I'm curious what opinions are circulated throughout this community about Jan Irvin, the founder of Gnostic Media, and his research. There was a thread some time ago about his work on Gordon Wasson and his notion that he was a CIA affiliate helping to develop this experiment in the masses using psychedelic agents. Personally, I don't much care for his work. However, it does effect our community in some ways.

Here are a few topics posted on Gnostic Media in particular:
-URGENT RELEASE: The CIA’s Terence McKenna FOIA request response – POSITIVE affiliation
-Prof. Marlene Dobkin de Rios interview – “Ayahuasca, Panacea or Epidemic?”
-“Magic Mushrooms and the Psychedelic Revolution: Beginning a New History” – or “The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms”
-Turning the Tables – On the Huxleys, Gordon Wasson, Terence McKenna, Esalen, Psychedelics, 2012 & Mind Control

And here's his "The Brain" page on all of this: Investigation Wasson Brain
Notice his ties to the Kennedy Assassination...

What do you think Nexus? Is Jan Irvin full of it? Are we the deluded guinea pigs in this mass experiment?

I have very mixed feelings. Jan always does his homework, so I really want to like him. He certainly brings some interesting stuff to the table.

But I have issues with the way that he draws arbitrary connections between pieces of data, then pretends that he has proven his thesis beyond any doubt. I'm not sure if this is a shortcoming of the Trivium method that he holds so dear or if it's his own personal failing.

For all that he derides others for arguing based on fallacies, over the last several months he has been guilty of constant ad hominem fallacies in the form of "guilt by association" reasoning. That's the entire basis of his case against Wasson. Wasson was well-connected in the world of New York socialites, no one would deny that. But Irvin pretends that this simple, well-known fact actually means that Wasson was an active CIA asset who had a hand in the Kennedy assassination.

I don't deny any of his numerous citations. He has clearly done his homework. I just don't see that his conclusions follow logically from his premises. Confirmation bias abounds.

Then there's the issue of his personality. If you read his replies to comments on his site, you can see what I mean: he's kind of a douchebag. Not that being a douchebag means his reasoning/conclusions are incorrect (they should stand or fall on their own merits). It just makes reading his site a less pleasant experience.

He reminds me a bit of Glenn Beck -- good as a bit of trashy entertainment, but not a place I'd usually go for information, even though there's often some good information buried within the paranoid conspiracy-riddled exterior.

I enjoyed both of your perspectives. I agree in some respects. He is a dick when challenged and that is hard to read/hear. He tends to assume the idea is settled when personally I feel things are still inconclusive or at best could stand to be fleshed out more. And he does seem to claim the methods of the trivium when it is clear he has yet to get a full grasp of it.

That being said, I think his homework doing ness is applaudable. Also, I am very much impressed with his associates in the Tragedy and Hope community and find little flaws in their works and would assume (although not necessarily rightly so (innocent by association fallacy? haha)) that he would not be so well accepted into their circle if they shared our reservations.

In direct response to the wasson, huxley, mckenna connections to cia and mind control, I think again he has left a few things out that I've tried to piece together from my own studies. What I've come to believe is that the connections are enough for him because he understands how certain entities have worked in the past and forgets that not everyone else has the same things in mind, thus leaving out some key connections.

"Ordo ab chao" is a familiar motto to most. Another thing to remember, which may not be so familiar, is the worship of the owl, with it's significance being sight within the darkness. There are more "loose ends" than direct connections, but when one remembers that the introduction of Prussian schooling greatly reduced the mental capacity of the "average individual" it starts to make sense that releasing psychedelics onto a generally illogical society would create a chaos that could be steered to a desirable result. One also has to remember that there is a difference between assets and useful idiots. I would call huxley an asset (though not in the cia sense but more as a person knowing what he's doing), mckenna a useful idiot, and wasson somewhere in between.

To take a step back, think of the history of these compounds/plant allies. Before recent times, their use was restricted either to a "priestly" class or to administration by a priest or shaman that guided the experience. It was in many ways a religious experience but more importantly it was guided by a logic that was defined in terms of the language associated with the particular substance. These types of experiences (elusian mysteries, ancient peyote rituals, egyptian pyramidal rites, etc) were arguably way more "successful/effective" due not only to the fact that there was a structure, but there was a selective nature to choosing participants or at the least a serious preparation given from an individual who did little else. In this context it's only mind control if the priest desires to exert some influence over the participants (which undoubtedly happened in many cases), but otherwise the participants and priests had a good degree of control over their own minds.

