Entropymancer wrote: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.
To quote Incubus: "The ripple effect is too good not to mention, If you're not affected you aren't paying attention."
To quote Dead Prez: "You don't have to fool all the people all the time but if you convince the right ones the rest will fall in line."
Need I say more? Cause I can use my own words if you'd prefer.
As far as continual (I hesitate to say habitual) users go, yes small minority. But not so small when you include those who have tripped just once. And it's not to be forgotten that marijuana is a psychedelic in it's own right.
When spreading propaganda(aka exercising mind control) one uses all the tools in the tool box, and psychedelics are just one. One that can be used, much like atomics, for good or bad.
entropymancer wrote:
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.
That is explicitly the case in situations of MK-ULTRA type operations, or modern day equivalents. But I posit to you that within the already minority of continual users, there is another minority. Those who do psychedelics "correctly". It bothers me to know end how many people I know in my own life that tell me how much they enjoy eating some sort of something and then watching adult swim or some hollywood monstrosity or passively "digesting" some other production from the PR machine that is our media system. The people that do these substances free from any propagandizing influence (i.e. no radio, no tv, no computer) are very rare. And those people make for difficult people to propagandize because their experiences typically serve to remove contradictions and strengthen their rational faculties. But I think we're all in agreement that psychedelics increase the users susceptibility to suggestion and that is what I meant by making propaganda "way easier". I apologize for not expanding on that earlier.
entropymancer wrote:tmd007 wrote:There are more "loose ends" than direct connections
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.
That's only if you care to insert your own fantasies. Of course one alway speaks one's own thoughts, else that one is not worth listening to, you'd be better of listening to the one who's thoughts the first one is repeating, but the point is loose ends means room, not to fabricate, but investigate. I meant by saying that that we can't take any of this as settled but instead use it as a spring board for our own investigations into the subjects.
And to rephrase what I said in an earlier post, what people solidify into an "elite agenda" is nothing more than a group of memes that seem to "work together" many of which are championed by "elites". We can't allow ourselves to get distracted by an us vs them. Many of these so called "elitist" "ideals" are actually held by some of the most non elite persons on the planet. For example population reduction. Championed by many from Eric Holder to Bill Gates, but I had a discussion with a tradesman at the bar the other day where he advocated the exact same thing, either not realizing or not caring that when it came picking day, he'd likely not be chosen to carry on.
entropymancer wrote:haeratic wrote: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.
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.
Haeratic doesn't seem to want to talk about anything but mckenna.