized Anthropology with Joe Atwill.

  36. June 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Jan, I saw that you include Mary Pinchot Meyer in your Brain database. I am reading a biography of her, Mary’s Mosaic, by Peter Janney, which focuses on her murder, but there is a passage in the book that brought to mind the Leo Puretz novel. See what you make of this:

    In the spring of 1941, Mary Pinchot, then a student at Vassar, authored a short story, titled, Futility, for the Vassar Review and Little Magazine. Janney notes that, “the magazine enjoyed an independent circulation beyond the college community.” The story’s protagonist, a young woman named Ruth Selwyn, gets bored with her cocktail-party social life and arranges with a Dr. Morrison to have brain surgery that involves switching around her optical and auditory nerves. The result is, predictably, synesthesia; she hears colors and sees sounds. Looking at paintings makes her hear music and passing by flowers elicits ocean sounds.

    Janney comments, “One irony of ‘Futility’ was that it foreshadowed a significant event in Mary’s later life. The fictional character Ruth Selwyn was having a classic hallucinogenic experience after her operation.” And he goes on to chronicle Mary Pinchot Meyer’s later involvement with Leary and psychedelics (suggesting even that during time in California she might have rubbed elbows with Al Hubbard and Oscar Janiger).

    It smells funny. The device of the nerve-switching brain operation is quite outré for a young, genteel, female writer, I think. (Nowhere in the book does Janney imply that Mary nurtured a science-fiction sensibility rivaling that of Philip K. Dick!) Janney – the son of CIA man Wistar Janney – says that the story provides “one of the most revealing glimpses into Mary’s psyche.” Maybe it’s a glimpse into something more.

    Mary’s story was written in or before 1941, the year in which it was published, so it is roughly contemporaneous with Saint Peter’s Snow (1933), though falling past the official date of Albert Hofmann’s first synthesis of LSD (1938). Maybe people “beyond the college community” were being signaled as to Mary’s future role. Who knows? But the motif of the anticipatory story concerning hallucinogenic experience, appearing either side of the official date of LSD’s debut is suggestive. Of something.

    Anyway, I’m blown away by the work you do. Keep it up, man. It’s a huge inspiration.

  37. Phil Zombie
    August 15, 2014 at 5:34 am

    This is great research and scholarly. I always wondered how McKenna could lead the life that he did and how he was able to publish what he did. e.g. how to grow illegal mushrooms. My following comments do not detract from the great work done in your area of speciality, and what follows is some context.

    The 95% workhorse drug for the establishment is ALCOHOL! Its everywhere, and what is more toxic, destroys more families, and creates more need for police? (The facts are startling.) As Bill Hicks said, the two drugs you are supposed to do is coffee to keep you awake during the mundane work week, and alcohol for you to blot out the experience over the weekend.

    My feeling is that pyschedelic strategies are aimed at the tiny percentage that may be able to work things out and get to a position to eventuallty threaten the establishment. It is similar to how the Catholic church claimed credit for spiritual insights/visions, and funneled the receipent into a position that would not threaten the society, which in most cases was reverence and praise. You are now a saint and let us tell you about your experience, and let our priests bask in your glory. It is still very useful to know that the modern saints are going back to the dark ages, because they are being funneled there.

    So pyschedelics have tremendous potential to unleash trouble for the establishment by starting people on a path to true vital knowledge (which has little to do with pyschedelics), hence the effort put into creating a strategy around them. The interent was going to reveal the source of Soma anyway, anyone on soma can read the gospel of John or Vedic hymnes and know it – shit, the soma will tell you itself. So Huxley had to preemptively paint it in a negative and negatively subconscious way in a book — the establishment was forced to discredit it, and Wasson played the part of public hero but was really “controlled opposition”. Still it hasn’t penetrated far, as everyone I know gets physically sick looking at soma because they *know* it is a deadly poison. LSD was further used in discreting altered brain states via hippies/1960s debauchery, etc.

    More context. So pyschedelics can help begin the process, but they are nowhere near the source of the establishment’s power. This source is money, and this is where humans have become dumbed down the most. In 1999, I burned a $10 in a bar while drunk, telling everyone that this piece of paper is a fiction, the instrument of our enslavement, credit cycles of inflation and deflation will bankrupt us all etc., and I got beaten up by a mob (Stockholm syndrome?) But it is! Freedom in money would take away the power of the elite. But money and violence go hand in hand, so freedom from violence is needed. We need the names of the true power because there ain’t that much violence needed if it is aimed correctly — the true top of the pyramid.

    So I am left wondering if this website is more controlled opposition. You do mention some secret societies (which are probably just the first onion layer of secret societies anyway) but not once mention a Z or a Rothschild! (And they may be simply accountants, but with trillions in wealth are closer to the true power on this planet). You are arguing about the circus clowns while the ringmaster is sitting 3 time-zones away on the telephone counting his money, and making plans for dishing that money out so he can keep his wealth superiority for the next 50 years.

  38. oscar luna
    August 29, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    this article deserves awards.Amazing!
    checked my suspicions with this research
    I was shocking find out how the government controls the masses.

    There is a story that I read:
    there was a place where men were saying they witnessed and experienced extraordinary things,magical events.
    had a mysterious reputation there.
    very few knew where that place was.only rumors that history was known
    but there was a man who testified about this fantastic place
    I talk a lonely castle that inspired fear even without being creepy.
    he was taken to the dungeons.
    excitement filled him
    He finally would witness these dazzling stories full of lust and astonishing richness
    insatiable women, goddesses of love,delicacies;unimaginable pleasures,
    but…
    only saw the men sitting on thrones chained to them.a substance injecting them
    delirious all night

  39. September 8, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    Finally got this citation in:

    62. Colin Ross, The C.I.A. Doctors , Manitou Communications, Inc., 2006, pp. 132. ISBN: 0-9765508-0-6. Colin Ross states: “The 1961 Annual Report of the Human Ecology Foundation lists John C. Whitehorn, Professor and Director, Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University as a Director. John Clare Whitehorn was born on December 6, 1894 in Spencer, Nebraska. He was Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Johns Hopkins from 1941 to 1960. Dr. Whitehorn corresponded extensively with the Scottish Rite Research Committee and received research grants from them, as did MKULTRA and MKSEARCH contractor, Dr. Carl Pfeiffer.”

  40. Pingback: Anonymous
  41. Marc Greene
    February 24, 2015 at 7:03 am

    Thanks for doing all this work and bringing these facts out.

    That said, I question some of your conclusions.

    I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”. Also if you are correct in that assumption, then why has it failed? Why is mainstream culture successfully discouraged from using psychedelics through propaganda put out by the same interests? Why has psychedelic culture been marginalized instead of taken mainstream? Arguably we are in, or are being led into a dark age, but psychedelics and the counterculture do not appear to be playing a large role in that, and are actually more interested in resisting it than most other groups.

    I would like to take exception with your characterization of “uninhibited freak dancing” as “culturally debasing”. Why do you deride such dancing as culturally debasing. I find it enjoyable, and it does not harm or cause disrespect to others. Aren’t we all free to seek happiness in our own way? Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps? I did not like how you state this subjective opinion in a manner indistinguishable from your stated facts, and this makes your article read like you have an agenda other than to simply bring the facts to light… you have a conclusion you’re selling.

    I would also like to say something about “turn on, tune in, drop out”. I don’t think you treated the concept fairly. I will admit that it seems to be a marketing type of slogan, and perhaps that was what was intended (whether or not to create a “dark age”). The appeal of the slogan however is not to disengage from community, do nothing and become a serf/slave. The appeal is to recognize that the current system is one of serfdom/slavery/exploitation already, and to “drop out” of that to experience more freedom and autonomy, and to, as Gandhi put it, “not participate in anything which you believe to be evil”. I believe the current system of corporations, war, taxes and exploitation is evil, therefor I choose to participate in that as little as as I can.

    You say the intention is to “return us to peasants”. This largely ignores the fact that we are already suffering from being peasants under the current system. You use the phrase “debasing culture”? The entire mainstream culture is completely “debased” already. Debasement as I understand it does not mean uninhibited sexuality or dancing, but mindless consumerism, “me! me! me!”, no sense of responsibility about being aware of how our life choices and participation in the economy is adversely affecting others in the global community, and letting corporations and bureaucracies come between us and control our vital connections to our sustenance and community, and being pitted against each other through xenophobia.

    What’s more important than who propagated psychedelics into our culture or for what reasons is what their potential represents to us now. You say it doesn’t matter if we think it’s spiritual, they think it’s a method of control. I say it doesn’t matter if they think it’s a method of control if it actually benefits us spiritually. Maybe their intentions are paramount to you, but personally I value our experiences and intentions much more highly.

    Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do. Maybe that’s my illusion, or perhaps it’s your ignorance.

    I would also like to say a word about positive thinking. You are not being fair to this concept either. If someone sticks their head in the sand because they think your idea is “negativity”, that’s a cop out, not positive thinking. Positive thinking relates to how you react to information, emotionally. It’s not descriptive of how you take in and process information or how you form conclusions.

    Positive thinking is about recognizing the detrimental effects on our body that indulging in negative emotions has on it, and choosing to react positively and constructively to situations, and to information which one apprehends objectively, instead of allowing oneself to be crippled by negativity such as the fear of failure or rejection.

    To say positive thinking is an attack on critical thinking is either completely disingenuous or just ignorant about its value as a concept.

    I think a better case could be made for “creating a society of happy servitude via drugs and mind control” using television and the kind of pharmaceuticals being pushed on the masses today. If psychedelics were really intended for this purpose then it seems to me to be a colossal failure/waste of time that actually was counterproductive to their intentions.

    I think we must be wary of simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena, and remember that even conspiracies are made of individuals with varying interests and levels of understanding regarding what it is they are doing.

    • February 25, 2015 at 6:49 pm

      “Thanks for doing all this work and bringing these facts out.
      That said, I question some of your conclusions.”

      “I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”. Also if you are correct in that assumption, then why has it failed? Why is mainstream culture successfully discouraged from using psychedelics through propaganda put out by the same interests? Why has psychedelic culture been marginalized instead of taken mainstream? Arguably we are in, or are being led into a dark age, but psychedelics and the counterculture do not appear to be playing a large role in that, and are actually more interested in resisting it than most other groups.”

      We provided many citations, and furthermore, the database above shows well this agenda. https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-4993
      If you have evidence contrary, rather than appealing to belief and emotion, it would be nice if you’d present it, rather than just going along with mind control because it’s easier than questioning your beliefs.

      Have you look through the Brain Database yet? Have you understood Changing Images of Man, by Tavistock and SRI, – where the intelligence community is discussing creating these very things?

      “I would like to take exception with your characterization of “uninhibited freak dancing” as “culturally debasing”. Why do you deride such dancing as culturally debasing. I find it enjoyable, and it does not harm or cause disrespect to others. Aren’t we all free to seek happiness in our own way? Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps? I did not like how you state this subjective opinion in a manner indistinguishable from your stated facts, and this makes your article read like you have an agenda other than to simply bring the facts to light… you have a conclusion you’re selling.”

      Of course you would. But notice how you have to use a proposed ad hominem attack to avoid the facts? This is very dishonest behavior, and shows that you’re not really spiritual, but seem to be hiding abusive behavior behind spiritual terms. We see this with hippies and new agers quite often.

      Obviously Veto and the Freaks were brought in for this very purpose – the entire agenda. But of course you haven’t seen the several shows with Dave McGowan, etc, that go into all of this.

      I get that you’re a dead head or into freak dancing (I was once too) and have never considered the debased society, so you defend it without critical thought, assuming that we’ve never considered these things while covering them in dozens of shows here – which you obviously haven’t seen or heard, but I also notice that you don’t address a single citation and the material presented – but you attack the ideas instead. Why is that? Why not address the citations themselves – point by point, rather than dismissing them with your own straw man arguments? This is what we call IGNORance.

      The whole part of selling that type of dancing was to debase an entire culture – not just one aspect, all by itself, but many combined. https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-4993

      Yes, sure, you enjoy it, so you can’t see how it’s debasing… Maybe if you thought of tens of thousands of people fucking in the mud at Woodstock, with the Hog farm there to help the bad trippers, it would be more clear to you.

      But you’re clearly very biased – unable to separate your beliefs from the facts themselves as it’s easier to ignore them and to call us ignorant or to just disagree because. But notice that you supply no actual evidence of ANY of your claims while ignoring all evidence contrary! Notice how you have to attack us: “xenophobic bias”. Typically when one is intellectually bankrupt and can’t support their positions, they do what is known as “attacking or killing the messenger” and then use “ad hominem” attacks to dismiss the information to feel better about themselves. An ad hominem attack is thus:

      Description of Ad Hominem
      Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
      An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
      1. Person A makes claim X.
      2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
      3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
      The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

      So notice that you use these tactics. It shows that you’re very insecure about yourself and would rather attack other people than looking at facts – not very spiritual if you ask me.

      It’s very typical behavior of hippies and new agers. No offense though, we get it. We came OUT of your beliefs – which you’d know had you studied the work more closely and studied the citations themselves before getting upset and leaping to false conclusions. If you were mind controlled, don’t you think it’d be a good idea to know?

      Did you also study the video Psychedelic Intelligence, provided on this website? It covers a lot more of the details.
      http://www.gnosticmedia.com/psychedelic-intelligence-c-counterculture/

      “I would also like to say something about “turn on, tune in, drop out”. I don’t think you treated the concept fairly. I will admit that it seems to be a marketing type of slogan, and perhaps that was what was intended (whether or not to create a “dark age”). The appeal of the slogan however is not to disengage from community, do nothing and become a serf/slave. The appeal is to recognize that the current system is one of serfdom/slavery/exploitation already, and to “drop out” of that to experience more freedom and autonomy, and to, as Gandhi put it, “not participate in anything which you believe to be evil”. I believe the current system of corporations, war, taxes and exploitation is evil, therefor I choose to participate in that as little as as I can.”

      Yes, of course you would, because you’ve never studied the evidence. You’ve just done these things your whole entire life without thinking about them, and now you’re being forced to think about your actions – maybe for the first time.

      How did we not treat it fairly? Just because it’s your religion? You don’t quote and deal with the citations at all, but you must just ignore them, always appealing back to your beliefs in each case. It would be nice if you had some actually evidence of SOMETHING you believe. Do you always just take other people’s unfounded ideas without considering them and researching them at all, while ignoring those that are heavily cited?

      Of course it’s a marketing slogan, created by two people for MKULTRA: Tim Leary and Marshal McLuhan. You’re going to ignore that both of them were CIA? Why? Because it doesn’t jive? It makes you feel uncomfortable?

      If you in fact read the article then you’d have read the quote from the CIA’s own Louis Jolyon West stating this very fact of communes, etc, and how they’re used to keep people out – to keep them FROM being free. You might think you’re having more freedom and autonomy, but only by ignoring each statement, quote and fact, that makes you feel uncomfortable.

      Here’s that quote again:

      “Decades later, one of the CIA’s own MK-ULTRA researchers, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, while citing Huxley had this to say on the matter:
      The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or “no knock” entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations.
      But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.
      To a large extent the numerous rural and urban communes, which provide a great freedom for private drug use and where hallucinogens are widely used today, are actually subsidized by our society. Their perpetuation is aided by parental or other family remittances, welfare, and unemployment payments, and benign neglect by the police. In fact, it may be more convenient and perhaps even more economical to keep the growing numbers of chronic drug users (especially of the hallucinogens) fairly isolated and also out of the labor market, with its millions of unemployed. To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome–and less expensive–if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modes of expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent. […] The hallucinogens presently comprise a moderate but significant portion of the total drug problem in Western society. The foregoing may provide a certain frame of reference against which not only the social but also the clinical problems created by these drugs can be considered.[11]
      ~ Louis Jolyon West”

      Again, you seem to think that servants and serfs, who couldn’t even change jobs, leave their plot of land in their entire lives, from one generation to the next, is the same as the type of suppression you have, which is nothing in comparison, and EXTREMELY IGNORANT. But obviously if the government and elite WANTED you to do this behavior, then the purpose and outcome would be completely different that your assumptions, now wouldn’t it?

      “You say the intention is to “return us to peasants”. This largely ignores the fact that we are already suffering from being peasants under the current system. You use the phrase “debasing culture”? The entire mainstream culture is completely “debased” already. Debasement as I understand it does not mean uninhibited sexuality or dancing, but mindless consumerism, “me! me! me!”, no sense of responsibility about being aware of how our life choices and participation in the economy is adversely affecting others in the global community, and letting corporations and bureaucracies come between us and control our vital connections to our sustenance and community, and being pitted against each other through xenophobia.”

      No we’re nothing like the serfs of the past and not ignoring it at all. You’re comparing apples and oranges and ignoring the facts in your face. But of course you think mindless debasing only comes in one form: consumerism. Of course we advacated that no place. But why would you assume it’s only one form? I suppose you’re a communist, right? You want the government to give you everything while they steal it form those who actually work? No responsibility for yourself at all. Of course no one is advocating corporate take overs here either. .. you seem to be unable to realize that BOTH are debasing, obviously because you’re in one… you simply went from one extreme to the other… without ever thinking about either very deeply.

      Yes, culture is debased… look at all the tattooed hippies, freak dancing naked and taking drugs, porno, et al, while name calling at people, “xenophobia” etc, and thinking they’re spiritually enlightened while being incapable of dealing with citations and facts at the same time – right in front of them. You seem a good example of the debasement which you defend. Maybe look in the mirror. Again, BOTH are debasing.

      Again, I would recommend studying the next article in this series: Entheogens: What’s in a Name? http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

      Just because you don’t understand it as being debasing, only means that you don’t understand the CIA’s agenda in the first place, haven’t studied Freud, etc. You leap to assumptions you’ve never studied anything about to feel good about your beliefs.. How is that not debased again?

      Notice how you have to immediately make an appeal to the global community – ironically a term made up my Marshal McLuhan – yet again. But I understand your communist beliefs. I have a family. If you want to survive, build a family, not a bunch of drug taking hippies relying on a socialist government system for their every whim. EVERY commune failed. EVERY one.

      But unfortunately Bolshevik communism in Russia ended with the murder of over 60 million white Russians, and didn’t fix a thing. But you repeat Agenda 21 programs and slogans from the government like you’re a good parrot never even verifying if what you’re saying is true, or marketing. Why? You can be a non-statist and have your own farm, etc, and not turn yourself into a serf fucking in the mud like a pig, dancing high all day and thinking your cool – or free. But again, all of this is obviously making you feel very uncomfortable about your beliefs – of which we can also see that you’ve never asked: who what where when why or how to verify them. This is what we call “thinking” – not just jumping out at people because your beliefs are challenged and that makes you feel uncomfortable.

      “What’s more important than who propagated psychedelics into our culture or for what reasons is what their potential represents to us now. You say it doesn’t matter if we think it’s spiritual, they think it’s a method of control. I say it doesn’t matter if they think it’s a method of control if it actually benefits us spiritually. Maybe their intentions are paramount to you, but personally I value our experiences and intentions much more highly.”

      I said:

      “CONCLUSION
      The authors are in disagreement about the use of mind-altering drugs. One believes that we do should not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control. He recommends they not be used without a prior thorough study in something such as the trivium method, and suggests that, like a knife which may be used to cut your food, and also used to kill; psychedelics can be used to empower or control. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don’t use them for spiritual purposes. The other believes that given their provenance, they should not be taken under any circumstances.”

      Again, by leaping to false conclusions and not studying or removing the fallacies from your own thoughts, you assume that you weren’t marketed these very ideas. Obviously you’d have to understand HOW they’re used for control – BEFORE leaping to such false assumptions… Have you ever considered questioning your beliefs? To you, without knowing who what where when or why, you just leap and say “it doesn’t matter”. Incredible. Here we call that ignorance. Again, where did your ideas of spirituality derive? http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

      You also ignored this quote on the same page:

      Leary: I think, you know, sometimes it’s interesting to think too, as you’re going around the country, I’m sure you’ve all experienced… you talk to, uh, middle-aged, fairly respectable people in Tucson Arizona, and they say “this is where the acid thing really happened.” [Laughs] Tucson! In San Francisco “this is where it really happened.” The lower East side, you know, they say “that’s where it really happened.” And, uh, no one has ever really, uh, uh told us what was really going on in Los Angeles during those, uh, years. And I think there was much more done down here, there was a much wider range, there were more doctors involved. There were more scientists, and we…
      Cohen: You’re talking about Gerald and all of us.

