UPDATE:
Following the original research I put out on R. Gordon Wasson on May 13, 2012, in an article titled “Magic Mushrooms and the Psychedelic Revolution: Beginning a New History” – or “The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms” - which revealed R. Gordon Wasson as a CIA agent or asset, in late August I put out the following article in regard to some very interesting findings regarding Terence McKenna, Aldous Huxley and the Esalen institute. For those interested in reading this original article, see ”How Darwin, Huxley, and the Esalen Institute launched the 2012 and psychedelic revolutions – and began one of the largest mind control operations in history". Further information on this topic is put forth in these recent videos: "Turning the Tables”, and Prof. Jay Fikes, Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin – “A Conversation about Mind Control”.
Additional research in this regard is laid out in the Brain research database - which reveals many dozens of connections in the McKenna/Huxley and Darwin nexus, leading into eugenics and population control. The database and its 6000+ citations, with INSTRUCTIONS of how to study it, maybe found here.
Following up with the above papers and database leads, recently I filed a Freedom of Information Act request on Terence Kemp McKenna (amongst others) with the CIA. The response came back that it's "classified" information, and that "Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged agency affiliation", and stated that I must file an appeal for further information. An appeal was later filed and is currently pending.
A basic glossary is here to help people understand the FIOA.
AFFILIATION – A MEMBER OF
DENY – REJECT OR TURN DOWN THE REQUEST
CLASSIFIED – SECRET OR HIDDEN – SEE (b)(1).
RESPONSIVE – Letters that are NOT classified that the CIA MAY send. Such responsive letters are marked with the CIA’s stamp and release date when they’re approved to be sent out as “responsive” to the FOIA act requests. Here are two examples of responsive records sent to me by the CIA in response to my FOIA request on R. Gordon Wasson - filed in February 2012 (letter 1 - Gordon Wasson to DCI Allen Dulles, and letter 2, DCI Allen Dulles response to Gordon Wasson). These two letters, of several, reveal a conversation and friendship between the head of the CIA, DCI Allen Dulles, and Gordon Wasson, and the two are letters revealing the recruitment of the Ambassador to Vietnam, Ellsworth Bunker, to the Century Club (the East Coast version of the Bohemian Club) just 5 weeks before the Life Magazine article "Seeking the Magic Mushroom" was published on May 13, 1957. The stamps at the tops and bottoms of the letters marks them as approved for release, which means they're "responsive" records.
APPEAL – this means to appeal their decision to deny my request and not provide the documents they don’t consider “responsive”.
A DENIAL of FOIA RESPONSIVE documents does not mean that they didn't find anything. It means they found classified documents that they cannot send, and are waiving the law around as justification, and therefore they denied my request and said that I could APPEAL their decision within 45 days. If there was nothing found, there would be no "openly acknowledged Agency affiliation" to reveal, nor would there be a request to deny, much less any need to appeal such! A basic understanding of the English language and fallacious logic is key to understanding this document. Hopefully the above glossary helps.
Download the PDF here: www.gnosticmedia.com/txtfiles/TerenceMcKenna_CIA_FOIAresponse02.pdf
I’m confused.
Doesn’t it say “Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the Agency started its search and did not locate any responsive records.”
Or have I been awake too long?
The key words for you guys to attempt to understand here are:
AFFILIATION – A MEMBER OF
DENY – REJECT OR TURN DOWN THE REQUEST
CLASSIFIED – SECRET OR HIDDEN – SEE (b)(1).
RESPONSIVE – Letters that are NOT classified that they MAY send me. Such resonsive letters are marked with the CIA’s stamp and release date when their allowed to be sent out as responsive.
APPEAL – this means to appeal their decision to deny my request and not provide the documents they don’t consider “responsive”.
Ignore Joseph Pierce, the guy’s too god damned stupid to read English. I delete his vacuous and thoughtless comments as he’s never able to comprehend English.
your definition of responsive is wrong. It should be:
Responsive records are all records that fit within the scope of the applicant’s access request — these are the records the applicant has described on the Access to Information Request Form.
Thanks. In this case, all records that I requested were classified. 🙁
they sent me some good shit on Wasson.
I saw that on their site but to be honest only a lawyer could rely know for sure
Or someone who trust their own 5 senses, can use logic and critical thinking and look things up. You don’t need to appeal to the false authority of a lawyer. Where did the lawyer get it from…? You can learn too.
And I’m not really a professor just a lame noob on the Internet
No shit?
Last week I received a email from private researchers with the statements ” i’m uneducated, I have no credentials to speak of. all I can do is read.” This is from a Bank of Canada researcher that has scanned numerous 1939 Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.
Jan you are right critical thinking matched with effort on a specific subject can product better results than a compartmentalized mind. Just make sure to start with lots of GRAMMAR first (my opinion)
You may be missing the point. Response is defined as an answer. A computer query would produce an answer whether positive or negative. This is a basic operation of boolean logic. This is all fine and great and understood by all of the commentators on this forum, but if you read the rest of the document it states that they may deny existence of such records as noted by section 6 of this document.. http://www.archives.gov/isoo/pdf/cnsi-eo.pdf ,
and section 102A(i)1 of this document… http://intelligence.senate.gov/nsaact1947.pdf .
They both clearly state that if a document is classified, it’s existence can be denied by the Director of National Intelligence pertaining to interests of the security of the foreign intelligence activities of the United States. Before you throw stones at the messenger, do your research… please?!
Sorry the cnsi-eo.pdf is the executive order. Section 6 that was referred to in the letter is from this link .. http://www.house.gov/legcoun/Comps/CIA49.pdf
How did you interpret “did not locate” any ‘agency affiliation records’ as “an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation”?
Mr. E, try not to misrepresent the quote. You get morons like Joseph Pierce all excited…
Here’s what it actually says, not your straw man quote that omits key words to make you look smart:
The key words for you guys to attempt to understand here are:
AFFILIATION – A MEMBER OF
DENY – REJECT OR TURN DOWN THE REQUEST
CLASSIFIED – SECRET OR HIDDEN – SEE (b)(1).
RESPONSIVE – Letters that are NOT classified that they MAY send me. Such responsive letters are marked with the CIA’s stamp and release date when they’re allowed to be sent out as “responsive”.
APPEAL – this means to appeal their decision to deny my request and not provide the documents they don’t consider “responsive”.
obviously to understand such words requires a very minimum level of understanding of the English language… which, apparently, you don’t have. Maybe you should try to use a dictionary and not intentionally omit words.
Parsing grammar cannot be done with a dictionary and making crude links between words. You have to understand sentence structure and logic as well.
Searching for records that would reveal what you want, if they were to be found DOES NOT EQUAL searching for records that found what you were looking for.
Furthermore the lack of responsive records does not imply the existence of non-responsive records…
Yes, i understand logic and I’ve studied it. Thanks.
You fail to understand that the words classified and appeal DO in fact equal records that I’m looking for.
First, and regardless of the specific grammar, you have to have general grammar – what are ALL of the words, including classified and appeal. Obviously it doesn’t take much common sense to recognize that there wouldn’t be any classified records to appeal for if there wasn’t anything non-responsive.
actually you have to be very careful here because the logic is subtle. They are not denying or confirming that there is or is not anything to give you. they are also denying your request.
There is one logical case that you have not considered because you cannot comprehend it. But in intelligence it’s actually common. That case is that no records exist AND they won’t let you know that no records exist. They may want to keep people thinking he might be an agent. Now i know this seems odd and perhaps unlikely. But it’s still a possible case that prevents you from using the word “positive”. The headline should say “stonewalled…affiliation?”
Speculate all you wish, but logic requires the onus of proof. You’re arguing the arbitrary. Dismissed.
Why would the Agency spend shitloads of money on lawyers to fight ghost classification appeals?
As I’m the first to ever come forward with a search on McKenna…(that I know of) why would they want people to think he might be an agent, when even that would cause a collapse of a major operation that they’ve been running since at least the 70s.
Ok, maybe stonewalled I’ll grant you. But you don’t need to come here acting like a professor when you’re clearly not, do you? Why the straw man presentation?
And when they say “A search would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation” – they are CONFIRMING. What they say is that they won’t confirm nor deny employment. As in directly with their double negative. But then they back-flip again with a confirmation that it WOULD REVEAL an openly ACKNOWLEDGED affiliation – as in KNOWN.
I don’t think you gotta read between the lines. The second paragraph explains why their are no results in the first.
“In addition, requesters who seek records concerning specific actual or alleged CIA employees, operations, or sources and methods used in operations will necessarily be informed that we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any responsive records.”
– directly from the cia foia site
it says clearly there, there are no open affiliations. the second paragraph explains if there are any other records they didn’t tell you about it’s because of executive order (are you going to claim he was working under an exec order next?) or other federal law such as privacy laws or the ones that say the cia is obligated to say “we cannot confirm nor deny” when you ask about people.
It says that it “would reveal an openly acknowledged agency affiliation” if they provided anything. How are there no affiliations? If there weren’t any records, nothing would be there to reveal, nothing would need to be denied, and there wouldn’t be anything to appeal.
They can’t confirm or deny, but use a double negative – which is an affirmative. There wouldn’t be anything to reveal, nor anything to appeal, if there wasn’t anything there.
It doesn’t say IF… it says clearly (b)(1) “classified”.
The executive order is just the CIA’s presidential order it exists under and does its secrecy under – an ad vericundiam fallacy.
They’re just citing their “right” to deny me these documents from the executive order and that I must file an appeal if I want the documents.
Jan, you are not an educated man when it comes to grammar. the important part of the sentence was left out of your above quote. the full quote is:
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an opnely acknowledged Agency affiliation”
you are hung up on the “would reveal an opnely acknowledged Agency affiliation” part which is what they searched for. What they found, they won’t tell you one way or the other. there are no responsive results to give you…there are no non-responsive results to give you…this proves nothing.
It merely leaves it an open question if TM did have an affiliation of any kind. We know no more today than we did yesterday aside form the fact that the CIA won’t tell us anything.
I don’t understand the KAboom fucking part?
I’ve quoted the full thing many, many times. Indeed, it says that one of the searches (or “a search” that they had done for me) for records would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation. Therefore, my request is denied, because it’s classified, citing (b)(1) and (b)(3), and I must appeal within 45 days if I want to attempt further access to these files. How’s that bad grammar? Obviously what they found they won’t say. That’s the entire point! It’s classified. However, I just posted a link for possible avenues for appeal. If I file an appeal then it’s possible to then access the currently classified documents – and get the responsive.
your earlier comments showed you misread the letter thinking it proved something…now you admit the letter says nothing…backpeddel much?
