Psychedelic Intelligence – The C.I.A. and the Counterculture

  19 comments for “Psychedelic Intelligence – The C.I.A. and the Counterculture”

1. Pingback: Psychedelic Intelligence – The C.I.A. and the Counterculture
2. 

   alexander rados

   May 22, 2014 at 7:18 am

   Greetings Jan, a great synopsis of your research done to date, by the way, the brain data base is a gold mine. I have a couple of questions which I would like to ask you for my own personal clarification.

   First, I am a bit skeptical about Eleusis’, not about it’s existence or the Kykeon that was drunk there, but rather, that it was an organizational tool to dumb down the ancient Athenians. I know that you have interviewed both Professor Murdock and Ruck and do they agree with you? Further, the original meaning of the word mysteries may have been as you said i.e. dumbing down, confusing the mind, etc. but there are other interpretations which have a different meaning i.e. to be initiated into a secret, to have a mystical conscious experience so as to apprehend a higher or divine truth not otherwise possible, etc. Again, does Prof Ruck agree with you on this? This I would find most interesting.

   Second, it’s true that government always seems to end badly, usually with force and fraud, but in the end, is it just the nature of government with it’s intelligence agencies and military industrial complex that explains MK ultra sub project 58, or is it the case that something deeper needs to be named? For example, Alex Jones always seems to end up with off shore banking interests which have high jacked the countries of the world, but other than this,he doesn’t specifically name the oligarchical organization, for lack of a better term. Recently, on radio 3 fourteen I heard a very interesting discussion about white genocide, further Ricardo Duchene on Red Ice spoke about the Boasian school of anthropology and the Frankfurt School intimating that Zionism is the current enemy of the pan European peoples. Alternatively, Lyndon La Rouche claims that it’s the Anglo/Dutch oligarchs who are the true enemy, and Just to high light that I am not just being silly about this, Joe Atwill claims that in the western classical world the Flavians’ were the oligarchs. Do you think there is any merit in this or is it just the nature of government to end badly, as it were? And, thereby giving rise to all the mind control experiments, social manipulation, and so on and so forth. Cheers!!!

   Log in to Reply
   • 

     Stephen

     May 22, 2014 at 10:48 am

     Hi Alexander, first I would agree with you, this was an excellent synopsis of the work Jan has done at Gnostic Media over the last few year. I have always found it very difficult trying to explain these ideas to friends. I think this video will be a much better way to introduce someone to and convey all the aspects of it, with all the links and citations provided. Much thanks to Jan for all the work that has gone into this. It’s tough to just go through the day, interacting with “normal” people, who are falling into many of these traps, and often thinking they are very original and discerning in their “beliefs”, not noticing that they didn’t come up with any of it themselves, through their own investigations.

     I wanted to address your first question to Jan myself, if you don’t mind.

     You asked: “…the original meaning of the word mysteries may have been as you said i.e. dumbing down, confusing the mind, etc. but there are other interpretations which have a different meaning i.e. to be initiated into a secret, to have a mystical conscious experience so as to apprehend a higher or divine truth not otherwise possible, etc. ”

     One question which arises from this: What is a “mystical conscious experience”? Also, what “higher or divine truth not otherwise possible” can be achieved through an initiation and rituals involving the ingestion of psychoactive substances, which could not be through deliberate investigation with ones own five senses? My idea of what is a “mystical conscious experience” is that it is a heightened state of awareness, where any sensory input can have raised significance. When your guard is down, especially in the days of the ritual, mysteries, etc. in question were operational and mostly all people basically believed in one form of mysticism, religion, or other, one would be highly suggestible to the implanting of new ideas. Like modern ideologues such as McKenna, Icke, or any number of others, their words are meant to be taken in conjunction with these types of substances. It makes it easier to overlook all the contradictions and inadequacies of the argument (…or lack thereof).

     Most people, having no system for critical investigation of their surroundings, are even in a “normal” state of mind unable to discern fact from fiction, and with the help of substances can be more easily led to many erroneous conclusions. A problem that arises, is that there is a mental pay off which comes from these conclusions. An “ego” for want of a better term, is created, like a Reichian Armouring, that makes it almost impossible to break through. Once several of these have been introduced and “verified” through “experience”, then you get something like the natural guy at the end of Brave New World, killing himself, rather than facing the truth of his unhappy reality.

