Joseph Atwill, Why is the Deep State Interested in Psychedelics? |364|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Oct 17, 2017.

  1. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    .

    Sorry to intrude on your private debate here, but it seems to me that your explanation is the conventional explanation of who the "hippies" were and how they came to be. It fails to acknowledge or take into account all of the strange affiliations that have been uncovered between the leaders of such movements -- and military intelligence/cointelpro. What do you make of those connections? Are you unaware of them or do you simply dismiss them as mere coincidence/irrelevant? And why don't more members of the mainstream public know about these shadowy connections? I would argue that most people's understanding of what happened in the 60's-70's is largely ignorant of the military's/cointelpro role in helping to shape/create/maneuver it -- other than the now openly admitted infiltration of groups like Weathermen, SDS, Black Panthers, etc...It is only very recently that the term "MK Ultra" has begun to seep into public awareness. I wonder what will happen when the strange military intelligence affiliations/connections reach greater audiences? Will the historical accounts change to reflect this still largely unknown/hidden aspect?

    I also think the resort to using the derisive motif of "NWO Illuminati" is an attempt to silence legitimate conversation -- for whatever reasons. There is plenty of material to support the existence of an organized/networked Western oligarchy -- with its network of institutions and organizations that do, in fact, largely engineer/determine global military actions/events, economic/financial policies, and cultural zeitgeists that shape and restructure our world. They go by names far less "funny" than the "NWO illuminati."
     
    Reece likes this.
  2. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    I said for the most part. The peace-love angle was undoubtedly infiltrated by right wing elements, including official and semi-official ones. The problem is any attribution is mired in claim and counter claim. Did Meredith Hunter pull a gun at Altamont as claimed before being stabbed to death? Was he as high as witnesses said? Was Manson sponsored financially or pharmaceutically to go a killing spree to draw a line under the summer of love? We can riff on these things forever, but they have to be balanced by the known facts. Which is that western democracies struggle to run their economies efficiently, and can barely control swathes of their largest cities. The USA had its arse kicked out of Vietnam, a conflict which saw public opinion turn war veterans into the bad guys for the first time ever. If anyone was in control, why didn't they occupy Indo-China, or at least change the unpopular war narrative?

    Shadowy forces undoubtedly engage in black ops, but why is that news? The military have been pumping amphetamines into its bomber pilots since WW2 and probably earlier. British servicemen were given "monkey glands" (probably a placebo) and speed. The CIA were sabre rattling in Ukraine and initiating a coup consisting of the EU and American interests. The Berlin wall came down through a mixture of internal Soviet politics, the Gdansk shipyard protests and Polish nationalism, Reagan's start wars bluff, Russia's misadventures in Afghanistan and general weariness. How do you find a smoking gun in that story? It's not that most people are useful idiots or ingenuous sheeple, it's just that we expect governments to play dirty. Does that mean anyone is in control? They wish.

    For true believers the lizard people/ international bankers/ Illuminati are always lurking because someone has to be in charge. If they're all that's on offer, lizards it is.
     
  3. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    Ok, but you have compacted a lot in there -- and I need to unpack some of it to ask some follow-up questions or make the following comments.

    1. Doesn't it matter if Manson was sponsored (or was part of an actual cointelpro op) to go on a killing spree to end the Summer of Love/antiwar movement? Doesn't this matter a great deal? Because if true, doesn't it tend to lend credence to currently ridiculed "conspiracy" theories that reject the current spate of "lone gunman" official narratives? Or did such useful idiots/patsies/MKultra victims/willing operatives stop with Manson?

    2. Doesn't it matter if our servicemen/women have historically been and/or are being pumped with drugs without their consent to become more aggressive weapons of war? Doesn't it lend credence to rumors of MK Ultra super-soldiers who lack morality and could at one point be turned against even their own populace?

    3. Isn't there a big difference between infiltration of an organic movement and a largely or initially synthetic movement engineered by military intel/social engineering research institutes (e.g. Tavistock, SRI)?

