John Adams Afternoon Commute w/guest Jan Irvin.

256
Monday, March 16, 2015
John Adams Afternoon Commute w/guest Jan Irvin.
Hoax Busters: Conspiracy or just Theory? - Live & Recorded Episodes:

http://hoaxbusterscall.blogspot.com/2015/03/john-adams-afternoon-commute-wguest-jan.html

Jan Irvin from www.logosmedia.com joins John and myself to discuss a range of topics-MK Ultra, The CIA, Stuart Copeland, Laurel Canyon, The Hippie Movement, Margaret Sanger, Aldous Huxley, Gordon Wasson, Thomas Huxley, Scientism, Skepticism, Darwinism, Quantum Theory, Media Mind Control, Lifetime Actors, Psychoactive Drugs, Pharmaceuticals, New Age, Alan Watts, Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski, The Culture Creation Industry, Birth Control, Eugenics, The Court System, Trivium Method, Logical Fallacies, Intellectual Defense, Vaccines, Measles Outbreaks, Ritual Abuse, The Multiverse, Neal DeGras Tyson, The Drug Culture, Nuclear Bomb Hoax.

  19 comments for “John Adams Afternoon Commute w/guest Jan Irvin.

  1. Jen
    March 22, 2015 at 10:23 pm

    Interesting interview. I was a student at UBC and remember a psychology professor drilling into us that MPD does not exist. He talked about the McMartin case and that it was a case of poor interviewing of the children. The professor was also a consultant for court cases involving the interviewing of children for sexual abuse cases. I believe he is still teaching, his name is Dr. Yuille. Another interesting thing is he once brought in a pedophile to speak to the class and give his story. It was so bizarre since it had nothing to do with the curriculum and it felt like he was trying to get us to feel sympathy for this scumbag.

  2. Jeff Simon
    March 26, 2015 at 9:31 am

    Just out of curiosity, I would have liked their definition for “Scientism.” First time I heard the term was from Mark Passio. “rigidly skeptical institutional belief that blots out any contrary information.” Usually associated with government grant money. Reminds me of the “I believe in science” chants when I confront vaccine apologists with their contradictions. Before I heard the term, it seemed to me that these ‘Scientistics’ or ‘Scientismists’ forgot that ‘Science’ was a process, not a set of answers. I thought at the time that they believed in a religion, and chose the name ‘Science.’ I’m grateful to Mark Passio with providing me a term.

  3. Barbara Maver
    March 26, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    There was some mention of a nuclear bomb hoax. Well it has always been a mystery to me why they are there at all. So expensive and yet so useless. I have spent years protesting about them.

    This is in the UK. There ae some places where there are supposed to be nuclear bombs, usually referred to as deterrents.

    What I would like to know is if there are no bombs then what is the space used for and what about the money that’s supposed to be spent on them? It would be nice to get it back in a tax rebate.

  4. forky
    March 28, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    There was another daycare child molestation scandal that occurred in 1986/87 at The Presidio, at the time the oldest military base in the country and one time strategic home to Mikhail Gorbachev (Green Cross International). At the center of violation was General Stubblebine’s good time buddy and partner in “business”, Lt. Col. Michael Aquino. The charges were whisked away by military governmental jurisdiction…

    San Jose Mercury News, JULY 24, 1988
    THE PARENTS’ AGONY, THE ARMY’S COVER-UP, THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE.
    whale.to/b/aq2.html

    *There are more intricate details readily available on the web. I don’t want to overdo it here.

    God Bless You,

    Forky

    According to this video (cued but see the whole thing), Psi Tech Inc. purchased this mind control patent for psychotronic warfare:
    youtu.be/wAGBVtYZeUk?t=2m47s

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Smirnov_%28scientist%29#Career

    flowofwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mindwar-mindwar_co_authored_by_michael-aquino.pdf

    exposinginfragard.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-case-against-michael-aquino-satanic.html
    “For those who don’t know, Michael Aquino was a Psychological Warfare Specialist in the US Army from 1968 until 1990, when he was involuntarily discharged as a result of investigations into his involvement in the ritual sexual abuse of children at the Presidio Day Care Center in San Francisco. Throughout this same time, he has also been a devout satanist and self-confessed neo-Nazi. He joined Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan in 1969, staying until 1975 when he left to start his own Temple of Set, which has been in operation ever since.”

    psitech.net

    rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ed_Dames#Career

    projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63367-Gen.-Bert-Stubblebine–Gnostic-Media-Interview–Sept-13-2013

    technicalremoteviewing.com
    “It (TRV) is a very systematic, very controlled method of accessing information that is not normally available by any other source… It is independent of time.. I can go present, I can go future. It is independent of location, so I can go anywhere on this earth, I can go into any closet, I can go into any mind..It is independent of space, therefore, I can access that information any place on the planet or off of it if I choose.”
    – Major General Albert Stubblebine,
    former PSI TECH Chairman Of The Board and commanding officer of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM)

    kenraggio.com/KRPN-Gorbachev-PresidiumtoPresidio.htm

    nps.gov/prsf/learn/historyculture/post-to-park.htm
    “When the Golden Gate National Recreation Area was formed in 1972, the Presidio was designated to be part of the system if the military ever closed the base. This foresight became a reality in 1989, when Congress decided to close the post as part of a military base reduction program. On October 1, 1994, the Presidio officially ended over two hundred-years of military service to three nations and was transferred to the United States National Park Service. At the time of its closure, the Presidio was the oldest continuously operating military base in the country and contained a National Historic Landmark District with hundreds of historically significant buildings. Following the transfer of the post, the National Park Service engaged the local community in a planning process that culminated in the General Management Plan for the Presidio. The plan calls for the preservation and protection of the park’s resources as well as the unification of organizations that focus on finding solutions to environmental, cultural and social issues within the Presidio.”

  5. Nick Dean
    April 1, 2015 at 11:35 am

    Just to say I hope your operation worked out OK and wish you a speedy recovery coz you do GOOD WORK. No need to post this.

  6. Persas Rho
    April 4, 2015 at 11:29 am

    RIchard Alpert’s dad was head of one of the east coast railroad companies and drove it into the ground.

  7. allan weisbecker
    April 5, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    Jan,

    I guess you’re still upset at me for the Open Letter (to you) I published on my blog a while back and which can be accessed at:

    http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-jan-irvin/

    It might be useful (or mildly entertaining) to make our recent exchange public. Here is the email I sent to you yesterday:

    Jan,

    I assume you have evidence that researchers like Graham Hancock (Supernatural, etc) and Jeremy Narby (the Cosmic Serpent) plus their voluminous sources/work on shamanism (the spirit world, etc etc) can be traced back to MKULTRA as well…

    If not, is there a problem with your blanket views on mushrooms, ayahuasca, other DMT based plants and their histories and ‘effects’?

    allan

    For clarity and so as to make sure I don’t miss anything, I will insert my responses to your response surrounded by ‘#’. (I can’t seem to use Bold here.)

    Allan, first off I would have to start off by asking if you’ve read my work and verified my citations?

    # I have read all of it re the subject at hand, including the interminable article you link to below; I’ve listened to some of your podcasts. I have not verified your citations. I’m taking you at your word that you’re not lying. Is that a problem for you?

    I have a limited amount of time on planet earth. That you suggest I spend most of it studying Jan Irvin is typical of your arrogance and your ignorance.

    The problem I have with your views (blanket or otherwise) reflected in your CIA/1960s, etc. is how much you left out (while somehow making the articles interminable).#

    Second, since you have read my work before contacting me, you can cite exactly what blanket views they are and quote them to me, correct?

    #In my email I was short-handing – I assumed you’d know exactly what I was talking about when I wrote the words ‘blanket views’:

    It’s you, Jan, not me, making the claim that hallucinogens (mushrooms, ayahuasca, peyote, etc.) are of no ‘spiritual’ use and that shamans are ‘control freaks’ who use the substances in their nefarious doings. It’s you who characterize the substances as causing hyper-suggestibility. You cite no exceptions that I am aware of. You leave out a huge body of anthropological/
    Ethno-botanical literature.

    Why? My theory: any balance on this subject would damage your central thesis of CIA’s plot to destroy America. (I actually do not disagree. But leaving out relevant truth is always dishonest.)

    Third, I’m sure that you’ve already deeply considered and studied and verified the works of Hancock and Narby to verify that they’re not New Agers pulling your leg and faking their citations?

    # The way I deal with veracity is by immediately sussing the sourcing and footnotes. If they ‘feel’ right (there’s a bit of an art to it) I’ll read on. As I say, I do have limited time on earth.

    Give you an example: You recommended a 2,800 page book on Einstein. The first words in the text were ‘Racist physicist Albert Einstein…’ etc. I checked all the footnotes (there were very few) for the first chapter and found no evidence therein to prove this inflammatory phrase. So I chucked the book and moved on. I suggest you quit recommending that one. You’re embarrassing yourself. #

    Having done so, you can cite to me their heavily cited views that you’ve checked all the way down to the primary citations, and know for certain that they’re not using fallacious logic, failing the onus of proof, appealing to magic, etc, correct?