     I don’t know if this answers anything for you. I would be open to more discussion of the subject. I just think that if one (…and it seems most do, even today) has an already mystical mindset, then with the right input and direction one can be convinced of almost anything. Thinking of things like NLP, for instance, we can be influenced through connotation and symbolism, indirectly, also with the use of dialectics to lead one to a desired conclusion, by limiting the scope of the argument. Think of The Old Man in The Mountain, of Hashishin fame, who convinced young men they had died and gone to heaven, through the use of these methods, hundreds of years ago. Just imagine how sophisticated these people would be now, with scientific methods of observation at their disposal. And I see Eleusis as another one of these steps beyond an already distorted, false view of realty, which though seeming to the believer as vital information, and giving them the safety blanket of knowing there is “something after death”, so they can toil away their lives knowing they will be rewarded in the afterlife, or revealing great secrets of the universe, actually benefits those who control the false information: Kings, Emperors, Priests, Bankers, etc. Because they can go about their business, operating in the blind spots which they have created for themselves in these very systems.

     I’m not saying there is nothing of value in looking at the information contained in secret ritual magic, like the Tarot, or Kabala, or more esoteric groups like the Thule society, or all the other mystery cults though the ages. Like Stiener’s Boidynamic farming system, it seems to work, as many have shown, but how much of it is real and how much superstition?

     Log in to Reply
     • 

       alexander rados

       May 23, 2014 at 3:20 am

       Hello Stephen, thank you for your comments, they are greatly appreciated, as well as interesting. Yes, your remarks are quite to the point, and this is the type of comment that I expected. Perhaps, I need to restate my original position or question. So what is a “mystical experience”, mysticism as it has been traditionally presented tends to fall under three broad categories, namely, nature, soul and God mysticism,( please bear in mind it’s been decades since I last sat in a university lecture hall. How they may present this topic these days is beyond me. Incidentally, one of the mandatory texts on the topic tended to be Happolds’ “Mysticism”.)

       One of the key problems with defining mysticism, is that the very nature of the experience itself confounds those who have undergone the experience of it. By this I mean, it’s not a stupefying state of awareness, rather, it’s an immediate and direct intuition, (here I am using intuition in the sense of directly apprehending the properties of something or it’s essential nature. Further, seeing the full and complete nature of something, think of math and apprehending the properties of a triangle to try to get the gist of it.) the certainty of it destroys the sense of separation and egoic dissolution associated with the death of the body. Traditionally, most mystical experiences happen spontaneously, not under the agency of any drugs or other inebriants. In the Christian tradition it is most often given the appellation of “divine grace” Hence as such, it was not generally regarded as a state of insight that resulted from extensive reasoning. This kind of insight is usually marked as “Contemplative” in the west and as “Bhavana” in the east.

       Having said the above, perhaps I can now supply you with a better context for a definition. Mystics come from all cultures, races, religions and times. One thing, that many of them do, is that they write accounts of their mystical experiences. Examing the phenomena as a universal as opposed to an isolated instantiation, or if you prefer, trans temporal, spatial and cultural ,certain patterns can be discerned in their accounts. This is the context for my remark above about the three broad categories which was used as a conventional approach to the topic. Another salient feature of the mystical experience which was gleaned by scholarly research is the problem of “ineffability”. What this means, is that, the mystics themselves found that the very nature of the experience transcended the limitations of language. This was due to the fact, that it transcended the usual categories of thought and consequently language. Due to this ineffability, mystics were force to rely on what the standard academic nomenclature used to call the “primary and the secondary imagination”. In other words, they were forced to use analogy, which in turn was derived from their culture hence secondary in new and innovative ways (the primary) so as to suggest to the reader a way to intuit what was essential to the experience. One common refrain which has been passed down in the western tradition, (which by the way I consider to be not as profound as the higher teachings of Buddhism and Vedanta) is “the peace that passes all the art and argument of the earth” This last comment in a nutshell is a direct allusion to what the mystics saw as the ineffability of it.

       At this point, you may well be wondering “Hey what about the definition ?” Lacking the art of good prose, I am a man of modest talents and abilities, I feel that, it would be better if you went to a few accounts yourself. If you have the time, check out the Confession of Saint Seraphim a Christian Eastern Orthodox Saint, you may find it interesting to contrast this with the Shiva Sutras, and see for yourself if they are similar or different, and if different is one nature , soul or God mysticism and the other not.

