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

#61
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"]
nice :) adding one bit of historical evidence to the screenplay:

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... but one thing is for sure -- the Soviets are using psychics to spy on us and are having success.

Everyone else in the room: Oh shit, let's get on it!
 
#62
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
adding a little bit of documented history to this one:
President: (Carter and Clinton): I wanta know about the UFO thing.

Deep State: I'm sorry sir, that would not fall under yr "need to know."

President: (Carter and Clinton): [paraphrasing] WTF are you talking about... I'm the President!

Deep State: I'm sorry sir.
 
#63
Or maybe

adding a little bit of documented history to this one:
President: (Carter and Clinton): I wanta know about the UFO thing.

Deep State: I'm sorry sir, that would not fall under yr "need to know."

President: (Carter and Clinton): [paraphrasing] WTF are you talking about... I'm the President!

.
Deep State: I'm sorry sir, but if you really want to know, we will have to kill you once you leave office!

David
 
#64
The video in the post below has an insider explaining how the deep state controls the elected government with blackmail, threats of violence, or threats of false accusations which will ruin a person's life as they try to prove their innocence. The Trump "dossier" is an example of what they do to someone who can't be blackmailed or frightened. (I suspect Trump decided not to delay release of the remaining JFK documents partly as payback for the dossier.)

If you want to know about UFOs, the safest thing to do is not to ask the bureaucracies but to look on youtube or go to the bookstore.

Here is a video from July 2015 of Catherine Austin Fitts, a Washington D.C insider describing how the top level officials are blackmailed with "sexual dirt".
https://solari.com/blog/solari-stories-scandals-control-files-and-blackmail/

So, it was several days later, I got called into the Secretary's office and he said, "Have you found a way to do this?" And I said, "No there's no legal way to do this. You can't"

And he was, litterally - I have never seen a man that frightened in my life - he was scared to death. And I was sure just from watching him that he was under extreme political pressure and I believe blackmail. And he just looked scared to death. And I went back up to my office and one of my deputies pulled me aside and he said, "You know you have to be very very careful" he said, "because you know there's real sexual dirt on the Secretary. So you have to be real careful."
...
That was the same time the Franklin scandal hit the Washington Times headlines. [see following post]
...
We're literally watching a government that is being run by coercion whether it's the blackmail or control file or physical violence. If you don't do what you're told, there's really issues of physical violence now.​
 
Last edited:
#65
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...
Agree it's very concerning if true -- but I still don't really understand the possible end game angle? To break up families? Make it necessary for both parents to go out into the workplace? Generally I can see the potential "nefarious/destabilizing/control aspect" angle of various social engineering projects, but this one is tougher for me to crack/unpack.....Sure, two parent incomes as a necessity does stink, and probably not good for the children who are latch-key or in daycare all day long, but again, many women/children weren't exactly in great situations pre-women's liberation/feminist movements -- they were powerless/dependent, and this movement allowed women a place at the wider world table (even if it's still just one seat). And personally I'm glad for the ability to support myself and enjoy a life beyond home (though I will keep my hubby anyway, he's a good egg ;))

Of course it could be, like potentially with the psychedelics, that there were unintended (good) results?
 
#66
Joe Atwill: ... This was all used against us once. The sex, drugs and rock and roll culture was artificial, it was used against us, it really debased and damaged our culture. So now, as we sit here, we have this new era, new drugs, new research, new government involvement. We just aren’t in a position, until we know what is controlling the government, to trust these things.
Our culture has been debased through a multi-pronged attack that also included dumbing down education and cultural Marxism (the belief that society consist of groups of people who are either oppressed or oppressors).

