The Liminalist # 111: The Tool of Tyrants (with Jan Irvin)

Conversation with Jan Irvin on what’s in a name and suggestogens, the John Allegro attacks, Wasson & CIA, overturning the entire field of ethnobotany, Peter Levenda & Trine Day as disinformation peddlers, being surrounded by dissemblers, a circle jerk of citations, from psychedelics to entheogens, mind-manifestations, recreating the fall of man, gnosis as ego inflation, the Trivium, Terence McKenna & MKULTRA, sixty years of CIA rock music, Aztec hippies, psychedelics and blood sacrifice, Jan’s Empowerment rule # 6, the CIA’s road to hell, a conversation between Aldous Huxley & Timothy Leary, reverse-engineered society, the Internal Affairs of Alt Media, the classical Trivium, the tool of tyrants, Daniel Pinchbeck’s connections, spiritual gurus for the CIA, channeling Uranus, how Jan weeds out the witting agents from the willful dupes.

Jan Irvin’s Gnostic Media.

Songs:  “The Kommema and his Religion” by SunWalker; “Noye” by Sleepy John Corbeck;”O My God My Dick’s On Fire” by Paul Wild;  “Tongue-Tied,” by Paper Navy; “Restless Wings” by Blupa Music.

62 thoughts on “The Liminalist # 111: The Tool of Tyrants (with Jan Irvin)”

  1. Jasun’s niche he’s carved out here on the Liminalist is usually a welcome escape from the kind of overbearing, didactic delivery blowhards like Jan and so many others on the alt media scene adopt… fascinating subject matter, but an excruciating listen. I can totally understand why Jasun needed a “water break” during one of The Irvinator’s brutal monologues.

    • Having video helped; Jan had a twinkle in his eye much of the time; or maybe it was a mad glint… It was an opportunity for me to go liminal by letting go of my need to liminalize

    • Gotta love how people think with name calling rather than thinking… “blowhards” et al. Never mind that Chen can’t find a single issue in the information, so he attacks the messenger. Typical feeble-mindedness.

  2. Jan has so much info, wow, but i wish he’d had a conversation with you, i think you would have had a lot to offer and if you’d got a word in you would have added texture and tone to a machine gun presentation. No offense to Jan but he is a bit intense! Dont feel i was listening to the liminalist but rather Gnostic media. Really wanted to hear you opinions on this info Jasun.

  3. Rammed-Ass LOL. Brilliant.

    Was hoping to see one of the gnosic media people on liminalist after seeing you there, Jasun. This one definitely made up for a missed ep. on wednesday! haha…

    I’ve heard them talk a lot about Esalen, Huxley, Leary, Bateson etc., but never heard mention of William Irwin Thompson and his Lindisfarne Association formed in the 70’s and headquartered in New England, of which Gregory Bateson was a key member. For those who aren’t aware, Lindisfarne was explicitly anti-drug, and a lot more vigorous/scholarly than Esalen, though still quite into the “mystical” union of science, archetypes, eastern spirituality, and even celtic animism. I believe Thompson was involved in the early formations at Esalen, and his connection to Bateson makes me think that Jan would at least be aware of them. Thompson is also one of the few people deeply involved in all of that who’s still kicking, and has even done some interviews in the last 5 years.
    Bill Thompson’s son, Evan Thompson, is a fairly prominent neuroscientist/philosopher formerly at University of Toronto and now a professor at University of British Columbia. I know he has a strong interest in eastern spirituality and has done a lot of public work on lucid dreaming, though i don’t know his stance on drugs.
    I bring this up because of the lack of mention of Lindisfarne/W.I. Thompson by Gnostic Media, Liminalist, and even blogs like The Archdruid report (rip the report, i only associate them because of the animism/druid connection). After discovering W.I. Thompson I am still surprised to see his name missing from all of these outlets. Even Bruce Damer, one of Terence Mckennas close friends and proteges has mentioned W.I. Thompson a few times in public discourse/media.
    Thoughts Jasun/Jan? Maybe if you weren’t aware it could be a topic on your next interview?

    • Another couple of notes on Thompson/Lindisfarne: Lindisfarne first got much of it’s funding from Laurence Rockefeller, according to the wikipedia page. He then went on to found The Ross School, a specialized K-12 school in New York. He partnered with Courtney Sale Ross, the widow of Time Warner CEO Steve Ross, who also funded the school’s formation.