       Returning to your comments, I readily see your point of view in everything you stated above, yes psyops have been with us for a long time. You may find it interesting that NLP is quite often used in teaching foreign languages, For myself, I find this highly unethical, and It’s a practice that I don’t condone. On a personal note, I don’t think it’s that effective. As for your concluding comments on Rudolph Steiner, I would also add the eastern yoga systems, especially in conjunction with vaastu in all of it’s disciplines. I think I will have to end this here. I don’t know if this helps you at all, but I can see below that Jan has a head full of steam and I think I will have to append my comments to him to you. Cheers!!

       Log in to Reply
   • 

     Jan Irvin

     May 22, 2014 at 5:58 pm

     Murdock is not a professor, nor an expert on drugs – much less used for control.

     And I must ask, where did you HEAR this myth about Eleusis? What have you personally verified and studied about it? Or are you just disagreeing because you want to BELIEVE?

     Prof. Carl Ruck is one of those whom wrote that book WITH Wasson and Hoffman. Would he agree with me? I quoted his own book. Would he admit that he was a part of MKULTRA Subproject 58, is that what you mean? I doubt it. He’s also one of those who helped remarket psychedelics to “entheogens”. The gag being that Leary ruined the name created by Humphry Osmond to rename them from psychotomimetic – psychosis mimicking – which is found throughout the MKULTRA liturature – (see for instance, Walter Bowart’s book Operation Mind Control) to psychedelic (Mind Manifesting) to Entheogen (to generate god within). Psychedelic was created by Humphry Osmond and Aldous Huxley – both CIA and MKULTRA, and entheogen was created by Wasson and Ruck – MKULTRA.

     Keep in mind at all times that Wasson was a propaganda man, and he, nor Huxley, created words for no reason.

     Do you mean was it blow back? We’ve covered that extensively, in the Manufacturing the Deadhead article and throughout the research on this website, and we’ve named plenty of groups and names, including in this video.

     I find various elite families, banking families, intelligence groups, Freemason groups, as well as a heavy Zionist influence in most of the research. For instance, I’d estimate that more than 50% of MKULTRA doctors had Jewish backgrounds, which then leads into understanding Talmudic racism. I’ve interviewed several Jewish guests to discuss these topics.

     Someone sent me that interview though I’ve not heard it. The Frankfurt School is certainly one to pay attention to. In fact, the Bolsheviks and other groups killed up words of 250 million gentile peoples in the last century.

     I trust that you’ve read my articles on these topics, and heard my interviews with Joe Atwill, and also studied the trivium.

     https://www.gnosticmedia.com/manufacturing-the-deadhead-a-product-of-social-engineering-by-joe-atwill-and-jan-irvin/

     It just seems odd to me that you’d appeal to Ruck when he’s one of the three who popularized that very myth – in fact, if you listen to my interviews with him, he admits that he did the bulk of the work. It would seem that he probably would have a conflict of interest in the matter:

     Eleusis

     In 1978 Gordon Wasson, Albert Hoffman, 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.

     “initiated into a secret, to have a mystical conscious experience so as to apprehend a higher or divine truth not otherwise possible, etc. ”

     But anyway, you may want to consider questioning these premises. As I stated in this video, and we repeatedly cited the article and these quotes. Who’s higher divine truth? Why does it need to be a secret? How are secrets not used against those who don’t have that secret? Does not the higher initiate have control over the lower? How then would the higher not control the lower? When is occult, or secret or esoteric knowledge NOT used to control others? Who says that the experience you’re being initiated into is a “higher or divine truth”? How do you know that the words they tell you about what it is don’t influence the outcome of the experience? If they didn’t sell it to you as meeting god, would you meet god? Which god? the word mystify means to befuddle or confuse. Would not the word “mystery” have the same effects, then?

     When we understand that mysticism IS the tool of tyrants, it gives us new eyes to see things through. And when we study the trivium, we may learn to validate and question our own fallacious thinking.

     Government is but a religion. It has men in black robes, officers in costumes, officiators, etc. There is no government but in the minds of men, tricked by those who put on Halloween costumes year long. Government has always been a tool of the weak and lazy to prey on the strong. How else could people justify going around robbing others to give to yet others? We call this “tax” – and with this word this cultish theft is somehow ok.

