Psychological Operatives in Hollywood: Divide & Conquer in the Realm of Conspiracy Research (# 1 of 6)

“In the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.” —Adam Smith, The Theory Of Moral Sentiments

“Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson.

A few examples of the Conspiracy Spectrum (far from comprehensive):

Conspiracy Fact (acknowledged conspiracies in history):

  • Iran-Contra
  • Jimmy Savile high-level organized child sexual abuse cover-up
  • MKULTRA CIA mind control
  • Operation Mockingbird (CIA infiltration of US media in the 1970s)
  • Wartime Psyop, including occult elements

Conspiracies more or less proven but not yet rubber-stamped by orthodoxy:

  • JFK assassination & cover-up
  • Marilyn Monroe’s murder
  • Organized ritual abuse in daycare centers & elsewhere
  • Domestic Psyop including acts of terrorism & “false flags” (Operation Gladio)
  • CIA infiltration of Hollywood

Requires further investigation

  • “Pizzagate”
  • Celebrity murders
  • High-level (possibly occult) network behind many “serial killers”
  • “Manchurian Candidate”-style programmed killers (Sirhan Sirhan, Hinckley, Chapman)

Not to be dismissed uninvestigated

  • Illuminati mind control
  • Occult symbols in mass media
  • Tavistock Institute behind the Beatles
  • Nonhuman element?

Part One: Schismogenesis

“Nobody wants to know about conspiracy! I don’t get it!” —Jack Terry, Blow Out

In 2018, when words are increasingly losing their meaning, words are accruing a disproportionate amount of power. Maybe they are gaining power as they lose meaning? That would be quite an Orwellian development.

Let’s take the word “conspiracy.” The Oxford dictionary defines it as “A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” Generally speaking, the three main ingredients of conspiracy are collectivity, criminality, and secrecy. Of these descriptors, only the first can be considered absolute, since both criminality and secrecy are relative terms that depend on point of view. This is especially so when the secret crimes in question cross national borders and thence definitions of what constitutes crime and what constitutes justified acts of war or espionage. Many acts that are crimes for the rest of us are legally sanctioned under the National Security Act, for example, an idea popularized by (MI6 agent) Ian Fleming’s 007 and his “license to kill.”

It’s been a long time since the word “conspiracy” was simply a neutral descriptor, in any case. Since the 1960s (courtesy of the CIA, as we’ll see), it has been associated with the word “theory” and thereby, for several decades, with crackpots and paranoids. In the last decade or more, the words have become increasingly linked to dangerous crackpots (Pizzagate shooters and Unabombers), as well as antisocial extremists (Sandy Hook deniers) and, of course, right-wing hate criminals, anti-Semites, holocaust deniers, and neo-Nazis.

As Floyd Rudmin writes, in “ConspiracyTheory as Naive Deconstructive History”:

The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events “conspiracy theory,” evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect.

The most recent guilty association of conspiracy theory is perhaps the most unexpected of all: in the days of the Trump administration, “conspiracy theories” have become linked to state power of the most deplorable sort: dangerously right-wing, extremist, antisocial, wing-nut neo-fascists running—and ruining—Western society. How did this happen?

A False Dichotomy

“It might, however, be the case that coming up with a label for the phenomenon actually invents the phenomenon itself, in the sense that a new conceptual category turns what otherwise would have been a set of possibly quite diverse ideas into a coherent style of thought. . . . One thing that makes the historical study of conspiracy theories particularly challenging,then, is that determining what constitutes the phenomenon has become part of the phenomenon itself.” —Peter Knight, Conspiracy Theories in American History

There is a mindset shared by both “conspiracy theorists” and conspiracy debunkers or skeptics. This doesn’t apply to all conspiracy theorists or debunkers, but those who do share this mindset seem to be in the majority. Ironically, they may have more in common with each other than they have differences.

As a writer-researcher into long-term, deep-state social engineering (including occult or secret society aspects), I have often been met with blanket arguments from serious-minded, intelligent, and informed individuals (Douglas Lain, Theodore Dalrymple, James Howard Kunstler, and Gregory Desilet are four who come to mind), claiming that they do not “believe” in a “grand conspiracy” or in “puppet masters” working behind the scenes. This opinion (you cannot call it an argument) is (or seems to be) genuinely offered as a response, not to any claim that there is a grand, unified conspiracy or single group of puppet masters, but only to the suggestion that some historical events or social trends might have come into being via conscious, partially hidden manipulations.

