Mark Passio interviews Jan Irvin on the Trivium – with Bob Tuskin.

What on Earth is Happening, episode #087.

Date: 2011-12-04
Guests: Jan Irvin ( & and Bob Tuskin (

Topics: Trivium, Quadrivium, Logical Fallacies, Truth, Education, Wisdom, Solutions






  31 comments for “Mark Passio interviews Jan Irvin on the Trivium – with Bob Tuskin.

  1. Caelidh
    December 6, 2011 at 11:08 am


  2. Terry
    December 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Loved the show. Funny how the woman who wanted you all to practice the trivium on air got what she wanted when Richard called. Twice that I noticed (and I am new to the trivium teaching) Jan refuted Richard wonderfully…and Richard moved right on to the next topic…hum? he did not want his call on air when he heard it would not but Jan offered to do it and boy am I glad he did. Thanks to all…Terry

  3. Caelidh
    December 9, 2011 at 10:00 am


    I relistened to this show without the ad’s.. which was nice..

    I really liked your breakdown of the Kabbalah in relation with the Trivium.. things are just clicking into place and how things relate to one another.

    something you said (and I have heard this I think discussed in previous shows) the big bands of the 60’s were almost “entirely” the sons and daughters of Intelligence officers???..

    I think it is really eye opening to discover certain “relationships” of some of the most famous and infamous individuals in history with the “elite”.. however.. wouldn’t it be a logical fallacy to then imply that just because some major 60’s rock band had parents that were in the military or intelligence areas means that somehow their message wasn’t genuine?.

    • Jan Irvin
      December 9, 2011 at 10:55 am

      One parent of a band is a coincidence. 20 is a conspiracy. I didn’t say “band” – I said BANDS. See the Inside Laurel Canyon series.

      I’m not saying that I believe every detail of what he’s got there, but when you read through that, there are some profound tidbits.

      • Bruce
        December 9, 2011 at 11:14 am

        “One parent of a band is a coincidence. 20 is a conspiracy.”
        First of all, No… that doesn’t necessarily make it a “conspiracy” even if it’s true. And second, your source is a site which claims the Moon landing is fake? Maybe that’s one of the things on the site that you don’t believe, but that does “poison the well of “information” on that site.

        • Jan Irvin
          December 9, 2011 at 1:45 pm

          The grammar that I’ve done on the moon landing shows that much of the information we’ve been giving on it was faked. What grammar did you do? What sources did you use? Or are you just saying that the idea to you happens to be so far outside your current knowledge that it seems absurd because you haven’t done any grammar?

          Furthermore, if you know it would be a fallacy of “poisoning the well” to take information from one article and apply it to another, then why would you commit the fallacy in the first place? That makes no sense. Each article and factiod has to be taken on it’s own merit, as you clearly already know by naming the very fallacy you commit. :-/

          • Bruce
            December 9, 2011 at 3:33 pm

            Wow. Really? Man,well I don’t know what to tell you if you honestly think the moon landing was a hoax. I’m surprised. Maybe you have access to something that I don’t but I’ve read some, not all by any means, of the info out there and none of it I’ve seen means anything to me because I don’t know the people who disperse it. It’s not outside my ability to accept, but I haven’t seen any credible reason to doubt the moon landing. And I’m certainly not going to give that specious theory the benefit of the doubt. Can you verify the validity of the material that has convinced you that the moon landing was faked? What makes you think it’s credible? Do you know the the reliability of the sources? Why do you think it’s not crackpot fantasy? Seriously, I’m not trying to to be snarky..what has convinced you?

          • Aaron
            December 11, 2011 at 1:25 pm

            He didn’t say he thought the moon landing was fake. He said he found that some information presented was fake/manipulated so the MSM story becomes less credible as a source for the actuality of what happened. Also, please do not set up the moon landing as a straw man to avoid dealing with the fact 20 of these bands being conspicuously linked. I haven’t seen this information before but I’m looking into it now. Thanks Jan, you’re awesome keep it up.