To be honest i wouldn’t be surprised if he was CIA. Only a fool would take anything McKenna said seriously…yes there are many fools. so i guess it’s good there is an attack on him by Jan and others…but there shouldn’t have tobe..
the community that hired him for lectures should never have spent a dime on TM’s horrible scholarship…he used flashy words and they swooned…
It proves a search would reveal an open affiliation and that the records are therefore classified, and if I want them I must file an appeal. Do you know what the word affiliation means?
affiliation
(əfɪlɪˈeɪʃən)
[a. mod.Fr. affiliation (Cotgr.), ad. med.L. affīliātiōn-em n. of action f. affīliāre: see affiliate1.]
1.1 ‘Adoption; the act of taking a son.’ Chambers. The establishment of sonship.
2. a.2.a Adoption, by a society, of subordinate branches; union of branches to a supreme or central organization.
b.2.b An affiliated part of an organization. Also concr., a particular establishment (e.g. a hotel) that is an affiliated part of an organization (U.S.).
c.2.c Association, connection, esp. in politics. U.S.
d.2.d Relationship, esp. as perceived within a group of similar things thought to have derived from a common source; = affinity 3. Chiefly Philol.
3.3 The fixing of the paternity of a child. Also fig. The fathering of a thing upon any one; and, the assignment of anything to its origin.
4.4 Comb., as affiliation order (see quot. 1914).
Well Jan, if you actually understood real grammar you would realize that the CIA is telling you that they searched for such a relationship and DIDN’T find one
Yeah, that’s why it says Openly Aknowledged Agency affiliation, request denied, classified, you may appeal this decision. Do you have a brain cell in your head? RESPONSIVE records are records that are NOT CLASSIFIED. Jack ass.
it does not say “Openly Aknowledged Agency affiliation, request denied, classified” You are the one who cannot parse grammar. You above misquote can be rewritten as
“Openly Aknowledged Agency affiliation exists, request denied, classified”
however, the letter says something more along the lines of “we searched for something which would reveal if we foudn it but we won’t tell you what we found” this is VERY DIFFERENT from how you protray it.
Also, OMG, Jan writes: “They can’t confirm or deny, but use a double negative – which is an affirmative. There wouldn’t be anything to reveal, nor anything to appeal, if there wasn’t anything there.” Apparently logic has died. If i won’t confirm or deny aliens it does not mean aliens exist…it means I won’t show my cards…this is shoddy scholarship Jan, I’m sadened.
That’s called a paraphrase. I like how your second rewording is a nice straw man and omits the key word “affiliation”.
Again, try to see all the words together there. Again, you have to use some logic that there would be nothing to classify or appeal to if there was nothing there. You can’t classify a nothing. You can’t appeal a nothing. Therefore, it exists.
actually the CIA CAN classify a nothing.
http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_VII_1/page3.htm
“Specifically, a FOIA request seeking records which would indicate that a particular political figure, prominent businessman or even just an ordinary citizen has been the subject of a law enforcement investigation may require an agency to flatly refuse to confirm or deny whether such records exist. Such an extraordinary response can be justified only when the confirmation or denial of the existence of responsive records would, in and of itself, reveal exempt information. See FOIA Update, Spring 1983, at 5. This response, colloquially known as a “Glomar denial” or “Glomarization,” was first judicially recognized in the national security context, see Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009, 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (raising issue of whether CIA could refuse to confirm or deny its ties to Howard Hughes’ submarine retrieval ship, the Glomar Explorer), but it surely is applicable elsewhere.”
Yes, but see, even in their own wording, they still confirm: “in and of itself, reveal exempt information.” You just need to understand the mind of the sophist.
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the later part of this conversation. Chill out next time when you come in.
I’m going to watch some movie or read and crash.
Have a good night.
have a good night
ps we’re all only giving you a hard time to make sure this is all tight….
I know, thank you. But next time please make a more constructive approach. I get a lot of morons and trolls around here. Hard to tell who’s whom. Most people have no want like you to actually study over and debate the words to conclusion. I’ve done this with a couple others and a professor already, but I appreciate the additional approaches. You’ve given me the grammar and logic on this to defend every possible angle.
Now I suppose I’ll have to file that damned appeal. Even though we were feeling this was enough – their affiliation, denial, classified and appeal rhetoric.
Again, with the approach, I deal with morons and assholes all day who care nothing for reading first, NEVER check or ask for citations, etc. So when someone like you comes in guns blazing, it’s hard not to classify you as a troll and delete your stuff, like I have to do with all of Joseph Pierce’s posts. the guy cares nothing about truth nor being constructive. Eventually he’ll hopefully get a clue and go away. It’s sad when such people continually return for another beating.
The key words for you guys to attempt to understand here are:
AFFILIATION – A MEMBER OF
DENY – REJECT OR TURN DOWN THE REQUEST
CLASSIFIED – SECRET OR HIDDEN – SEE (b)(1).
RESPONSIVE – Letters that are NOT classified that they MAY send me. Such resonsive letters are marked with the CIA’s stamp and release date when their allowed to be sent out as responsive.
APPEAL – this means to appeal their decision to deny my request and not provide the documents they don’t consider “responsive”.
Ignore Joseph Pierce, the guy’s too god damned stupid to read English. I delete his vacuous and thoughtless comments as he’s never able to comprehend English.
Name calling? How very trivial. It’s called a dependant clause. They searched and DID NOT find.
eu, how is it they did not find anything when it very clearly says their search revealed “an openly acknowledged affiliation” and that they cannot send the documents because they’re CLASSIFIED? Did you read the document? Why would they say it’s denied, classified, and that I must appeal if they didn’t find anything? Oh, I get it, you don’t know what the word RESPONSIVE means… duh.
Here’s what it actually says:
Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the Agency started and did not locate any RESPONSIVE records [records they’ll send me in a reply].
[…] Therefore, your request is denied pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).
You have the right to appeal this response to the Agency Release Panel, in my care, within 45 days from the date of this letter […]
(b)(1) exempts from disclosure information currently and properly CLASSIFIED, pursuant to an Executive Order
(b)(3) excepts from disclosure information that another federal stature protects, provided that the other federal statute either requires that the matters be withheld, or establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld. The (b)(3) statues upon which the CIA relies include, but are not limited to, the CIA Act of 1949.
The key words for you to attempt to understand here are:
WOULD – the opposite of WOULD NOT.
AFFILIATION – A MEMBER OF
DENY – REJECT OR TURN DOWN THE REQUEST
CLASSIFIED – SECRET OR HIDDEN – SEE (b)(1).
RESPONSIVE – Letters that are NOT classified that they MAY send me. Such responsive letters are marked with the CIA’s stamp and release date when they’re allowed to be sent out as “responsive”.
APPEAL – this means to appeal their decision to deny my request and not provide the documents they don’t consider “responsive”.
obviously to understand such words requires a very minimum level of understanding of the English language… which, apparently, you don’t have.
you don’t understand the english language. I will parse the grammar for you:
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal ”
This is where you are confused because you think this means “records that do reveal” however, the word would removes ambiguity because it means “would have revealed had they existed”.
Apparently you are not educated in grammar. Please add this to the context to better interpret the almost ambiguous langauge they use: “and did not locate any RESPONSIVE records”
apparently, you don’t understand the citations to (b)(1), etc, citing CLASSIFIED, and MUST APPEAL WITHIN 45 DAYS. Apparently you’re not educated in basic English or word definitions. Now here you’re truncating the quote – as that sentence concludes with “an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation”.
Your argument fails to recognize their statement that the documents are CLASSIFIED.
As I’ve already told you, responsive records are those that are NOT classified.
Translation:
This does not bode well for Mr. T (erence)
I pity the fool.
the letter actually says nothing. Let’s change a few words to help you understand what grammar means:
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an ALIEN COVERUP existing up to and including the date the Agency started and did not locate any RESPONSIVE or NON-RESPONSIVE records”
perfectly valid…letter says nothing.
Nice straw man.
Again, you ignore the words CLASSIFIED and APPEAL in 45 days. it’s really basic fucking English here, Barry. Why would they say I have to appeal their decision if there was nothing there? that’s retarded. Obviously there would be no need for stating that the records are CLASSIFIED if there were no non-responsive records. That’s a contradiction, for someone claims to know grammar, but fails in logic.
Hmmm well I’m no lawyer…you’d have to be one to maker sense of all this
I would like to know Dennis’ part in this if any. McKenna did state years ago that at one point he was being sought after for running hash and it was a good time to leave the states. When he returned and began to write his books did he cut a deal?
Not to discount the affiliations notion above, but what would stop spooks from just making something up ? This is, after all, the business they know best.
It doesn’t matter, as long as they acknowledged the affiliation, denied the request, and stated my 45 days for an appeal. Obviously they’ve got some goodies, but it’s more important that we know of the affiliation itself. No, they wouldn’t just make up that he was affiliated. Why would they? It would only serve to cast more doubt on the CIA itself, much less continuing MKULTRA (sub)projects that they’re (obviously) refusing to hand over documents for…
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? WTF
My question is that if this is an openly acknowledged CIA affiliation, then why deny the request?
Exactly
It’s very simple..If there was no affiliation the would have simply state our records find no affiliation pertaining to your request, period, end of story. They would not go on to state exemptions for denying request. This is not difficult. In the past I have requested files on a state level through the attorney generals office for files on individuals, statements, inventory and financial files regarding investigations on law enforcement officials and was given entire files of every statement, names, ss#’s, etc. no questions asked, all through a phone call. So again, if there was nothing to find they would not give exemptions for denying request.
Yes, you are correct. I have a letter from another FOIA that I filed and they simply replied that they didn’t find anything.
Keep up the good work, Jan! The weak of spirited always attack those who reveal their sacred cows to be common livestock.
Would = IF there were one
Not Would = there is one , and this search (your request) would reveal it if we executed it.
Looks to me that what Jan is trying to show everyone is right there in the letter. “did not locate any responsive records.” This indicates one type of records. The kind they CAN share with him. “With respect to any other records,” “the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records responsive to your request.” This following statement points to “other records”. The kind they CAN NOT share with him, whether they exist or not.
Remember, this is government written correspondence. So just like your small print on the back of your credit card statement, you’re gonna find a maze of words intended to confuse you and make you give up trying to understand what you’re reading.
Keep up the good work Jan.
Intriguing business Jan.
Of course any appeal may confront yet more spook-speak. Some advice from a professional lawyer might equip you with the right terminology to negotiate a way through CIA stone-walling. Such a resourceful tactic may dissolve their Kevlar invincibility.