Peter Knight (editor of Conspiracy Theories in American History), sums this up in the introduction to his thousand-page encyclopedia, citing the well-known author of The Paranoid Style in American Politics, Richard Hofstadter. Hofstadter, he writes,

recognized that there have indeed been actual conspiracies here or there in U.S. history, but that a conspiracy theorist believes that there is “a ‘vast’ or ‘gigantic’ conspiracy as the motive force in historical events” (Hofstadter, 29). According to this kind of view, conspiracy theory is more than just the odd speculation about clandestine causes; it is a way of looking at the world and historical events that sees conspiracies as the motor of history. [Emphasis added.]

Knight goes on to identify—I think correctly—“one of the important functions of conspiracy theory today, namely questioning how much we are in control of our own minds and our own actions through the debate over exactly what is to count as a conspiracy or not.”

This points to the idea that an anti-conspiracy position is really a philosophical (or even ideological) position rather than a historical or factual one, and it supports my own experience with those who take such a position. They tend to reject the idea of long-term, organized conspiracies, ipso facto, not on a case-by-case basis but on principle. In the same way, a rational reductionist rejects the idea of the supernatural, possibly for the same or similar reasons, and on similarly shaky grounds.

In “Agency Panic” (Conspiracy Nation, p. 69-70), Timothy Melley writes this:

If the sense that there are no accidents—that everything is connected, intended, and meaningful—is a hallmark of paranoia, then the difference between a paranoid theory and a brilliant theory may only be a matter of how much explanatory power the theory has for a given interpretive community. And if this is so, then the work of sorting out paranoid claims from justifiable claims—the work of diagnosing, pathologizing, and normalizing—will require a vision at least as penetrating as the one to be judged.

Curiously enough, many people who do advocate for a “grand conspiracy” fall into the exact same trap as those who dismiss the idea: they extrapolate prematurely from certain sets of evidence the existence of a single, cohesive group and agenda behind long-term social engineering strategies (the Illuminati, the Masons, the Jews, etc.). In both cases—whether the philosophical position is to believe or to deny—a perceived order, direction, and design is literalized, in much the same way that religious people literalize the evidence of a divine order into hierarchies of angels, gods, and demons.

Nor is this comparison arbitrary, because the religious (especially Christian) belief in demonic forces manipulating human behavior is an almost precise match for the more contemporary, secular belief in malevolent human agencies doing the same. While this is often used to dismiss conspiracy theorists and their various forms of historical revisionism, it might just as well (and perhaps more accurately) be used as a means of validation.

Human beings have always been aware of a hidden factor that makes agency, individuality, and human history radically different than it appears to our conscious minds. What vary are only the terms in which we attempt to re-cognize this fact.


“The British . . . struck me as so disoriented by the sophisticated,eloquent spin of the New Labor government led by Tony Blair that they could no longer see the ground on which to plant their feet. More serious than systematically misinforming them, their government had steadily eroded the conditions for political judgment. In doing so, it not only denied them the evidence with which to assess this or that claim: it undermined what is necessary for the sound application of the concept of evidence.” —Raimond Gaita, “Even Socrates drew the line at spin”

The problem the serious and sincere conspiracy investigator faces is that all the premature and poorly executed dot-joining, speculation, and wild theorizing has now severely tainted the data. Due to instant association with “crazy” narratives being spun around it, even referring to a salient fact may lead to accusations of belief in said narratives, quickly followed by smug dismissal—not only of the data being raised but of the person raising it. Bingo, subject dismissed. All of this may or may not be the result of deliberate design.

From “ConspiracyTheory as Naive Deconstructive History:

Conspiracy theory is“deconstructive history” because it is in rebellion against official explanations and against orthodox journalism and orthodox history. Conspiracy theory is radically empirical: tangible facts are the focus, especially facts that the standard stories try to overlook. There is a ruthless reduction down to what is without doubt real, namely, persons. Conspiracy theory presumes that human events are caused by people acting as people do, including cooperating, planning, cheating, deceiving, and pursuing power.

Rudmin points out how “Conspiracy theories arise when dramatic events happen, and the orthodox explanations try to diminish the events and gloss them over,” i.e., . “when someone notices that the explanations do not fit the facts.”  Significant political or economic events change power relationships in society; contradictions in the official explanations of these events are noticed by ordinary citizens, leading to an assumption of power abuse and deception; further information is sought to make more coherent the narratives being spun and expose the deceptions and power abuses. “Most of the evidence discovered is circumstantial, as it must be when investigating conspiracies.”