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/paglia-dumbing-down-america-began-public-schools


4:25
Camille Paglia: “It’s really started at the level of public school education. I’ve been teaching now for 46 years as a classroom teacher, and I have felt the slow devolution of the quality of public school education in the classroom.”
...
“What has happened is these young people now getting to college have no sense of history – of any kind! No sense of history. No world geography. No sense of the violence and the barbarities of history. So, they think that the whole world has always been like this, a kind of nice, comfortable world where you can go to the store and get orange juice and milk, and you can turn on the water and the hot water comes out. They have no sense whatever of the destruction, of the great civilizations that rose and fell, and so on – and how arrogant people get when they’re in a comfortable civilization. They now have been taught to look around them to see defects in America – which is the freest country in the history of the world – and to feel that somehow America is the source of all evil in the universe, and it’s because they’ve never been exposed to the actual evil of the history of humanity. They know nothing!

~2:04
Camille Paglia: My generation of the 1960's, when I arrived in college in 1964 there were parietal rules in place so that the women in my dorm had to sign in at 11:00 at night. The men could run free. It was my generation that rose up and said that we wanted to be treated equally and we and freedom. And the colleges said the world is a dangerous place. You could be attacked you could be raped. We said, "Give us the freedom to risk rape. Freedom is much more important than protection and safety. And that's what young people have given up today.

~5:59
Christina Hoff Sommers: And right now the fashion is the identity politics, intersectionality, this is all the rage, and its the premise of this theory it's the idea that all the oppressions intersect with one another and form this matrix of oppression. And so young people in a typical gender studies class now learn that they inhabit a society that is this matrix of oppression and depending on your identity you might be advantaged so you have unearned privilege or you might be burdened because of your race or maybe your disability or your gender or preference and on and on. But underneath it all is this assumption that the United States is a white supremacist imperialist capitalist patriarchal oppressive society. And in order to liberate ourselves we have to, I don't even know what they want to do - because it's all - maybe blame one another and form - have little feuds, on social media and on campus.

The point of the middle excerpt is to show that cultural Marxism has debased feminism and all other minority rights movements by changing their focus from the belief that we are all equal to the belief that some people are oppressed. This divides and weakens society into feuding factions that are easier to control through fear and anger with promises of protection and restitution.
 
Last edited:
#67
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.

I appreciate your response -- and there are a number of things I agree with you on. But I also see where we have different "reality tunnels" -- particularly when it comes to the need to ask the questions behind your confident assertions about which narrative "we know" is "truth" and the only narrative worthy of conversation (e.g, ok, but why are they well-funded? Who is well-funding them? Is it possible that the current spate of "ideologically committed" individuals are collective patsies for a force behind them? Is there historical precedent for such manipulation of ideological persons? etc.). I find these questions to be of the utmost importance -- but many do not consider these to be necessary questions at all -- and I don't understand why, given historical precedent for all kinds of governmental lies/manipulations/black ops, etc. Why should government get a pass on any narrative?

I find myself between a rock and hard place often, as I am extremely turned off by the Alex Joneses of the alternative community and also want articulate, intelligent, investigative journalists to ask these questions and provide their opinions -- but they are few and far between -- and are often caught up in their own reality tunnels and (liberal/conservative) confirmation biases too. I'd like to think that I've spent enough time deeply researching certain "conspiracy theories" enough to form an educated opinion on a few of them, and I confess that I often consider those who have accepted the official narratives without bothering to consider the credible alternative positions as those who are not psychologically brave enough to risk the pain of cognitive dissonance.

We are both rather arrogant in our own assumptions and biases, I see.
 
#68
Interesting interview, Joe Atwill is a very original thinker and I always enjoy listening to him, but he misses some really big points. First off, has he ever taken DMT for example? Imagine talking about love if you have never been in love. How could he ever imagine what Terence Mckenna experienced if he has never ventured there, no less accusing both Mckennas of being liars. Terence could occasionally get caught up in his own BS, but we forgive him, it was part of his charm, and McKenna, when he was on top of his game. was a truly inspired orator. I often wonder what he would had to say about 9/11 (he was generally against conspiracies as he thought governments were too incompetent, but 9/11 was a different animal)

Just to get another perspective on this, below is a talk by James Fadiman, one of the founders of the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology and a researcher involved in some of the initial studies by the CIA into LSD at Stanford in the 60's. Incredibly bright, witty, worldly, and cultured. If Atwill is right, Fadiman has always been a shill for the deep state. I beg to differ. Here is someone who admits to having worked with the intelligence community on LSD and who has a very expanded level of consciousnesses. It is very interesting to hear his views on where consciousnesses lies and the effects of LSD on telepathy.