    • I was a bit of a fan of WIT a few years back but never managed to get in touch with him. Recently saw an interview with him and found quite a few things he said to be questionable, even apart from the associations you mention. Invited him onto the podcast, never heard back.

      • That really is a shame. I get a strong impression that Jan should be made aware of WIT after hearing this interview. I’ve heard Jan mention James Joyce and Marshall Mcluhan, and even conspire that they might’ve been the same person, which i deem too far of a stretch. But i know WIT was hugely influenced by both writers as well.

        And now for my own stretch (feel free to disregard). Mcluhan and WIT’s son both having the U of Toronto association, i can’t help but mention Jordan B. Peterson. I think i’ve heard you express support for his current situation, Jasun. Peterson studied at McGill university originally, and i’ve heard your ep. about that and Leonard Cohen with Ann diamond. (Here’s a vid of Jordan Peterson’s kids performing Hallelujah kind of bizzare). I bring him up also due to his recent embrace of alt media: Appearing on Stefan Molyneux’s channel (who also studied at U of Toronto and Mcgill), and Tara McCarthey’s channel, who also interviewed the likes of Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor. These are rather surprising appearances given his professional stature. Perhaps he’d be a worthy replacement for WIT as a potential guest?

          • fair enough. I saw that douglas lain tried to get Gad Saad, another youtube anti pc academic who interviewed peterson, and challenge Saad to a podcast debate, and Saad called him a lefty commie or some such denial. Peterson has so far ignored lains requests, tho lain seems to be very critical of peterson, calling him a gateway to the alt right.

          • and if its any consolation, as an avid listener of both liminalist and zero squared podcast, and consumer of peterson drama, i’d much rather hear him in conversation with you than hear him and lain debate. i’d wager it’d be even more dissapointing than his debate with sam harris haha.

  4. @ 1:30:50 –

    ” .. CIA trolls, they have a script .. ”
    “.. they’re trying to cause confusion by so much rapid fire ..”
    “.. you can’t lay out a cogent argument because all they’re doing is rapid fire ..”
    ” .. the whole conversation is a presentation for the audience ..”

    that entire part. I just died. I’m dead now. oblivious.

    • The difference is Jan is not rapid firing nonsense. It seems he thought he was brought on to lay out his findings, and while he certainly is unrelenting in getting out the info, it’s all laid out in a followable and sensible way. It all builds into a quite cogent argument, whereas what he’s describing is people using rapid fire to avoid an argument. I guarantee Jan would back up all his specific claims here, he backed up many and read you primary sources with citations for some.

      Your last quote doesn’t apply. He was saying that a debate online is not for either debater, it’s for the people reading. You may not convince the person you debate, but you may convince many of the people reading.

  5. This was a great collection of Jan’s work in a short period of time. I’ve been studying his work for awhile now and he was a really nice guy when I met him.

    Keep up the good work Jan!

  6. I stop listening to Gnostic Media a couple of years ago mainly because Jan became a bit of a stuck record on full blast at the wrong pitch and sped up a little.
    I’ve gotten half way through unless there’ s some change in tone I’m skipping the rest.

  7. Jasun: This is why I call you The Irvinator, Jan, you’re an unstoppable force.
    Jan: OK, as soon as you settle down there I’ll continue on.
    Jasun: OK…


  8. jan irvin is a bull in a shop of real and fake china. not bad his method of separating the unwitting dupes from the witting participants. but he definitely will rush in where angels fear to tread. i’ve heard them go after john lennon…which is kind of insane and provides a good model. most of us, even the famous ones and the geniuses are programmed by culture not directly by ewen cameron or electroshock or initiation or whatever. it is very easy for a curious rebellious mind to get swept away by crowley and/or ufo’s and/or lsd and/or pederasty. hank albarelli? mae brussels? really? Ginsberg would be a good study on that mechanism. I say unwitting. We could go through the list.

    liminalism is not concerned enough with the nuts and bolts of the control mechanism. to me it is about that organized mechanism for deception for control. At the end of the day everything is magic, even the nuts and bolts, and jan needs to acknowledge that. It’s sorta totally obvious. All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream. but I share his moral outrage. do i contradict myself?

    kudos. peace!

  9. As a conscious deep state actor I mean. Like Aldous Huxley or Stewart Brand or Vito Paulekas seem to have been or be…etc. Do you believe Lennon consciously, on purpose was corrupting youth and society according to a secret society social engineering agenda ?

