Excellent piece. Thank you. What a trip down memory lane. I knew one of the heroes of my younger self in the early 1970's - R.D. Laing - was part of Tavistock - but it has only been in more recent years that I've began to understand just how important Tavistock has been to the larger social shaping and social control efforts of Western oligarchy. Great to see the discussion of the connection made between Lemnitzer - Operation Northwoods - and Operation Gladio. That most Americans remain blissfully ignorant of both Northwoods and Gladio speaks volumes about the effectiveness of present day social control efforts in managing the public mind.
Control of the historical presentation of events in many aspects came out of Texas education, what was to be taught and how. Perception managers for decades now. The truth is what we tell you.
Really appreciate this tour - from Tavistock to MK Ultra to psy war. Didn’t know about adrenochrome’s pedigree, or Osmond and mescaline connection.
It’s very hard to find info on Tavistock, and I’ve read claims that people - from Freud to Hitler - were involved, but without citation. On the Delingpole podcast you mentioned reading a good history of Tavistock. I didn’t write it down at the time, can you tell me what that was?
Also, re: the Delingpole podcast (where you guys discussed this essay, among other things), you talk about Orestes killing Agamemnon. Orestes didn’t kill Agamemnon, he killed his mother, Clytemnestra.
This is an important difference because the act of matricide was the worst crime in the old, more matriarchal order (which Clytemnestra exemplified, and acted in congruence with, in contradistinction to Penelope, in taking a new husband and ruling as queen during Agamemnon’s long piratical absence). The Odyssey, Illiad, and Greek myths generally describe this shift from more matriarchal to a patriarchal order. In this context, the Furies were not grotesque beings, but the agents of judgment and punishment according to the old mores, practices, and laws. Athena brokered a deal with them, sent them underground, thus inaugurating and institutionalizing the patriarchal order. And, supposedly, Athenian democracy.
Also, side note about this story: the reason that Clytemnestra was mad at Agamemnon was that he sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia in order to propitiate the gods, to raise the wind to sail to Troy. I don’t remember which god or gods required this, but in reading recently about the Phoenician/Canaanite sacrifice of children (a rabbit hole that opened up for me from looking up a particular word in the book of Job, and it’s one that runs right up to a site of such sacrifice in Jerusalem itself, into the Epstein mess and zio foundations), the sacrifice of Iphigenia suddenly makes sense, when it didn’t before.
Hi Mad Oyster, In terms of good reading on Tavistock the only book that I know of that goes over the actual institution in detail is by the insider HV Dicks who wrote the official biography of the institute "Fifty Years of the Tavistock Clinic."
Yes, I realised afterwards that I mispoke about Orestes killing Agamemnon, and that it was Clytemnestra that killed Agamemnon and Cassandra ( in the Aeschylus version) for Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia for good weather on his way to Troy. And that Orestes in turn killed Clytemnestra. Yes, the Furies were depicted as grotesque beings in the Aeschylus version and I think the Sophocles version as well. Everything I stated in the Delingpole interview is accurate on the Aeschylus version of this story who I mention directly, except for the muddle already mentioned above. The Furies were associated with the Temple of Apollo and Athena was brought in as representative of the Areopagus court of law to stop the eye for an eye cycle that the Furies represented. From Aeschylus' version of this story, I do not think this is supposed to be representative of the matriarchy being replaced by the patriarchy, though I know there are other interpretations of this storyline (as with all greek mythologies). In Aeschylus' version the focus is on ending the cycle of endless eye for an eye concept of "justice." Also note here, that you cannot really say this age was a "matriarchy" when you had the Trojan War which went on for many many years that was started by Menelaus, Agamemnon's brother, over Paris "stealing" his wife. The injustice of the Trojan War which is the major backdrop to this entire storyline (in all its versions) is at the core of why the eye for an eye system of brutal "justice" must end. So, I do not regard this as a system of "matriarchy" vs "patriarchy."
No I am not aware of his direct connection. I knew that Paul Robeson had gone to a party, I believe in Moscow and had been clearly drugged. They found he trying to slit his wrists apparently and he was sent to I believe a London Clinic (Tavistock connected no doubt) and underwent countless sessions of electro-shock. The family was apparently no allowed to visit him or release him from this psychiatric institute. When they finally released him after years of "treatment" he was a shell of a person.
The issue discussed at length here and in several articles written by Lyndon Larouche over time, I like to summarise as the problem of how many genuine independent thinking minds there may exist in the world.
Is there a finite limit?
Somehow logically resembling Malthusianism's concept of carrying capacity.
Does the universe have a finite carrying capacity for independent minds?
The reason I raise that question is that so much difficulties have stood in the way for mankinds liberation to a condition where we may fulfill our potential in the way desired by the 'Platos' of the world.
I suspect that our brains may not be the whole story regarding our minds. If the brain is instead like an interface it's full capacity may be much larger than is apparent from the size of our sculls.
And our thoughts might be processed in a structure common to all living phenomena.
Such a structure would presumably have a finite capacity.
If we reach the limits the structure would not be able to add more independent minds.
Under such conditions it would be expected that collective phenomena took the place of individual highly developed minds.
The world seems to me to show signs of that.
If the oligarchy is responsible for this it may be because they are evil or because the universe really has a finite capacity.
.
There are other aspects of the universe where seemingly a finite capacity may limit the universes potential for achieving Ideal conditions with unlimited refinements to handle minute details.
.
For example at velocities approaching the speed of light all objects appear compressed in the direction of motion.
.
Likewise time as measured on such an object is dilated, slowing down to a halt when studied from an observer. This would be expected if the universe has a limited capacity for updating its configuration.
.
Several aspects of quantum mechanics add to this way in which a finite capacity limits it's potential.
.
For high frequencies Max Planck discovered that the empirically known distributions of radiative energy could be brought to agreement between theory and experiments if it was assumed that radiative energy may only be transferred in the form of quanta with an energy proportional to the frequency. Thus high frequency energy only comes in big chunks.
.
Since high frequency ought to be more difficult to update if the universe has a limit for how fast it may operate, the universe would save a lot of work by rationalising away high frequency data.
.
There is the technicality of quantum computations and philosophically it may be understood in one interpretation as a multiplication of worlds for every observed microprocess.
.
Note that observation is a decisive feature. In consequence the nonobserved parts may not contribute any workload for the universe.
.
On the other hand the more we think and observe the greater the workload for the universe.
.
The more creative original people the greater the workload.
.
While collectivism would have potential to spare resources for the universe.
One more item.
The black holes of astrophysics could be yet another example of how the universe saves itself from having to update its configuration for dense matter.
.
Too much work so by rationalising away the need to refine the details at high densities the universe would save resources for other tasks having higher priority.
.