     Believers always kick and scream due to their cognitive dissonance when waking up from any dream, or slave state – whether be it the government religion, or the religion of state sanctioned mind control.

     One must understand, Danielson, as we said in the article, that what YOU believe, is not necessarily what your PREDATOR believes – nor is it even relevant. And who does it benefit? Who does it benefit to believe that it’s spiritual, rather than biological? Who does it benefit when you’re high? Every slave and every man in ancient Greece was allowed to participate – ONCE. Then they had that feeling, and well, from then on, they were under its spell, they were held SPELLBOUND and kept under control.

     When you understand the ONUS of PROOF, you will begin to understand how mind control works.

     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]

     Log in to Reply
     • 

       Benjamin Garland

       June 21, 2014 at 8:26 pm

       Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at Cal Tech University, is the foremost expert on Jewish intellectual movements like the Frankfurt School, Psychoanalysis, far left (or “new left”) radicalism and Boasian Anthropology, and their impact on western civilization. His book The Culture of Critique is a must read for understanding the state of our current world. If you haven’t read it Jan, it can be found online, or I’d be happy to send you a copy. Just let me know.

       It explains the Jewish question not in terms of some monolithic conspiracy but rather as an ethnic agenda. It is a basic law of nature that when two distinctly separate species are competing for power in the same living space that one increases as the other declines. A cohesive minority of 2% of the population will not be able to compete a cohesive majority of 98%, therefore these Jewish intellectuals promoted a strong Jewish identity as a perfectly healthy thing while they pathologized as a mental disease any kind of group cohesion among gentiles.

       We see the results of these remarkably successful movements today where most white people are intimidated to even think racial thoughts, much less stand up for their own interests, while Jews occupy all of the high points of power in media, government, academia, etc. and run roughshod over the rest of us virtually free of criticism. The two ultimate taboos that very few dare to touch: criticizing Jews or whites organizing or even being proud of their heritage and not ashamed and riddled with guilt.

       I don’t think the impact of the Frankfurt School and its ‘Critical Theory’ should be underestimated (just look at what is taught in the universities today!).

       Here is a recent Red Ice interview with Dr. MacDonald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4goBcZY2Eo

       I would love to hear you interview him, and, like I said, would be more than happy to send you a copy of his important and fascinating book.

       Here is an eye-opening, concise article on the Frankfurt School, The Origins of Political Correctness by William S. Lind: http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

       Log in to Reply
   • 

     Jan Irvin

     May 22, 2014 at 6:06 pm

     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.

     “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 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 by John Marks, The Search for 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 and Osmond (amongst others) are cited in thanks and Cohen (and also Gordon Wasson, James Moore, and Albert Hoffman), are also cited for their assistance in the introduction to Marks’ book. pp.ix. John Marks was himself director for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research under the US State Department.]

     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,..”

     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 – MOKSHA

     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.”

     “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.”

     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.”

     Ever ask why care about what these two douche bags think? And furthermore, why were they so concerned with what YOU call it?

     Log in to Reply
     • 

       alexander rados

       May 23, 2014 at 4:53 am

       Hello Jan, thank you for your reply, indeed, I feel flattered to receive this much attention. But first, I must apologize, it really wasn’t my intention, to make you go over, yet one more time again in a concise and highly condensed form, what you have been covering for a few years now. So now let me explain myself more fully, please don’t be offended by what I am about to say. You didn’t tell me anything that I didn’t already know, this is because I have been following your work for quite some time now, and I can clearly see the changes you have gone through, especially in regards to your early podcasts being very centered on shamanism and psychedelic research, through to the introduction of the trivium and into MK ultra and all the psyops and blown false front men of intelligence agencies, and so on and so forth. In a somewhat vicarious fashion, I also went through these same changes, dealing with the information that you presented, and by the way thank you for this.