    4. Where do we get our "known facts"? Do we get them from a mainstream media that has been proven to have deliberately lied on so many issues/events that many understandably refuse to even read it anymore? Do we get our "known facts" from official government narratives -- that have also, time and again, proven to be lies or Operation Mockingbird propaganda?

    5. How "dirty" should we expect our governments to play before we ourselves are complicit in great crimes against humanity or our own enslavement?

    I think you deleted the lizard people comment at the end of your post -- but it seems to be showing up in mine. I again think it is flippant/disrespectful and certainly not conducive to good discussions to suggest that anyone who wants to understand who/what is really running the show - or at least trying to run the show and shape the narrative -- is someone who believes in Lizard People or the like. What happened to legitimate questioning of authority, critical analysis/thinking, and the search for the truth?

    When there are things that seem to be terribly wrong with the official/generally accepted narrative -- doesn't it make sense to dig deeper to figure out why and to adjust one's views if warranted?
     
    Reece, Laird and Alex like this.
  4. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    Not if it ends up in lizard people, and believe me it usually ends up with aliens eventually. One minute you're having a discussion with one foot in reality, the next the rabbit hole yawns in front of you. Conspiracy porn always finishes that way.

    If there is a mega-conspiracy, an umbrella so encompassing that none can flee its shadow, we would never know because truth would be so ornamented by the paranoia industry black ops would be redundant. Its stories are like looking at a speeded up cell culture film. Even as I write this someone will be marking me down as a government patsy and someone else will be pencilling me in as a blinkered fool. That's how it works. The official narrative, that people are greedy, conniving and stupid and governments the same but more so, must be replaced by something more exciting. Moon landings on a Hollywood back lot is much more interesting than men riding a Nazi rocket, even when reality is infinitely weirder.
     
    Silence likes this.
  5. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    Ok, well I can see you don't really want to reflect on or answer my questions above -- and apparently it does not matter to you whether or not there is any truth behind various alleged social engineering/military intel/deep state machinations. It matters to me -- I'd prefer to know whether there was some lone drug addicted loser with a messiah complex who was able to convince a bunch of other lost youth/hippies to commit some of the most gruesome and sensationalized murders in our U.S history just for "fun" -- or whether it was a planned black ops/military intel operation to curtail legitimate and growing protests against an unpopular war. The implications if the latter is true are far reaching.

    Conflating inquiry into deep state events/social engineering with beliefs in lizard people and aliens is a bit disingenuous and needlessly snarky. I am not sure why you feel the need to do so, when you seem a lot smarter than that -- and can obviously understand what might be done to muddy the waters and curtail inquiry whenever official narratives are cast into doubt.
     
    Reece likes this.
  6. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    We seem to be coming at things from different directions. I've never assumed official narratives are true in their entirety, on the other hand I don't think every government statement is part of an elaborate plan to keep people from looking behind the curtain. Where you stand between those two points is relevant, because one is a natural suspicion of institutions and their willingness to retain power, the other has no upper limit. An instinctive conspiracist is like a materialist, there is no line between military disinformation and propaganda and earth as an alien egg farm, in the same way the other believes he/she's a biological puppet whose every word and action is the responsibility of genes over which they have no control, in spite of everything they think. They're entitled to their belief, but it flies in the face of what we feel, and the evidence is what you make it.

    I think the conspiracy market is an alternative entertainment industry for the paranoid. If there is a world wide conspiracy, its representatives could walk into a conference, throw the crowd a bone, and they'd snaffle it up whole. It's a serious threat to discovering the kind of monkey business the state (but not only the state) is inclined towards. The Stasi ran the former DDR with around 10% of its people spying on one another. If anyone was in control, do you think that level of suspicion would have been necessary? It was precisely because no one was in charge, and any claim to have public hearts and minds was an illusion that such coercion became the norm. The Irish "troubles" began as part of the 1960s civil rights movement, and the British government maintained its IRA terrorist stance to the end, while they been meeting its heads for years. It had been infiltrated to the point where no one trusted anyone else, and had attracted Maoists, gangsters, racists and nuts of every variety. An apparently legitimate cause of sovereignty had descended in paranoia and psychopathy based largely on black ops. Nobody believed the official line on either side. That's a long way from thinking radicalised Muslim youths are being programmed by deep state to become human bombs and further the new world order. You don't need lizard people when rhetoric and stupidity do the same job.
     
