Artwork by Lucinda Horan (with a small tweak by me), first used for Stormy Weather 23.5, “Blood Groups” with Peter Levenda.
Update: I began this as a response to a comment from KK deluxe to my last post but it mushroomed into an essay and so that’s what you, the reader, gets. Here’s the guilty comment that started it all (for any sync-ers, I just got a pretty deluxe truck for the thrift store: the license plate begins with KK):
Jasun: “I just heard that Levenda has been reading the comments here and commenting about it on FB, at a private group called the Parapolitical Research Society which I don’t have access to”
Oh cool, a mini cult/govt. propaganda operation meetup spot!
Is this where all the cool bloggers go to get their talking points?
You gotta be accepted in (vetted)…..and can also be kicked out if you dissent!
That model sucks.
FB is New NWO Age government cult kool-aid disguised as a tech company.
Anybody with half a functioning brain knows that already…so whatevs.
What did Jung have to say about this?
“The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community.”
Guy from Rune Soup is def. in the FB group.
He ticks all the boxes, Practicing “magician”. Got his start with a Crowley book, openly homosexual, blogs about spiritual “interference” in geopolitical matters. Works in marketing. Now writes book$. Has Levenda on his podcast.
Seems a likeable guy. But in his Chaos Protocols book goes from financial talk to getting you to intone “Baphomet” loudly while meditating. I’m not joking! Oh, and details a ritual to meet “the devil” at a crossroads. More upcoming on the Baphomet thing as relates to AC and Typhon junk. Will post to forum soon.
I’ve noticed a “teaming up” of a series of bloggers on the “para-political” topic in the past year.
Guessing the plain paranormal is not enough anymore, we need to see how the ghosts want the next US election to go. And maybe get them to do our bidding.
This crew may just be linking/interviewing each other to get famous quicker?
Everybody is talking about each other…thereby reinforcing specific information.
Things like this are hijacked/co-opted in the blink of an eye. If not flat out engineered from the beginning.
Jasun, staying independent is good. It’s a badge of honor.
PS – It goes without saying I’m not slagging specifically on the female alt. perceptions crew.
Just have allergic reactions to specific woo when I see it, that’s all.
And I blurt things out in a direct manner.
I could detail a ton of Star Wars crock that men have written also.
Everybody is fair game in this arena.
How about:
Epic Of Gilgamesh (a crazy read, in clay tablet form!)
Hypostasis Of The Archons (actually anything Nag Hammadi)
Old Testament (Those zany conquered Jews!)
New Testament (Roman jokers, with bonus NLP inserted by Francis Bacon)
Finnegan’s Wake (Ugh!)
There are more but I forget them offhand.
Snippets of truth in all of these tales written by men. Good luck finding it.
I do commend Ann for finding this woman’s stuff.
There are a couple connections in it that I’ll detail on the forum post.
It strikes at the heart of what the magicians believe they are doing with these specific sex rituals.
Ann Diamond: “Levenda’s version of Crowley does not embrace the child molester but [Jasun’s] version does. So people here, understandably, side with [Jasun’s] version, knowing Crowley was probably molested himself as a child and carried the abuse forward into adulthood. To serve some agenda, Crowley is being whitewashed and recycled to a new generation, minus the “child abuser” of course. This appears to be part of Levenda’s project: attracting more young people to the occult, through conspiracy-as-entertainment. I think some of us sense that Levenda’s defence of him is a sign of immaturity or disingenuousness. Most here are prepared to feel compassion for Crowley the ‘genius’ without denying that he was a monster. Therefore we would rather listen to [Jasun] on this topic, [who seems] ready to explore the forbidden world of abuse, using [himself] as a player. ”
All spot on except for one thing. I was going to say “disingenuous” a couple days ago but didn’t post.
Read Levenda’s “official” bit about the Necronomicon: http://peterlevenda.com/?page_id=35
There is a lot of redirection and leading going on in this single page.
It’s all just part of his stage act I guess.
Ann Diamond: “Most here are prepared to feel compassion for Crowley the ‘genius’ without denying that he was a monster.”
Uhhh….nope. I would say, “What genius?”
As a person on Planet Earth he made a choice.
