Also noteworthy, your post history does not exactly scream education, or a background in the historical period you claim to have been based in.

If you are who you claim to be, then you could have posted threads on "hey guys I can't reveal details but this MKULTRA issue is real, and here's a publicly available article on the Church Committee, and..." Or "hey you guys should look into this area based on my srs knowledge base."

Why not post something worthwhile and helpful to this cause, if you actually have the history you claim?

Instead, You post about Justin Bieber ... and also source from Evangelical Christian sites , -- then attempt to dismiss my work by baselessly implying I'm an Evangelical Christian.

It would be a stretch to think that a person who was involved in the Church Committee would be accessing voat. It's a further stretch to then claim that, while also posting articles about Justin Bieber to pizzagatewhatever from Evangelical sites.

You rant and rave about my lack of intellectualism, my sourcing, etc - but your post from sites that are hardly reputable, unless you actually are with the Evangelical Christians.

Interesting.

:)

And despite all of this, you haven't disproven or discounted a single point I made.

You said:

"As someone that read the CIA brsinwashing textbook "The Manipulation of Human Behavior" in about 1970 & researched MKULTRA at Louis J. West MD's UCLA Neuro Psychiatric Institute & Biomed libraries in the late 80s along with the CCHR research files with their top investigator preparing a federal lawsuit against MKULTRA doctors I have to call BS on this type of shoddy research. Here is my response I plan to post at the website when finished joining:"

• You Researched with Joylon West - who was part of MKULTRA and killed an elephant. So are you admitting being a perpetrator?

  • Why, if what you are stating is true, would someone of your grand old age and education be shitposting and triggered over on pizzagate voat?

Odd.

Joylon West, who you claim to have studied with, was an official MKULTRA doctor, as a matter of public record.

He killed an elephant during an experimentwith LSD . He also performed the psych evaluation for Jack Ruby, according to the New York Times .

^ Those right there, those are facts. I will let you & readers decide what they imply.

If you are who you claim to be, it is very odd that you would be aware of pizzagate voat, and be on here commenting like this. If you are not who you claim to be, then it's a very odd lie to make.

You almost make it look like powerful people shill this line of thought. Which validates the research. Thanks, I guess?

You're talking about a lot of researchers, who did not cause this research for me. I have no responsibility for what others write, and I think it's honestly weird that you are this obsessed with tearing down a thread that has nothing to do with you. Unless that defense of MKULTRA doctors actually refers to you being one of the perpetrators.

You repeatedly say shit like this: "this website might be the source of your claims."

x, y or Z may be the source to my claims? This is literally the guilt by association issue you seem to hate so much in my work, only with me there is no connection. No. I came to these subjects by myself. I came to the conclusion that Tavistock was connected to Esalen via its own site which hosts a pdf admitting the connection .

So... you are literally accusing me via guilt by association when there is no association.

Shill fail.

"This is all old news to me I've researched deeply. "

• So what. Not provable, not relevant, facts are important not intellectual e-peens. You can be both smart and wrong, educated and wrong, and old and wrong.

"Had you used terms like "theory" & "allegedly" it might bother me less, still there is very little hard evidence implicating Huxley & almost nothing on Jung, but merely reading much of their works puts them outside this baseline conspiracy theory & it is just a matter of which camp one decides to side with."

• I did indeed say constantly that this was my interpretation. I prefaced entire articles with that sentiment, saying that not everyone association with Esalen may have been involved, and when I made interpretations of a fact, I said, "In. My. Opinion" I said "my theory," and "my hypothesis is," many times. You say you read a lot, but obviously you haven't actually read my writing or you are a straight up shill misrepresenting it intentionally.

"Not to mention the whole genre would also be promoted by Russian & Chinese intelligence to add to the paranoia."

• Who is a paranoid conspiracy theorist throwing bullshit at the wall with no evidence to back it up? Looks like you have a projection issue.

"... think there is some credibility to it, but I don't see enough facts to tarnish these cultural heroes that would survive a slander lawsuit, it is mostly speculation & guilt by association."

• So, you agree with me as far as fact, but you cannot stand to allow reality to tar your worship of these figures. Truth is truth whether it hurts your feelings or the reputation of your heroes or not.

"One could have family members that were Satanists or Nazis & be a Christian with opposite views."

• Wtf does this have to do with my argument, it refutes literally nothing. It's like saying You are wrong about the temperature today... because the sky could theoretically be purple tomorrow.."

Shill fail.