In the UK we live under the Official Secrets Act, that anyone involved in classified government business must adhere to formally. It dates back to 1889 with amendments before and after both wars, with ramifications for all former British territories and commonwealth countries. This is a business that people take very seriously here, both for reasons of patriotism and because if they are found to be in breach of the rules, must face prosecution. Many individuals have had to stay quiet for their entire lives. So this secrecy is not mysterious, but a matter of pragmatic historic necessity with punitive consequences.
The key issue internationally as I see it, is the legitimate scope and reach of state power, that raises complex ethical questions, like how to negotiate governments’ and corporations’ frenzied responses to “whistle-blowing” ~ when one person’s traitor is another’s moral hero/ine.
Wow isn’t this embarrassing.
Yeah, but it’s quite alright though. So you bought into some pseudo-intellectual dweeb’s fantasies and ideas. Perhaps you had purchased many of his books. Perhaps you followed him around the world on his lecture tours and even started to base some of your worldview on his words.
Either way, things happen and the best thing you can do is learn from them, not fight the facts… because that gets tiring and before you know it, you’re just copying and pasting the same substance-free sentence over and over, anonymously in a comment section on the interwebs.
I understand the wording and agree with Jan. What I don’t understand is how employing Terence to talk about translinguistic objects and machine elves would benefit the agency’s agenda.
It’s about getting people to believe bs and to take drugs without critical thinking so they can be controlled.
If I were to take a guess I wouldn’t say it was anything to do with Terence’s bardic talents but more to do with Terence’s social network.
OK Jan can you give us other similar requests & responses that we can compare these to? Most of us are not familiar with the FOIA process and variety of responses. This may be a way to prove what you are alleging. But without comparisons, how can we be sure this is not just a standard request/response with no relevant data. This all seems very speculative.
You’re free to file your own and compare them. Yes, I have others with the same response, others with responses that were filled (“responsive” letters and documents sent to me), and others with responses that nothing was found – no denial or appeal necessary. I’m not ready to release everything at once, as we’re still doing a lot of research, but Prof. Fikes has just announced one of the others a bit ago at a major anthropology conference today.
what you need to do is file some of people who you know have no connection and compare them. I bet you will get the exact same language if you do that 20 times.
Actually, as already repeated on this very page, I have, and no, the responses are NOT the same. A couple of them were, but they were people we expected we’d get classified results from.
ok fair enough…
alright now that is important…but once a letter likes this comes back once from someone who is totally mundane it rules out any affiliation…
You’d have to define mundane and then prove via the appeal that there is nothing there of importance… that this “mundane” person wouldn’t, in fact, ALSO be an agent, etc.
Good night, Barry. thanks for the constructive debate.
BTW, Barry and the Harvard Prof. are the same person…
Jan, thanks for the work you do. Why do you respond to the people who say such idiotic things on here? Don’t waste your time, brother. People that can read and understand the English language have respected your work for many years.
Did you ever consider that the people who waste your time and energy on here are getting paid to do it? They could just be morons. I suspect something more sinister (although I have no real evidence concerning your particular case).
Of course.
jiving the Psychonautic impulse ?
C’mon ! Get a colorful pied piper to lead the children into psycho-social dead-ends. There. One sentence.
brilliant!
They apparently automatically respond “we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any responsive records”, unless they are already made public under FOIA via inter-agency sharing etc.
“In addition, requesters who seek records concerning specific actual or alleged CIA employees, operations, or sources and methods used in operations will necessarily be informed that we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any responsive records. This policy is required to protect the confidentiality of such matters where public disclosure of the existence or non-existence of records would lead to the loss or the diminution in value of our intelligence program supporting the nation’s leadership.”
http://www.foia.cia.gov/foia.asp
Also, you can search for “CIA FOIA affiliation response” or akin and get the same letters elsewhere. Perhaps it would help Jan see this by some one else submitting a query using his name … 😉
As a side note, I have enjoyed McKenna’s perspectives and mind-mapping since around 2003. I’m not quite sure why Jan has sought to undermine him so strongly. When he accuses Terence of promoting governmental run population control (which he did not, he merely suggested that a movement of mothers in affluent parts of the world choosing to limit their offspring to one child would greatly alleviate resource demand etc — he clearly stated that this would not work via governmental imposition). I happen to partially agree with this notion, although I think many people in the west are already adopting this practice, or akin … and population growth has slowed over the last decade.
FYI some one has submitted this request for Jan’s name to the CIA, so we shall see! lol
Well, that would be nice, if you knew what you were doing… but you have to have an OBITUARY to file one. You can’t do it with a living person UNLESS YOU ARE THAT PERSON. Otherwise I’d say send me what you find, but they’ll just deny your request as an improper filing. Try to read the instructions before you send it and waste your and our time with vacuous responses…
Jan is exposing people in the CIA, so he must be one! Yeah, that’s why I give you guys all of my sources to check, that you don’t read anyway.
the point is not that you are in the CIA. The point is that the langauge of the letter is nuetral. It says nothing. If you file one fo ryourself it will use the exact same langauge and it will also mean nohing
they will search for records that would reveal Jan has an affiliation…and they wouldn’t find anything that is responsive.
The language of the letter is that they DO have records that are classified and that if I want them I must file an appeal within 45 days of their mailing.
If I search myself, unless the information they contain is “classified”, then no, I wouldn’t get the same response. I would get either 1) the files, or 2) a letter stating that nothing was found.
You can file one on yourself. You need an obituary to file on someone else.
“specific actual or alleged CIA employees, operations, or sources and methods used in operations will necessarily be informed that we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any responsive records.”
You lie:
Terence McKenna quotes:
He also FAKED his stoned ape theory. http://www.realitysandwich.com/terence_mckennas_stoned_apes
Maybe you missed the database with over 6000 citations. https://www.gnosticmedia.com/links/brain/
Where do you think those who are adopting this idea got it from? It’s almost entirely out of Esalen.
Try to get your facts straight and understand what HUMANISM, TRANSHUMANISM, FEMINSIM and EUGENICS are before you say he wasn’t promoting such things. This was all already cited. Your wasting mine and everyone else’s time with your laziness.
https://www.gnosticmedia.com/SecretHistoryMagicMushroomsProject
Jan, that response is the same one you would have gotten if you’d put in the FOIA on your mother. Surely you know someone experienced in this stuff who can talk you down off this embarrassing position. It’s true that it’s also the response you’d’ve gotten for someone who really was doing classified work, but you knew going in that if it was classified you wouldn’t get any documents, right? That’s what this is saying. We have no documents responsive to your FOIA request means we have nothing on him, or if we do, it’s secret. I got the same response on a FOIA for a drunk broad with a chihuahua who was scamming my senile aunt. Seriously, ask an attorney or someone experienced with bureaucracy-speak. That’s a standard we-got-nothing letter.
Try to use your brains. What do you base this claim on? I’ve actually filed about a dozen FOIA requests and NO, telling me that the search is denied and CLASSIFIED is not what they’d reply with for your mother. Have you ever filed one?
The entire point of the filing is their admission of an openly acknowledged AFFILIATION – not a mother, and CLASSIFIED. In other words it clearly says one of the searches revealed an openly acknowleged CIA affiliation, therefore my request is denied and that the information is classified and that I may appeal their decision. Maybe you don’t know what these words mean, but I posted them above.
Maybe you can show how this is a response to anything and show how it’s in fact incorrect and the word definitions are wrong.
DENIED, CLASSIFIED and APPEAL is not a standard “we got nothing” letter. I’ve gotten those too on other requests. Not the same.
Jan, I read and reread that letter a number of times. Unless there’s another letter you’re not showing, they have only stated that they have no documents responsive to your FOIA request. That’s it! The rest of it, the wording, the content is just pro forma, cover-the-bases language.
I was paid a lot of money for many years to read this kind of stuff for people.
Different agencies and different department heads use differing language that all amounts to the same thing. If they have anything, they send you copies of it with whatever they don’t want you knowing redacted, using big black blots all over it. If they don’t want you knowing any of it, they blot it all out.
If they don’t have anything they send you a letter like the one above. That covers the bases in case they do have something the writer doesn’t know about… or can’t acknowledge. The CIA is the most likely to use language like this because, I suppose, they actually have information on EVERYONE… and don’t want to admit it.
Seriously. If this is the only response you got, it ONLY means they have nothing for you. It doesn’t say ANYTHING about Terence.
If there was something before this that I missed, I’m sorry, but if this is the only response you got back from your request, they’re just telling you they’ve got nothing for you.
Yeah, that’s why it’s classified and to file an appeal regarding their decision. How do you miss that if you’ve read so many documents for OTHER things? It just means that they can’t send the documents because they’re classified and would reveal an agency affiliation.
How many times have you ever been told to file an appeal for something that isn’t there?
And yes, I know what a FOIA looks like when documents come back from it. Thanks. I’ve filed a few.
Here’s a site describing how to follow up on the appeal with a Mandatory Declassification Review, stating that the reason for an appeal is that there IS something. Hence, again, why (b)(1) “classified”. http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/the-cias-covert-operation-against-declassification-review-and-obamas-open-government/
ok so you now admit the letter says nothing positive only that they are covering something up?
The point is that they are not showing you their cards. Yes, you can infer from that a conspiracy…but it does not logically necessitate a conspiracy. You are using a very slippery logic here. You cannot take them not showing you any cards and say it proves anything other than that they won’t show you their cards…
I acknowledge that the Agency very clearly states that “A search would reveal an openly acknowledge Agency affiliation” – and I fully intend to do what I can to find out what that affiliation is.
obviously they’re trying not to show their cards, but they reveal a couple of things 1) that there’s documents 2) that there’s an open affiliation, and 3) that it’s classified and they don’t want me to see it.
Now being that this is all related to MKULTRA, their secrecy after being exposed nationally on this very topic should raise quite a concern and uproar. And if you go through the database listed on the front page, as well as my articles on Wasson and Darwin, Huxley, McKenna, you’ll see that there is much more going on.
Try not to skip any citations.
Ok I will admit that your other research is relevant and you have to take it all together to build context
It is not saying it found anything, and it’s not saying it didn’t find anything.
So…
Great work Jan, as always.
This helps to put T.M.’s other relationships in perspective, and connects other dots we have found over the years. Smells like a ‘smoking gun’ to me. Bravo. Thank you.
Nope. You’re still wrong.
Feel free to post the documents when you get them though.
Well I don’t think there is any chance in you admitting that you’re wrong.
So feel free to show us the documents when you get them.
I don’t understand, Jan. No matter how many times you copy and paste AFFILIATION DENY CLASSIFIED. The language is very clear.
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the Agency started its search and did not locate any responsive records.”
Our processing included a search. A search for what? Records. What kind of records? Records that would reveal a blah blah blah. Did we find any records? No records that we are willing to share with the public.