 
#69
I appreciate your response -- and there are a number of things I agree with you on. But I also see where we have different "reality tunnels" -- particularly when it comes to the need to ask the questions behind your confident assertions about which narrative "we know" is "truth" and the only narrative worthy of conversation (e.g, ok, but why are they well-funded? Who is well-funding them? Is it possible that the current spate of "ideologically committed" individuals are collective patsies for a force behind them? Is there historical precedent for such manipulation of ideological persons? etc.). I find these questions to be of the utmost importance -- but many do not consider these to be necessary questions at all -- and I don't understand why, given historical precedent for all kinds of governmental lies/manipulations/black ops, etc. Why should government get a pass on any narrative?

I find myself between a rock and hard place often, as I am extremely turned off by the Alex Joneses of the alternative community and also want articulate, intelligent, investigative journalists to ask these questions and provide their opinions -- but they are few and far between -- and are often caught up in their own reality tunnels and (liberal/conservative) confirmation biases too. I'd like to think that I've spent enough time deeply researching certain "conspiracy theories" enough to form an educated opinion on a few of them, and I confess that I often consider those who have accepted the official narratives without bothering to consider the credible alternative positions as those who are not psychologically brave enough to risk the pain of cognitive dissonance.

We are both rather arrogant in our own assumptions and biases, I see.
The conspiracy industry is like the sceptical variety. It says you are an unreliable observer, that your thoughts are not to be trusted, that true and false are not what they seem. Scepticism is a useful analytic tool is some situations, but as a life position it is unnecessarily inflationary. You cannot go through life in the belief that everything you do is an illusion, or that the information you receive has a hidden, darker agenda, and enjoy good mental health. Even materialists insist life is a pointless accident before going out for a jolly good dinner and acting as though life was chock full of meaning and joy.

Of course media streams are biased, it goes without saying that politicians and media are in cahoots to feather their own nests. That's human nature, but lifestyle CTs tend towards a secret organising principle pulling the levers, and they're the same ones, Jews, freemasons, Illuminati, running the show with the help of aliens, or some variety of the same. Alongside that goes off-grid, gun owning, survivalist paranoia. I've had those conversations, people begin with simple propositions with which it's impossible to disagree, before inference, implication and extrapolations demand, mostly aggressively, that da Jews done it, and if you don't agree you're probably one of them (choose your scapegoat).

If you're offering a view of conspiracy theories that does not occupy that perspective, then our experience of CTs has been different.
 
#70
The conspiracy industry is like the sceptical variety. It says you are an unreliable observer, that your thoughts are not to be trusted, that true and false are not what they seem. Scepticism is a useful analytic tool is some situations, but as a life position it is unnecessarily inflationary. You cannot go through life in the belief that everything you do is an illusion, or that the information you receive has a hidden, darker agenda, and enjoy good mental health. Even materialists insist life is a pointless accident before going out for a jolly good dinner and acting as though life was chock full of meaning and joy.

Of course media streams are biased, it goes without saying that politicians and media are in cahoots to feather their own nests. That's human nature, but lifestyle CTs tend towards a secret organising principle pulling the levers, and they're the same ones, Jews, freemasons, Illuminati, running the show with the help of aliens, or some variety of the same. Alongside that goes off-grid, gun owning, survivalist paranoia. I've had those conversations, people begin with simple propositions with which it's impossible to disagree, before inference, implication and extrapolations demand, mostly aggressively, that da Jews done it, and if you don't agree you're probably one of them (choose your scapegoat).