      [Comment: Leary describes the organization as having cells an accurate description of the various groups that were recruited to create the counter culture. Intellectuals like Huxley, psychiatrists, drug promoter like Leary and Ken Keasy and rock idols like Ken Hunter and Jim Morrison. Regarding cells, in David Black’s book Acid, it says: ]

      Leary: Yes, right right. Yeah. And, uh, Ivan. Uh, of course…uh, then, there of course, was part [break in audio – mic muffled] coolness of the Los Angele [break in audio – mic muffled]s, uh, [break in audio – mic muffled] cell, whatever you want to call it. But they kept a, you kept a, uh…

      Cohen: Would you mind not calling it a cell? Let’s call it a cluster!

      Leary: All right. [Room laughs] ***Our undercover agents in Los Angeles*** were very cool about, uh, and yet they did more in a very laid-back way, uh, and it’s every bit as public as some of the other, you know, the buses running around the country [Ken Kesey he and the Merry pranksters – here identified as undercover agents]….

      Janiger: Yeah, and then ***Zinnberg says that the visionary experience, and all of the things he was doing at Harvard, and the others, his residence, and the rest he was giving LSD to, they never had a visionary, or ecstatic, or mystic experience. That the whole thing was a California invention, he said.***

      Leary: Wonderful, They’re right!

      Janiger: The only time it happened, was when you cross the Colorado River.
      [Room laughs]
      [Comment: Cohen brings up the book the Manchurian Candidate and the CIA to deflect investigation into this area. In fact virtually everyone in the room had some relationship to the CIA or military intelligence.]

      Cohen: I’m reading John Marks book on, the Manchurian… The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, in which he says the CIA turned us all on, you know. But,

      Now you’re adding words that weren’t said, failing to ask the right questions, and not looking at the overall agenda before leaping to false conclusions about that which you’ve not studied and never considered – before now. I wonder if you even read the article at all?

      Had you read the next article in the series, you’d have understood that what you think is spirituality was sold to you. Even Maria Sabina tried to expose this:

      After those first visits of Wasson, many foreign people came to ask me to do vigils for them. I asked them if they were sick, but they said no…that they had only come “to know God.” They brought innumerable objects with which they took what they called photographs and recorded my voice. Later they brought papers [newspapers and magazines] in which I appeared. I’ve kept some papers I’m in. I keep them even though I don’t know what they say about me.
      It’s true that Wasson and his friends were the first foreigners who came to our town in search of the saint children and that they didn’t take them because they suffered from any illness. Their reason was that they came to find God.
      Before Wasson nobody took the mushrooms only to find God. They were always taken for the sick to get well.[98]
      ~ Maria Sabina

      She further states:

      For a time there came young people of one and the other sex, long-haired, with strange clothes. They wore shirts of many colors and used necklaces. A lot came. Some of these young people sought me out for me to stay up with the Little-One-Who-Springs-Forth. “We come in search of God,” they said. It was difficult for me to explain to them that the vigils weren’t done from the simple desire to find God, but were done with the sole purpose of curing the sickness that our people suffer from.[99]
      ~ Maria Sabina

      The drugs don’t cause a spiritual experience, they cause hyper suggestibility. This is why you had to ignore the parts that discussed it being a California invention, etc.
      http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

      “Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do. Maybe that’s my illusion, or perhaps it’s your ignorance.”

      That’s interesting that you would resort name calling “it’s your ignorance”. Did you read the entire article? What did it say at the conclusion? I suppose you think name calling and killing the messenger is “positive”?
      Apparently you have the ability to blatantly ignore what was said, and again, have not read the entire series, the next article of which, Entheogens: What’s In a Name? The Untold History of Psychedelic Spirituality and the CIA, where this exact issue is covered. http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

      But why not read the next article? Why not question your beliefs rather than approaching every new topic like you’re a know-it-all, assuming to know all about the authors, while refusing to look at the facts because they challenge your religious beliefs? In fact, I’ve taken these substances more than a 1000 times, but again, you fail to see how they’re used for hyper suggestion because you’re so caught up in the spirituality sold to you by someone else – CIA agents mainly. You don’t understand what the onus of proof means, or even how mysticism and spirituality are used for social control.

      “I would also like to say a word about positive thinking. You are not being fair to this concept either. If someone sticks their head in the sand because they think your idea is “negativity”, that’s a cop out, not positive thinking. Positive thinking relates to how you react to information, emotionally. It’s not descriptive of how you take in and process information or how you form conclusions.”

      Do you always ignore the citations while just placing your preconceived beliefs, based on fallacies, in front of the evidence? Do you always lead yourself around with fallacious thinking? It’s so ugly. Again, positive is covered here: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/053-bright-sided-an-interview-with-dr-barbara-ehrenreich/

      “Positive thinking is about recognizing the detrimental effects on our body that indulging in negative emotions has on it, and choosing to react positively and constructively to situations, and to information which one apprehends objectively, instead of allowing oneself to be crippled by negativity such as the fear of failure or rejection.
      To say positive thinking is an attack on critical thinking is either completely disingenuous or just ignorant about its value as a concept.”

      How can you even know what’s positive or negative without studying it first? That’s ridiculous. But again, notice how you have to presume we’re the ignorant once, while ignoring our very research on this topic. Is that not ignorance? How are you not ignorant? Why? Why not study the show on Positive Thinking, and understand how positive thinking is actually OFF BALANCED thinking before attacking us for it, and pretending we don’t understand the phoney concept? Do you actually believe that you’re acting positive here? In what way? I don’t see it – at all. I see a lot of ignorance and fear because your beliefs are being challenged with facts. Again, I do understand that we’re dealing with your religion and you feel this article is a personal attack on you, so you’re ignoring the facts, and leaping to emotional conclusions, and making subtle attacks. Really, I get it.

      But that you ignored every single citation and don’t quote anything is frightening – to say the least.

      “I think a better case could be made for “creating a society of happy servitude via drugs and mind control” using television and the kind of pharmaceuticals being pushed on the masses today. If psychedelics were really intended for this purpose then it seems to me to be a colossal failure/waste of time that actually was counterproductive to their intentions.”

      Yes, that is ANOTHER way that DRUGS are used for control. Yes, we have discussed this on many episodes here, of which you seem to have never heard our show at all or studied any of our work until today. But this doesn’t mean that ALSO these methods weren’t used… you’re just caught up in them so refuse to study them unbiasedly. That’s a shame.

      But you ignored the discussion about spiritual aspects at the end. You furthermore omitted the discussion with Dr. Barbara Ehrenreich on Positive thinking, and you’re also using fallacies to dismiss ideas that don’t jive with your preconceived views. I came OUT of psychedelic spirituality, and realized it was MARKETED as the next article proves.

      Maybe you also ignored the more than 50 shows on “psychedelic spirituality on this very website? Why? Was it your ignorance?

      “I think we must be wary of simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena, and remember that even conspiracies are made of individuals with varying interests and levels of understanding regarding what it is they are doing.”

      Yes, we should be wary of simplistic explanations, such as yours, that ignore every citation and fall back on our preconceived beliefs, and attack other’s work without even verifying the citations. The old saying with Christian fanatics: “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind” – certainly applies to you here. Again, notice how you avoid the 5 dozen citations and all that counter your views, and fall back on your original beliefs to feel comfortable and safe. Everything’s ok, go back to sleep. You weren’t duped… it’s us who’re wrong, and you can just keep on dismissing these ideas and the research right in front of you, and call it “simplistic” – while at the same time you’ve obviously never considered any of it previously, and still haven’t considered it or studied it in depth.

      Good luck to you.

      • Marc Greene
        February 27, 2015 at 5:33 am

        I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to me, and let me state again, that I very much appreciate the work you are doing. You interpreted my criticisms and questions as an attack, yet it was not my intention at all to attack. I would implore you to please take my line of questioning as genuine. You have made many assumptions about me in your reply, some of them I will admit are questionable, others are patently false.

        —We provided many citations, and furthermore, the database above shows well this agenda. https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-4993
        If you have evidence contrary, rather than appealing to belief and emotion, it would be nice if you’d present it, rather than just going along with mind control because it’s easier than questioning your beliefs.—

        Your research shows there is indeed this agenda. I don’t question your research or facts in that, yes, it’s clear there was or is an agenda to use psychedelics for mind control purposes, and many of the heroes of the psychedelic culture have been involved. I don’t want to list all of the aspects of your research I agree with, because I agree with most of what I have seen. I will admit I have not gone through all of it, but I have gone through much more than you have implicated in your accusations.

        Please note I have not stated any beliefs, or conclusions, nor have I stated any claims. I have no citations or research because I don’t have a position I’m trying to document or verify.

        What I am doing is QUESTIONING. That’s it. I don’t have any agenda to prove you wrong, nor am I necessarily saying that. I have gone through a great deal of the related material, and I’m continuing to go through more of it as I have time. In that first paragraph I wrote, I was questioning your conclusions regarding the intentions of all of the many conspirators who perpetrated this movement.

        There are quite a number of individuals implicated over quite a time span. I am suspecting that perhaps these individuals have varied interests. Maybe not everyone who became involved in this movement was motivated by the same vision. In some research (I think it was yours), I read that some figures who were involved “turned” such as Lennon. It’s not unreasonable to think that some people “went along” with the idea of bringing psychedelics into the culture because they had a different understanding or vision of how it might affect people, a vision that wasn’t necessarily about manipulation or control for some ruling class.

        Again, I’m not trying to make any claims whatsoever. I’m merely speculating about possibility that psychedelic counterculture and associated spirituality is something more than a just a mind control psyop that offers nothing of value whatsoever. Hey, let me be clear about this: I could be totally wrong about such a possibility existing. I certainly don’t have any evidence nor am I trying to make any claim. I’m just bringing up the question, because, though the research does indeed indicate the agenda you claim it does, it hasn’t indicated (to my albeit limited perusal of it) that this phenomena of the counterculture and the deadhead may not have other factors at play besides this one very powerful group’s agenda. By other factors I mean players that had their own agenda, that perhaps they weren’t extremely vocal about due to the self preservation instinct.

        I think documented connections and facts are great, but you have to be careful when concluding what people’s motives are. This is always difficult to know for sure, even if they are stated, especially with a movement this large, made of so many people, regarding a topic that can be understood very differently depending on one’s purposes and mindset. My point is that it seems difficult to apply blanket intentions over all of the people involved, and that perhaps not everyone involved was participating with nefarious intentions. Again, no evidence to back my claim, because I’m not making a claim. I’m raising a genuine question that is not intended to be rhetorical, it’s a question.

        The question is punctuated for me because of the other aspect I mentioned: why has so much propaganda been put out to scare people away from psychedelics if those same interests wanted to get everyone on them? Again I don’t have citations and documentation because, well, it’s a question, not a claim. If you doubt me about the negative propaganda regarding psychedelics, I’m sure I can dig out some references for you, but I doubt it will be necessary. I hope you can understand the difference and why one needs documentation and the other, well. you can’t prove a question you know. I would appreciate an answer to my question if you have one, rather than ignoring it in favor of accusations of attack or of trying to make an undocumented claim, which I have never done.

        —Have you look through the Brain Database yet? Have you understood Changing Images of Man, by Tavistock and SRI, – where the intelligence community is discussing creating these very things?—

        I’ve seen it. This agenda is not a new idea to me. I became aware of the globalist spiritual agenda long ago, when my Christian family tried to turn me from my ways with books such as “Hidden Danger of the Rainbow” by Constance Cumbey. While nothing near your research, it made me question why the new age/spiritualism was associated with Nazism and why banking interests were interested in its promotion.

        Many times since then I have very earnestly questioned all of my beliefs regarding spirituality, whether I have been manipulated into having them, and how that would benefit the manipulators. I decided a long time ago that I would not accept nor reject spiritual ideas simply because they are advocated by a particular group. When it comes to spirituality, there is no authority other than what I’m able to work out through my own experience. I consider concepts with an open mind, and use my intuition to decide what resonates with me.

        Rationality is no use when it comes to spirituality. For instance, it’s nothing rational that informs me it’s wrong to murder, steal, or disrespect others. It’s not rationality that tells me the right thing to do is align my consciousness with love. Love, respect and caring for others is not rational, only self interest is. What tells us right from wrong is not rationality, its conscience, which is more related to intuition and emotion than rationality. For instance, no amount of “documentation” or “facts” could ever convince me that it was right or in my best interest to torture and murder people for my own gain. It’s not a matter of study. Spirituality is like that for me personally. It’s not something you should or can entrust a third party to inform you about, the only true spiritual authority in my opinion is from within.

        “I would like to take exception with your characterization of “uninhibited freak dancing” as “culturally debasing”. Why do you deride such dancing as culturally debasing. I find it enjoyable, and it does not harm or cause disrespect to others. Aren’t we all free to seek happiness in our own way? Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps? I did not like how you state this subjective opinion in a manner indistinguishable from your stated facts, and this makes your article read like you have an agenda other than to simply bring the facts to light… you have a conclusion you’re selling.”

        —Of course you would. But notice how you have to use a proposed ad hominem attack to avoid the facts? This is very dishonest behavior, and shows that you’re not really spiritual, but seem to be hiding abusive behavior behind spiritual terms. We see this with hippies and new agers quite often.—

        I apologize that my suggestion that you are xenophobic was presumptuous. I did not mean it as an attack. I was actually hoping you would indulge my sincere question with a bit of introspection.

        “Obviously Veto and the Freaks were brought in for this very purpose – the entire agenda. But of course you haven’t seen the several shows with Dave McGowan, etc, that go into all of this.”

        I’ve seen several of McGowan’s interviews including the one you did. That they were ‘brought in’ didn’t seem so obvious to me, but whatever… let’s assume they were. Just because they were brought in does not mean that dancing is inherently degrading. Christianity was invented as mind control as you say, yet love is one of the primary things Christians and the story of Jesus taught (even if it’s not exactly practiced enough). Is love invalid then? It’s not enough to invalidate an idea just because some sociopath decides to use the concept as a manipulation vector.

        “I get that you’re a dead head or into freak dancing (I was once too) and have never considered the debased society, so you defend it without critical thought, assuming that we’ve never considered these things while covering them in dozens of shows here – which you obviously haven’t seen or heard, but I also notice that you don’t address a single citation and the material presented – but you attack the ideas instead. Why is that? Why not address the citations themselves – point by point, rather than dismissing them with your own straw man arguments? This is what we call IGNORance.”

        I’m not attacking anything. My QUESTION is: why is freak dancing inherently culturally debasing. If Veto was brought in for nefarious purposes, might it not have been to appeal to this near universal and maybe even primal human desire to gather, experience live music and dance? Sure we can say these people have an agenda, but that doesn’t mean everything they advocate is necessarily harmful or degrading. We have to analyze what’s being advocated in it’s own right, not accept or dismiss it because someone has their own agenda in promoting it. Again if I had some contention with your research I would make a citation to it. Whether this kind of dancing debases culture is a matter of opinion, not fact, so references to the fact that this kind of dance was promoted by suspicious individuals is not a reasonable explanation to me for being against dancing necessarily.

        What is degrading about dance? Not an attack, not a claim, not a position I have documentation for… just a simple question.

        —Yes, sure, you enjoy it, so you can’t see how it’s debasing… Maybe if you thought of tens of thousands of people fucking in the mud at Woodstock, with the Hog farm there to help the bad trippers, it would be more clear to you.—

        Thinking…. nope, still not clear.

        Debasing is people being exploited, or otherwise disrespected. What people do in the mud doesn’t hurt you. As long as it’s voluntary and no one is being forced to do something they don’t want… I mean that’s the criteria I would use to decide whether something is debasing culture. If people are doing what makes them happy and they aren’t bothering others then what is debasing about it? You have indicated that you find it distasteful perhaps, but you know it takes different strokes… live and let live right? Personally I don’t have any problem with how people choose to pursue happiness as long as they are not disturbing others’ right to the same. I guess you have a different view of what constitutes debasement, I’d very much like to hear it defined or why you think it’s debasing.

        —But you’re clearly very biased – unable to separate your beliefs from the facts themselves as it’s easier to ignore them and to call us ignorant or to just disagree because. —

        Here is where you start in with the major assumptions about me. Can you tell me what part assumptions play in your version of critical thinking? I have not expressed any belief.

        I have no beliefs just so you know. I make a point of avoiding them. I do not believe I am right about anything, my philosophy is to always consider that I could be wrong.. about anything and everything. Could you elaborate, in your perception, which belief I am confusing as fact? So far all I am presenting is questions to which I will remain open minded to anyone who cares to answer.

        —But notice that you supply no actual evidence of ANY of your claims while ignoring all evidence contrary!—

        I’m curious, can you quote me one a single claim I have made since I posted? I don’t recall making any claims, and I can’t find any by going through my words. I guess you could say I’m making the claim that I am not making any claims, but that is hardly the kind of claim that you could want a reference for. I have no claims!

        —Notice how you have to attack us: “xenophobic bias”.—

        I asked if your characterization of freak dancing as culturally debasing stemmed from xenophobia. It was an honest question, not an accusation. I’m prepared to accept your answer.

        “Typically when one is intellectually bankrupt and can’t support their positions, they do what is known as “attacking or killing the messenger” and then use “ad hominem” attacks to dismiss the information to feel better about themselves. An ad hominem attack is thus:”

        I feel you have completely misunderstood my intentions. Perhaps I am at fault in the way I phrased my questions. Some of your material is new to me, it is a sensitive topic for me (you are correct about that)… and I am trying to be less defensive. I very much appreciate the research and work you have done. I have no intention of killing the messenger, most of what you say I agree with. I very much admire what you have done here. I only said the word xenophobic because I have a hard time understanding why something as enjoyable, healthy, and primal as dancing is seen as inherently debasing, and that’s the possibility that occurred to me. Perhaps I could have chosen a less presumptuous and kinder way to phrase my question, but I did not intend it as ad hominem, and I’m not trying to necessarily say your claim is false. I’m asking why it’s debasing, and “because Veto was a conspirator and/or was used” is just not enough to satisfy me.

        —So notice that you use these tactics. It shows that you’re very insecure about yourself and would rather attack other people than looking at facts – not very spiritual if you ask me.—

        It was not my intention to ad hominem attack you, nor do I make it a habit in general. I agree, it’s not a spiritual thing to do.

        “It’s very typical behavior of hippies and new agers. No offense though, we get it. We came OUT of your beliefs – which you’d know had you studied the work more closely and studied the citations themselves before getting upset and leaping to false conclusions. If you were mind controlled, don’t you think it’d be a good idea to know?”

        Again, I have no beliefs, so you didn’t “come out of MY beliefs”. Also, I’m not upset, nor have I leapt to any conclusions, false or accurate. I’m curious what conclusions are you under the impression that I have made? Can you quote a conclusion I have made?

        —Did you also study the video Psychedelic Intelligence, provided on this website? It covers a lot more of the details.
        http://www.gnosticmedia.com/psychedelic-intelligence-c-counterculture/—

        Yes I watched it, and I have no reason to dispute the information in it, and I’m not trying to challenge that.

        “I would also like to say something about “turn on, tune in, drop out”. I don’t think you treated the concept fairly. I will admit that it seems to be a marketing type of slogan, and perhaps that was what was intended (whether or not to create a “dark age”). The appeal of the slogan however is not to disengage from community, do nothing and become a serf/slave. The appeal is to recognize that the current system is one of serfdom/slavery/exploitation already, and to “drop out” of that to experience more freedom and autonomy, and to, as Gandhi put it, “not participate in anything which you believe to be evil”. I believe the current system of corporations, war, taxes and exploitation is evil, therefor I choose to participate in that as little as as I can.

