Interpol Our Love To Admire Full Album Torrent

Explore kolliastabbil's board 'kolliastabbil' on Pinterest.

People who are loaded behind that kind of thing don’t do anything. This heavy kind of insistence everyplace you go with all the media about “Wow, look at the colors, look at the lights, look at the strobe things blinking! Man, you can really find a trip if you get loaded behind this stuff.” There’s a lot of that kind of thing insisting that we become aware of it, that we become sensitive to it. And a lot of the young people are sensitive to it, and they become curious about it.

So they say “Which of it is bad?”, and I say “Man, all of it’s bad”. [] “I’m just going to get wiped out and I’m going to stay wiped out baby, and nothing’s going to get through to me.” ~ Vito Paulekas The following video clip of Vito’s freak dancers shows that their dancing obviously led people into LSD use, a fact that he could not have been unaware of. “Vito’s Freak Dancers” Vito made sure that his freak dancers attended the shows of the fledgling rock idols to assist the LSD promoting bands of Laurel Canyon to become as popular as the Beatles.

Vito was in his fifties, but he had four-way sex with goddesses He held these clay-sculpting classes on Laurel Avenue, teaching rich Beverly Hills dowagers how to sculpt. And that was the Byrds’ rehearsal room.

Then Jim Dickson had the idea to put them on at Ciro’s, on the basis that all the freaks would show up and the Byrds would be their Beatles. ~ Kim Fowley • 3. Music Idols Bernays wrote: “Human beings need to have godhead symbols, and public relations counsels must help to create them.” Bernays saw his idol-making as vital to the salvation of society: “We have no being in the air to watch over us. We must watch over ourselves, and that is where public relations counselors can prove their effectiveness, by making the public believe that human gods are watching over us for our own benefit.” These human gods, created by astute public relations, would keep order by giving their followers reasons to live and goals to accomplish. Bernays manufactured the public's adoration of Enrico Caruso, who is often called the first American pop star. Bernays wrote: “The overwhelming majority of the people who reacted so spontaneously to Caruso had never heard him before.” “The public's ability to create its own heroes from wisps of impressions and its own imagination and to build them almost into flesh-and-blood gods fascinated me.

Of course, I knew the ancient Greeks and other early civilized peoples had done this. But now it was happening before my eyes in contemporary America.” In his 1980 interview in Playboy magazine John Lennon also claimed that the military and the CIA created LSD, though this did not stop him from encouraging its use: We must always remember to thank the CIA and the Army for LSD. That's what people forget.

Everything is the opposite of what it is, isn't it, Harry? So get out the bottle, boy -- and relax.

They invented LSD to control people and what they did was give us freedom. In light of the discovery that the CIA funded Gordon Wasson’s trip to Mexico, Lennon’s comments begs the question as to how he came to his understanding about the CIA popularizing LSD, and raises additional questions about his assassination. The research of David McGowan has shown that the connections between military intelligence and the music idols that promoted drug use to America’s youth were too numerous to have been accidental. Among the many examples, Frank Zappa was the son of a specialist in chemical warfare.

Jim Morrison’s father was Admiral Morrison, the same Admiral Morrison who oversaw the false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident that launched the Vietnam War that was genocide against the Vietnamese, and killed tens of thousands of American boys. Other rock idols with direct connections to the military included the Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, the Mamas and the Papas, the Grateful Dead and the Police. The father of Police band member Stewart Copeland was the founder of the Office of Strategic Service (OSS), the precursor to the CIA, and he also co-founded the CIA. Ian Copeland, Stewart’s brother, went on to start the “New Wave” music movement, promoting bands such as his brother’s The Police, and also Squeeze, B-52s, The Cure, Simple Minds, The English Beat, and The Go-Go’s. David McGowan also pointed out that Ian Copeland deliberately associated government power with the pop music counterculture by the names he gave his organizations: “I.R.S.

Records,” the band “The Police,” and his “F.B.I.” talent agency. We would note that this is just a small part of McGowan’s research and hope that our readers study his work. Many of the so-called leaders and pioneers of psychedelic research became media idols: Gordon Wasson, Terence McKenna, and Timothy Leary have been virtually worshipped as gurus or gods. It is of note that two professors: one who taught at Harvard and wishes to remain anonymous, and Prof. Bart Dean who studied there, have informed Irvin that, aside from the Wasson library, there is actually a chapel at Harvard dedicated to Wasson worship. Ironically, as this article was being written, a new book of this genre was being published: Albert Hofmann: LSD and the Divine Scientist. Though like many of those associated with the origins of the psychedelic movement, Albert Hofmann is called “divine,” evidence has come to light which exposes him as both a CIA and French Intelligence operative.

Hofmann helped the agency dose the French village Pont Saint Esprit with LSD. As a result five people died and Hofmann helped to cover up the crime. The LSD event at Pont Saint Esprit led to the famous murder of Frank Olson by the CIA because he had threatened to go public. It was the exposure of Olson’s murder and his involvement with the MK-ULTRA program that caused the national uproar leading to the Church Commission.

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

[15] Around 1962, Hunter was an early volunteer test subject (along with Ken Kesey) for psychedelic chemicals at Stanford University's research covertly sponsored by the CIA in their MK-ULTRA program. [McNally 42] He was paid to take LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline and report on his experiences, which were creatively formative for him: 'Sit back picture yourself swooping up a shell of purple with foam crests of crystal drops soft nigh they fall unto the sea of morning creep-very-softly mist.and then sort of cascade tinkley-bell like (must I take you by the hand, every so slowly type) and then conglomerate suddenly into a peal of silver vibrant uncomprehendingly, blood singingly, joyously resoundingbells.By my faith if this be insanity, then for the love of God permit me to remain insane.' [McNally 42-43].

[24] Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Wasson Archives, Harvard Botanical Museum. Foreign Affairs (CFR) letterhead, dated November 10, 1950. 'Dear Gordon: I have written these Century members to say that you and I are proposing George Kennan for membership: Boris A. Bakhmeteff, Charles C. Burlingham, Allen Dulles, General Dwight D.

Eisenhower, Philip C. Jessup, Geroid Tanquary Robinson, William L. Shirer, Dean G. Acheson, James B. Conant, Edward Mead Earle, Herbert B.

Elliston, Joseph C. Grew, William L. Langer, Robert A. In addition George gave me some other names: Imrie de Vegh, John Foster Dulles, Thomas S. Lamont, Russell C.

Leffingwell, Vannevar Bush, Everett Case []. [48] Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Wasson Archives, Harvard Botanical Museum.

Foreign Affairs (CFR) letterhead, dated November 10, 1950. 'Dear Gordon: I have written these Century members to say that you and I are proposing George Kennan for membership: Boris A. Bakhmeteff, Charles C. Burlingham, Allen Dulles, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Philip C.

Jessup, Geroid Tanquary Robinson, William L. Shirer, Dean G.

Acheson, James B. Conant, Edward Mead Earle, Herbert B. Elliston, Joseph C. Grew, William L.

Langer, Robert A. In addition George gave me some other names: Imrie de Vegh, John Foster Dulles, Thomas S. Lamont, Russell C.

Leffingwell, Vannevar Bush, Everett Case []. [62] Colin Ross, The C.I.A. Doctors, Manitou Communications, Inc., 2006, pp.

ISBN: 0-9765508-0-6. Colin Ross states: 'The 1961 Annual Report of the Human Ecology Foundation lists John C.

Whitehorn, Professor and Director, Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins University as a Director. John Clare Whitehorn was born on December 6, 1894 in Spencer, Nebraska. He was Henry Phipps Professor of Psychiatry and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Johns Hopkins from 1941 to 1960.

Whitehorn corresponded extensively with the Scottish Rite Research Committee and received research grants from them, as did MKULTRA and MKSEARCH contractor, Dr. Carl Pfeiffer.'

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

It’s strange that he revealed some good information but doesn’t seem to want to take it to its more logical conclusions. For example, his Terrible Mistake book cites high level CIA MK-Ultra scientist John Gittinger as stating in a legal deposition that he and two other MK-Ultra scientists were at several early Acid Tests.

This and much more evidence I present would strongly suggest that these Acid Tests were part of MK-Ultra operations. Yet, in my talking to him about some of this information he strangely didn’t want to concede that MK-Ultra started using acid operationally to divert/dumb down activist youth in the Sixties and beyond. Books such as Martin Lee’s Acid Dreams and much more evidence supports this. Nonetheless, it’d be good to talk more about this sometime. Interesting article so far. I have’t had time to finish it yet though.

I recently published a book with a similar theme–Drugs as Weapons Against Us: The CIA’s Murderous Targeting of SDS, Panthers, Hendrix, Lennon, Cobain, Tupac and other Activists. It has much on MK-Ultra.

It also has several chapters on/related to the Grateful Dead as being used by the CIA’s MK-Ultra to promote acid to youth. It has over 1600 endnotes and MK-Ultra is the framework for much of the book. It was published by Trine Day in May 2015.

I could possibly agree with this, though I didn’t know if I had enough evidence to go that far at the time. Kris and his editor seem to really mean well, but Kris has been a big Grateful Dead fan, so I don’t think he wanted me going that far.

His Afterword in my book shows that he allowed me to be very negative about acid, but he disagreed with me. Still, I respect his editor’s very light hand, even though he curbed me a bit away from the statement you made. See my evidence in various parts of my book that supports your statement. On Lennon, I show the evidence that yes, like most of the musicians I highlight in my book (except Paul Robeson) they were manipulated to popularize drugs, but when they threatened to popularize sobriety and got more into activism, they were done away with by U.S/British Intelligence. While each musician I highlight in my subtitle had completely different life paths, they did generally fit this pattern. I guess you could say the degree of CIA/MI6 success of manipulating them to popularize drugs equates somewhat with their longevity. This is very good work.