Conspiracy theory has a special focus on contradictions, discrepancies, and missing facts. The natural sciences similarly seek to find faulty explanations by focusing on facts that don’t fit the orthodox explanations. If we want more truthful explanations of events,whether of scientific events or of political and historical events, then we must compare competing explanations. One explanation usually fits the available observations better than the other. By the principle of fit, the explanation that encompasses more of the observations should be preferred. This principle can favor conspiracy theories. . . . It is true that conspiracy theory authors doubt the orthodox explanations and suspect that there are other explanations for events. Such doubt and suspicion, which is the same kind of doubt and suspicion as motivates many scientific discoveries, gets labeled paranoia.

Rudmin prefers the term naïve and I think he’s right. Literalizing an observable pattern into an actual group and a unified conspiracy is naïve, but understandable. The human mind—as Freud once pointed out—abhors ambiguity. It clutches at straws in order to avoid drowning in uncertainty. Yet the very nature of crimes covertly committed by groups, and false narratives being spun to conceal them, involves the proliferation of ambiguity and uncertainty. The problem with naïve or premature pattern-recognition is that it prevents us from allowing a pattern to remain a sequence of effects that can be traced to an array of individuals, groups, and agendas who may or may not be working in cahoots (and may or may not be conscious of what they are doing). This inevitably concretizes an “other” that: a) can be distinguished from oneself; and b) can be blamed for all of the effects (generally seen as negative and undesirable). This sets up a scapegoat or “diabolic figure” upon whom all the world’s ills can be blamed.

In my experience, it is quite common to find people arguing against a “conspiratorial” view of history for this second reason only, i.e., on ideological grounds. They will argue that scapegoating is a problem and that any interpretation of the evidence that isolates a single group or agenda as being responsible for the world’s problems must be wrong because it amounts to scapegoating. This comes close to the sort of ideological “reasoning” that’s increasingly prevalent today, such as for example the argument that, since claiming obesity is bad for one’s health strengthens a social prejudice against fat people, it is not a credible argument. By this reasoning, conclusions should not be evaluated according to how well they match the evidence, but how socially, morally, or ideologically “correct” they are.

There is a natural tendency in all of us to seek out scapegoats, so it is wise to apply an extra degree of caution when approaching evidence for “grand conspiracies.” People are inclined to want to believe such easy interpretations, because doing so automatically absolves them of all complicity with the social and spiritual circumstances they are trapped inside, and hence of all responsibility for them. To this extent, I would agree that any conspiratorial view of history that adheres to an “us and them” model—i.e., that presents a clear dividing line between supposed conspirators and the rest of humanity—is inherently flawed, because there isn’t much evidence for clear or absolute dividing lines in any kinds of human interactions. This is why most extreme “grand conspiracy” theories eventually wind up with either a superhuman or a non-human (or off-planet) element in control, Icke’s Reptilians, Christianity’s Satan, Islam’s Jinn, or some distant secret space colony of the Illuminati.

In my view, the conspiracy debunker is (mostly) correct in dismissing the idea of a hidden clique of puppet masters directing history from behind the scenes, not because there is no evidence that such cliques exist (there is), but because they exist not so much as causal agents but as more deeply concealed effects. They are carriers, if you like, of a “conspiracy”—a spiritual, psychological, cultural, social, and political hegemony—that goes back millennia. At any given time, such cliques may be the possessors of unknown power and influence; but if so, it is only because they are also possessed by it.

As Melley writes, talking of Packard’s (and J. Edgar Hoover’s) “structural paranoia”:

the very idea of manipulation, in the sense of a willful attempt to control others, becomes obsolete, since attempts at manipulation are themselves only products of previous manipulation. In Packard’s world, the system of depth manipulation is self-regulating. Control has been transferred from human agents to larger agencies, institutions, or corporate structures. . . . Packard and Hoover both attempt to describe a structural form of causality while simultaneously retaining the idea of a malevolent, centralized, and intentional program of mass control. This odd conjunction of the intentional and the structural is the essence of agency panic, the motive force of postwar conspiracy culture (Conspiracy Nation, p. 77).

By this understanding, any hypothetically controlling individuals, groups, and agendas are only really effective to the extent that a) they are themselves possessed; and b) they are able to possess the rest of us. By passing on their “demons” (ideologies and methodologies) mimetically, they ensure we will embody, implement, and extend them into the world, via our own thoughts, beliefs, words and actions.