    #YOU are the self-appointed expert, the ethno-botanist article writer/blog/ podcaster who makes the above claims, i.e., that the substances are of no use except for mind control and ‘making hippie robots’ and have only the effect of making one ‘hyper-suggestible’ (you’ve also quoted a couple ‘bad trips’). So I ASKED YOU if you were aware of the contrary literature.

    You have no answer to my question – or if you do, it’s bad for your theory – so you repeat my question back at me? Which logical fallacy is at work here?#

    I would certainly hope that you’re not so tiny minded that you sent me an email WITHOUT studying my work first and being able to critique it, point by point, BEFORE contacting me. So therefore, I hope you won’t mind sending me your citations and quotes from my work so that we may review each point you have?

    #If you look at my email you might notice that it contained a simple question. It would appear that the answer would be sufficiently devastating to your theories (and hence your world view?) that you had to reply by making the questions seem arbitrary and meaningless without a study of everything you ever wrote.

    Is this not obvious to everyone reading this exchange?

    I did a search in your writings on the subject of the CIA and hallucinogens for the names Strassman (The Spiritual Molecule), Furst (Flesh of the Gods; The Ritual Use of Hallucinogens), Lommel (Shamanism; Archaic Techniques of Shamanism), Kalweit (Shamans, Healers, and Medicine Men), Narby (The Cosmic Serpent), Hancock (Supernatural; Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind) – just the tip of a very deep iceberg on the anthropological/ethno-botanical/etc. literature.

    None came up.

    The drift of the above literature, Jan, is that some of the properties given to hallucinogens by the mob of CIA operatives you expose may be pretty much what they claim.

    You have no problem with repeating yourself, so I will too: This is the problem, isn’t it? This is why you couldn’t simply answer my simple query, isn’t it? You’d have to claim ignorance (of the authorities I source) or (I suspect) admit that hallucinogens throughout history have a lot more to them your simplistic ‘CIA is fucking our minds’ paradigm will admit. #

    I suppose if you had read my work, you’d have at least known that Maria Sabina herself came out in 1981 and tried to expose Wasson and stated herself that the mushrooms had never been used for spiritual purposes by the Mazatec? If you had, then you’d have already seen the discussions about ayahuasca, DMT, Eleusis, etc., correct? Also, you’ve checked Hancock’s and Narby’s background and work and citations, and you know for a fact that they’re credible, and not just because they’ve been on The History Channel on TV and spout magic and New Age religious beliefs?

    #‘Maria Sabina HERSELF’! You cite (second hand) ONE source and it somehow implies that all of history, all of man’s art and inner life, etc. etc. has been unaffected by hallucinogenic plants. Maria Sabina erases all the genuine research! How did she do that? She must be some shaman!

    And you label yourself an ‘ethno-botanist’? #

    If not, then how would you even know what my “blanket views” are, how would you have verified them, not having read my work yourself, and then would that mean that you sent me your email out of fear, rather than spiritual enlightenment and knowledge? Isn’t that correct?

    #You are answering your own question here. You asked me if I’ve read your work and now you’re answering your own question. What fallacy is that?

    I DID READ YOUR WORK.

    Out of fear? What reality are you inhabiting these days, Jan? Again: I asked you a simple question. What the fuck is wrong with you (yes, a rhetorical question)?#

    I always wonder what type of fear must be going through someone’s mind to attack someone who’s work they’ve not read. You?

    #Need I point out where the fear is actually residing here?#

    Isn’t that amazing? People going around attacking work that they’ve never studied based on fear and ignorance.

    #Here we go again.#

    I’ll ask again: Are you familiar with the authors I mention? Is their work a problem for your thesis that (mushrooms, ayahuasca, etc) are more than CIA instruments of mind control?

    #Need I point out that I didn’t – and never have – challenged your thesis that the CIA was at least partially behind the drugged out 1960s culture? The fear (and paranoia) is all yours, dude.#

    Some of them might be considering how closed minded I must be over my work that THEY REFUSED to read before studying it. So wouldn’t it be better if they actually studied my work to know what it says before contacting me out of fear and ignorance?
    I’m sure this is unnecessary, as you’ve likely already read my work very thoroughly, and checked my citations, unbiasedly, to know that I haven’t fudged anything. I’m sure that you still have the self-esteem to know that you can trust yourself to look things up and know for certain what they say. So therefore, I’m sure there’s no reason to cite to you my last article, but I do so anyway just on the slim chance that you really are tiny minded and didn’t study or ready or verify any of my work before contacting me. Here’s my last article: Entheogens: What’s In a Name?https://logosmedia.com/Entheogens_WhatsinaName_PsychedelicSpirituality_SocialControl_CIA

    Therefore, you’ve already seen all of the original research by these “scholars” and have already seen what Maria Sabina, et al, had to say:

    But what did Maria Sabina have to say about all of this? In direct contradiction with all of the above claims from these “scholars,” in Maria Sabina, Her Life and Chants, she unequivocally states:
    After those first visits of Wasson, many foreign people came to ask me to do vigils for them. I asked them if they were sick, but they said no…that they had only come “to know God.” They brought innumerable objects with which they took what they called photographs and recorded my voice. Later they brought papers [newspapers and magazines] in which I appeared. I’ve kept some papers I’m in. I keep them even though I don’t know what they say about me.
    It’s true that Wasson and his friends were the first foreigners who came to our town in search of the saint children and that they didn’t take them because they suffered from any illness. Their reason was that they came to find God.
    Before Wasson nobody took the mushrooms only to find God. They were always taken for the sick to get well.[98]
    ~ Maria Sabina
    She further states:
    For a time there came young people of one and the other sex, long-haired, with strange clothes. They wore shirts of many colors and used necklaces. A lot came. Some of these young people sought me out for me to stay up with the Little-One-Who-Springs-Forth. “We come in search of God,” they said. It was difficult for me to explain to them that the vigils weren’t done from the simple desire to find God, but were done with the sole purpose of curing the sickness that our people suffer from.[99]
    ~ Maria Sabina

    #In reading your work I noticed one passage that provides a little balance on the subject of the effects of hallucinogens:

    No one who respects the ancient Mysteries of Eleusis, the Soma of the Aryans, and the fungal and other potions of the American natives, no one who respects the English language, would consent to apply ‘hallucinogen’ to these plant substances.[34]

    The above implies ‘respect’ for the ancient mysteries (the possible positive effects of psychotropic plants). Oh wait. That quote is from Gordon Wasson, the evil bastard who fooled us all! Mmmmm. How did that slip in?

    ‘The high makes you suggestible. Period.’ Is this not your point? Is this not what you repeat in every podcast?

    Jan, I HAVE studied your work (you need an editor, as your email also implies) and have been unable to find any reference to psychotropic substances that is not negative, or part of some grand conspiracy. If I missed it, please correct me.

    In fact, that was all I was really asking for in my original question, wasn’t it? #

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments regarding my work, having studied it thoroughly, and thanks for not judging my work falsely and ignorantly before contacting me.

    #One more time: What comments? Can’t you read? #

    There are many who’ve been duped by MKULTRA and New Age spiritualism who dismiss things and don’t even trust their own 5 senses to look things up, or have the respect for others to read the work themselves before attacking it based on what they think they know and were told … by someone else … without verifiying it themselves.

    #Listen to you go on and on, based on what? Read my email. #

    Such behavior can sometimes cause what is known in psychology as “cognitive dissonance” because these types often don’t trust themselves well enough to verify citations and rely on whatever others tell them to believe, so when faced with truth and facts, it can cause them great mental discord, so it’s easier for them to set up false arguments against the presenter, rather than studying the work itself.

    But don’t worry, I know that YOU wouldn’t do this! Right, Allan?

    Take care.
    Jan,

    #Here’s another thought, Jan, one I’m sure you dread:

    Some of your bad guys may have used the CIA for their own purposes, maybe in some cases to spread their spiritual ‘garbage’ (as you would judge), because they believed it (or came to believe it).

    This is possible, isn’t it, Jan? I mean given the real history of psychotropic plants/substances. There is no way of really knowing, is there?

    But this possibility doesn’t work for you and your spectacular expose so you leave out the relevant sources. (For example, where is reference to Rick Strassman’s exhaustive lab study of DMT experiences? It’s quite revealing on the nature of consciousness; some amazing stuff.)

    For anyone curious about the other side of this subject, I recommend Hancock’s Supernatural, Narby’s The Cosmic Serpent, and Strassman’s DMT: The Spirit Molecule. Unlike Irvin, I will leave it up to you to decide on their veracity.

    A final thought, Jan. The last time I asked you a simple question I got the same result: You’d repeat over and over that I should read every word you ever wrote and I’d be enlightened. (See above link to my Open Letter.) You do it again here. If you don’t quit this crapola, people will stop listening to you. And then where will you be?#

    • April 5, 2015 at 5:49 pm

      Jan,

      I guess you’re still upset at me for the Open Letter (to you) I published on my blog a while back and which can be accessed at:

      http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-jan-irvin/

      Hi, Allan, I could care less about your tactics and agendas and publishing private letters without permission, nor admission in advance of your agendas. I could also care less of your inability to study things first, consider the facts for themselves, etc.