This isn’t a declaration of an openly acknowledged affiliation.
They were looking for records that might reveal such an affiliation and did not turn up any responsive documents. Now we all know what responsive means thanks to you.
In the second paragraph they basically gave you the Donald Rumsfeld runaround. And sure, they cited b(1) as a reason for not giving you a direct answer. That’s not an admission. It’s ambiguity.
“The fact of the existence or non existence of these documents is classified.” Basically they said, ‘We didn’t find anything marked responsive, and since we’re the CIA and you’re a citizen, that’s all you get to know. Deal with it.’
I’m kind of baffled you think you’re breaking a major story here. Why don’t you post the original letters you sent to the CIA with this? You sent at least two it seems.
Also, your APPEAL would maybe only net you a confirmation of “the fact of the existence or non existence of records”
So I would expect a very disappointing and equally ambiguous letter 46 days from now.
We already know the records exist, otherwise they wouldn’t be classified.
It’s already explained. Try to understand what responsive records are and what it means to be classified. It’s not a declaration, no, it says that a search would reveal an openly acknowledged affiliation.
Classified means that they have to have documents to classify, therefore, they have the documents. You can’t classify something that doesn’t exist, so therefore, they obviously exist. Try reading the rest of the work on Mckenna, Wasson, Huxley et al. Thanks.
I’m inclined to think that there was an affiliation.
But I can see the rationale for them to respond as though there were withheld records even when there were none, and to spend money on lawyers to fight any appeal:
Consider two generic FOIA cases (for simplicity, let’s assume that these are the only two cases that were ever filed):
Case A: There are withheld records.
Case B: There are no withheld records.
And also assume that they don’t want to reveal, even indirectly, that there are withheld records in case B.
Then it follows that they have to give the exact same response in both cases. For example, if they respond in case A with “no records exist,” but in case B they offer the option of an appeal, and they fight any such appeal, then the applicants in case B, looking at the response in case A, would reasonably conclude that there is something being withheld in case B.
Only by offering the appeal option and fighting any appeals, in BOTH cases, can the agency prevent such “information leakage.”
Gah, I mixed up my cases! If Case A is “there are no withheld records” and Case B is “there are withheld records” then the rest of my message above makes sense.
[Note to self: proofread what you write before clicking “post comment.”]
Barry and Sashims’s premises: since it is UNTHINKABLE that Terrence McKenna had any affiliation whatsoever with the CIA despite his associations with particular individuals who did(“guilty by association fallacy” may apply if it had been one or two people), we are not to suspect that any letter from said agency would attempt to mislead, or obfuscate any such requested information.
Premise two: The CIA would not, and is CERTAINLY NOT in this case using intentionally misleading language in any correspondence with the who they regard as the “public.”
I suggest premise one (Terrence is not a affiliated with CIA) and premise two (CIA wouldn’t use intentionally misleading language) are unsustainable.
Result: reliance on sophisticated language and logical fallacies (+trolling) is necessary to muddy the waters here.
Very well said.
OK, then they used misleading language.
Which means, the response is “stonewalling.” (A conclusion that I don’t like, but my reasoning and yours lead to that conclusion).
Hmm, I see that in an earlier response, Jan says “I have a letter from another FOIA that I filed and they simply replied that they didn’t find anything” which kind of blows my reasoning out of the water. I fell into the trap of putting logic before facts. Fact: They will say that there is nothing if there is nothing.
Ugh, could you cite that response exactly, or direct me to it?
Your argument is: Since Jan supposedly had made a claim to having already received response response from the CIA to the same request prior that definitively confirms the negative; than the alleged second response (presented here) should therefore be dismissed although it can be confirm the positive.
I guess according to your argument the conclusion be drawn that Jan is intentionally misleading us.
I guess also this rests on Jan’s having said what you’ve claimed he has, and to what extent you’re paraphrasing his words (+ the context it was said in is intact).
Even if that’s the case however,I don’t think it should result in throwing out this response presented here.
“…than the alleged second response (presented here) should therefore be dismissed although it can be BE SHOWN TO LOGICALLY confirm the positive.”
“I guess according to your argument the conclusion THAT SHOULD be drawn IS that Jan is intentionally misleading us.”
Sorry should’ve proof read.
I am not saying Jan is misleading us. In fact, if you reread my comments immediately above, I erroneously reasoned myself into a corner, corrected myself by putting grammar before logic, and ended up agreeing with his position.
robert42
“I am not saying Jan is misleading us. In fact, if you reread my comments immediately above, I erroneously reasoned myself into a corner, corrected myself by putting grammar before logic, and ended up agreeing with his position.”
Oops! Sorry Robert42.
I hope the spirited debate in this comment section is just that, spirited, and people don’t have to degrade others to get their point across. Regardless, I’d like to add my 2 cents.
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the Agency started its search and did not locate any responsive letters.”
1. This information may not be openly acknowledged. Therefore, the search would conducted on irrelevant information. As a result, their writing could be taken at face value.
2. Let’s assume we skip my first point and continue to the Responsive issue – obviously, if there was an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation, anything they want to share with you would be considered responsive. As the excerpt above reads, thus far, they have only verified that they did not locate that which they wish to share.
So at this point, we don’t know if there is a distinction between the condition of (1) an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation and (2) a clandestine Agency affiliation, or if such distinction does exist. Further, we still don’t know if they have information pertaining to TM.
“With respect to any other records, in accordance with section 3.6 (a) of E.O. 13526, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records responsive to your request. The fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is currently and properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended, and section 102A(i)(I) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. … “
1. My initial questioning of their categorization of openly acknowledged Affiliation may seem relevant here, as they have identified “other records.”
So at this point, we really can’t discern if there is relevant information, outside of an openly acknowledged Affiliation with the CIA. Nonetheless, that does not exclude any relationship. I would speculate, that since the CIA responded to Jan’s request, issuing a “confirm or deny” statement, in addition to the statement provided in the first paragraph, is indicative that they are classifying the information and not willing to share it. The “confirm or deny” response is a response, nonetheless, and would not be offered in addition to a seemingly sufficient response, as given in paragraph one, had there not been information in the “other information” category.
Pertinent Reading:
E.O. Sec. 3.6 (a) An agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested records whenever the fact of their existence or nonexistence is itself classified under this order or its predecessors.
Protection of Nature of Agency’s Functions
Sec. 6. [50 U.S.C. Sec. §403g]
In the interests of the security of the foreign intelligence activities of the United States and in order further to implement section 403-1(i) of this title that the Director of National Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure, the Agency shall be exempted from the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Act of August 28, 1935 (49 Stat. 956, 957; 5 U.S.C. §654), and the provisions of any other law which require the publication or disclosure of the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency: Provided, That in furtherance of this section, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall make no reports to the Congress in connection with the Agency under section 607 of the Act of June 30, 1945, as amended (5 U.S.C. §947(b)).
Jan keeps juxtaposing this statement “openly acknowledged Agency affiliation” with this statement “properly classified”. This is being used out of context….
Both statements are in separate paragraph, and are not referring to one another.
“Properly classified” actually pertains to the statement “with respect to any other records”. And these “other records”could mean anything, they could be agency monitoring files on McKenna, they are not referring to the search conducted that would reveal “an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the agency started” which is in a different paragraph and context….
Additionally, Jan should include a copy of the FOIA request he sent, we would likely see that “openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the agency started” are his words used in the filing of the request….
Juxtaposition — logical fallacy on the part of the observer, where two items placed next to each other imply a correlation, when none is actually claimed.
Nice straw man. You omitted “responsive”. Therefore, “properly classified” wold be non-responsive.
Well, I admit that “responsive records” is an unusual term. I am not sure that Jan is interpreting correctly, but I don’t know. Legal wording can be tricky. I don’t think it is a matter of “you can understand it yourself if you look carefully at the grammar.” If you are not steeped in the legal culture, you really have no foundation for definitively interpreting a phrase like “responsive records” in my opinion. And they might be using that particular phrase in order to wiggle out of something or other in the event of a mishap. In other words, some lawyer might have wanted an intentionally nebulous phrase there.
Well, let’s see if the appeal turns up anything.
I see you have not posted my perfectly reasoned comment. You fucking squalid little hypocrite. Grammar expert, my fat arse you are!
What they said:
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the Agency started its search and did not locate any responsive records.”
What they probably meant:
“Our processing included a search for records that WOULD HAVE REVEALED an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the Agency started its search and did not locate any responsive records.”
In my opinion, this says “we did the search you wanted… and it did not locate any responsive records”. It would have revealed records on the agency affiliation but didn’t, at least not any we can tell you about.
How you’re interpreting this, Jan, is that the search DID reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation. I see how you would read that from “would” but I don’t think that’s correct.
This is where you and some dozens of participants here differ. I think attacking all the people trying to help you by pointing out your misinterpretation is bad form. I think they’re right. (Commence your attack on me – make sure to assume/imply low intelligence, poor education, ignorance of the trivium, and an inability to grasp the most basic elements of language).
An interesting article. There certainly is much disagreement being put forth!
I mostly read comments to learn. I did read all of them above.
I’m reminded of one of my favorite comments:
“He who complains has already lost.”
( http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ecri-leading-indicator-plunges-deeper-double-dip-territory-stocks-turn-green#comment-496233)
That being said, as a result of reading this article a few days ago, I did make note of Mckenna’s response when asked, “Why aren’t you in jail?”
among others, “perhaps I’m sanctioned. . . . ”
(begins at 1:09 in video)
Here is the link to the video.
Terence Mckenna why I’m not in jail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDYdN3j2eTg&feature=related
Thanks for your time & efforts, and keep up the good work!
Wow @ the people trying to debunk the wording of a straightforward letter that even had relevant explanations attached.
I read the letter and the explanations and before even reading the comments came to the same conclusion Jan did about it’s meaning.
“He whose facts piss in the most cornflakes gets the most backlash.” I guess.
I’m beginning to think that an accurate metric to use when gauging truth is the degree to which trolls respond and stay with the attempted debunking of the obvious.
Metric #2 = Ad hominems…
I would otherwise agree except you have made absolutely no attempt to explain the reasoning for your agreement. Besides that, you introduced ‘ad hominem’ first by invoking the unnecessary and prejudicial descriptor ‘troll’. Isn’t that got something to do with ‘appeal to ridicule’? I look forward to your own presentation of logic and reasoning in support of ‘Positive Affiliation’.
A troll is not necessarily an ad hominem. Calling someone a thief isn’t necessarily an ad hominem. There are facts of these things. There are many trolls. Take you for instance. You’ve been asked to leave because each time you come here you name call and act intellectually bankrupt. I’ve deleted your last post with your name calling at Paul.
if you’re unable to think without fallacies and name calling then you’ve nothing of value to contribute here, as I’ve already shown.