Part 2.

This series forms the basis of the upcoming 16 Maps of Hell: The Unravelling of Hollywood Superculture.

28 thoughts on “Psychological Operatives in Hollywood: Divide & Conquer in the Realm of Conspiracy Research (# 1 of 6)”

  1. This is petty—and in this particular case it’s probably just a typo, since you’re conspiracy-minded and British—but for those who don’t know, James Bond would be MI6 (not MI5, as you have it above).
    Here’s easy way to keep things straight:
    MI5 is for domestic intelligence operations, like the FBI.
    MI6 is for international intelligence operations, like the CIA.
    GCHQ is for electronic surveillance, like the NSA.
    And MI7 supposedly deals with extraterrestrials, like the spooks out at Area 51, but that might just be bullshit (maybe someone can ask Whitley about it—he would know…).

    (As an aside, the egregore concept would seem to fit in pretty well with your conclusions above.)

  2. I really like where you’ve been going lately. The Occams razor bit, if used as it was intended, instead of as a rhetorical flourish by guardians of the status quo, can be very useful in discerning heterogenous ideas that can stand up to tire kicking.

  3. Makes Lethem’s “conspiracy” article look like a pile of cr.. wait. Anyway..

    I suppose this link would be interesting to add :
    TLDR :

    Sort of showing how the term “conspiracy theory” was deliberately deployed (not invented) by the CIA

    Great intro. Looking forward to this.

  4. I can say without hyperbole this is the most relevant, most necessary deconstruction of the current conspiracy mindset. Once again, you’ve expertly articulated what many of us liminalists have been thinking (or intuiting). This idea that it is self-generating, or the result of forces outside our control makes it all the more…true. And of course the ol’ scapegoat mechanism applies yet again—and from both sides. It’s just as important to critique the tinfoil hatter as it is the skeptic; both are in the same boat, lost in the same sea, looking at incomplete maps, unaware of the ‘natural’ forces at work all around them.

    Your writing is getting more complex, more nuanced, and seems to warrant multiple, multiple readings. The ideas presented here would likely fly right over the heads of most people. At best, you’ll confuse people—and this is a compliment, keep in mind. They won’t be able to pigeonhole you as easily. Certainly, you will break through to those people that need to hear this (as you always have).

  5. thanks Samuel; FYI i edited your comment as it included responses to and quotes from as-yet unpublished installments in the series, which you received early drafts of.

  6. This kind of analysis is why I come to this page…
    Regarding false dichotomy, and that oh, so interesting picture of Trump and Pepe/Kek. In a couple of previous exchanges we discussed the cognitive dissonance of true believers, with a focus on the Crowley worshipers. I see much the same thing in those here, in America, who insist that Trump is some kind of redeemer who is going to bring an end to the depravity of the Deep State; (i.e. “draining the swamp”, etc.) And, it’s identical, as well, to the disconnect shown by old school German conservatives about Hitler.
    We have Trump’s power base in the Alt Right admitting/claiming that it was Chaos magic that brought Trump to power. And, despite that fact that it sounds like Leftist propaganda, if you dig deep enough, you will see that the accusation of Nazism in regard to the current President is not without merit.
    And, the Nazis derived their power from the same kind of abusive, exploitative, sacrificial magick practices as the ones attributed to the “swamp dwellers” that Trump is supposed to be driving out.
    So, yes. People see only what they want to see. Especially in times of desperation.

  7. Thanks for the article. Here are some of my musings precipitated by what you wrote.

    If we are unable to face our own complicity or participation in a system that has effects that impinge on us in some way (psychologically or otherwise) and that challenges our view that we are for the most part “good” / “right” / “moral” / “ethical”, what do we get? What if we “know” but “hide” from ourselves that we are complicit through our willing or unwilling participation in the system? And if we admit to ourselves our participation but have not been able to discover an alternative to the system, what results?

    Some “non-conspiracy” examples:
    How many people are willing or able to acknowledge that ongoing tribal wars and massacres in central Africa are fairly directly linked (through the requirement for rare earth minerals) to their own acquisition and use of cell phones, computers, etc. and hence their modern lifestyle? Who can hold the knowledge that, for instance, reading this article on some kind of electronic device, or making a phone call or sending a text to a friend creates a market demand that ultimately drives wars for control of resources and serf-like labour of people? Closer to home: how many people would continue eating meat if they had to butcher a dead animal themselves? Kill the animal themselves? Might they at some point adopt a more traditional hunter-gatherer “reverence” for the spirit of the dead animal? Or might they become less inclined to acknowledge animal suffering?