    Silence likes this.
  7. People who are wondering if there is a plot to degrade the morals of society might want to consider this:

     
    Reece likes this.
  8. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    The film industry has always been Babylon. Fatty Arbuckle sexually assaulted a young actress with a coke bottle causing injuries from which she died, Clark Gable got off a hit and run death, the list is endless and nothing new. Don't watch movies and feed the animals, I don't.

    The biggest threat to civilised behaviour currently is no-platforming, where anyone from a comedian to a philosopher can be banned for saying anything that might upset someone. An English or art history lecturer can be dismissed for saying a word like "rape" without flagging up such content in advance. An Oxford college recently banned a Christian Soc stand from its fresher's fair because people might feel intimidated. Jacob Rees-Mogg has to explain conservative views to conservatives. There's your deep state, a state of mind. Entirely voluntary, and run on fear of condemnation we thought died with Marxist states.
     
    Trancestate, Silence and Jim_Smith like this.
  9. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    745
    Please point me to your documented primary evidence of that.
     
  10. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    745
    I contend that people have used weaponized anthropology for centuries. You say "No. They haven't.", then cite one of the earliest example of exactly that.

    I can't argue against that.
     
  11. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    What is an "instinctive conspiracist"? Someone who instinctively distrusts official narratives, no matter how "obviously" cut and dried the official story is? Why does questioning an event, where the story seems dubious on closer inspection (or with the benefit of some expertise or experience in a field that would suggest that some things don't add up) also mean that you believe that earth is an alien egg farm? Are people only either "official narrative people" or "alien egg farm/NWO conspiracists"? And if there's no spectrum or allowance for case-by-case assessments, wouldn't you also qualify as a conspiracist, if you don't naturally assume that official narratives are always the whole truth? I would propose that you cast far too wide a net here, lump too many people together unfairly, and seem to object to any critical inquiry beyond the official narrative/status quo -- so how should the "monkey business" of the state (or other entities) be exposed, if only "official narrative" types are to be believed?

    .

    I might agree with you here -- i.e., that the alternative community/so-called 'conspiracy' business has taken a major turn towards disinformation and paranoia entertainment. But my "instinctive conspiracist" mindset sees this as an intentional "descent into paranoia and psychopathy due to black ops." If the British government can infiltrate the IRA, and military intelligence can infiltrate "organic" leftist organizations, why wouldn't government operatives also be able to infiltrate a dangerous/legitimate alternative movement that questions the official narrative/lies we are told? How can you not acknowledge the possibility of this very same infiltration and intentional destruction of a legitimate organic movement if you can clearly recognize the historical precedent? It appears to be the perfect way to create distrust (and disgust) and to make sure those who consider themselves intelligent/grounded will either stay away completely -- or jump ship once everything descends into a surreal "nobody was killed/the entire event was done by crisis actors using fake blood" circus side show. In fact, perhaps it wasn't infiltration at all - perhaps it was always controlled opposition, with the intent to reach this level of off-putting absurdity for those who can't see beyond the intent?

    Ok, but again, we are talking about two different things here -- one is an infiltration of an "organic" movement for the purposes of destroying/discrediting/taking control of it -- which you seem to readily accept and acknowledge (except, apparently, with the alternative community?), and the other is a synthetic event/movement -- where the actual event/movement is initially orchestrated for political/financial/other reasons. Do you not believe the latter happens? And if you do, then see my previous questions in my earlier post. Doesn't this matter a great deal? Shouldn't we be trying to expose this if it happens?