        —Yes, of course you would, because you’ve never studied the evidence. You’ve just done these things your whole entire life without thinking about them, and now you’re being forced to think about your actions – maybe for the first time.—

        More assumptions. “Never studied the evidence” False. “Done things my whole life without thinking about them”. False. When I have questioned you, I carefully QUESTIONED. I never accused, I never made assumptions about you. I only question. You are now making concrete, presumptuous accusations about something you can not possible have knowledge of. It’s not reasonable under any standard of “critical thinking”.

        “How did we not treat it fairly? Just because it’s your religion? ”

        I do not subscribe to any religion. You didn’t treat it fairly because you attack it based on who promoted it, and why they promoted it, not on whether the concept has merit. It has merit in my opinion, because it’s the people who participate in the system, by paying taxes, by going to their corporate or government jobs that perpetuate and fund this evil system. It’s appropriate to withdraw participation in this system, hence “dropping out”. My opinion is that it’s not fair to deride an idea or concept just because some people use it as a manipulation vector for their own agenda. I have personally “dropped out”, and have no intention of ever “dropping back in”. I can assure you I would rather choose to die before I will allow myself to be exploited as a “happy serf” to be the financier of war and imperialism.

        I can not see this decision of mine as someone manipulating me to do this to “make a slave of me”, because I’m far less of a slave than those “in the system”, who are only dimly aware if at all that they are in a system of slavery. And by the way, I made this decision early in life before I ever heard the slogan, due to purely thinking for myself and coming to the conclusion that it was the only thing to do that had any honor it it. Continuing to pay taxes is completely an immoral thing to do when you know what’s being done with the money.

        —You don’t quote and deal with the citations at all, but you must just ignore them, always appealing back to your beliefs in each case.—

        If I was making claims that needed documentation (or any claim at all), or I was taking exception with some point of your research, I would reference a citation. You are reading into things… please quote me these “beliefs” that you think I have, because I don’t know to what you refer.

        “It would be nice if you had some actually evidence of SOMETHING you believe. ”

        Yeah, first I would have to actually believe something, which I don’t, or make a claim, which I haven’t.

        —Do you always just take other people’s unfounded ideas without considering them and researching them at all, while ignoring those that are heavily cited?—

        No. I have researched much more than you have given me credit for. Again, citations for what purpose? I’m not disputing any point of your research nor trying to prove any claim. There are facts, then there is deduction and opinion. I don’t have a problem with your facts, I only have some questions regarding conclusions as you have deduced them from the facts, and also your about your opinion regarding why dancing is debasing.

        —Of course it’s a marketing slogan, created by two people for MKULTRA: Tim Leary and Marshal McLuhan. You’re going to ignore that both of them were CIA? Why? Because it doesn’t jive? It makes you feel uncomfortable?—

        I never said that, again you are making assumpions. I’m not ignoring, nor denying that Leary and McLuhan were CIA. Yes it makes me feel uncomfortable, but I’m not going to deny the evidence you have presented, and these are some of the facts I’m grateful to you for making me aware of.

        —If you in fact read the article then you’d have read the quote from the CIA’s own Louis Jolyon West stating this very fact of communes, etc, and how they’re used to keep people out – to keep them FROM being free. You might think you’re having more freedom and autonomy, but only by ignoring each statement, quote and fact, that makes you feel uncomfortable.—

        Well, it’s the taxes, and corporate job that makes me feel less free. I feel more free ever since I “dropped out” of those things over 20 years ago. I believe I’m more free as a result of NOT having my labor exploited and my energy siphoned away for things like war and to make bankers rich. If that’s because I’m ignoring facts or been mind controlled, I guess I’m okay with that… I’m sure not going to “drop back in”.

        —Here’s that quote again:

        “Decades later, one of the CIA’s own MK-ULTRA researchers, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, while citing Huxley had this to say on the matter:
        The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or “no knock” entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations.
        But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.
        To a large extent the numerous rural and urban communes, which provide a great freedom for private drug use and where hallucinogens are widely used today, are actually subsidized by our society. Their perpetuation is aided by parental or other family remittances, welfare, and unemployment payments, and benign neglect by the police. In fact, it may be more convenient and perhaps even more economical to keep the growing numbers of chronic drug users (especially of the hallucinogens) fairly isolated and also out of the labor market, with its millions of unemployed. To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome–and less expensive–if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modes of expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent. […] The hallucinogens presently comprise a moderate but significant portion of the total drug problem in Western society. The foregoing may provide a certain frame of reference against which not only the social but also the clinical problems created by these drugs can be considered.[11]
        ~ Louis Jolyon West—

        But this represents only a narrow interest. I’m questioning whether the entire movement can be attributed to the goals and purposes of this powerful group. I think we have to take any ideas about psychedelics, and spirituality and take the concepts on their own merit, and not be necessarily dismissive just because it can be shown that this powerful group is using the ideas for their own agenda. Like as mentioned earlier, religions advocate love… is love then just a deceptive ploy, nothing more than a weakness that allows us to be manipulated? Or is love real? Serious question for you.

        —Again, you seem to think that servants and serfs, who couldn’t even change jobs, leave their plot of land in their entire lives, from one generation to the next, is the same as the type of suppression you have, which is nothing in comparison, and EXTREMELY IGNORANT. But obviously if the government and elite WANTED you to do this behavior, then the purpose and outcome would be completely different that your assumptions, now wouldn’t it?—

        It’s difficult for me to see how people “dropping out” is conducive to the interests of those who want to lessen freedoms even more. I see that being done in many ways, but how has having people opt out of the corporate wage slave system been conducive to returning us to serfdom. 911 and the patriot act are assaults on our freedoms…. I can see that. Having people drop out and try psychedelics. I just can’t see it. Yes I see the documentation that you provide that indicates the slogan may have been promoted for that kind of purpose, and that the agenda exists, but it’s difficult for me to see that it has not been counterproductive toward that end.

        “You say the intention is to “return us to peasants”. This largely ignores the fact that we are already suffering from being peasants under the current system. You use the phrase “debasing culture”? The entire mainstream culture is completely “debased” already. Debasement as I understand it does not mean uninhibited sexuality or dancing, but mindless consumerism, “me! me! me!”, no sense of responsibility about being aware of how our life choices and participation in the economy is adversely affecting others in the global community, and letting corporations and bureaucracies come between us and control our vital connections to our sustenance and community, and being pitted against each other through xenophobia.”

        “No we’re nothing like the serfs of the past and not ignoring it at all. ”

        Ok, sure. But my point remains. The current system is one of slavery more or less (more than less), and dropping out is opting out of that, therefor appropriate in my opinion, regardless of who developed the slogan or what they thought they were accomplishing by that.

        —You’re comparing apples and oranges and ignoring the facts in your face. But of course you think mindless debasing only comes in one form: consumerism. Of course we advacated that no place. But why would you assume it’s only one form?—

        I gave a couple of examples of debasement, they were just examples, not meant to be a comprehensive list. My point was that debasement constitutes a tangible disrespect or compromise of a person’s rights by other people. Without that aspect what makes it debasing? What is necessarily debasing about dancing? Where are the people being disrespected or deprived of their rights? It’s just not right to condemn other people’s activity choices, that’s their freedom, when they aren’t hurting anyone else.

        —I suppose you’re a communist, right?—

        Wow. Incorrect. I’m noting you didn’t accuse me of being a communist. You asked. I can understand the difference. The answer is no.

        —You want the government to give you everything while they steal it form those who actually work? —

        Incorrect. Are these assumptions a form of critical thinking? Is it fair? So you know, I have not filed or paid any kind of tax in over 20 years. In that time, I have supported myself completely, entirely on my own efforts. I do not believe it’s beneficial to use any kind of welfare or social services (and I have not done so) if you have any option whatsoever of a more self-sufficient existence. In fact a measure of success in my opinion is the extent to which one can sustain oneself without any reliance on food or products made by corporations, and I have sought to extricate myself from such reliance as a major focal point of my life. The government and corporations want us to be dependent on them for all of our resources and to not have any ability to take care of ourselves without their products/food/health care/jobs etc.

        –No responsibility for yourself at all.—

        I did question you about some things. I did not make false assumptions about you, or make accusations, seriously ask yourself which one of us can be more characterized as “attacking” the other, and “jumping to conclusions”.

        —Of course no one is advocating corporate take overs here either. .. you seem to be unable to realize that BOTH are debasing, obviously because you’re in one… you simply went from one extreme to the other… without ever thinking about either very deeply.—

        From one extreme to the other. A phrase I have seen you apply to others. I guess anyone who disagrees with you (or whom you perceive, correctly or not that disagrees with you) is deserving of the phrase, regardless of how little knowledge you actually have regarding their background or life. Maybe you could elaborate for me the extreme I came from, and the extreme I have went to now… you seem to know more about me than I do myself.

        —Yes, culture is debased… look at all the tattooed hippies, freak dancing naked and taking drugs, porno, et al, while name calling at people, “xenophobia” etc, and thinking they’re spiritually enlightened while being incapable of dealing with citations and facts at the same time – right in front of them. You seem a good example of the debasement which you defend. Maybe look in the mirror. Again, BOTH are debasing.—

        Tattoos: not debasing. Freak dancing: not debasing. I asked you, sincerely if xenophobia was a factor for you, I never called you names, I never said “you’re a xenophobe!”. I don’t claim to be “spiritually enlightened”. I think I can safely say I’m not… whatever that even means. I am perfectly capable of dealing with citations when there is a reason for it. Facts are great, you have done a great thing in exposing a lot of facts, and I challenge you to name one fact that I have disputed… please quote and don’t paraphrase.

        “Just because you don’t understand it as being debasing, only means that you don’t understand the CIA’s agenda in the first place, haven’t studied Freud, etc.”

        You’re right, I don’t understand it as debasing. Maybe you could explain why it is other than that it must be because “CIA agenda”. I don’t automatically make judgments without analyzing something based on it’s own merit or faults, not just dismiss it because it was an element of a nefarious CIA agenda.

        —You leap to assumptions you’ve never studied anything about to feel good about your beliefs..—

        Such as….. ? Again I say, I have no beliefs, I make no assumptions. Please quote where I have done that if you are going to accuse.

        —Notice how you have to immediately make an appeal to the global community – ironically a term made up my Marshal McLuhan – yet again. But I understand your communist beliefs. I have a family. If you want to survive, build a family, not a bunch of drug taking hippies relying on a socialist government system for their every whim. EVERY commune failed. EVERY one.—

        I agree with you, especially the part about not relying on a socialist government to take care of us. I have a family too. I know some communes still working, there are some moderately successful experiments, but they are the rare exception to the rule. I am not interested in joining or starting a “commune”… not anymore.

        Hey, my point about “global community” was that it’s debasing if you are shopping at wal-mart with no conscience regarding slave labor in other countries, and you buy without thinking about the larger effects of your actions on other people in general. My point is that debasement involves lack of respect for other life, which dancing does not. I apologize for using a phrase you’re sensitive to, but I would ask that you consider the meaning of my point rather than focusing on what was perhaps a poor choice of phrase on my part.

        —But unfortunately Bolshevik communism in Russia ended with the murder of over 60 million white Russians, and didn’t fix a thing.—

        Yeah, communism is statism. I do not advocate any form of socialism or system of government that is based on forced collection of taxes in any way. Sorry if I’m not fitting into your stereotype very neatly.

        –But you repeat Agenda 21 programs and slogans from the government like you’re a good parrot never even verifying if what you’re saying is true, or marketing. Why?—

        I’m not repeating their slogans like a parrot. What I stated is a matter of opinion, that it’s debasing when our culture consumes products without considering or caring about the larger effect of their actions. This is not a matter of “true or not-true”. Like questions and attacks, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between matters of opinion and matters of fact.

        — You can be a non-statist and have your own farm, etc, and not turn yourself into a serf fucking in the mud like a pig, dancing high all day and thinking your cool – or free.–

        You still haven’t explained how dancing, getting high, or even fucking in the mud or thinking your cool and free are debasing, or how that makes one a ‘serf’. You just keep saying it is, indicating to me that you personally find such behavior disgusting or offensive, but without providing any rationality as to why. It doesn’t hurt you or others… why don’t you just live and let live and get over it? Serious question.

        —-But again, all of this is obviously making you feel very uncomfortable about your beliefs—

        No, it’s not. But again… I don’t have any beliefs. I consider possibilities as an alternative to forming beliefs… the main one I consider at all times is that everything I think may be delusional. I ask questions, but instead of believing in answers, I just keep asking more questions. No beliefs, no claims, therefor no evidence, and no citations.

        —– of which we can also see that you’ve never asked: who what where when why or how to verify them. This is what we call “thinking” – not just jumping out at people because your beliefs are challenged and that makes you feel uncomfortable.—

        Three words keep coming to me as I read this sentiment repeatedly from you: pot, kettle, black.

        “What’s more important than who propagated psychedelics into our culture or for what reasons is what their potential represents to us now. You say it doesn’t matter if we think it’s spiritual, they think it’s a method of control. I say it doesn’t matter if they think it’s a method of control if it actually benefits us spiritually. Maybe their intentions are paramount to you, but personally I value our experiences and intentions much more highly.”

        —Again, by leaping to false conclusions and not studying or removing the fallacies from your own thoughts, you assume that you weren’t marketed these very ideas. —

        What conclusion have I jumped to? I don’t see that I have even stated one. I stated a value, that’s different than a conclusion. I value and trust my own experience, at least as regards spiritual matters. Which by the way, I don’t subscribe to a great many new age type ideas. My spirituality can be summed in one word: love. I can remember resonating with the idea and energy of love from as early as I can remember. I can intellectually entertain the idea that maybe my experience of love and connection to spirit through love is a deception that has been as you say “marketed’ to me, but the same type of feeling that says it’s wrong to murder and torture others also informs me that love is indeed real, regardless of what others have tried to sell me on. No amount of “study” or rationality or intellectual consideration can match the power of my direct experience of this love, this connection.

        My spirituality is not about belief. I don’t believe in God except to the extent that I experience God. I don’t believe what anyone says about spirituality, not any priest or scientist. I only have my experience. I do question my experience intellectually as much as I can make myself, and as much as I can, I avoid forming beliefs about my experience, I try to consider all the possibilities I can and realize that my experience is just my experience, it’s not necessarily “reality”.

        —Obviously you’d have to understand HOW they’re used for control – BEFORE leaping to such false assumptions… Have you ever considered questioning your beliefs? To you, without knowing who what where when or why, you just leap and say “it doesn’t matter”. Incredible. Here we call that ignorance. Again, where did your ideas of spirituality derive? —

        I didn’t say “it doesn’t matter”. You completely butcher my meanings with your sloppy paraphrasing. Please quote what I actually said. I said “what matters more than”, not “it doesn’t matter”.

        I do apologize for downplaying the importance of the information you are presenting. It’s very important, and that was not my intention. I only meant that in analyzing the potential benefit of psychedelics we must look at more than just what the CIA was intending with it. We must look carefully at the experience and evaluate it on it’s own merit independent of what any one group intends. Same goes for spiritual concepts. We can’t dismiss the value of ideas and experiences just because they are being touted as part of a clearly nefarious agenda. Yes we should look carefully at the information you have uncovered and take a sober look at these things, but they should not be unduly dismissed.

        —Now you’re adding words that weren’t said—

        No idea what you’re talking about… what words did I add?

        —, failing to ask the right questions,—

        I’m asking the questions I’m curious about. Like whether there is more to the psychedelic and spiritual movements than simply a mind control agenda. I’m not making a claim, only asking because it seems like a valid possibility to me.

        —and not looking at the overall agenda before leaping to false conclusions about that which you’ve not studied and never considered – before now.—

        Again with the accusation of false conclusion, I again ask what conclusion do you see that I have made. I have only asked questions. Keep in mind I have only had to re-iterate the fact that I have only asked questions as many times as you have accused me of making claims or putting forth conclusions. I again challenge you to quote me on a single conclusion or claim that I have made.

        “I wonder if you even read the article at all?”

        Several times, as well as much related material and many of your videos and interviews. Granted I have not gone through all of it, I am still going through it. So if you want to keep attacking me, you’re going to have to start railing at me for being to dumb to understand it or something, because I have READ IT.

        “Had you read the next article in the series, you’d have understood that what you think is spirituality was sold to you. Even Maria Sabina tried to expose this:”

        Maria Sabina is not a spiritual authority to me, Neither is Wasson. Neither of them nor any other being has “sold” me on anything spiritual. I do listen to others, and I have absorbed information from a great deal of sources. What I think of as spirituality is my connection with spirit that I experience. I don’t take anyone’s word regarding spiritual matters, I don’t believe anything that’s told or “marketed” to me, only what I experience for myself, and even that I always question. Some spiritual experiences I have had (by no means limited to psychedelic experiences) have been so powerful for me, that to question them rationally is like questioning “rationally” whether it’s really okay to murder and torture. Such feelings are too strong to be overcome by any type of rational argument or questioning.

        —The drugs don’t cause a spiritual experience, they cause hyper suggestibility. This is why you had to ignore the parts that discussed it being a California invention, etc.
        http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA—

        They don’t cause spiritual experience necessarily. Neither does praying, neither does being baptized, neither does meditation, neither does life. However all of these things can lead to or trigger a spiritual experience. My first one incidentally was when I was baptized, when I was 9 years old. I realized later that the intellectual framework I understood the experience in at the time was a construction based on what I had been taught. Later I realized that the feelings of love and connectedness to spirit I had were not really “Jesus coming into my heart”, but was an emotional, energetic occurrence and that my rational mind was just attempting to define the experience in the context that it could understand. Now when I have that experience I accept it without needing to invent an explanation to satisfy rationality, and without forming any belief about it or attachment to it.

        I’ve been having these experiences since I was a child. Psychedelics and meditation together have helped me learn how to navigate this emotional connection to spirit more or less at will. Honestly I don’t really care if it’s been mind-controlled into me at this point because there is no pleasure I have found in this life that compares with the level of satisfaction, peace and sense of love and well being that comes from being connected to Spirit through the energy of love and sheer gratitude for being. I could no more let that go than I could willfully take my own life.

        So yes, I definitely consider whether my spirituality (and indeed everything I experience) is a deception, I’ve been doing that for quite some time and will continue to do so. However this is an intellectual exercise only, the emotional power of what I experience is just far greater and more compelling than anything my intellect can muster.

        “Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do. Maybe that’s my illusion, or perhaps it’s your ignorance.”

        —That’s interesting that you would resort name calling “it’s your ignorance”.—

        I guess I called myself names too when I said that it could be my illusion. I meant that by the way. I seriously consider that the spiritual value I see in the psychedelic experience may be illusory. I also recognize that I am ignorant about a great many things, I do not consider it shameful, I only try to keep learning. I suggested that PERHAPS (keyword) it could be your ignorance as opposed to my illusion. I phrased it this way because it’s not something either of us are going to be able to definitively show the other, and if we are open minded then we will consider the possibility.

        —Did you read the entire article? What did it say at the conclusion? I suppose you think name calling and killing the messenger is “positive”?—

        “Name calling” and “killing the messenger” are not a fair characterization of what I have done here. You do know the difference between question, accusation, name-calling, and claim-making? They are not the same things. I have asked some questions and made a few suggestions. I have made no accusations nor claims nor assumptions of any kind. The fact that you have accused me so many times of doing this makes me seriously question your ability to think critically.

        —Apparently you have the ability to blatantly ignore what was said, and again, have not read the entire series, the next article of which, Entheogens: What’s In a Name? The Untold History of Psychedelic Spirituality and the CIA, where this exact issue is covered. http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA—

        Yeah, I read that. I read about how they rebranded it from psychotomimetic to psychedelic, and finally to entheogen. Because what’s in a name? Almost everything. I am reading this stuff. I haven’t gone through all of it, but I have absorbed a lot more than you have given me credit for. I do not question your facts or that any of this stuff happened. I’m not denying the agenda or the names of the players that you have documented. Not at all. I’m only questioning whether there is more to it than what you have shown there is.