I am not a Christian or an evangelical of any variety, and I have made multiple posts about the fact that viewing Satanism as the only possible variety of cultic ritual abuse is far too narrow minded, because ritual abuse does happen outside this model. Both outside the Abrahamic umbrella, and outside the inversion of Christianity. Nice way to try another smear - while complaining about baseless smears. Rofl.

I'm sorry if I am triggering your cognitive dissonance around Jung and Esalen. If you're really so bothered by it, why don't you go write an actual post where you find "facts" - as you are very short on them despite your throwing around a literacy e-peen every comment. And using these magical things known as "facts" you could actually try to refute my claims. But you don't do that, because you can't. Anyone patient enough to read this exchange will be able to see that for themselves.

" I could use your writing style to build a case against Santa Clause & make it relevant to Pizzagate."

• No, actually that's the method you're using to baselessly attack my writing, and anyone who bothers to read the posts would know that. ( which I linked to you previously, asking you to factually disagree with me on anything and I would be willing to admit error, but no, you either could not refute a single point, or did not bother to read. )

You are either lazy, triggered, or a straight up shill. Saying I am making character assassinations - while characterizing me as a jihadist in one comment then an Evangelical Christian on the other. At least get your smear game straight.

"A good propagandist/character assassin can make anyone look bad."

• Again, speaking about yourself here apparently. Bring up one fact or point where I did this.

You can't. Instead, you smear, you bring up the names of other researchers because you cannot refute one thing I wrote. How. Pathetic.

"Your work isn't original & poorly executed IMO, if you want to post fundamentalist type rants"

• Again. I'm not a Christian. Not that it's your business. After being this triggered by my research, you have the audacity to say " this is a "free speech" forum & people can have opposing views."

You have no sense of irony, apparently.

"Look up Dope Inc. which is the original Larouche source on Tavistock & while worth comparisons one must balance in the source."

• First you say I copied Larouche's research, now you tell me to go read them... make up your mind on how to smear me.

Anyone who reads my posts and your slew of comments will realize your accusations are groundless. You are lying, smearing, using non sequiturs and red herrings which are not based in evidence. I've already written my research. I guess it really got under your skin. I encourage you if you are not a shill to review my work (since it's clear you haven't read it) and refute the actual points made.

Until then, take your own advice and grow some balls, get over the fact that people can disagree, and move. On.

I also find it laughable that you are repeatedly alluding to libel suits/defamation. It's almost like you're trying to threaten me.

Wow. That was mind blowing.

He also stated that he liked oligarchy.

Here's what he said in his own words : " There is no more ideal form of government than a decent form of oligarchy – call it aristocracy if you prefer .’"

^ That is a fact.

I completely and utterly disagree. And that's fine, you have your right to interpret facts in whatever way you like. Doesn't mean I have to agree.

Also, to this notion that I have "NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT," - if that's the case you should have an easy time pointing to any factual errors in my RA anon series - there must be tons of them if you're speaking truth.

Funny how now no one ever does that though, because the research is good. Can't debate me on the merits of the facts presented, so things devolved into character 'assassination.' Can't figure out if it's a shill thing or if well meaning people are just that upset that I researched Jung and he's not as pure as driven snow.

So you're accusing me of being like someone I never met or associated with or read, but are lumping me into the same boat with him...

While you rail against guilt by association tactics.

"You are the type that gives a bad name to conspiracy theory" - God forbid we start throwing relevant facts around about well connected people.

So you're saying that I am publishing rumor because someone you dislike posted my work.

"...saw the same theme years ago by Jan Irvin, who recently posted one of your articles to his Facebook profile."

He posted my original research and you're then saying that my research sounded like him.... because he posted my work? That is so ridiculously backwards. I don't have control over who reads/sees/posts my research. I don't know who you are talking about, I have no association with them, I simply research and write about what I find. If you disagree with my findings, do me a favor and argue based on fact. I am happy to amend any factual errors.

Also, I thought you were the one railing against the danger of guilt by association when it maligns the poor stigmatized CIA. But I see you have no problem applying guilt by association to me, despite my lack of association with the individual named.

"IMO the CIA influence was minimal & topical, most of these people were liberal, near Hippy/hipster intellectuals, far from fascist, right-wing spooks" - That's your opinion, not a fact. You have every right to your opinion, as do I.

"besides documented accounts very little sinister implications, it wasn't Jonestown & they weren't out to produce MPD/DID which is without substance & purely speculation."