  10. Yes, because with Cohen it’s possible and probable, based on eyewitness testimony from more than one survivor, photos, other clues and very odd circumstances and places he was known to be. Lack of any political agenda. Nothing comparable with Lennon. In fact much the opposite.

    • OK, for me they are equivalent because, if two years ago you’d asked, which is more likely to have been a SE agent of the cryptocracy, JL or LC, I’d probably have said JL. Based on little but personal preference.

      • HUH?

        I mentioned eyewitnesses, photographs and bizarre appearances in strange political hotspots for Cohen. Noting of the sort for Lennon along those lines at all. Cohen lives a long life, Lennon murdered by a mind controlled assassin after major anti-elite songwriting and political actions. Equivalent? Please explain.

        Those guys are excavating with a sledgehammer, I am hoping for something a tad more intelligent and discerning.

        I am asking for more than personal preference. Is this the Trivium?

        • You misunderstood. I meant that before I began researching LC I would have been a lot more doubtful about the idea of his being an operative. Therefore, it would silly to assume that the same would not apply if, one day, I met somehow who had known JL and claimed to have lots of evidence he was MKULTRA, etc.

          JL’s being an activist doesn’t actually preclude his being useful to TPTB. But you’re arguing with the wrong person here. If JI said this, then you need to argue with him. All I am saying is I do not find the suggestion “insane.” Far from it.

          • Whatever- You picked one small part of my comment and ignored the much larger issue: These guys do themselves and their ideas damage by refusing to use their own methods. They shoot from the hip. The excavate with sledgehammers.

            Kinda hard to define what is insane, so I’ll probably stick with it.

          • With apologies to Erich Segal and Love Story

            Liminalism means never having to make distinctions

          • Jaysun is on the right track.

            Just because someone makes a claim, per their say so, it’s doesn’t make it correct.

            If people go by what “everyone says” they will be wrong almost 100% of the time, or at least remain, without knowing in depth, why they are correct.

            In order to actually understand the issue around JL, even to have a plausible debate about it, one must actually read the background / analysis. [ an over 50 page essay with images, to start.]

            It takes time and study. It’s a scholarly pursuit. It’s an amateur job, usually quite un-paid, but without the connotations usually aroudn amateur.

            What “everyone” thinks is “probable”, sometimes falls short of an actual description of reality.

            Tina Foster has worked for many years on the Paul replacement issue. If you had studied that case in depth, as many have, perhaps the Lennon faked death would be more acceptable? Even those who admit “Paul” was replaced will hesitate before the Jl issue. Each has to be studied on its own.

            In any case it’s a lot of study.. ditto the JFK “event” Some people have worked on it for 50 years. Not saying one couldn’t catch up on it in an afternoon with the right resourses, but most people could not.

            If you get your information from the New York Times, however; to those who have really studied it, you will be, as though, in perdition.

            Also, vis versa. If you’ve done the study and talk about it with someone who has failed to do that, your words will fall on their ears like noisy gibberish.

            If you fail to even just read the essay which is very extensive on the subject of JL, I weigh your opinion commensurately. It requires study.

            You may look at the movie, wherein apparently JL pretends to be his own double and has to wear protheisis to look less like himself, maybe / maybe not?

            Then , at least for me personally [Jaysun loves to get in the personal grounded angle to everything], I would put little weight on what you are saying/ writing.

            Irvin comes across as a fire hydrant on full blast, to some writing here? I assume from the comments.

            That’s a criticism based on style rather than content.

            Also, the urgency in his voice and presentation is related to the seriousness of the material. Also, it’s very difficult to be one person alone against millions, including many ex-friends and reputed scholars who were peers at one time and all who “know better.”

            Also, if “everyone” is navel-gazing on one side of the “door” [which creates the lintel] and on the other side someone is in a different emotional state because of where their research has led them, people on the “laid-back” side will just conceive the shouting-one as an object of mirth, – as though seen in a fun house doorway/mirror.

            Each side are used to a different styles of discourse.

            All my Left Activist friends and I was an active member Lower East Side NYC style, would hesitate at the doorway to the “9/11 Research Group.”

            One reason for that being: the style of the crowd was against how they were trained. They were allergic to what looked to them like “right wingers.” [I took the training of my spiritual teacher seriously [FWIW] and so do not jump to conclusions about people based upon what they “look like?” “Appearances can be deceiving” Isn’t that an old saying?]