        Just because there are a lot of hucksters out there peddling “spirituality” in the “new age movement”, it doesn’t mean that all spirituality is a lie. Just because idiots use “positive thinking” to avoid critical thinking, doesn’t mean that the concept is without merit. Only the way the idiots are applying it is without merit.

        —But why not read the next article?—

        I’m continuing to go through the material.

        —Why not question your beliefs—

        I don’t entertain beliefs, only experience, but yes, I question that too.

        —rather than approaching every new topic like you’re a know-it-all,—

        I ask a few genuine questions and I’m a “know it all”. I’ll admit right now, I don’t know jack. I’m asking questions because I’m curious how you will answer. I never accused, made claims, claimed I “knew” anything. Nothing like that. Questions, that’s it. Really.

        —assuming to know all about the authors,—

        Incorrect. I never claimed that or even insinuated it. You’r basis for this accusation?

        —while refusing to look at the facts because they challenge your religious beliefs?—

        What facts did I refuse to look at? None. What religious beliefs of mine were challenged? None.

        —In fact, I’ve taken these substances more than a 1000 times, but again, you fail to see how they’re used for hyper suggestion because you’re so caught up in the spirituality sold to you by someone else—

        You’re so determined to put me in the same box as everyone else. I just won’t fit in there. My spirituality was not “sold to me”, because I’ve never heard anyone “selling” what I have, and I have developed it by listening to the source within, not to external sources.

        —– CIA agents mainly. You don’t understand what the onus of proof means, or even how mysticism and spirituality are used for social control.—

        I understand that the onus of proof is on a person who is making claims, of which I haven’t made any. I don’t have any agenda to prove here. I also understand that it’s presumptuous to make concrete statements about what others understand.

        “I would also like to say a word about positive thinking. You are not being fair to this concept either. If someone sticks their head in the sand because they think your idea is “negativity”, that’s a cop out, not positive thinking. Positive thinking relates to how you react to information, emotionally. It’s not descriptive of how you take in and process information or how you form conclusions.”

        —Do you always ignore the citations while just placing your preconceived beliefs, based on fallacies, in front of the evidence? Do you always lead yourself around with fallacious thinking? It’s so ugly. Again, positive is covered here: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/053-bright-sided-an-interview-with-dr-barbara-ehrenreich/—

        Hey, your thinking is fallacious. See how easy that is to state? And how meaningful it is not? If I were you I’d accuse you of calling me names. If my thinking is fallacious, don’t just say “you’re thinking is fallacious”, why not elaborate about how/why? You act like the references you make are gospel and any disagreement means I must not have even looked at it.

        “Positive thinking is about recognizing the detrimental effects on our body that indulging in negative emotions has on it, and choosing to react positively and constructively to situations, and to information which one apprehends objectively, instead of allowing oneself to be crippled by negativity such as the fear of failure or rejection.
        To say positive thinking is an attack on critical thinking is either completely disingenuous or just ignorant about its value as a concept.”

        —How can you even know what’s positive or negative without studying it first? —

        How do you know I haven’t? Because you disagree with me, therefor it must mean I have never studied anything. Makes sense.

        Negativity, and by that I mean engaging in thoughts that make one feel stress, fear, and anger can be quite detrimental to one’s health and decision making, not to mention keeping us miserable. Reacting positively, and by that I mean calmly, constructively, and engaging in thoughts that produce peacefullness, well being, and feelings of love and connectedness are healthy and produce a much more enjoyable existence.

        Meditation and positive thinking are about taking charge of one’s emotional state instead of letting one’s emotional state be bandied about by circumstances and controlled by others. If we don’t pro-actively take charge of our own consciousness in a deliberate way, then we will be far more influenced by forces seeking to manipulate consciousness for its own ends. Your consciousness affects your decisions and your quality of life. It’s hard for me to imagine a responsibility more important that deliberately choosing the state of one’s consciousness.

        —That’s ridiculous. But again, notice how you have to presume we’re the ignorant once, while ignoring our very research on this topic. Is that not ignorance? How are you not ignorant? Why? Why not study the show on Positive Thinking, and understand how positive thinking is actually OFF BALANCED thinking before attacking us for it, and pretending we don’t understand the phoney concept? Do you actually believe that you’re acting positive here? In what way? I don’t see it – at all. I see a lot of ignorance and fear because your beliefs are being challenged with facts. Again, I do understand that we’re dealing with your religion and you feel this article is a personal attack on you, so you’re ignoring the facts, and leaping to emotional conclusions, and making subtle attacks. Really, I get it.—

        I’m not presuming your ignorance. I never did that. I’m criticizing the characterization of positive thinking as an attack on critical thinking. Some people neglect critical thinking and decide that “positivity” means selectively ignoring information they find uncomfortable. If you are criticizing this form of “positive thinking” then I agree with you, it’s moronic.

        I practice positive thinking in the form that engages in critical thinking and does not reject information out of hand simply because it’s uncomfortable. If we don’t take control of our state of mind in a deliberate fashion, then we become susceptible to the forces that would control it for their purposes. The practice of positive thinking allows me to be in charge of my emotional state, so that I have a more or less continual enjoyment of life regardless of circumstance.

        Despite your accusations to the contrary (of which you have no basis whatsoever), I am not prone to making assumptions, or jumping to conclusions. Everything I stated about positive thinking I have experienced myself through practice, it’s not something I just read about and parroting, I’ve been practicing it for 20+ years.

        —But that you ignored every single citation and don’t quote anything is frightening – to say the least.—

        I guess you scare easy. Again with the lack of citations… I’m not taking issue with your research nor trying to prove any claims. Do I need citations just to ask a few questions? I’m not sure which ones I would pick or why.

        “I think a better case could be made for “creating a society of happy servitude via drugs and mind control” using television and the kind of pharmaceuticals being pushed on the masses today. If psychedelics were really intended for this purpose then it seems to me to be a colossal failure/waste of time that actually was counterproductive to their intentions.”

        —Yes, that is ANOTHER way that DRUGS are used for control. Yes, we have discussed this on many episodes here, of which you seem to have never heard our show at all or studied any of our work until today. But this doesn’t mean that ALSO these methods weren’t used… you’re just caught up in them so refuse to study them unbiasedly. That’s a shame.—

        The fact is that I have taken exception with some opinions and asked some questions. You infer that means I must not have ever studied anything in my life or even looked at your work. OK, yeah, that’s critical thinking.

        —But you ignored the discussion about spiritual aspects at the end. You furthermore omitted the discussion with Dr. Barbara Ehrenreich on Positive thinking, and you’re also using fallacies to dismiss ideas that don’t jive with your preconceived views. I came OUT of psychedelic spirituality, and realized it was MARKETED as the next article proves.—

        —Maybe you also ignored the more than 50 shows on “psychedelic spirituality on this very website? Why? Was it your ignorance?—

        I have some questions or a different opinion , and it means I have ignored all your material.

        “I think we must be wary of simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena, and remember that even conspiracies are made of individuals with varying interests and levels of understanding regarding what it is they are doing.”

        “Yes, we should be wary of simplistic explanations, such as yours.”

        If I had proposed an explanation simplistic or otherwise, then yes you should be wary of it. But I have not.

        — that ignore every citation and fall back on our preconceived beliefs, and attack other’s work without even verifying the citations.—

        I have not attacked your work. I have only asked some questions. What’s funny is that I actually admire your work greatly, and I can assure you that I have a much higher opinion of you than you do of myself.

        —The old saying with Christian fanatics: “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind” – certainly applies to you here. —

        Yes in your makebelieve world where I attack you, and your work, jump to conclusions, and make baseless claims. For the record, I steadfastly refuse to make up my mind about anything other than to resolve to change my mind about any belief I happen to pick up on a regular basis.

        —Again, notice how you avoid the 5 dozen citations and all that counter your views,—

        What views? That positive thinking can mean something besides the idiocy you ascribe to it, and that that concept can be valuable. That dropping out of the corporate wage-slave tax system is the right thing to do? What if I told you that I have read all of your citations, and yet my questions still remain. What if I told you that I more or less accept your research as highly factual, and yet I still retain my questions and opinions.

        —Everything’s ok, go back to sleep. You weren’t duped… it’s us who’re wrong, and you can just keep on dismissing these ideas and the research right in front of you, and call it “simplistic” – while at the same time you’ve obviously never considered any of it previously, and still haven’t considered it or studied it in depth.—

        In other words, you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions or respond to my points with anything other than a bunch of presumptuous accusations. Brilliant sir.

        —Good luck to you.—

        Thanks, to you as well.

        • February 28, 2015 at 1:54 pm

          “I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to me, and let me state again, that I very much appreciate the work you are doing. You interpreted my criticisms and questions as an attack, yet it was not my intention at all to attack. I would implore you to please take my line of questioning as genuine. You have made many assumptions about me in your reply, some of them I will admit are questionable, others are patently false.”

          Marc, as far as assumptions, it was your first comment that was filled with assumptions and fallacious conclusions, and you didn’t support a single claim you made.

          “Your research shows there is indeed this agenda. I don’t question your research or facts in that, yes, it’s clear there was or is an agenda to use psychedelics for mind control purposes, and many of the heroes of the psychedelic culture have been involved. I don’t want to list all of the aspects of your research I agree with, because I agree with most of what I have seen. I will admit I have not gone through all of it, but I have gone through much more than you have implicated in your accusations. “

          I hope that you do study more of it, because EVERY ONE OF YOUR ISSUES WAS COVERED. You made assumptions about me, I quoted your ignorance, xenophobic comments, et al, as well as your biases and lack of support for your claims.

          “Please note I have not stated any beliefs, or conclusions, nor have I stated any claims. I have no citations or research because I don’t have a position I’m trying to document or verify.”

          This is patently false. I suggest you reread your own comments. For instance:

          ““I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”. Also if you are correct in that assumption, then why has it failed?”

          Also your assumption here that it has failed. I don’t see it as failing. Look around you. You’re a victim of it. How could it have failed?
          You also said:

          ““I would like to take exception with your characterization of “uninhibited freak dancing” as “culturally debasing”. Why do you deride such dancing as culturally debasing. I find it enjoyable, and it does not harm or cause disrespect to others. Aren’t we all free to seek happiness in our own way? Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps?”

          But furthermore, your entire post was:

          ““Please note I have not stated any beliefs, or conclusions, nor have I stated any claims. I have no citations or research because I don’t have a position I’m trying to document or verify.”

          So therefore, it was entirely beliefs, opinions, conclusions and claims.

          “What I am doing is QUESTIONING. That’s it. I don’t have any agenda to prove you wrong, nor am I necessarily saying that. I have gone through a great deal of the related material, and I’m continuing to go through more of it as I have time. In that first paragraph I wrote, I was questioning your conclusions regarding the intentions of all of the many conspirators who perpetrated this movement.”

          The citations are here for ANYONE to verify. All you need to do is go through them and check them. We’ve done about 50 shows here on mind control, MKUTLRA, et al. Calling us ignorant and xenophobic is not questioning the work, but using ad hominems to dismiss US in order to AVOID the work. It’s a common fallacious tactic. You’re simply not used to people seeing you use such tactics. Read, for instance, the book The Aquarian Conspiracy – a book written by an agent involved, who spins the entire thing into spiritual and neo-feudalistic terms .But we’ve covered this work very extensively. If you have questions about a specific quote or statement, quote it, check the citation, and show us how it’s wrong. This is how proper questioning of a work is done.

          “There are quite a number of individuals implicated over quite a time span. I am suspecting that perhaps these individuals have varied interests. Maybe not everyone who became involved in this movement was motivated by the same vision. In some research (I think it was yours), I read that some figures who were involved “turned” such as Lennon..”

          The people we have identified we have research extensively. Maybe not all, but you’re speculating and providing, again, NO evidence of your claims. Again, go through the database and study them. Sure, some where useful dupes as I was early on, but all too many of them come out of Esalen and the Harvard Social Relations Department, etc. This is spin. Lennon MAY have turned. See the last episode of the show: I am the Walrus. But it’s fairly clear that the Beatles were in on it at some point and they did not go out of their way to expose what they had done.

          “It’s not unreasonable to think that some people “went along” with the idea of bringing psychedelics into the culture because they had a different understanding or vision of how it might affect people, a vision that wasn’t necessarily about manipulation or control for some ruling class”

          Again, they were SOLD the idea, or the others were apart of it. Again, I’ve researched MKULTRA extensively for many years. Huxley, Leary, Dick Price, McKenna, and the many psychologists, et al, PARTICIPATED. Once you understand the agenda they’re selling, it’s very simple to see it. I’ve provided the evidence at great lengths here, but again, you’re only speculating. Again, if you had read the next article in the series, you’d see how this was marketing by the CIA.

          “Again, I’m not trying to make any claims whatsoever.”

          Apparently you don’t know the definition of claims, because most of your comment was composed of them. At quick glance, here’s one from the first paragraph I checked:

          ““I would also like to say something about “turn on, tune in, drop out”. I don’t think you treated the concept fairly.”

          So you’re not claiming that you don’t think we treated the concept fairly? I’m not sure you understand your own language. Please also study the trivium material so that you can understand language more clearly: http://www.triviumeducation.com

          “I’m merely speculating about possibility that psychedelic counterculture and associated spirituality is something more than a just a mind control psyop that offers nothing of value whatsoever.”

          Yes, I came from your point of view, and again, gave you a 58 page paper to read on how this is patently false, but you ignored it apparently. But you attacked us, more claims, that we’re xenophobic and ignorant, did you not? How are those not claims, and merely speculation? I understand that it’s your religion, and, again, I came out of your beliefs after putting my biases aside and actually checking and verifying the citations. Again, you seem to do a lot of unfounded speculation without EVIDENCE while ignoring evidence that contradicts unfounded speculation. We can speculate all day long without evidence, but without evidence to lead us into a specific direction it becomes arguing the arbitrary and if you’ve ever studied any logic at all, you’d know it’s dismissed by default. No evidence, so what? Speculate away and you’ll get no place. Again, I provided you in detail how the entire thing was MARKETING, and rather than providing citations or anything to contradict the information, you come back with belief and speculation, while pretending that you didn’t make claims about xenophobes and ignorance. Here’s another claim you made:

          ““What’s more important than who propagated psychedelics into our culture or for what reasons is what their potential represents to us now. You say it doesn’t matter if we think it’s spiritual, they think it’s a method of control. I say it doesn’t matter if they think it’s a method of control if it actually benefits us spiritually. Maybe their intentions are paramount to you, but personally I value our experiences and intentions much more highly.””

          Again, without understanding mind control and what the MKULTRA people were doing, creating a new religion for the elite to control us with, you make up words about what I said, insert them into my mouth and make wild claims about things I never said. How are these not claims? Again, your statements are patently false, and ignore your own words – which I quoted to you. You quoted… let’s see… nothing in your first post.

          “Hey, let me be clear about this: I could be totally wrong about such a possibility existing.

          Now you’re starting to think, and starting to consider the possibility that you got mind controlled – like the rest of us. It’s a good start.

          “ I certainly don’t have any evidence nor am I trying to make any claim.”

          Again, I quoted your claims – which is false again as you reiterate, and if you don’t have evidence, then, again, it’s arguing the arbitrary. It’s on YOU and no one else to support YOUR claims, your ideas. I’m not interested in wild, unsupported speculation that leads absolutely no where and assumes that we haven’t studied and considered every speculation that you’ve submitted here.

          “ I’m just bringing up the question, because, though the research does indeed indicate the agenda you claim it does, it hasn’t indicated (to my albeit limited perusal of it) that this phenomena of the counterculture and the deadhead may not have other factors at play besides this one very powerful group’s agenda. By other factors I mean players that had their own agenda, that perhaps they weren’t extremely vocal about due to the self preservation instinct.”

          Again, if you read the next paper in the series, cited to you several times, as well as our round table discussions (on the left) you’d see that we’ve covered ALL of this in great detail. Can you name some of the other factors? Again, you speculate but provide NO EVIDENCE to verify. How can I take seriously wild, unsupported claims while you ignore 5 dozen primary citations?
          http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

          “I think documented connections and facts are great, but you have to be careful when concluding what people’s motives are.”

          Yes, I’ve been very careful, and I’ve actually read their works, quoted them, studied their backgrounds, affilations, etc. What have you studied or provided, while suggesting that I’ve not been careful? Even the end of your last comment stated:

          ““I think we must be wary of simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena, and remember that even conspiracies are made of individuals with varying interests and levels of understanding regarding what it is they are doing.”

          Yes, I get your ad hominem attacks while ignoring the citations and many dozens of shows here on mind control where we’ve laid out the detail of this at great lengths. If you actually quoted something where we’ve not been careful, it would be nice, but you give NO examples whatsoever to check. Again, it’s just arguing the arbitrary and wild speculation. I get that you’ve never considered before that you got mind controlled. Well, you did, and we’re the ones exposing how it was done to you. You feel uncomfortable, I get it… and you have a touch of Stockholm syndrome. It’s a fairly normal psychological condition with people in your state.

          “This is always difficult to know for sure, even if they are stated, especially with a movement this large, made of so many people, regarding a topic that can be understood very differently depending on one’s purposes and mindset.”

          Especially when you think with fallacies and don’t check the citations and their backgrounds. Again, we’ve provided this information in the database at great lengths. Sure, some were duped, but most were willful participants. They’re psychopaths mostly. Study psychopaths and learn that they’re not like you or I… Psychopaths don’t have feelings or emotions… the agenda overall is basically Agenda 21. But again, they’ve lied about their participation, so therefore they knew they were a part of something. You can read it in their books – most of their books I’ve read as I have a huge library and have studied this field for over 20 years, coming out of it myself.

          “ My point is that it seems difficult to apply blanket intentions over all of the people involved, and that perhaps not everyone involved was participating with nefarious intentions. Again, no evidence to back my claim, because I’m not making a claim. I’m raising a genuine question that is not intended to be rhetorical, it’s a question.”

          You seem to think that the CIA wasn’t running a program and giving DIRECTIVES. You seem to think that such operations are just a bunch of individuals whilly nilly doing their own things. .. That’s not how the CIA operates. Again, study it. We’ve provided the quotes et al, but you’ve given no examples of anything. Again, when a government intelligence agency gives directives, when people use occulted information to hide and manipulate others, it becomes easy to see their agenda. Again, study the trivium so that you can separate your fallacies from the facts and citations that you seem to want to avoid.

          “The question is punctuated for me because of the other aspect I mentioned: why has so much propaganda been put out to scare people away from psychedelics if those same interests wanted to get everyone on them?”

          Again, had you bothered to read the next paper cited to you several times, this would have been made painfully obvious to you, but you ignore citations in general, it seems. Obviously you can’t have a good youthful rebellion with legal substances. It was Leary himself who went to congress to get them outlawed in 1966, and Andrew Weil used a Hegelian dialectic to “get him fired” – when he was really simply recruited by Osmond and Huxley for the MKUTLRA program. The firing was merely a dog and pony show to sell them as spiritual to the masses. But again, you admit you don’t have citations or ANY evidence of your claims, and when I provide you the evidence that directly exposes this, you ignore it. Why?

          Again I don’t have citations and documentation because, well, it’s a question, not a claim.

          That was actually a question, this time… congratulations, you didn’t distort your own words in that paragraph. But why all this speculation if you have no evidence? Don’t you think that’s a bit ridiculous? Wouldn’t your life be more productive if you didn’t speculate wildly about green fairies and pixies and focused on what you have evidence for?

          “If you doubt me about the negative propaganda regarding psychedelics, I’m sure I can dig out some references for you, but I doubt it will be necessary. I hope you can understand the difference and why one needs documentation and the other, well. you can’t prove a question you know. I would appreciate an answer to my question if you have one, rather than ignoring it in favor of accusations of attack or of trying to make an undocumented claim, which I have never done.”