          • Jan Irvin
            December 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm

            Exactly what I thought to say. Thanks.

        • December 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm

          Bruce – What about the fact that we can only use sonar to estimate what is up to 30 miles below the surface of the earth yet students are taught everyday what the earth is constructed of in cut away views of the Earth? What about the fact we spend millions on researching stars when there’s absolutely no proof that they even still exist? They’ve created a fantasy land where bankers control the planet. When you consider how much it costs to coordinate and produce a truly masterpiece recording(especially in the 50’s/60’s using military developed recording equipment), it’s not too hard to believe that the music was designed to dumb down.

          • edward
            February 20, 2012 at 8:50 am

            In response to the article on the sons and daughters of intel officers. I recently saw a special on Pink Floyd where Roger Waters admitted that all of the band members were the sons of aristocracy except David Gilmour. I dare say that that is not coincedental at all. Waters all but admitted that their success was in the bag as it were and Gilmour had the most trouble with it because of his lower social status, and therefore had the most to prove.

          • Jan Irvin
            February 20, 2012 at 9:14 am

            Do you have any evidence of this? A copy of the interview?

          • edward
            February 20, 2012 at 9:33 am

            This was a video on VH1 or MTV. It was a history of the band. I didn’t bother to tape it, but remembered what Waters said in it. I am sure that it is out there in the ethers of media somewhere. They might replay it on VH1 someday i am sure.

          • Lucretia
            June 4, 2012 at 10:35 pm

            Philo one only has to listen to Alan Watt of (a great historian, song writer and musician) on how the Elite have controlled our culture for thousands of years. Alan points out that even Plato spoke about how society always had to be controlled from the top down.

            Jan’s interview with Joseph Atwill also proved that. The Elitist parasites give us our heroes if those heroes benefit them in controlling us.

            Alan’s knowledge of our true history back to Sumer and before is amazing. He writes in his books and talks about how the Elite always bring in pornography and use other methods (music and gambling) when they plan to take down a society/nation. As great as the 60 and 70’s music was, it was the start of their demoralization and downfall of America. Alan has also posted the Laurel Canyon article on his site a number of times as he was in the music industry and totally saw the control and that many of the famous music heros they gave us couldn’t even sing and did not write their own music. Why did Joannie Mitchell says Dylan did not write his own music? How did he know what was being planned? Why did the Beatles not own their own music? As Alan clearly points our in his books and talks, our culture from the music to the fashion industry, style of cars to homes to you name it, is created from the top down. For the Elite to control society, they control culture. We are cultured like fine wine or, when they are ready to destroy a country, into a bad vinegar to totally bring down the morality.

            “Sex for nothing and women for free” were those not the lyrics of one of great songs of the 70’s. Yep, the women, in that culture, became for free and the start of the acceptance of eugenics with abortion also came about. Sadly, I personally did not see it as that until just recently. Yes, the culture creators brought in sports to keep men in a state of juvenile adolescence, never really ready to grow up, get married and have a family – or if they did, due to all the sexy young girls on TV sports, they cheated on their wife or divorced trying to get back to their fake life of their 20’s.

            As great as the music was, one has to admit it definitely worked one’s base chakra, the sexual chakra. The Elite know when you want a cultured, high morality society you have classical music as it is cerebral, allows for great thinking and of more high morality. The heavy base music much more drives one’s sexual chakra.

            I would highly appreicate and find incredible, by the way, for Jan to interview Alan Watt. If you have not read his books Jan I know you would benefit highly from doing so. Especially after your excellent interview with Joseph Atwill I believe you will find your conversation with him MOST enlightening and fascinating due to his incredible knowledge of our true history from Sumer and before. He documents well all religions come from the same source and are used to control the sheeple. Christianity he shows is well tied into the occult, astrology and free masonry. The Elite use government and religion to control us. Alan teaches that at the top of their control of each country is the nobility and royalty. Nobility consists of Kings, Queens, Prime Ministers and Presidents and then the royalty consists of Priests and Military.
            Alan wrote the Elite have had a international brotherhood used to control the sheeple of the world for thousands of years. They work together to balkanize us through religion and politics to create their wars which does two things for them: 1) It creates debt for them to tax us for their wars so they can thus live in luxury and 2) for the purpose of keeping their herds culled.
            Alan even teaches one even about the origin of words (totally fascinating) and even the meanings of letters and their relationship to numbers in his book Cutting Through The Matrix.
            I would think you, Jan, would find that aspect very intriguing given your excellent knowledge of the trivium.