My only disagreement is with the following: “The Invisible Landscape, which is essentially an attack on thought, an attempt to get the youth of America to believe there is no truth, also talks about using psychedelics and ending critical thinking to bring about the apocalypse: Achievement of the zero state can be imagined to arrive in one of two forms. One is the dissolution of the cosmos in an actual cessation and unraveling of natural laws, a literal apocalypse.

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

The other citation is: “the dream of a union of spirit and matter. The appearance in normal space-time of hyper-dimensional body, obedient to a simultaneously transformed and resurrected human will, and able to plumb the obligations and opportunities inherent in this unique juncture in energy’s long struggle for self-liberation, may be apocalypse enough.” – This has the mystical jargon you are averse to, but I don’t think it supports your argument as well. Other than that, great work. Isn’t that what the intellectually bankrupt always do? To attack the researcher rather than any of the facts or citations of the research itself? To put our own beliefs of the situation in front of the facts, in order to cloud them? If you could show how the citations are wrong, and therefore “comedy”, it would be helpful.

Saying something’s wrong because “hahaha”, or “paranoid” is not an intelligent argument. Intelligent people understand that they must simply focus on the argument itself, rather than name calling and attacking the researcher like a small child name calling on the playground. The research and citations are presented, and each one is there for you to study and verify one by one and show us how they’re comedy in the face of your sacred cows. It has been said that great minds debate ideas. Mediocre minds talk about events. Small minds attack people.

Which are you? Did you read the article and citations BEFORE you made your attack? That will give you your answer. It sounds like you’ve only gone from one extreme to another And when you lead yourself around with fallacies and name calling, it’s no wonder. I pity those who can’t read things and study them before they reach conclusions and name call – the very victims which this article identifies. Have you ever studied the Stockholm Syndrome? Hi Jan, apologies if that seemed rude but this is just ludicrous to me.

I have read the article and the citations, and like much of your recent work, it seems you may be exaggerating the meaning of certain connections you findwho knows, there is a tiny chance you are right, however in that case I would say their plan backfired as the healthy influence of these ‘evil cultural influences’ you are describing is obvious to me and my community. I grew up in these ‘rave’ and ‘deadhead’ cultures and the creativity, health, and balanced lifestyles that most members of these communities demonstrate is undeniable from my personal experience. I will agree that woodstock was a shit show and that indeed, lurking around these cultures is some darkness (ie, media and predatory individuals), but I think their basic function is one of goodness. I am just not seeing the support for the allegations you are making, and your conclusions do not line up with my experience of my friends and family. They are way more interesting than the average american.

Maybe we disagree because personally, I think feminism, wild dancing, sexual attitude liberation, and integration are good things and while some hippies were troublemakers and bums, they would have been that way without the influence of alternative cultures. I’m not sure why I still read your blog after the past year or so, but I think it is because you have an interesting analytical perspective and I do appreciate your attempts to back up your ideas with evidence, but as a professional trained in evidentiary matters, I just don’t think you are making a strong case by any means. I’d hope you would apply your skills more objectively as you have in the past.

I do generally appreciate your work and hope you have a great summer. I absolutely agree, I think it’s incredibly paranoid to go down that line of reasoning, and I’m starting to doubt Jan’s understanding of other things given the incredible misunderstanding this article presents. I thought Jan understood psychedelics, nothing I had heard up to this point suggested otherwise. Now let me address some basic points that seem paranoid and completely unfounded. First of all, psychedelics are a completely unique class of chemically-induced experiences, if you don’t have a good understanding of the sociobiology of different classes of drugs you certainly can’t write an article like this without getting some thing critically wrong. Read ‘Prometheus Rising’ by Robert Anton Wilson (available free online) if you want to understand the sociobiology of drug classes. Psychedelics, when used properly, are psychotherapeutic and intellectual tools linked with amazing personality-change feats such as effective treatment of alcoholism (the worst drug-induced disease poor if not deliberate social engineering has created), increased propensity towards self-reflection and critical thinking, and at least two Nobel prize winning scientists (Francis Crick and Kary Mullis) have been inspired by psychedelics (both LSD).

Psychedelics often de-condition people from unhealthy culturally programmed reality tunnels and re-empower the individual to understand themselves as someone who can gain their own life meaning separate from the social hive which only feeds classism and serfism. There is ample literature concerning the health and intellectual/insightful benefits of the use of psychedelics, to suggest otherwise is completely unscientific. Psychedelic experiences inspired the computer technology and internet revolution, and of course Steve Jobs said that taking LSD was one of the most meaningful experiences of his life in shaping innovative values that weren’t solely focused on profitability.

In my opinion psychedelic culture presents (along with the internet) the greatest chance of humans surviving and evolving via the metaphysical realization (one arrives at with high doses of psychedelics) that we are all fundamentally connected (consciousness) metaphysically speaking. This changes our interaction style from a competitive (fear-based) to a collaborative (more love-based) interaction style. Terence McKenna was a great intellectual, he might have gotten the timewave zero theory wrong, but his ideas about an archaic revival are about a rejuvenation of values centered around compassion and balance with the environment. McKenna was interested in empowering people as individuals to wake up to the bullshit being peddled by the materialist culture through excessive brainwashing at the expense of human dignity and intelligence. He was at the forefront of innovative thought when it comes to cybernetics and thinking intelligently about serious social problems, as well as highlighting the political corruption that has and still is occurring. He was effectively an activist for human rights and the exploration of the greater potential of humans. I think this article takes some things way out of context, Terence was completely against dark-ages sensibilities and saw the march towards greater restrictions on freedom as an inquisitional force that is an incredibly disturbing tendency.

In short, from a sociobiological perspective, psychedelics, when used correctly, will only create a smarter, more peaceful and intelligent society that celebrates all humans as equal in this circumstance we call life. They are pro-evolutionary agents. Yes, psychedelics, when abused, can programme new realities that may be detrimental in some way, this is the dark side of them, but without a dark influence (set and setting), they are generally liberating. Once again, if you want to understand all of this, read Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson. And just in case my point didn’t get through, there’s a random psilocybin mushroom experience report that just might: I know of many social activists that have been inspired by psychedelics to be more productive and innovative, not to mention fearless in their pursuit of human rights and intellectual freedom.

BTW, it is my understanding that MK ULTRA tried to use LSD as a truth drug, but found it to be ineffective, and ‘turn on, tune in, drop out,’ has nothing to do with anything other than rejecting the disempowering values of social conformity. BTW I apologize to Jan if it was mostly Joe Atwill suggesting that psychedelics had a detrimental effect. Aldous Huxley was also a brilliant intellectual who contributed so much to our understanding of both the corruption of government power and the nature of consciousness. Him and his wife, in my understanding, were brilliant people, I can’t speak of the rest of the family but those two seemed rather enlightened and Huxley is one of the most valuable intellectuals to read a book. If you want an interpretation for understanding the idea from Huxley that drugs would be used to control – you need go no further than television (the effects of a hypnotic drug as Terence McKenna said), alcohol (dumbing people down and keeping them in emotional and territorial states of consciousness, and psychoactive pharmaceuticals prescribed by doctors – allowing people to be content with degraded conditions of employment and the general disempowerment. Yeah, thanks, Cameron it seems you ignore that he was a Fabian Socialist, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and designed most of the programs he warned about maybe you should study all of the details of Aldous that we’ve already laid out in videos and other articles here there’s always someone to rush in to defend their heroes. Ignore all the evidence because you have all the answers It’s the old zealot mentality of the religious fanatic “don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind”.

It’s funny to watch how much cognitive dissonance this information has caused in you. You’re allowing your emotions to entirely control you, rather than simply studying the work and looking up the citations – rather than ignoring them right in your face. Blah blah – repeat unfounded shit that you heard somewhere else and have never bothered to study yourself. Ignore every detail that contradicts your beliefs and then just make up what feels the best to you and your religion. I get where you’re coming from, as I tried to hold on like you, but eventually you’ll have to learn to remove the fallacies and wishful thinking from your thoughts so that you’re not controlled by them and just look up the citations for once. Truth is there for you to find, no matter how often the charlatans tell you it doesn’t exist.

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

Liberation through the use of entheogens means utilizing your experiences in a pragmatic way – in your life, in your family’s life, and via social change. Many people who get consumed by drug culture do none of these things – no one here, I am sure, is debating the positive influence that these historically sacred substances CAN have. But there is surely a dark side, I speak from experience, and any substance that SHOULD be used for safe and personal intellectual growth that begins to have its own culture built up around it with the connections that Jan is RESEARCHING (not simply giving you ‘his understanding of things’ based on one book and a single random drug experience as you have done) should be questioned deeply, just like any other major social change. I think you miss the meaning of the Deadhead, in ways it holds different meanings for different people, at it’s most basic it’s just a symbol of fans of the Grateful Dead, and for allot of people it’s a symbol of rejecting the establishment altogether and being “dead to the world”. That “world” that’s being rejected could mean different things to different people.

I know for some it’s the world of; consumerism, pop-CULTure, a corrupt establishment and government, a society bent on keeping us all cogs in the machine. So to say the Deadhead is “debasing” or “an equivocation for a “dead mind” or “a drugged, thoughtless person.”” is a little off depending on who you ask.

Basically you made a generalization that isn’t universally true. Also your attacks on illicit drugs in general is a little harsh. We have an establishment that pushes pharmaceutical drugs on 70 Million Americans.

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

I’ve had experiences with psilocybin mushrooms, they’ve have had a real positive effect on how I felt for a long time afterword. And there was no urge to do them all the time to the point of not being able to function. I’ve heard firsthand accounts of people having similar experiences with MDMA. The important thing is to understand with these substances, as with virtually all substances, is moderation and context or setting of use. Not being a big fan of our CULTure, both mainstream, and in many cases counter-CULTure, I get where you’re coming from.