If you're offering a view of conspiracy theories that does not occupy that perspective, then our experience of CTs has been different.
I agree with a lot of that, but it is obvious that media outlets evolve in time - and not always in a positive way. Clearly the media in cold war Eastern Europe - or indeed in North Korea - were very very selective in what got published, and what spin was put on the news. I see that same pattern in the output of the BBC, and I know someone who came from behind the iron curtain who sees exactly the same trend. That trend is countered to some extent by the internet - sites such as this.

Clearly the gun owning paranoia in the US is a very real danger, and it is fed by CT's, but equally you have to keep your eyes open. For example, the BBC gleefully reported the fact that two former presidents -Obama and Bush junior had made critical remarks about Donald Trump. How many have reported the fact that Jimmy Carter (arguably the most thoughtful president of recent times) has made some more favourable remarks about Trump and criticised the media for its relentlessly negative portrayal of President Trump, and dismissed the supposed Russian meddling in the election?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...trump-than-any-other-president-in-memory.html

That isn't honest reporting in my view - indeed, it represents a concerted conspiracy to stop Trump - and I think people are beginning to realise that the news in the free West has become extraordinarily biassed. Even if the media think they are doing this for a 'good' reason, they are not, because false conspiracy theories depend crucially on people not believing the story they are being told.

I suspect that there are strong links between the MSM and Hollywood, which mean that the stars are encouraged to condemn Trump, while the media turned a blind eye to the sexual harassment and rape of very young actors. There have been instances of actresses who demonstrated against Trump, but who now, months later, report the actual sexual harassment they received under Weinstein!

Look at North Korea, Soviet Russia, or presumably Saudi television - we really do need a free unbiased media!

David
 
#71
I agree with a lot of that, but it is obvious that media outlets evolve in time - and not always in a positive way.
Of course, that's why I don't own a TV, and any news that gets in is bullet point headlines embedded in other channels. News is infotainment designed to avoid any firm conclusions and keep the ball rolling. The set up is Left vs Right, an eternal Punch and Judy act designed to make people pick a side. The problem is the sides don't mean anything. I'm a Labour voting social and moral conservative. A civilised society is judged on the way it treats its least fortunate, but I hate Marxism and the scepticism that accompanies it. However the Conservatives are a politically and morally laissez faire liberal party, with barely a conservative among them, so there's no point voting for them. Yet people argue as though the two positions still mean something, and the media maintains the pretence. So you have upper middle class privately educated socialists debating free market liberals on subjects like the state ownership of transport and utilities, while foreign governments own the UK's privatised railways. It's hypocrisy on a monumental scale.

Harold Wilson was accused of paranoia, but he wasn't even told when there was a full scale military defence exercise outside his front door. It's obvious that there are supra-national forces at work, but when the Bildeberg group operate in plain sight why would they need a cover? I watched the Young Turks' channel a couple of times in the lead up to the US election, and their complacency and self-satisfaction was stunning. When Trump was elected they were in shock in the same way the liberal commentariat were over Brexit. What smug silo do these people operate in that they need to conjure a dirty tricks department, just because the democratic majority vote for something they didn't choose? Anti-democratic forces do not need shadowy masterminds, the control freaks are living amongst us.
 