He gave up his freewill completely…to unknown outside entities, despite all the talk about doing “his will”.
Didn’t these “outside entities” or “sinister forces” (lol) tell him what to write down anyway?
When you choose to use buttsex to gain Real Ultimate Power™, it never goes well.
Hence, his inglorious finale.
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world (of magical fanboys), and lose his own soul?”
End quote.
Due to a chain of events that didn’t involve my knocking on the door of the PRS I now have access to that group. It is in fact not a private but a secret FB group, which makes me wonder if I should have named it at all? Oh well. There are a few minor ‘celebs’ in there but not including Gordon White, about whom I have already expressed my feelings in a couple of places, so I won’t repeat them here. I will say that after Ramsey Dukes/Lionel Snell was on the Runesoup podcast, I emailed Lionel a friendly reminder about his agreeing to do a podcast with me, and received no response. It’s true that in my email I did put the words “Crowley” and “unsavory” in the same sentence together, but beside that there was no reason for him to ignore me—except that Lionel knows the nature of my focus now, a focus which can, broadly, be described as anti-occult (though I have pledged never to be an “anti-anything”).
As regards Peter Levenda being disingenuous at the linked page and elsewhere, well yes, though I think Peter wants this piece to pass for playful, and that his long list of highly suspect (to we paranoids) affiliations throughout his illustrious career will spice up his résumé, while passing for transparency as someone whose career just looks like that of an operative, but really isn’t.
OK, but, none of this is meant to imply that Peter Levenda is an operative. I am using him and our recent exchange as an example to demonstrate the potential challenges we all must face when navigating the murky waters of parapolitical research, knowing as we do that they are swimming with all kinds of man-eaters, from piranha to sharks, and that, unlike the underwater kind, there is no sure way to identify these predators when we do encounter them. But once again, since I am slowly learning that you can’t be too careful when even talking about these sorts of fish: none of this is meant to imply that Peter Levenda is an operative. OK, got that? Moving on.
There is a rule in parapolitical discussion circles never to accuse someone of being an operative. This is a necessary rule, if at times a hard one to stick to, because it really doesn’t help to call someone an agent since it can almost never be proven. Even if you do manage to out an agent and force them to admit it, another will only take his place. This rule extends into general society as an even broader but unwritten rule: “never accuse anyone of lying,” even when you are sure they are. This is especially the case when you strongly disagree with them and are trying to invalidate their arguments, or at least oppose them with your own. Then springing the Liar! card just seems like poor cricket.
Levenda wrote that I accused him of being deliberately deceitful because he disagreed with me. What I wrote was: “You seem to me too intelligent to misread me that badly, which makes me suspect you are deliberately distorting my arguments so as to hijack the discussion.” Prior to that I also wrote: “But again, since you are not that obtuse but in fact a wily old goat, it makes me wonder who you are arguing on behalf of, at this point?”
Neither of these comments was particularly helpful, I admit. But they were I think sourced in a genuine desire to believe that Peter Levenda was NOT deliberately lying or misrepresenting himself. If I’d really believed that, the smart play would have been to approach him that way, and try and trap him into saying something that might reveal this. I didn’t do that because I was giving him the benefit of the doubt while also wanting to communicate how confounding I was finding his responses to be. By the end of the exchange, however, I was left with the sense, rightly or wrongly, that Levenda wasn’t being 100% straight with me.
I wrote as much in an email to Keith Zavatski yesterday, adding that this “would give him a big advantage; or at least gives me a big disadvantage.”
This is one of those comments that I wrote before fully thinking about it, from a visceral rather than a purely rational place. (In passing I think this is one of the main failures of communication between Levenda and myself: that I argue viscerally, intuitively, and not so much intellectually.) If I try to explain my comment (to Zavatski) now, there are several reasons I think we are at a severe disadvantage when someone is consciously deceiving us. One of them is that they know it and we don’t, which is a bit like fighting in the dark with someone who is wearing night vision goggles. Another is that someone who is arguing in a purely strategic fashion, 100% from the head, and not at all (or very little) from the heart or gut, can shift their arguments as often as they like. They are unlikely to feel attached to, or emotionally invested in, any of their arguments, since their goal is not to get to the truth but to prevent us from doing so. As a result, we may find ourselves increasingly emotionally invested in trying to get to the truth, because we are being constantly blocked and undermined and start to feel the ground shifting under our feet with every step (as I did with Levenda). We are then more and more inclined to grab at any kind of handhold we can, including accusing the other of lying, which, in this hypothetical scenario, they would be.