It is conceivable that the universe would simply discard information in order to spare it's finite resources for more important tasks such as for making the rest of it's rendering of the world according to some aesthetically pleasing norm. More beauty, less boring detail.
Sure, but to have a sphere you need three dimensions. To be consistent your 2D creatures would have to be living on a plane with no edges, so infinite in 2D.
I'm not arguing for or against an infinite universe, in fact I believe the problem is insolvable. I'm just pointing out that the word "universe" by definition encompasses everything, including anything that lies outside its boundaries (if such exist). To talk about a finite universe is a contradiction in terms. A misuse of the word.
No need for three dimensions for those inside the surface. The whole point of comparing with such creatures is that 3D doesnt exist for them. Its not a contradiction it is a logically possible situation and we may be similar to that in our 3D where it is possible to formulate everything without invoking 4D. Actually 3D is a very special dimensionality very well suited for causal signals. The wave equation only works so well for 3D and 1D and 1D isnt interesting.
It is possible that 3D time and 1D space might work as well as 3d space and 3D time but no other dimensionalities. Therefore it might be the case that causality determines the actual dimensionality.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One of the few rewards of growing old is that more and more women appear attractive to you. The pity of it is that it's usually too late to do anything about it other than just look.
Excellent work. Reminds me of the research I did for Dope Inc. over 40 years ago. Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow is largely based on the effects of the London V-2 bombing on the British population and how British Intelligence used it as a model for mind control.
Google “ Aldous Huxley/ Mike Wallace Interview 1958” and prepare to question whether there are prophets placed here to warn us of a dystopian future to prevent coming to fruition. Huxley laid out a series of events so incredibly, inexplicably prescient it will rattle your bones. He was frantic, Mike Wallace was condescending and patronizing. And Huxley was spot on. Every detail.
In a 1961 interview on French television, Huxley was even more profound. Brave New World Revisited had just been published and Huxley stated that his sardonic opus, Brave New World c 1931 was being used as a playbook, the technology being developed was happened much more quickly than he’d imagined and if the Pharma and tech development was not thwarted, by 2030, we’d have already reached the point of no return. AI,Transhumanism, total control. That we were walking into willfully slavery- a One World Government ruled by an elite cabal of powerful sociopathic tyrants. Where the genetically, behaviorally modified , medicated serfdom would.. drumroll..” Own nothing, have no privacy and love your servitude”.
Huxley stood against eugenics, psychotropic medications used to make one susceptible to suggestion by playing on primal, Pavlovian reflexiveness combined with and interface of technological/ human fusion.
He was brilliant, but not malevolent. He’s been my object of absolute fascination since age 17. And many decades have since passed.
Actually Gail, Aldous Huxley did promote eugenics along with his brother Julian Huxley who was also pro-transhumanism. As published in The Guardian, “Huxley was in favour of genetic breeding programmes to arrest the multiplication of the unfit. In a particularly unsavoury article, published in 1930 in the Evening Standard, he confessed anxiety about the proliferation of mental defectives and called for their compulsory sterilisation.” source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/1994/jun/15/fiction
Brave New World was written one year later in 1931.
"As published in The Guardian, “Huxley was in favour of genetic breeding programmes to arrest the multiplication of the unfit."
He certainly wasn't alone in that view as it was a popular idea in his day, particularly in the Third Reich. As with many things, intentions often precede means, at least where such means can be regarded as ethical.
This does raise a question though. Given that the eugenicists were discredited for their lack of ethics, and given that we're now on the verge of correcting genetic abnormalities, has the ethical debacle of misapplied mRNA technology damaged the potential for application of that technology for truly humanitarian purposes?
Of course we’re being led down the path of a planned outcome that’s been decades in the making. What is most disturbing is how few see it and how many refuse to see it or even entertain the notion. Worse, is that we’ve been amply warned. Most succinctly by Aldous Huxley. A 1958 interview with Mike Wallace is the most riveting and chilling example. Huxley so presciently and explicitly laid out a sequence of events that would achieve the goal of creating a tyrannical New World Order Technocracy using propaganda, technology, pharmaceuticals and distractions in the form of global conflicts and interventions,created pandemics, climate events, constant fearmongering , division and chaos, psychological manipulation, tech surveillance, psychotropic drugs, gene editing and population/behavior control.
A powerful cabal of elites were creating a single central government devoid of sovereign nation states and cultural identity via mass migration resulting in a feudal system with a ruling class controlling every aspect of life. Digital passports, digital currency, a central bank. The elites would lord over an enslaved serfdom and it would happen without having to use military force because we’d be so conditioned to obey, we would walk into our own prison, believing we needed the government to protect and provide and that anybody who wasn’t on the “ right side” were less than human. By isolating and loathing the resisters, the resisters would fall in line because they didn’t want to be the “ bad people”. They would be emotionally worn down and “ comply”. We would “ own nothing, have no privacy and in our medicated, mentally decayed state “love our servitude”( sound familiar? The Great Reset”). He described the technocracy as a Communist type of despotism, but worse.. and it was happening faster than he could anticipate…. Mike Wallace was patronizing, as though humoring a loon or errant child. Huxley didn’t even notice.
But it was his 1961 interview with a French journalist that sealed the deal. “ Brave New World Revisited had just been published and Huxley was certain that his epic fictitious opus, “ Brave New World”, published in 1932 was in fact being used as the playbook. The technology and medication, genetic manipulation were not even a possibility. The book was a sardonic work of fancy aimed at the science of eugenics that his brother was involved in. His brother had good intent.Eradicating diseases and genetic anomalies that caused birth defects, chronic progressive , incurable ,degenerative diseases … Huxley feared that like most ideas predicated on good intentions would be hijacked by evildoers. He was right, of course as evidenced by the Holocaust. He was haunted by the possibilities of AI and transhumanism. His warnings were frantic. Nobody took him seriously ( but for the evildoers he describes) and here we are. The WEF Great Reset/ UN Agenda 2030 /Event 201 Covid /WHO Pandemic Treaty and the orchestrated , funded Red/Green Alliance of Marxist-Jihadists. Organized Chaos.
His brother, Julian , was a eugenicist. Huxley became very skeptical and then concerned where it might lead. He wrote Brave New World to make that statement.
What starts out with some hint of good intent.. combating hereditary diseases,the UN, CIA, ACLU, SPLC, NAACP, breakthrough discovers, ie penicillin, diagnostic radiation, splitting the atom, the internet/social media, the space race, vaccines, fluoridated water,multiculturalism, globalism, taking in massive amounts of “ refugees” from conflict zones, wind turbines, preservatives, leaded gasoline- until it turns to shit in corrupt, nefarious hands.