      It might be useful (or mildly entertaining) to make our recent exchange public. Here is the email I sent to you yesterday:

      Jan,

      I assume you have evidence that researchers like Graham Hancock (Supernatural, etc) and Jeremy Narby (the Cosmic Serpent) plus their voluminous sources/work on shamanism (the spirit world, etc etc) can be traced back to MKULTRA as well…

      If not, is there a problem with your blanket views on mushrooms, ayahuasca, other DMT based plants and their histories and ‘effects’?

      allan

      Lets see, you propose a red herring, misleading, loaded question, then you seek to entertain your own conclusion, not based on the facts or evidence, but on an appeal to other “scholars,” whom have not, point by point, ever addressed my work and citations. Graham Hancock has, however, slandered it.

      But why post your replies here rather than in the email? This, of course, shows your agenda.

      Of course you ignore that my paper sent to you addresses these very issues on mushrooms, ayahuasca, and DMT and their effects. You pretend that they weren’t addressed and don’t cite how anything is “blanket”. Obviously if you had read them, you’d know your statement is dishonest.

      For clarity and so as to make sure I don’t miss anything, I will insert my responses to your response surrounded by ‘#’. (I can’t seem to use Bold here.)

      Allan, first off I would have to start off by asking if you’ve read my work and verified my citations?

      # I have read all of it re the subject at hand, including the interminable article you link to below; I’ve listened to some of your podcasts. I have not verified your citations. I’m taking you at your word that you’re not lying. Is that a problem for you?

      Oh, so when you write me with your loaded, misleading statements, appealing to the authority of Narby and Hancock, you admit that you’ve not verified the work. However, by your loaded email in the first place, it’s actually quite obvious that you didn’t read it either. As I asked you for your citations:

      “Second, since you have read my work before contacting me, you can cite exactly what blanket views they are and quote them to me, correct? Third, I’m sure that you’ve already deeply considered and studied and verified the works of Hancock and Narby to verify that they’re not New Agers pulling your leg and faking their citations? Having done so, you can cite to me their heavily cited views that you’ve checked all the way down to the primary citations, and know for certain that they’re not using fallacious logic, failing the onus of proof, appealing to magic, etc, correct? ”

      Rather than provide any, you avoided the issue and posted here.

      I have a limited amount of time on planet earth. That you suggest I spend most of it studying Jan Irvin is typical of your arrogance and your ignorance.

      So you write me using loaded language, attacking my work, talking about your appeal to your heroes Narby and Hancock, and when asked for your citations to back up your claims, regarding them or against me, you come back at me that I’m arrogant for asking you to back your OWN CLAIMS. What does how much time you have on earth have to do with you backing your own statements? You had time to email me today, no? You had time to write this, no? So it’s just an excuse for lazy behavior, is that correct?

      I didn’t suggest you “spent most of your time studying Jan Irvin”, I ask that you had, and to please provide your quotes and statements from my work that support your own claims.

      “”Second, since you have read my work before contacting me, you can cite exactly what blanket views they are and quote them to me, correct?”

      So rather than admit that you cannot quote my own work to back up your own claims against me, you feel the need to name call? How does that work?

      Here’s what I further asked:

      “I would certainly hope that you’re not so tiny minded that you sent me an email WITHOUT studying my work first and being able to critique it, point by point, BEFORE contacting me. So therefore, I hope you won’t mind sending me your citations and quotes from my work so that we may review each point you have?”

      Why don’t you quote these when posting your “response”?

      That you suggest I spend most of it studying Jan Irvin is typical of your arrogance and your ignorance.

      Notice how you’re not even honest about what I ASKED, that you could PROVIDE QUOTES to back your claims so that we could review them?

      The problem I have with your views (blanket or otherwise) reflected in your CIA/1960s, etc. is how much you left out (while somehow making the articles interminable).#

      Left out about what? Where? What was left out? You have NO examples? You can’t support any of your claims? If you’ve read my work, how come you can’t tell us what I left out? Is that like attacking my interviews with Harriman without reading his books, and studying the trivium? How do you benefit by NOT studying things and then attacking them from your own strawmans and ignorance of what they say?

      So you read them but can’t cite anything and then claim that I left something out… while, ironically, leaving out all evidence of your claims against me. Of course the onus of proof is on you. That’s why I asked you for your quotes in the email, so that we could review your claims point by point.

      Second, since you have read my work before contacting me, you can cite exactly what blanket views they are and quote them to me, correct?

      #In my email I was short-handing – I assumed you’d know exactly what I was talking about when I wrote the words ‘blanket views’:

      Here’s your email:

      Jan,

      I assume you have evidence that researchers like Graham Hancock (Supernatural, etc) and Jeremy Narby (the Cosmic Serpent) plus their voluminous sources/work on shamanism (the spirit world, etc etc) can be traced back to MKULTRA as well…

      If not, is there a problem with your blanket views on mushrooms, ayahuasca, other DMT based plants and their histories and ‘effects’?

      allan

      BANDITOBOOKS.COM
      “There’s nothing like it on the web!”

      You only reply to how voluminous it is. I simply asked you if you had verified their work before attacking me and ignoring the citations, which we already saw above that you didn’t verify (also notice how I’m quoting each claim, as I asked of you).

      Third, I’m sure that you’ve already deeply considered and studied and verified the works of Hancock and Narby to verify that they’re not New Agers pulling your leg and faking their citations? Having done so, you can cite to me their heavily cited views that you’ve checked all the way down to the primary citations, and know for certain that they’re not using fallacious logic, failing the onus of proof, appealing to magic, etc, correct?

      It’s you, Jan, not me, making the claim that hallucinogens (mushrooms, ayahuasca, peyote, etc.) are of no ‘spiritual’ use and that shamans are ‘control freaks’ who use the substances in their nefarious doings. It’s you who characterize the substances as causing hyper-suggestibility. You cite no exceptions that I am aware of. You leave out a huge body of anthropological/
      Ethno-botanical literature.

      Actually, I’ve provided extensive evidence of how these these are used for “spiritual purposes” and I’ve provided great history regarding this, even publishing books on it. But this is an extreme straw man to what I actually claimed. In my email back to you, I asked you to QUOTE some of these things that you claim. You complain of how I cite no exemptions, but it’s you who is arguing exemptions, not me, so the onus of proof falls on you FOR YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

      I did, however, cite exactly why I changed my own view on the issue, which of course you ignored. The citation was to someone else. Obviously this is why you need to distort what I said and avoid the citations and quotes all together, because if you quoted me, your distortions of my work wouldn’t hold up:

      Plant hallucinogens appear to have been used by regional religious and political leaders for control of political, psychological, and social arenas using the power made possible in drug-induced altered states.[42]
      ~ Marlene Dobkin de Rios

      De Rios and Grob in 1992 discussed the role of hallucinogenic plants in adolescent rites of passage in three traditional non-Western societies of the world. In the West, individualism is an undisputed value. Since the end of World War II, the empty self has emerged among the U.S. middle classes, with the breakdown of family, community, and tradition. Alienation, fragmentation, and a sense of confusion and meaninglessness pervade Western society, which particularly affects young people. There is a compulsion to fill up this emptiness, reflected in various ailments of our society: eating disorders, consumers’ buying sprees, and the perceived need for mind-altering substances.[117]
      ~ Marlene Dobkin de Rios

      Psychedelic substances like ayahuasca create a state of hypersuggestibility in which persons are very open to being influenced by others. Many traditional cultures have utilized this condition to inculcate cultural values and behaviors in young people as they receive initiation into adulthood. In the West, countercultural values can be inculcated in young people when using these psychedelics, especially when using them in an antinomian context.[129]
      ~ Marlene Dobkin de Rios

      But, in fact, the ENTIRE ARTICLE addressed all of this. But you claim to have read it, while ignoring all of these details, and then appealing back to your own spiritual/ religious beliefs about them. Those are your beliefs. You’ll have to learn how to support your own arguments and not attack people and misrepresent what they say every time you’re incapable.

      Why? My theory: any balance on this subject would damage your central thesis of CIA’s plot to destroy America. (I actually do not disagree. But leaving out relevant truth is always dishonest.)

      Ok, give it your best shot. Was this it? Where’s your evidence? Your quotes? You have anything to back your claims? You can’t even present my work properly. How would any balance on this damage my central thesis? You don’t say. Just because you make an unsupported claim, doesn’t make it true. I would love for you to address my work point by point, quoting me… but it seems all your capable of is these complete distortions of my work and what it says. This is a typical sign that you didn’t read it, or you’d be able to actually quote what I really said.

      Third, I’m sure that you’ve already deeply considered and studied and verified the works of Hancock and Narby to verify that they’re not New Agers pulling your leg and faking their citations?

      Yes, I actually have most of their books here. But you don’t explain, with citations or anything, how their work debunks mine. You don’t provide or quote one single example. You only appeal to their authority – and don’t even explain why you’re doing that.