I don’t like our CULTure of debasing, hyper-sexualization, consumerism, the whole CULT of self worship, idol worship, hedonism, none of it. Still I really feel some amount of throwing the baby out with the bathwater is going on in this article. If a person were suffering from depression, or personal tragedies, whatever it is, and is given the option between a life time of antidepressants from their doctor, or maybe 3-4 mushroom trips a year to treat it. It’s hard not to see how the mushroom trips would be far more preferable from a multitude of angles. That’s not to say you could just take mushrooms and heal yourself, but they could be an integral part of healing.

Even from a real Christian standpoint, Jesus made wine for his disciples, he could have just made the water potable, but he had them drinking wine to help them not be bothered by their troubles. Now whether or not you believe in Jesus, or anything else, it’s easy enough to see how their isn’t even a legitimate religious argument against using substances that our establishment has deemed forbidden, as long as it’s used responsibly. Further, given the choice between becoming a “Deadhead” and actively rejecting our system finding ways to thrive without it, or playing things out jumping through hoops hoping to make it to middle management or better, while rapidly approaching a Brave New Orwellian Distopia (where we haven’t already reached it), with “Singularity” on the horizon, I’d chose “Deadhead” every time. HI, thanks for your feedback. We totally understand where you’re coming from and have experienced the same cognitive dissonance as you. We’re very well familiar with MAPS and their studies and their agenda to get the government handing out these substances – like Eleusis.

There’s a major campaign going on right now to remarket all of the mind control substances as spiritual, etc. While there may be some benefit, have no doubt that the very same schools that were involved in the CIA’s programs, such as Johns Hopkins, and UCLA, are leading these very studies today. Please study through all of the research and facts that we’ve presented. Focus on the facts, rather than what you think you know through their own media. Study the database, listen to our 30 or so shows on mind control where your exact points are covered, and you’ll begin to see the larger picture. There seems to be a giant explanatory hole in this version of events, – there is not even one sentence about the actual (psychological/internal) effects of LSD and mushrooms, and how that links in to the whole conspiracy; – ie how does this conspiracy account for the fact that people commonly experience spiritually uplifting and positively life-transforming/healing experiences on LSD/mushrooms/ayahuasca etc?

For example, where you say: “We must consider: Does the predator think that these substances are tools for spiritual awakening, or for the control of others? What the reader may believe is not necessarily the whole truth.” This seems to directly ignore the vast weight of evidence we have about what the psychedelic ‘tools’ actually do to people who take them. Erowid has thousands of LSD and mushroom trip reports, and they give a pretty clear indication of the effects of these drugs, and it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with being able to mind-control other people, so how does your theory explain this? The CIA didn’t invent mushrooms or LSD, and they weren’t able to change the way these drugs effect people.

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

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

This is irrelevant to their use for dumbing people down and misleading them, as is clearly explained. Furthermore, if you study the trivium, you’ll realize that they don’t wake people up As is explained, withoutsomething like the trivium hippies are very easily controlled because they lead themselves around with fallacious positive thinking, killing the messenger, and don’t verify facts right in front of them that they deem “negative”. But don’t quote a sentence just after the one previous that addressed your very statements: The authors should be clear that we do not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control.

Like a knife may be used to cut your food, it can also be used to kill. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don’t use them for spiritual purposes. We also recommend they not be used without a prior thorough study of something such as the trivium method, so that people aren’t misled by those with ill intentions into a New Dark Age.

We must consider: Does the predator think that these substances are tools for spiritual awakening, or for the control of others? What the reader may believe is not necessarily the whole truth. But would you show where we claimed that the CIA invented mushrooms? That’s completed horseshit and we never said any such thing. I would appreciate you sticking to the facts of what was WRITTEN and not make up bullshit statements that were never said.

If you’re not capable of reading the entire article, then maybe it would be better not to comment. We addressed this asburd and unverified regurgitation of “blowback” in the article. People repeat this ridiculous nonsense over and over without ever even considering to question if it’s true – as the citations above prove it’s not, had you read them. Try to read the article and citations and put your beliefs aside for a second and think, not with fallacies, but with facts.

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

Aldous Huxley predicted that drugs would one day become a humane alternative to “flogging” for rulers wishing to control “recalcitrant subjects.” He wrote in a letter to his former student George Orwell in 1949: But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects. Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.

[emphasis added] [10] ~ Aldous Huxley Decades later, one of the CIA’s own MK-ULTRA researchers, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, while citing Huxley had this to say on the matter: The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or “no knock” entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations.

But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways.

To a large extent the numerous rural and urban communes, which provide a great freedom for private drug use and where hallucinogens are widely used today, are actually subsidized by our society. Their perpetuation is aided by parental or other family remittances, welfare, and unemployment payments, and benign neglect by the police. In fact, it may be more convenient and perhaps even more economical to keep the growing numbers of chronic drug users (especially of the hallucinogens) fairly isolated and also out of the labor market, with its millions of unemployed. To society, the communards with their hallucinogenic drugs are probably less bothersome-and less expensive-if they are living apart, than if they are engaging in alternative modesof expressing their alienation, such as active, organized, vigorous political protest and dissent.

[] The hallucinogens presently comprise a moderate but significant portion of the total drug problem in Western society. The foregoing may provide a certain frame of reference against which not only the social but also the clinical problems created by these drugs can be considered.[11] ~ Louis Jolyon West Next time please think and read and study before commenting and wasting our time. You’ve clearly never even considered to question this thought that you were fed – that’s entirely unsupported by anything but fantasy. “You seem to have ignored the quote in a sentence just above And the CIA was certainly involved with the invention of LSD.

It’s absurd to think they invented mushrooms, which grow from the ground. That’s just stupid that you’d suggest such a thing.” John Richards neither thinks nor suggests, even for a moment, that mushrooms were ‘invented’. Sometimes, Jan Irvin, you’re as mean as a junkyard dog with people when it is often you who is wrong on many points.

It is so painful to see you do this when we all really only come here for good info., and yes perhaps even something friendly in this painful world. Please, Jan, stop this gratuitous hurting of people like this. You place all of the focus on positive thinking ‘hippies’ using psychedelics, as if hippies are the only people who use psychedelics. But what about the many regular people, like you or I, who use psychedelic drugs to experience the trippy state of consciousness? It is abundantly clear from the thousands of trip reports on erowid for example, that when ordinary people like us take psychedelics, we experience powerful altered states of consciousness. But you do not mention the altered states anywhere in your theory.

How does your theory account for the psychedelic state of consciousness? Even if we do accept your implicit suggestion that everyone who uses psychedelic drugs is a positive thinking ‘hippie’, what reason is there to think that it is the drugs themselves that are the cause of their positive thinking and logical fallacies? Psychedelic drugs never made me think positively in particular, so what reason do you have for asserting that psychedelics have anything to do with positive thinking? Please don’t get me wrong Jan, I only discovered your theories a few months ago, I am merely applying some critical thinking to your theories to try to ascertain how accurate your version of events is likely to be. What I am mainly pointing out, is your complete failure to address the subject of the psychedelic ‘trip’ experience, what it is and what effect it has on people in the real world.

There is abundant evidence of the effects of psychedelic drugs, for example on erowid, which reveals that these drugs typically cause powerful, intense alterations of consciousness. You do not ever address this point, or try to explain how the psychedelic altered state of consciousness fits into your theory. I suspect that if you would look into this issue and address it, you would realise the reason why MK-ultra failed and was abandoned. You have provided no substantiation to your claim that MK ultra is still going on today, which is a major part of your whole theory. – HOW exactly does the psychedelic experience relate to mind control? What is abundantly clear is the evidence and people have been conditioned to see them as spiritual, rather than biological tools. If you have some questions about my citations, and how they don’t add up to the conclusions, vs.

Your sacred cows, then simply provide them. Referring to a bunch of Christian fanatics who speak in tongues, for instance, is no justification of the religion’s veracity. You have to think relative to the information provided and not your religious biases. If you study the many posts on this website already provided, you won’t make me waste my time regurgitating things that are already covered in depth, such as the trivium method already cited to you. But the psychedelic state is not something that’s proved. It’s something that people experience, and if you read the researchers own works, they don’t actually believe it is spiritual, such as West’s quote already provided to you.

What you think is spiritual, they see as putting you in a dream state to control you, one of which you’ve never before questioned, and hence your inability to deal with the citations in this article, instead reffering to irrelevant information that’s already covered and discussed here in this very paper. Just because you’re hallucinating that you’re god, doesn’t necessarily mean you are I’ve done psychedelics well over a 1000 times, and I thought like you for many years but one day I decided to look at the facts and citations and put my religious beliefs aside. You should try it and study that trivium and get those fallacies out of your thoughts too. But what you’re applying is not critical thinking. What you’re doing is putting your preconceived conclusions before the research in your face.

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

BTW, you do realize that there are over 50 interviews with leading psychedelic experts here on this site? Jan Irvin, in addition to again bringing your attention to the Fluoride embedded link, which I suggest updating, I also have a question for you – why do you think Timothy Leary was arrested, and subject to other negative treatment, in light of the information you have presented? Also, you have expressed your displeasure over “the mystical” – which I can empathize with given the definition of it that you use. I have used the term “Gnostic” because that is associated with what I feel that pursuit is, although in spite of the fact I have some dispositional affinities to Gnosticism, I do not bind myself to that, or any, belief structure. I have, however, involved myself in “esoteric religious” pursuits for a few years (primarily a combination of choiceless awareness, intuition, and a few metaphors that helped me work through my process – in addition to the trivium method, which helped me to sort through external information).

I used this stuff to cure myself of severe psychological traumas and recover from a serious crisis. Now, internally, there is a much greater freedom than I could have previously envisioned. However, this has nothing to do with New Age delusions and avoidance of internal and external problems. If we were to describe it – the best description might be “a regime of psychological purification.” Rather than avoiding problems, we directly confront them, so as to fundamentally solve them. This has for a while been my primary focus – to fundamentally solve problems, internally and externally.