Being that most trolls around here are apparent by their complete refusal to read and study all of the material and evidence before spewing their unfounded opinions, usually based on some form of name calling, etc, such as yours – they’re easy to identify. Their attacks are nearly always thus straw man arguments and based on little or nothing provided, or focusing on one small piece of evidence while ignoring the rest – such as you do.
As you clearly have nothing constructive to offer, and you’ve probably read little or none of the papers here that we’ve provided and are discussing, as well as the videos and database with over 6000 citations, your opinions mean little or nothing. Get studied, offer the group something intelligent based on putting grammar first and having looked at all of the evidence presented and then maybe you’ll sound like anything other than a barking dog with some agenda to protect.
Again, Graham in the UK, I’ve already asked you to leave. Do you think you’re capable of leaving intelligently? Or do I have to actually block you? Your name calling, leaping to conclusions, et al, is uncalled for. Trolls are trolls. You have been only here to lie and spew garbage that you pull out of your ass. If you’re incapable of going point by point through the research in context, without name calling and straw man arguments or other fallacies then your opinions aren’t welcome here.
Your introduction here was a joke and you’ve shown us the type of person you are as well as your inability to think and act rationality based on the evidence and conversations provided. Kindly leave.
I always figured if you identified with the name being called, that it was obvious that you were–said name. But yes–it does make for poor communication and I am guilty as well.
After all, only someone who is offended at being called a “sheep” or “dupe”–isnt really sure yet–wether they are a sheep or not.
Those who know, well.–Know.
Your Awesome Jan. Use these morons as an anvil. Pound away dude, you rock. Love Sissaly
Is Dennis Mckenna aware of this inquiry? If so, what does he make of it?
Yes, he named called and refused to look at any of the evidence and dodged my questions.
Really? Wow imagine that!
I’ve recently inquired about this individual and became increasingly skeptic of his ideology as he continually contradicts himself and weaves truth with fiction. I believe he is appealing the a commoner, idiot if you will.. The “big words” impress small minds who may feel empowered by group ideology. So, if the CIA had a file on him, rightfully so, however I would lean towards the idea that he was a plausible sociopath. Also, consider the majority of his audience.. Another wacko of interest would be Alex Jones and his freakish cult.
Is Dennis Mckenna aware of this recent inquiry? If so, what does he think?
Elly, his being a dupe does not preclude CIA affiliation.
Jan,
Saw you last year at the Free Your Mind conference. Loved your presentation. I have long wondered about the psychedelic movement and its potential to be co-opted and used negatively. It seemed obvious to me that Leary and (to a lesser obvious extent) Huxley were negative in some way. I’m sure I had a similar reaction as you with McKenna, the suspicions being harder to believe at first. I have a few questions in order to open this dialog further.
Firstly, about this letter of confirmation. Maybe I don’t understand, but, given the reply, isn’t it possible that they have classified files on McKenna but that he was not an agent for them? He was a large enough figure to have a light shined on him, after all.
But assuming he was purposely behind this whole “pumping up” of the 2012 thing and assuming he was indeed a eugenicist, this brings me to several questions. I don’t expect you to have every part of this thing understood perfectly but I’d like to see what you think. One thing that is puzzling, is why would they try to use him to promote these things when the bulk of his speech is sort of fanciful, mystical self-esteem boosting? I still feel empowered when I hear a lot of it. Is this mere distraction? When McKenna says things like fuck TV, make your own art, you are the most important people on the planet- how can this factor into a larger, negative plan?
The other issue I have is with what I perceive as the sincerity of his quest, particularly concerning ayahuasca. Now, maybe he meant all of these things sincerely and maybe he believed in the power of DMT but only for the elite and only for the few. If this is the case, perhaps the common man should think twice about listening to him, though, I still have to think that one can simply apply these concepts to the wider margin and this doesn’t make them worse for the wear.
Now, pragmatically, why would something with innate spiritual capabilities like mushrooms be able to really serve any agenda not of a true spiritual nature? Couldn’t this backfire? I mean, if you connect to the spirit with it, how can anyone else “hijack” that? Do they have such utter faith in their means of manipulation (i.e. HAARP, ELF, whatever it may be) that they would allow the promotion of something like that? Do they really think they can subvert it? I am willing to accept such an answer but I am really interested in how this would work.
I could talk about this ins and outs of this for hours but I think that’s more than sufficient to start. Any ideas you have that may clarify things would be great. Thanks for looking into such arenas that desperately need consideration and thanks for bringing an open mind to them instead of layers of unnecessary preconceptions.
Jan, I still don’t understand how you get a confirmation from this. To me it says that there are two types of records, classified and unclassified. For the unclassified records they searched and found no records. For the classified files, and for all classified files, they cannot confirm nor deny their existence. They are not denying you classified files on Terence, they are telling you that you cannot have ANY classified files.
I do not understand the appeal though. Maybe your have a right to appeal any decision? If they have the right to stay silent on whether or not the files exist, what is there to appeal?
Thanks for your time if you choose to respond,
David Halliday
Ps, thanks so much for turning me on to the Underground Grammarian
See the arguments already repeatedly discussed here. You can’t classify something that doesn’t exist. They’re simply saying that they don’t have anything they want to send.
I’m not a troll, and I could care less if Terence Mckenna was involved with the CIA. I just don’t understand how your gathering that this request you filed is admitting anything. It’s not.
???
Jan,
I understand that their letter indicates the existence of classified files on McKenna, but I don’t see where the proof is that he had an Agency affiliation. Can you explain how you know this for sure? Also, when it comes to the CIA wouldn’t you expect them to manage the release of information according to their agenda, disregarding the law when necessary?
Not trying to annoy you but it seems like you are jumping to a strong conclusion based on questionable evidence.
Jan wrote:
“See the arguments already repeatedly discussed here. You can’t classify something that doesn’t exist. They’re simply saying that they don’t have anything they want to send.”
They say in the letter that the fact of the existence or non-existence of such records is classified. So it seems that they can classify something that doesn’t exist.
“To be clear, it’s saying that A SEARCH TURNED UP AN OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED AGENCY AFFILIATION AND DID NOT FIND ANY RESPONSIVE LETTERS.”
No, it doesn’t say that they found an openly acknowledged affiliation, it just says that they searched for an openly acknowledged affiliated, and did not find any non-classified records. They then go on to explain about how the fact of the existence or non-existence of these records is itself classified. So in the end they are not telling you anything.
By the way are you just deleting my comments?
Ooops, no you’re not. Sorry I couldn’t find them. Still, I think the onus of proof is on you in this case.
Okay let’s look at the grammar of this sentence:
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation existing up to and including the date the Agency started its search and did not locate any responsive records.”
So the key word here seems to be “would”. You interpret this sentence to me that their search *would* reveal an openly acknowledged relationship, BUT they will not tell you because that is classified. If this is a positive acknowledgement of such an affiliation, however, could it really be “up to and including the date the Agency started its search”? How many years has Terence been dead? Could he have had an affiliation with the agency in the years following his death? Probably not. In the language of this letter “would” seems to be more of a hypothetical qualifier. As in, such a search *would* have revealed such an affiliation *IF* such an affiliation was “responsive” aka not classified. In any case, the letter makes no positive statements of any kind regarding Terence’s affiliation. I think it’s reasonable to infer that they have classified files on Terence. But that single line of bureaucratic legalese is no basis for making such a far-reaching accusation. Just for the record I support this line of inquiry and greatly appreciate the new information on Wasson. It would be a shame to ruin it by going out on a limb based on confirmation bias.
That being said, do you really think that the CIA would compromise their security of information through an oversight in legal bureaucracy? Furthermore, how do you even trust the things you’re getting from the CIA? Shouldn’t you expect them to selectively release information in a way that serves their agenda? I guess primary documentation speaks for itself, but wouldn’t it be really easy for them to hold back certain documents in order to skew the picture? I mean, because they are the CIA and answer only to their elite overlords, demonstrably above the law? I am curious about your thinking on this issue as you are researching this subject.
You must be kidding? An “URGENT RELEASE” no less! I’ve enjoyed your podcasts on and off over the years, especially the shaman and the Christmas tree. I’m just a passing fan of your work although I have considered buying books and lately was even thinking of properly joining up. However, I have to say that your attacks on McKenna are most bizarre. I downloaded a recent audio and listened intently to the material about Huxley etc and all of a sudden McKenna is associated with these guys (guilt by association no less) and is at best a “useful idiot” as you put it. It did seem a little extreme at the time and I hoped you might soften your position some, but making an FOI request to the CIA… this is ridiculous. It may well have given you information before but this letter says diddly squat, and considering the man has passed on and was loved by many, frankly I think you should give him some respect by actually reading what the letter says… it says NOTHING. You are ruining your own reputation by being a calumniator of this man. URGENT RELEASE! you couldn’t be more ridiculous if you tried.
I must be kidding? How so, because McKenna’s one of your religious heroes? Did you read the article on Huxley and McKenna, et al? How are the citations wrong? What was guilt by association? You entirely failed to show how this is so, because you failed to cite one thing or make one point clearly and without fallacies.
How is it “bizarre”? How is McKenna “suddenly” associated with these guys when his own brother admits this? How is it so suddenly?
How is it not a willful idiot (unless you’ve ignored all the evidence – which is clear)? How do you explain all of the connections and influences that he himself admits? Do you just ignore those? What about how he admits he’s a humanist and transhumanist (theories developed by Julian Huxley) and a feminist? (Feminism is also disproved – see my interview with Karen of Girl Writes What, already posted to people like yourself 30 or 40 times – which you also clearly ignored – it was in the citations of the article.) Do you just ignore that and the shows I’ve done on that topic? How is making a FOIA request to find out the truth of the matter ridiculous? What makes it ridiculous? Your New Age religious beliefs? How does it say diddly squat when it clearly says active affiliation and that the information is “classified”? Now’s that nothing? It’s clearly saying that if we want more, we have to file and appeal, which we did. How am I ruining my own reputation when 2 weeks ago was Dec. 21 2012, a bullshit meme that he and the CIA started, a connection which you also seem to ignore..? How is doing investigative researching going to ruin my reputation? Is that because it forces people like you who don’t think without fallacies to question their emotional, fallacious conclusions? Why is it you think you can point out guilt by associations all the while thinking with dozens of fallacies while at the same time ignoring the paper and citations to see if they really are “guilt by associations” as you claim? Does a fallacist’s fallacy necessary make a claim wrong? How so? How does your ignoring the citations and making vacuous emotional appeals and ignoring the evidence and articles posted prove your point?