      How is this a reason to ignore my work and citations that you admit to not having studied? You don’t say. Again, you don’t support your own claims.

      # The way I deal with veracity is by immediately sussing the sourcing and footnotes. If they ‘feel’ right (there’s a bit of an art to it) I’ll read on. As I say, I do have limited time on earth.

      Yes, I asked you to do this and you called me arrogant and ignorant for having asked you to do so. You resorted to name calling, remember? Again, what does your time on earth have to do with making excuses, or your lazy behavior? You don’t make sense. They’re your own claims, so support them. Why spend your life believing lies if you only have so little time? Wouldn’t it make more sense to verify things so that you know you’re beliefs are true? So you go by “feeling” rather than checking them and making sure they’re correct? Really? Do you sprinkle some pixie dust to make them speak? Why not simply look them up?

      I have a limited amount of time on planet earth. That you suggest I spend most of it studying Jan Irvin is typical of your arrogance and your ignorance.

      Give you an example: You recommended a 2,800 page book on Einstein. The first words in the text were ‘Racist physicist Albert Einstein…’ etc. I checked all the footnotes (there were very few) for the first chapter and found no evidence therein to prove this inflammatory phrase. So I chucked the book and moved on. I suggest you quit recommending that one. You’re embarrassing yourself. #

      Actually, you misquoted that. It’s actually the chapter heading and not a quote from Einstein. You’d have had to have read past the chapter heading, which apparently you failed to do.

      “Chapter 1’s titles: Einstein Discovers His Racist Calling.” – had you read further, you’d have noticed that each quote there was cited to the original author. The book actually contains 3683 footnotes and citations, in the section titled footnotes. But of course you’ve not quoted to us which citation wasn’t there. You’ve only made the unsupported claim, as, seems typical for you. Taking the title of the chapter and pretending it’s an Einstein quote is about as dishonest as it gets.

      As for your claims against the very heavily cited book by John Bjerkness, you read the first few pages? You got to the headline, ignored the evidence, and then claimed there wasn’t any. That’s hilarious.

      For all to see how your claims are actually lies, here’s the book:
      https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-4845

      But that’s a pretty shallow, dishonest example, Allan, obviously you didn’t read the book.

      #YOU are the self-appointed expert, the ethno-botanist article writer/blog/ podcaster who makes the above claims, i.e., that the substances are of no use except for mind control and ‘making hippie robots’ and have only the effect of making one ‘hyper-suggestible’ (you’ve also quoted a couple ‘bad trips’). So I ASKED YOU if you were aware of the contrary literature.

      Self appointed expert? Really? Where ever have I made that claim? I simply provide the citations for people to verify. You ignored those citations, as you admitted. I do not make those claims, you distort my work and then claim I made those claims. However, they’re your claims about me, not anything I claim. Again, you’re being very dishonest. Again, I’ve never once said: “that the substances are of no use except for mind control and ‘making hippie robots’ and have only the effect of making one ‘hyper-suggestible”

      That is 100% your own claim and a total distortion on every level of my work. Again, these are your words, your straw man arguments against me… hence why you quote nothing and insert your lies into my mouth.

      The literature you claim does not address my work and citations in any way whats ever. You’d have to show where Narby and Hancock have done so. It’s a lie that you claim they have.

      You have no answer to my question – or if you do, it’s bad for your theory – so you repeat my question back at me? Which logical fallacy is at work here?#

      I would certainly hope that you’re not so tiny minded that you sent me an email WITHOUT studying my work first and being able to critique it, point by point, BEFORE contacting me. So therefore, I hope you won’t mind sending me your citations and quotes from my work so that we may review each point you have?

      Again, you seem only capable of distorting my work and lying about it, inserting words I didn’t say into my mouth, name calling at me when I ask you to quote the work exactly, etc. Actually, this is not a logical fallacy. In fact, it’s a QUESTION. You seem 100% incapable of citing it and not taking my work and words out of context, choosing to attack me rather than to verify those who’ve made their own words clear. Why do you have a problem with the quotes and citations? Its such odd behavior. So to you, asking you to send me your quotes and citations from my work that you’re the one attacking, is somehow a fallacy? How’s that again? It’s simply asking if you read it, and to please send your quotes that back up YOUR OWN CLAIMS. However, it’s clear that the true reason you won’t quote me and resort to name calling when asked is because you’re mostly interested in lying and distorting my work and taking every citation – that you haven’t read – out of context. Again, this is highly dishonest behavior. The citations are right there. I QUOTED them. Give it a try. Then you won’t have to appeal to your two heroes in your straw man of the work. Had you studied the trivium back then, you’d know what a straw man is today.

      #If you look at my email you might notice that it contained a simple question. It would appear that the answer would be sufficiently devastating to your theories (and hence your world view?) that you had to reply by making the questions seem arbitrary and meaningless without a study of everything you ever wrote.

      It wasn’t a simple question, it was a loaded, leading question, not based on the work, but on your unsupported appeal to their authority, ignoring the work and then placing your false dichotomy onto me. In fact, your email was entirely fallacious. I’ve cited it above already:

      Jan,

      I assume you have evidence that researchers like Graham Hancock (Supernatural, etc) and Jeremy Narby (the Cosmic Serpent) plus their voluminous sources/work on shamanism (the spirit world, etc etc) can be traced back to MKULTRA as well…

      If not, is there a problem with your blanket views on mushrooms, ayahuasca, other DMT based plants and their histories and ‘effects’?

      allan

      But in fact, my work stands on its own, regardless of what Narby and Graham Hancock have to say, as they don’t address the work at all. How would there be a problem? You lead and imply, but provide nothing – yet again. And actually, Graham Hancock’s work on shamanism is pretty sparse. His “Supernatural” – if that’s what you refer, is mostly made up of already debunked citations to less than reputable scholars. More below.

      Is this not obvious to everyone reading this exchange?

      Yes, it’s obvious. However, you apparently don’t realize that it’s your own lack of research and straw man arguments and inability to deal honestly with work and citations that’s being exposed.

      I did a search in your writings on the subject of the CIA and hallucinogens for the names Strassman (The Spiritual Molecule), Furst (Flesh of the Gods; The Ritual Use of Hallucinogens), Lommel (Shamanism; Archaic Techniques of Shamanism), Kalweit (Shamans, Healers, and Medicine Men), Narby (The Cosmic Serpent), Hancock (Supernatural; Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind) – just the tip of a very deep iceberg on the anthropological/ethno-botanical/etc. literature.

      Uh, yeah, so? What’s your point, exactly? Of course you don’t say. Of course you don’t provide any examples of how their work relates at all to the exposure of MKULTRA.

      None came up.

      Oh, so your whole point is that they don’t discuss it? So are there no other authors who do? Is your reading limited to your favorite new age preachers? Have you studied my several shows with Prof. Fikes exposing Furst? Why not? Why not look up the American Anthropology Association charges? They were cited. So again, you must be lying here. But your argument is again a red herring. You seem to think that because you did a google search and didn’t find anything, or ignored what you did, that somehow my work on MKULTRA is invalid? How so? What are the key points of MKULTRA and how it works that we’ve exposed? Of course you don’t address them.

      Again, if you had studied the trivium back then you’d understand fallacies of RELEVANCE. But it’s sad that we’re here today and you still require the same fallacious logic.

      The drift of the above literature, Jan, is that some of the properties given to hallucinogens by the mob of CIA operatives you expose may be pretty much what they claim.

      Well, at least they all cite each other. But again, we know that you’ve not verified their literature, as you haven’t mine. I’ve discussed the onus of proof with you before. But you seem to miss the overall agenda we’ve exposed and how it was sold.

      You have no problem with repeating yourself, so I will too: This is the problem, isn’t it? This is why you couldn’t simply answer my simple query, isn’t it? You’d have to claim ignorance (of the authorities I source) or (I suspect) admit that hallucinogens throughout history have a lot more to them your simplistic ‘CIA is fucking our minds’ paradigm will admit. #

      Repeating myself? Where? I usually only repeat myself when people have trouble with logic or understanding English, as you apparently do. I’ve already answered to your “simple inquiry” which, as you’d know had you studied logic, was a loaded leading question in the first place. Obviously if my work exposes all of this ,and Graham cites those very authors exposed, then it’s him with the problem to deal with, not me. But again, you didn’t check any citations. You checked your fallacious logic database to see what fallacies you could lead yourself around with.

      I suppose if you had read my work, you’d have at least known that Maria Sabina herself came out in 1981 and tried to expose Wasson and stated herself that the mushrooms had never been used for spiritual purposes by the Mazatec? If you had, then you’d have already seen the discussions about ayahuasca, DMT, Eleusis, etc., correct? Also, you’ve checked Hancock’s and Narby’s background and work and citations, and you know for a fact that they’re credible, and not just because they’ve been on The History Channel on TV and spout magic and New Age religious beliefs?