You have a friend, Bernhard Guenther, who brings up many points of interest, but who I feel lets himself get caught up in some beliefs that have not been validated with the rigor necessary to embrace them. Nevertheless, he has given an excerpt from a text that (though it might have problems elsewhere, I have not read it yet, nevertheless) lucidly summarizes this – a psychological process that might open one up to greater internal strength and freedom: In the comments section to the Ehrenreich interview, I wrote, “It seems that there might be actual spiritual power that comes from going through what is, rather than living in a delusional periphery.” Whether this psychological power translates into other forms of power is something that remains to be discovered. That’s a really good question regarding Leary.

He might have been like Lennon and turned. Robert Forte and i have discussed it often. He knew Leary well and I went to Leary’s house once and met him a couple times.

There’s too much to show that he was dirty, and he even wrote the entrance exams for the CIA. Mystic is to mystify, where as gnostic is from gnosis, to know, and are juxtaposed/opposite meanings.

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

That only the trivium and quadrivium themselves should be provided for any such discovery. All of these guys have there agendas, whether they turned at some point in the game or not. But when Lennon comes out and says that he’s no longer going to do construction or what ever it was he said, implying some link to Masonry, and then a month or so later he’s killed, and we see him begin to expose the population myth and all, well, it leads to the conclusion, in my opinion, that they had to take him out. He had far too much power and was ready to expose them. He switched teams. It may be a case where Leary just got really high off his ego trip of being a guru and went off the deep end for a while. They had to get their boy back under control, which he in fact agreed to.

““It seems that there might be actual spiritual power that comes from going through what is, rather than living in a delusional periphery.” Whether this psychological power translates into other forms of power is something that remains to be discovered.” This is well said. I forgot to comment. When you look at the symbol of the trivium, what you see there is the 3, the grammar, logic, rhetoric. When religions usurp the power of the trivium method into the classical trivium, truth in the middle gets replaced by god, or Dues. Then around the edges, rather than grammar, logic, rhetoric, you get the trinity: the father, son, and the holy ghost, etc. So by rediscovering truth and placing it back into the center of the trinity, you rediscover the trivium and certainty with yourself and reality and the totality of being, and the layers of occultation are thrown to the wind as the trickery they are.

Truth always belongs in the center. That’s why there’s so much effort to sell this idea that there is no truth, that truth is arbitrary; because it behooves the frauds and hucksters of the world for you to believe that. And those who don’t think they have predators are left to be fools and ignorami of their own making. First of all regarding integration – this is a really touchy subject, I agree, but the leaders of these movements really have envisioned it as an instrument in debasing society.

This goal was expressed by the Freemason Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan-Europe movement, which led to the EU. He stated that, “The man of the distant future will be a mongrel. The races and castes of today will fall victim to the conquest of space, time and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, outwardly similar to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” There are some quotes from the text not given in the original link of excerpts I got that from, where he stated that Jews, who he referred to as the “spiritual nobility of Europe”, would keep their “racial traits”, while the others would loose theirs – that “From the European quantity-people, who only belief [sic] in numbers, the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and Jewry. In both of these heterogenic merited races lies the core of the European nobility of the future” (follow the links in the second comment for more citations – more info is here: ) – the original link is here: For what follows, I would like to request that you read all of what is provided below before making a statement about it, as later items make sense of previous items.

You have requested the same of your readers – it is a very good practice to not make judgements before actually having absorbed the information being given – to not jump to conclusions, etc.: I agree with you that religions usurp and invert the spiritual impulse in human beings. Personal experience has informed me that there may be something more – though this has nothing to do with what I feel is a psychological projection of the domineering impulse that is presented as the “God” of the various religions. Also – again these are touchy issues – with regards to the psychedelic movement being fraudulent, well, much of “respectable” culture is averse to it, though a duped subculture is enamored of it. This “respectable” culture doesn’t, however, mind criticisms of the psychedelic culture as much as it does criticisms of its other sacred cows. So, my comment regarding Coudenhove-Kalergi’s desire to wipe out racial distinctions except for those of the “higher beings” – Jews (who other Jewish supremacists like Samuel Untermeyer called “the aristocrats of the world”), and old bloodline nobility (incidentally, according to Burke’s Peerage genealogists, “The presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has, up to now, always won the White House.”: ).

This is something many would not like to admit, but for those new to this issue – the obvious reality is that the major powers ruling the world today are dynastic Jewish banking families, old European “aristocracy” and Eastern Establishment “nobility”, as well as Zionists (see the first President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann’s, revelation of what Zionism really is: ) and militants (). Their attitude towards the “lesser races” of worker bees, who, if we are to take Kalergi’s word for it, are to be “mongrelized” with intended “dysgenic” results, is very well summarized by documents taken from Maurice Strong’s and Edmund Leopold de Rothschild’s 4th World Wilderness Congress that you briefly mentioned: “The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction. Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory.

The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970’s recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected. “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing.

This must be done by whatever means necessary. Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist “cultures” and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose. The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward.

We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 We stand with Lord Milner’s credo. We too are “British Race Patriots” and our patriotism is “the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race”. Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? Do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system? The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. Outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council.

The Security Council of the U.N. Will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. I will re-post my comment of 4:21 PM, as sometimes this site has errors with posting comments. Jan, or whoever else moderates comments, can redact the comment of 4:21 and use this as a replacement.

Again these are touchy issues – with regards to the psychedelic movement being fraudulent, well, much of “respectable” culture is averse to it, though a duped subculture is enamored of it. This “respectable” culture doesn’t, however, mind criticisms of the psychedelic culture as much as it does criticisms of its other sacred cows. So, my comment regarding Coudenhove-Kalergi’s desire to wipe out racial distinctions except for those of the “higher beings” – Jews (who other Jewish supremacists like Samuel Untermeyer called “the aristocrats of the world”), and old bloodline nobility (incidentally, according to Burke’s Peerage genealogists, “The presidential candidate with the most royal genes and chromosomes has, up to now, always won the White House.”: ), might cause some to cringe – as it goes against previous conditioning that they downloaded from the culture. This is something many would not like to admit, but for those new to this issue – the obvious reality is that the major powers ruling the world today are dynastic Jewish banking families, old European “aristocracy” and Eastern Establishment “nobility”, as well as Zionists (see the first President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann’s, revelation of what Zionism really is: ) and militants ().

Their attitude towards the “lesser races” of worker bees, who, if we are to take Kalergi’s word for it, are to be “mongrelized” with intended “dysgenic” results, is very well summarized by documents taken from Maurice Strong’s and Edmund Leopold de Rothschild’s 4th World Wilderness Congress that you briefly mentioned: “The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction. Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970′s recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected. “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.

Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist “cultures” and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose. The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 We stand with Lord Milner’s credo. We too are “British Race Patriots” and our patriotism is “the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race”. Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized?

Do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system? The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. Outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council. The Security Council of the U.N. Will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations.

“people have been conditioned to see them as spiritual, rather than biological tools.” This is an oversimplification, who are “people”? If you look at the way people use psychedelic drugs in the modern world, some people see them as spiritual, but many people dont.

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

So you see, the world isnt necessarily the way you insist it is. People interpret psychedelics in different ways, it is a pointless oversimplification to say that “people have been conditioned to see them as spiritual, rather than biological tools” “And regarding positive thinking, the entire new age: spiritualist, hippie movements are based on it. Any time facts are brought up, these types claim you’re being “negative” and refuse to review the evidence the positive thinking pillow sitters are found throughout the New Age and junk such as “The Secret”.” But none of this ^ has anything to do with psychedelic drugs and tripping.

For example ‘The secret’ doesnt mention psychedelics once, and the New Age for the most part doesnt touch psychedelics. I see this same exact oversight in much of your work, you fail to realise that the New Age has very little connection to psychedelics. Next time read the article before wasting our time.. For fuck’s sake, man. The psychedelic movement IS the new age all of the shit being promoted out of Esalen, which also promotes this, IS the new age.

Why the hell would you come here wasting people’s time without reading the article first? If you’re not capable of grasping what’s said, read it again and get a dictionary so that you understand what the words mean. “When comparing the results of their research, Irvin and Atwill developed a theory about the origin of the psychedelic movement of the 1960’s: The “counterculture” had been developed by elements within the U.S. Government and banking establishment as part of a larger plan to bring about a new Dark Age; or, as it was marketed to potential victims, an ‘archaic revival.’[4] In 1992 Terence McKenna published in his book Archaic Revival: These things are all part of the New Age, but I have abandon that term in favor of what I call the Archaic Revival—which places it all in a better historical perspective. When a culture loses its bearing, the traditional response is to go back in history to find the previous “anchoring model.” An example of this would be the breakup the medieval world at the time of the Renaissance.

They had lost their compass, so they went back to Greek and Roman models and created classicism—Roman law, Greek aesthetics, and so on.[5] [emphasis added] ~ Terence McKenna In another chapter regarding his timewave theory, he states: Within the timewave a variety of “resonance points” are recognized. Resonance points can be thought of as areas of the wave that are graphically the same as the wave at some other point within the wave, yet differ from it through having different quantified values. For example, if we chose an end date or zero date of December 21, 2012 A.D., then we find that the time we are living through is in resonance with the late Roman times and the beginning of the Dark Ages in Europe. Implicit in this theory of time is the notion that duration is like a tone in that one must assign a moment at which the damped oscillation is finally quenched and ceases.

I chose the date December 21, 2012 A.D., as this point because with that assumption the wave seemed to be in the “best fit” configuration with regard to the recorded facts of the ebb and flow of historical advance into connectedness. Later I learned to my amazement that this same date, December 21, 2012, was the date assigned as the end of their calendrical cycle by the classic Maya, surely one of the world’s most time-obsessed cultures. [6] ~ Terence McKenna”. In a word ~ stimulating. Good investigative scholarship should be provocative, controversial and necessarily disruptive. Fomenting informed debate by challenging uncritically received assumptions are de rigeur in my opinion, & therefore the sine qua non of intelligent discourse.