  4. Jan Irvin
    December 10, 2011 at 2:35 am

    There was some video footage released of them faking a few shots inside the space capsule above the earth. No doubt that they went to space, but there are a number of very good documentaries that show how lighting and background were faked as well as the above mentioned video of them altering shots to make the earth appear very far away. I think much of it was shot in space and the rest shot in the Nevada or Arizona desert with a few camera filters. Check out a film called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. I’ve got a number of others, but that ones got some good footage that certainly raises serious questions – if nothing else that the information that the public was fed was heavily manipulated.

  5. December 12, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    The lady at 1:05:00 had some good points but I think it’s funny she referred to herself as an “advanced yogi”. I wish I could be as “advanced”, but it seems that would be kind of egotistical.
    I was a very muscular vegetarian for years, but I started having thyroid issues(skin nodes) which went away when I supplemented iodine. I’ve since become a carnivore.
    Jan, the CAFR reports are BS. You know damn well that they’re valuing financial instruments in dollars and saying that’s money. It’s not money. They would have to sell the instrument for money. You can’t assume anyone is going to buy them for what they say they’re worth let alone at all. Monetary policy reform is the issue of greatest importance – getting the bank shut down.

  6. 344thBrother
    December 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    On the moon landing issue. I too have some big questions about it. It is obvious that some of the pictures were faked. (Too perfectly lit and composed, no evidence of any radiation striking the relatively unshielded film, shadows that diverge, no dust in the atmosphere from the blast of landing, no cavity under the lander, the laughably bogus lift off of the moon capsule) etc. etc. .

    So, I have to call BS on the TOTAL story of the moon landing. In addition, the evidence that Yuri Gregarin (The Russian astronaut) also faked his space flight makes sense.

    Theory: They knew that the moon shot had an outside chance of success. So many things could go wrong and totally destroy the entire project. So they plotted to hedge their bets before the launch.

    Having astronauts dying in space on national TV or lost in space or stranded on the moon would look VERY bad and injure the balance sheets of the corporations that were heavily invested in the whole space program (Which I support by the way).

    So, it makes sense that they would Disneyfy the whole project. Maybe do a manned landing, perhaps fake the whole thing, but keep the star astronauts in a safe orbit doing a dog and pony show while the actual moon mission carries on. In the event of a failure, they just substitute the film and the story line and bingo, we rule space! It makes one wonder what actually happened up there if we even MADE it up there with human astronauts.

    Based on all the BS that serves as information we get from ALL governmental and corporate agencies these days, is it so hard to believe that they were pulling this crap before now? (Example Oil comes from dinosaurs-put out by Disney in a film shown to children and just accepted by us all as truth). How far removed is this from the “GLOBAL WARMING”hysteria pushed to school children via Al Gore’s TOTALLY FAKED propaganda piece? Not to mention all the religious texts from time immemorial.

    This was the heyday of the TV mind control agenda and I’m positive that they used it to their best advantage whenever possible. And hedging of one’s bets is just good business sense. So what if it bamboozled the world into thinking that we were greater than we were? The bottom line assuaged the governments guilt. Lets face it, like nature, the government tends to follow the path of least resistance, which explains why they lie so often about everything.

    @Philo. Are you aware that NASA recently said that they “RECORDED OVER the moon landing tapes to save tape”?

    Doesn’t that strike you as a bit bogus? It seems utterly ridiculous to me. Perhaps you should examine your willingness to question what passes for reality in this increasingly unreal world.