#72
Of course, that's why I don't own a TV, and any news that gets in is bullet point headlines embedded in other channels. News is infotainment designed to avoid any firm conclusions and keep the ball rolling. The set up is Left vs Right, an eternal Punch and Judy act designed to make people pick a side. The problem is the sides don't mean anything. I'm a Labour voting social and moral conservative. A civilised society is judged on the way it treats its least fortunate, but I hate Marxism and the scepticism that accompanies it. However the Conservatives are a politically and morally laissez faire liberal party, with barely a conservative among them, so there's no point voting for them. Yet people argue as though the two positions still mean something, and the media maintains the pretence. So you have upper middle class privately educated socialists debating free market liberals on subjects like the state ownership of transport and utilities, while foreign governments own the UK's privatised railways. It's hypocrisy on a monumental scale.
I suggest you read the actual policies of UKIP (as opposed to what the BBC says) and consider joining them. They don't really fit on the silly left-right axis because their various policies have been chosen each on their own merits. We had the former bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali as a speaker at the recent UKIP conference in Torquay - you would have enjoyed the conference I think.
Harold Wilson was accused of paranoia, but he wasn't even told when there was a full scale military defence exercise outside his front door. It's obvious that there are supra-national forces at work, but when the Bildeberg group operate in plain sight why would they need a cover? I watched the Young Turks' channel a couple of times in the lead up to the US election, and their complacency and self-satisfaction was stunning. When Trump was elected they were in shock in the same way the liberal commentariat were over Brexit. What smug silo do these people operate in that they need to conjure a dirty tricks department, just because the democratic majority vote for something they didn't choose? Anti-democratic forces do not need shadowy masterminds, the control freaks are living amongst us.
Agreed!

David
 
#73
cultural Marxism has debased feminism and all other minority rights movements by changing their focus from the belief that we are all equal to the belief that some people are oppressed.
That was never the belief of Cultural Marxism.

The founding ideals of Critical Theory are that only two classes exist; The Oppressed and The Oppressor.
 
#74
The conspiracy industry is like the sceptical variety. It says you are an unreliable observer, that your thoughts are not to be trusted, that true and false are not what they seem. Scepticism is a useful analytic tool is some situations, but as a life position it is unnecessarily inflationary. You cannot go through life in the belief that everything you do is an illusion, or that the information you receive has a hidden, darker agenda, and enjoy good mental health. Even materialists insist life is a pointless accident before going out for a jolly good dinner and acting as though life was chock full of meaning and joy.

Of course media streams are biased, it goes without saying that politicians and media are in cahoots to feather their own nests. That's human nature, but lifestyle CTs tend towards a secret organising principle pulling the levers, and they're the same ones, Jews, freemasons, Illuminati, running the show with the help of aliens, or some variety of the same. Alongside that goes off-grid, gun owning, survivalist paranoia. I've had those conversations, people begin with simple propositions with which it's impossible to disagree, before inference, implication and extrapolations demand, mostly aggressively, that da Jews done it, and if you don't agree you're probably one of them (choose your scapegoat).

If you're offering a view of conspiracy theories that does not occupy that perspective, then our experience of CTs has been different.
Well, I have to agree and disagree with you in parts -- and forgive me for breaking it down in numbered sections, but I am not as eloquent as you are.

1. I agree there is an element of the "conspiracy industry" that is over-the-top, aggressive, nutty, and seemingly unable to practice discernment. And yes, I have had the experience of having a good conversation ruined by someone dropping the turd bombs (i.e., claiming the Jews, Jesuits, Illuminati, Freemasons, did it.) However, I would propose that this is a small fringe contingency of a larger community of people who simply want to understand what the hell is going on in the world -- and who no longer find the "information" we are being fed via our media and political/professional leaders credible. I also think that among the fringe conspiracy theorists, there are the true believers, and there are the intentional disrupters -- i.e., military intel/black op infiltrators who intentionally throw such provocative and offensive turb bombs on forums, gatherings, etc. to discredit/dismantle legitimate inquiry/legitimate alternative movements. Very similar to the military intelligence/black op infiltrations of legitimate counterculture groups this thread has been discussing. I am genuinely puzzled as to why you cannot see this possibility and account for it?