When Einstein split the atom, he didn’t intend to annihilate entire populations and create a nuclear arms race. Marie Curie wasn’t hoping for radiation poisoning , cancer and rendering Holocaust victims sterile. Harry Truman didn’t foresee the UN and CIA becoming enemies both foreign and domestic. Nixon didn’t see a rising China so strong it would be the global power, Trump didn’t want to lockdown America, but was guilted and assured it would only be two weeks or “ everybody would die”…
We’ve crossed nearly every red line. Must have been 8 years ago or there about that I watched an interview with a social scientist who posited humanity had peaked 10 years prior and we were on the downslope of the evolutionary scale. Seems he was onto something.The law of physics is empirical. It takes a very long time to reach the top and a very short time to hit rock bottom . At this rate, we’re snowballing to the nadir.
Watch the Huxley/Wallace interview. Let me know your thoughts.
Much of this depends on whether you believe our society is naturally evolving or being led towards particular outcomes. As Cynthia's article highlights, it appears to be the latter.
It also depends on whether you believe that what appears to be a politician's perspective is reality or part of an act that is necessary to lead the public down the path that will accomplish the objective of devolving society.
We have no idea what Truman, Nixon and Trump actualky foresaw or wanted. We only know what they wanted us to think.
Personally? I believe, again as the article highlights, there is evidence that this is a decades long plan and that those in prominent positions know exactly what the ultimate objective is. They go along or don't live to regret it.
"....and that those in prominent positions know exactly what the ultimate objective is."
Or at least that's what they'd like us to believe. One way to achieve that, ironically, is by promoting the kind of theories characterized by this very article. Not saying that's the case here, but it definitely is with many of the so-called alt-media sites that one finds in abundance, and whose main objective seems to be promoting that concept.
For my part I don't buy it, as I know the same conditions and limitations apply to those elites as to everyone else. It's not a question of material means of which they have a clear advantage, but of the intellectual capacity for self-reflection. When you're convinced that you're right - the power of conviction typified by psychopaths - you leave yourself open to all kinds of errors which are impossible to correct, given that your belief system doesn't admit the possibility of failure.
I think it's far more likely that rather than a master plan which its adherents execute with precision, that there exist any number of elites competing with each other, each attempting to execute their own plan which is, by the above reasoning, doomed to failure.
If you look at the historical record, I think there's far more evidence of failure than of success in that regard. We have a good example of it today in the war in Ukraine - a war intended to disrupt Russia for the purpose of acquiring her resources which has now gone seriously off the rails. The amount of coping and outright denial of the true situation you see in MSM is a testament to that. Rather than weaken the opponent, it has only made her stronger, and arguably the most powerful nation on earth, and yet the instigators keep doubling down on failure, unable to admit their critical mistake.
Yes, there are undoubtedly many "elites" competing with each other, all with varying interests. But the interest they all seem to share is wanting more control - over resources and over the rest of us. "Power over" is the ultimate goal and it seems that's something they can all agree on. I think it's safe to say that they aren't competing over whether or not they should make the world a better place for we the little people.
From my perspective, the record shows a continuing erosion of our privacy and freedoms for the last century. Eroding human health, which if not directly intentional, is at least a known outcome of the pharmaceutical and environmental inputs "they" create and promote.
The war in Ukraine has had many purposes, of which that is perhaps one. Rebuilding Ukraine is a lucrative contract, as is war itself. Then there was the initial purpose of distraction in the aftermath of Covid, when the public was directed to "look over here" instead of holding politicians accountable for the fallout from lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
So it's not so much a master plan as a general idea. The tech elites create tech to monitor us and build the infrastructure that creates invisible bars. The pharma, chemical and food industry elites create the poisons that dumb us down and keep us docile. The intelligence agencies create programs to manipulate us psychologically. The banking elites ensure the laws are in their favour so they can keep the debt-based economy going and eventually scoop up privately held property once the system collapses - see the great taking. And the list goes on ...
If the idea wasn't to reduce our power and increase theirs, then some of these innovations and laws would have benefitted the public by increasing freedom and well-being, as would be the case if caring human beings ran the world. But I think it's safe to say that that's not the case.
And I also think it's safe to say that they learn from their mistakes so that next time they won't make the same ones.
"I think it's safe to say that they aren't competing over whether or not they should make the world a better place for we the little people."
And yet consider the difference between now and 100, 200 or 300 years ago. Personally I'd rather be alive today than in 1925. Truth is, I wouldn't be alive in 1925 because penicillin wasn't discovered until 1928 so I would have died as a child. It's all a matter of perspective. People don't generally think in those sort of terms, they see only what's in front of them, the idea of progress being too abstract a concept for most.
"From my perspective, the record shows a continuing erosion of our privacy and freedoms for the last century."
And yet here we are, talking freely about it on this amazing global network, which after only 30 years of existence we now take for granted, as if it had always been that way. I'm old enough to remember having to go to the library to get the books I needed. Now I can just download them in the comfort of my own home. It's like living next door to the great library of Alexandria in ancient times, when scholars travelled hundreds of miles at great risk just to study a few scrolls. My own substack would have been impossible to create prior to the internet. Where would I find the material? It all came off the net. Years ago I tried studying Russian from a book. Hopeless, and there were no courses offered in my college. Now I have audio and video instruction, and all at minimal to no cost. Again, it's all a matter of perspective.
"The war in Ukraine has had many purposes, of which that is perhaps one."
How long have you been following Ms. Chung's work? Defeating Russia has arguably been the number one item on the agenda of the British ruling class - what's generally referred to as 'the great game.' I think she's covered that in detail over the last few years, no? That the US has taken on a major part of that agenda post 1945 kind of buttresses your own argument, doesn't it?
"Then there was the initial purpose of distraction in the aftermath of Covid, when the public was directed to "look over here" instead of holding politicians accountable for the fallout from lockdowns and vaccine mandates."
I'm confused. Are you saying the war in Ukraine started after the so-called pandemic? Russia formally entered the conflict in 2022, but it had already been going for 8 years prior to that while the pandemic wasn't declared until 2020 so how does that work?
I won't take up the rest of your points, not because I don't disagree with some, simply that I think there's more of an element of unintended consequences to world events than you give credit for. What we're doing right now, for example - discussing these issues in an open forum which if I were as wary as you of the consequences I'd just shut it off and never type another word. My point is, as much as the elites may desire to control us, and they certainly succeed in some respects, they are incapable of stopping the march of progress that's an inherent part of our nature, driven as it is by the most basic of instincts - the will to survive. If that weren't so, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and as I pointed out, I wouldn't even be alive to participate.
I know things look bad. Look for the bad and you're guaranteed to find it, but that's not all there is. There's also hope, and the determination to improve our situation which is an incremental, sometimes painfully slow process, but if you don't hold onto that as an ideal then what's left? Raging against the machine gets you nowhere if you don't have some kind of belief in a better future, if not for ourselves then for our children, and our children's children as the old Chinese proverb says.