    Even if it was only a FEW pictures that were faked to make the mission look better and to look photogenic on the cover of Time magazine, it still raises huge questions that cry for answers.

    I’d be happy to hear your thoughts if you spend a little time looking at this depressing and aggravating issue. I have to admit that it horrified me and made me feel sad for the entire human race.

    @Jan: Keep up the great work man. Same to Lisa and everyone else who works on this site. Expect more $ in hard currency coming your way soon from me.

    Dave Short

  7. Deborah
    December 14, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    I think you three gentlemen – Jan, Mark, and Bob – totally missed the point of what the first (female) caller was suggesting, for the very reason that you allowed your emotional reaction, to what she was saying, get in the way of your ability to critically hear/see her point. And it was a correct point.

    That, Bob – if I am recalling correctly – offered a valid reason why any of you would desire to screen calls, he was only able to do so after the caller had disconnected. Up until that point, you were all in heightened emotional “fight” mode because she was being critical.

    Being one, like the caller, and Jan in fact, who’s volume tends to go up in certain situations, i.e. speaking on a topic of passion or nervously practicing the skill of correctly arguing or simply emotional fear of not being able to collect my thoughts quickly enough, or as the caller herself mentioned: the fact that she knew time was short and there was much she would have liked to say, I had no trouble listening to her outline her arguments. And I think it is a red herring to attack someone because of this tendency, rather than addressing the arguments being offered.

    If, as you say, you want people to learn the Trivium, then you had better learn the skill of patience that is required to allow people to practice what they are learning. May I kindly suggest that while you may be quite knowledgeable and skillful at speaking the Grammar and Logic of the Trivium, I observe that you are, obviously, still practicing the Rhetoric of what you have learned.

    This is a critical comment, but I hope it will be taken as constructive/instructive, also, which is the attitude in which it is being offered.

    • Jan Irvin
      December 16, 2011 at 10:48 am

      Deborah, I repeatedly asked Bob to stop interrupting and let her talk, if you go back and listen… However, the woman was SCREAMING and I couldn’t hear a damned word she said. It was also clear that her hormones were out of control.

      Anyway, we also don’t need to sit there and deal with bullshit and name calling, which Bob clearly pointed out. There are many trolls who call in just to cause trouble. No need to get them on the air.

      If you can’t hear what someone is saying, and they’re screaming in your ear, and also if you’ve no personal, direct experience in screening calls for a show, I can see how you might come to such a conclusion. My suggestion, start your own show with callers and trolls and see how you deal with them in your own grammar. Thanks!

      • Deborah
        December 17, 2011 at 9:49 am

        No, the woman was not SCREAMING. Yes, her voice was loud in volume, not unlike, as I indicated, what I notice in my own voice and yours when excited, but not to the pitch of screaming. A poor phone connection, a nervous woman with a passionate message to convey, a limited time in which to do so, and either impatient or misunderstanding hosts all contributed to this situation.

        There was a lot of overtalking so I missed that you were trying to calm the situation.

        What do you know about a woman’s hormones? Are you an expert on that, too? And, why are you so emotional and defensive to the point of cursing to make your points to me?

        What that caller and, now, me are trying to get across is that IF you possess the wisdom of the Trivium and understand the need to question, and being in possession of logic and reason, why can you not in that same logical and reasonable manner talk with those who lack these skills, instead of lowering yourself to their level?

        Why? Because it is easier and quicker to learn new information than it is to unlearn the old information and the behaviours that develop as a result of that old learning.

        You do a wonderful job of teaching the information of the Trivium. I would encourage you to continue to practice putting its precepts into action in your own life so that eventually how you act will align with what you say.

  8. Kabalfist
    December 15, 2011 at 3:34 am

    Cool. Listenable Passio material.
    I stopped listening to his show because the ads every five or so minutes were head-wrecking. No offense Mark… I love the material you’re putting out, but why go back on your original statements – in earlier podcasts – that you would not be sullying the content of your show with advertisements?