At least in academic circles, becoming emotional in an argument is seen as a weakness and evidence of being prejudiced, and hence wrong. (Jason Witherspoon commented at his group that Levenda was “well more level-headed” than I was.)
There is another disadvantage we have when unknowingly dealing with someone who is lying, and it is one of the biggest: if we feel like someone is being disingenuous with us but can’t be 100% sure, we are not really allowed to say this. At this point, my own policy of honesty-at-any-cost becomes compromised, or at least seriously challenged. My attempt was to confront Levenda in such a way as to give him room to reconsider his arguments after seeing how they were affecting me (i.e., causing me to doubt his sincerity). I failed at this due to my own issues and due to a lifelong tendency to use intellectualism as a defense, and as a result, Levenda (in my view) became defensive and counter-offensive. This didn’t really prove anything, but it did ensure the discussion deteriorated into personal disagreement. Yet surely Levenda must be aware that disinformation agents exist, and that they engage in discussions, just as we were doing, in order to sabotage them? So is the suspicion that someone is doing just that really so outlandish, and does it have to be construed as offensive? I am asking the questions sincerely.
Another question: What is worse, to be an innocent and be challenged with the suggestion that you are acting a bit like an operative; or to be an innocent being played by an operative and unable to say anything for fear of wrongly challenging someone? I think the same question can be extended to the subject of Crowley & ritual child abuse. Which is worse, to seriously consider circumstantial evidence of child abuse and risk reaching an erroneous conclusion as to Crowley’s complicity; or to keep demanding proof out of fear of joining a “witch hunt,” and so dismiss all circumstantial evidence as worthless?
Of course I will feel bad for even suggesting Peter Levenda’s affiliations might be dodgy if it should turn out there was no basis at all for my suspicions. But not that bad, because I don’t think my suspicions are altogether unreasonable, considering the data and the context which it arises from. Nor do I see how Levenda can really be all that surprised, or offended, if this sort of thing should happen, nor how he can in good conscience write it off as proof of my paranoid, reactive, and witch-hunt-y nature (though he may want to).
Child sexual abuse in the context of occult ritual and belief is a reality. Disinformation agents posing as authors and parapolitical researchers is almost certainly a reality too. How are we to confront these realities at all unless we are willing to risk getting it wrong and offending our peers, that is, to risk wrongly suspecting innocents once in a while? If we only proceed when we are 100% sure about something, what’s the point in proceeding at all? Levenda’s logic around Crowley and child abuse reminds me of the Rabbinic law in orthodox Jewish communities (which Michael Lesher talks about on this week’s podcast): unless there is proof of child sexual abuse, then no allegations should be made. But if no allegations can be made, how can proof ever be established?
Why did Levenda fight me so hard on this question instead of being willing to meet me halfway—as Marco Paso did, albeit in a far briefer exchange so far—and entertain the possibility? Many scientific breakthroughs depend on this kind of “what if” approach—if Crowley did abuse children, what indications can we find that this did in fact occur? Levenda’s approach (with me at least) seems to have been the inverse, though also scientific, approach, which is to make a hypothesis and then set out to disprove it. Yet even there, he didn’t so much show me the evidence for Crowley’s innocence as try to undermine my own methods and prove that I am an extremist, unscholarly, wacko conspiracy theorist on a witchhunt to prove a worldwide satanic conspiracy.
To be fair, if I want Peter to acknowledge that he may be acting in certain ways that make me believe he’s being dishonest, I can at least acknowledge that I may be behaving in such a way as to make him think the above about me. At the very least, I will be more careful about how I present my arguments in future. It’s rather ironic, however, because one thing Peter and I almost certainly have in common is a strong desire to steer clear of the quicksand of uncited, whole-cloth, woo-woo conspiracy theorizing as every bit as antithetical to solid, grounded research as mindless blanket consensus denial can be. It’s just that we have different yardsticks.