            The public has been trained to see the “conspiracy theorist” in a specific way; and that’s a deliberate operation / psy-op.

            I think it goes back hundreds of years. I have a friend who lives in London and who made fun of “Puritans” in a conversation with me; calling them “crazy,” without knowing they were many of my ancestors – So even today the English are still deriding those who think “against the Crown?”

            (It’s a whole long subject to discuss why the “Left” failed to recognize “9/11” for what it was.)

            [The “Door” would be like the Fun House Mirror – entry to a new way of seeing things; As what Huxley liked people to jump through, in their drug experiences. ]

            I can understand the hesitancy to jump / pass through a doorway if no one else is doing it. Cats are also said to be wary of that, by instinct. So is it natural for humans also?

    • I can’t claim to have seen terribly convincing evidence, but it’s generally claimed that the Beatles were some kind of intelligence or Tavistock project. Seeing that we have a pretty good idea that the entire BEAT scene, much of the 60’s folk scene, and bands like the Rolling Stones were clearly controlled, I think it’d be a stretch to say the Beatles were au natural. In which case, why should we think Lennon was somehow not controlled or in on it? If Dylan was controlled/manufactured, and I’ve seen fairly convincing evidence that he was, it’s not at all unthinkable that Lennon would also be simply because Lennon was publicly pro-peace or because we admire him/like his music.

      • Guys- get a grip. There is absolutely ZERO evidence, only conjecture and inference. Having the Beatles get doors opened for them and having their careers massaged by a shadowy group that had been studying dance hall for decades and mass psychology for centuries in order to maintain control and engineer society is one thing. Evidence exists for that.

        To call John Lennon a conscious and willing and eager participant in this machination is batshit crazy- there is no evidence AT ALL. Unlike there is for Leonard Cohen or Terrence McKenna.

        Because he promoted LSD (something LSD itself makes you want to do), put Crowley on a cover of an LP with 200 other people and claimed to have seen a UFO? Really?

        Seriously = is that the Trivium method at work there? Really?

        Me thinks that the hard work of making distinctions that surely exist is not as fun as throwing up gobs of speculation. There is a difference between night and day, it’s the liminal edges where it is not clear where one ends and the other begins. My point is that not everything is liminal. Like midnight and noon. That’s crazy to think it is midnight at noon. In the grand scheme all is one and everything contains everything else, but we seem to be here to make distinctions using Love as the guiding principle. Morality. Ethics. Discernment.

        Now Yoko seems to be another matter… for that there is some evidence.

        Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water


        • So you buy that Cohen, the beat scene, Ginsberg, the folk scene, the Stones, The Who, and the laurel canyon scene were controlled, but you think it’s a stretch to implicate Lennon?

          Does it matter if he’s an eager participant? I’m not exactly sure what Lennon comments you’re referring to, since they don’t discuss Lennon in this podcast, but his promotion of LSD and Crowley show that at best he was a useful idiot.

          Personally, I wouldn’t go around saying Lennon is definitely in on anything, but once you reveal enough mainstream stars, it seems more sensible to assume a megastar is controlled than to assume they’re spontaneously promoting LSD to the youth.

          Also, what baby are we losing with the bath water? The Beatles music is not particularly good by 60s standards (they were imitators, not innovators), and I would back that up before ever hearing this stuff about the manufactured counterculture. Lennon’s solo work has a few good songs, but overall it’s mostly bland.

          Are you a big Lennon fan or something? Or do you think his pro-peace views make it unlikely? Or perhaps you think, despite many other stars of that time being controlled, Lennon (or all the Beatles) were not because you don’t see the evidence – fair enough.

          I know I prefer to think Zappa was not controlled despite some red flags in his story, but he was at least anti-drug use and mocked duped hippies.

          • I buy Cohen because of the EVIDENCE. Not my liminalist feelings. Zappa too, much evidence as well. Yes it’s all very painful to accept. But the hard work is figuring out how they make a lifetime actor.

            McKenna actually admitted it. And Zappa never did much to discourage drug use. He looked/acted like he did tons of LSD.

            No I’m not buying Ginsberg, but possibly Burroughs? We need more actual evidence. There is a massive difference between useful idiot and willing conscious participant, morally and ethically, no?