    Not that I’m done with the whatonearthishappening podcast for good, but listening to it used to be enjoyable; now it’s a chore.

  9. Kabalfist
    December 15, 2011 at 4:09 am

    I’d be glad to say more about why I feel the way I do if anybody thinks this is an unreasonable statement. I love Mark Passio. He’s thought me more about obscure information than just about anyone else. His information about the occult is poignant and thorough, and it’s information that nobody else has; and it’s laid out so neatly. Ads just annoy the fuck out of me. And, it’s not just that there are ads, the ads are loud and obnoxious, cheesy, uber-American; and, they’re full of fallacies.
    I appreciate everything he’s thought me, and I will get back to the podcasts. But, I like to chill out, get high, and get lost in the information I’m ingesting, and not have to snap out of my learning-trance every 5-10 minutes to skip forward, back, forward just another little bit, ahhhh…. before I can get back to the content. for me, it is seriously distracting.
    Much love to you, Jan, as well as to Mark. I mean no ill-intent with my remarks. I’m just adding constructive criticism. Thinking critically is good all the time, right?

  10. Kabalfist
    December 16, 2011 at 4:45 am

    That first caller was emphatic almost to the point of psychopathic. Sheesh… No offense, lady, but if you want to effectively communicate with people you have to tone it down, have some fucking poise, not yell at people, and not shout them down when they try to talk. She’s talking about the Trivium, and how it’s not employed properly, and yet, she has literally NO grasp of rhetoric whatsoever. And, she was making the point that people claiming to use the Trivium need to remove contradiction. Irony or ignorance, either way, by my reckoning, she was just plain ol’ wrong. Can you say ‘performative contradiction’? xD

  11. Deborah
    December 17, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Addressing your response to Mark’s question about homeschooling, in which you indicated you thought that homeschooling at the mid-school years was a good idea, I would begin by offering what Richard Grove had to say in Hour 5 of the JTG Interview: “By learning that children’s lives are developing heavily in the first ten years of their life, and the fact that you could be instilling them with experience…”

    I am a veteran homeschooler, 1993-2006, so I have gained a little knowledge and experience of my own from which I speak. If, as we would agree, children below the age of 10 are like sponges that soak up all manner of information, then it is prudent, as a parent who has only the best interests of their child(ren) at heart, to protect younger children from absorbing ideas and behaviours that are contrary to our goal, therefore, homeschooling in the younger, formative years is more productive than with a child who has had 5 or 6 or more years of training in a system that completely opposes our thinking.Although it is not impossible, it just requires more time to allow the child coming out of public school to detox. We also had this experience.

    This is the course we took and to this day, our children – even through college – have been able to think rings around their peers.

  12. Dave
    December 25, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    For Jan.

    Reindeer and Amanita Muscaria.

    An interesting twist on the flying reindeer story.

    • Jan Irvin
      December 26, 2011 at 12:27 am

      This is off-subject for this post, but thanks for sharing.

  13. Brian Willcutts
    January 7, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Well said, Brother.

    When one considers all the myths we were sold by “the government” that we now know to be lies, one has to look at the Moon landings from the perspective: it is not to be believed until independently verifiable evidence is offered. I mean we should all look at the Moon landing video and photographic evidence and decide whether it could all have been done from Earth. If we decide that it could, then we start there until evidence is offered to refute that conclusion.

    For now, there is simply no evidence underneath the Moon landing craft that any landing took place. To land that craft on the Moon surface requires a long, slow descent near the surface that would displace considerable surface dust. Yet we don’t see it.

    Also, look at the horizon in the lunar surface footage, it is never in focus. Why is that? The footage we have received from Mars landers show the horizon in focus. It’s not that the technology wasn’t capable because we see objects like astronauts and the lunar rover in focus when viewed both near and far.

    Agree, the lift off of the Moon capsule from the Moon surface is just not believable. What, you can just explode a totally non-streamlined object into a stable directional velocity using some small jet stabilizers – bogus.