    For the record, I don't think anyone is in complete control either -- but I do believe there are very powerful oligarchical interests who, yes, engineer (and not just infiltrate) certain financial/military/global events to further obtain such control. Seems like that one should hardly be a ridiculed "conspiracy theory" -- the quest for global hegemony/domination by those with incredible amounts of money/power/authority has been a quest since the dawn of civilization, hasn't it? What is so far-fetched about it now?
     
  12. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    An instinctive conspiracist is like an instinctive sceptic or instinctive proponent, they believe their favoured explanation in spite of the evidence. How many large scale conspiracies have been undone by conspiracy theorists, and I mean proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Even JFK's shooting, for which there's circumstantial evidence against the official line, has not been proven to be false. The twin towers have not been proven to be a black op. Who really knows? No one who is saying, that's for certain.

    Because I believe in the possibility of psi does not make me a proponent of every half-assed polt video or spoon bending claim. Everything has to be weighed on its own merits, and most claims are unclear either way. Conspiracy theorists believe alternative explanations are more likely than official ones because they meet their view of how the world works, not because the official line lacks credibility or fails to answer the evidence as it is known.

    It's overwhelmingly likely that the explanation for some global events are a lie, because people lie and powerful people have more reason to lie than the disempowered. It's illogical to conclude from that statement that powerful people always lie, which is basically the belief system of instinctive conspiracy theorists. To be debunked an official explanation requires the weight of expert opinion, and an admission of culpability or a whistle blower close to the action.

    The conspiracy theory thread showed that internet commentators who believe in a conspiracy are more likely to believe in conspiracies as a whole, including alien interbreeding and moon landing hoaxes. If people want to talk about a conspiracy they believe has evidence in its favour, but don't believe in conspiracies as the dominant paradigm, or subscribe to everything you think is wrong entertainment paranoia, we can have a useful discussion on its merits.
     
    Silence likes this.
  13. Dan_LastName

    Dan_LastName Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Good show. As others have said, I don't agree with all of Atwill's points, but I appreciate the different ideas on Wasson and other characters from those days.

    I think this point about "soft power" is an important one. And I think, in reflecting on Alex's question about the deep state's interest in consciousness, it seems important to consider the powerful people of our world to be complex, conflicted, flawed human beings.

    Soft power--The world changes, the powerful respond to the changes. Their responses are motivated by complex and even conflicting impulses and personal agendas.

    I like to think that at the highest and/or deepest levels of power, the conversation about consciousness, psi, UFOs, etc. resembles my own rather agnostic thinking on these matters. I can imagine some top official making a report to one of the grand poobahs about these matters:

    Top Military Adviser: Well, sir, obviously our best scientists and engineers understand a lot about the world, the nature of life, the laws of physics, etc. But when it comes to consciousness, UFOs, time, non-material entities, etc we still are dealing with conflicting evidence and conflicting theories.

    Deep State Poobah: You mean we don't know?

    Top Military Adviser: Yes, sir. That would be one way to put it.

    Deep State Poobah: What are you doing to solve this problem?

    Top Military Adviser: We are watching (and/or conducting) research into these questions, sir. [He lists off historical and contemporary research, including Strassman's group's psychedelic studies.]

    Deep State Poobah: What if we figure out this stuff about the nature of consciousness, the truth about the afterlife, psychadelic drugs? Would there be a threat to the social order? To the status quo? [Unspoken but implied: to my power base?]

    Top Military Adviser: Possibly, sir. But the nature of the threat depends on what the truth is at it emerges. There's very little grassroots threat as of right now. Popular grassroots movements could emerge as the answers are unveiled, and that's something we are watching very closely. We have some intelligence assets involved with the weak underground movements, and we can ramp up that work if any particular movements become more powerful.

    Deep State Poobah: And what about monetization? I have a meeting with my pharmaceutical companies, we'll be discussing their efforts to figure out how to capitalize on the changing culture around psychedelic drugs, cannabis, etc. Is there any intel you can give me on these efforts? But first, I don't know if you heard, I'm going to Peru for my annual ayahuasca experience. I tell you, there's nothing like plugging into the mother jungle to get a leg up on Dick, Tom, and Harry (the other grand poobahs he's in competition with).