Another thing that occurs to me as a result of this recent dust-up has to do with status. In my emails to Zavatski, I also wrote: “it would be hard to overestimate the power of status, & Levenda has it; i, to my infinite credit, do not. :)” Leaving aside the weird modest-immodesty of my second remark, which came out too spontaneously for me to censor (as so many of my remarks do; yes, I lack Peter’s self-control), it did cause me to think about how and why exactly I lack status as compared to Levenda, and why this may be a good thing.
Most people in this “field” tend to build on their work steadily and systematically with the desired result that their reputation builds accordingly. A large part of this entails a sort of chumminess with other researchers and writers, endorsements back and forth, and so on. My own process of self-deconstruction has meant that anything I have built I have subsequently torn down, or at least seriously undermined, as a necessary result of whatever work came after. I no longer get invited on other people’s podcasts, though this used to happen quite a bit in my Aeolus days (even Jan Irvin backed away from having me on his podcast recently); my last book wasn’t reviewed except on Amazon; and my writing and podcasts have focused more and more on unraveling the secret of my own past (even when in tandem with cultural figures like Strieber, Savile, or Crowley). I have also been self-identifying more and more openly as a survivor of some form of sexual abuse, whether organized or ritual or not I still can’t even opine. And what could be lower than the status of survivor? (I allow that, at the same time, the victim card is a powerful card in today’s society; but I don’t think I have played this card unduly.)
I was speaking to my sister today and I realized, while saying it, that, where once I used writing as a shield, it has become more and more the opposite of a shield to me. This means that I feel anxious, unsafe, exposed, whenever what I am working on is submitted to more intense exposure, as happened (by my own hand, admittedly) through this recent exchange with Levenda. I don’t think most other writers or researchers want to experience, or even get close to, this sort of self-exposure. It feels inherently unstable, threatening, and just plain wrong, so this is probably how these other researchers see me more and more: as an unstable element. I am breaking the unwritten social code in some hard to define way; proximity to me is not likely to further anyone’s career, or to improve their self-image.
As a way to wind this up, I’d like to draw people’s attention again to this week’s podcast with Michael Lesher as relevant to this subject matter, and because his book deserves serious attention, and not just from Jews.
Here’s a few quotes from it that will give you an idea of how deeply Lesher looks into the subject:
“Isaac’s divine status as a divine gift [is] the very reason he can be sacrificed!” (196)
“Once the victim’s perspective is ruled out of consideration, almost anything goes.”
“The unifying factor that particularly interests me is the patent fear of children’s natural development in sexual matters, and the inevitable, concomitant horror expressed by the leadership of both religious communities about any possible ‘contamination’ by modern advertising and the mores of contemporary lifestyles. (208)
“Is this pairing of innocence and abuse inevitable because the ideal of ‘innocence’ corresponds to the notion of a radical cleavage between body and soul, and because this makes the child’s body, as a counterweight to its putative spiritual purity, seem that much more carnal? Is it because where all sexuality is equated with defilement, the most extreme sort of defilement is also the most sexual, and therefore, for some people at least, the most desirable?” (212)
“the ideal of juvenile ‘innocence’ actually feeds communal indifference towards child sexual abuse.” (213)
Auticulture 
Contamination in advertising is key. Go with your gut feeling, it is always fed with gnosis. Shine forth brave soul. 87
” all you zombies show your faces , all you people in the street , all you sittin ‘ in high places , the rain is gonna fall on you , the pieces gonna fall on you , “- ( think his dad was a psychiatrist )
I am getting the sense that a lot of the occultists you are interviewing are quite oblivious/ in denial about what you are saying , they dont want to know about it . Perhaps they are most fearful of the fact that ” it doesnt work”, being a crutch for many , perhaps . I am of the mind that it works only to well , and my understanding is that you are saying that it has been hijacked and seeded with certain imagery to achieve certain ends by certain people , and that the wildly common Golden Dawn imagery is perhaps wildly tainted. Do you admit any possibility that there might be occultists out there using imagery and symbolism that doesnt program them into occult intelligence operatives ? . It is quite nefarious that people may be unwitting members of an outer court feeding energy to a dar and rotten inner court , though i suspect that may not be true 100% across the board .
bTW , have you seen ” only lovers left alive ” with Tylda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston , the guy kept reminding me of you , must be the english accent .