Rather than seeing our present situation as a bad thing, I see it as positive. The majority of people have more reason than ever to wake up and understand how our world really works. Rather than voting every four years and then forgetting about it, thinking they've done their job, perhaps the doses of reality we're now continually exposed to will spur people towards a reckoning with themselves and the way we choose to organize our societies. There is a positive future once that happens. But it won't happen by continuing down this same path, believing we just need to vote for "better" politicians. I believe change will happen in communities as people figure out that that's where they can have a positive impact. We are a world made up of communities.
Raging against the machine is a step towards accepting reality.
Similarly, I won't argue with what you've written. But as we don't know each other and a few short comments can't adequately encapsulate these complex subjects much less belief systems, suffice it so say that I'm well aware of the role unintended consequences play and that when I spoke of the war in Ukraine in that context I meant involving the general public on a grand scale - remember the Ukrainian flags? Cynthia Chung is but one voice on the Russia issue that I follow. I appreciate her work on this and many other topics, but never restrict myself to one perspective. I understand the difference between convenience and liberty as well as how fortunate I am to live in this era, in this country. But medical "breakthroughs" - like most other innovations, included on-line archives - are a double-edged sword given that children now receive 10 times more vaccines than I did as a child, and only the very naive could believe they are healthier.
Thanks for an enjoyable discussion. I appreciate your ability to engage respectfully!
All Huxley did was write a book describing what was the end goal of the Controllers. He sounds "prescient". But was he? Or was he just a transcriber of a dark plan that millions have worked to bring to fruition?
A combination of both. He was deeply disenfranchised by where the eugenics movement.. which he initially supported might head and had a very dark premonition about Henry Ford. Envisioning a “ transhuman assembly line” of genetically altered slaves being the fate of humanity. And a global governance modeled in the format of Communism. He was the most interesting person ( IMO) to have existed in the past century. In later years, he became fascinated with Hinduism, seeing the partakes between all the sciences , creation and a spiritual connection with the infinite God. I feel the same. Hinduism is the ultimate form of the Deist Enlightenment/Natural Order philosophy, but with empirical science before the empirical sciences of physics ( energy, gravity, DNA, astronomy, Universality, rotational axis, epochs) were proven… or even considered. God is symbolized by Brahman. As the Creator that light state Universe, but isn’t a visible form. The connection comes with the spiritually of connection by clearing one’s mind and allowing goodness and openess to knowlege to reach a higher plain of understanding. It’s about balance and continuity. Wherever it might take you, but with the purity of mind, it will be the right path.
The “ god’s” are purely symbolic. Representing the different facets of the elects, universe, biological life, good and evil and the facets of the human persona that come together, but without a vance , collide into chaos. Huxley understood that all to well.
also somewhat related, John Potash's work "Drugs as Weapons Against Us: The CIA War on Musicians and Activists" is a digger's dream, MK Ultra & all the rest :-)
somewhat related, I've always thought that Adam Curtis' 4 part docu "Century of the Self" is a very engrossing & informative look at the history & application of 'perception management' in more contemporary times.
Might be interesting to folk who've not come across it before...
We've all been roundly snookered. Some for a long, long time. Most people I physically know have zero clue about anything. ZERO. And they like it like that. They NEED it to be like that. They INSIST. And, as somebody who worked for the system once told me when I was quite young and I was lamenting the state of the world and all of the deficiencies I perceived ... He got very annoyed with me and said, "and don't you try and change it". He was quite adamant about it.
i wonder if you are aware that psychedelics were not only weaponized by Tavistock social engineers but were also interesting to social scientists who saw through the Mind Kontrol Ultra agenda after they had been recruited into it. Frank Barron and Timothy Leary were graduate students at Berkeley in the 40s who were recruited by the mind kontrol apparatus and quickly rebelled. Frank came to psychedelics before Tim. He thought they could be useful to create more independence of judgement needed to withstand pressures to conform to socially influenced but untrue conditions. As Solomon Asch just demonstrated a few years earlier, were rampant in society. Barron was appalled, saw fascism and devoted his career to stop it. He wanted to find ways to inspire people to become more creative, optimistic, and exercise independent thought. When he came upon the psychedelic mushroom in 1958 he thought he found a key. The next decade was a confusing and complicated period with Leary and Barron trying to counter Huxley's Nazi MKULTRA, along with others, like JFK, who was turned on via Leary's stash. The CIA/Tavistock boys tried a few different drug delivery systems to Brave New World us and they're at it full force in today's renaissance for sure. But notice, every time Leary's name is mentioned he is blamed for ruining the first go around with psychedelics. He was erratic but his heart was most of the time in the right, pro-democracy, place. Knew him well for a long time. Frank too. I lived at Esalen. Once saved Laing from drowning in the baths. So many stories. You've got it mostly right. Even Leary, as you must know agreed with the LaRouchian idea of the British invasion he tried to humorously, in his undying Irishness, to thwart. Until you accept that there are positive uses of the drugs (very rare and best kept secret) you're never going to convince drug users who have falled for the deception but could be persuaded you are right. Also, Osmond was interested in the adrenochrome theory of schizophrenia, not adenochrome. small typo, big difference! https://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1999/articles/1999-v14n01-p049.shtml
Brilliant 👍
This journalism is a breath of fresh air, succinct, relevant, and conclusive.
We much appreciate your good work Cynthia.
Will shift to paid subscriber this month.
God bless.
Truth, Beauty and Goodness reign forever!
Excellent piece. Thank you. What a trip down memory lane. I knew one of the heroes of my younger self in the early 1970's - R.D. Laing - was part of Tavistock - but it has only been in more recent years that I've began to understand just how important Tavistock has been to the larger social shaping and social control efforts of Western oligarchy. Great to see the discussion of the connection made between Lemnitzer - Operation Northwoods - and Operation Gladio. That most Americans remain blissfully ignorant of both Northwoods and Gladio speaks volumes about the effectiveness of present day social control efforts in managing the public mind.
Control of the historical presentation of events in many aspects came out of Texas education, what was to be taught and how. Perception managers for decades now. The truth is what we tell you.
Hi Cynthia,
Really appreciate this tour - from Tavistock to MK Ultra to psy war. Didn’t know about adrenochrome’s pedigree, or Osmond and mescaline connection.
It’s very hard to find info on Tavistock, and I’ve read claims that people - from Freud to Hitler - were involved, but without citation. On the Delingpole podcast you mentioned reading a good history of Tavistock. I didn’t write it down at the time, can you tell me what that was?
Also, re: the Delingpole podcast (where you guys discussed this essay, among other things), you talk about Orestes killing Agamemnon. Orestes didn’t kill Agamemnon, he killed his mother, Clytemnestra.