       Now why did I ask you about Eleusis? First, I was very curious to see if in fact you had conversations with Prof Murdoch and Ruck on this topic. Yes, I have heard these interviews, but I was wondering if you knew personally what their “true” opinions were. Actually, I don’t recall this coming up on the Ruck interviews, but I will go back and check it out. More to the point, however, is that the impression I had, was that you and Prof Ruck were friends, and this did raise a contradiction in my mind. In fact, it’s the very contradiction you just addressed above very clearly. This is what I was most truly after, namely were you friends with him yet knowing all the while the part he played in all of this. Please don’t be offended, but I had to ask the question this way, don’t you see, however, I did get the answer that I wanted – okay, as far as you are concerned he is a scumbag, you have now clarified this for me quite succinctly. As for Murdoch, you feel that she has nothing to offer on this topic, good enough, but you do sound somewhat contemptuous of her.

       I did read the book on the Road to Eleusis sometime back in the mid 1980’s, It may surprize you to know, that at the time I thought it was speculation without much substance. I think there are two interpretations available here, there is the one you presented, namely it’s all about mind control. The other, was the view put forth by Joseph Campbell, namely, that in order for a mystery cult to have an initiation of any transforming power, the climax of the ritual, needed to be potent enough to activate the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Perhaps climax and catharsis are somewhat similar in this instance, be that as it may. The ritual would be rendered useless if at the “critical moment” what was to occur, was in fact, common knowledge, hence the need for secrecy. Next, having read the early Platonic dialogues ,in particular, the Apology, for the life of me the only thing that I can remember is that Socrates was condemned for impiety or corrupting the youth of Athens, i.e. for not teaching the main stream narrative as given in the Homeric Hymns. Instead his followers were applying the Socratic method in the market place, and presumably pissing everyone off. Further, he was also condemned for “making the worse appear to be the better cause”, these two strands may in fact be one. That he actually divulged the climax or critical cathartic moment at Eleusis is not something I recollect from the Platonic dialogues. I would like to check this out further, is it in the “apology” or which other dialogue?

       Finally, I didn’t say that you never mention key organizations and personages in your research, I am not sure why you would think this. Judging from your answer above, I would have to say that you don’t think it’s an inherent flaw in government itself, but rather corruption from outside of it. Further, that this oligarchical organization is eugenics based, Zionist in much of it’s political policies and has adherents from both the Jewish and Anglo-American banking factions. Okay an Alex Jones amalgamation of various organizations. Now my question comes down to this – do you think white genocide is the primary objective of this group?

       Just to end on a positive note, believe it or not, I have read all of your articles, I am starting to think that I am one of the few who have, as for the Manufacturing of the Dead Head I thought it was quite good, actually outside of your books it’s one of the best articles you have written. Cheers !!!!

       Log in to Reply
       • 

         Jan Irvin

         May 23, 2014 at 11:30 am

         The contradiction in your mind is one from chronology, and not following the work closely enough. Again, as I JUST said, Murdock is NOT a professor and is NOT any sort of expert on drugs for mind control. Again, NOT a professor. She studies correlations to ASTROTHEOLOGY.

         Friends? Hardly friends. I’ve interviewed him a couple times, and he’s tried to subvert my work many times. I’ve caught him writing others making false claims about my work etc. But just because you see some interviews, from years ago, doesn’t mean we’re “friends”. In fact, didn’t you already mention the answer to your own question?

         You didn’t tell me anything that I didn’t already know, this is because I have been following your work for quite some time now, and I can clearly see the changes you have gone through, especially in regards to your early podcasts being very centered on shamanism and psychedelic research, through to the introduction of the trivium and into MK ultra and all the psyops and blown false front men of intelligence agencies, and so on and so forth. In a somewhat vicarious fashion, I also went through these same changes, dealing with the information that you presented, and by the way thank you for this.

         Part of studying the trivium, mentioned yesterday is that question WHEN.

         Ironic that you’d cite Campbell here… one who cites nothing and makes grandiose, universal speculations. … oh, and he worked at Esalen and sold this crap. So your repeated citations in the mater are the very people we’re investigating, is that correct?

         I provided the very names of the families, etc… why appeal to Campbell rather than just looking at the facts?

         Murdoch mentions drugs in her books maybe one time – ever. What would she offer? She’s not an expert on this subject… again, she’s not a professor either. Already made that clear.

         If you’ve studied the work, and the database, and the trivium, you’d have already found these conclusions… still so odd how you want just Eleusis, which you heard about from Ruck and Campbell, to not fit the agenda.

         Noticed how you moved the goal? First you ask me about Ruck, who was CLEARLY involved in selling that shit, then you move it to Campbell.