” what is this quintessence of dust ?”
“There is a rule in parapolitical discussion circles never to accuse someone of being an operative. This is a necessary rule, if at times a hard one to stick to, because it really doesn’t help to call someone an agent since it can almost never be proven.”
The internet (at this point) is set up so nobody even needs to be an operative anymore!
Conspiracy factoids are now auto generated.
It’s cool. Everybody can rest easy.
“In the future, everyone will be a government agent for 15 minutes”
Or a cop:
Another thing to think about:
“Fortune favors the ones who dare”
“I no longer get invited on other people’s podcasts, though this used to happen quite a bit in my Aeolus days (even Jan Irvin backed away from having me on his podcast recently); …”
# That’s just too bad. – You make more sense than ever, but probably only for those who have been following your work through all the ups and downs. On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the irritation of Lavenda et al, because I myself was once – a long time ago – accused by you of being an operative. You tend(ed) to be overly paranoid, or, it depends, “lucid”, and this is what your “disagreement” with Lavenda et al may come down to: people confronted with the same set of information derive entirely different conlusions depending on their respective levels of paranoia (lucidity), ceteris paribus. And paranoia (lucidity) is “visceral”, not logical. As you write: “I think this is one of the main failures of communication between Levenda and myself: that I argue viscerally, intuitively, and not so much intellectually.” This communication gap reminds me of this protagonist of an action movie who knows the bomb will go off – and nobody believes him, because he is too emotional about it, or the Jewish mother that is labeled “insane” and “psychotic” because she makes “outlandish” accusations. I guess it is “rational” to dismiss the child abuse narrative. Liminality is liminality because it is being crushed by rationality! What somebody sees and how and how much s/he sees, ultimately, depends on their status position within the social fabric. It, therefore, can be surmised that you / we – low-status liminalists – will never be able to “rock the boat”, or challenge the status quo, or intimidate “responsible men”, as – if I remember correctly – one of your high-status family members let you know in no uncertain terms. “Sorrow is knowledge, those that know the most must mourn the deepest, the tree of knowledge is not the tree of life.” (Byron)
Kutuman: Perhaps they are most fearful of the fact that ” it doesnt work”, being a crutch for many , perhaps . I am of the mind that it works only to well , and my understanding is that you are saying that it has been hijacked and seeded with certain imagery to achieve certain ends by certain people , and that the wildly common Golden Dawn imagery is perhaps wildly tainted. Do you admit any possibility that there might be occultists out there using imagery and symbolism that doesnt program them into occult intelligence operatives ? . It is quite nefarious that people may be unwitting members of an outer court feeding energy to a dark and rotten inner court , though i suspect that may not be true 100% across the board . (inc. corrected typo)
I think the “dark and rotten inner court” is one especially disowned area of the human unconscious, and, to answer your question (which I think has been put to me before, tho maybe not by you), I think there may be a way to use occult symbolism that is relatively benign and harmless, even productive, just as there may be a way to use marijuana (Robert Altman made some of the best American movies ever made while stoned). Astrology overlaps with occultism, and even Jungian psychology does; so where’s the line between study, application, and ritual, exactly?
The more relevant question seems to be, if occultism works (& I would agree that it does), then what does it work for? Occultism works to achieve personal goals, but can spiritual liberation/psychic wholeness be a personal goal if the person we are referring to is, by definition (lacking wholeness), a fragment of the whole psyche whose actual aim is always going to be the continuance of its own petty dominion, i.e., to maintain the illusion of its autonomous existence apart from the whole? The problem with occultism seems to be the same problem we encounter with every human endeavor, that the end results are determined not by conscious intentions but by unconscious drives.
If there’s a continuity between Christian ideology and the burning of witches (the one being the rationale for the other), then maybe there’s also a continuity between occultist ideology (the will to power) and the abuse of children. This doesn’t mean that every Christian burns witches or that every occultist abuses children, and to jump to that sort of literalist interpretation, as Levenda did, is to almost willfully ignore the nuances of what we know about human behavior and the unconscious, that these activities occur across a spectrum of human awareness and social strata, even while certain forms of belief do tend towards certain kinds of action.