          Yes, again, the entire next article, which you obviously ignored after citing to you several times, covered this at very great lenths. Why did you ignore it? Are you going to ignore it again? Must we go in circles because you don’t want to read things?
          http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

          —Have you look through the Brain Database yet? Have you understood Changing Images of Man, by Tavistock and SRI, – where the intelligence community is discussing creating these very things?—

          “I’ve seen it. This agenda is not a new idea to me. I became aware of the globalist spiritual agenda long ago, when my Christian family tried to turn me from my ways with books such as “Hidden Danger of the Rainbow” by Constance Cumbey. While nothing near your research, it made me question why the new age/spiritualism was associated with Nazism and why banking interests were interested in its promotion.”

          Seen it is not studying it, because most of your counterculture heroes are exposed there at very great length. Spend a few days STUDYING it.

          Actually, except for Besant and Theosophy, most of this stuff is Jewish, not Nazi by any stretch. But Kabbalistic, Zio-racism repackaged for the gentile masses. You’d be far better off as a Christian than into the New Age. Your family was right. I learned the hard way myself. But this isn’t to say that all religions are not a form of mind control, because they simply are. Christianity and Islam are just two of the best that put the focus on family cohesion rather than fucking in the mud on drugs.

          All roads lead to Huxley:
          https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-671

          “Many times since then I have very earnestly questioned all of my beliefs regarding spirituality, whether I have been manipulated into having them, and how that would benefit the manipulators.”

          Well, at least your questioning them now, but this is the smartest thing you’ve said so far.

          “I decided a long time ago that I would not accept nor reject spiritual ideas simply because they are advocated by a particular group. When it comes to spirituality, there is no authority other than what I’m able to work out through my own experience. I consider concepts with an open mind, and use my intuition to decide what resonates with me.”

          You need to realize that there are NO contradictions in nature, only in the mind of man. *A contradiction is an indication of an error, or a lie.* You can know truth. You need to understand how “mysticism is the tool of tyrants” – all that speculation about things you can’t know – well that’s how mind control works. Focus on what you can know, what you have evidence for, and you’ll free yourself. You CAN trust your own 5 senses. It was Einstein who was the fraud, not your 5 senses that got it all wrong.

          “Rationality is no use when it comes to spirituality. For instance, it’s nothing rational that informs me it’s wrong to murder, steal, or disrespect others. It’s not rationality that tells me the right thing to do is align my consciousness with love. Love, respect and caring for others is not rational, only self interest is. What tells us right from wrong is not rationality, its conscience, which is more related to intuition and emotion than rationality. For instance, no amount of “documentation” or “facts” could ever convince me that it was right or in my best interest to torture and murder people for my own gain. It’s not a matter of study. Spirituality is like that for me personally. It’s not something you should or can entrust a third party to inform you about, the only true spiritual authority in my opinion is from within.”

          I disagree. I think rationality focuses on love, on truth, etc… it’s irrationality that does not. Tell the psychopath that it’s wrong to murder. Tell the Bolshevik Jews it was wrong to murder 60+ million white Russians. It’s irrational, psychotic behavior… it’s not rationality that does such things… Rationality most certainly tells us what’s right and wrong, including under natural law. But to do wrong to others you may often bring it on yourself, but obviously the Crowleyan / Huxleyan based psychedelic movement does not not believe this… they think it’s their rationality, rather than their psychopathology, getting them to do harm to others… but you think that because YOU’RE not a psychopath, that others aren’t also. This is just poor thinking on your part. See the episodes on psychopaths so that you understand them. Huxley, Leary, McKenna, Wasson, et al, were EXTREME psychopaths. Huxley is one of the worst I’ve ever studied, and can only be compared to Leon Trotsky, who killed around 45 million of those Russians. This is why psychopaths use spirituality to control others… while you’re navel gazing, your predator is plotting how to manipulate you.

          “I apologize that my suggestion that you are xenophobic was presumptuous. I did not mean it as an attack. I was actually hoping you would indulge my sincere question with a bit of introspection.”

          Thank you, but you just countered your claim that you made no claims.

          “I’ve seen several of McGowan’s interviews including the one you did. That they were ‘brought in’ didn’t seem so obvious to me, but whatever… let’s assume they were. Just because they were brought in does not mean that dancing is inherently degrading. Christianity was invented as mind control as you say, yet love is one of the primary things Christians and the story of Jesus taught (even if it’s not exactly practiced enough). Is love invalid then? It’s not enough to invalidate an idea just because some sociopath decides to use the concept as a manipulation vector.”

          Have you read McGowan’s book, have you studied my TWO shows with him, have you heard my interview with Szou Paulekas, Vito’s wife? It’s clear that he was selling the agenda… young girls getting pregnant and all… and not only that, but every claim Szou made in the interview was in direct contradiction of the evidence.

          “I’m not attacking anything. My QUESTION is: why is freak dancing inherently culturally debasing.”

          Again, if you had read the next article, this would have all been made clear to you. Think of the Bacchanal, Dionysian mysteries, and the Fall of man in the bible… This was all explained in the next article. I wish you’d just read it so that I don’t have to repeat myself. And yes, you did attack. See the trivium so that you begin to understand the fallacious rhetoric you use, but may not see.

          “If Veto was brought in for nefarious purposes, might it not have been to appeal to this near universal and maybe even primal human desire to gather, experience live music and dance? “

          Well, except for the fact that he had a military / intel type background and that his Laurel / Hollywood BLVD studio was filled with agents, and that he peddled young children getting pregnant, worked with the Church of Satan, etc. You see, what you’re arguing for is the very return of this animalistic behavior and debasement that we’re exposing. How is it so wonderful to go back to the status of a cave man? You don’t say.

          “Sure we can say these people have an agenda, but that doesn’t mean everything they advocate is necessarily harmful or degrading.”

          http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

          Where did we say “everything” – now you’re lying about what we said when we provided specific examples and showed how PR and Bernayian Koestler type strategies were used. Again, if their intentions weren’t nefarious, then they’d have no reason to hide them for over 55 years and all of this would have been public a long time ago. Those with good intentions have no need to lie and occult information against others – because occulting information – the very purpose of it, is to use it against others. Again, you seem to think the CIA is not an agency with directives and people giving orders to others, funding them to also do it. Just a small problem with your evidenceless speculations.

          “ We have to analyze what’s being advocated in it’s own right, not accept or dismiss it because someone has their own agenda in promoting it. Again if I had some contention with your research I would make a citation to it. Whether this kind of dancing debases culture is a matter of opinion, not fact, so references to the fact that this kind of dance was promoted by suspicious individuals is not a reasonable explanation to me for being against dancing necessarily.”

          Had you studied the work in depth you’d know that we’ve already done this and wouldn’t have to presume we haven’t. Please study the work. I get that you have cognitive dissonance, but enough of the underhanded remarks that are in full due to your own ignorance of our research and not our research itself. Again, why did you not read the next article? Why do you fail to see how this crap is the CIA’s BS, and not a freedom movement as it was sold? Why do you again ignore Joly West’s quote? So you’re speculating contentions that you have no evidence for. Got it. But why this constantly dishonest behavior? I don’t get it.
          http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

          “What is degrading about dance? Not an attack, not a claim, not a position I have documentation for… just a simple question.”

          What type of dance? Dance that promotes wild sex and drugs… like the 60s? You’re kidding right? Try to think of it in terms of building a strong family, rather than a bunch of single moms that have to then rely upon the STATE for support because they went to a bunch of drug/ sex parties… remember the “summer of love”? Again, had you bothered with the next article, much of this would have already been made clear.

          “Thinking…. nope, still not clear.”

          This is because you think in your own terms, not in terms of how those who peddle socialism and communism and social control operate. You have not read the next article, as I suggested, that explained all of this. You’re going in circles. You think that because you’re not a psychopath (that’s a compliment) that psychopaths don’t exist. You need to get out of your box and think how the predator mentality works, not the one in your little box.

          “Debasing is people being exploited, or otherwise disrespected. What people do in the mud doesn’t hurt you.”

          That’s, again, a very ignorant presumption and still because you think debasing and social control only comes from corporations. I’ve explained to you already that this is a very ignorant position to take. If you’re not aware of the agenda of those who are creating the “Hog Farm” – what the help center at Woodstock was called, if you’re not able to see how they work and they DUPE you into consent, then you cannot therefore see how it’s debasing. You presume that if someone lies to you and tricks you into giving up your consent that you haven’t been debased or fooled. Again, that’s very ignorant:

          “As long as it’s voluntary and no one is being forced to do something they don’t want… I mean that’s the criteria I would use to decide whether something is debasing culture.”

          Again, think in terms of the tree of knowledge and the fall of man… how cultures are created, how families are held together.. not by creating sex parties in the mud and culturally debased events that create single moms etc, who then too often become reliant upon a socialist state, unable to do for themselves. Family provides that, not state. Stop thinking in such narrow terms. All of your questions have been covered here very extensively.

          “If people are doing what makes them happy and they aren’t bothering others then what is debasing about it? You have indicated that you find it distasteful perhaps, but you know it takes different strokes… live and let live right? Personally I don’t have any problem with how people choose to pursue happiness as long as they are not disturbing others’ right to the same. I guess you have a different view of what constitutes debasement, I’d very much like to hear it defined or why you think it’s debasing.”

          Again, you have to approach this that they weren’t duped and lied to simply because they’re smiling… you said earlier you think you may have been fooled. I’m telling you that were are fooled. Does it feel good only because it’s happy? How can you not see your own position in this and how you’re defending it? If this information made you happy, you’d not be arging 20 pages because of your cognitive dissonance from getting mind controlled by the CIA.

          This Huxley quote is in the article, but apparently you ignored it:

          But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.
          Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. [emphasis added] [10]
          ~ Aldous Huxley

          Let me put it to you very simply: You, Marc, are a victim of the CIA’s MKULTRA program. You’re starting to awaken. Sure you went to lots of parties and were high and fucked and all…but what did you gain? Did you build a family a life, something that doesn’t require government? Something that doesn’t care what government is in office or if the whole system collapsed would it bother you in the least? Why not? Was it about keeping you DISTRACTED from building a real life for yourself? How does that make you feel? Happy?

          Give me a break.

          “Here is where you start in with the major assumptions about me. Can you tell me what part assumptions play in your version of critical thinking? I have not expressed any belief.”

          Hardly, Marc. You’ve given me pages of your beliefs and assumptions, as if I haven’t quoted your own words throughout. You’ve made claim after claim, while pretending you haven’t, telling me I’m ignoring spirituality, calling me xenophobic, ignorant, etc, then tell me I’m making assumptions about what you believe. Everything I stated is based on your own words RIGHT HERE IN THIS THREAD.

          “I have no beliefs just so you know. I make a point of avoiding them. I do not believe I am right about anything, my philosophy is to always consider that I could be wrong.. about anything and everything. Could you elaborate, in your perception, which belief I am confusing as fact? So far all I am presenting is questions to which I will remain open minded to anyone who cares to answer.”

          Well, isn’t that complete bullshit? If this were true, then why attack me for your spiritual beliefs? Why get all uppity about citations you’ve not read? That’s, of course, ridiculous. And for your information, QUESTIONS end in QUESTION MARKS. I’ve quoted your statements:

          “I don’t think you treated the concept fairly.”
          “I think we must be wary of simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena”

          “To say positive thinking is an attack on critical thinking is either completely disingenuous or just ignorant about its value as a concept.””

          “You are not being fair to this concept either.”

          ““Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do.”

          “You say it doesn’t matter if we think it’s spiritual, they think it’s a method of control. I say it doesn’t matter if they think it’s a method of control if it actually benefits us spiritually.”

          ““You say the intention is to “return us to peasants”. This largely ignores the fact that we are already suffering from being peasants under the current system.”

          “Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps? I did not like how you state this subjective opinion in a manner indistinguishable from your stated facts, and this makes your article read like you have an agenda other than to simply bring the facts to light… you have a conclusion you’re selling.””

          ““I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”.”

          Out of all those statements and claims, I only see one question mark. Correct me if I’m wrong.

          Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps?

          Where are your questions? Just because you put the words “I question” does not at at imply that you asked real, honest questions about the research. Your assumptions and CLAIMS and OPINIONS don’t have question marks. So your ONLY question was to ask if I’m a xenophobe, in order to dismiss the rest of the work, is that correct?

          Then you went on:

          ““What’s more important than who propagated psychedelics into our culture or for what reasons is what their potential represents to us now. You say it doesn’t matter if we think it’s spiritual, they think it’s a method of control. I say it doesn’t matter if they think it’s a method of control if it actually benefits us spiritually. Maybe their intentions are paramount to you, but personally I value our experiences and intentions much more highly.””

          ““Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do. Maybe that’s my illusion, or perhaps it’s your ignorance.””

          Now you’re making me quote your own BS – TWICE.

          “I’m curious, can you quote me one a single claim I have made since I posted? I don’t recall making any claims, and I can’t find any by going through my words. I guess you could say I’m making the claim that I am not making any claims, but that is hardly the kind of claim that you could want a reference for. I have no claims!”

          Yes, I already have, above, many times.

          —Notice how you have to attack us: “xenophobic bias”.—

          I asked if your characterization of freak dancing as culturally debasing stemmed from xenophobia. It was an honest question, not an accusation. I’m prepared to accept your answer.

          Yes, rather than looking at the evidence, you’re proposing an ad hominem attack on me to avoid the evidence, attacking the messenger. I made this clear. Yet you’re still defending this behavior. Try focusing on the research rather than making up lies, or attacks, on the presenter. It’s really bad form. Obviously asking if it stems from xenophobia is your way of attacking the messenger to avoid the facts presented. What other purpose could it have? None, of course. I provided you the definition of an ad hominem attack. Let’s not go in circles, as we’re not dogs.

          “Typically when one is intellectually bankrupt and can’t support their positions, they do what is known as “attacking or killing the messenger” and then use “ad hominem” attacks to dismiss the information to feel better about themselves. An ad hominem attack is thus:”

          “I feel you have completely misunderstood my intentions.”

          No, I quoted you. I see this type of fallacious arguing all the time. Maybe you don’t even realize that you’re name calling to avoid the data… “asshole, or xenophobic, orignorant” – etc, it all serve the same purpose… to attack me to set up a method that you can ignore the data and go back to sleep. Again, you may not recognize your own fallacious behavior and remarks, but I do.

          “Perhaps I am at fault in the way I phrased my questions. Some of your material is new to me, it is a sensitive topic for me (you are correct about that)… and I am trying to be less defensive. “

          Yes, I pointed out that you have what is known in psychological terms as Stockholm Syndrome. It’s perfectly normal, but doesn’t mean that I appreciate these types of “subtle” attacks, even though you may not see yourself committing them. Again, study the trivium and you’ll begin to see how you use these tactics, of which I’ve quoted your use. There’s no denying it.

          “I very much appreciate the research and work you have done.”

          – not yet, but you’re starting too. When you’re free of it you’ll appreciate it, but you’ve not even studied enough of it up to this time.

          “ I have no intention of killing the messenger, most of what you say I agree with. I very much admire what you have done here. I only said the word xenophobic because I have a hard time understanding why something as enjoyable, healthy, and primal as dancing is seen as inherently debasing, and that’s the possibility that occurred to me.

          You may not have the intention, but your words show otherwise:

          “I asked if your characterization of freak dancing as culturally debasing stemmed from xenophobia.”

          This shows your clear intention to attack me in order to feel comfortable about your beliefs. That’s exactly what killing the messenger is.

          “ Perhaps I could have chosen a less presumptuous and kinder way to phrase my question, but I did not intend it as ad hominem, and I’m not trying to necessarily say your claim is false. I’m asking why it’s debasing, and “because Veto was a conspirator and/or was used” is just not enough to satisfy me.”

          again, we’ve done far more work on all of this ,and if you study it, you’ll find your answers. If you approach the situation from your current belief system, obviously you won’t see how those who use this crap against you do their deeds.

          “It was not my intention to ad hominem attack you, nor do I make it a habit in general. I agree, it’s not a spiritual thing to do.”

          Thank you.

          “Again, I have no beliefs, so you didn’t “come out of MY beliefs”. Also, I’m not upset, nor have I leapt to any conclusions, false or accurate. I’m curious what conclusions are you under the impression that I have made? Can you quote a conclusion I have made?”

          Yes, I have quoted your belief, claims, etc… even your spirituality is a “belief”. Why can’t you own up to this?

          ““Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do. Maybe that’s my illusion, or perhaps it’s your ignorance.””

          How is this not a conclusion, a claim? Come on, Marc… you’ve got to be more honest with yourself if you want to break free… and clearly you do.

          “—Did you also study the video Psychedelic Intelligence, provided on this website? It covers a lot more of the details.
          http://www.gnosticmedia.com/psychedelic-intelligence-c-counterculture/—
          Yes I watched it, and I have no reason to dispute the information in it, and I’m not trying to challenge that.”

          Good… then why weren’t you told that all of these guys were agents? Of course there’s an agenda there or they’d not have lied to you in the first place. Again, see the Joly West quote as one instance, again.


          I would also like to say something about “turn on, tune in, drop out”. I don’t think you treated the concept fairly. I will admit that it seems to be a marketing type of slogan, and perhaps that was what was intended (whether or not to create a “dark age”). The appeal of the slogan however is not to disengage from community, do nothing and become a serf/slave. The appeal is to recognize that the current system is one of serfdom/slavery/exploitation already, and to “drop out” of that to experience more freedom and autonomy, and to, as Gandhi put it, “not participate in anything which you believe to be evil”. I believe the current system of corporations, war, taxes and exploitation is evil, therefor I choose to participate in that as little as as I can.

          —Yes, of course you would, because you’ve never studied the evidence. You’ve just done these things your whole entire life without thinking about them, and now you’re being forced to think about your actions – maybe for the first time.—

          More assumptions. “Never studied the evidence” False. “Done things my whole life without thinking about them”. False. When I have questioned you, I carefully QUESTIONED. I never accused, I never made assumptions about you. I only question. You are now making concrete, presumptuous accusations about something you can not possible have knowledge of. It’s not reasonable under any standard of “critical thinking”.

          So you studied the evidence but didn’t quote it and don’t admit that McLuhan was CIA and worked with Leary who was CIA? What did you study? Why did you provide no quotes or citations?

          “Perhaps I could have chosen a less presumptuous and kinder way to phrase my question, but I did not intend it as ad hominem, and I’m not trying to necessarily say your claim is false”

          Again, you just admitted that you have use bogus language here, and now you’re claiming to not have… that’s a contradiction – and error, a lie. You can’t have it both ways.

          “““Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do. Maybe that’s my illusion, or perhaps it’s your ignorance.”””

          How is this not an assumption? How is “xenophobic bias”.— not an assumption?

          “How did we not treat it fairly? Just because it’s your religion? ”
          “I do not subscribe to any religion. You didn’t treat it fairly because you attack it based on who promoted it, and why they promoted it, not on whether the concept has merit.”

          “““Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do. Maybe that’s my illusion, or perhaps it’s your ignorance.”””

          Um, FYI, that is a religious belief… your whole defense of psychedelic spirituality IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Again, if you want to break free you’ll need to stop lying to yourself and those around you.

          Again, this is complete bullshit. Had you read the next article in the series, cited to you four times, you’d see that we in fact covered ALL of the who what where when why and how. Just because you didn’t study it, doesn’t mean that we did cover it. If you’re claiming it’s true or has value, then the ONUS OF PROOF is on YOU, not me. I met the onus of proof that it’s been manufactured and sold to us based on lies… but

          “It has merit in my opinion, because it’s the people who participate in the system, by paying taxes, by going to their corporate or government jobs that perpetuate and fund this evil system. It’s appropriate to withdraw participation in this system, hence “dropping out”. My opinion is that it’s not fair to deride an idea or concept just because some people use it as a manipulation vector for their own agenda. I have personally “dropped out”, and have no intention of ever “dropping back in”. I can assure you I would rather choose to die before I will allow myself to be exploited as a “happy serf” to be the financier of war and imperialism.”