         Again, if you’ve read Ruck and crews work on Socrates, you’d see that it is they who claimed that he was revealing the secrets of the kykeon.

         If you need to label it “alex jones” blah blah, what ever. I just look at the facts of who’s doing what… not what others claim. Did you consider just checking the citations and going through the database..? Odd these (loaded?) labels you use. And AJ hardly, if ever, mentions Zionism (one show YEARS ago)… so again, your conclusion doesn’t make sense.

         I think I already answered you on genocide, etc… I mean, how many times do I need to say these people are eugenicists? How many times does it need to be said that Julian ran the British eugenics society? WHAT ELSE would they being doing this for?

         But seriously, rather than asking me, study the work… it’s already provided. You say you’ve studied it, but it doesn’t seem very closely.

         Alex Jones loaded terms, appealing to the people who did this shit for the CIA for their opinions of it, rather than looking at the work and citations…rather than trusting your own 5 senses to verify them, you appeal to authority – of those who committed this, and to making false presumptions about spiritual blah blah… etc (quoted yesterday) which of course was addressed at the end of the articles you claimed to have read.

         And of course Eleusis was already addressed in the article… I mean, which points were false that made you question? You don’t say. If you had read it, why not cite some specific problem, rather than saying that you doubt Eleusis because of Ruck and Campbell? Study them, study their own backgrounds, study the research yourself, learn to trust your own 5 senses. But how it wouldn’t be government sanctioned control, you don’t say. In fact, you avoided ALL of my questions on your point, then changed the goal to Campbell. Why is that? It just seems erratic, and somewhat irrational.

         But anyway, you may want to consider questioning these premises. As I stated in this video, and we repeatedly cited the article and these quotes. Who’s higher divine truth? Why does it need to be a secret? How are secrets not used against those who don’t have that secret? Does not the higher initiate have control over the lower? How then would the higher not control the lower? When is occult, or secret or esoteric knowledge NOT used to control others? Who says that the experience you’re being initiated into is a “higher or divine truth”? How do you know that the words they tell you about what it is don’t influence the outcome of the experience? If they didn’t sell it to you as meeting god, would you meet god? Which god? the word mystify means to befuddle or confuse. Would not the word “mystery” have the same effects, then?

         And if you’ve studied the trivium work, you know already then, that the occulting of information is always used against those who don’t have that information.

         IF it’s not your intention to make me go over and over, then why do so?

         Log in to Reply
         • 

           alexander rados

           May 23, 2014 at 7:57 pm

           Hello Jan, and again thank you for your time and consideration in addressing my concerns. believe it or not, it is greatly appreciated. I have to admit you were correct to drive the point home about Murdoch, yes even though you did mention it in your first response to my queries, it didn’t sink in that Murdoch in fact, doesn’t have a PhD. In fact, I was under the impression that she had a PhD in classics or Philology, I will have to go back and check out the first interview you did with her, because I thought she said that she did have one in that interview or perhaps the second, This I can check out for myself.

           Yes, I know that you have talked about the British Eugenics society on several different occasions, and yes I know who the primary members of that movement were or are. This however, is not the question I am asking you, it’s really a very basic yes or no type of question. Do you think that white genocide is the primary goal of the Eugenicists currently. I am not talking or rather asking about eugenics in general. To this I already know both your answer and my own. The purpose in my asking this question, is that, the European situation seems to be somewhat precarious, to put it mildly. The context for this question, was as I stated initially, it is a topic that has been, and is being recently discussed on Red Ice Creations and Radio 3 Fourteen. Basically, though eugenics in general is part of the program, there are slight differences or emphasis on various aspects of it. The question above is as an example. Do you follow my meaning here? This is not race bating, but rather, do you think this particular example, the case for western uniqueness, and the Zionist attack on it, via the Boasian school of anthropology and the Frankfurt school, has any merit, or is this just another instantiation of governments ending badly. I really don’t think I can ask this question more frankly. Please don’t read to much into it, it is asked just as stated above. And yes I think I can anticipate your answer, most likely not so different from the one above, No need to respond to this, if you don’t want to.