Today, we are not taught to control our own minds. In fact it can be argued that we are "taught" (through "outcome based" education) to shift from an internal to external locus of control. In this context, without some guiding force (outside of the substance itself, for while it may seem like a guide, it is merely a vehicle) chaos typically ensues. Many people have brightening experiences, being lifted from the gross mundane reality that our society beats into one's head but that is generally super-ceded by an external influence: zen buddhism, tarot, "gnostic" christianity, crystal work, reiki, positivism (not to be confused with optimism), tech worship, focus on "dna activation", obsession with alien contact, and other things, delusional or otherwise, which have some established center of dogma. It must be quickly added that one can participate in any of the preceding without joining some sort of following or giving in to dogmatics, but (and I speak from experience here) it is difficult to avoid when first becoming familiar with these substances unless one has already developed a firm basis in reason and understanding.

That is to say, and here I will speak of my own acts, that when you're fresh out of high school, thinking you know what's what and you have a completely game changing experience with some form of psychedelic, it is very easy to look to these "teachers" such as mckenna, tolle, watts, leary, rand, blavatsky et al, and be mesmerized. To hear their words and accept them before you think about them. Yes, it's an ignorant thing to do. No, I do not think everyone immediately accepts everything they hear. But I know that it is easy to believe. And that we are taught to believe. And that when you introduce psychedelics into a culture without a systematic structure of understanding (not ritual, that is unnecessary) and guidance, cognitive dissonance is basically a given. It takes a good amount of time to develop understanding. And it takes a strong foundation of understanding to begin to provide guidance worth accepting. And I don't think it's being shared with us.

To get back on topic, my understanding is that there is not one force or entity controlling the world, but rather there are many forces attempting to, and many of them have similar goals or methods. The way that huxley wasson and mckenna fit together with this is that Huxley comes from a family that represented the interests of the highest class, the class that historically (and potentially presently) had access to the guidance and understanding required to bring order from the chaos of the psychedelic experience. His agendas were largely focused on eugenics and social control. Wasson is a front man for elite bankers (a group largely interested in social control as it is a means to maintain their position). He runs PR for them, and even worked in the OSS during the war if I remember correctly, then he popularizes a substance which makes pr (read propaganda) way easier. Mckenna furthers that by being a front man for the mushroom. He advocates social control, links human development to psychedelics vis a vis the stoned ape theory (Wanna evolve? eat shrooms!), and even directly advocates population reduction, bringing the triangle full circle. Yes there are many more angles, many more agendas, many more things that psychedelics can do. But that is the nature of all tools, Thor used a hammer to smash, Jesus used it to build.

The focus I think should be on what you plan to do with psychedelics. I have changed since my post high school days by moving from entertainment to self development. I realize most posters here have a focus on the latter, but even we who know what should be done aren't always equipped to do so.

To sum up all of the above in one sentence: The agenda pushed by those that Jan has demonized is one of converting a tool to a weapon where we as individuals must learn to turn our swords to plowshares.

"For all that he derides others for arguing based on fallacies, over the last several months he has been guilty of constant ad hominem fallacies in the form of "guilt by association" reasoning. That's the entire basis of his case against Wasson. Wasson was well-connected in the world of New York socialites, no one would deny that. But Irvin pretends that this simple, well-known fact actually means that Wasson was an active CIA asset who had a hand in the Kennedy assassination."

I thought his case against wasson was somewhat solid to be honest, it was everything after that relating to esalen and Mckenna etc where he seemed to be jumping to conclusions about things. Ive wanted to talk to other people about this for a couple months but it's to conspiracy like I guess for people to want to discuss.

At the very least it makes Wasson seem like a bit of an asshole with his own agenda. His disreguard for sabina was just sad and how he basically orchestrated the whole thing for show..Sabina was not the first mazatec currandero he met..it seems more like he just set it all up to seem that way to paint this perfect little story he could publish.

Maybe he was not invovled to the level of MK-Ultra operative like Irvin suggests, but I am not ready to rule that out yet either. All I know is my view of him has shifted to somewhat of a scumbag.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but Jan Irvin is a sad excuse for a journalist. He doesn't write factual articles with sources and citations but rather convoluted conspiracies. He then refers you to his web brain for his sources and citations, which is basically a note organizing website he uses to aggregate a bunch of wikipedia articles, forum threads, and write-ups from BibleBelievers.org.au. Most of his arguments against the so called counterculture conspiracy aka aquarian conspiracy, come from far right wing conspiracy theory websites. He believes this whole aquarian conspiracy (involving TM) is used to make people believe in climate change (which he denies), so that the UN can pass Agenda 21. Ironically, it's the same theory that people like Rush Limbaugh, Fred Koch, Newt Gingrich, and other right wingers push.

Furthermore, when you question Jan's information he goes into a tantrum saying that you need to be a trivium scholar to understand his work. Yet, even his community has currently come to question his abuse of the trivium in regards to grammar, guilt by association, and ad hominem fallacies. No offense, but I think the man just got too wrapped up into conspiracy land. It's sad b/c most people start off as honest truth seekers but once you get far enough down the rabbit hole of paranoid schizophrenia you get swept into right wing debauchery.