          I’d agree that corpratocracy has it’s evil merits, but it’s not all evil… But if I cite you several times that they want you to drop out so that you’re not participating in real dissent, then what did you fix? You played into them. You were fooled. Is this when you cover your ears and go lalala to ignore the facts? I cite this to you AGAIN from the CIA:

          “Decades later, one of the CIA’s own MK-ULTRA researchers, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, while citing Huxley had this to say on the matter:

          The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or “no knock” entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations.
          But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.
          To a large extent the numerous rural and urban communes, which provide a great freedom for private drug use and where hallucinogens are widely used today, are actually subsidized by our society. Their perpetuation is aided by parental or other family remittances, welfare, and unemployment payments, and benign neglect by the police. In fact, it may be more convenient and perhaps even more economical to keep the growing numbers of chronic drug users (especially of the hallucinogens) fairly isolated and also out of the labor market, with its millions of unemployed. ****To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome–and less expensive–if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modes of expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent. […] The hallucinogens presently comprise a moderate but significant portion of the total drug problem in Western society. The foregoing may provide a certain frame of reference against which not only the social but also the clinical problems created by these drugs can be considered.****[11]
          ~ Louis Jolyon West”

          What is it that you’re not hearing, or are intentionally ignoring?

          “To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome–and less expensive–if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modes of expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent.”

          “I can not see this decision of mine as someone manipulating me to do this to “make a slave of me”, because I’m far less of a slave than those “in the system”, who are only dimly aware if at all that they are in a system of slavery. And by the way, I made this decision early in life before I ever heard the slogan, due to purely thinking for myself and coming to the conclusion that it was the only thing to do that had any honor it it. Continuing to pay taxes is completely an immoral thing to do when you know what’s being done with the money.”

          When you put on their dress, do their dance, remove yourself as they want, fuck in the mud and are DISTRACTED with BS, you’re being manipulated. Let me take a guess, and I’m just speculating, but you have no farm, no ranch and no family of your own? Am I correct? Do you have children? Have you started building anything real and of value? I’m in doubt.

          “If I was making claims that needed documentation (or any claim at all), or I was taking exception with some point of your research, I would reference a citation. You are reading into things… please quote me these “beliefs” that you think I have, because I don’t know to what you refer.”

          Again, with the BS comment about claims… you state something is wrong, etc, as you repeatedly have, as I’ve quoted you, the ONUS OF PROOF FALLS ON YOU.

          “Yeah, first I would have to actually believe something, which I don’t, or make a claim, which I haven’t.”

          Must you always lie when I quote your own comments about spirituality, drugs and defense of MKULTRA? Give me a break. You’ve got to learn to be more honest. These fallacies you use are very ugly, and you don’t even see it… but at least it’s something you can learn and study and stop doing.

          “No. I have researched much more than you have given me credit for. “

          You’ve not shown that here. Most who research things are able to back their ideas, as I’ve done. You back nothing. You don’t show that you’ve researched it.

          “Again, citations for what purpose? I’m not disputing any point of your research nor trying to prove any claim. There are facts, then there is deduction and opinion. I don’t have a problem with your facts, I only have some questions regarding conclusions as you have deduced them from the facts, and also your about your opinion regarding why dancing is debasing.”

          Wow, incredible… the entire point of your post was disputing what we wrote. You’re becoming more dishonest by the post now:

          “That said, I question some of your conclusions.
          I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”. Also if you are correct in that assumption, then why has it failed? Why is mainstream culture successfully discouraged from using psychedelics through propaganda put out by the same interests? Why has psychedelic culture been marginalized instead of taken mainstream? Arguably we are in, or are being led into a dark age, but psychedelics and the counterculture do not appear to be playing a large role in that, and are actually more interested in resisting it than most other groups.”

          How is questioning our conclusions not disputing them? That’s of course ridiculous, dishonest, et al. I’m tiring of this fallacious behavior. But again, you quote nothing in the paper that we can review to verify the citations that my conclusions ARE BASED ON. If you would quote those citations you find questionable, then we could review them. You provide NOTHING. No quotes, no citations, NOTHING.

          —Of course it’s a marketing slogan, created by two people for MKULTRA: Tim Leary and Marshal McLuhan. You’re going to ignore that both of them were CIA? Why? Because it doesn’t jive? It makes you feel uncomfortable?—
          “I never said that, again you are making assumpions. I’m not ignoring, nor denying that Leary and McLuhan were CIA. Yes it makes me feel uncomfortable, but I’m not going to deny the evidence you have presented, and these are some of the facts I’m grateful to you for making me aware of.”

          Ok you claimed we didn’t address it fairly, then you used a straw man argument, ignoring how serfs were treating throughout history… thinking you’re a shackled slave or something… but you already did deny the evidence:

          ““I would also like to say something about “turn on, tune in, drop out”. I don’t think you treated the concept fairly. I will admit that it seems to be a marketing type of slogan, and perhaps that was what was intended (whether or not to create a “dark age”). The appeal of the slogan however is not to disengage from community, do nothing and become a serf/slave.”

          How did we not treat it fairly? Again, they’re CIA selling an agenda. You admit it makes you feel uncomfortable. Well, get over the cognitive dissonance and wake up.

          “Well, it’s the taxes, and corporate job that makes me feel less free. I feel more free ever since I “dropped out” of those things over 20 years ago. I believe I’m more free as a result of NOT having my labor exploited and my energy siphoned away for things like war and to make bankers rich. If that’s because I’m ignoring facts or been mind controlled, I guess I’m okay with that… I’m sure not going to “drop back in”.”

          You have a choice at least to move, to not have a corporate job, to work for yourself… the serfs were held to the land – had NONE of that ability.

          “But this represents only a narrow interest. I’m questioning whether the entire movement can be attributed to the goals and purposes of this powerful group. I think we have to take any ideas about psychedelics, and spirituality and take the concepts on their own merit, and not be necessarily dismissive just because it can be shown that this powerful group is using the ideas for their own agenda. Like as mentioned earlier, religions advocate love… is love then just a deceptive ploy, nothing more than a weakness that allows us to be manipulated? Or is love real? Serious question for you.”

          If you’ll study it, you’ll see how it has been. Again, read the next article in the series.

          Again, the ideas of psychedelic spirituality were MARKETED to us. I quoted you Maria Sabina and how Wasson lied and made the entire thing up.. .when you get the bigger picture, you can see how shamans and religious leaders have used these substances for control for millennia.
          http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

          “It’s difficult for me to see how people “dropping out” is conducive to the interests of those who want to lessen freedoms even more. I see that being done in many ways, but how has having people opt out of the corporate wage slave system been conducive to returning us to serfdom. 911 and the patriot act are assaults on our freedoms…. I can see that. Having people drop out and try psychedelics. I just can’t see it. Yes I see the documentation that you provide that indicates the slogan may have been promoted for that kind of purpose, and that the agenda exists, but it’s difficult for me to see that it has not been counterproductive toward that end.”

          From the next article that you clearly haven’t read, you’ll find:

          “The last thing that readers are missing is how could creating hippies be a CIA tactic and how would such a tactic affect them?
          If we consider that by having people “navel gaze” and focus on psychedelics as mind expansion, as opposed to real solutions to problems like social stratification, dumbing us down, and the like, then it distracts them from focusing on these real problems as the source of all of society’s ills, and more importantly, taking action to change them. With this in mind then it starts to become obvious that by focusing on psychedelics or spirituality as an answer to our problems we are distracted away from what the real problems are:
          It is probably no accident that the society which most consistently encouraged the use of these substances, India, produced one of the sickest social orders ever created by mankind in which thinking men spent their time lost in the Buddha position under the influence of drugs exploring consciousness, while poverty, disease, social discrimination, and superstition reached their highest and most organised form in all history.[127]
          ~ David McClelland”

          “You say the intention is to “return us to peasants”. This largely ignores the fact that we are already suffering from being peasants under the current system. You use the phrase “debasing culture”? The entire mainstream culture is completely “debased” already. Debasement as I understand it does not mean uninhibited sexuality or dancing, but mindless consumerism, “me! me! me!”, no sense of responsibility about being aware of how our life choices and participation in the economy is adversely affecting others in the global community, and letting corporations and bureaucracies come between us and control our vital connections to our sustenance and community, and being pitted against each other through xenophobia.”

          Again, I cited you to the database, https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-4993, and it’s not just one tactic being used. It’s not just psychedelics, it’s not just the media and Patriot Act, and stripping us of our freedoms, and I cited you, twice now, to the CIA’s Dr. Louis Jolyon West. You were also cited the article that explains all of this in great detail, as does McClelland’s quote, again, I cite to you:

          “It is probably no accident that the society which most consistently encouraged the use of these substances, India, produced one of the sickest social orders ever created by mankind in which thinking men spent their time lost in the Buddha position under the influence of drugs exploring consciousness, while poverty, disease, social discrimination, and superstition reached their highest and most organised form in all history.[127]
          ~ David McClelland”

          “Ok, sure. But my point remains. The current system is one of slavery more or less (more than less), and dropping out is opting out of that, therefor appropriate in my opinion, regardless of who developed the slogan or what they thought they were accomplishing by that.”

          That’s because you’re refusing to see the larger picture of how mind control works… the Mahabharata is thousands of years old, created by the Hindu Brahma caste, to control the masses. Other religions and cults have been created throughout time for social control, as have economic policies, corpratocracy, communism / socialism, et al. Statism in itself is a form of slavery, a belief in a mythical “government” entity that doesn’t actually exist, and is enforced only by those who adorn themselves with costumes and “act out” the “demands of government”.
          Government, and the psychopaths that inhabit it,, always have and always will seek new and additional ways of social control.

          —You’re comparing apples and oranges and ignoring the facts in your face. But of course you think mindless debasing only comes in one form: consumerism. Of course we advacated that no place. But why would you assume it’s only one form?—

          I gave a couple of examples of debasement, they were just examples, not meant to be a comprehensive list. My point was that debasement constitutes a tangible disrespect or compromise of a person’s rights by other people. Without that aspect what makes it debasing? What is necessarily debasing about dancing? Where are the people being disrespected or deprived of their rights? It’s just not right to condemn other people’s activity choices, that’s their freedom, when they aren’t hurting anyone else.”

          Again, over and over, I have given you the citations that will explain this to you all too clearly:
          http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

          “—I suppose you’re a communist, right?—
          Wow. Incorrect. I’m noting you didn’t accuse me of being a communist. You asked. I can understand the difference. The answer is no.”

          I most certainly didn’t accuse you. See the question mark? It’s a question. I also used the word “suppose”. Your actions speak of it when you talk of the global community and defending your masters.

          “—You want the government to give you everything while they steal it form those who actually work? —
          Incorrect. Are these assumptions a form of critical thinking? Is it fair?”

          Again, they’re correctly formed as QUESTIONS, not assumptions or statements, or claims, which is anything that ends in a PERIOD – FYI.

          “So you know, I have not filed or paid any kind of tax in over 20 years. In that time, I have supported myself completely, entirely on my own efforts. I do not believe it’s beneficial to use any kind of welfare or social services (and I have not done so) if you have any option whatsoever of a more self-sufficient existence. In fact a measure of success in my opinion is the extent to which one can sustain oneself without any reliance on food or products made by corporations, and I have sought to extricate myself from such reliance as a major focal point of my life. The government and corporations want us to be dependent on them for all of our resources and to not have any ability to take care of ourselves without their products/food/health care/jobs etc.”

          I’m glad to hear that you’re a real man. You only have a few steps left, then, to complete your freedom. BTW, have you heard my nearly 20 shows on freedom and non-statism?

          “I did question you about some things. I did not make false assumptions about you, or make accusations, seriously ask yourself which one of us can be more characterized as “attacking” the other, and “jumping to conclusions”.”

          If you could show me where I’ve attacked you, when I’ve quoted every single example and have been careful not to use fallacious language, it would help. Yes, you did, and I’ve repeatedly quoted you in the previous response, and here.

          “I don’t think you treated the concept fairly.”
          “I think we must be wary of simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena”

          “To say positive thinking is an attack on critical thinking is either completely disingenuous or just ignorant about its value as a concept.””

          “You are not being fair to this concept either.”

          ““Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do.”

          “You say it doesn’t matter if we think it’s spiritual, they think it’s a method of control. I say it doesn’t matter if they think it’s a method of control if it actually benefits us spiritually.”

          ““You say the intention is to “return us to peasants”. This largely ignores the fact that we are already suffering from being peasants under the current system.”

          “Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps? I did not like how you state this subjective opinion in a manner indistinguishable from your stated facts, and this makes your article read like you have an agenda other than to simply bring the facts to light… you have a conclusion you’re selling.””

          ““I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”.”

          You wrote:

          “I did not make false assumptions about you, or make accusations, seriously ask yourself which one of us can be more characterized as “attacking” the other, and “jumping to conclusions”.””

          Uh huh… so all those direct quotes of yours where written by a green fairy? Sure, ok. But maybe look at how you intentionally avoid addressing your own fallacious attacks. May I suggest you study logic and the logical fallacies so that you don’t commit them in your own thinking? I used to do that too. I get it, really. But you need to learn to be more honest with yourself and others. It’s ok to admit you were wrong and fooled by an intelligence agency. We all were. It’s all good. We were too. It’s OK.

          “From one extreme to the other. A phrase I have seen you apply to others.”

          It is one extreme to the other – very clearly. What else is it? You saw corparatism as the problem, so you went in the opposite direction, without studying or considering what you were doing more deeply. My work proves that, or you wouldn’t be here in this discussion…

          “I guess anyone who disagrees with you (or whom you perceive, correctly or not that disagrees with you) is deserving of the phrase, regardless of ho

          • February 28, 2015 at 1:59 pm

            “I guess anyone who disagrees with you (or whom you perceive, correctly or not that disagrees with you) is deserving of the phrase, regardless of how little knowledge you actually have regarding their background or life.”

            Notice again how you’re attacking ME rather than the citations? Again, quoting you, that’s an Ad hominem attack. I’ve SHOWN YOU how you went from one system of control to another. It’s no better, it’s just the opposite extreme. Have you ever played chess? You’ll learn to strategize and plan ahead – that’s what our controllers do – they create the opposite to capture those who don’t research their BELIEFS.
            Why don’t you address the citations? Why don’t you read the next paper which explains all of this in detail which I’ve cited to you at least 8 times now?
            http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

            If you’re going to disagree, you need to have evidence, what is known as the “onus of proof” – to substantiate YOUR OWN CLAIMS. I’ve provided mine, you’ve provide your beliefs and opinions and what you think about it. I’ve given you their own words, provided CIA and University archive documents that show it all in their own words – if you’ll study it.

            “ Maybe you could elaborate for me the extreme I came from, and the extreme I have went to now… you seem to know more about me than I do myself.”

            I just did. I know how mind control and this operation work. When you put your cognitive dissonance aside and study, including the trivium, you’ll understand it too.

            —Yes, culture is debased… look at all the tattooed hippies, freak dancing naked and taking drugs, porno, et al, while name calling at people, “xenophobia” etc, and thinking they’re spiritually enlightened while being incapable of dealing with citations and facts at the same time – right in front of them. You seem a good example of the debasement which you defend. Maybe look in the mirror. Again, BOTH are debasing.—
            “Tattoos: not debasing. Freak dancing: not debasing. I asked you, sincerely if xenophobia was a factor for you, I never called you names, I never said “you’re a xenophobe!”. I don’t claim to be “spiritually enlightened”.”

            Without understanding native revivalism and how the program works, you can’t understand how these are tools to debase the culture… it’s NOT THE ONE THING, as quoted in this article.

            If you would read the next article, again, citing it to you 9 times, you’d have read this:

            “To summarize these ideas further, it was weaponized anthropology being used against us and the Mazatec peoples; it was what Gregory Bateson coined as “native revivalism” being remarketed to the public – which later became the “Archaic Revival.” Prof. David Price cites Bateson’s declassified OSS memo on these ideas. Unfortunately we don’t know exactly what this “significant experiment” was, or where its findings were published. This is something that anthropologists serious about getting to the truth need to investigate and make public:

            The most significant experiment which has yet been conducted in the adjustment of relations between “superior” and “inferior” peoples is the Russian handling of their Asiatic tribes in Siberia. The findings of this experiment support very strongly the conclusion that it is very important to foster spectatorship among the superiors and exhibitionism among the inferiors. In outline, what the Russians have done is to stimulate the native peoples to undertake a native revival while they themselves admire the resulting dance festivals and other exhibitions of native culture, literature, poetry, music and so on. And the same attitude of spectatorship is then naturally extended to native achievements in production or organization. In contrast to this, where the white man thinks of himself as a model and encourages the native people to watch him in order to find out how things should be done, we find that in the end nativistic cults spring up among the native people. The system gets overweighed until some compensatory machinery is developed and then the revival of native arts, literature, etc., becomes a weapon for use against the white man (Phenomena, comparable to Ghandi’s spinning wheel may be observed in Ireland and elsewhere). If, on the other hand, the dominant people themselves stimulate native revivalism, then the system as a whole is much more stable, and the nativism cannot be used against the dominant people.[73] [emphasis added] ~ Gregory Bateson”

            “ I think I can safely say I’m not… whatever that even means. I am perfectly capable of dealing with citations when there is a reason for it. Facts are great, you have done a great thing in exposing a lot of facts, and I challenge you to name one fact that I have disputed… please quote and don’t paraphrase.”

            I have quoted you throughout. Why do you ignore your own previous post… again, I cite your own words to you for the 3rd time:

            “I don’t think you treated the concept fairly.”
            “I think we must be wary of simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena”

            “To say positive thinking is an attack on critical thinking is either completely disingenuous or just ignorant about its value as a concept.””

            “You are not being fair to this concept either.”

            ““Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do.”

            “You say it doesn’t matter if we think it’s spiritual, they think it’s a method of control. I say it doesn’t matter if they think it’s a method of control if it actually benefits us spiritually.”

            ““You say the intention is to “return us to peasants”. This largely ignores the fact that we are already suffering from being peasants under the current system.”

            “Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps? I did not like how you state this subjective opinion in a manner indistinguishable from your stated facts, and this makes your article read like you have an agenda other than to simply bring the facts to light… you have a conclusion you’re selling.””

            ““I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”.”

            You wrote:

            “You’re right, I don’t understand it as debasing. Maybe you could explain why it is other than that it must be because “CIA agenda”. I don’t automatically make judgments without analyzing something based on it’s own merit or faults, not just dismiss it because it was an element of a nefarious CIA agenda.”

            I didn’t once say “it must be because “CIA agenda”.” – that’s a nice straw man, through, another fallacious claim, a lie. I cited you this article, which explains it, now for the 10th time:
            http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

            “—You leap to assumptions you’ve never studied anything about to feel good about your beliefs..—
            Such as….. ? Again I say, I have no beliefs, I make no assumptions. Please quote where I have done that if you are going to accuse.”

            You seem to think that your BELIEFS about psychedelics and spirituality are not beliefs, or a religious view. It’s simply the new age religion, they’re beliefs. And you did make assumptions, again, many of your own quotes, quoted just above, do I need to quote them again for the 4th time? Why are you in such denial of your own words? Having a discussion with someone who won’t read or study the citations given, while claiming they do, gets very tiring, do you know that?

            “I agree with you, especially the part about not relying on a socialist government to take care of us. I have a family too. I know some communes still working, there are some moderately successful experiments, but they are the rare exception to the rule. I am not interested in joining or starting a “commune”… not anymore.”

            The only “commune” still functioning is the Tennessee farm, which went to manufacturing armor and whatnot for Homeland Security or one of those government offices. Hardly a commune. It’s the last one from the 60s, and Gaskin was a cult leader too.