• What part of psychiatrists electro-shocking people into vegetable states over decades in different countries don't you understand?

I never mentioned Jonestown, you are deflecting again. I did mention figures with documented ties to the military, which is fact. You can interpret factual evidence in whatever way you like, but please provide some first.

"Also my father attended Esalen & as a teen I read their frequent catalog/seminar listings while my father as a journalist had about every book any speaker put out."

If true, then that is bias talking very very loudly. You emotions about the topic do not change facts.

You seem to believe that my research began or was linked to refuelled conspiracy writing.

I found Esalen and Tavistock as subjects through the evidence provided by RA Anon, which began the entire enquiry for me and others. As you would know if you read my research. I cite primary sources which were found in connection to RA Anon's allegations of ritual and other abuse. Primary sources linked to first person experience. I do not see a rumor mill here.

"These were the liberal intellectuals of the time & hardly fascist CIA spooks though with no stigma attached some overlapped such as the Stanford SRI Remote Viewing researchers my father also interviewed, who DID do work for the CIA & DOD."

Findhorn was founded by OSS members. Major figures at Esalen were military, Gregory Bateson was OSS and worked in Psyops. That is not debatable, it is not rumor mill material, it is public record.

"There was little or no stigma about the CIA until maybe the mid-70s." You are incorrect.

"recycling pure speculation." I am one of very few people to look into this area of research within Pizzagate, and in general. There is no mention of Esalen and Tavistock on typical rumor mill sites.

"Pure speculation" - I have already linked all of the RA anon posts, but you have still failed to refute a single fact of the many facts presented. Your comments on the other hand are emotionally based, generalized speculation.

Lmfao. Excuses excuses. Why don't you post what you read then and stop making excuses

Have you ever actually read anything published by an esalen attendee? You don't need to speculate on their beliefs they make it explicitly clear that they hate TPTB

Have you ever actually read anything published by the people from esalen? Or are you just out for character assasination. Go read something published by an esalen attendee and then come back and apologize, lol. Esalen = cia, that's hilarious, go figure. I can't even take your seriously. That's how funny it is that someone would think esalin=TPTB

You claim to know far more about MKULTRA than anyone here. That is not possible to back up with evidence. It creates a false sense of authority. On the other hand, I do not claim to have access to any special knowledge, as in my view, the facts speak for themselves loudly enough. You say you have four decades in the field, while lecturing to me that I "need to go read," then ask me not to lecture you. Do you have any sense of irony?

I disagree with you, and with your suggestion that this was stated with an altruistic intent.

I have plenty of facts in my many pages of research posted in the RA Anon series.

Would be happy to respond to any fact-based issue you have here:

RA Anon: Harbin, HAI Global

RA Anon: Centers Gathering

RA Anon: Findhorn 1/2

RA Anon: Findhorn 2/2

RA Anon: Esalen 1/3

RA Anon: Esalen 2/3

RA Anon: Esalen 3/3

RA Anon: Esalen Addendum

Comparing the two visually was not used in any way in my findings, it's simply two photographs placed near each other. I never said or implied "Pipes! Must be the same" - so right off the bat you are misrepresenting what I wrote.

Not sure why this, or my research, offends you. Sounds like I wasn't born at the time of your research, so not much I can do to remedy the time difference. I hardly think my conducting research on my own has anything to do do in a negative way with your research. I cite everything that I write. If I had used anything by you, whatever/whenever you published, I would have cited it.

So for 1/2 of your post I don't see your point beyond you being unhappy that I did research years after you, which did not agree with your opinions. And?

"Shoddy research." Alright, give an example of my research being shoddy and I will be happy to either admit and amend the mistake or prove that it is not shoddy.

"Such lowbrow character assassination done in a Hollywood gossip tabloid style" - is that what they call citing facts now? Jung's agent number was 488. He worked directly for Allen Dulles who was his handler, who gave us MKULTRA. I see no "lowbrow gossip" here. On the topic of multiple personalities I cited Jung's own words, from my physical copy of his autobiography (because I once greatly admired Jung as many do). I cited Jungian sites who were hardly biased against him, and I cited two Psychology Today articles from different authors. I don't always agree with PT but they aren't exactly Buzzfeed.

"Jihad against Esalen" ? Who is the one using emotionally charged, factless language now? That would be you. Characterizing me as a terrorist. Thanks.