Well put

I think there is some interesting things he's found...but generally, i agree with what EntropyMancer said

Its also sad Jan has lately has spiraled more and more down hill it seems..going beyond his tantrums and even threatening people

Thanks Global. BTW, Dennis McKenna and Joe Rogan are no longer friends with Jan and have called him out for his BS. Hopefully Dennis and Joe can cover this topic on Sunday, but that's doubtful.

Interesting, can you please relocate the source?

When I was emailing Jan a month ago about his citations from Biblebelievers.org.au, he told me that Dennis, Joe, and him aren't friends anymore specifically over his case against Terence. He offered to go to Joe's house with thousands of pages of documentation apparently, but Joe already had gone thru the web brain and called bullshit...He said Dennis and Joe have already given their opinion on the situation publicly but didn't link me to anything...

I believe it's on the new coast to coast interview with Dennis, as far as Joe it may have been in a recent video interview. I cannot say for sure. But if you also look thru the comments section of Jan's original blog post, I believe he mentions Dennis and Joe's response.

"He doesn't write factual articles with sources and citations but rather convoluted conspiracies. He then refers you to his web brain for his sources and citations"

I and at least one other person here that I know of has gone through many of the sources he sites in his case against Wasson. They all check out.

So I have to wonder what you are talking about? Have you personally gone through to check the sources he sites?

If you think he made up the sources he refers to than w/e but it just tells me that you never really looked into any of it.

Claiming that he might have jumped to conclusions based on the sources he uses and saying that he just refers to his own brain for sources are two different things. You can check them if you like, actaully.

There are likely some problems with his reasoning, but his sources and citations are not part of that problem.

I stopped following or caring about it past Wasson though. so I dont know about how far he went with the whole Mckenna thing or what sources he is using there..but you can go back and search out many of the origional sources he used against Wasson and they are there. He was not just making all of that up.

The idea that Terrence was some willing CIA operative is rediculous to me so I stopping paying attention at that point.

they're not part of the problem?

go check out his pin for Esalen. He cited Biblebelievers.org.au and their write up of the "aquarian conspiracy" which is the basis of most of his argument.

here's a link: http://webbrain.com/brai...-5CF9-D742DA541AAA#-4957

this isn't proper journalism. journalism isn't about writing up a 200 word blog post and then usher your readers off to a website of aggregated wikipedia articles and forum threads. that's ridiculous...

here's another of his citations which is to a forum thread: http://truthontatelabian...titute-and-the-cia.1775/

nothing about his esalen crap or mckenna made any sense to me..I tried to look into that but I could not make sense of any of it.

I am only referring to his origional take on Wasson. That was the part that he had the most ability to make some coherant case of. He should have just stuck with that and built upon it more.

well my posts in here were referring to his recent mckenna debacle... could you please link me to a couple real citations from the wasson investigation

and actually the mckenna and esalen stuff he connects with his wasson investigation. it's all a continuation of his right wing induced paranoia of a counter culture conspiracy out to ruin the world...

I think these types of responses are typical when you attack an idol like McKenna. I find it humorous that there seems to be no objecting to the idea of Huxley being some malignant figure, and general agreement that Wasson is also involved, but Terrence? Oh no, he's a saint.

I realize my first post was probly a tl,dr. but here's a short version:
Mckenna was a useful idiot, i.e. someone who champions an agenda created by someone else without realizing the true purpose for which it was created. He was a useful idiot because he does not convey proper guidance or understanding, merely theories that "the mushroom told [him]" and trip reports. The agenda he is accidentally(?) pushing hopes to turn the tool of psychedelic enlightenment into a control mechanism by way of the other philosophies that are handed down with it in our culture.


I realize it's difficult to change your mind. I further realize that Jan can be a dick, and is not the most scholarly individual in terms of citing articles. But the sources one would expect him to cite are quoted in the article itself and if you've read any of his books you'll see they are accompanied by a large number of citations.

Further, this topic we are discussing concerns matters of international intelligence operations. The truth will not only be difficult to tease out but painful to follow along, both in the sense of having to compile large amounts of resources and having to question a good deal of things once taken as truth.

Has anyone looked at the Esalen wiki page? I realize it's not the end all source of info, but when you look at the past leaders/teachers/resident scholars lists, some names jump out that seem out of place: B F Skinner, Humphry Osmond, Aldous Huxley, and Carlos Castenada (not so much out of place as he is a proven fraud). It's those types of things that remind me to keep questioning because something isn't right.