But anyway, your pathetic appeal to ridicule and emotional drivel about your religious heroes “bizarre, ridiculous, etc” while ignoring all of the other evidence we’ve already laid out, coming in at the end and ignoring the rest, including the database, and the article on the front page, does nothing for your argument or your own reputation. That is what’s ridiculous. Please attempt to use your brains and not your emotions for thinking. If you’ll do a breakdown of how the two articles on this page are wrong, rather than posting a bunch of emotional drivel without substantiating one single point – that would be helpful. https://www.gnosticmedia.com/SecretHistoryMagicMushroomsProject – the citations and material are there, if you actually study them.
Try not to put your logic first while ignoring the evidence. How is it you religious McKenna fanatics can ignore 90% of the research and complain about one thing?
Also in the notes here myself and others have posted dozens of McKenna’s contradictions, including how he faked his stoned ape theory, as Dr. Brian Akers proved. Don’t get yourself so excited that you pee on yourself when ignoring the evidence and trying to make yourself look smart by doing so. If you’re going to attack something that you “heard” – the McKenna and Huxley article was never audio – so you’re also a liar… https://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/
When you say you heard, maybe you heard the audio version of this video which explained everything ON THE SCREEN – had you WATCHED – you could have just seen the evidence… but we explained your pathetic “guilt by association” remarks there, which you seem to also have ignored. https://www.gnosticmedia.com/turning-the-tables-on-the-huxleys-gordon-wasson-terence-mckenna-esalen-psychedelics-2012-mind-control-151/
Here’s the link to McKenna in the database. Just read each connection and citation and show how it’s wrong… You’ll have to use your brains though and study each one.
http://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-1227
Here’s the most hilarious portion of your emotional drivel, and absolutely pathetic for a listener of my show, as it means that you never got anything, especially the trivium:
“and considering the man has passed on and was loved by many, frankly I think you should give him some respect”
So by your religious beliefs and appeal to emotion, if someone lies and misleads millions of people, say for instance like Hitler, we shouldn’t question that person because they were loved by those who where dupped into believing their lies? That’s as emotionally vacuous and pathetically stupid as it gets.
Truth and research and facts don’t care if someone’s alive or dead, nor how popular they were (nice appeal to popularity though). Truth is truth. Cults – now they care about their religious idols being desecrated.
Guess which you belong?
Wow that’s a quite a reply Jan, for one thing I’m not exactly a new age hippie, unless new age hippies trade stocks and precious metals and follow the capital markets as intently as they smoke dope? (Actually I don’t even smoke dope or take any drugs but McKenna rekindled my interest in mushrooms) So anyway, enough about me, back to the point: You made an FOI request to the CIA.
Deep breath. Pause. You made a FOI request to the CIA!
Now the CIA sent what looks like a standard letter in reply. The CIA can’t confirm or deny anything because they are the intelligence agency for the USA. The gist of the letter is “if it’s already public domain we’ll be happy to tell you”.
I have a suggestion: somebody on here with the time and the inclination should put in a FOI request to the CIA for the records of one “Jan Irvin”. That might be a good way to settle this controversy. Presumably if this is a standard letter from the agency then the result will be identical right? Just a suggestion.
Here’s one for you… ever heard of the “Argumentum ad Hitlerum”? Basically it states that the first person to mention Hitler in an argument loses by default. Check it out, there is a page on Wikipedia and everything. Says it was Leo Struass that came up with it, but please don’t think I’m a neocon for saying that!
I will in due course give your extensive brain database a peruse. The points I made stand 1) this is a standard letter 2) your explanation on the audio was confusing and sounded like you had nothing on him but his associations with other people.
2012 is indeed in the rear view and so is the novelty theory etc… but I don’t care! I like Terrence McKenna. I choose to believe that he wasn’t in the CIA. Perhaps I’ll change my mind, certainly but not with this letter. And I’ll maybe come back later and read the rest of your aristotelian tilting at windmills, but it’s late in my timezone, time for bed.
Andy have you ever heard of cliche thinking and fallacious logic? You should have. We’ve covered it extensively – see the trivium study section. You must have missed every episode that covered the most important stuff – such as how to think without lying to yourself. Must each and every post you make be filled with lies? Did you read the citations? Yes or no? If no, then why would you open your trap before you had? I don’t care about your vacuous, emotional, religious BS.
Rather than using a kill the messenger fallacy, which was an example of your stupid argument, BTW, read the citations and use your brain.
1) You can’t file a FOIA on a living person. Even if it’s a form letter, by knowing some logic and reading it, it reveals a few things, 2) an agency affiliation of some sort, and 3) that the information is classified, 4) you can’t classify a nothing, 5) to get more info an appeal, already filed, is required.
As I already stated, the article was not in audio, and if you failed to WATCH the video and SEE the evidence, that happened to go point by point through the database – so that you could follow along – reveals your own incompetence to follow along with what was even being said, not mine.
And then when you can’t figure anything out due to your fallacies and inability to follow instructions, you come here and attack me with your emotional, thoughtless, religious BS. Study the fallacies that we put out 3 years ago so that you don’t sound like an emotional child who can’t think and study before he reacts regarding his Zeolot religious beliefs… as you said, you choose to believe he wasn’t CIA. It’s a belief and you’re acting as any good religious zeolot, and like every other thoughtless McKenna fan who refuses to question anything and remove the fallacies from their thoughts. I already told you these are your cult beliefs, and the fact that you’d say I shouldn’t investigate a dead person reveals your agenda – or stupidity.
There was nothing convoluted, other than your ability to follow citations and not think with emotional BS fallacies. I’ve already had academics, whom are capable of critical thinking and reading citations while being detached from their emotions – validate my findings.
I could care less if you’re a new age hippie or not. You’re the one here telling me that someone shouldn’t be investigated because they were popular and are dead. That’s an appeal to emotion on your part and again, poor thinking, whether or not I used an analogy to hitler to prove the absurdity of your stupid argument. Would you like to use another name there instead? Who’s the most recent dead Israeli president who’s killed the most Palestinians? Would he be good enough for you? Oh, but you can’t investigate someone if they’re dead or popular – because why again? You might offend someone who believes he was telling the truth and didn’t lie to them. Did you even bother to read the other many dozens of comments that covered your statements before you posted so that you didn’t waste more time? Of course not.
I don’t care if you “like Terence McKenna” or not, I care about getting to the facts of the information and not catering to your religious beliefs. These are your religious beliefs, your cult, and you’ve failed to study the video, read the articles, or look at the database before you made your emotional, vacuous replies.
You choose to believe he wasn’t CIA? Are you fucking serious? That’s putting your logic before your grammar. “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind” – that’s the motto of the stupid. Do you choose to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? What about the Tooth Fairy? How about Jesus? If you choose to believe that you can eat poison safely, does it make it so? Really? Prove it – please.
Do you know what an appeal to belief argument is? It’s a fallacy – a lie. All of your arguments are fallacies, and for someone who pretends to listen to my show, you’ve failed to learn any critical thinking or the trivium – see the menu to the left and start with episode 49.
Someone who knows something about anything would know that you can’t file a FOIA request on a living person – and it’s FOIA – not FOI. Someone who’s read my research on all of this already knows that I’ve gotten replies back from the CIA with documents.
Of course you should have studied the database and articles before you commented and made up lies about hearing something that I never put in audio that has the citations there. If you listened to the video, all of these statements of yours were covered, and you listened poorly, with your beliefs and emotions, rather than going through the facts and information that you could have easily just followed along with. Maybe you were incompetent to realize that the entire video that you heard was a discussion of the database that you didn’t study either! Incredible lack of comprehension as to what you were even hearing. You’re a befuddled mess of fallacies and poor thinking and beliefs before research.
How could anyone who claims to listen to my show have such poor thinking skills? Study the citations before you remark as any intelligent human being would do.
Every day I’ve got to deal with idiots who react emotionally from their religious beliefs “I choose to believe that he wasn’t in the CIA.” and can’t read a primary citation if they wiped their ass with the paper it was printed on. Intelligent people study the information first, and then determine the facts of reality. Stupid people decide their beliefs and then try to force the facts to fit them… as you’ve exemplified here.
I’ve provided hundreds of citations and documentation. You’ve provided “ridiculous”, “you’ve got to be kidding” “bizarre” – for one simple fact that you admit – it’s your religious belief… he’s your religions hero… and you forget that I put most of the audio out there about that fraud – 70 hours of his propaganda was released from me a decade ago, so I can appreciate your blind, thoughtless allegiance, but it’s time to use some thinking and fact checking and not emotion and belief. Study, read, look, then comment – as intelligence requires you to.
Furthermore, I asked you a dozen questions. Rather than using a red herring, stick to answering them or be banned.
Dennis is talking about his book ‘The Brotherhood of the Screaming Abyss – My Life with Terence’ on Friday at the local library. Im tempted to ask if he wants to comment about any of this but im afraid I might end up the next stoned ape…
He won’t address the evidence and will only name call. I’ve tried several times. First he’ll call me crazy, then he’ll group you in that category with me, and then he’ll appeal to ridicule and name call. It’s the same techniques every time.
Brian sent this a few months ago, I think. Maybe you should bring this up… Seems Dennis helped his brother escape from the FBI…
I sent this stuff to Dennis and he refused to comment, only started name calling at me. See if you can get him to comment publicly about what happened, if he was involved with the escape, and what was the result of Terence’s capture or deal.
Im not sure I can make it on Friday but If i do I will ask and record.
Thanks.
Mr Irvin, it is YOU who really needs a greater understanding of English. They processed your request by doing a search to see if there were any records which would reveal an affiliation that was of a nature that Mckenna would have known about and openly acknowledged, looking all the way to the date of the start of your search. From this, they stated to you that they started the search and DID NOT LOCATE ANY responsive records. Even if there could be unresponsive letters that they dont want to tell you about, it doesnt mean that them telling you they didnt locate responsive records means that there ARE records. They then tell you that this is no means to confirm or deny any existence because either they cant get to it or they can and it is considered classified and protected from release under current law. Try doing a FOIA search on yourself and I’dnot at all be surprised to find the same response, despite you not being a fucking intel agent (hopefully). Just because they have classified documents and mention appeals and that responsive doesnt mean there are no records, does NOT mean that there ARE records. The entire letter simply means that they didnt find any that they can share with you, but not that there ARE any and not to interpret their response as meaning there is or isnt any. That is ALL. So stop flaming Mckenna, who dwarfs your intellect as you’ve so weakly demonstrated with this trash of what you call “research.”