This is an important difference because the act of matricide was the worst crime in the old, more matriarchal order (which Clytemnestra exemplified, and acted in congruence with, in contradistinction to Penelope, in taking a new husband and ruling as queen during Agamemnon’s long piratical absence). The Odyssey, Illiad, and Greek myths generally describe this shift from more matriarchal to a patriarchal order. In this context, the Furies were not grotesque beings, but the agents of judgment and punishment according to the old mores, practices, and laws. Athena brokered a deal with them, sent them underground, thus inaugurating and institutionalizing the patriarchal order. And, supposedly, Athenian democracy.
Also, side note about this story: the reason that Clytemnestra was mad at Agamemnon was that he sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia in order to propitiate the gods, to raise the wind to sail to Troy. I don’t remember which god or gods required this, but in reading recently about the Phoenician/Canaanite sacrifice of children (a rabbit hole that opened up for me from looking up a particular word in the book of Job, and it’s one that runs right up to a site of such sacrifice in Jerusalem itself, into the Epstein mess and zio foundations), the sacrifice of Iphigenia suddenly makes sense, when it didn’t before.
Hi Mad Oyster, In terms of good reading on Tavistock the only book that I know of that goes over the actual institution in detail is by the insider HV Dicks who wrote the official biography of the institute "Fifty Years of the Tavistock Clinic."
Yes, I realised afterwards that I mispoke about Orestes killing Agamemnon, and that it was Clytemnestra that killed Agamemnon and Cassandra ( in the Aeschylus version) for Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia for good weather on his way to Troy. And that Orestes in turn killed Clytemnestra. Yes, the Furies were depicted as grotesque beings in the Aeschylus version and I think the Sophocles version as well. Everything I stated in the Delingpole interview is accurate on the Aeschylus version of this story who I mention directly, except for the muddle already mentioned above. The Furies were associated with the Temple of Apollo and Athena was brought in as representative of the Areopagus court of law to stop the eye for an eye cycle that the Furies represented. From Aeschylus' version of this story, I do not think this is supposed to be representative of the matriarchy being replaced by the patriarchy, though I know there are other interpretations of this storyline (as with all greek mythologies). In Aeschylus' version the focus is on ending the cycle of endless eye for an eye concept of "justice." Also note here, that you cannot really say this age was a "matriarchy" when you had the Trojan War which went on for many many years that was started by Menelaus, Agamemnon's brother, over Paris "stealing" his wife. The injustice of the Trojan War which is the major backdrop to this entire storyline (in all its versions) is at the core of why the eye for an eye system of brutal "justice" must end. So, I do not regard this as a system of "matriarchy" vs "patriarchy."
We're you aware of William Sargent's role in the destruction of Paul Robeson the singer?
Check it out.
No I am not aware of his direct connection. I knew that Paul Robeson had gone to a party, I believe in Moscow and had been clearly drugged. They found he trying to slit his wrists apparently and he was sent to I believe a London Clinic (Tavistock connected no doubt) and underwent countless sessions of electro-shock. The family was apparently no allowed to visit him or release him from this psychiatric institute. When they finally released him after years of "treatment" he was a shell of a person.
William Sargent was Paul Robeson's designated Psychiatrist during his mental health incarceration in the UK.
This is a fantastic article. Thank you.
strange times indeed. but this is brilliant.
I'm buying your book.
ukgoiing to get bad bad
Fasse pandemic, false every thing. And Dr Reiner Fuellmich is still in prison
Send him a card or letter.
the address to write to Reiner:
LETTERS;
JVA Rosdorf
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
Am Grossen Sieke 8
37124 Rosdorf
Germany
postcards and cards allowed,
no glitter on the envelops,
no stamps or money in the envelops,
no books or other objects - not permitted,
nothing to be mentioned about the case - though now, according to the latest information, his mail is no longer scanned,
put your name of each page of the letter, just in case - though at present letters are no longer taken out of the envelops.
__________________________
TO DONATE:
To donate, here is the link for donations for legal and other expenses: https://www.givesendgo.com/GBBX2
___________________
EXCELLENT OVERVIEWS OF THE REINER FUELLMICH CASE:
2 MUST-READ PIECES. 2 EXCELLENT OVERVIEWS OF "The Unjust and Evil Prosecution of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich"
https://truthsummit.substack.com/p/2-excellent-overviews-reiner-fuellmich-case
Sept 5, 2024
MORE SUPPORT FOR REINER! Including from one of the last people he interviewed
https://truthsummit.substack.com/p/support-for-reiner-peter-koenig-wolfgang-jeschke
Sept 6, 2024
Thank you.
The issue discussed at length here and in several articles written by Lyndon Larouche over time, I like to summarise as the problem of how many genuine independent thinking minds there may exist in the world.
Is there a finite limit?
Somehow logically resembling Malthusianism's concept of carrying capacity.
Does the universe have a finite carrying capacity for independent minds?
The reason I raise that question is that so much difficulties have stood in the way for mankinds liberation to a condition where we may fulfill our potential in the way desired by the 'Platos' of the world.
I suspect that our brains may not be the whole story regarding our minds. If the brain is instead like an interface it's full capacity may be much larger than is apparent from the size of our sculls.
And our thoughts might be processed in a structure common to all living phenomena.
Such a structure would presumably have a finite capacity.
If we reach the limits the structure would not be able to add more independent minds.
Under such conditions it would be expected that collective phenomena took the place of individual highly developed minds.
The world seems to me to show signs of that.
If the oligarchy is responsible for this it may be because they are evil or because the universe really has a finite capacity.
.
There are other aspects of the universe where seemingly a finite capacity may limit the universes potential for achieving Ideal conditions with unlimited refinements to handle minute details.
.
For example at velocities approaching the speed of light all objects appear compressed in the direction of motion.
.
Likewise time as measured on such an object is dilated, slowing down to a halt when studied from an observer. This would be expected if the universe has a limited capacity for updating its configuration.
.
Several aspects of quantum mechanics add to this way in which a finite capacity limits it's potential.
.
For high frequencies Max Planck discovered that the empirically known distributions of radiative energy could be brought to agreement between theory and experiments if it was assumed that radiative energy may only be transferred in the form of quanta with an energy proportional to the frequency. Thus high frequency energy only comes in big chunks.
.
Since high frequency ought to be more difficult to update if the universe has a limit for how fast it may operate, the universe would save a lot of work by rationalising away high frequency data.
.
There is the technicality of quantum computations and philosophically it may be understood in one interpretation as a multiplication of worlds for every observed microprocess.
.
Note that observation is a decisive feature. In consequence the nonobserved parts may not contribute any workload for the universe.
.
On the other hand the more we think and observe the greater the workload for the universe.
.
The more creative original people the greater the workload.
.
While collectivism would have potential to spare resources for the universe.
One more item.
The black holes of astrophysics could be yet another example of how the universe saves itself from having to update its configuration for dense matter.