            “Hey, my point about “global community” was that it’s debasing if you are shopping at wal-mart with no conscience regarding slave labor in other countries, and you buy without thinking about the larger effects of your actions on other people in general. My point is that debasement involves lack of respect for other life, which dancing does not.”

            Here what you’ve done is ignore the additional research on debasement, then create a straw man / circular reasoning argument back to your own original view, to then ignore the points about dancing and why Edward Bernays, et al where behind it. Again, this is fallacious behavior, ignoring the evidence and then presenting your own BELIEF of the matter.

            “ I apologize for using a phrase you’re sensitive to, but I would ask that you consider the meaning of my point rather than focusing on what was perhaps a poor choice of phrase on my part.”

            I recognize that you don’t see the fallacious comments you make. Again, you may want to study logical fallacies and the trivium so that you don’t get caught in this. I used to do it too, so I understand.

            “—But unfortunately Bolshevik communism in Russia ended with the murder of over 60 million white Russians, and didn’t fix a thing.—
            Yeah, communism is statism. I do not advocate any form of socialism or system of government that is based on forced collection of taxes in any way. Sorry if I’m not fitting into your stereotype very neatly.”

            Nor do I, but that’s exactly what COMMUNES are – COMMUNism… get it?

            When you’re promoting the hippie, commune lifestyle, it’s a form of communism and subsidized by the government. It’s not freedom, it’s an illusion of freedom. Hense I’ve quoted you the Joly West quote several times now, showing just that.

            I’m very glad to hear that you’re a non-statist. Why you believe in all of these communist New Age religions, peddling this very agenda, I don’t understand.

            “I’m not repeating their slogans like a parrot.”

            I couldn’t disagree more.

            “ What I stated is a matter of opinion, that it’s debasing when our culture consumes products without considering or caring about the larger effect of their actions.”

            Where did you get those opinions, have you verified them? If, like your belief in the psychedelic revolution, maybe you should…?

            “This is not a matter of “true or not-true”.”

            I couldn’t disagree more. Again, if you can’t see the agenda, you can’t decide if it’s true or not. I’d do my grammar and ask who what where when why and how before reaching that conclusion.

            “Like questions and attacks, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between matters of opinion and matters of fact.””

            Actually, I don’t, and all you’ve provided here is opinions and no factcs, while ignoring my citations. I’ve pointed this out to you REAPETEDLY. That’s the whole issue here, you only tell us your opinions, whether or not you’ve researched them… that’s why you have no evidence or citations to back ANY of your claims, get it?!

            Anyway, there are 6 more pages to go and I see this is going no place fast. We’re going around and around in circles over research you’ve not read, beliefs and opinions you’ve not researched and verified, claims you claim you’ve not made even when they’re quoted to you, so I wish you the best of luck in your journey.

            “You still haven’t explained how dancing, getting high, or even fucking in the mud or thinking your cool and free are debasing, or how that makes one a ‘serf’. You just keep saying it is, indicating to me that you personally find such behavior disgusting or offensive, but without providing any rationality as to why. It doesn’t hurt you or others… why don’t you just live and let live and get over it? Serious question.”

            And again you go in circles… ignoring the citation that explained it all.. . how many times are you going to do this? It’s fricken ridiculous:
            http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

            And by the way, your OPINIONS, those ones you cannot BACK with CITATIONS, are your BELEIFS!!!

            “No, it’s not. But again… I don’t have any beliefs. I consider possibilities as an alternative to forming beliefs… the main one I consider at all times is that everything I think may be delusional. I ask questions, but instead of believing in answers, I just keep asking more questions. No beliefs, no claims, therefor no evidence, and no citations.”

            Learn to build a systematic method of asking questions so that you have a process to review your data, process the fallacies, and then explain your path – as I have done.
            It works as: Who what where and when – this is the general grammar phase – gathering information; then WHY – which answers the why of a subject and removes all CONTRADICTIONS and FALLACIES, then you can explain HOW you got to your conclusion.

            Incredible… a non-statist defending the CIA. .. baffling behavior.

            I really don’t have more time for this… this was over 40 pages today… I’m working on a book, but not with you. Thanks for understanding. Let me know IF and WHEN you’ve read the next article.

  42. Marc Greene
    March 3, 2015 at 9:11 am

    ““I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”. Also if you are correct in that assumption, then why has it failed?”

    —Also your assumption here that it has failed. I don’t see it as failing. Look around you. You’re a victim of it. How could it have failed?—

    It’s hard for me to see how the promotion of psychedelics has resulted in less freedom or moved us toward further enslavement. I’m not patently saying it has failed, just that I can’t see it. I can see that it was intended to be used as such, just not that it has been effective. I will study your work more carefully and keep trying to understand how this could be.

    Personally, I feel like I have a much more preferable existence, certainly yielding far more satisfaction and sense of being free than before I was “victimized”. Here in Oregon the counterculture in general seems to be much more aware of and resisting of slavery and control mechanisms than the mainstream, by orders of magnitude. Of course the counterculture has its share of idiots, and most certainly many have succumbed to ways of thinking they have been manipulated into (the hippies in Eugene had big celebrations when Obama was elected for instance, while I tried not to puke). Idiots always outnumber the intelligent in any grouping of people. Is it fair to criticize an entire subculture based on it’s most stupid participants? Every sub-culture in America is sick if you ask me, it’s just a matter of degree. Anyone who thinks they live in today’s world and has not been “victimized” in some way by the ruling psychopaths must be in a state of denial.

    Regarding my beliefs, assumptions, and attacks that you quoted:

    “I don’t think you treated the concept fairly.”

    My intention is not to firmly stand by some conclusion here or to make the “claim” that you are being unfair. I see merit in the “drop out” concept, and I still do. Non participation make a lot of sense to me. I just don’t think it’s really fair to characterize this as a belief, assumption or attack. I said “I think”… it means I am discussing ideas, not beliefs. I certainly don’t stand by any of my “claims” as true. They are just thoughts which I certainly recognize may be erroneous.

    “I think we must be wary of simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena”

    I’m just saying ‘what if’ here. It seems possible to me that there could be more to psychedelics and the counterculture than was intended by the not-so-fine folks who kick started it for their own agenda. I stand by the statement as cautionary and reasonable and not necessarily accusatory of your work as being simplistic, which I would by no means characterize it as.

    Yes, you are trying to slaughter some of my sacred cows, and I’m a bit defensive. Stockholm syndrome or whatever. Yeah, I’ll admit that, and I apologize again for not crafting my queries in a less accusatory manner. I pride myself on being introspective as well as being able to admit when I’m wrong, or could be wrong, which is always, but I’m not perfect…. ok I’m probably grossly flawed lol.

    “To say positive thinking is an attack on critical thinking is either completely disingenuous or just ignorant about its value as a concept.””

    So there is nothing to be said for developing a positive attitude toward life? I have tremendously benefited from the practice positive thinking, in terms of increased enjoyment of my life, but I think it’s a gross misapplication to use positive thinking to selectively ignore uncomfortable information. So yes, I’m making the claim that positive thinking is valuable. I don’t have citations for this claim, because it’s based on nothing more than personal experience. Is it fair to lump selectively ignoring of information with having a positive attitude and not being debilitated by negativity and pessimism? My experience is that positive thinking has benefited me and not does not mean one stops thinking critically.

    ““Apparently you don’t see any spiritual value in the psychedelic experience, not everyone finds that. I do.”

    So do you or don’t you see any potential “spiritual” value in the psychedelic experience whatsoever? If I am correct in understanding you, you prefer to see them as biological tools rather than spiritual, but this distinction seems arbitrary to me. The biological and spiritual are connected. Again, I’m just claiming this as my opinion based on experiences and feelings I have, not a fact based on research. I have no references, I would not ask others to believe it based on my word, nor for any other “claims” I have made.

    —So your ONLY question was to ask if I’m a xenophobe, in order to dismiss the rest of the work, is that correct?—

    It was not my only question… in addition to the question mark, there is also the statements opening with “I question”. That qualifies no? Also by no means do I wish to dismiss your work. I place extreme value on your work. Some of your conclusions are at odds with the way I think, not because I have contradictory research, but because it doesn’t jive with my experience. I’m writing to you in an attempt to reconcile your work with my experience. I would stress my views are not firm beliefs on my part, not based on documentation, and I’m quite open to revising them, so hence my reluctance to label them as “claims” or “beliefs”. I question my own claims as much as I’m questioning yours if that helps at all.

    It just seems to me that we must evaluate our experiences with these substances in a larger context than the intentions of those who would manipulate us with them. That’s not to say that the intentions of these people are not important or that we shouldn’t reconsider our experiences in light of them. But I’m not yet prepared to invalidate all that I have experienced just because someone has manipulated me into the experiences. These experiences are very powerful.

    At the same time, I feel I should carefully re-examine any mindset I have taken on as a result of exposure to new age ideas, especially in light of your work. It does seem apparent to me that there is a lot of manipulation and mind control of the counterculture and spiritual movements occurring, feminism for instance… but I have always taken exception with feminism ever since I first heard the word. Actually there is a lot I take exception with with my fellow hippies… for instance I have been telling my friends for years to avoid welfare and food stamps. I use the phrase “poison apple” and urge people to be self sufficient instead of allowing themselves into endless dependence on the state.

    It seems to me sometimes legitimate concepts are pushed on people, but pushed in such a way as to support a particular agenda. It doesn’t mean the concepts are invalid, only that we should be wary regarding how we apply them. So psychedelic spirituality is being touted and pushed out (like environmentalism), but that doesn’t necessarily mean there is no spiritual potential there.
    Perhaps if there is potential, it has been hijacked or perverted for this dark agenda in order to sell certain mindsets along with it.

    For instance, I think (suspect) that environmentalism has been deliberately instilled into culture for manipulative purposes. Does that mean it’s wrong to care about the environment? Or does it mean we need to evaluate our concern for the environment and look at how we are expressing that… whether we are taking postures that favor the manipulators deceptive agenda. I’m not going to quit caring about the environment just because environmentalism is a mentality pushed by a nefarious agenda. When I look at that, I think to myself, it makes sense to reduce consumption of plastics for instance, but not necessarily to buy into overpopulation, global warming, or to support geo-engineering or the creation of a bureaucratic structure of control and enforcement of global proportions for “environmental safety”.

    In the same way that environmentalism is not necessarily “bad”, but still pushed as part of the agenda, psychedelic spirituality may have merit or legit potential as well. Again I have no documentation for this claim. It is only an idea in my head that seems likely to me because of my experience… I’m not asking anyone to believe it, actually I would advise anyone reading this to NOT believe any of my “claims”.

    ““You say the intention is to “return us to peasants”. This largely ignores the fact that we are already suffering from being peasants under the current system.”

    When I make statements like this, again, I’m not trying to preach some kind of gospel, like “this is the truth”. I’m saying “it seems this way to me”, “what about this possibility?”. Perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording. I am admitting right now that any statements or claims I have made are highly suspect, nothing but my own opinions and speculation. Certainly I could be wrong about any of them, and it’s not my point to try to prove them, but rather to draw the best argument against them from you that I can so that I can re-evaluate my own way of thinking.

    When I say I have no claims, I did not mean that I use no definitive statements in my wording. I mean that I don’t have any agenda or points to “prove”. I’m a seeker of understanding here, and questioning. I’m not claiming any answers or to be any authority.

    “Does your characterization of wild dancing as “culturally debasing” stem from a xenophobic bias perhaps? I did not like how you state this subjective opinion in a manner indistinguishable from your stated facts, and this makes your article read like you have an agenda other than to simply bring the facts to light… you have a conclusion you’re selling.””

    The bit about the xenophobia was deliberately asked in question form, just like your communist question was. See the question mark and not the period?

    ““I question whether you have assumed correctly regarding the intentions of those who caused the psychedelic counterculture, that it was to create a “dark age”.”

    Again, a question. I’m not at all claiming that you’re wrong. There are some things that don’t add up for me that’s all.

    —You seem to think that your BELIEFS about psychedelics and spirituality are not beliefs, or a religious view.—

    I prefer to think of them as possibilities that I entertain rather than beliefs. Sure some possibilities seem more likely than others to me, but I do not allow myself unequivocal belief about anything, nor am I making any claims that are not just opinions that I am open to revising. When I say I have no beliefs or claims, my point is that I am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything. I don’t have a claim or belief here. I’m saying “Hey, this seems possible to me, what about this?”.

    Sure you can lock onto a statement I wrote and note that it’s written in a definitive manner, but please take my words in the spirit with which I have intended them: as questions and concerns, not as claims. I will be the first to admit that none of my “claims” have any basis in fact, they are subjectively based on my own experience. No one should believe any of them, as there’s no way to verify them.

    –It’s simply the new age religion, they’re beliefs. —

    I have ideas and suspicions, not beliefs. There is an important distinction, even if it’s not always indicated by the way I have worded them. It’s like I can’t even bring up a question or an issue without you thinking I have expressed some concrete belief on the matter. Again, my point in beginning to write you was to challenge you on some things because ultimately what I’m doing is challenging myself, even though you may not see that. I really try to avoid forming beliefs, I don’t see belief as a useful construct, but it’s not easy. If I believe anything, it’s that everything I believe is incorrect, or distorted at best. I have not adopted any beliefs or doctrine from any source. I only know what I feel and what I experience, and I don’t even use my experience as a basis for forming beliefs because of the possibility of deception, and the limitations and distortion of perceptions.

    — Why are you in such denial of your own words? Having a discussion with someone who won’t read or study the citations given, while claiming they do, gets very tiring, do you know that?—

    I have read them. Actually I re-read every link you have provided so far. Most of it I had already read. That is a fact.

    So I understand (hopefully correctly), that your characterization of dancing as debasing is due to the overt sexuality used by some dancers, and how this is not conducive to family which is a sacred institution to you (and to me as well). And because this type of dancing was a deliberate attack on the strength of families and therefor the culture.

    To this I would say that it doesn’t seem fair to disparage dancing because of the way it’s used or promoted by some people. When I go to shows and dance, there is nothing sexual about it. I enjoy watching men dance, and those old grey haired, dread locked hippie women. Yes, I have a child, a son. I began taking him to gatherings when he was quite young, and even from a very young age he enjoyed freak dancing with me out there. I have seen children spontaneously start ‘freak dancing’ by themselves. Dancing to me is a primal and spiritual experience, as is gathering and live music.

    It’s true that psychedelic experience doesn’t necessarily cause spiritual experience (nor does dancing). I liken it to fasting. With the right intentions and mindset, fasting can facilitate spiritual experience… but that doesn’t mean that going hungry or starving people will automatically have that experience. I think it’s the same with any vehicle to spirituality. The vehicle itself isn’t the cause of the experience, sitting in a vehicle does nothing… on the other hand you can use that vehicle to drive somewhere (hopefully not over a cliff). Dancing, psychedelics, meditation, running, praying alone in the wild places… these things are spiritual vehicles for me, though none of them are necessarily sufficient to produce spiritual experience without the right intention and preparation. A lot of statements and “beliefs” expressed here in this paragraph, I’d like to qualify them by reminding that it’s just my experience, I no more “believe” them, than I “believe” I am sitting at a computer instead of floating in some high tech VR chamber ala the matrix…. it’s just my experience, not based on facts I can document.

    So dancing is an extremely powerful modality for me. I usually do it alone, in my bedroom. My movements are a physical expression of my love and gratitude toward spirit for the blessings of life. Little I have experienced in life feels as satisfying or “right” to me, so I’m not going to stop dancing and praying in my own way because some guys used Veto in an attempt to debase society or harm families by using sexuality in dance.

    Another reason I find the counturculture appealing: the values. Peace, love and freedom are values I hold sacred (and family too!). I think these ideals are promoted in the counterculture deliberately because they are universally appealing to human nature, not because they are somehow bad or false but because they want to use the appeal to sell their other . The hippies I live with here in southern Oregon have stronger family values than most of the mainstream. My son is in the dome school (domeschool.org), not public school, which I pay for out of my own pocket by myself. All of the families and staff of this school I would consider hippies, and all are very much centered on strong family values and nurturing the children as first priority in life. The hippies here, due to feminism it seems to me, are about as sexually debaucherous as a convent of nuns. Feminists seem to hate pornography and any display of overt sexuality, especially male sexuality. When you go to a festival and see scantily clad women dancing provocatively, I think we ought to perhaps attribute that to the maturity level of teens rather than counturculture values. Maybe we should look at how the older, more mature members conduct themselves these days, and there I do not see any hyper sexualization in the dancing.

    One of our main hippie festivals, the Hope Mountain Barter Faire was started as a benefit for the dome school, and the festival is very child friendly. A far cry from woodstock. It doesn’t seem correct to me look at the values of the sixties teens discovering drugs and rebellion for the first time and then blanket apply that to the whole counterculture from then on. There are some of us who latched on to good wholesome values. Counterculture types taught me the value of organic food, to question government and corporate ways, to value self sufficiency, and to apply compassion beyond the level of convenience. I have never fucked in the mud, just so you know, probably never will.

    My claim/conclusion/belief (that’s really not any of those things), is that just because psychedelics, dancing, or certain ideals are advocated for purposes of control, doesn’t necessarily mean those things are artificial, without merit, or should be dismissed just because of who is promoting it, or because the way in which it’s promoted is manipulative.

    —I’m very glad to hear that you’re a non-statist. Why you believe in all of these communist New Age religions, peddling this very agenda, I don’t understand.—

    “Why I believe in all of these new age religions”. I don’t see a question mark there. I don’t believe in any religion, and again it strikes me as unfair that you would use the phrase “believe in all these religions.” Which ones specifically? How about you name a religion, and I’ll tell you what part of its tenets I don’t agree with. I have never found any belief or philosophy that I agree with completely. I don’t even know anyone else who thinks exactly like I do. So I’m quite sure that whatever religion you can name, I will find some aspect of it I do not subscribe to. Unless the religion is one of love and respect for life, nothing more, then I won’t count myself in their numbers. I’m decidedly a non-believer and non joiner of religion or philosophy. I question everything always, even whether I should be questioning things.

    —Incredible… a non-statist defending the CIA. .. baffling behavior.—

    What’s incredible to me is how you take away that I’m defending the CIA. I completely fail to see how you arrived there.

    —Let me take a guess, and I’m just speculating, but you have no farm, no ranch and no family of your own? Am I correct? Do you have children? Have you started building anything real and of value? I’m in doubt.—

    I have a son whom I am completely devoted to. Yes I have a family. I don’t own a ranch or farm, but I do garden. I value family and friendship more than anything else I can imagine. Yes, I like to think I’m building something real and of value, but that’s an incredibly open-ended question.

    —How is questioning our conclusions not disputing them?—

    There is a difference between saying “You’re wrong” (disputing), and “What about the possibility, that PERHAPS, WHAT IF…. you didn’t get it quite right?” (questioning).

    —I’m glad to hear that you’re a real man. You only have a few steps left, then, to complete your freedom. BTW, have you heard my nearly 20 shows on freedom and non-statism?—

    I haven’t, but I will. I really regret that you perceived me as attacking you. Stockholm syndrome, sure, and I was a bit harsh… but I was really trying to criticize and question your ideas, not attack you (or dispute your documented facts). I very much admire what you have done.

    —Um, FYI, that is a religious belief… your whole defense of psychedelic spirituality IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Again, if you want to break free you’ll need to stop lying to yourself and those around you.—

    I experience a deep sense of connection to love and divinity when using psychedelics that enriches my experience of life beyond what I could describe. It’s not my intention to defend anything, and I try to avoid conclusions and beliefs about my experience. I prefer to accept it for what it is as I experience it and not form beliefs about it. Could the experience I have be a deception? Certainly it could. Hence I don’t believe anything about it, nor do I have an interest in defending it, unless not patently accepting your conclusions about it are considered defending.

    I only have my experience, and my experience is not enough to form a claim, or even a belief as far as I care. I have nothing to defend, only possibilities to consider.