If we can’t take the heat as the saying goes, then we should get out of the kitchen. There is also an apt old (buccaneer) advisory ~ “ten dead cooks tell no tales.” I admire the work Jan and Joe are doing here, if for no other reason than it is a powerful example of intellectual courage; sheer dogged determination to get to the truth, and also a willingness to communicate radical interpretations of the (always partial) public record. So bravo to you both. As Bernard Lewis loves to remind us when dissembling about providing visions of the future ~ any future ~ the professional historian has enough difficulty “predicting the past.” I want to underscore the fact that those of us who are the fortunate recipients of this research will miss the point entirely, if we simply agree with everything that is laid out here and do not question the arguments and check the facts. For then we are only endorsing but one (albeit salutary and informative) perspective and enshrining it as a new authority. By doing so uncritically, we shall only be endorsing yet another potential exercise in diabolical mind binding.

It is healthy, necessary and desirable therefore to analyse and compare, discuss, question further; evaluate and contextualize as deeply as time and available data will allow. So this said, I’d like to add my own considerations to this ample discussion. I refrained from posting anything until I had also read through the extensive comments, which seem to me to indicate genuine engagement & for the most part appear both candid and honest. My first observation has to do with David McGowan’s hypothesis.

As I have not read the book, so I am responding to the information provided here; but it does strike me that one obvious fact needs to be acknowledged. The parents of anyone born after WW2 would have been profoundly implicated in the global militarization of industrialized societies. In the US, that became so hyper-militarized and dependent on its war economy, this grew ever more pronounced and exaggerated.

In the UK, “national service” or “call-up” was abolished in the fifties. While in the US, the draft was notoriously contentious right through the Vietnam era. The sixties cohort in Britain were exempted from compulsory military service, and this made an enormous cultural difference. Elsewhere in Europe it was different of course. As a teenager I grew up knowing more about Russell’s CND, the partition of India, African decolonization, apartheid & commonwealth than the Franco-Chinese politics of S.

East Asia and elsewhere that for various reasons were kept outside the UK populist radar. Several of the comments have raised significant questions, so I want to draw attention to some of the more salient contextual “givens” that may not be as empirical as is frequently assumed. This is big stuff that suggests a real need for an intellectually adequate conversation, but the constraints of space and attention spans require us to be as brief and concise as possible. Alan Piper’s material is very interesting and new to me, but vis a vis early clinical LSD research, it pays to study Stan Grof’s voluminous data from the fifties in Prague; that was then still well under the Soviet communist thumb (& quisling jackboot.) There was nothing like that research in the West until Grof himself brought his ideas and experience to Maryland. Huxley as we all know was very influenced by Humphrey Osmond’s therapeutic research in Saskatchewan, so it is important to acknowledge the pioneering professional methodologies that were being trialed within the psychiatric community. MK-ULTRA was, I suspect, in many respects a panic-response to perceived advances in the USSR that reached its almost manic apogee in the ’70’s with the psi experimentation, remote viewing etc. And general communist hysterics.

R D Laing in Britain was rethinking schizophrenia prior to that, (a suitable cold-war propensity perhaps) and in San Francisco we had the pioneering experimental work of Weir-Perry. This was the age of professional and academic psychiatry and psychologizing par excellence. It is significant that the author of the Open Society, Karl Popper was so deeply opposed to psycho-analysis on the grounds that it was only ever a pseudo-science and consequently alienated those who were by then obsessively protective of Freudian ideas, not the least of whom was Freud’s surviving wife, Anna. It is necessary to go right back to the influence of William James (the divided self, the twice-born etc) to get a better grasp of the intellectual context for all of this. Moreover by the time we get to McLuhan and Leary, it is James Joyce who is lionized and played as the literary trump card. As for Timothy Leary and his colleagues at Harvard, I think it is helpful to listen to what Robert Anton Wilson had to say about Leary’s cat and mouse game with the FBI and the US “intelligence” establishment. After his encounter with the Panthers in Algeria, Leary became superficially acquainted with Aleister Crowley’s comprehensive revised synthesis and ground-breaking holistic initiatory system of Thelemic discipline, that was increasingly being appropriated, sampled, and transformed into a new-age marketing exercise by unscrupulous elements in the West.

The entire culture was permeated with this fanatical cold-war climate of corporate-capitalist ideology and a religiously motivated reactionary obsession with “security.” In that respect I think it is unequivocally clear that the USA dramatically devolved and mutated into a paranoid, delusional and psychopathic force in the world. What had hithertoo been largely an escalation of internal domestic mania, was exported internationally, and scaled up to the genocidal proportions we witness today. Personally, I found Leary’s early writings very compelling and insightful, but by the time he had become a counter-culture (Roszak’s term) franchise, and was talking about planetary migration and neuro-politics, it all became a bit too glib, pretentiously gimmicky & self-consciously clever for my taste.

The problem with making a career out of dissent, is that one’s “revolutionary” posture soon gets appropriated, branded and marketed as a sales pitch. Esalen typified this, with it’s prevalent tendency to extol rabbinical gurus like Perls.

The conceit lives on in otherwise what ought to be promising contexts like the California Inst. For Integral Studies. Re psychedelic experience in and of itself, as I have suggested, it is helpful to confer with Grof’s valuable early corpus.

The serious point is really two-fold: first ~ LSD was so immensely powerful and concentrated, exponentially more powerful in its ratio of dose to effect than mescaline and secondly ~ the mind is never a blank slate; Betty Eisner’s rule of set, setting and matrix always applies. Everything subsequent was (as Whitehead said of philosophy’s relationship to Plato,) actually a massive footnote to that seminal operating principle. I rather disagree with Jan’s characterization of mysticism being opposed to gnosis. Mystery is not the same thing as mystification.

One is communion with an unknown, the other a reductive pretense to know. In my view, true gnosis is actually derived from “pure” mystical experience through the very adequate and demanding process of (learned) yogic integration.

In general principle I understand “legitimate” mystical experience as a spontaneously occurring, frequently unsolicited phenomenon; that may also be induced and symbiotically directed by some deep cultural methodology and contextual praxis, or be mediated by acquired ceremonial and formal theurgical means. Something I almost forgot, that I meant to raise with Jan is the role of Robert Graves in the Wasson escapade. I get the impression he simply used Graves, ran with his ideas and played him for an eccentric, overly fanciful temperamental fool. So far as I can determine the entire retrogade shambles of reactionary “western” society, whatever some astrologically inclined academic sophists like Richard Tarnas (or the late Terence McKenna for that matter) and others project, really amounts to a big argument about God, Jesus and “manifest destiny.” For “Jesus” Adonis or whomever I tend to defer now to the investigations of Joseph Atwill and Acharya S. As for “God” I’ve come to rethink this notion lately, since it occurred to me only this morning that this “god” of the old testament was really introduced into popular consciousness through the Greek translation of the Hebrew books known as the septuagint allegedly in the 2nd century bce. There seems to be plenty of evidence for multiple extant (gnostic) apocalypses so far as I am aware, that clearly predate the NT canon, examples of eclectic spiritual epiphanies and prophetic visions ~ presumably induced by austerities and entheogens associated with various “pagan” traditions.

It simply suggests a revelation or epiphany of an intimate personal nature, that Jewish sects like Zelots identify with revolutionary political goals extrapolated to infer catastrophic changes to society at large. In that sense, psychedelic experience is obviously apocalyptic. The problem is always how to translate those revelations into meaningful social improvements.

Hey Jan, As usual your research and line of questioning has completely made me question my model of reality that I cling to so dearly sometimes. Psychedelics have done damage to me in some ways, but they have also made me a more critical person. Most of the boundary dissolving experiences I’ve had on psychedelics have made me question many of the models of reality that I took for granted. I personally experienced that in times when I over used these substances I was left completely blank. Conversely In periods where I have taken sparse amounts throughout a year they have led to long periods of lucidity, and clarity in my life. When used correctly, these substances were a gateway to critical analysis of life for me. They allowed (or facilitated maybe) me to shed pervious notions of mysticism and seek for the objective reality which we humans can share.

So, I was wondering if you think that psychedelics could still be used as tools (individually) to help humanity get past mysticism and into reality. Or if they are simply to wild to be harnessed and lead to some kind absolute degradation of consciousness.

I think history has displayed clear examples of both outcomes. My inclination is that in the long run they will benefit our development as a culture into a more discerning and compassionate population. The authors are in disagreement about the use of mind-altering drugs. One believes that we do should not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control.

He recommends they not be used without a prior thorough study in something such as the trivium method, and suggests that, like a knife which may be used to cut your food, and also used to kill; psychedelics can be used to empower or control. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don’t use them for spiritual purposes. The other believes that given their provenance, they should not be taken under any circumstances. Jan Irvin, I believe I found a flaw in your argument. If so, you’ll be interested in it.

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

It is important to note that what I’m about to say next will work with any one of the people mentioned in this conspiracy. Simple question: Was McKenna (or anyone) aware of the conspirator’s goal? Because if not, or even if so, you’ve got a huge problem. The problem is that you’ve entirely ignored the independent minds of these men. If McKenna understood with and agreed with the conspirator’s agenda, that’s one thing. That would be a chilling truth with serious implications; it would certainly mean that the McKenna I think I know, the McKenna that Joe Rogan thinks he knows, or the McKenna that anyone who has listened to him thinks they knows is not the real Terrence McKenna. If Terrence were in on it, it would mean that all his speech was very deliberately crafted towards a single end, one designed by the CIA and/or Secret Societies.

When McKenna says something like, “You are a divine being. You matter, you count. You come from realms of unimaginable power and light, and you will return to those realms.” those words have a hidden, underlying meaning. One that is ultimately designed to get us to adopt a value system that will ultimately cripple us. HOWEVER, if you’re claiming that McKenna has been influenced by a culture the CIA and/or Secret Societies seeded through the invention of the “Deadhead”, the manufacture and distribution of the LSD molecule, and the carefully tuned message of other prominent counter-culture mouthpieces like Tim Leary, then you are concurrently calling McKenna a fool who lacks critical thinking capacity — a dumb ass. For if the agenda of the CIA/Secret Socities is working its way through “conduits” like McKenna, and McKenna is not complicit, then he is merely a message replicator and nothing more.