Try it with English this time, Anthony. It clearly says that the records are classified and that we must appeal. Do you know what an appeal is? Why would they classify records and then say that we need to appeal to get them if they didn’t have them? We already filed the appeal. Next time apply logic and some knowledge of the English language before you attack things you clearly haven’t studied or thought about thoroughly. When they state that something is CLASSIFIED and that you must APPEAL, yes, they are saying there are records, regardless of their sophist two step.
To you, they classified a nothing and told me that I have to appeal a nothing, and to you it seems reasonable that they would spend their time classifying and fighting appeals to nothing.
Stop flamming McKenna? Now the truth comes out. Your religious hero is being investigated, and rather than studying this and the database and all of the information we’ve put out on this topic, you’re upset because the fraud you beleive in is being questioned and investigated, so you use inciteful words intentionally like “flame”. Pathetic. I see through your emotionally driven religious beliefs. Wake up and study and put the research before your conclusions – and not just this one single item that we put out.
McKenna dwarfs my intellect? How’s that again? Because he’s your sophist lying, New Age religious hero? The fact that you’d even need to say such a thing reveals your incredibly insecure little self in your pathetic beliefs… What have you even studied of my work? Certainly not the trivium that would have allowed you the clarity of mind without fallacies and religious beliefs to look at the paper and other work objectively.
McKenna never put out anything to uplift people. He was all about fooling and selling his 4th world agenda to fool the masses for Huxley. Wake up and have the brains to study the evidence in full before you decide it’s merit – as any thinking human being would do.
Jan why are you being so douchy in your responses to the people that are questioning your interpretation of the letter? Isn’t questioning authority and thinking for oneself the basis of making up one’s own mind on a given subject?
Questioning authority, hmmm, how about reading the citations carefully first before attacking? How about understanding what classified means in the first place? Generally everyone who comes here “questioning” authority hasn’t bothered to study or read things carefully and without fallacies before they reach a conclusion. Critical thinking requires that we study things first, remove the fallacies and contradictions, and then reach conclusions. It’s not just “questioning authority and thinking for one’s self”. There’s a process for deriving certainty with any information based on the simple principles of grammar, logic and rhetoric – asking who what where when why and how before we reach conclusions. No, thinking for one’s sell is not just questioning authority, it’s learning to spot the fallacies in our own thoughts – not coming here with comments like “it is YOU who really needs a greater understanding of English” – without understanding the words appeal, classified, and responsive records – or records they’re willing to send, when they already admit that a search WOULD reveal an agency affiliation.
Two people, when on the “same page” and looking at the same information detached from their emotions should always be able to reach the same conclusion with any information. 2 + 2 = 4. That’s common sense, it’s not authority. Get my drift?
It’s funny how these people question me, but not their fallacies or religious heroes who they come here attacking me for daring to question – “So stop flaming Mckenna”, another hilarious one is “he’s dead so you have to respect him and not question anything!” – quite the ridiculous appeal to emotion – rather than facts, truth and accuracy. These types NEVER bother to read all of the research we’ve laid out before they “question” it – nearly always making argumentum ad ignorantium, kill the messenger, and fail to understand simple logic, and basic English words like “classified”, “appeal” and “responsive” – even though these words are described and explained above – and yes, we did file an appeal. Of course he didn’t bother to read my article on this: https://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/, or study the citations in the database, before he emotionally screamed to stop flamming his hero. https://www.gnosticmedia.com/links/brain/
And half of these people, once they do bother to read things clearly and critically, realize that you can’t classify and appeal to a nothing that a search WOULD reveal. Common sense and critical thinking – not just questioning authority. You have to use the brain.
Those who properly “question authority” have the brains and intelligence to study and learn about what they’re questioning in the first place. It’s called putting grammar first.
You ignore that this guy you’re defending didn’t read the thing carefully and then turned and used an hominem attacks on me to make his case:
“So stop flaming Mckenna, who dwarfs your intellect as you’ve so weakly demonstrated with this trash of what you call “research.” Clearly this person is attacking ME and not my research – which he clearly hasn’t studied any of. And yet you think this is somehow questioning authority. Absurd. What points of my research has he questioned other than this one letter he clearly misunderstood? He has poisoned the well and attacked ALL of my research based on this one letter. How is that studying and questioning my research and not making up lies about things he’s never studied? It’s clearly his insecurities and New Age religious Zealotry he’s here to defend.
It’s always some ad hominem attack, some appeal to ridicule, kill the messenger, poison the well, etc – fallacies – from the Latin, fallare – to lie. And you think this guy’s questioning authority? Seriously? You may want to study the trivium yourself. He’s here to attack, not give intelligent, critical or constructive feedback – and used his lies in the process. He’s not here to think and properly question authority. He didn’t even bother to study the database or the article or anything else here on mind control and the trivium before he supposedly questioned with his fallacies – or lies, just as you came here to defend him. He know’s nothing about research, and if he knew anything about McKenna, he’d know, as Dr. Brian Akers showed, that he faked many of his citations. Did this flammer even read my article on Wasson and all of the primary research that I was the first in 55 years to dig up? Did he see all of the ties between the CIA and Esalen and Huxley, and McKenna’s major influences laid out in the database first that would have made clear to him that McKenna had to have been dirty – before he attacked. Of course not. That requires intelligence and critical thinking which his attack clearly lacks. And then here you are defending such actions…
Incredible, isn’t it?
I just wanted to know why your replies were coming from apparently a defensive place. Didn’t ,ean to inspire you to write a whole page or to offend you in any way. Peace and love my dear Jan.
I already answered you. I’ll make it simpler:
If you read the posts first, like the guy you’re defending, it would have been obvious just by reading it that these types come here and name call and don’t really address the work. I already quoted to you above how he attack me and my intellect and ALL of my research – of which he knows nothing about and clearly hasn’t studied. No one who’s actually read someone’s research ever makes such childish sweeping generalizations. And then guys like you come in and ask me why the VICTIM of such attacks is being “douchy” to all of the name calling and attacks!?!?! Can you believe it? It’s incredible, isn’t it?
It’s mind boggling that you don’t address him in the first place for his name calling and sweeping generalizations, but instead chime in with your own “douchy”. Maybe try to read the lies and name calling these people constantly use, and then you’ll understand the obvious without asking.
I note you have changed the emphatic leading statement to this piece. Thankfully you have realised your gross error that almost every poster has been trying to indicate to you despite your constant abuse of them. Yet even the present statement is incorrect: “a search would reveal a positive Agency affiliation”. What the letter actually says is “…“a search THAT would reveal a positive Agency affiliation”. That little word THAT makes all the difference to the meaning of the statement, doesn’t it; that is why you omitted it. It is admirable that you oursue the truth about the mind control clique you expose, but please don’t do so by fabricating your own data however enthusiatically you might arrive at it. You will give yourself and the trivium a bad name. Keep up the good work, Jan.
No, it wasn’t a gross error on my part. I just tired of all of the people who can’t read English. If it says “that” is irrelevant, as that still means it would reveal something. “A search that included a positive agency affiliation is still an affiliation. The only error was when I changed it in the title. If you read the notes throughout, a search that would and classified and appeal and responsive still mean the exact same things. Thanks for pointing out the over-site. Next time try it without your accusations since the matter is discussed thoroughly throughout.
People attacking Irvin as “obviously” un – hinged on private group.
Spent all day reading this thread and answering:
“no responsive letter” = in bureaucratize, means nothing they could give him.
“With respect to any other records” = some, beside which, are not “non – responsive” i.e. are responsive… Double Negative.
“the CIA can neither confirm or deny” = by law – (law which evidently says the question must be left open) – i.e. cannot say either way.
“The FACT of existent or non existent RECORDS ” = non – existent RECORD is a record. . .
IS CLASSIFIED.
is protected from disclosure.
Therefore, your request is DENIED pursuant to EXEMPTION
= pursuant to records existing. (though we can’t tell you that, by law)
” You have a right to appeal”
________
Jan claims other requests came back with a different answer : when there REALLY were no records?
Reminds me of some Social Service workers who tell you up front: “I can’t by law speak to you / i.e. give you any info” But then go ahead and do it…. after the disclaimer…
I would have to see the other letters – responses / “non – responses” to make a comparison and then judge..
He may appeal and then they will answer “We have nothing” ?
Why would they be afraid to say they have nothing, if they honestly had nothing … That’s the question.
Do other letters come back just saying “We have nothing”
Here’s the clincher: The exemption, number b(1) under which the request was denied:
“currently and properly classified” = gone to the trouble to classify.
That implies that it is “classified information” : the fact McKenna WAS NOT an agent or affiliated? How could that be? If that, in fact, is what you believe.
I don’t believe a non-affiliation would meet the criterion for “classified” Though the disclaimer is obligatory.
I’d have to see a spectrum of FOIA responses to judge it.
Also, If someone tells you “I can’t tell you” then goes ahead and tells you. .. Or “I never lie” then goes ahead and lies… the disclaimer is discardable. Silly to believe an authority, “just because” . Especially a spy agency; as I see it.
So you also couldn’t believe them if they claimed, outright, that he was an agent?
–
Explanation
of
Exemptions Freedom of Information Act:
(b)(l) exempts from disclosure information currently and properly classified, pursuant to an Executive Order
and
Executive Order:(b)(2)exempts from disclosure information which pertains solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Agency
Also, 2nd exemption is under “personnel rules” If he’s not a personnel , why would “personnel exemption” apply?
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation ”
This is also very tricky because…. they searched for an “openly acknowledged” affiliation… Naturally if he is working for them , it would not be “openly acknowledged?” [except between the parties?) so the fact they claim to have found nothing [able to be sent ] really does not show he did not work for them… And is not a denial.. No denial = affirmation? Naturally not, because forbidden.. lol .
Also the “processing” “included a search” means they searched under, at least one other criterion, presumably un-openly acknowledged affiliation…? Result of that is not addressed.
“Agency Release Panel” works under same administrator who denied request, Meeks – good luk with that.
This is a good point: No need to deny the request if they didn’t have any documents / info.
“My question is that if this is an openly acknowledged CIA affiliation, then why deny the request?”
Irvin has experience in what they usually turn over / what turns up.
This pretty much clinches it, for me :
Jan Irvin : “Yes, you are correct. I have a letter from another FOIA that I filed and they simply replied that they didn’t find anything.”
For one thing – you can’t make anyone believe anything… They have to find it for themselves.
Except for those, perhaps, who look to people of authority, to tell them what to think. And then obey the pronouncement from “on high [no pun. ]
But that is not the fault of the authority.. It’s everyone’s own responsibility; checking for one’s self.
Also what you are writing is just not true, “Skrambo Krabfeather” [“real” user name].[Said McKenna let everyone think for themselves and that Irvin was forcing a conclusion], McKenna thought everyone should take mushrooms and said so.