    Despite all of the facts you have, which I don’t dispute, I remain unconvinced that my experience is solely the result of the suggestions of mind controllers. Maybe love is a deceptive mind control tactic to keep us weak without any basis in reality. If that’s the case, I’ll keep my illusion, because life without love is not worth living. I love my son, my family and my friends. The love I feel from spirit is truest reality I know. If love is a lie, then I’m afraid truth will always evade me because I’m 100% hooked on the idea. I’m claiming love is real. Of course I can’t back that with any documentation. Documentation that the idea of love is a created fallacy by a mind control group would be interesting, but I’m not going to quit loving my family if something like that surfaces. My experience of loving my family and being loved is more powerful than any evidence that could possibly be presented to my intellect that said love was invalid.

    —I’d agree that corpratocracy has it’s evil merits, but it’s not all evil… But if I cite you several times that they want you to drop out so that you’re not participating in real dissent, then what did you fix?—

    What they wanted is not the only factor to consider, so you cite that they wanted me to drop out… several times. But that is not necessarily an indication of how effective I or anyone else has been at participating in dissent.

    What is real dissent? Dropping out certainly doesn’t mean not engaging in real dissent by any definition of dissent. I’m not saying slavery couldn’t be to a higher degree. What I’m saying is that even though we aren’t abject slaves as the serfs were of the past, the system we are in is highly exploitative, and it makes sense to quit participating in it. “Dropping out” thus has merit, but not to the extent that you neglect to engage in other forms of dissent or meaningful contributions to your community or society. Non participation in evil doesn’t necessarily mean non-participation in good works, or even distraction.

    The way I see it, is it’s our first responsibility to quit participating in the system. By participating in taxes, insurance, rent, corporations, and military you are helping to create the problem. If we don’t like the current system, shouldn’t we be better off to quit playing our part of being the cause of the problem? What is “real dissent” anyway, and how does opting out of funding tyranical imperialism prevent one from engaging in said “real dissent”?.

    —Obviously you can’t have a good youthful rebellion with legal substances. It was Leary himself who went to congress to get them outlawed in 1966—

    It looks to me like it was more than just an outlawing to encourage youthful rebellion. Maybe at first it was, but later some serious propaganda came out against psychedelics in the media and public school system. By the late 80’s the effort seemed to be rather to scare youth and the public away from psychedelics. In high school, I certainly was in the extreme minority, most of my classmates bought into the mainstream “drugs are for losers” type of obvious propaganda. I see that quite an effort was made to deter youth, and it seems a stretch to think that all of it was some huge reverse psychology ploy (that seems to have not worked if it was because mainstream youth think LSD is bad).

    McKenna and the continuing mind control efforts of the counterculture seem more like damage control, distraction and division of people who are waking up… I can see that. I can’t see any real efforts to get the mainstream into psychedelics anymore. The new age mind control these days seems like it could be about guiding and controlling people who are waking up, distracting them with false issues and fallacies (like feminism). But at the end of the day, peace, love and spirituality are still valid.

    Thanks again for taking your time to dialog with me. Please do not continue if your time is pressing. Also apologies if I skipped over any questions you had or ignored something important, I only responded to some of what you wrote because length is getting out of hand. I hope I more or less covered the basics and only left out some of our redundant going in circles, but please do call me on something if you think I am intentionally ignoring any point you feel is important.

    Again, thanks SO MUCH for what you do. And I would again publicly apologize for any attack I have made on you or if I have in any way disparaged your work. It is truly awesome.

    Blessings to you and your family.

  43. grimsfer scradlos
    April 12, 2015 at 12:30 am

    Hi. My favorite question was this one. I think you may have missed it. I’m not the guy who wrote it but can you please answer all of the points or questions contained? If you do happen to miss one, please be sure to address alcohol and your opinions on alcohol’s effects on families. thanks so much.
    Btw I’m a former dead listener. I actually just figured out that they were no good for my soul listening to 15th century classical music one day. Noticing it’s positive effects on my life and next time I played the dead (Anton levey’s favourite I learned shortly after stopping) it made me feel sick to the stomach!
    Also, have you heard of the band “love”? The singer (Arthur Lee) basically came up with the whole hippy thing on his own and then was blacklisted, having his ideas stolen and all those dark forces combined against him to drive him into exile while rumors that he shot himself in the head were circulated. I think they went platinum in the state of Cali. alone Cia would not have been able to use him bc he would not leave California. It’s amazing how big they were and how he was just erased from history!
    Phil Zombie
    August 15, 2014 at 5:34 am
    This is great research and scholarly. I always wondered how McKenna could lead the life that he did and how he was able to publish what he did. e.g. how to grow illegal mushrooms. My following comments do not detract from the great work done in your area of speciality, and what follows is some context.

    The 95% workhorse drug for the establishment is ALCOHOL! Its everywhere, and what is more toxic, destroys more families, and creates more need for police? (The facts are startling.) As Bill Hicks said, the two drugs you are supposed to do is coffee to keep you awake during the mundane work week, and alcohol for you to blot out the experience over the weekend.

    My feeling is that pyschedelic strategies are aimed at the tiny percentage that may be able to work things out and get to a position to eventuallty threaten the establishment. It is similar to how the Catholic church claimed credit for spiritual insights/visions, and funneled the receipent into a position that would not threaten the society, which in most cases was reverence and praise. You are now a saint and let us tell you about your experience, and let our priests bask in your glory. It is still very useful to know that the modern saints are going back to the dark ages, because they are being funneled there.

    So pyschedelics have tremendous potential to unleash trouble for the establishment by starting people on a path to true vital knowledge (which has little to do with pyschedelics), hence the effort put into creating a strategy around them. The internet was going to reveal the source of Soma anyway, anyone on soma can read the gospel of John or Vedic hymnes and know it – shit, the soma will tell you itself. So Huxley had to preemptively paint it in a negative and negatively subconscious way in a book — the establishment was forced to discredit it, and Wasson played the part of public hero but was really “controlled opposition”. Still it hasn’t penetrated far, as everyone I know gets physically sick looking at soma because they *know* it is a deadly poison. LSD was further used in discreting altered brain states via hippies/1960s debauchery, etc.

    More context. So pyschedelics can help begin the process, but they are nowhere near the source of the establishment’s power. This source is money, and this is where humans have become dumbed down the most. In 1999, I burned a $10 in a bar while drunk, telling everyone that this piece of paper is a fiction, the instrument of our enslavement, credit cycles of inflation and deflation will bankrupt us all etc., and I got beaten up by a mob (Stockholm syndrome?) But it is! Freedom in money would take away the power of the elite. But money and violence go hand in hand, so freedom from violence is needed. We need the names of the true power because there ain’t that much violence needed if it is aimed correctly — the true top of the pyramid.

    So I am left wondering if this website is more controlled opposition. You do mention some secret societies (which are probably just the first onion layer of secret societies anyway) but not once mention a Z or a Rothschild! (And they may be simply accountants, but with trillions in wealth are closer to the true power on this planet). You are arguing about the circus clowns while the ringmaster is sitting 3 time-zones away on the telephone counting his money, and making plans for dishing that money out so he can keep his wealth superiority for the next 50 years.

  44. grimsfer scradlos
    April 12, 2015 at 12:33 am

    grimsfer scradlos
    April 12, 2015 at 12:30 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Hi. My favorite question was this one. I think you may have missed it. I’m not the guy who wrote it but can you please answer all of the points or questions contained? If you do happen to miss one, please be sure to address alcohol and your opinions on alcohol’s effects on families. thanks so much.
    Btw I’m a former dead listener. I actually just figured out that they were no good for my soul listening to 15th century classical music one day. Noticing it’s positive effects on my life and next time I played the dead (Anton levey’s favourite I learned shortly after stopping) it made me feel sick to the stomach!
    Also, have you heard of the band “love”? The singer (Arthur Lee) basically came up with the whole hippy thing on his own and then was blacklisted, having his ideas stolen and all those dark forces combined against him to drive him into exile while rumors that he shot himself in the head were circulated. I think they went platinum in the state of Cali. alone Cia would not have been able to use him bc he would not leave California. It’s amazing how big they were and how he was just erased from history!

    Anyway, please answer this question, then after that I want to talk with you about some suspicions I have. I won’t listen to any of the laurel canyon junk except for Gram Parsons, btw.

    Phil Zombie
    August 15, 2014 at 5:34 am
    This is great research and scholarly. I always wondered how McKenna could lead the life that he did and how he was able to publish what he did. e.g. how to grow illegal mushrooms. My following comments do not detract from the great work done in your area of speciality, and what follows is some context.

    The 95% workhorse drug for the establishment is ALCOHOL! Its everywhere, and what is more toxic, destroys more families, and creates more need for police? (The facts are startling.) As Bill Hicks said, the two drugs you are supposed to do is coffee to keep you awake during the mundane work week, and alcohol for you to blot out the experience over the weekend.

    My feeling is that pyschedelic strategies are aimed at the tiny percentage that may be able to work things out and get to a position to eventuallty threaten the establishment. It is similar to how the Catholic church claimed credit for spiritual insights/visions, and funneled the receipent into a position that would not threaten the society, which in most cases was reverence and praise. You are now a saint and let us tell you about your experience, and let our priests bask in your glory. It is still very useful to know that the modern saints are going back to the dark ages, because they are being funneled there.

    So pyschedelics have tremendous potential to unleash trouble for the establishment by starting people on a path to true vital knowledge (which has little to do with pyschedelics), hence the effort put into creating a strategy around them. The internet was going to reveal the source of Soma anyway, anyone on soma can read the gospel of John or Vedic hymnes and know it – shit, the soma will tell you itself. So Huxley had to preemptively paint it in a negative and negatively subconscious way in a book — the establishment was forced to discredit it, and Wasson played the part of public hero but was really “controlled opposition”. Still it hasn’t penetrated far, as everyone I know gets physically sick looking at soma because they *know* it is a deadly poison. LSD was further used in discreting altered brain states via hippies/1960s debauchery, etc.

    More context. So pyschedelics can help begin the process, but they are nowhere near the source of the establishment’s power. This source is money, and this is where humans have become dumbed down the most. In 1999, I burned a $10 in a bar while drunk, telling everyone that this piece of paper is a fiction, the instrument of our enslavement, credit cycles of inflation and deflation will bankrupt us all etc., and I got beaten up by a mob (Stockholm syndrome?) But it is! Freedom in money would take away the power of the elite. But money and violence go hand in hand, so freedom from violence is needed. We need the names of the true power because there ain’t that much violence needed if it is aimed correctly — the true top of the pyramid.

    So I am left wondering if this website is more controlled opposition. You do mention some secret societies (which are probably just the first onion layer of secret societies anyway) but not once mention a Z or a Rothschild! (And they may be simply accountants, but with trillions in wealth are closer to the true power on this planet). You are arguing about the circus clowns while the ringmaster is sitting 3 time-zones away on the telephone counting his money, and making plans for dishing that money out so he can keep his wealth superiority for the next 50 years.

    Reply

    • April 12, 2015 at 10:12 am

      This statement is completely unfounded, unsupported, et al:

      “So pyschedelics have tremendous potential to unleash trouble for the establishment by starting people on a path to true vital knowledge (which has little to do with pyschedelics), hence the effort put into creating a strategy around them”

      See the next paper in the series which entirely debunks this claim. You’re staring right at MKULTRA – and defending it.

      http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

      When you can’t deal with the citations presented right in your face due to your own biases, attack the presenter, right?
      “So I am left wondering if this website is more controlled opposition.”

      • grimsfer scradlos
        April 12, 2015 at 4:44 pm

        What do you think about my comments? I wanted to give you a chance to answer to Phil zombie’s questions for completeness purposes I am satitfied with your answer to his post. By the way, what are your opinions on alcohol and the family?

        • April 12, 2015 at 5:44 pm

          I think you need to read and study the rest of the work and shows and videos here, before you go around name calling and leaping to assumptions about the intel community based on one or two bands. Study the shows with Dave McGowan, my video Psychedelic Intelligence, the shows with Joe Atwill and the Round Table discussions, and THEN you’ll be prepared to have a point by point conversation about the facts without slinging baseless accusations based on your own lack of study on the information.

          Also, I’ve done a show on ibogaine, so I don’t know why you bring that up or what relevance it has toward how mind control works and how they cause hyper suggestion. Ibogaine works by interrupting opiate receptors and causing a simultaneous life review. You do realize that I’ve done over 50 interviews with the world’s leading psychedelic experts / agents on psychedelics?

          Again, please study the data here so that we don’t have to repeat information simply because you’re new to our work.

          Contact me after you’ve heard a few dozen shows, studied the articles, studied the brain database, watched the videos, studied the trivium, and had a review of your own beliefs. Then I’ll be able to discuss. But when you start out the gate making accusations, when everything is right in front of you to verify, is getting off on the wrong foot. Why should I give you the time of day when you do this behavior, haven’t studied the work and citations, nor given the respect required to consider the work thoughtfully based on its own merits and not your own beliefs?

          • grimsfer scradlos
            April 12, 2015 at 8:29 pm

            I’m not basing my opinions on one or two bands. I was only suggesting a couple for you to check out and in the case of the dead, telling you about the start of the journey that led me to the same conclusions as you. No accusations implied.

          • grimsfer scradlos
            April 12, 2015 at 8:43 pm

            By the way I agree that all the information is in front of us. I am also basing my assumptions on twenty years of interviews I have done with people who were in the scenes at the time. Also with the help of my sister who is a musicologist and owned a record label in the eighties and nineties just around laurel canyon. She also agrees with you.

    • grimsfer scradlos
      April 13, 2015 at 7:15 am

      …Okay so I would like to let you know as it says that I didn’t write the post above. I just wanted you to say something about alcohol bc it killed more than four people I went to school with and no substance I’ve ever seen has done that but seeing how many articles you actually have on the subject, I do understand that it would be exhausting to do that. I saw something about DMT on a video of yours on YouTube. That’s another ballpark. I knew an old hippie who said “that’s a trip and a half man” Thought you would either answer alcohol and ignore the rest or slam the rest and answer alcohol. Since you said I was name calling, I will reply to Phil zombies statement for you. I prefer capitalism to communism, hands down. I would rather have a name than a number. Banking is what it is and interest it what it is too, why would someone lend if they made nothing? If avg lender is 40 yrs old, then 5 to 10 percent interest only guarantees they get it back before they die. There should be a limit on the stuff though and school loans should be 0% in my opinion. I don’t believe that if Forbes rich list is a lie and the real truth is secret then dude above will know the “secret names” of the real “ringmaster”. Communism is the real ringmaster shit when govt ASSIGNS PEOPLE HOUSES. Capitalism at least allows people to become something from trying. I think if there’s a ringmaster to capitalism then he could easily Google search his own name and pay a billion to shut down some servers. Against a trillion, that’s only .1%… Doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. Believe me or not I’ve met a famous name person before and they drove a Toyota and lived totally normal so if there’s someone using all the resources making people starve then I can vouch that it wasn’t the sweet Rothschild lady I met. Maybe she didn’t come from the rich side of the family, I don’t know, but I think dudes info in that category is missing something… I really thought you’d just answer only the alcohol part as I suggested but since you addressed your reply to me and not him, I thought I would give my opinions as I am not a supporter of anything but the statement that alcohol ruins families. There are a couple more things I must say. Using something like a hallucinogen to sell records or hypnotise someone that “my bands best” is not fine by me. It stops the most therapeutic uses from happening. Here’s a good acid jingle… “Don’t take acid for the first time till you look in the mirror and like what you see and not at a giant party but with a few real friends, make sure someone you’re with actually loves you with their heart and go somewhere beautiful where you can reflect on yourself.” Its easy to sit on stage saying stuff but harder to be there coaching each person to make a positive change in their life. However that shit is apple juice compared with DMT. Every time I see DMT marketing propaganda which usually tries to tell the person that they’re inferior and not spiritual unless they’ve done DMT I tell the propagator or creator (if I can find)… that “DMT is for pussies… Try ibogaine man…” Or if the propagator is obviously a kid trying to be cool or among kids trying to be cool who will follow, I tell them “don’t worry, you do DMT every night when you dream” I’ve got a dry sense of humour however. 😉 thanks for letting me post all my posts!

  45. grimsfer scradlos
    April 12, 2015 at 1:48 am

    By the way, I’ll go on and state what I have to say next.

    I have dug deep into 60’s music, with the help of a DJ from the sixties I met. I’ve been told by folks from the time that the bands I like were followed by the CIA and ostracized. That the CIA would not let them succeed. I can’t stand tunes like “sha la la la, live for today”

    I think the CIA knew that people were going to like the fuzz guitar sounds and the small tube amps with les paul or fender guitar sounds, so they found people who they could control to be the ones who brought it to the people. Arthur Lee was said to be unable to be influenced by those around him, uncontrollable, not just on stage but in real life. I could imagine that the CIA knew that. Jim Morrison actually followed him around everywhere and was introduced to the record company that made him famous as a result of him constantly shadowing Arthur.

    Hip hop or rap has the same problems as the popular music of the 60’s just more exaggerated. I’ve actually met a person who came to the conclusion that the dead were unlistenable, and he claimed to me that the day before he decided he could no longer listen to them he had said a prayer apologizing for his own involvement with the occult and asking to be forgiven.

    There is a wealth of music from the sixties which is “acid” music by people who may have been more naturally inclined with shamanic skills than the puppets promoted by the CIA and it’s positive message and inclination to lend to the listener a mindset which helps him or her find a true long term sense of direction is not found anywhere in the laurel canyon music scene. I think that the scene was not manufactured from the minds of the agents or their references but it was copied from artists who invented it, and the artists who were the real inventors of the sound were profiled and only the few who proved to be controllable enough were adopted and allowed to achieve fame, the rest were erased from history.

    “I’d like to be in a lifetime that you can’t erase” -Arthur Lee, from the band “love”

    I am totally with you as far as the effects of the pop music of the time on people. But I think that the psychedelics were going to be discovered with the increase of the average person’s travel mobility, and global trade which came as a result of large fleets of ships and airplanes, and the fact that the public was getting sick of the heroin and cocaine which were widely available. The public wanted a new drug and it was going to be a hallucinogen. The CIA knew that and decided that they better be the ones in control. LSD was chosen because of a few main reasons; the difficulty of the manufacture process, it almost had to be brand name (average joe could not figure out how to produce it, the scale of equipment needed left a paper trail to the manufacturers and it was tax free too), it cost peanuts and sold for good money, and images of choice could even be printed onto the paper for the additional reality tunnel effect, branding whatever the manufacturer desired into the user’s brain just before the start of the trip. If something like shrooms had been the major drug, people would have been able to grow them without any govt involvement and the “revolution” would have been out of the hands of the establishment. Before LSD, amphetamines, heroin, and cocaine (the illegal drugs people were using) all shared the property of being too difficult to manufacture for even for consumers). The man who discovered cocaine was the first coke addict btw so we only have the user’s enjoyment to attribute for it’s introduction to society. He liked it, wanted more, so he showed others knowing they would like it too. Pretty soon he had the resources to go back to South America and start having it made by the kilo.

    I don’t think LSD is more dangerous than things like ‘shrooms, but I think it fit requirements for profitability and controllability just enough to make it fit for the military industrial complex. I was only exposed to it unknowing of what it and it’s effects actually were and it actually caused me to clean up my life and stop being a juvenile delinquent, but I know that it does not work for all like that, fitting exactly the knife analogy.

    Your article is very well researched and I give you my utmost respect for posting it in a place where readers can comment. I actually give you double the utmost respect for leaving comments open for such a long period and I apologize for my lateness!

    Thanks so much to you and all of the people who spent their time putting it together.

  46. grimsfer scradlos
    April 12, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    Also, Jan, other than waiting for your reply to my comment, I want to say that I’m with you. If you’re like me, there is a big empty spot in your music collection. Love with Arthur Lee helped fill up my collection again. If you’re interested in 15th century classical, check out Venice Preserved and Bassano – Motetti, Madrigali et Canzoni francese. BJM are definitely not answering to anyone either. Best Wishes.

Leave a Reply