            I think distinctions need to be made and we have no idea how to make them at the moment. But to throw deeply horrible accustions around with no evidence does more harm than good. It’s too difficult, too much work, get high on discovery and so just lump em all together.

            Irvin has mental issues. He can’t listen to anyone. So everyone else except him is in on it. He probably has suspicions of Atwill, who is brilliantly crazy also. He can’t read Aramaic but he’s a Biblical scholar? But his shit on JD Salinger and much else is amazing.

            LSD itself dupes and confuses and misdirects, but it don’t last that long if you are a true thinker.

            As for all of culture being false, that includes liminalism, which sounds suspiciously like new age bullshit if you give it a second.


        • >To call John Lennon a conscious and willing and eager participant in this machination is batshit crazy- there is no evidence AT ALL. Unlike there is for Leonard Cohen or Terrence McKenna.

          Whoa whoa whoa, I’ve been generally/loosely agreeing with your posts here, but what evidence is there for McKenna as a willing and eager participant along the lines of LC? And please don’t cite Irvin’s nonsense.

          Jasun here has done yeoman’s work in getting out the grit & making a convincing case for Cohen’s agentry. Irvin on TM, not so much, not so much at all.

          • As far as I can tell there isn’t. The quote cited by Irvin is made in gest. McKenna is supremely funny, it’s one of his primary attributes.

            I have a very hard time believing he was dirty. Primarily because the depth of material with his talks and just how goddamn smart the guy was. I’ve probably listed to hundreds of hours of his talks at this point and there has been very little repeated material. And it flows out of him like water from a brook. Its impossible for it to be a script.

  11. I was looking forward to a conversation but poor Jasun !!!!
    Jan’s done so much interesting work but no one gets a word in edge ways!

  12. Lennon appears to be a fake death.

    I won’t give the citation of the long piece on the evidence for that. Much of it around a movie that was made which featured what looks like Lennon.

    He wears a few prosthesis to make him look less like himself.

    Jay Sun doesn’t like a mention of the author who wrote the definitely article on this Lennon issus since the investigator seems in love with prepubescent girls in some of his art work and poetry?

    Anyway, I’m not going to bring up the name but replacements are quite common in espionage.

    I found out a few days ago that Peter the Great was replaced ~ 1700

    • I don’t mind mentioning Miles’ name but I do prefer not to have links to the site. The JL movie is not even a good prank, IMHO. But what do I know?

  13. I enjoyed the information but agree that the tone was not as conversational as it could have been. Perhaps he just didn’t want to discuss ritual sacrifice? Or does he really not understand or care for the basic interview process? I did find the content compelling nonetheless.

    • I think Jan likes to see things laid out with the information to back it up, so he thinks when he comes to a podcast that the interviewer wants to basically get the gist of his research with some real citations and evidence that the audience can use to see he’s being honest. In my opinion that’s usually what he expects from guests on his own podcast, where he more or less has few questions and wants the person to lay out the facts of their research.

      If you heard/saw Jasun on the gnostic media podcast, you can see that Jasun’s style is different, as, though he does have citations to back up his claims (and even more strictly limits his claims to what he can really prove), he doesn’t have all the details at the front of his mind, ready to convince people. He looks more to have a conversation, and the bigger picture that comes from the details is what he’d prefer to talk about.

      I think both methods have pluses. Jan goes into the nitty gritty details so people can be convinced, but ultimately he’s talking about research that is done – only to be accepted or refuted. Jasun looks to have a conversation about these subjects, but seems to prefer to leave the details of research to the actual papers and time spent researching, as (he’s said before too) he’s not doing the research to convince people.

  14. This artwork deserves huge praise. It is a good sign when one surrenders and falls into such a well of secrets, at a glance. Jan barely stopped to take a breath, such is the nature of truth wanting out! What is Truth, Caesar asked of Jesus? We all have to try and answer that question regularly and familiarly, and deeply, for our lives and generic salvation; the result, the rarest and most valued universal jewel. Jan’s potency must stem from a Scoto-Hibernian latency from which philosophical Presbyterianism finds oxygen on its way to the hidden beauty and wisdom of Puritanism, and no less so in post-psychedelic wisdom. We are all Agents of light, darkness, understanding and whim; that is the complexity. The Central Intelligence Agency is aptly named. It is what we all are a part of knowingly or unknowingly. Jan circles monopsychism and its satellites indirectly but there is no mistaking his revelation. He knows danger is afoot for mankind’s past, present and future consciousness as it proves itself unmistakably controllable. We all feel it but are afraid of knowing it. This particular Gnosis reveals us all alarmed but the alarm has been going off since Eve set the system off. In turn, in a flash, we progressed to simultaneous life and death. Not all bad, indeed a tunnel out. As technology posits unicity of intellect evermore within our time and place, elemental magic and all its tremors of servitude and egomania thrashes in despair for pagan sinews to rescue it from its own existential despair. Psychedelics imprints this on our return and reflective journeys not the outward prism of adventure. We return from Zero. Lindisfarne or Iona? WIT selected the former, Phil K Dick the latter, or so I perceive.