           Moving on to Campbell, in my second response I did say there were two interpretations, yours and the one put forth by Campbell. In my view they are not exclusive, by this I mean, yes there were the two families and you think the evidence clearly lies in the direction of mind control, it may very well be the case, that it in fact, is the correct understanding of the situation. However; it is still possible to have both families, with the exception that they are operating under the second interpretation as given by Campbell. Very good, you did direct my attention to an oversight on my behalf, that being about the issue pertaining to the state execution of Socrates. If I understand you correctly, this is to be attributed to a position put forth by Ruck and Crew; now all I need to do is verify it by referring to the Platonic dialogues, and other contemporaries who mention Socrates directly. For this l know where to look, at the moment the names of the three others escape me, but as just stated this is not a problem. I know how to find this answer. Very good, yes you did catch me skimming at this point.

           Next, as an aside, Campbell did speak at Esalen and so did Richard Feynman. Here I have two questions, the mere fact that someone speaks at Esalen means we must already suspect their motivation? I take it, this is what you mean, am I correct in this assumption? Again, this is a very basic yes/ no proposition a quick comment or two is enough. More important to myself, and I fully realize that we are starting to digress at this point. You say that Campbell is given to “grandiose and universal speculations” – is there a particular work you have in mind of his, when you make this statement? If so, which or which ones, e.g. The Hero with a Thousand Faces, The Mask of Gods volumes 1 through to 4, Myths to Live Be, Transformations of Myths in Time, The Power of Myth, and his last uncompleted encyclopedia on mythology which was published posthumously. These are the only works of his of which I am familiar. there may be others, putting aside the work he did with Heinrich Zimmer. What I am asking for is, which work do you find offensive and I will go and read it for myself ( or reread it, as the case may be). This is purely self indulgent on my behalf, just name the work and nothing more is required on my end. This Is my response to your claim that I am being erratic and irrational – just leave it with me and I will do the rest.

           As regards to your comments concerning my curiosity regarding the relationship you have or had with Ruck. Please understand, everything you said above is the first time that I can honestly say that I heard about this – truly. I didn’t know he was defaming your work, reputation, etc. How could I, I have never been in any sort of correspondence with him. It may very well be the case that you have mentioned this in earlier podcasts, and that it just didn’t register with me, or that I have simply forgotten about it, or I may have missed the podcasts implied above. Really, I am quite surprised that he tried to undermine your work going so far as to question and misrepresent the research you have done. But given with what you said in your first response, it does fit together rather well. So in response to your comment “didn’t I already know the answer already …” I hope the above clarifies this a bit more. In fact, I was speaking more generally, meaning seeing through the deception and psyops and having to let go of old and outdated ideas and opinions. For myself, seeing Terrence McKenna for what he truly was, was a bit of an ordeal, considering I was a “Terrance Fan” for a good 5 to 6 years, again thank you for this.

           Next, your comments about reading your work, you seem skeptical. Let me explain, as I write this, I have just looked over the “Manufacturing of the “DeadHead” considering closely the passages and lines that I have highlighted and underlined, along with my comments written in the columns. The only thing, that I think you can call me on is the reference to Eleusis and the mention of Socrates execution. fair enough. I can find the answer myself regarding Socrates and his divulging of the mystery of Eleusis. Other than this oversight, I can’t see any areas of contention. It seems to me that you think that it is the nature of government to end badly where the people are concerned. Further, that oligarchical interests operate through mind control, cults and religions, and the noble lie, and by various other means, okay fair enough, I think I understand you sufficiently.

           Finally, we do differ somewhat on epistemology, I do not subscribe to the Anglo – American tradition of empiricism, I think on this we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t wish to sound like a broken record, but thanks again for your help, suggestions, and holding me to task concerning doing my own research and double checking the information that I already have at my disposal. In the future, I will try to focus my questions more directly. Sorry about having to make you use valuable time on what is most likely a very irritating situation, which I would venture to guess, happens more often than you care to admit. Anyway, keep up the good work and Cheers!!!!

3. 

   Stephen

   May 22, 2014 at 7:39 pm

   Jan, slightly off topic, but have you seen The Corbett Report’s newest episode of fiction, literature and the new world order, about Huxley’s last novel, Island? I know I’ve talked to you about something like this before, is it just me or does it seem like intentional muddying of the waters, an indirect, passive aggressive attack on your work? I think he even refers to you as “some people” at one point in the show, while vaguely alluding to something, maybe Atwill’s and your article? (he did attack a link to the dead head article in the show notes, if that’s any consolation) He also included in the show a co-speaker, Will Morgan of The Sync Book. You know The Sync Book? Will Morgan was a heavy apologist for AH and made every attempt to praise him, or interpret his actions as benevolent. I have heard some interviews on Red Ice with the sync book crowd, perhaps even with this guy, but I was always unimpressed, so I don’t remember who they were. Did you know if you look at clouds in the sky you can see all sorts of faces and animals? I wonder what it all means???