2. I agree that you cannot go through life thinking that the 'information' we receive always has a dark agenda and enjoy good mental health. Many people who have fallen down various so-called conspiracy theory rabbit holes have indicated that they take "breaks" from this line of inquiry for that very reason. I've discovered also that many people also turn towards spirituality after traveling too far down a dark rabbit hole. Like me, they may begin to suspect a darker, metaphysical agenda to this reality -- and are hoping to find (or just hoping there actually is) a "good" side. A good God? Good entities? Perhaps I did misunderstand your avatar, but I guess I assumed that those who "believe in the possibility of psi" also have some sort of metaphysical belief system or a curiosity/openness to the possibility of a metaphysical reality beyond our reality. If that's the case, and the world is far weirder that the physical reality we can see, I think many who fall down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole start to wonder if there truly is an epic/metaphysical good vs. evil battle going on. But perhaps you are one of the resident skeptics/materialists?

3. I think your views that "of course media streams are biased," and "the Bildebergs are in the open (so no need to research/blame any behind-the-scenes secret societies, etc.)" in fact assumes a level of knowledge and educated/cultivated cynicism that most people, in fact, do not have. I am guessing that most of my highly educated, liberal-leaning, NPR listening friends would have no clue who the Bilderberger group is -- or that this extremely powerful, unelected group of politicians, royalty, media executives, and business/financial leaders meets each year to create policy agendas that have very real effects on our global community. I think you underestimate by a long shot the amount of complacency and ignorance among even the "educated" general populace.

4. I can see why those of you who have been on this forum for years are unhappy with the direction Alex is taking. If you are used to interviews with scientists and scientific research on conciousness/NDE's, you may be extremely unhappy with the journey Alex is taking now-- which does touch on numerous conspiracy theories. I just happen to understand why he's going there. In my opinion, you can't research consciousness studies and psi phenomenon without eventually bumping up against MK Ultra and SRI and other military intel/black op projects. You can't research remote viewing without at some point coming across the Far Sight institute and their "remote viewing" of 9-11. You can't research Magick or various religions without eventually also getting to the military intelligence/alphabet agency connections to the leading practitioners. I guess you could ignore them (so as not to offend those who don't want to go there) -- but why? Isn't there a way to cover them as they naturally relate to psi/the nature of our reality without becoming a forum for "the Jews did it" crowd?

And aren't we all here (on this forum and in life) to try to understand the bigger questions/nature of reality?
 
#75
Hi Gabriel

I have been recently drawn to looking once again at 9/11, because of this, I have been called the usual names, kook, idiot, simpleton etc. Mostly, but not exclusively under people's breath, of course. Many of the people who assume the official version of 9/11 is the correct one, have done little or no investigation of their own. The 'official version' suits the majority, as they are often too busy to care, busy earning their next mortgage payment, and you just have to look at the mainstream media as well as the alternate media to know that very many of them have a definite bias against Muslims. So it is wholly understandable that they should not complain when 'everyone' paints 9/11 in a way that suits the vast majority, including themselves.

I would like to think that, as a scot that left Scotland at an age that never allowed me to get immersed in the unionist/nationalist, or is it really Protestant/Catholic thing! I moved to Africa when I was seven, and grew up as a white boy in first Zambia and later South Africa, before returning to Scotland to, hopefully, join the RAF. Of course I would have been immersed in the racist soup that any white, or black, or indeed any other colour finds themselves in, growing up in these countries. My parents weren't pushy, largely leaving me to find my own path without edging me one way or the other, they were against having servants, and they never displayed any open racism as far as I'm aware, but I could be fooling myself, after all, who moves to South Africa in the early seventies? Mainly ignorant or 'informed but happily racist' people, I think my parents were mostly the former. They were simple working class people that found a nice way of life, by taking a chance. I think they ought to have seen themselves as 'lucky blacks', for colour aside, that is what they effectively were.

The reason I'm pointing out my background is to hopefully show that I don't have any strong forces that bent me a certain way. Aside from my external reality growing up, I was always strongly independent, I 'knew my own mind'.

So, to get to the point!