      #‘Maria Sabina HERSELF’! You cite (second hand) ONE source and it somehow implies that all of history, all of man’s art and inner life, etc. etc. has been unaffected by hallucinogenic plants. Maria Sabina erases all the genuine research! How did she do that? She must be some shaman!

      Actually, that’s a primary source, however translated to English. But it’s a whole book written of Maria Sabina’s own work and words and songs. However, your dismissing the quote out of hand, when I included a 58 page article, is rather dishonest. Of course you provide ZERO evidence as to why we should ignore Sabina’s own words. You provide no claim about how an entire book, translated from her own words, is second hand. Obviously, had you read the article thoroughly and honestly, you’d have seen that I also provided many other dozens of examples – avoided and ignored by you – for the single one provided to you in an email, which you go and lie about – calling it second hand.

      And you label yourself an ‘ethno-botanist’? #

      Is this some sort of fallacious appeal to ridicule based on your own inability to check the citations, then lie about them, completely distorting the work?

      Obviously it is.

      If not, then how would you even know what my “blanket views” are, how would you have verified them, not having read my work yourself, and then would that mean that you sent me your email out of fear, rather than spiritual enlightenment and knowledge? Isn’t that correct?

      #You are answering your own question here. You asked me if I’ve read your work and now you’re answering your own question. What fallacy is that?

      Obviosly not. You’re not half as clever as you think you are. This was a pretty sad misrepresentation and effort at spin.

      I DID READ YOUR WORK.

      Then why can’t you quote it or not take it completely out of context as you know you are?

      Out of fear? What reality are you inhabiting these days, Jan? Again: I asked you a simple question. What the fuck is wrong with you (yes, a rhetorical question)?#

      I always wonder what type of fear must be going through someone’s mind to attack someone who’s work they’ve not read. You?

      #Need I point out where the fear is actually residing here?#

      Um, you’re clearly the one distorting my work, using name calling rather than quotes and citations, etc, and creating fanciful conclusions based on your own misrepresentations. If you weren’t afraid of it, then why not cite it and quote it? Then you wouldn’t need to lie about what it says.

      Isn’t that amazing? People going around attacking work that they’ve never studied based on fear and ignorance.

      #Here we go again.#

      Yes, it’s really sad, because I just showed you how you did it again, and you even wanted to make this egregious faulty logic on your part public. Wow.

      I’ll ask again: Are you familiar with the authors I mention? Is their work a problem for your thesis that (mushrooms, ayahuasca, etc) are more than CIA instruments of mind control?

      Yes, of course I’m familiar. I’ve read most of their crap.

      Graham wasn’t even an “expert” until he tried Ayahuasca once, then wrote supernatural. Like overnight he was an expert, regurgitated by the likes of you for years – never once verifying any of it yourself. Then using it to attack a work that it doesn’t address. That’s just… dumb.

      #Need I point out that I didn’t – and never have – challenged your thesis that the CIA was at least partially behind the drugged out 1960s culture? The fear (and paranoia) is all yours, dude.#

      Yeah, that’s why you need to name call and can’t quote, got it. That’s why you need this long, public rambling where you get taken apart… because you’re not afraid that your heroes fooled you. Uh huh.

      But ironically, you are the one attacking me “If not, is there a problem with your blanket views on mushrooms, ayahuasca, other DMT based plants and their histories and ‘effects’?”

      So, um, you’re attacking me, but not citing me and you’re not afraid, even though you’re using a straw man from someone else to attack my work that they don’t address, without ever considering the veracity of their own work? Right? Got it. The fear is mine, that’s why you’re asking if my work is debunked and claiming to not challenge it, when your email attacks me for “blanket views’.

      Ok. Sure. Got it.

      But what did Maria Sabina have to say about all of this? In direct contradiction with all of the above claims from these “scholars,” in Maria Sabina, Her Life and Chants, she unequivocally states:
      After those first visits of Wasson, many foreign people came to ask me to do vigils for them. I asked them if they were sick, but they said no…that they had only come “to know God.” They brought innumerable objects with which they took what they called photographs and recorded my voice. Later they brought papers [newspapers and magazines] in which I appeared. I’ve kept some papers I’m in. I keep them even though I don’t know what they say about me.
      It’s true that Wasson and his friends were the first foreigners who came to our town in search of the saint children and that they didn’t take them because they suffered from any illness. Their reason was that they came to find God.
      Before Wasson nobody took the mushrooms only to find God. They were always taken for the sick to get well.[98]
      ~ Maria Sabina
      She further states:
      For a time there came young people of one and the other sex, long-haired, with strange clothes. They wore shirts of many colors and used necklaces. A lot came. Some of these young people sought me out for me to stay up with the Little-One-Who-Springs-Forth. “We come in search of God,” they said. It was difficult for me to explain to them that the vigils weren’t done from the simple desire to find God, but were done with the sole purpose of curing the sickness that our people suffer from.[99]
      ~ Maria Sabina

      #In reading your work I noticed one passage that provides a little balance on the subject of the effects of hallucinogens:

      No one who respects the ancient Mysteries of Eleusis, the Soma of the Aryans, and the fungal and other potions of the American natives, no one who respects the English language, would consent to apply ‘hallucinogen’ to these plant substances.[34]

      Um, actually, I addressed and debunked that entire passage in the article… but again, you apparently only read the two quotes sent in the email and ignored the entire 58 page article that addressed this very quote in detail. Again, very dishonest of you. You fool no one.

      As I actually stated:

      He admits that he doesn’t recognize the meaningful connection to LSD and spontaneous visionary experience until much later, though claims this was after further experiments. That’s because this idea had to be marketed, or suggested (as his continued use of the word psychotomimetic in 1968, above, reveals). This is also known as “seeding.” And as will be shown below, Dr. Louis Jolyon West showed drugs as a system of control – but youth don’t take “psychotomimetics” in order to be controlled by them. And as it just so happens, Hofmann’s book, translated by Jonathan Ott (he’s part of marketing team 2), was published in 1979. 1979 must have been an important year. We’ll return to it, and Ott, shortly.

      Ironically, Gordon Wasson later accused Huxley, Osmond and Hoffer:

      In Antiquity people spoke of the Mystery of Eleusis, of the Orphic Mysteries, and of many others. These all concealed a secret, a ‘Mystery’. But we can no longer use ‘Mystery’, which has latched on to itself other meanings, and we all know the uses and misuses of this word today. Moreover, we need a word that applies to the potions taken in the antique Mysteries, now that at last we are learning what they were. ‘Hallucinogen’ and ‘psychedelic’ have circulated comfortably among the Tim Learys and their ilk, and uncomfortably among others including me for want of a suitable word: ‘hallucinogen’ is patently a misnomer, as a lie is of the essence of ‘hallucinogen’, and ‘psychedelic’ is a barbarous formation. No one who respects the ancient Mysteries of Eleusis, the Soma of the Aryans, and the fungal and other potions of the American natives, no one who respects the English language, would consent to apply ‘hallucinogen’ to these plant substances.[34]
      ~ Gordon Wasson

      Apparently, as we saw above, Wasson is saying that Osmond and Hoffer don’t respect the English language, and that Huxley’s and Osmond’s word “psychedelic” is a “barbarous formation,” and likens them to “the Tim Learys and their ilk.” I wonder why Wasson never discusses entertaining Leary at his home?

      In a moment we were heading uptown to Gordon Wasson’s apartment. On the way Tim told me that Wasson had graduated from Columbia’s School of Journalism, then worked for newspapers as a financial writer, and in the thirties was hired by the J.P. Morgan Company. “Sandoz was a client. That’s how Mr. Wasson became a director,” Tim concluded the biographical information, then hurried on. “I keep him posted on everything. I want his guidance on what to do next. Sandoz has invested a lot of money in psilocybin research without getting penny back. Of course, Mr. Wasson’s more aware of this than anyone. He’s a banker. […]”[35]
      ~ B.H. Friedman in a discussion with Timothy Leary

      So Wasson was actually a director of Sandoz via his ties to JP Morgan. And then Leary reveals “I keep him posted on everything.” So then Wasson, who, as it turns out, headed up the CIA’s MKULTRA Subproject 58 program with JP Morgan Bank[36] – for which he was the vice president of propaganda – and knew and also worked with Aldous Huxley via the CIA’s front organization The Century Club,[37], [38] (their librarian sent me Friedman’s citation – who was also a member) was being kept posted on “everything” regarding Leary’s Harvard studies. We’re always given the illusion that Wasson hated Leary, that Leary was the CIA’s guy turned bad, etc. But in actuality, as we can see, Leary was working closely with Wasson and, as we’ll reveal in a moment, Huxley. If Leary was keeping the CIA informed of his actions and working with them on how to create a “psychedelic revolution,” as it appears, then it changes everything regarding our perception of the historical events as related by the official history.

      Anyway, I don’t want to digress too far. I should point out here that I had my first “religious experience” with psychedelics or “entheogens” on the very night that I had met Timothy Leary and Dennis McKenna – on April 28, 1993, after the “Gathering of the Minds” convention at Chapman University in Orange County, California. It is possible that it was at this conference where these ideas were subsequently “suggested” to me during Leary’s lecture. I had taken “psychedelic” substances many times prior to this particular night without ever having had a “spiritual” experience.