    Ours is a system that exploits people, animals and resources but in my opinion we have been living in some kind of self-constructed la-la-land far away from the gritty reality of our system. [Somewhat tangential: Could we create and live in a society without it being exploitative of something? Is there an alternative? Or is it simply a matter of degree? I certainly don’t know.]

    When we start to come face to face with this gritty reality of a society that exploits and has costs for those things exploited, what do we do?

    Fight, flight or freeze is a (somewhat materialist) view of the possible responses to a threat or problem: here we are caught in a bind. We “know” somehow, perhaps only in the moments we allow ourselves to know it, that the system is “harmful” and does not match up to our view of ourselves as “good” and “well meaning”. But we also “know” that we seem to be dependent on this system for basic survival needs (money buys food and shelter, we need to work for money somehow and spend it to obtain the means of continued survival, hence we are “in” the system).

    Conspiracy culture appears at first to be a “fight” response – we see ourselves as fighting against the constructed narrative. And in this aspect, perhaps we are. However, it might be better viewed as a flight or freeze response.
    – either we flee into the world of grand cosmic overlords, manipulating society at an overarching level: these are the ultimate, opposing others.
    – or, we are frozen in a world of ideas: the labyrinth of circumstantial evidence, synchronistic events & relationships, and endlessly unresolvable questions about the truth of our perceived reality.

    It seems that conspiracy culture “captures”, or perhaps “traps”, individuals who are on the cusp of realising the exploitative nature of their own society and then possibly prevents them from acknowledging their own complicity or participation.

    Another idea:
    If our societal system is viewed as an organism, seeking to secure its own continuance, might it be helpful for it to capture the uncertainties, second-guessing and dissention into a relatively contained sub-system? If so, is conspiracy culture in some ways a kind of inevitable self-preservation mechanism by the system itself (and its knowing and unknowing participants) to suck in and contain the contradictions of and costs and harms caused by the system? Perhaps it’s like the repression of our own shadow selves, just on a society-wide basis.

    Apologies for the ramble and rant…

    • good point about the fight, flight, freeze response… the Reptilians know how to trigger our reptilian response… how to possess through narratives… hollywood and the art of manufactured consent via suspension of disbelief – we consent to enter the fantasy and so the fantasy enters us. Making Baron Munchausens by proxy of us all

  8. Shazam, Jasun! Call me Narcissus, or what? I just can’t help but see myself reflected in your title sobriquet: “Psychological Operative in Hollywood.”

    OK, maybe more accurate would be “Psychopathic Operative?” Nah, maybe better: “Psychological Inoperative”. And as for Hollywood, well I do live in Van Nuys, which in its glory days was called the “Hollywood” of the porno film industry.

    Thus I dub myself “Psychological Inoperative of (Porno)Hollywood”

    And now, on to the epistemology of your article. In contemplating the the sweep of your “Conspiracy Spectrum,” I must say that your assertions of truth buttressed by proof and evidence thrust you, not onto the horns of any dilemma, but rather onto the tines of the Pitchfork — OK, Trident — of a Trilemma, and a Trilemma deftly named after one of your epistemic heroes, none other than the intrepid Baron von Münchhausen!

    May I call your attention to “The Münchhausen Trilemma” which is summarized hereünchhausen_trilemma

    In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any knowledge is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing proof in this situation:

    * The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
    * The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
    * The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

    The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

    The name Münchhausen-Trilemma was coined by the German philosopher Hans Albert in 1968 in reference to a trilemma of “dogmatism versus infinite regress versus psychologism” used by Karl Popper.

    It is a reference to the problem of “bootstrapping”, based on the story of Baron Munchausen (in German, “Münchhausen”) pulling himself and the horse on which he was sitting out of a mire by his own hair.

    So, Jasun, I would like to ask you, where along your conspiracy spectrum would would you thrust the Münchhausen Pitchfork into the ground, thus demarcating a position in the hierarchy above which no tine of the pitchfork (Trident) would apply and below which one or more of the tines would apply, thus forever precluding you from arriving at the truth of any assertion you make?

    As an addendum, I would add the following 3 epistemological stances that apply to each tine.