    • I enjoyed the WIT “The Time Falling Bodies take to Light” It was very influential to me. Surprised he’s still alive. I forgot about him for years. Is his work being suppressed? Of for what reason, I wonder, is he with such a low profile?

      I will have to re-look at the book and still have it around..

      • I’m pretty certain most of his work in the last decade has revolved around the Ross school. There are also a few interviews up on youtube unconnected to that.

  15. Hi Jasun, we are definitely out here! Thank you so much for your time and energy that you share with us in these podcasts. It was a good nuts and bolts edition a bit of a throwback to a previous age of your podcasting. Interesting to hear you raise the point about Kramer.

    Even though I think Jan’s razor focus might benifit from some softening I hugely respect his tireless effort. I actually think there’s a great deal of similarity between Jan and Icke. I suspect he might protest but I respect them both for a tireless, near thankless, effort. I also suspect the ratio of unwitting dupes to agents to be hugely stacked towards the unwitting side. I get sense again that Jan might disagree? I would be interested to hear Jan’s take on Richard Grobe expanded more.

    I also suspect Icke to be looked down upon by second matrix hipsters but he has constantly shed light on ritual child abuse which is commendable.

    You continue to catalyse intragration and healing for me and I suspect many others. I wish you continued progress on your journey and hope to talk with you again soon.

  16. Glad to see Jan Irvin on here, he’s the one the introduced me to this podcast and to Jasun’s work in general. While I like that Irvin lays out all the facts and has the names and citations to back things up, I think he may have spent too much time with Joe Atwill, as he never let’s Jasun get a word in edge wise. Would love to see a part 2 where Jan knows this is a more conversational podcast.

    Loved the question – do you still listen to rock music? I’m curious if others who are convinced by Irvin’s research have given up rock music. I was a huge fan of 60s and 70s experimental rock, but now I stick with pre-WWII swing music.

    Also curious if Jasun still watches movies. I have no doubt there is lots of art not made by agents, but it seems the vast majority of artists (and maybe all of us) are majorly influenced by artists who were agents with agendas. If psychosis is contagious, I’d rather not see the art of those caught up in the cultural psychosis.

    • Very apropos question, yes is the answer, tho I hope with increased discernment. I’m a culture junky and while it’s been pretty easy to give up mainstream music because of all the liminal bands out there, not so with movies & TV shows. The latter I am especially dependent on for my evening brain & body relax. I do watch more shows with subtitles than not (nordic noir etc), but if a show looks good (Fargo, Better Call Saul), no amount of cultural engineering savvy seems to be enough to cure me of the desire to imbibe it.

      I was especially disturbed by how fantastic Legion was, since it has Bryan Singer’s name on it as exec producer.

      • TV does seem to have a power to let one relax and wind down.

        I have a tendency to become a bit ascetic with stuff like this, which has its ups and downs.

        Love the articles & podcast by the way. You’re one of the few people who talk about these subjects in a reasonable and honest (or at least honest seeming) way. It’s nice to hear conversations that aren’t predicated on swallowing the BS of mainstream culture, but which also don’t devolve into hysterics or pointless moral self righteousness. Trying to get my one “conspiracy” friend into you, but your detailed, non-sensational style can be a hard sell in this media climate.

  17. I’m a fool. Getting old. It took me some time to realize to click on the right thing to find your wonderful playlists and other information. My apologies Jasun.

    Your work is fantastic. I’m glad you and Jan found each other. Some day we’ll have all this sorted out. All the folks working on this are an odd and diverse lot. It is heartening to see the patience they are willing to have with each other… we’re clearly going to need it if my own folly is any guide.