.
Too much work so by rationalising away the need to refine the details at high densities the universe would save resources for other tasks having higher priority.
.
It is conceivable that the universe would simply discard information in order to spare it's finite resources for more important tasks such as for making the rest of it's rendering of the world according to some aesthetically pleasing norm. More beauty, less boring detail.
If the universe is finite, then where are its boundaries, and what lies outside of them?
We'd have to change the word too if it really is finite, since the term 'universe' literally encompasses everything.
Think about the 2D creatures living on a sphere with eyes only working inside that 2D.
There is no outside for them, but they may still notice that the world is finite
Sure, but to have a sphere you need three dimensions. To be consistent your 2D creatures would have to be living on a plane with no edges, so infinite in 2D.
I'm not arguing for or against an infinite universe, in fact I believe the problem is insolvable. I'm just pointing out that the word "universe" by definition encompasses everything, including anything that lies outside its boundaries (if such exist). To talk about a finite universe is a contradiction in terms. A misuse of the word.
No need for three dimensions for those inside the surface. The whole point of comparing with such creatures is that 3D doesnt exist for them. Its not a contradiction it is a logically possible situation and we may be similar to that in our 3D where it is possible to formulate everything without invoking 4D. Actually 3D is a very special dimensionality very well suited for causal signals. The wave equation only works so well for 3D and 1D and 1D isnt interesting.
It is possible that 3D time and 1D space might work as well as 3d space and 3D time but no other dimensionalities. Therefore it might be the case that causality determines the actual dimensionality.
some really excellent things in this. (The idea of eradicating beauty was not however what Adorno was saying....but its very complex).
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One of the few rewards of growing old is that more and more women appear attractive to you. The pity of it is that it's usually too late to do anything about it other than just look.
Excellent work. Reminds me of the research I did for Dope Inc. over 40 years ago. Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow is largely based on the effects of the London V-2 bombing on the British population and how British Intelligence used it as a model for mind control.
Google “ Aldous Huxley/ Mike Wallace Interview 1958” and prepare to question whether there are prophets placed here to warn us of a dystopian future to prevent coming to fruition. Huxley laid out a series of events so incredibly, inexplicably prescient it will rattle your bones. He was frantic, Mike Wallace was condescending and patronizing. And Huxley was spot on. Every detail.
In a 1961 interview on French television, Huxley was even more profound. Brave New World Revisited had just been published and Huxley stated that his sardonic opus, Brave New World c 1931 was being used as a playbook, the technology being developed was happened much more quickly than he’d imagined and if the Pharma and tech development was not thwarted, by 2030, we’d have already reached the point of no return. AI,Transhumanism, total control. That we were walking into willfully slavery- a One World Government ruled by an elite cabal of powerful sociopathic tyrants. Where the genetically, behaviorally modified , medicated serfdom would.. drumroll..” Own nothing, have no privacy and love your servitude”.
Huxley stood against eugenics, psychotropic medications used to make one susceptible to suggestion by playing on primal, Pavlovian reflexiveness combined with and interface of technological/ human fusion.
He was brilliant, but not malevolent. He’s been my object of absolute fascination since age 17. And many decades have since passed.
Actually Gail, Aldous Huxley did promote eugenics along with his brother Julian Huxley who was also pro-transhumanism. As published in The Guardian, “Huxley was in favour of genetic breeding programmes to arrest the multiplication of the unfit. In a particularly unsavoury article, published in 1930 in the Evening Standard, he confessed anxiety about the proliferation of mental defectives and called for their compulsory sterilisation.” source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/1994/jun/15/fiction
Brave New World was written one year later in 1931.
For more on this vein you can refer to my paper "Who Will Brave in Huxley's New World: The War on Science and the 20th Century Descent of Man" https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/who-will-brave-in-huxleys-new-world?utm_source=publication-search
"As published in The Guardian, “Huxley was in favour of genetic breeding programmes to arrest the multiplication of the unfit."
He certainly wasn't alone in that view as it was a popular idea in his day, particularly in the Third Reich. As with many things, intentions often precede means, at least where such means can be regarded as ethical.
This does raise a question though. Given that the eugenicists were discredited for their lack of ethics, and given that we're now on the verge of correcting genetic abnormalities, has the ethical debacle of misapplied mRNA technology damaged the potential for application of that technology for truly humanitarian purposes?
You’re extremely bright, Cynthia. A pleasure to have come across. Serendipitous.
Of course we’re being led down the path of a planned outcome that’s been decades in the making. What is most disturbing is how few see it and how many refuse to see it or even entertain the notion. Worse, is that we’ve been amply warned. Most succinctly by Aldous Huxley. A 1958 interview with Mike Wallace is the most riveting and chilling example. Huxley so presciently and explicitly laid out a sequence of events that would achieve the goal of creating a tyrannical New World Order Technocracy using propaganda, technology, pharmaceuticals and distractions in the form of global conflicts and interventions,created pandemics, climate events, constant fearmongering , division and chaos, psychological manipulation, tech surveillance, psychotropic drugs, gene editing and population/behavior control.
A powerful cabal of elites were creating a single central government devoid of sovereign nation states and cultural identity via mass migration resulting in a feudal system with a ruling class controlling every aspect of life. Digital passports, digital currency, a central bank. The elites would lord over an enslaved serfdom and it would happen without having to use military force because we’d be so conditioned to obey, we would walk into our own prison, believing we needed the government to protect and provide and that anybody who wasn’t on the “ right side” were less than human. By isolating and loathing the resisters, the resisters would fall in line because they didn’t want to be the “ bad people”. They would be emotionally worn down and “ comply”. We would “ own nothing, have no privacy and in our medicated, mentally decayed state “love our servitude”( sound familiar? The Great Reset”). He described the technocracy as a Communist type of despotism, but worse.. and it was happening faster than he could anticipate…. Mike Wallace was patronizing, as though humoring a loon or errant child. Huxley didn’t even notice.
But it was his 1961 interview with a French journalist that sealed the deal. “ Brave New World Revisited had just been published and Huxley was certain that his epic fictitious opus, “ Brave New World”, published in 1932 was in fact being used as the playbook. The technology and medication, genetic manipulation were not even a possibility. The book was a sardonic work of fancy aimed at the science of eugenics that his brother was involved in. His brother had good intent.Eradicating diseases and genetic anomalies that caused birth defects, chronic progressive , incurable ,degenerative diseases … Huxley feared that like most ideas predicated on good intentions would be hijacked by evildoers. He was right, of course as evidenced by the Holocaust. He was haunted by the possibilities of AI and transhumanism. His warnings were frantic. Nobody took him seriously ( but for the evildoers he describes) and here we are. The WEF Great Reset/ UN Agenda 2030 /Event 201 Covid /WHO Pandemic Treaty and the orchestrated , funded Red/Green Alliance of Marxist-Jihadists. Organized Chaos.