From this we don’t need to extrapolate (tho we can) that occultism is a gateway drug that might lead to harder stuff (ritual abuse); isn’t it enough to know that the thick end of the wedge (actual organized abuse) is going to be connected to a thinner end, which is that occultist rituals (like drugs, and maybe sex & rock & roll too) depend on subtle kinds of self-traumatization to achieve their results? By extension, an attraction to such beliefs and rituals would itself be symptomatic of unprocessed trauma. Traumatic reenactment can work; but 99 times out of 100, since the effect of trauma is that we are fragmented and acting unconsciously & compulsively, it doesn’t. If it seems to work, I would argue that this appearance comes about through the self-protecting strategy of dissociation which makes all the parts of us that “hurt,” or that make us feel powerless, even more unconscious.
Abe: I myself was once – a long time ago – accused by you of being an operative
😮 Really? How embarrassing. What were the circumstances?
I agree with KKDelxue’s point, sort of, that we are all agents at least some of the time; but of course that’s a more abstract approach; some people are literally being paid and briefed to muddy the waters. But again, the existence of a spectrum makes clearcut identifications difficult, maybe even undesirable.
‘ The more relevant question seems to be, if occultism works (& I would agree that it does), then what does it work for? Occultism works to achieve personal goals, but can spiritual liberation/psychic wholeness be a personal goal if the person we are referring to is, by definition (lacking wholeness), a fragment of the whole psyche whose actual aim is always going to be the continuance of its own petty dominion, i.e., to maintain the illusion of its autonomous existence apart from the whole. The problem with occultism seems to be the same problem we encounter with every human endeavor, that the end results are determined not by conscious intentions but by unconscious drives. ‘
It’s like it’s the seeking energy itself that can be scrutinized or explored, what is it, what is it’s source.
I’m not sure if I agree with you that a person/ fragment (of the whole psyche) is always necessarily going to have as it’s aim ‘to maintain the illusion of its autonomous existence apart from the whole’ ( If that’s indeed what you’re saying ) The essential essence of the fragment – the essence of wholeness – can surely at times come to the forefront of the fragment’s experience and that taste in a way contaminates the fragments desire for seperation or the ‘continuance of its own petty dominion’.(But by then would it be by definition not a fragment or at least a partial fragment!)
‘In one of the upanishads it says – ‘There is the path of joy, and there is the path of pleasure. Both attract the soul. Who follows the first comes to good; who follows pleasure reaches not the end. The two paths lie in front of man. Pondering on them, the wise man chooses the path of joy; the fool takes the path of pleasure.”
I think the path of pleasure being like that ‘continuance of its own petty dominion’. Joy being that essence of wholeness or love.
At least in academic circles, becoming emotional in an argument is seen as a weakness and evidence of being prejudiced, and hence wrong.
In certain APC circles though, like with Icke/Jones, there is a largely unwritten agreement that getting emotional in an argument is somehow a reflection of ones commitment to the “Truth”, and that things like “reputation” are indulgent and illusory items that can be sacrificed in order to “Get the word out to as many people as possible.” I have been guilty of this kind of barnstorming behavior in the past, unconsciously assuming that it would make me somehow invincible…it didn’t.
I’m not saying that you are in this category, it’s just a side comment about a certain trend within the APC.
Yes, I’ve always railed against that sort of emotionalism myself. But I think there’s a middle ground between slick intellectualism and barnstorming. I thought I kept quite level-headed in the exchange with PL, but then, I;m not the best judge of that. I know I *felt* agitated by it & I think I have explained why. It would be different if Jones or Icke explained their browbeating bluster as the result of having a personal issue/being triggered, rather than proof that they “care.”
“I agree with KKDelxue’s point, sort of, that we are all agents at least some of the time; but of course that’s a more abstract approach; some people are literally being paid and briefed to muddy the waters.”
Some people also play along and are rewarded for what they omit.
“But again, the existence of a spectrum makes clearcut identifications difficult, maybe even undesirable.”
You would think it would be undesirable to be a part of any “secret” proceedings.