My investigations around 9/11 have not really been fired by an interest in the more outlandish stuff, like the pilotless drones theory, or the nuclear bomb theory, or even the unusual way the buildings fell, or at least Building 7. It was more about how the official version actually looked at the evidence, or rather didn't look at the evidence. If they had done so, I might have been content to let it lie. However, the way that they omitted, lied and bullied their way out of any proper investigations ought to make anyone sit up and ask why. To deny this fact, is to show cognitive dissonance on an industrial level. It matters little how intelligent one is, bias can sweep away any such usefulness, the saying 'There are none so blind....' would apply equally to people with an IQ of 150 as those with an IQ of 90.

So if we would find that ,along with many unanswered questions, more unasked questions in fact, we start to see both a logical and intuitive picture emerging, should we 'follow the evidence' or instead, maybe be turned off what we might see, and instead take up knitting, or looking at something 'less controversial'.

Is it really so outrageous that there may have been a group other than BinLaden involved? A group closer to home! Are people like Bush, Trump, Clinton and even Obama really sane? It's a fair question imo. I think many people would question my own sanity for even asking such a question, the answer to them being obvious. While many Jews died that day, it is said that only four Zionist's were killed. Is that strange? I think so. That Jews and Zionist's are frequently lumped together and anyone who dares to criticise Israel is jumped upon and called an anti-Semite. Don't you think that this is a dangerous place to be, a place where you are not even allowed to question things without being seen as a trouble maker! In some parts of Texas, I read that part of the contract that allows you to receive aid for rebuilding your life after the recent storm damage, is agreeing not to support the BDS movement. Wtf has Israel got to do with the US's internal workings? A lot, I would suggest, if that were Britain, far too much for my comfort.

Christopher Bollyn's anti Zionist talk about 9/11 appears to me to be well researched, by a perfectly well balanced individual. That he fingers the Zionist's as being guilty, is a result of the facts, watch one of his presentations. Then argue the facts against. I don't think this is definite proof that any one group carried out 9/11 - but some group is guilty! To me, it is just as likely to be at least some of the people in charge 'of us', those in power, the people with the resources to carry out such an attack, as it is to be a Muslim terrorist group. Especially considering how quickly things have developed (or rather deteriorated) in the Middle East since that fateful day. Who prospered? Who suffered? The Saudi's? Israel?

What if it were the Scots that Bollyn was busy fingering? I would have had to say, well, I don't like what he's saying, but I have to say, he's got a load of evidence that points in this direction.

I'm just fed up of people assuming others are anti-Semitic because it's in the intersects of Israel to say they are, when they really are not.
let's not get into 9/11 in this thread because it's not relevant to this episode. and sure, there are a bunch of documented Mossad connections, but even more Saudi connections... go figure... but here isn't the place for the discussion.
 
#76
If I could just make a small point on the counter-culture-and-psychedelics-as-cointelpro angle....

Many of the prominent figures in the PSI/Ufology field have loads of links to intelligence circles and the military industrial complex. Does this imply that PSI and UFOs are part of a social engineering campaign perpetrated on humanity by the secret state? It's aim being to keep us staring up at the night sky and navel gazing while the powers-that-should-not-be get away with murder? I really don't think so, but it's a similar argument.

Anyway, I wasn't around at the time, so it's just my opinion.

EDIT: Something I thought of that might be related: I've heard some conspiracy theorists (and Marxists) claim that Islamic Sufism is a creation/puppet of western intelligence agencies. Now, it's true that at some point, historically, colonial intelligence did support Sufism as a counterweight to middle-eastern nationalism (Sufi's have tended to be non-political), but to claim Sufism is a creation/puppet of western imperialism is a bizarre simplification.
 
Last edited:
#77
I'm just listening to this now. Jesus, Atwill needs to do some serious drugs.
And I'm sorry, the McKenna brothers history is so well documented that there's no room to shove a conspiracy in there.

In my opinion, the government tried to use LSD to manipulate us, not realizing that the 'other side' was conspiring against their control. I think that's what Alex is getting at, actually.
 
Top