He said it would solve all the world’s problems..
[Oh, but that’s not telling people what to think… That is just TRUE. Right? lol ]
I heard him with my own ears, in his presence, and so did many others.
Wow. It’s really that upsetting? You have to imagine he’s someone he is not in order to feel…. what?
McKenna also denied the existence of “madness” “schizophrenia” ! So that people who became lost or sick or permanently institutionalized after their chemical [plant based or not] trips – well, that was just their ego which was at fault… If they just shifted their understanding, it would go away. Actually it’s just a rumor and doesn’t exist! Madness is a social construct! [according to McKenna – you can hear Terence expouse this opinion in the “Eros and Eschaton” podcast toward the end]
I met him on the Zippy tour… We had discussions in small groups at the Wetlands Music / Activism space… And he most decidedly said those things; I mentioned above
~ Everyone [in the world! ] should take mushrooms – most preferably in high doses [you were brave it you could ‘take it’ as he did ] And if everyone did that, the problems of the world would disappear.
He made fun of people who got into altered states “on the ‘natch” saying there was no comparision to what he, and others who did as he did, experienced.
So he DID tell people what to think. And not only that: What to do!
The part about Schizophrenia you can hear on his “Eschaton Eros” podcast… He also said there would be a singularity on 12 – 21 – 12 – Which was a huge buzz kill on 12 – 22 for those who believed him and acted upon that belief.
Seems to me T McKenna was more appealing in his message and came across less didactic since he told people what was pleasant – what they wanted to hear: “Take this medicine, and you will see what others don’t see , but should, [elitism] and you will reach the next destined stage of human development from the information you will gather from it. ”
“If everyone was a “head” , like you, the world would be a better place”… More appealing than “You’ve been hoaxed. ”
Very tempered [Irvin’s reaction to the weak challengers], compared with 9/11 truth researchers in a fight…
Best researchers, always most fiery… He’s finally laying into someone on Jan 8th… It took him several months , it seems , to lose his temper…
With researchers I was with – there would never be months of patience. Plus Irvin was villified “everywhere;” Always the sign of someone “onto something.” Why take the time or care to villify, if what the person says / writes is so “obviously’ bunk?
If it’s “obviously bunk” that speaks for itself and doesn’t need the re-enforcement of a group attack / group hate session.
The “he’s dead now , show the man respect” – doesn’t bother me, but I have more of a sense of humor… But that is pretty much off point. ..
Also, the best researchers are very unlikely to be the best teachers.. He can’t help it that people can’t or won’t get it. And he doesn’t understand why. So all he can say is “stupid”
But if you look at the arguments ; Irvin wins all the points.
The people against him really *are saying “I choose to believe it is untrue” [and that is their right – to believe as they wish] Key word is “believe” He knows something – from the evidence. And doesn’t understand why others don’t see it…Happens all the time…. as I have experienced.
[Don’t mean to spam, but somehow my comments didn’t turn up at the end of the line. If you moderate, can you delete the comment in the wrong location? )
People were today attacking Irvin as “obviously” un – hinged on private group.
Spent all day reading this thread and answering:
“no responsive letter” = in bureaucratize, means nothing they could give him.
“With respect to any other records” = some, beside which, are not “non – responsive” i.e. are responsive… Double Negative.
“the CIA can neither confirm or deny” = by law – (law which evidently says the question must be left open) – i.e. cannot say either way.
“The FACT of existent or non existent RECORDS ” = non – existent RECORD is a record. . .
IS CLASSIFIED.
is protected from disclosure.
Therefore, your request is DENIED pursuant to EXEMPTION
= pursuant to records existing. (though we can’t tell you that, by law)
” You have a right to appeal”
________
Jan claims other requests came back with a different answer : when there REALLY were no records?
Reminds me of some Social Service workers who tell you up front: “I can’t by law speak to you / i.e. give you any info” But then go ahead and do it…. after the disclaimer…
I would have to see the other letters – responses / “non – responses” to make a comparison and then judge..
He may appeal and then they will answer “We have nothing” ?
Why would they be afraid to say they have nothing, if they honestly had nothing … That’s the question.
Do other letters come back just saying “We have nothing”
Here’s the clincher: The exemption, number b(1) under which the request was denied:
“currently and properly classified” = gone to the trouble to classify.
That implies that it is “classified information” : the fact McKenna WAS NOT an agent or affiliated? How could that be? If that, in fact, is what you believe.
I don’t believe a non-affiliation would meet the criterion for “classified” Though the disclaimer is obligatory.
I’d have to see a spectrum of FOIA responses to judge it.
Also, If someone tells you “I can’t tell you” then goes ahead and tells you. .. Or “I never lie” then goes ahead and lies… the disclaimer is discardable. Silly to believe an authority, “just because” . Especially a spy agency; as I see it.
So you also couldn’t believe them if they claimed, outright, that he was an agent?
–
Explanation
of
Exemptions Freedom of Information Act:
(b)(l) exempts from disclosure information currently and properly classified, pursuant to an Executive Order
and
Executive Order:(b)(2)exempts from disclosure information which pertains solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the Agency
Also, 2nd exemption is under “personnel rules” If he’s not a personnel , why would “personnel exemption” apply?
“Our processing included a search for records that would reveal an openly acknowledged Agency affiliation ”
This is also very tricky because…. they searched for an “openly acknowledged” affiliation… Naturally if he is working for them , it would not be “openly acknowledged?” [except between the parties?) so the fact they claim to have found nothing [able to be sent ] really does not show he did not work for them… And is not a denial.. No denial = affirmation? Naturally not, because forbidden.. lol .
Also the “processing” “included a search” means they searched under, at least one other criterion, presumably un-openly acknowledged affiliation…? Result of that is not addressed.
“Agency Release Panel” works under same administrator who denied request, Meeks – good luk with that.
This is a good point: No need to deny the request if they didn’t have any documents / info.
“My question is that if this is an openly acknowledged CIA affiliation, then why deny the request?”
Irvin has experience in what they usually turn over / what turns up.
This pretty much clinches it, for me :
Jan Irvin : “Yes, you are correct. I have a letter from another FOIA that I filed and they simply replied that they didn’t find anything.”
For one thing – you can’t make anyone believe anything… They have to find it for themselves.
Except for those, perhaps, who look to people of authority, to tell them what to think. And then obey the pronouncement from “on high [no pun. ]
But that is not the fault of the authority.. It’s everyone’s own responsibility; checking for one’s self.
Also what you are writing is just not true, “Skrambo Krabfeather” [“real” user name].[Said McKenna let everyone think for themselves and that Irvin was forcing a conclusion], McKenna thought everyone should take mushrooms and said so.
He said it would solve all the world’s problems..
[Oh, but that’s not telling people what to think… That is just TRUE. Right? lol ]
I heard him with my own ears, in his presence, and so did many others.
Wow. It’s really that upsetting? You have to imagine he’s someone he is not in order to feel…. what?
McKenna also denied the existence of “madness” “schizophrenia” ! So that people who became lost or sick or permanently institutionalized after their chemical [plant based or not] trips – well, that was just their ego which was at fault… If they just shifted their understanding, it would go away. Actually it’s just a rumor and doesn’t exist! Madness is a social construct! [according to McKenna – you can hear Terence expouse this opinion in the “Eros and Eschaton” podcast toward the end]
I met him on the Zippy tour… We had discussions in small groups at the Wetlands Music / Activism space… And he most decidedly said those things; I mentioned above
~ Everyone [in the world! ] should take mushrooms – most preferably in high doses [you were brave it you could ‘take it’ as he did ] And if everyone did that, the problems of the world would disappear.
He made fun of people who got into altered states “on the ‘natch” saying there was no comparision to what he, and others who did as he did, experienced.
So he DID tell people what to think. And not only that: What to do!
The part about Schizophrenia you can hear on his “Eschaton Eros” podcast… He also said there would be a singularity on 12 – 21 – 12 – Which was a huge buzz kill on 12 – 22 for those who believed him and acted upon that belief.
Seems to me T McKenna was more appealing in his message and came across less didactic since he told people what was pleasant – what they wanted to hear: “Take this medicine, and you will see what others don’t see , but should, [elitism] and you will reach the next destined stage of human development from the information you will gather from it. ”
“If everyone was a “head” , like you, the world would be a better place”… More appealing than “You’ve been hoaxed. ”
Very tempered [Irvin’s reaction to the weak challengers], compared with 9/11 truth researchers in a fight…
Best researchers, always most fiery… He’s finally laying into someone on Jan 8th… It took him several months , it seems , to lose his temper…
With researchers I was with – there would never be months of patience. Plus Irvin was villified “everywhere;” Always the sign of someone “onto something.” Why take the time or care to villify, if what the person says / writes is so “obviously’ bunk?
If it’s “obviously bunk” that speaks for itself and doesn’t need the re-enforcement of a group attack / group hate session.
The “he’s dead now , show the man respect” – doesn’t bother me, but I have more of a sense of humor… But that is pretty much off point. ..
Also, the best researchers are very unlikely to be the best teachers.. He can’t help it that people can’t or won’t get it. And he doesn’t understand why. So all he can say is “stupid”
But if you look at the arguments ; Irvin wins all the points.
The people against him really *are saying “I choose to believe it is untrue” [and that is their right – to believe as they wish] Key word is “believe” He knows something – from the evidence. And doesn’t understand why others don’t see it…Happens all the time…. as I have experienced.
It’s reasonable, even logical to suppose that an agency with subagencies which is itself a subagency of subagencies of secret agencies with as-yet ‘unlimited’ resources might have just about everybody on its payroll, directly or indirectly.
I mean the amount of people who refuse a government ‘consultant’ gig must be only slightly larger than the amount of intelligent people who, realising that wars abroad are for the benefit of Big Oil and that their automobile addiction funds and benefits from such wars, immediately sell their car and become a bus driver or pedestrian. Or even research, promote and invest alternative means of personal and/or community transport.
I’d say Terence had a car. Therefore HE’S A TOOL OF MKULTRA.
And you know what, I’m not even being facetious.
It’s reasonable, even logical to suppose that an agency with subagencies which is itself a subagency of subagencies of secret agencies with as-yet ‘unlimited’ resources might have just about everybody on its payroll, directly or indirectly.
I mean the amount of people who refuse a government ‘consultant’ gig must be only slightly larger than the amount of intelligent people who, realising that wars abroad are for the benefit of Big Oil and that their automobile addiction funds and benefits from such wars, immediately sell their car and become a bus driver or pedestrian. Or even research, promote and invest in alternative means of personal and/or community transport.
I’d say Terence had a car. Therefore HE’S A TOOL OF MKULTRA.
And you know what, I’m not even being facetious.