    In contemporary epistemology,
    [1] advocates of coherentism are supposed to accept the “circular” horn of the trilemma;
    [2] foundationalists rely on the axiomatic argument.
    [3] The view that accepts infinite regress is called infinitism.


    I would thrust the pitchfork into the spectrum-ground between the first and second categories of your spectrum of 4.

    As for my take on which tine you might prefer over the other 2, I dismiss Coherentism because of your love of paradox and your joyful playing with inconsistencies of logic; I definitely don’t see you acting in an axiomatic and/or dogmatic way of Foundationalism, but I do draw from the title of your magnum opus, Prisoner of Infinity, that you are an infinite regressive kind of guy, always daring critical readers to argue with your position, so that you can then “one-up” them by making the next move, for which you provide new justification for your prior justification and so on, ad infinitum. (Kind of like a pawn chasing the King around the chessboard — never call a draw, just keep the infinite game going a la James Carse)

    Thus as Prisoner of Infinity you espouse the epistemic doctrine of Infinitism, and so it goes, with a hey, nonny nonny and a Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

    • This is probably a breach of some kind of unspoken ‘net protocol, but looking at your posts, I have to ask: Are you working for some organization? Or, is this just how you spend your time?
      I mean all of these comments have less to do with genuinely engaging with the topic, than looking for a chance to insult Jasun, and subject the rest of us to a wit that is no where near as sharp or scintillating as you seem to think.
      Actually, a lot of what you do, your oh so clever digs, appear more like a adolescent insults dressed up with some amount of pseudo-intellectual discourse. (“Church of Jasun Horsley’s Ass”… et alia.)
      I also disagree with Jasun, and others on this site. But, try to not engage in the kinds of harassing banter that yous seem to favor.
      Maybe there’s another author that you disagree with, that you can go and annoy. That would at least give us a break.

      • Edward,

        Thank you so much for taking the initiative to admonish me here for my puerile (read: Autard) attempts at wit and ludicrous displays of what you term pseudo-intellectuality and what I call my oft times annoying “Post-Intellectual Tomfoolery.”

        I would only admonish you to remember that this is no ordinary blog; rather it is the auticulture asylum of archetypal Liminalist Jasun Horsley (who 96.3% of the time is NOT a Horsley’s Ass), so I beg you to be a tad more tolerant of my peculiar self-serving style of grandiloquent liminalism.

        Now you are totally correct that the wit level of my “oh so clever digs” is nominally adolescent, but there’s a deeper and wider context here — I am not consciously attempting to be witty, but rather am simply indulging in quite unconsciously reflexive Autardish Intellectual Stimming (AIS). You see I do not rock back and forth physically in my chair as a normal Autard would; rather, I “rock back and forth” in my virtual psyche and, in the process, dredge up impulsive puns and other word play that come across to Normies like you as awfully dorky and groan-worthy. I accept your judgment. Indeed I compliment your candor in expressing your disapproval.

        With that in mind, I would like you to consider that when I insult Jasun to your mind, I am actually “stimming” puns about his name and there is no intent at all to disparage him in any way.

        Now hold these thoughts above because I would like to address your question about whether or not I belong to any organization.

        Let me just say that the possibility cannot be ruled out that I serve an organization that is also served by Peter Levenda and that — in light of Jasun’s title to this post “Divide and Conquer” — that there is a form of “triangulation” going on whereby Jasun’s life work may be guided through specific channels and directions not of Jasun’s conscious choosing. Of course I can’t prove this conjecture, but suffice it to say that since I came on the Auticulture scene two days before Jasun’s tragic encounter with Ken, Jasun has had no communication with Peter except (possibly) through me.

        Here is the wiki for those who might need explication of the (psychological) “triangulation” I refer to above

        BTW, Edward, you will be very bemused to know that I have annoyed other authors. I’ll leave you with one example here

        Because I have a BS degree in physics, I was once admitted into an elite private email circle of the occultly renowned renegade physicist, Jack Sarfatti.

        Jack does not suffer fools in any way and certainly not tomfools like me, so he quickly dispatched me from the group with a terse judgment that I may use as my epitaph: “You are a silly troll. You have a trite mind.”

        Any questions?

        • As I said, violation of unspoken protocol; never openly accuse another poster of agency; (in the conspiratorial sense.)
          If I was unduly aggressive, then I apologize. Perhaps, your wit is simply who you are, and your intent is not malevolent.
          It just seems to me that many of the points you make, (when they are valid), could be made without what seems to me to be an approach reminiscent of high-school embarrassment techniques.
          But, clearly, Jasun continues to allow your posts; so if he sees no reason to bar you from interacting here, it’s not my place to attempt it on his behalf.