  18. (Another) great podcast. I like this guy, but, man, he can take a breath and let you get a few words in edgewise. The give and take, push and pull between you two would have made it even better, as it does with the majority of your podcasts. Still, a fine piece of work that was very informative and much needed. Thanks.

  19. Reading the comments many have picked up the same as I did… I have listened to Jan a for a few years now and a good friend of mine always describes him as a typical enneagram 8 whatever that means… slightly overbearing perhaps… anyway whatever, he is at pains to get his message across and on the whole I wouldn’t ever dare to disagree with Jan!!! But for me and a few friends of mine we have had a curious little contradiction come up… not that Jan is lying – I don’t think he is about the CIA involvement in the creation of the hippie sub-culture movement and all its subsequent off shoots… this is plainly self evident by now… but the anomaly that has come up for me is that having taken psychoactive substances and in particular Ayahuasca for over twenty years (i.e. hundreds of times) I can quite clearly say that it was actually the perceptions that have arisen over the years through drinking Ayahuasca that have helped me see through the “psychedelic haze” – Indeed extensive experience in this field has shown, for me at least, that if one, so to speak, applies “trivium” keys to ones own experiences, visions, insights etc. the plant substances can act differently… without saying too much here as its a big subject and not to be treated in a sensationalist matter for me at times even within experiences of Ayahuasca and often in post experience reflections I got the understanding that the whole cultural background that I brought to it was a hallucination, that it had been somehow overlaid in the experience.. it started with reflections on early “heroes” of mine like Burroughs and Casteneda, Jim Morrison in which I understood that these were at the very least severely traumatised people and that in some way there was a sense of them being induced into and, in turn, inducing in one a false understanding of the real potential of the psychoactive plants for comprehending ones own ego structures… rather taking the traumatised individual (whether that be from actual abuse or the general cultural abuse of an abuse based society) into a false sense of his-her own importance and power as a way of very much repressing the deeper malaise… I feel that although at times it has been very painful and difficult, that a persistent use of Ayahuasca has really helped me to get a grip on much of the workings of these inner worlds but the thing is to know how to use the plants… In the indigenous worlds there are black magicians, sorcerers, depraved people etc that use the plants and so are there in the western world… Magic can be used to different ends and there also exists a positive use of these things for inner awakening… we have been given through Burroughs, Castenada, Huxley, Crowley et all the keys to usage for personal power, hypnotism and various such arts that require an understanding of psychological magnetism but there is a venerable tradition among Amazonian elders of different tribes where they tell you that power is an obstacle to true knowledge and that access to such knowledge of oneself and the universe is only attainable when we learn to overcome our own hypnotism with our ego and go beyond… This is a personal knowledge, a mysticism that doesn’t need to convince others in order to be validated… (As does the mysticism of tyrants) so at times I feel perhaps Jan throws the baby out with the bath water and has a hard time listening to others – much as in other respects I admire his tenacity and his crusade against the CIA agents… for that reason I wouldn’t want to seem to attack him but I do feel there is another side to this story… it doesn’t stop there and this generalised malaise around the use of so called “psychedelics” is something that covers up their true potential as “agents” useful in the work of self discovery….

    Anyway I am attempting to get into some of this in a fledgling podcast… its probably a bit slow going but may be of interest as it develops….

    BTW the Music Mind Control series Jan did with Hans Utter is excellent.. but I don’t think it means you can’t enjoy a bit of rock music or any other music – just be aware and observe whatever you are doing, it makes the experience more interesting!!

  20. A magnificent feast for paranoiacs. Don’t trust anyone. I suspect I may be the only person left in the world who’s not on the CIA payroll.

  21. Fascinating arguments and discussion provoked by Jan Irvin and Joe Atwill on “lifetime actors” and “Manufacturing the Deadhead” . I have to raise the “Caution!” sign here, to express concern that, in viewing the cultural history of the 60s, we may be descending in a “blame game” psychology. Indeed, we seem to be drifting dangerously close to the intellectual swampland of “Blame the messenger.” and so pre-emptively, selectively or sloppily “judging” the CONTEXT and contents of “the message” delivered by artists, musicians and the mass popular culture they reflect. We indict them for “engineering” society’s tastes and expression, yet they present their work to us directly and openl;y, don’t they? How can the lyrics to a song or features of a painting / sculpture be called “covert” or deceptive? We are “blaming the messenger” for merely delivering the dystopian “message” that shocks or disturbs us.


Leave a Comment