That would mean that every speech he ever gave was handed to him. Otherwise it would be his original thought. When he is interviewing Richard Alpert in Prague or walking and talking with Alexander Shulgin, how much of that off-the-cuff dialogue is the “real” Terrence McKenna and how much is the CIA/Secret Society spokesman McKenna? Either way, your making claims about McKenna, Huxley, Wasson, et al. That are pretty damning and incidentally run counter to the message most people understand when they read/hear the words of these men. You gotta go where the evidence takes ya, man.

To do the opposite may make for compelling fiction. That’s not what we’re here for. What part, specifically? What is your response to my argument? If I was unclear, allow me to restate: According to you, McKenna was either a conscious CIA operative (complicit conspirator) or he unwittingly became a conduit for the transmission of CIA propaganda.

My understanding of his many speeches do not seem to advance a CIA/Secret Society agenda. And if they do, then it is one I happen to agree with. Perhaps, Jan, the CIA is actually a good thing? If they’re responsible for Terrence McKenna, Huxley, Leary, et al., then we owe them a debt of gratitude.

Your response of “please study the trivium” is tantamount to you saying “you’re wrong because I have knowledge that you do not have. I don’t care to elaborate, but trust me, if you took the time to read _____ you’d see.” This is an Argument from Authority, the “authority” in this instance is the trivium. My response is for you to study the trivium because you’re thinking in fallacies and ignoring the evidence. I wonder how much of McKenna you’ve even studied? You’re using a neglected aspect fallacy, and not having studied the database or much else further, you buy his words at face value, but when you look into his BACKGROUND it’s very clear that he’s selling the same 4th world wilderness agenda as the others. We’ve put out so much work and so many videos covering such ill-founded notions from people who only study his work topically but don’t actually hear or look up the words that he’s using. He sells feminism, humanism, eugenics, transhumanism and a new dark age.

If you had paid attention to the articles provided here, as well as the videos, you’d see that this was the CIA’s agenda, and you’re entirely uninformed of the matter, even though you seem to have just read the article. Go back and read it again, as well as the others cited on the matter and stop leading yourself around with fallacies. Do some grammar.. Hence study the trivium before you go forward. Removing the fallacies or lies from your own thoughts is key to seeing how these guys manipulate you and lie. The trivium is not an argument from authority. I didn’t tell you to go to this person and get his opinion.

I’m telling you to study the trivium because it teaches you HOW to think and remove these ill-founded fallacies from your thoughts so you don’t continually reach false conclusions from your narrow scope of understanding – and wishful thinking. Maybe you should get a clue as to what the CIA’s agenda is before you say if he’s selling it or not. Seems pretty common sense to me. But if you’re for eugenics, humanism, transhumanism, and all of these lies he sells from his own false appeal to authority, and if you think his disinformation is something you agree with, then you’re either extremely ignorant, and again, have never once even considered to look up the actual meanings of these things he sells, or your part of this agenda. But if you’re for a new Dark Age and humanism and eugenics and this other disgusting shit and lies he sold, then you’ll not be permitted here again. The world has enough disgusting tyrants in this world who want to use their own ignorance to control and manipulate others with lies if you’re for that then I have no respect for you or your “cognizant” capacities. Terence McKenna quotes: “The Mushroom said.

[] But since you brought it up. [] I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies, tax incentives, medical policies, insurance policies, put in place to limit male birth. [] This is the way to feminize the human race. [] I’m a feminist. [] AS A HUMANIST I advocate a reduction in male birth.” ~ Terence McKenna Is Terence actually trying to claim that the mushrooms wanted to promote eugenics and tyrannous government policies, taxes, and medical and insurance policies specifically against men, and limiting male birth, the exact antithesis of the hideous communist policies in China?

Are we to believe Terence that the mushrooms would promote more hatred and the murder/limiting of men and baby boys? Does a mother not naturally nurture her offspring? As someone else pointed out to me, what greater evil could there be than to put words like this in the mouth of the sacrament – the mushrooms? What care could the mushrooms possibly have in tyrannical, communist government policies that promote hatred against half the population? Notice how Terence says the mushrooms said, but then switches it to “I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies”.

Nice try, Terence. Maybe you were just too ignorant to look up the other article that was cited in this specifically on these topics, or maybe you’re a Zionist fraud who’s a part of this sick, racist, hate agenda But continue to sell his lies in such ignorance and you’re no longer welcome here. In the future I recommend you gain the mental clarity to look up the words and definitions of things you hear and not just buy them because they sound pretty and you’ve never fact checked a damned thing Start with these, the first was already cited, that you clearly didn’t read.

If you did read and you’re still for this shit, then simply leave and don’t come back, and I’ll be sure to add you to the list of those peddling this agenda who need to be exposed. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

It is appreciated. “How much McKenna have you even studied?” = Shifting the Burden of Proof, Argument by Question. You can attack my personality, my grammar, my assumed motives, and my knowledge or lack thereof but you still haven’t addressed my original critique of your article, which I’ve now stated twice. “Maybe you should get a clue as to what the CIA’s agenda is before you say if he’s selling it or not. Seems pretty common sense to me.” = Reification. The CIA’s agenda?

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

“But if you’re for eugenics, humanism, transhumanism, and all of these lies he sells from his own false appeal to authority, and if you think his disinformation is something you agree with, then you’re either extremely ignorant, and again, have never once even considered to look up the actual meanings of these things he sells, or your part of this agenda.” False Dichotomy. I am neither extremely ignorant nor am I part of “this agenda”. Also, Strawman. I never claimed to be any of these things.

I merely said that I don’t understand McKenna’s message to be one that would enable greater control by the CIA or Secret Socities. I don’t have to defend whether or not I believe in transhumanism, feminism, eugenics, or the 4th world dark age because my beliefs are not what is being debated. “But if you’re for a new Dark Age and humanism and eugenics and this other disgusting shit and lies he sold, then you’ll not be permitted here again.” Appeal to Force. Granted, the scope of things you can do to me here on the Internet is quite limited. Banning me, which I fully expect you to do, is the only power you have to threaten me with.

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

“This is ridiculous! Your own article is self-contradictory! An excerpt from the above cited article which I READ: “He [Terence] knew Francis Huxley, an anthropologist and one of Julian’s two sons. The other, Anthony, was a botanist.

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

Coincidence?” You draw the conclusion that Terence hung out with Francis Huxley, even though Terence’s own brother says, verbatim, “Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea. Not well.” DENNIS SAYS TERENCE DIDN’T KNOW HIM WELL. Yet you say, “here we see that Terence even hung out with Francis Huxley, son of Julian, who is a key suspect” Do you know what fallacy that is, Jan? The Association Fallacy. Laura Huxley was a “prominent figure” and “probably” hung out at Esalen and “may have been” there when Terence was there too.

This is your damning evidence that Terence was pushing a Aldous Huxley agenda which is really an Esalen agenda? Because his Brother said that they went to the same place regularly in the 80’s and 90’s? Well, shit, I must be pushing a Ray Kroc agenda, since I frequented the McDonalds play land in the 80’s and 90’s. Wait a sec you’ve been to McDonalds too. Do you deny this? And Terence went to McDonald in the 80’s (check the archives on Quintrivum.com for further reading).

You’re in on it as well! You advocate mushrooms, Wasson advocated mushrooms, Laura Huxley did mushrooms.

It goes deeper: You —>Joe Rogan’s Podcast —->Stanley Krippner was a guest —->Krippner knew Timothy Leary —->Leary knew Aldous Huxley —->Huxley co-founded Esalen. You wrote: I’m going to single out McKenna, since out of the aforementioned names, I am the most familiar with him.

It is important to note that what I’m about to say next will work with any one of the people mentioned in this conspiracy. Simple question: Was McKenna (or anyone) aware of the conspirator’s goal? Because if not, or even if so, you’ve got a huge problem. The problem is that you’ve entirely ignored the independent minds of these men.

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

You matter, you count. You come from realms of unimaginable power and light, and you will return to those realms.” those words have a hidden, underlying meaning. One that is ultimately designed to get us to adopt a value system that will ultimately cripple us. Obviously, as we’ve shown, McKenna’s book The Archaic Revival is a full discussion of this agenda, which he could not have been ignorant of. He’s selling it and titled his book after the fact, and has the intro from Jay Steven’s discussing it.

So he had to have been fully aware. I’m not ignoring the independent minds of these men at all. They worked and sold this agenda period, as is found in their own books. I turned Rogan on to McKenna originally, but so what? What these people think about McKenna vs.

His own quotes and agendas are irrelevant. If he’s working with these people he’s obviously intentionally misleading them. Obvious Mckenna was one of the conspirators, as his own quotes reveal, and so then he would have to be aware of them. But apparently Aldous Huxley was running most of the show, whom McKenna associated with his family on many levels and admits the influence. Much of their goal is to sell the mind control as spirituality.

If he’s saying you’re a divine being, then why is he saying we should limit male birth and have communist policies to insure this? You wrote: HOWEVER, if you’re claiming that McKenna has been influenced by a culture the CIA and/or Secret Societies seeded through the invention of the “Deadhead”, the manufacture and distribution of the LSD molecule, and the carefully tuned message of other prominent counter-culture mouthpieces like Tim Leary, then you are concurrently calling McKenna a fool who lacks critical thinking capacity — a dumb ass.