  9. I don’t know Tom; it sounds a bit like sophistry to me – or “crazy wisdom” which IMO spreads craziness much more than wisdom…

    • OK then, I’ll choose the alternative to my sobriquet,being hereafter designated as: “Psychopathic Operative in Porno-Hollywood.”

      One question for you to ponder: Am I really crazy? Or else, supremely passive-aggressive?

      • no disparagement of your sanity intended there, Tom; do YOU feel you are being passive-aggressive? It could just be a “style”-thing.

        • I know that you’re too good a guy not to disparage my sanity, it for that very reason, I wish you would and I would not take any offense. (In fact it’s the Autard attention I crave!)

          As for the styles of aggression, it’s in the square [right angle] aspect of our respective natal Suns — you as Aries Ram are naturally Active-Aggressive while I as Cancer Crab are naturally passive-aggressive.

          Perhaps a better term for me might be Reactive Aggressive.

          It’s important to note that I am not in opposition to you (like 2 opponents in a tennis match). Rather I am independent of you, one might say literally at “cross-purposes” to you (like the umpire in the tennis match who sits on the chair at right angles to both opponents)

          Thus we are completely independent of one another hence no emotional or even karmic entanglement that cannot easily be undone in a single email exchange.

          I learned this from my mentor in astrology, the man you know as Arthur M. Young (1905-1995) inventor of the Bell-47 helicopter, founder of the Institute for the Study of Consciousness in Berkeley in 1972 and author of the seminal astrology book The Geometry of Meaning, which opens with the sentence:

          There’s an old Egyptian saying: ALL MEANING IS AN ANGLE

          Of course, Arthur’s stepson is Michael Paine, married to Ruth Hyde Paine, which brings in the JFK and Oswald conspiracies and leads directly to my relationship with Peter Levenda, but all of that in due time here.

          Thank you Jasun, for providing me such wonderful asylum at Auticulture. The inmates do run the asylum here and I’m eternally, nay even infinitely grateful to you for that!

          To quote Oat Willie: Onward, through the fog!

    • Jun,

      You’re right about the sophistry. But it’s the grand sophistry of modern science. Hans Albert coined the term “Münchhausen Trilemma” because that’s what faced Karl Popper who finessed the Trilemma by positing Falsifiability as the only way out.

      What you are working on, Jasun, is the Truifiability of a theory, which accepts the sophistry of Popper as a necessary stage on the way to the quantum evolutionary jump to direct perception of the phenomena.

      May I introduce to you the paper I delivered at Purdue University in 1999 at the “Goethe, Chaos and Complexity” Symposium:

      (The professional copy is here)

      Goethe, Chaos and Complexity Symposium
      Purdue University
      West Lafayette, Indiana
      April 9-10, 1999

      (A more readable copy here)

      by Tom Mellett
      Dept. of Physics
      Vanderbilt University
      Nashville, Tennessee

  10. As if on cue appears this article on Countercurrents , the same day as Jasuns piece.
    Something emerging from the collective deeps, an intricately connected pattern ha ha.
    As Jasun says, there is plenty of Cointelpro type hard evidence floating about.
    Amazing to me that neoconservatives started life as Greens party style Trotskyites. Art as Conspiracy , indeed. Perhaps Jasun has more readers than he knows.

    I dont see Tom Mellets identifying Jasuns ‘rope a dope’ onto-boxing style as being a bad thing. He’s probably right, its a very effective form of pugilism which leads us all into the stone-statue land of quantum probablities . Still , i sense tension betwixt these erstwhile amigos.

  11. “Nor is this comparison arbitrary, because the religious (especially Christian) belief in demonic forces manipulating human behavior is an almost precise match for the more contemporary, secular belief in malevolent human agencies doing the same. While this is often used to dismiss conspiracy theorists and their various forms of historical revisionism, it might just as well (and perhaps more accurately) be used as a means of validation.”

    THIS! Conspiranoia is in other words right out of the Bible. Whatever its merits may be, it is a pessimistic type of modern day gnosticism, which has surrendered itself to be symbolized by/modeled from pop culture, namely the “red pill” from the Matrix movie.

    (Apologies for being a bad/late reader; I keep thinking I have read the whole series, then find another one. Good stuff).