His brother, Julian , was a eugenicist. Huxley became very skeptical and then concerned where it might lead. He wrote Brave New World to make that statement.
What starts out with some hint of good intent.. combating hereditary diseases,the UN, CIA, ACLU, SPLC, NAACP, breakthrough discovers, ie penicillin, diagnostic radiation, splitting the atom, the internet/social media, the space race, vaccines, fluoridated water,multiculturalism, globalism, taking in massive amounts of “ refugees” from conflict zones, wind turbines, preservatives, leaded gasoline- until it turns to shit in corrupt, nefarious hands.
When Einstein split the atom, he didn’t intend to annihilate entire populations and create a nuclear arms race. Marie Curie wasn’t hoping for radiation poisoning , cancer and rendering Holocaust victims sterile. Harry Truman didn’t foresee the UN and CIA becoming enemies both foreign and domestic. Nixon didn’t see a rising China so strong it would be the global power, Trump didn’t want to lockdown America, but was guilted and assured it would only be two weeks or “ everybody would die”…
We’ve crossed nearly every red line. Must have been 8 years ago or there about that I watched an interview with a social scientist who posited humanity had peaked 10 years prior and we were on the downslope of the evolutionary scale. Seems he was onto something.The law of physics is empirical. It takes a very long time to reach the top and a very short time to hit rock bottom . At this rate, we’re snowballing to the nadir.
Watch the Huxley/Wallace interview. Let me know your thoughts.
Much of this depends on whether you believe our society is naturally evolving or being led towards particular outcomes. As Cynthia's article highlights, it appears to be the latter.
It also depends on whether you believe that what appears to be a politician's perspective is reality or part of an act that is necessary to lead the public down the path that will accomplish the objective of devolving society.
We have no idea what Truman, Nixon and Trump actualky foresaw or wanted. We only know what they wanted us to think.
Personally? I believe, again as the article highlights, there is evidence that this is a decades long plan and that those in prominent positions know exactly what the ultimate objective is. They go along or don't live to regret it.
"....and that those in prominent positions know exactly what the ultimate objective is."
Or at least that's what they'd like us to believe. One way to achieve that, ironically, is by promoting the kind of theories characterized by this very article. Not saying that's the case here, but it definitely is with many of the so-called alt-media sites that one finds in abundance, and whose main objective seems to be promoting that concept.
For my part I don't buy it, as I know the same conditions and limitations apply to those elites as to everyone else. It's not a question of material means of which they have a clear advantage, but of the intellectual capacity for self-reflection. When you're convinced that you're right - the power of conviction typified by psychopaths - you leave yourself open to all kinds of errors which are impossible to correct, given that your belief system doesn't admit the possibility of failure.
I think it's far more likely that rather than a master plan which its adherents execute with precision, that there exist any number of elites competing with each other, each attempting to execute their own plan which is, by the above reasoning, doomed to failure.
If you look at the historical record, I think there's far more evidence of failure than of success in that regard. We have a good example of it today in the war in Ukraine - a war intended to disrupt Russia for the purpose of acquiring her resources which has now gone seriously off the rails. The amount of coping and outright denial of the true situation you see in MSM is a testament to that. Rather than weaken the opponent, it has only made her stronger, and arguably the most powerful nation on earth, and yet the instigators keep doubling down on failure, unable to admit their critical mistake.
Yes, there are undoubtedly many "elites" competing with each other, all with varying interests. But the interest they all seem to share is wanting more control - over resources and over the rest of us. "Power over" is the ultimate goal and it seems that's something they can all agree on. I think it's safe to say that they aren't competing over whether or not they should make the world a better place for we the little people.
From my perspective, the record shows a continuing erosion of our privacy and freedoms for the last century. Eroding human health, which if not directly intentional, is at least a known outcome of the pharmaceutical and environmental inputs "they" create and promote.
The war in Ukraine has had many purposes, of which that is perhaps one. Rebuilding Ukraine is a lucrative contract, as is war itself. Then there was the initial purpose of distraction in the aftermath of Covid, when the public was directed to "look over here" instead of holding politicians accountable for the fallout from lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
So it's not so much a master plan as a general idea. The tech elites create tech to monitor us and build the infrastructure that creates invisible bars. The pharma, chemical and food industry elites create the poisons that dumb us down and keep us docile. The intelligence agencies create programs to manipulate us psychologically. The banking elites ensure the laws are in their favour so they can keep the debt-based economy going and eventually scoop up privately held property once the system collapses - see the great taking. And the list goes on ...
If the idea wasn't to reduce our power and increase theirs, then some of these innovations and laws would have benefitted the public by increasing freedom and well-being, as would be the case if caring human beings ran the world. But I think it's safe to say that that's not the case.
And I also think it's safe to say that they learn from their mistakes so that next time they won't make the same ones.
"I think it's safe to say that they aren't competing over whether or not they should make the world a better place for we the little people."
And yet consider the difference between now and 100, 200 or 300 years ago. Personally I'd rather be alive today than in 1925. Truth is, I wouldn't be alive in 1925 because penicillin wasn't discovered until 1928 so I would have died as a child. It's all a matter of perspective. People don't generally think in those sort of terms, they see only what's in front of them, the idea of progress being too abstract a concept for most.
"From my perspective, the record shows a continuing erosion of our privacy and freedoms for the last century."
And yet here we are, talking freely about it on this amazing global network, which after only 30 years of existence we now take for granted, as if it had always been that way. I'm old enough to remember having to go to the library to get the books I needed. Now I can just download them in the comfort of my own home. It's like living next door to the great library of Alexandria in ancient times, when scholars travelled hundreds of miles at great risk just to study a few scrolls. My own substack would have been impossible to create prior to the internet. Where would I find the material? It all came off the net. Years ago I tried studying Russian from a book. Hopeless, and there were no courses offered in my college. Now I have audio and video instruction, and all at minimal to no cost. Again, it's all a matter of perspective.
"The war in Ukraine has had many purposes, of which that is perhaps one."
How long have you been following Ms. Chung's work? Defeating Russia has arguably been the number one item on the agenda of the British ruling class - what's generally referred to as 'the great game.' I think she's covered that in detail over the last few years, no? That the US has taken on a major part of that agenda post 1945 kind of buttresses your own argument, doesn't it?
"Then there was the initial purpose of distraction in the aftermath of Covid, when the public was directed to "look over here" instead of holding politicians accountable for the fallout from lockdowns and vaccine mandates."
I'm confused. Are you saying the war in Ukraine started after the so-called pandemic? Russia formally entered the conflict in 2022, but it had already been going for 8 years prior to that while the pandemic wasn't declared until 2020 so how does that work?