"Stigma against the CIA. "

Are you actually trying to defend the CIA which gave us the Finders, here, without being called a shill? The CIA stigmatized themselves when they electrically shocked thousands of children into extreme trauma. Something tells me you are less here to deal with that issue and more here to defend Jung, Tavistock, and Huxley. Wonderful company.

"Scientists studying psychedelics & psychology were often unwitting of taking CIA funds" - I see you've become extremely generalized here. Would you like to talk about Ewen Cameron of McGill's Allen Institute and his having turned innocent people into drooling diaper wearing vegetables ? We can do that. Or would you rather defend William Sargant , who also electroshocked patients for the CIA as a matter of public record?

"Guilt by association gossip" is not necessary. However, much of this information is not public, so a logical inference from the available evidence is legitimate.

If you think I have not done a good enough job in this, by all means, go do it yourself.

"A current malaise of Internet conspiracy theorists who recycle other's shoddy or clickbait dramatizations which read like bad fiction." - That sounds like an angry shill to me, who is attempting to win an argument by stringing some larger words along in a sentence without one fact to support them.

Have a nice evening.

I've never mentioned of support any of the people you mention. I know about Cathy O'brien and her very questionable relationship with that young Mormon girl. I have never felt she was legitimate.

As far as Alduous Huxley, I absolutely stand by everything I have said and implied on the matter about him, Tavistock, and related figures. Anyone who reads his words or hears them would understand he was extremely evil. His brother Julian was an outspoken Eugenicist and helped found the British Eugenics Society ( which is still around under a changed name, The Galton Institute ) and was the first director of UNESCO.

Alduous Huxley's Ultimate Revolution speech alone utterly discounts your opinion

Here's the audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30

Here's how the moderator introduced him:

"Mr Huxley has recently returned from a conference at the Institute for the study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara where the discussion focused on the development of new techniques by which to control and direct human behavior. Traditionally it has been possible to suppress individual freedom through the application of physical coercion through the appeal of ideologies through the manipulation of man’s physical and social environment and more recently through the techniques, the cruder techniques of psychological conditioning. The Ultimate Revolution, about which Mr. Huxley will speak today, concerns itself with the development of new behavioral controls, which operate directly on the psycho-physiological organisms of man. That is the capacity to replace external constraint by internal compulsions. "

This is part of what Huxley said :

"we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago, a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system."

Great Post once again. For those who have not followed you should go back and read this series it is a history book of the CIA mind control program as it mined from NAZI germany through Operation Paperclip into the US and Canada and still very much exists though names have changed to some degree.

@jem777 @esotericshade @cantsleepawink

Some of the post's content pasted here:

"When I posted my last article on Esalen and its connections to Jung, some took offense at what they saw as miring the good name of a visionary. I have in the past thought of Jung in much the same terms, so it is with genuine dissapointment that I feel the need to relate some pertinent facts about him and his publicly acknowledged work for the CIA. Jung worked for Allen Dulles directly, who was Jung's handler. Jung went by the agent number "488." This is publicly available information, but not well-known. It is also sanitized, only admitting that Jung worked on personality profiles for Dulles on people like Hitler.

What becomes most deeply disturbing about this connection is that we know that Dulles was the first and longest serving Director of the CIA, who oversaw the beginning of the MKULTRA program.

Dulles is widely known to have been a consumate psychopath. That Jung was directly working for Dulles himself as a matter of public record is deeply concerning and suggests that as an analyst, he may have been working on other CIA psychologically related activities, such as mind control of both the masses and individuals."

Jung And His Multiple Personalities When we read Jung, there is copious reference to his own state of very likely multiple personality disorder. Psychology Today even published an article on "Jung's Split Personalities"

......

Jung, The CIA And OSS We know from Jung's Official Biography that: "In Jung: A Biography, author Deirde Bair tells us that Jung was “Agent 488”. He secretly worked for the Office of Strategic Services, which was the predecessor to the CIA. His first contact with the OSS was through his patient Mary Bancroft. She worked for Allan Dulles who was the OSS chief in Switzerland and later became the first Director of the CIA. In 1941, during World War II, Jung’s job was to analyze the psychology of leaders. In return Jung became privy to top-secret Allied intelligence. In 1945, General Dwight Eisenhower read Jung’s ideas for persuading the German public to accept defeat. Allan Dulles relied on Jung’s psychological advice, including Jung’s prediction that Hitler would kill himself. Later, Dulles said that “nobody will probably ever know how much Professor Jung contributed to the Allied cause during the war… [and that his work needed to remain] highly classified for the indefinite future.”