For if the agenda of the CIA/Secret Socities is working its way through “conduits” like McKenna, and McKenna is not complicit, then he is merely a message replicator and nothing more. Either that, or we’re all the fools for believing him and not fact checking his words. But anyone who would do such things to fool the masses based on their own ad vericundiam fallacies is obviously a fool, no matter how you look at it. We don’t have a documents that says “I’m an agent” – as they’re covert ops, so there are only 2 possibilities here, an agent or willful idiot. Look in the database, his background is laid out there. Yes, it is possible that many people get caught up into selling the lie without being aware of it.

But from Mckenna’s own writings and the agendas he sells, he becomes more clear that he was aware but anyone who would sell such things without fully informing every one of their intentions is nothing but a sophist and a fool. But yes, either way, McKenna is a dumbass, as you put it. Just read his books, they’re filled with contradictions, and constantly using hypotheses as facts throughout. Then there’s his lies of 2012 and the Timewave that he pulled from the thin air and took from the CIA and Jesuits His nonsense on the Stoned Ape, were he provably faked his citations, was pointed out by Dr. But asking you if you’ve actually read McKenna is not shifting the burden of proof.

Since we’re discussing McKenna here, have you read him or not? These are things he discusses throughout his books and lectures and should therefore be no shocker to anyone who has read his books and understands the definitions of the words he uses, like “bard”. What is a bard? When we look it up we see: “In medieval Gaelic and British culture a bard was a professional poet, employed by a patron, such as a monarch or nobleman, to commemorate the patron’s ancestors and to praise the patron’s own activities.” So in fact he admits that he’s selling their agenda. “How much McKenna have you even studied?” = Shifting the Burden of Proof, Argument by Question.

You can attack my personality, my grammar, my assumed motives, and my knowledge or lack thereof but you still haven’t addressed my original critique of your article, which I’ve now stated twice. When you’re all over the place bringing up irrelevant red herrings, unable to stick to the facts or understand them clearly, this is when I get dismissive of you.

As we’re discussing McKenna, it’s most certainly not irrelevant. How is asking you how much of his work have you studied attacking your personality and motives? That’s the fallacy of the lesser to the greater. You’re very defensive and seems you’re not able to stick with the topic here. You wrote: If McKenna understood with and agreed with the conspirator’s agenda, that’s one thing.

That would be a chilling truth with serious implications; it would certainly mean that the McKenna I think I know, the McKenna that Joe Rogan thinks he knows, or the McKenna that anyone who has listened to him thinks they knows is not the real Terrence McKenna. If Terrence were in on it, it would mean that all his speech was very deliberately crafted towards a single end, one designed by the CIA and/or Secret Societies. But what matter is Joe Rogan’s opinion? That would be a false appeal to authority. This is a guy who makes public attacks on work that he’s admitted he’s not read. The irony is that 10 years ago I made the mistake of turning Rogan on to McKenna, and now he’s his cheerleader.

If one reads carefully McKenna’s book, and realizes that he is in fact selling a new dark age, then it becomes clear his agenda, regardless of what people like these think of the matter. A million Frenchmen can be wrong. These people’s own citations from their own books stand on their own. You write: “McKenna was either a conscious CIA operative (complicit conspirator) or he unwittingly became a conduit for the transmission of CIA propaganda. My understanding of his many speeches do not seem to advance a CIA/Secret Society agenda.” I wrote: “Maybe you should get a clue as to what the CIA’s agenda is before you say if he’s selling it or not. Seems pretty common sense to me.” = Reification.

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

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

Did you study the database that was provided on the website? I think the agenda of the new dark age is well supported, as are the others to the 4th world. If you’re not grasping the agenda, just study their works more. I’ve based my abstraction on their agenda by official CIA documents, university archives from people they worked with, as well as letters we’ve sourced and doing serious study looking into the matter from their own writings. The proof of their agenda is in their own words – the citations so just study them.

Study their backgrounds. That’s why there are citations. If you don’t read the proof that’s provided, then don’t whine about it. You have failed the onus of proof to show us how what we’re revealing in this article and the others is not there agenda.

At this point the onus falls on you to disprove the citations and database provided, which you’ve not done. You wrote: That, friends, is an Argument Demanding Impossible Perfection; I just don’t have the specialized knowledge you do. Since his books and our citations were already provided, we certainly didn’t move the goalpost. You are the one who stated what the CIA’s agenda was in the first place. “My understanding of his many speeches do not seem to advance a CIA/Secret Society agenda.” So was it not you who stated that you know the CIA’s agenda in the first place, which you then turned and attacked me for? So in one moment you claim to know the CIA’s agenda, and in the next you claim: The “CIA agenda” is an abstraction treated by you as something real.

Where’s your proof? – and then you attack me for the very thing you just committed. You know their agenda, or it’s an abstraction?

You can’t have it both ways and then attack me for your contradictions. That’s an irrelevant appeal to emotion. You have the trivium and can look the things up just as I did.

Start with grammar. You write: Knowledge that you seem unable to reiterate here. Yet you can point out that it resides mere mouse clicks away. Well, Jan, if you check out MY website and study the “Quintrivium” (don’t worry, it’s only 2,000 pages and 846 hours of videos) you’ll see how WRONG and IGNORANT you are! No, I’ve reiterated it clearly. The trick is getting you past your own fallacies to the facts that you haven’t studied and just ridiculed above. It’s simply asking you to take the onus of proof and show how our thesis is wrong.

But if you’ve not read his work and are only appealing to what is popularly believed, then these are fallacious arguments, not based on his own words admitting that he’s a humanist, transhumanist, feminist and eugenicist, etc. You then must ignore his own largest influences which he himself states.

You must ignore the letters written between these people, etc. His claims are in his own words in his own publications. Terence McKenna quotes: “The Mushroom said. [] But since you brought it up.

[] I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies, tax incentives, medical policies, insurance policies, put in place to limit male birth. [] This is the way to feminize the human race. [] I’m a feminist. [] AS A HUMANIST I advocate a reduction in male birth.” ~ Terence McKenna “Speaking the Unspeakable” (begins at 1 hour 11 minutes – the Q&A): Is Terence actually trying to claim that the mushrooms wanted to promote eugenics and tyrannous government policies, taxes, and medical and insurance policies specifically against men, and limiting male birth, the exact antithesis of the hideous communist policies in China?

Are we to believe Terence that the mushrooms would promote more hatred and the murder/limiting of men and baby boys? Does a mother not naturally nurture her offspring? As someone else pointed out to me, what greater evil could there be than to put words like this in the mouth of the sacrament – the mushrooms? What care could the mushrooms possibly have in tyrannical, communist government policies that promote hatred against half the population? Ofac License Iran Inheritance. Notice how Terence says the mushrooms said, but then switches it to “I would be very interested in seeing a set of social policies”. Nice try, Terence.

“- The feminizing of culture. Culture would be feminized on a level that has yet to be fully explored.”” – Archaic Revival pg. Terence: This was in ’67 when I was a sophomore in college.

The interest in altered states of consciousness came simply from, I don’t know whether I was a precocious kid or what, but I was very early into the New York literary scene, and even though I lived in a small town in Colorado, I subscribed to the Village Voice, and there I encountered propaganda about LSD, mescaline, and all these experiments that the late beatniks were involved in. Then I read The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell, and it just rolled from there. That was what really put me over. I respected Huxley as a novelist, and I was slowly reading everything he’d ever written, and when I got to The Doors of Perception I said to myself, “There’s something going on here for sure.” From Mushrooms, Elves, and Magic. And when you realize that Julian Huxley created these very ideas that Aldous sold in the novels, it completes the circle. Then you go into some appeal to ridicule about citations.

And not wanting to read them. If I read them, and provided them, you can too. Why make excuses here? I’ve already provided the database and many many hours of citations and work that substantiate this.

Your appeal to ignorance here bears not on the work and citations already provided, nor your lies about how much is actually there to study. The citations in each paper are there for all to read. How the hell do you think I got them?

But it is a fact that if you ignore them, you’re committing argumentum ad ignorantium. You state: Either way, your making claims about McKenna, Huxley, Wasson, et al. That are pretty damning and incidentally run counter to the message most people understand when they read/hear the words of these men. I wonder how many have actually read his words? Most seem to just regurgitate what they think he’s saying, but ignore his statements regarding feminism, humanism, transhumanism, et al, that were developed mostly by the Huxleys. Most of the so-called “claims” that I’m making is just citations from their own work their own words.

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

Again, you contradict yourself, and pretend to know that you do know what the CIA’s agenda is: “I merely said that I don’t understand McKenna’s message to be one that would enable greater control by the CIA or Secret Socities.” And I’ve shown you how that’s false. I’m sorry, did you not say that you’re for what he promotes?

Can’t find your quote now. FYI, You seem to regularly confuse and conflate the meanings of fallacies, etc It’s a bit confusing at first to get them all memorized, but keep working at it. You’ll get there. Telling you to study the trivium to correct this is not an appeal to authority. I’m not saying you must believe this person because he’s an expert. But you bring in all of these irrelevant people and topics, red herrings, rather than sticking to what’s being discussed. You wrote: “But if you’re for a new Dark Age and humanism and eugenics and this other disgusting shit and lies he sold, then you’ll not be permitted here again.” Appeal to Force.

Granted, the scope of things you can do to me here on the Internet is quite limited. Banning me, which I fully expect you to do, is the only power you have to threaten me with. No, this is not an ad baculum fallacy. Again, you confuse what the fallacies are.

I’m not telling you to do XYZ or else. I’m telling you that if you’re for this shit, then I’ll simply ban you. I’m simply telling you that if you’re here to sell eugenics and humanism and feminism and all of this other shit that McKenna and these guys sell, you’ll not be permitted here.

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

You’re using fallacies and not pinning down the right ones, but I applaud your effort. But notice how you just distorted my points and then use that to try to attack me as petty? Where have I hurled insults at you? You admitted you were for this shit. Did you not say in one of your responses that you’re for much of what McKenna says? You seem to be selective then in which of his ideas you promote and are ok with.