    Agree, why take the risk of a human tragedy in space. It was not necessary to actually land on the moon to achieve the goals and benefits of the Moon landing program. It was only necessary for the world to believe it had been accomplished.

    I am still open to the possibility that it was done, but I believe it is highly unlikely and would have to see some evidence to prove it.

  14. nnelsosj
    January 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    I have difficulty understanding how anyone who looks at the evidence can suggest the Moon Missions never happpened?

    I have examined the “Lunar Image Archives”, I have also examined the alleged shadows, the dust claims, the photographs and the short videos claiming fakery, and I am not convinced. I suggest some of the photographs may have been faked, or altered, and perhaps there may have been a “silence” regarding what was actually found there.

    It took 30 years for the Taxpayer Funded Hi Res photographs to be released to the public, and some may have been altered, or staged, to conceal something other than what was found.

    Despite what may, or may not have been concealed, the evidence of ancient structures and ancient habitation is overwhelming. The photographs I have searched are nothing less than bizaare. (Involving sensational contrasts or incongruities)

    Most of the photographs exhibit a layer of lunar or cosmic dust estimated several inches depth, so a careful examination is necessary.

    There are thousands of photographs on the Lunar Archive available for research, “Seek and Ye Shall Find”.

    I shall invoke Rules of Disinformation numbers 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 15, and I would suggest Dissinformation Rules numbers 16. 17, 19, 20, and Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, have been used to some extant.

    Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

    1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
    2. Become incredulous and indignant
    3. Create rumor
    4. Use a straw man
    5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
    6. Hit and Run
    7. Question motives
    8. Invoke authority
    9. Play Dumb
    10. Associate opponent charges with old news
    11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
    12. Enigmas have no solution
    13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
    14. Demand complete solutions
    15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
    16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
    17. Change the subject
    18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
    19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
    20. False evidence
    21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
    22. Manufacture a new truth
    23. Create bigger distractions
    24. Silence critics
    25. Vanish

    Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

    1. Avoidance
    2. Selectivity
    3. Coincidental
    4. Teamwork
    5. Anti-conspiratorial
    6. Artificial Emotions
    7. Inconsistent
    8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

    The “Lunar Lizardz Moon Research”, Photograph Collection is worth a look.

    (Most of these images at “Image Shack” have been enhanced.)

    • Jan Irvin
      January 14, 2012 at 3:18 pm

      Did you bother to watch the specific citations in discussion?

      Yes, we know the rules of disinformation, but do you know the rules of looking at the same research that was discussed and doing a point by point on it and how it was wrong, rather than using a straw man?


      • edward
        February 20, 2012 at 9:16 am

        Along time ago i became aware of a little thing called the Van-Allen radiation belt. This apparently is between ourselves(earth), and the moon. The space suits worn by the astronauts were not built to protect the men from the intense radiation of the belt. The capsule wasn’t made to stop it either. I forget how thick in lead it would have to be but, it was so thick as to make lift off impossible. The suits would need to be so thick as to not be movable either. Now this one mainstream scientific fact would negate the claims of NASA. All the other data takes a back seat to this because these are the status quo’s facts.
        One example of this is when one goes to the dentist or has an x-ray for something. the human doing the x-ray will always be behind a protective barrier. I am makeing a guess here but i don’t think an x-ray machine at the emergency room is as powerful as th Van-Allen belt. I would think the astronauts would look like the original Iron Man from the comic books, or in the movie.

  15. Dom Harte
    February 18, 2012 at 5:37 am

    That ‘advanced yogi’ lady really needs to do some more grounding and centering exercises, or
    smoke a joint? One of the yogic teachings is basically not to get involved or raise your voice about something unless you are ready and can control your blood pressure…ties in nicely to having established firm enough foundations in the ‘truth’ that your grammar and logic are unshakable. Another fallacy is ‘self proclaimed’ people…

    All the best…

Leave a Reply