  12. Anything that involves subjects such as conspiracies, social engineering, metaphysics, secret agencies’ operations and their social and cultural impact, becomes immediately one of the hardest things to talk about. I have been reading, studying and researching around these specific subjects, along with others subjects which constantly rub shoulders with them, for a long time, and I had the misfortune of seeing how massively and maliciously those wells have been poisoned. Quite honestly, I have yet to see another author who seems so determined and so competent at cleaning those waters as Jasun.

    Having so far only read his book The Vice of Kings, and some of the texts in this blog (I discovered the blog and Jasun’s name about 2 weeks ago, by the way, and the amount of what I have read and thought about his writing, I guess, is a better example of what I am saying than any arguments I can make), seeing his methodology and beliefs outlined in this particular post reveal to me a lot of where that gift is coming from.

    It hits the nail right in the head both as of why these subjects are so complicated, and how to
    get around those complications. I hope this text sees a book publication in the future, because
    it is essential beyond words. Although an entire book about methodology and phenomenology about the subject would be something amazing to read too.

    I particularly got quite impressed with how he managed to address things here keeping both the ‘clinical’ (that may be a dirty word for those who read TVOK, but nevertheless) eye, with an opening to skepticism when that is useful (and not a, erm, vice?), as well as, without letting it disturb or distract from the analysis, also see the metaphysical scope of this entire issue (without which, in my view, any resistance to these evils would be fruitless from the get go).

    Also the ending of this piece seemed very relevant and powerful, as it took my mind immediately to Guy Debord and his analysis of the Spectacle as the fabric of modern society; basically, the ‘pipes’ through which these dark waters spread to everyone’s homes as well as everyone’s minds, tragically. I hadn’t yet seen before any direct connection made between Debord’s views and analysis*, which are more related to Philosophy and Politics, to the realm of conspiracies and (outright) social engineering. Seeing what Jasun says here at the end about the unconscious replication, at an individual level, of the impulses and symbols which fuel these things to happen, and how it strengthens their web beyond the humanly perceptible, it felt to me as a potential seed for the coming together of these two views, which seems like it could be an extremely powerful weapon.

    I had the opportunity to tell him that before, but, again would like to thank Jasun for this great work, as well as his magnificent book.

    *as a synthesis of what I mean, the closest echo I can think of is in these words by Debord:
    ‘The spectacle is the existing order’s uninterrupted discourse about itself, its laudatory monologue. It is the self-portrait of power in the epoch of its totalitarian management of the conditions of existence.’

    • Thanks for importing this feedback from Twitter and adding more in the process. No doubt there are many more who are able to appreciate ($ utilize) what I am attempting here and thereby bring it from three into four dimensions (dissolving the fourth wall of fourth estate and turning gonzo journalism into collaborative improv), but few that have articulated that appreciation so well, letting me know the clues have landed.

      This and part two now form chapter one of the book I am completing, working title The Illusion Industry but I think it needs something darker and more esoteric, especially as I am currently weaving Bryan Hayden’s amazing work on prehistorical secret societies into the thesis (courtesy of Till’s comments here), and thereby aiming to trace just how far back these “Hollywood” agendas go, and how primordial they are.

      I look forward to your review of VOK, if if should transpire.

      • I’m glad you appreciated my words. It feels good to be able to give something back, as your work hit me as something really worthy, and that, honestly, I had been for a long time looking out for.

        Pretty interesting to see that you are working on carrying these tendencies back to the past, as I found your work precisely when I was researching things with a kind of similar intention. Not that far back, as I was (and am) mostly looking into trying to find links between the social engineering through scientificism of the late 19th century with earlier Puritanism and the early settlers of America. Specially looking into the founding of universities and the rise of the Scientific Academy, and potential experiments and ideological (or beyond) tendencies relating to that. Does the name Cotton Mather ring any bells for you?

        But actually knowing that you are going even that far back seems only more amazing. I guess it makes sense and that your sudden throwing of a Rene Guenon quote on TVOK wasn’t random at all. I’m not familiar with Brian Hayden but will definitely look into it.

        I am quite anxious to write that review, actually, because I feel there is a lot of dialogue with your book and some of the most important ideas I’ve been carrying in my head. I am still rereading parts and trying to really form the map traced by the book in my head (it’s so much stuff!), but as soon as I can feel I finally absorbed it, I will be delivering that.


Leave a Comment