I'm the last to think terence was some kind of savior or saint. but the idea that he's a useful idiot for the cia is ridiculous.

please show me what agenda terence "championed" that was created by someone else. jan cites a couple sentences in one out of hundreds of lectures terence gave. those sentences are simply about terence's negative views on patriarchy which has controlled civilization for thousands of years, his ideas were talking about limiting male birth b/c he's a feminist and is tired of the old patriarchy. this was nowhere near terence's "agenda", he was simply on another rant in his lectures which were for the most part free styled and never written. and actually that terrence bit jan cites as "agenda", was an answer to someones question after the lecture, it wasn't something terence specifically brought up, so i don't understand how that could be his agenda...

not to mention how much broader terence's actual writing and books go. they cover a myriad of topics, never a narrow and concise ideology.... he didn't even have an agenda himself, let a lone someone elses.

and I do have my gripes with esalen and the 70s in general, where there was a shift in political thought and activism to inward thought at esalen. but was that some kind of secret conspiracy or plan? no, it was the inevitable from the start with white people of the counterculture and political activism. they were mostly middle class and were reading guys like Herbert Marcuse who was telling them that the real revolution was inside their head. so of course the counter culture was going to progress into individualism, egotism, and narcissism. that was just inevitable.

Aren't threads like these the reason why we don't discuss conspiracy theories? This isn't really going anywhere

so right global. this terence/cia conspiracy is ridiculous. go ahead and believe it if you want TMD, but there's some real selection bias going on with jan, as well as guilt by association, ad hominem, and grammar fallacies in his "reports".

edit to say: I don't believe mckenna is CIA, useful idiot does not refer to someone who joins or is affiliated to cia. Your continuance to harp on that connection is either some sort of diversionary attempt or a refusal to discuss the issue outside of that context, but regardless the following will be the last I speak on the matter of terrence or any alledged CIA connection.

First, it's not just patriarchal society he rags against. He rags against culture in general. There is no general coherence to his ideas, you are right in saying that. But the most common idea I've experienced in the 10 odd years I've been exposed to him, is to delete everything and start over. Reboot your cultural operating system. Replace it with what? That changes a lot. But it's typically secular, having a general disdain for religion, focuses on the individual in a token sense but overall seems very collectivist, and has a vague impression of being globalist in that this recommendation (to reboot) is given to everyone the world over alongside a call to peace/cooperation/etc. Not that peace and cooperation are bad. That's not the point. The point I'm trying to make is that there are more overlaps between his "agenda" (I use that term loosely because as you pointed out he doesn't seem to have one) and the agenda of those fabian socialists/eugenicists which have _published_ the idea of abolishing religion and establishing a world wide govt to foster peace and cooperation in a myriad of places under a myriad of pretenses.

I don't deny that there are major holes in this, and I am not trying to discuss theories be they conspiratorial or otherwise, I'm trying to discuss facts I've come across. I think it's important to remember that there isn't one cohesive group or direction involved here. This isn't something governed by individuals, it's governed by memes. Memes exist outside of boundaries that political entities and popular identities are constrained by.

The problem with this discussion is that it encompasses a pin point on a fractalized reality that requires a simultaneous view of the close up and the zoom out to fully understand, and that takes a good deal of study and mental power which most aren't willing to devote. That's not a personal attack, it's an observation.

I'm not saying terrence was 100% about it.
I'm not saying there is necessarily something that exists outside of ideas for him to be about.

I'm saying that there is common thread in history (the emergence of psychedelics into popular culture) that all the above (as in the thread, not just this post) named people have had some connection to, and that as individuals who are also connected to it we should be as aware of the state of things as possible.

Please go back and read my initial post, the whole discussion of wasson and mckenna is really just an effort to stay on topic but as I say earlier the real issue is one of mind control in it's most basic sense: Are you going to control your own mind or is someone else? And do you have the ability to do that or have you grown up to simply believe you do?

tmd007, I'm really having a hard time understanding your argument. The agenda that you ascribe to the various "global elites" doesn't make any sense to me... Using psychedelics as tools of mass mind control? That seems kind of tricky when psychedelic users are a small minority, and the powers that be keep psychedelics illegal in an effort to keep that number of users small.

You also say that mushrooms make propaganda "way easier." Of course we've all seen anti-psychedelic propaganda, but I doubt that's what you're referring to since you think Terence (a pro-psychedelic raconteur) was a useful tool for these people. So again I'm unclear what you're asserting. The only way that I can see mushrooms enhancing the effect of propaganda is if the propaganda were being actively administered while the user was under the influence.


And I think that a large part of why things smell so fishy. Loose ends mean lots of room to insert one's own thoughts and fantasies into the gaps of known information.

And between all the loose ends and the sketch of a global elite agenda that simply doesn't appear to hang together under scrutiny, this all starts to sound acutely paranoid.




For the record, when I said that I don't deny his citations, I was referring to the Wasson article, where he was citing actual credible sources. I didn't look at his sources on the Darwin/Huxley/Esalen bit.