    So Wasson and the other establishment figures who were involved in the counter-culture were perhaps motivated by their thirst for power. Perhaps they were motivated by their business interests. Perhaps by personal interests. Could Wasson have had a genuine personal interest in the spiritual or emotional healing potential of magical potions in addition to his interest in power and money? Could it be that these establishment figures had complicated feelings and personalities?

    [edited to add in piece about "historical and contemporary research"]
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2017
    Reece and Alex like this.
  14. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,453
    I suspect that conversation might go more like this:

    Deep State Poobah:
    Can you tell us what you know?

    Top Military Adviser: We have already told you all the declassified information.

    Deep State Poobah: But if UFO's aren't real, why does any information require higher classification?

    Top Military Adviser: I'd probably get into real trouble if I discussed that - because it is classified!

    Deep State Poobah: What if we figure out this stuff about the nature of consciousness.

    Top Military Adviser: Er, the connection with consciousness is a classified topic!

    Top Military Adviser: On second thoughts, that fact that that is a classified topic is also classified - so I may have to shoot you in the national interest!

    That wouldn't necessarily mean there is much to reveal - I once worked on a project that involved some restricted/secret documents (very many years ago), and what amazed me was that a document might be full of public domain maths, but get classified because of one or two numbers in the text. There didn't seem to be a mechanism to replace these numbers with a reference to a secret document that only contained numerical parameters.

    David
     
  15. Dan_LastName

    Dan_LastName Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    In my imagination, the Deep State Poobah has the highest possible classification.
     
  16. Dan_LastName

    Dan_LastName Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Possibly a shorter way of making my point:

    Even the most powerful person in the world, whoever that may be, is limited in terms of time and resources. They have to prioritize their actions. Some of it is troubleshooting immediate problems. Some of it is medium term planning, and some of it is long term programming.

    For example, if you are the CEO of a company, you are doing troubleshooting, you are managing your high-level staff, you are running and trying to improve existing programs, and you are developing new products or programs (long term planning). I would think it's a similar time/resource breakdown for a Deep State Poobah. Assuming we listeners of Skeptiko are aware of what's happening in consciousness/afterlife studies, there's just no immediate threat to the status quo coming from that sector today. There is fascinating research, but I don't see it getting a lot of traction in the mainstream yet. So a Poobah probably doesn't need to be devoting a lot of resources to dealing with it. They have a lot of other major threats and problems that require a lot more of their time and resources.

    But, if a Poobah happens to have a personal interest in the field, and/or wants to make a bet (aka a power play) that consciousness/afterlife issues are going to experience a profound paradigmatic revolution in the near future, they may want to start investing some resources into it in terms of long-term planning. Are any major players interested? Are they making those bets today?

    My takeaway from Atwill is that back in the fifties, sixties, possibly earlier, there were Poobahs who were either personally interested in the field or who identified the field of consciousness, psi, occult etc as being important enough to warrant the expenditure of resources. I'm not sure that that's the case today. It could be a case of "been there, done that, let's wait until something big happens before we get any more involved than we already are." Or it may be a matter of time before some "up and coming" Poobah pushes the issue or some Poobah experiences a personal tragedy that pushes them into the field.
     
    Alex likes this.
  17. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    637
    If is pretty easy to find these documents. The list of sources are diverse, from the archives of FBI itself to the anarchist websites that combine the documentation with intellectual analysis and moral condemnation.

    If you want more in-depth analysis, you may be intested in a book by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, which demonstrate a lot of original documentation. I need to say here that the authors are radical Left-wing anti-state militants from 1960s - 70s, and do not ask that you (or anyone else) should embrace their intellectual and/or moral perspective. The reason for recommending this book is the loads of primary material which one can interpret and evaluate oneself.
     
  18. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    .