You have not pointed out any errors Then notice how you turned this into an ad hominem and attack on me, which is what you did coming here trying to prove a flaw that you’ve not yet proved. You must fancy yourself a fellow of immense intellect. After all, just look at how often you’ve attempted to belittle mine own!

You can often discover a person’s insecurities in the very insults they hurl at others. I thought we were discussing McKenna, and his agenda? Why turn and try to attack me now? I’ve even provided the quotes to his own work, from his own mouth, etc. Revealing your fallacious statements just shows them as fallacious, period. If you’re using fallacies they’re lies.

I’m just pointing out which ones your using. Lies are lies and they should be pointed out – with quotes, accurately, having studied all the work and citations as our article, above If you have citations that actually show how the work is wrong, other than their own “mental independence”, when the Classical trivium itself shows how to mind control people using these fallacious alone, then provide it.

But the trivium study, which I pointed out first, shows how this is done, and people are not so independent as they think, as we discussed in the article with Bernays and the crowd control material we cited there. Mckenna studied McLuhan who wrote is PHD on the Classical Trivium – or mind control. The Trivium method is the inverse of that. “This is ridiculous! Your own article is self-contradictory! An excerpt from the above cited article which I READ: “He [Terence] knew Francis Huxley, an anthropologist and one of Julian’s two sons. The other, Anthony, was a botanist.

Francis lived in Santa Fe and we knew him through personal circles there. Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea.

I only met him once or twice myself, so it was more of an acquaintanceship than a friendship. Laura, of course, was Aldous wife and was a beloved figure in the psychedelic community as a result. I’m sure she probably hung out at Esalen and may have been there when T was there, which was regularly in the 80s and 90s.” ~ Dennis McKenna So here we see that Terence even hung out with Francis Huxley, son to Julian Huxley.

And of course Julian is one of the key suspects in this entire investigation. Coincidence?” You draw the conclusion that Terence hung out with Francis Huxley, even though Terence’s own brother says, verbatim, “Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea. Not well.” DENNIS SAYS TERENCE DIDN’T KNOW HIM WELL. Yet you say, “here we see that Terence even hung out with Francis Huxley, son of Julian, who is a key suspect” Do you realize what you just proved here?: You admit that Dennis says: “Though how well Terence knew him, I have no idea.” Then he goes on to state how well Terence knew Francis just after admitting that “I have no idea” – “not well”.

Either he does, or doesn’t, not both. This is a contradiction in Dennis’s own statement. The issue here is that Terence did in fact hang out with Francis Huxley, and, as Dennis admits, he has no idea how well they knew each other. Do you know what fallacy that is, Jan? The Association Fallacy. No, it’s not. But did you see what you just did?

You created a straw man argument and selected one thing out of the 40+ coincidences proved by that paper. More than 40! Jan, What about the impressionists, Igor Stravinsky, and Picasso?

Were they in on it too? And what about Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, James Joyce, F.

Scott Fitzgerald, Henry Miller and Jack Kerouac? I am sure that the Amazonian shaman who can tell a visiting researcher that his father just passed away has never heard of Gordon Wasson or Jolyon West. I am sure that the Kahuna who retires to his tent in a trance and emerges to lead his people to the water’s edge to watch as dozens of dolphins beach themselves so the people can eat has never heard of Aldous Huxley nor read The Doors of Perception.

Is all expression that deviates in any way from strict formalism a sign of decadence and manipulated dumbing down? The trivium cannot explain consciousness, inspiration or the vision of a man like Kekule who saw a snake grabbing its tail in a dream and discovered the atomic structure of the benzene molecule. The trivium is the most important tool we have as human beings; however, it is subject to abuse just like anything else. The powers that be certainly do not want you to use it to analyze what they are doing to you; however, when somebody comes along and inspires you to question authority and the goals and aspirations of a life that appears to have been dictated to you since birth, are they necessarily doing the devil’s work? Graham Hancock has written extensively on the very psychic explorations that McKenna spoke of. Hancock’s TED video was banned – apparently using psychotropic drugs to explore ones own mind has become a taboo subject. Whose ox has been gored here?

Has society come to its senses or are we even deeper in the pit? Aparently you didn’t read the article very clearly But why the need for all these read herrings?

Obviously Pound worked with Mullins to expose all of this shit didn’t say they were all involved, certainly there are wilful idiots though like Joyce and Kerouac. You clearly didn’t read the conclusion while you were reacting emotionally to what was said.

And Hancock lmao. Hancock is most certainly selling the horseshit, and admits his largest influences are the very guys we’re investigating. Logitech Extreme 3d Pro Pdf Xchange. See the database next time try to comprehend what you’re reading more carefully: The authors are in disagreement about the use of mind-altering drugs. One believes that we do should not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control.

He recommends they not be used without a prior thorough study in something such as the trivium method, and suggests that, like a knife which may be used to cut your food, and also used to kill; psychedelics can be used to empower or control. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don’t use them for spiritual purposes. The other believes that given their provenance, they should not be taken under any circumstances. We must consider: Does the predator think that these substances are tools for spiritual awakening, or for the control of others?

What the reader may believe is not necessarily the whole truth. How the elite of ancient Athens controlled the masses was through drug mystery initiations at Eleusis that they managed to keep secret for 2000 years during their reign, and the secret agenda of how the mysteries were actually used for control hasn’t been revealed for all to see until now – nearly 4000 years since the mysteries at Eleusis began. It’s incredible the ignorance and emotional absurdity people like you display apparently completely unable to comprehend the words your reading And where do you think these control structures came from, but from Shamanism?

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

Pound got Joyce money to live on while he was writing Ulysses. So, by the brilliant deductive capabilities I have as a result of my Trivium studies, Pound is responsible for Joyce becoming Joyce. Pound made the wilful idiot Joyce. Therefore Pound was in on it. Non sequitur! Pound exposed this! Non sequitur!

Non sequitur! (KIRK: Mr Spock. Put the probe into the transporter and send it as far from the Enterprise as possible! (probe explodes in the distance) MR. SPOCK: That was a brilliant display of logic. ) Pound actually thought that culture had reached its climax in the 14th century. DO you think that is the case?

Pound also blamed the Jews for society’s ills. Do you agree? Pound thought Mussolini was a great leader. What do you think about Benito? Do you follow Mike Piper? Which insults, where? Would you cite them?

Oh, you mean all of this name calling from people who’re upset for having their religious beliefs challenged? Here’s a good example of people who come here attacking me, and then pretend that I’ve somehow attacked them: The insults you throw do not compel me one way or the other, but they do make you appear to be an angry person. Can you believe the underhanded comments and BS from people like these? Insulting me and then accusing me of insults it’s incredible!

Always the same tactics Saying someone is acting LIKE something is not saying they ARE something. People often get confused the difference. You can act LIKE a child, but the person isn’t saying “You’re a child”. But please don’t come here making loaded statements and attacking me and then whine about it. It’s just stupid. If you can show me what we should believe in without the 5 senses, that would be helpful.

Do you have some examples? How do you prove they exist? How do you know it’s not your own delusion? What are they? How would you know? I have seen a couple issues come up with Pound, but then Pound did a load of work with Mullins to expose this stuff.

I’d have to map out his background and see what more is there beyond Mullins and if Mullins overlooked anything. Mullins was a very thorough researcher. Zionism is beyond any doubt a major problem behind all of this. Anyone who can’t see it isn’t thinking clearly. Are all Jews involved?

Most certainly not. There are many who work very hard to expose this shit. But Zionism and the “Chosen” ideology and racism that Judaism hides behind is beyond any doubt a major factor in this. But why are you taking what Pound thought and then asking me what I think? Why not just verify Pound’s own statements and see if they’re accurate rather than appealing to my authority? Or is this just some lame way of trying to implement some sorry excuse for a guilt by association on me with irrelevant questions and appeals to authority? But notice how you accuse me of so-called insults all the while you’re insulting me?

“The insults you throw do not compel me one way or the other, but they do make you appear to be an angry person.” How about rather than attacking and insulting me with your coy little remarks like these others, who then turn and blame me for their underhanded remarks just as you’ve attempted here, try to focus on the work. Why is it that people like you include their attacks on me in their posts and then attack me for them – pretending they’re my attacks? Have no doubt that this is your attack, your caveated ad hominem against me, not the other way around. Every one of these is the same and then you have the nerve to dare talk about some so-called insults I’ve thrown out. Just try to focus on the work and not attack me, as is the points of my replies in each of the other attacks by others just as your own here. Alright, I’ll bite.

I’m going to abandon hashing out the minutia of the prior posts we’ve exchanged. This is a reboot and it will be short and sweet. There are two reasons I had for criticizing your “Manufacturing the Deadhead” article: first, I’m having a difficult time reconciling what I understand Terence McKenna’s “message” (there are many) to be with what you are claiming is his through-line (CIA endorsed 2nd Dark Age). Second, I don’t like the way the article is written. To me, it lacks coherence and ease of reading. I don’t think this is an issue with my ability to read; I have two degrees, one of which came from a well known “public ivy” university. This doesn’t prove that I’m smart or superior or anything like that — it simply proves that I can read at a college level or greater.

I’m an avid reader. The only difficulty in properly understanding a text that I’ve ever had is when the material is either incredibly dry or simply fallacious — so pretty much just Ayn Rand and academic journal articles. Yes, I’m fully aware that I am liberally using contractions and not giving too much of a shit about sentence structure. I can write much better than I’m choosing to right now because this is the Internet and I have an audience of just one: you. I know you understand me perfectly. Any effort I’d put into making this resemble a former academic paper is needless.

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

My mind is open to them, yet I remain a vigilant skeptic. Can you point me in the direction of of clear, concise evidence of a government agenda to promote a drug-enthusiastic counter culture that doesn’t rely on the co-opting of “counter-culture gurus” like the men you implicated in the ‘Deadhead’ article. Unless, of course, the co-opting of influential people is the only policy lever. My skeptical mind needs to see evidence of a psychedelic drug based conspiracy first before.