      The idea here is that until the idea is “suggested” or “seeded” into the person’s consciousness they’re unaware of it. But by planting or “seeding” the ideas, these psychologists were then able to direct people’s experiences to the conclusions that they wanted. In other words, using reframing, they label your experience, tell you what it means – and you remain in their box. Here Leary and Dr. Oscar Janiger are bragging about this fact:

      A Conversation on LSD, 1979

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

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

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

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

      Leary: Wonderful! They’re right!

      Janiger: The only time it happened, was when you cross the Colorado River.[39]

      Osmond was also at the same reunion (A Conversation on LSD, 1979), where Leary admitted he and the others were agents – and as we’ll see shortly, Osmond also worked on MKULTRA. From The Letters of Aldous Huxley and Moksha, Leary’s Flashbacks, and A Conversation on LSD, we may flush out the clues that Huxley and Osmond actually went to Cambridge (Harvard University is located in Cambridge, MA) and hired Tim Leary for the CIA:

      Humphry Osmond: Remember the first time we met, which was in Cambridge? On the night of the Kennedy election.

      Tim Leary: 1960.

      Osmond: 1960. We went out to this place. And Timothy then was wearing his gray flannel suit and his crew cut. And we had this very interesting discussion with him. And when we went… and I don’t think I told you this, Timothy. But the night we went we both said “what a nice fellow he is”. He says “he’s a very nice man”, and Aldous said “it’s very very nice to think that this is what’s going to be done at Harvard”. He said “it would be so good for it”. And then I said to him, “I think he’s a nice fellow too. But don’t you think he’s just a little bit square?” [laughter – no mention of “too square for what?”] Aldous said “you may be right”, he said “but after all isn’t that what we want?” [laughter]

      Timothy, when I’m discussing the need for understanding human temperament this is the story I tell. Because I said, yeah Aldous and I were deeply interested in the nature of human temperament and we meet someone who – I think that was probably the least satisfactory description of you ever made, Timothy. I think even your greatest enemies would never make that description. And we made it. We were very very concerned because we held that perhaps you were a bit too unadventurous. [for what?] You see what insights we had.

      Al Hubbard: Well, you sure as heck contributed your part, but uh… [8:26][40]
      – A Conversation on LSD – 1979.

      So Leary was hired or recruited to popularize the newly named “psychedelic drugs.” Popularizing led, seemingly intentionally, to “stigmatizing” the word psychedelic and the drugs and resulted in their outlaw. But as was noted above, in reality Leary was of those who went before Congress recommending regulation in 1966. Why else would they have asked Leary to do this? Rebellious teenagers don’t normally retaliate with legal drugs – especially ones named psychotomimetics. Obviously Leary could not have done this job before the drugs were renamed. If these substances were still called “psychotomimetic,” his efforts would have been wasted.

      It is also a little-known fact that a close friend of Leary’s, MKULTRA author and researcher Walter Bowart (Operation Mind Control, 1978), as previously mentioned, went with Leary and Kleps before Congress recommending the regulation of LSD and these substances in 1966. Though Bowart’s testimony was definitely the most balanced of all their testimonies, and though they weren’t asked on the record, none of them admit in the hearings that they were all pals – which gives the impression that each of their testimonies was planned and rehearsed.

      Bowart’s wife was none other than Peggy Mellon Hitchcock of the Mellon banking and Gulf Oil empires, and Peggy and her famous brother Billy provided the Millbrook Mansion, funded IFIF (International Federation for Internal Freedom), and also the Grateful Dead’s first album. It was Leary who introduced Walter to Peggy. Of course this direct connection from Bowart and his in-laws to the promotion of psychedelic drugs, and his going before Congress with Leary et al., is entirely omitted from his book. The following quote from the CIA’s own MKULTRA researcher, Dr. Louis Jolyon West, who was also a friend of Aldous Huxley, makes clear this agenda:

      So again, you lie about my work, take the citation out of context, then attack me for your own false representation of the work that was addressed very succinctly in the article. So, again, Allan, you’re far from honest:

      The above implies ‘respect’ for the ancient mysteries (the possible positive effects of psychotropic plants). Oh wait. That quote is from Gordon Wasson, the evil bastard who fooled us all! Mmmmm. How did that slip in?

      Obviously I quoted it, and you took that out of context to intentionally twist it to your sophist needs.

      ‘The high makes you suggestible. Period.’ Is this not your point? Is this not what you repeat in every podcast?

      Oh, I show how others say it’s hyper suggestible, and I quote the studies. Why do you ignore them? That’s not very honest, again:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25242255

      Or here:

      As the CIA’s MKULTRA psychiatrist, Dr. Sydney Cohen, stated before Congress in 1966:

      May I add something to what you have just said, Senator? I think another thing that has to be pointed out to these young people is that the LSD state is a completely uncritical one, a hypersuggestible one, and that what happens there can overwhelm some people and yet be quite illusory. There are insights here to be found and examined, but also the great possibility that the insights are not valid at all and overwhelm certain credulous personalities.[128]
      ~ Sydney Cohen

      Here we also see Prof. Marlene Dobkin de Rios discussing the hyper-suggestibility factor:

      Psychedelic substances like ayahuasca create a state of hypersuggestibility in which persons are very open to being influenced by others. Many traditional cultures have utilized this condition to inculcate cultural values and behaviors in young people as they receive initiation into adulthood. In the West, countercultural values can be inculcated in young people when using these psychedelics, especially when using them in an antinomian context.[129]
      ~ Marlene Dobkin de Rios

      So what you’re doing is putting the quotes from the MKULTRA doctors and researchers and the scientific papers into my mouth. Again, that’s extremely dishonest.

      Jan, I HAVE studied your work (you need an editor, as your email also implies) and have been unable to find any reference to psychotropic substances that is not negative, or part of some grand conspiracy. If I missed it, please correct me.

      No, you clearly haven’t. Not honestly anyway. You’ve not verified the citations. You’ve studied some maybe, but you’re so biased and dishonest, intentional or not is left to be determined, that you’ve distorted everything, hence your refusal to avoid quoting my work and your need to distort everything and claim quotes from others are my words, while at the same time avoiding / ignoring the bulk of the work that doesn’t jive with your distortions.

      These pathetic tactics are why I avoided you “open letter” before, because it was clear that I was dealing with someone who’s either extremely dishonest, or a troll.

      But that you couldn’t find anything is pretty amazing, since I’ve written books on them since 2005, so you didn’t read my books? Maybe you didn’t even bother to read the last two articles, because if you had, you’d have found these quotes and not had to lie, again, about them:

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

      And maybe it’s wishful thinking, but may the mushrooms remain forevermore pure, and never again be defiled for the deceitful, irrational agendas of the elite.

      This essay is dedicated to the honor, purity and sanctity of the mushrooms – and to the Mazatec peoples of Oaxaca, Mexico, especially from Huaulta de Jimenez, from which they came – who were also profaned. The Mazatecs had their religion coopted, their culture infiltrated, their sacrament corrupted and commercialized.
      https://logosmedia.com/SecretHistoryMagicMushroomsProject

      So you’re either lying egregiously, or you’re simply incapable of understanding the English language, and furthermore, you don’t seem to have realized that this show started from doing over 55 interviews with the “world’s leading experts” on psychedelic drugs. So why would you ignore all this while claiming “have been unable to find any reference to psychotropic substances that is not negative, or part of some grand conspiracy.”

      But why the loaded language again, avoiding all of the primary evidence of the fact that MKULTRA is a proved conspiracy, to sit here and make up fake ridicule in order to sound falsely intelligent? That’s, again, simply dishonest.

      In fact, that was all I was really asking for in my original question, wasn’t it? #

      Your distorted, loaded, irrelevant question, based on fallacious logic and avoidance of the facts, is that what you mean?

      #One more time: What comments? Can’t you read? #

      Obviously I was joking when I stated “thank you for your thoughtful comments” as they weren’t thoughtful or well thought out at all, as every one can now see – who’s got an iota of honesty and integrity about them.

      There are many who’ve been duped by MKULTRA and New Age spiritualism who dismiss things and don’t even trust their own 5 senses to look things up, or have the respect for others to read the work themselves before attacking it based on what they think they know and were told … by someone else … without verifying it themselves.

      #Listen to you go on and on, based on what? Read my email. #

      Again, your loaded, fallacious, leading email, that was based on a straw man to begin with. Again, had you studied the trivium back then, we wouldn’t have to deal with all of your fallacious, circular, straw man logic today.

      #Here’s another thought, Jan, one I’m sure you dread:

      Some of your bad guys may have used the CIA for their own purposes, maybe in some cases to spread their spiritual ‘garbage’ (as you would judge), because they believed it (or came to believe it).

      Um, again, you fail to provide any evidence or citations. No surprise by now. Thanks for arguing the arbitrary and being a prime example of faulty logic and non-existent critical thinking. If you’re going to make a claim, it would be nice if you’d learn to support at least SOMETHING. You ignore and attack detailed research, while you speculate out your rear about that which you have no evidence for.