   I actually made an attempt at reading Island. I’m only half way through, after dropping it for a couple of weeks. I really dislike Huxley’s writing style. I found it no different in style from any other books of his I’ve read. Pretentious would be the first descriptor that comes to mind. Very simplistic views of humanity. Basic allegories, like naming all the characters after gods, etc. He’s no Johnathan Swift though. Probably though he was better. The new improved version! I saw a copy of Moksha loitering on the shelf in the fiction section of a used book store earlier this year. I’ll have to pick it up if it’s still there next time I stop by.

   I think this is relevant to the subject of this comments thread, because Huxley is so prominent in the conspiracy, and it always amazes me how people will bend over to give this obvious elitist scumbag the benefit of the doubt. I am personally disgusted by these types who have never worked a day in their life but are convinced that they know so much about the “lower classes” that they can write about them, creating models and dialectics, purveying huge fallacies. And people lap it up, because they think reading his long, convoluted sentences and bizarre, obscure vocabularies means he is some kind of genius. I bet if he didn’t have backing he would have never been published at all. Who knows, never can tell. I’ll finish the book, and maybe even write a book review, since the CR podcast, although making the pretense of a detailed investigation of the book, turned out to be nothing of the sort. More like a hour long middle of the road fallacy.

   Log in to Reply
   • 

     Stephen

     May 22, 2014 at 7:42 pm

     (he did *attach* a link to the dead head article in the show notes, if that’s any consolation)

     Attach, not attack.

     Little parapraxes (Freudian slip) on my part there, sorry about that.

     Log in to Reply
4. Pingback: MUST WATCH — Psychedelic Intelligence – The C.I.A. and the Counterculture | PN
5. Pingback: NEW in TMC: JAN IRVIN and JOE ATWILL: CIA and the COUNTER CULTURE |
6. 

   david llewellyn foster

   July 1, 2014 at 5:43 pm

   A compelling and accomplished summary to date, Jan. A very sophisticated and cogent editing tour-de-force, congratulations. A lot of details are now much clearer.

   It may be worth considering H. P. Blavatsky’s prolific original views about black magic, as they seem to coincide quite seamlessly with the picture being presented here. Aleister Crowley wrote some very instructive commentaries on her best work.

   Massive change is necessary, this much we all know. The pious pornocracy is so deeply entrenched, rehabilitation cannot be achieved by conventional means. The challenge must be how to best cultivate that enduring authenticity whose concomitant qualities of virtue and intelligence, & sheer moral strength, will effectively expose and redress institutionalized and hereditary deception automatically, so to speak; re-educating the false “initiates” by simply not dignifying their conceits.

   It is essential to refine our private capacity to discern and preserve moral rectitude in ourselves, and others, without being sedated, seduced or corrupted by the alluring blandishments of pseudo-privilege, prejudice or glamorous illusions.

   So long as we do not deviate from our legitimate path, we are always at liberty to muster the determination to freely aspire to our most intimate, “instinctive” & intuitive understanding of what spiritual identity might mean, without intimidation, anxiety or fear.

   Can you possibly extrapolate on the Zohar reference you mentioned, about the red mushroom, please? Was that in Hebrew or Latin? Could you cite the specific source?

   Log in to Reply
7. Pingback: PODCAST — Akaida & Friends 015 – Jan Irvin – Psychedelic Intelligence | PN
8. Pingback: The Magickal Symbols Have Been Displayed. The Occult Ritual Can Commence [Update] | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man
9. Pingback: MUST LISTEN — Remedy Roundtable 05 – Prof. Jay Courtney Fikes, Lydia & Royce White Calf – “The Lakota, Naropa Institute, and Wounded Knee – From Gen. Custer to Carlos Castaneda” – #220 | Gnostic Media | PN
10. Pingback: AKAIDA PODCAST 007 – JAN IRVIN | AKAIDA