I won't take up the rest of your points, not because I don't disagree with some, simply that I think there's more of an element of unintended consequences to world events than you give credit for. What we're doing right now, for example - discussing these issues in an open forum which if I were as wary as you of the consequences I'd just shut it off and never type another word. My point is, as much as the elites may desire to control us, and they certainly succeed in some respects, they are incapable of stopping the march of progress that's an inherent part of our nature, driven as it is by the most basic of instincts - the will to survive. If that weren't so, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and as I pointed out, I wouldn't even be alive to participate.
I know things look bad. Look for the bad and you're guaranteed to find it, but that's not all there is. There's also hope, and the determination to improve our situation which is an incremental, sometimes painfully slow process, but if you don't hold onto that as an ideal then what's left? Raging against the machine gets you nowhere if you don't have some kind of belief in a better future, if not for ourselves then for our children, and our children's children as the old Chinese proverb says.
Rather than seeing our present situation as a bad thing, I see it as positive. The majority of people have more reason than ever to wake up and understand how our world really works. Rather than voting every four years and then forgetting about it, thinking they've done their job, perhaps the doses of reality we're now continually exposed to will spur people towards a reckoning with themselves and the way we choose to organize our societies. There is a positive future once that happens. But it won't happen by continuing down this same path, believing we just need to vote for "better" politicians. I believe change will happen in communities as people figure out that that's where they can have a positive impact. We are a world made up of communities.
Raging against the machine is a step towards accepting reality.
Similarly, I won't argue with what you've written. But as we don't know each other and a few short comments can't adequately encapsulate these complex subjects much less belief systems, suffice it so say that I'm well aware of the role unintended consequences play and that when I spoke of the war in Ukraine in that context I meant involving the general public on a grand scale - remember the Ukrainian flags? Cynthia Chung is but one voice on the Russia issue that I follow. I appreciate her work on this and many other topics, but never restrict myself to one perspective. I understand the difference between convenience and liberty as well as how fortunate I am to live in this era, in this country. But medical "breakthroughs" - like most other innovations, included on-line archives - are a double-edged sword given that children now receive 10 times more vaccines than I did as a child, and only the very naive could believe they are healthier.
Thanks for an enjoyable discussion. I appreciate your ability to engage respectfully!
All Huxley did was write a book describing what was the end goal of the Controllers. He sounds "prescient". But was he? Or was he just a transcriber of a dark plan that millions have worked to bring to fruition?
A combination of both. He was deeply disenfranchised by where the eugenics movement.. which he initially supported might head and had a very dark premonition about Henry Ford. Envisioning a “ transhuman assembly line” of genetically altered slaves being the fate of humanity. And a global governance modeled in the format of Communism. He was the most interesting person ( IMO) to have existed in the past century. In later years, he became fascinated with Hinduism, seeing the partakes between all the sciences , creation and a spiritual connection with the infinite God. I feel the same. Hinduism is the ultimate form of the Deist Enlightenment/Natural Order philosophy, but with empirical science before the empirical sciences of physics ( energy, gravity, DNA, astronomy, Universality, rotational axis, epochs) were proven… or even considered. God is symbolized by Brahman. As the Creator that light state Universe, but isn’t a visible form. The connection comes with the spiritually of connection by clearing one’s mind and allowing goodness and openess to knowlege to reach a higher plain of understanding. It’s about balance and continuity. Wherever it might take you, but with the purity of mind, it will be the right path.
The “ god’s” are purely symbolic. Representing the different facets of the elects, universe, biological life, good and evil and the facets of the human persona that come together, but without a vance , collide into chaos. Huxley understood that all to well.
Seems “ devolving” better encapsulates it.
also somewhat related, John Potash's work "Drugs as Weapons Against Us: The CIA War on Musicians and Activists" is a digger's dream, MK Ultra & all the rest :-)
https://archive.org/details/youtube-chht-4hb0Dg
somewhat related, I've always thought that Adam Curtis' 4 part docu "Century of the Self" is a very engrossing & informative look at the history & application of 'perception management' in more contemporary times.
Might be interesting to folk who've not come across it before...
The Century of the Self:
part 1, Happiness Machines
https://rumble.com/vr1qk9-the-century-of-the-self-part-1-happiness-machines.html
part 2, The Engineering of Consent
https://rumble.com/vsf0f5-the-century-of-the-self-part-2-the-engineering-of-consent.html
part 3, There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads; He Must Be Destroyed
https://rumble.com/vsf1dl-the-century-of-the-self-part-3-there-is-a-policeman-inside-all-our-heads-he.html
part 4, Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering
https://rumble.com/vsf357-the-century-of-the-self-part-4-eight-people-sipping-wine-in-kettering.html
We've all been roundly snookered. Some for a long, long time. Most people I physically know have zero clue about anything. ZERO. And they like it like that. They NEED it to be like that. They INSIST. And, as somebody who worked for the system once told me when I was quite young and I was lamenting the state of the world and all of the deficiencies I perceived ... He got very annoyed with me and said, "and don't you try and change it". He was quite adamant about it.
i wonder if you are aware that psychedelics were not only weaponized by Tavistock social engineers but were also interesting to social scientists who saw through the Mind Kontrol Ultra agenda after they had been recruited into it. Frank Barron and Timothy Leary were graduate students at Berkeley in the 40s who were recruited by the mind kontrol apparatus and quickly rebelled. Frank came to psychedelics before Tim. He thought they could be useful to create more independence of judgement needed to withstand pressures to conform to socially influenced but untrue conditions. As Solomon Asch just demonstrated a few years earlier, were rampant in society. Barron was appalled, saw fascism and devoted his career to stop it. He wanted to find ways to inspire people to become more creative, optimistic, and exercise independent thought. When he came upon the psychedelic mushroom in 1958 he thought he found a key. The next decade was a confusing and complicated period with Leary and Barron trying to counter Huxley's Nazi MKULTRA, along with others, like JFK, who was turned on via Leary's stash. The CIA/Tavistock boys tried a few different drug delivery systems to Brave New World us and they're at it full force in today's renaissance for sure. But notice, every time Leary's name is mentioned he is blamed for ruining the first go around with psychedelics. He was erratic but his heart was most of the time in the right, pro-democracy, place. Knew him well for a long time. Frank too. I lived at Esalen. Once saved Laing from drowning in the baths. So many stories. You've got it mostly right. Even Leary, as you must know agreed with the LaRouchian idea of the British invasion he tried to humorously, in his undying Irishness, to thwart. Until you accept that there are positive uses of the drugs (very rare and best kept secret) you're never going to convince drug users who have falled for the deception but could be persuaded you are right. Also, Osmond was interested in the adrenochrome theory of schizophrenia, not adenochrome. small typo, big difference! https://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1999/articles/1999-v14n01-p049.shtml