      This is possible, isn’t it, Jan? I mean given the real history of psychotropic plants/substances. There is no way of really knowing, is there?

      I’m sure you can speculate endlessly about things you have no evidence for, as that’s why I’ve repeated to you about the onus of proof, not arguing the arbitrary as you have here, and your ridiculous open letter. It’s too bad you won’t study logic and critical thinking, or, again, you’re just a troll who likes to pontificate endlessly about nonsense.

      But this possibility doesn’t work for you and your spectacular expose so you leave out the relevant sources. (For example, where is reference to Rick Strassman’s exhaustive lab study of DMT experiences? It’s quite revealing on the nature of consciousness; some amazing stuff.)

      I presume you didn’t read the major debunking Strassman got years ago on the Rogan board. Oh well. All those aliens and UFOs and what not, and that it was funded by Scottish Rite Freemasonry, who also, it just so happens, funded MKULTRA… but I suppose you just skipped that part on the book’s financial backing.

      For anyone curious about the other side of this subject, I recommend Hancock’s Supernatural, Narby’s The Cosmic Serpent, and Strassman’s DMT: The Spirit Molecule. Unlike Irvin, I will leave it up to you to decide on their veracity.

      Yes, please do… I’ve read them both. They’re both crap, and as anyone can see who can check footnotes and not lie about them, as you with Bjerkness, will see that these guys only cite back to each other and half of Hancock’s citations are under serious question.

      So please do, read it, and see for yourselves how poorly these books are written.

      A final thought, Jan. The last time I asked you a simple question I got the same result: You’d repeat over and over that I should read every word you ever wrote and I’d be enlightened. (See above link to my Open Letter.) You do it again here. If you don’t quit this crapola, people will stop listening to you. And then where will you be?#

      Yes, as you’re the one arging for the drug spirituality and attacking me for not talking about the good, remember? It’s your religion, or you wouldn’t be here writing a 50 pages response to a couple paragraphs in an email based on Narby and Hancock, able to spend your life writing this, but still unable to cite or quote anything, or check a citation, or back a single one of your own claims. Ridiculous, I know.

      In regard to Graham Hancock, it’s already been well evidenced how he’s fudged on citations, etc.

      “he [Hancock] famously wrote back in the 1990s that he does not present fair or balanced work but rather views himself as an attorney defending his client (the subject of whatever book he is writing) and therefore has no need to present opposing views. He wrote that “another criticism is that I use innuendo to make my case. Of course I do — innuendo and anything else that works.”

      Here’s an entire website from a scholar dedicated to debunking Graham Hancock:
      http://www.jasoncolavito.com/articles.html

      It’s too bad that you don’t try to understand simple logical concepts, such as the onus of proof, not appealing to magic, not using fallacies, etc, and actually focus on the work itself, which your link above, and email today, of course, avoids.

      I hope that no one else wastes their time reading your fallacious drivel. I apologize if they have.

      • allan weisbecker
        April 6, 2015 at 8:39 am

        This is tiresome and time is all we really have but very briefly:

        the website you link to above is NOT dedicated to debunking Graham Hancock. Period. I don’t know if this is a lie on your part or something scarier. but don’t you think people might actually click some of your links? or maybe they might check and find out that the 2,800 pager DOES in fact start the text with ‘Racist Physicist Albert Einstein…’ as I point out. and as i point out, there are no citations (linked to the accusation) backing up this initial doozy (it may be true but the author does not provide evidence.)

        your M.O., Jan, is perhaps best evidenced by a couple very obvious issues with the podcast above. at some point, re quantum physics, you state:
        ‘Guess who albert einstein worked with.’
        (long pause, etc)
        ‘Julian Huxley.’
        Then:
        Huxley was often at Princeton…’
        ‘They’ (he and Einstein) were working together.’
        ‘They were conspiring together to create this nonsense.’ (quantum physics)

        Jan, aside from the fact that they both were on the board of a n.y. society, please provide any evidence at all that einstein and huxley ‘conspired’ in the creation of quantum physics. (it would be perplexing: einstein never accepted QP.) but just one or two citations will do – re their ‘conspiracy.’

        slightly diff subject:

        defining ‘strawman argument’: exaggerating an opponent’s position in order to attack it.’ right?

        ‘they want you think you can’t know anything.’
        ‘you might as well not try to find your car in the lot because it might be in another reality.’ (there are many variations of this one)
        ‘they want us to believe we live in roger rabbit land.’
        (many, many more but i’m not in the mood to look them up)

        These are your descriptions of quantum physics. is there one above that is NOT a straw man? do you EVER deal with the experiments that (as David Harriman points out) show QP to be the most predictive paradigm in the history of science? (you usually combine your above straw men with Appeals to Ridicule. don’t you? the ‘jan’ voice/laugh.)

        but just show us the evidence that einstein and huxley conspired to foist QP on us. Just that one will do.

        • April 6, 2015 at 11:18 am

          That’s, again, a lie, a straw man to what was said. I said that they worked together… and being that they were both frauds, it’s just a very nice fit. I actually read the names exactly, whom Einstein created QP with.

          However, the 2800 page book with 3863 citations that you lied about yesterday already covered quantum physics, as did the shows with Harriman and his books and trivium presented on that topic. So you’re trying to muddy the waters here, ignoring the details already given regarding quantum physics and confusing and conflating that with MKULTRA and the boys at Princeton running their eugenics – which Einstein was involved with – had you bothered to read more than the first chapter heading. This show here was mostly about MKULTRA and mind control, so, again, you’re confusing and conflating topics simply because I stated that ironically Julian Huxley and Einstein, both frauds, both working at Princeton, both worked at the NY Humanist society. But notice how you don’t quote verbatim everything I stated… this is a straw man. Sure, we brought up the QP fraud, but it wasn’t a discussion in detail – which was three hours, plus the books, given several years ago. How you confuse this is incredible and exposing your lack of critical thinking – and the lengths you’ll go to continually lie.

          Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have the mental capacity to study logic and the fallacies first to understand what they are without conflating them. That you’d reply again only shows your total lack of cognition.

          Yes, you are tiresome, that’s for certain. Some people are bereft of all critical thought. You seem to be one of them.

          But again, that you have to ignore Einstein’s work in Eugenics, when the book discussed it throughout, and then confuse it is pretty dishonest. I stated the names in the show who Einstein created QP with. Huxley wasn’t one of them. Had you quoted what I actually said, then you wouldn’t need to lie about it like everything else. Do you normally go through life lying to everyone you know about everything? Distorting everything people say for your twists of fancy because you’re simply too fricken lazy to quote them?

          And actually, you lie about the website from Jason Colavito. He’s worked on exposing Hancock for years. Just because you didn’t read through the articles, as you didn’t read through the Einstein book but to the first chapter headline, or my work, doesn’t mean Jason’s not dedicated to exposing Hancock’s frauds. Just doing a google search through Jason’s articles proves, once again, that you’re a liar:
          https://www.google.com/search?q=Jason+Colavito+Hancock&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

          I quoted the exact chapter headline from Manufacture and Sale of St. Einstein, verbatim, so again, you lie.

          I would suggest taking some logic, and stop lying every time you open your mouth. But again, you said that there was no evidence for the claim, and again, the whole book is about Einstein’s racism and eugenics and frauds, so why lie? Why only read the first chapter heading and lie about what it says? ““Chapter 1’s titles: Einstein Discovers His Racist Calling.” – had you read further, you’d have noticed that each quote there was cited to the original author. The book actually contains 3683 footnotes and citations, in the section titled footnotes. But of course you’ve not quoted to us which citation wasn’t there. You’ve only made the unsupported claim, from the introduction of the book no less, as, seems typical for you – to omit and lie. Taking the title of the chapter and pretending it’s not cited and backed in a 2800 pages book about it is about as dishonest as it gets. And yet, here you are, still lying about it. I already linked the book to everyone to see how you spew lies.

          So you didn’t read past the first headline, as stated, when the whole book is about his eugenics, racism and fraud. If you couldn’t find the evidence, that would have to mean that you’re daftly incompetent. Obviously if you didn’t read more than a page or two, which you clearly didn’t, as with my paper, you’d not have seen the evidence. That’s just dumb to assume you would have. Reading and taking in the grammar requires that you study the whole thing and not lie about the first line of the book without reading past it, claiming there were no citations when there were 3863 citations. Who knows why you’d lie and ignore the primary quotes and citations, unless you have some agenda, but again, it just goes to show how utterly dishonest you are.

          If you want my discussions of quantum psychics, study the entire shows with Harriman, including the trivium and his books, etc, and without taking them out of context. Then you won’t need to lie on your blog about your own incompetence from not studying the work thoroughly – as, again, intelligence requires. Obviously you didn’t even bother with reading Harriman’s book, and you substituted an interview for the book itself. Again, that’s just dumb.