    You are painting some seriously invalid broad strokes again. And it's hard for me to believe that you don't see the inherent problem with your statements above. So a "conspiracy theorist" (and apparently anyone who believes in any conspiracy at some point earns the derisive label) is unable to discern between so-called conspiracy theories that have some credible evidence to support them, and those that are as silly as, say, a "half-assed polt video." So you should be allowed to "believe in the possibility" of psi -- but insist that this doesn't mean you would believe in 'half-assed' claims about psi too. You are intelligent/capable enough of discernment and case by case analysis when it comes to psi, but "conspiracy theorists" and "internet commentators" commenting on conspiracy theories are presumed to have a unified belief system -- just generally, as a collective, unable to discern between the credibility of evidence suggesting an orchestrated deep state event -- and alien interbreeding? And this is because an article posted on the conspiracy thread said so?

    And so then, what is your standard for accepting psi phenomenon as potentially valid? Do you always require "the weight of expert opinion, an admission of culpability, and a whistleblower close to the action"? And since your saintly avatar sports a halo, is this the same standard that one should apply before anyone should give any credence to the existence of an invisible higher power?

    You are right -- other than those in the know who aren't talking, most of us will likely never know for sure about JFK, 911, Helter Skelter, the real engineers/instigators behind the 60's counterculture, and a myriad of other potentially dubious events/movements. But I'm sure you can appreciate how difficult it would be to get "the weight of expert opinion, an admission of culpability, and a whistleblower close to the action" on most deep state criminal actions. And if you concede that's probably true, perhaps you might allow for some leeway/a lesser standard when people are inquiring into the possibility or probability of deep state machinations?

    But the question you still haven't answered -- and why I keep pressing -- is: shouldn't it matter a great deal to all of us, whether a social/financial/political movement was engineered, or whether an event truly occurred as we have been taught/informed?
     
    Reece and Charlie Primero like this.
  19. gabriel

    gabriel New

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,644
    I'm not knocking conspiracy theories, they stand or fall on their merits, I'm casting doubt on the claims of serial conspiracy theorists of the everything-you-think-is-wrong variety. The difference should be clear. People bring their own judgement and discernment to a case, especially context and particularly the context of those making the claims. For instance are they in the habit of writing books that make unfalsifiable claims on a range of subjects, and are they serious investigative journalists who are prepared to get out and interview central characters and not form conclusions from a computer screen.

    There is no single criterion to any claim, conspiracy, psi, unless you want to play science with it. It's a case of understanding people's motivations, the rhetoric they use and the entertainment medium they function within. My avatar was chosen at random as I said before, but it amuses me that people identify my opinions as angelic! The context here is the podcast has moved from a psi, mind and anomalous phenomena based forum, and interviews with serious thinkers, to a conspiracy based one interviewing flakes who make easily refutable or unfalsifiable assertions. It seems the case against me boils down to the fact I might be spoiling someone's fun by stating the bleeding obvious.

    I think all social, financial and political events are engineered, but not in the sense conspiracy theorists mean. Why do things covertly with a web of intrigue and sub-plots, when you can do the same in plain sight? There's no necessity to create elaborate hoaxes when all you need to do is control the media. Riffing on labyrinthine who-dunnit's is fiction unless you have evidence, and no one is coming up with it. We know that well funded, ideologically committed individuals and groups are prepared to attack the West even if it means killing themselves in the process. Unless you're prepared to accept that narrative as the most likely explanation for terrorist actions, even in full knowledge of the dirty tricks government habitually goes in for, there is no conversation to be had.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
    Michael Larkin likes this.
  20. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    completely agree... this is just a matter of following the data... don't understand those who can't/won't

    again, completely agree... i.e. I don't get how this all fits together, or how much was part of a master plan versus stumbling in the dark -- but that doesn't take away from the fact that it happened!

    same as above! why do we want the CIA secretly funding such social movements? it's not ok that the same guys who did all the horrible things associated with MK-Ultra had their hands in the feminism movement... not ok...
     

Share This Page