          Again, if you understood simple logical concepts like “The onus of proof” you wouldn’t appeal magic and you’d already see how QP is a fraud. But again, this show wasn’t focused on QP… your open letter and straw man about Harriman’s work, which you’ve clearly never bothered to study, does… but you can’t study or grasp that work either – refusing to study it unbiasedly as intelligent people do…. shocker there.

          Of course anyone who wants to read Bjerkness’s book past the first chapter headline, unlike you, will see the many thousands of citations, and that you’re completely incompetent and full of shit. 3863 citations and you lie and say that there were very few citations.. .how full of shit can you possibly be?

          Obviously you love to attack people’s work you’ve not verified or studied carefully and thoroughly. Again, that’s just your own incompetence and bares nothing on the work whatsoever. Some people are just haters and they hate others for exposing things they’ve not studied. You seem to be one of them, always attacking work you’ve not studied. It’s really stupid behavior.

          See how you still avoided providing your quotes and switched the entire conversation to our 20 second discussion in this interview on QP? Again, dishonest. I thought you were talking about your New Age preachers, Narby and Hancock and how, magically, their work somehow debunks mine when they don’t even address it… again, just dumb. … but you switched the discussion to carry on your bogus attacks…avoiding every single lie I’ve already exposed you for. How very dishonest. How do you live with yourself lying so much? Are you a psychopath? An idiot? It’s hard to tell if you’re a willful troll or not.

          Anyway, I won’t respond to your stupidity any longer. People can read my responses that quote every detail of your insanity if they want to see you and your bullshit for what they are.

          • allan weisbecker
            April 6, 2015 at 3:54 pm

            I guess you assume no one will check my quote, which is exactly accurate (go to 38:30 into the podcast): ‘they were conspiring together to create this nonsense (QP)’. and you call ME a liar, repeat it over and over? how does that work? i mean in your mind?

            you claim a website is dedicated to debunking hancock, then deny you claimed that. it’s right there, dude. and the site is not what you claim. and on and on. you blab on to the point where you figure no one will pay attention, i guess, and you may be right.

            i don’t believe you are lying, tho. i believe you’re just quite nuts. you’d have to be to write the above post, which anyone can check to see is one untruth after another.

            your outrage is understandable. as i say in my open letter: ‘lie about someone, they get mad. tell the truth, they get outraged.’

          • April 7, 2015 at 2:56 pm

            As has been repeatedly pointed out, it’s you who’s lying. Yes, I did say that the site is dedicated to debunking Hancock.. You claimed it didn’t. I provided you a google search on his very many articles that do just that. You lied about that too. In no way did I say that the website was not dedicated to debunking hancock:

            Again, proving you a liar:

            “And actually, you lie about the website from Jason Colavito. He’s worked on exposing Hancock for years. Just because you didn’t read through the articles, as you didn’t read through the Einstein book but to the first chapter headline, or my work, doesn’t mean Jason’s not dedicated to exposing Hancock’s frauds. Just doing a google search through Jason’s articles proves, once again, that you’re a liar:
            https://www.google.com/search?q=Jason+Colavito+Hancock&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

            But what was actually said in the interview, verbatim, once again showing that you’re a complete liar, is below. Here you claim that this is what the quote said:

            ” which is exactly accurate (go to 38:30 into the podcast): ‘they were conspiring together to create this nonsense (QP)’. and you call ME a liar, repeat it over and over? how does that work? i mean in your mind? ”

            Please notice how you lied and even took the quote out of context:

            37:40ff

            Albert Einstein worked with guess who?

            Interviewer: Aldous Huxley

            Me: You’re close.
            He worked at the First Humanist Society of New York with Julian Huxley.
            And Albert Einstein of course, he was a major major fraud and plagiarist.
            There’s a couple of really good books out there that expose Einstein as just a complete moron and plagiarist. But Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein

            Interviewer: And a Zionist.

            ME: Right.
            Jon Bjerkness has published two books: The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, and also Albert Einstein the Incorrigible Plagiarist that expose Einstein.
            But of course again it happens that Einstein lived in the Princeton area, and Julian Huxley was often at Princeton, and so they’re working together and basically conspiring together to create this nonsense.
            But quantum physics, um, you know, you have, behind quantum physics, aside from Einstein you have Max Born, Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, John Von Neumann, and Wolfgang Pauli – these guys essentially worked together to create what is the quantum physics fraud.

            And, you know, if you listen to guys like Amit Gaswami on the Joe Rogan show…

            How it works in my mind, as just proved, is that you intentionally truncated the quote to misrepresent what was said, clearly.

            You confound and conflate “this nonsense” with what I said directly following about QP… again, very dishonest of you. Confusing eugenics and all the other bullshit we were discussing with Julian working on QP… that’s entirely untrue… as not even you can deny and lie about now.

            Of course when all you have is lying, taking things out of context, and you’re repeatedly called out for your totally dishonest behavior, all you have left is name calling:

            i don’t believe you are lying, tho. i believe you’re just quite nuts. you’d have to be to write the above post, which anyone can check to see is one untruth after another.

            As repeatedly proved by your own quotes and the transcript, it is you who is lying.. Yes, I do think you’re blatantly lying, a liar, as it’s beyond question that even when you do try to quote, you can’t help but to misrepresent and spin and take it out of context, otherwise you’d have quoted the whole passage… why didn’t you? Because you’re a liar.

            Every claim you’ve made about me PERIOD, was your own distortion, your own lies. I can only assume at this point that you’re doing it purposefully. And yes, now the world can verify what I actually said in the interview and see, yet again, what a liar you really are.

            Again, when you have to avoid facts, lie and spin, and that fails, name call. It’s what many often do when they’re intellectually bereft.

  8. allan weisbecker
    April 8, 2015 at 11:09 am

    Ending this: I only suggest that anyone curious about the inner workings of your mind should take a critical-thinking look at our back-and-forths…

    • Musicleigh7
      April 8, 2015 at 12:17 pm

      Allan,
      I have read all of these back and forths and you have successfully made yourself look like an idiot. You are lucky he took the time to discuss anything with you. I feel kind of bad that he can not get that time back that he has wasted on you. Please take your patronizing attitude elsewhere. Best of luck, you will need it as being so condescending towards those who work hard to provide actual citations as evidence in their work will make your success in life a bit difficult… consider incorporating a sense of personal honor into your daily actions… Take Care.

    • oats tao
      March 23, 2017 at 7:04 pm

      Allan. I viewed your self styled ‘coming of old age’ Surf movie “water time”.
      Although MOST of the movie has ZERO to do with Surfing, it’s weakly disguised in a film which carries the
      weight of a struggling author who has no real clear view of the world, who wants so badly to have the
      cliche conspiracy model pasted up on future memory banks and how important your experience has been.

      You basically solidified EVERY SINGLE exposure of the mechanisms of modern society that people like Irvin, Atwill,
      McGowan, have laid out to view, with the ultimate effect of how it totally has shaped millions of people. You
      state you were directly influenced by Jacky Keroack (sp.). ON THE ROAD.
      Like talk about the most cliche thing in the world. The DEAD end desert of constant self discovery but glowing
      in the importance of how important you think the self discovery. Too bad Jack beat you to the concept and had
      it wrote in form and in time just for your generation !!

      You are the living incarnation of the Mind Kontrol Ultra which has persuaded and prevailed but unrecognized by
      the afflicted. So you are also a struggling author, wrote for hollywood, made homemade videos. So you’re a Jew.
      So you’re from some arm of NYC. You try to surf but THAT ITSELF you ADMIT was propagated by
      a FUCKING MOViE ( -ENDLESS SUMMER). You want a constant rotation of ‘ladies’ (perpetual adolecsent) .

      I see the script
      which was written in your head at age 12 ‘ hacking’ around. It was a script xerox from the newest media form
      counterculture drug addled psychedelic light show event telephone paste up.

      I don’t mean to be harsh but I find a need in this case . Either you have an agenda , or you’re clueless.

      You really should investigate thoroughly before you critisize. Open letters ect prove nothing but an act which makes your
      integrity dubious. It does not make your side any more effecitve as it does not include the other party.

  9. Musicleigh7
    April 8, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    Allan,
    I have read all of these back and forths and you have successful made yourself look like an idiot. You are lucky he took the time to discuss anything with you. I feel kind of bad that he can not get that time back that he has wasted on you. Please take your patronizing attitude elsewhere. Best of luck, you will need it as being so condescending towards those who work hard to provide actual citations as evidence in their work will make your success in life a bit difficult… consider incorporating a sense of personal honor into your daily actions… Take Care.

  10. Lucas Bustamante
    April 21, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    John,

    It’s a real honor to meet you. My name is Lucas Bustamante, I’m studying ayahuasca philosophically and spiritually, and I would like to meet you.

    I’m brazilian, I was born in 1992 here, and I’m taking steps in the path of wisdom, wich to present day led me to Ayahuasca.

    I tried to trace you on the internet, saw the arson history, and saw your quote on CCLE. Right then I knew I was looking for the right guy. Your presence in the discusson presented in this page sealed my doubts.

    By commenting here can you see my email privately? If so, I would love to talk.
    Thanks, for everything.

Leave a Reply