At one time, in the more enlightened past, Freemasonry was undesirable to a great number of people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party
That’s a weird case study when you think about the people on either side of the issue.
Quite a few things packed in there.
I will say this:
Open access blogs with no censorship have integrity.
Private, secret Facebook groups and the like do not.
All information is suspect at first, information from closed sources is doubly suspect!
Open access blogs with no censorship have integrity.
Private, secret Facebook groups and the like do not.
That’s a blanket statement and one I had to contend with while running SWEDA, which absolutely had to be private & would not have worked otherwise.
I think the notion of having a secret *FB* group, however, is sort of absurd, not to mention oxymoronic. But I have strong prejudices against FB.
Thanks mate , i agree that the bit doing the occultism is indeed a fragment . I have sensed darkness more keenly since beginning the work, both within me and around me , and crashed and burned occultists inevitably succumb to the will to power. Yet something nags away at me that there are other possibilities . A large part of my practice involves observance of the passing of the sun , moon and star constellations as they rotate around me incessantly , and i them . This gives me great comfort somehow , gives me the courage to aspire toward melting back into the blue ball someday to be a patch of soil, a puddle , a gentle breeze , “to be nothing at all”, as Rob Dougan once sang. Do you know he’s just put out some 16 th century orchestral music on his website at http://www.robdougan.com. Pretty cool stuff.
Disclaimer – the author has never had any occult dealings with anyone other than online with JMG , The Liminalist or in real life with books and Jungian analyst , who seems quite sceptical about occultism in general , and appalled by the self help industry !
Abe: I myself was once – a long time ago – accused by you of being an operative
😮 Really? How embarrassing. What were the circumstances?
#
It happened in one of your earlier forums I posted under the pseudonym “Kowalski”, when you were still running SWEDA. My “crime” was, I guess, I was a high-frequency contributor – out of the blue – and it might have looked as if I was trying to interrupt the forum, which by the way is still a problem for me: a painfully slow pace of postings. On a good day I write at least thirty thoughtful emails – so if I engage with a topic I do it “with a vengeance”, so to speak, and this might look off-putting or even intrusive to some; the other thing is – again and again – I realized the limitations of language: unless we deal with raw data and information, it is never quite clear what somebody tries to convey by merely looking at grammatically correct sentences. From my point of view, an email exchange like the one between you and Levenda is doomed to fail from the beginning, because it doesn’t take into account the amount of communication that is nonverbal (up to 90%). This restrictive format forces us to second guess each other, or look for ulterior motives, and finally contribute to outbrakes of pent-up emotional frustrations. (The flip side of the coin is a mutual good feel endorsement, which we see a lot nowadays.) As far as I am concerned, it happened so many times that I felt rejected by misunderstanding that I gave up at some point. The pain became unbearable. That’s why you have my highest admiration for trying again and again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3707840/
25 July 2016
‘Outstanding’ teacher’s career lies in ruins after he’s acquitted in less than half an hour of raping a millionaire’s troubled daughter at a top girls’ private school
Kato Harris was cleared of rape after a trial by a jury in just 26 minutes
His accuser said that the teacher raped her three times in a classroom
It emerged that she flew once a week to New York to receive therapy
Mr Harris was described as ‘outstanding’ by his former headmaster
But even so his case, which ended yesterday with a jury clearing him of three counts of rape after less than half an hour of deliberations, raises serious questions as to why charges were ever brought in the first place. His accuser, the daughter of a wealthy family, was unhappy at her school.
And there is another troubling aspect about the case. After the girl made the allegations, her parents employed the services of top legal firm Mishcon de Reya.
To help the family they in turn engaged Sue Akers, who in 2012 retired as deputy assistant commissioner after 36 years with the Metropolitan Police.
To say the involvement of such a high ranking former officer in an on-going investigation was unusual is an understatement. Indeed Detective Constable Sarah Lloyd, the officer leading the investigation, went so far as to describe it as ‘unique’.
reps secret space program. check.
hangs with Joseph Farrell. check.
chats with Strieber. check.
the whole ‘Simon’ thing
how is he NOT a joker !?
what’s your specific truck with Joseph Farrell?
I don’t know, his mustache. I don’t have a specific one. He seems a jolly guy with interesting things to say, but aren’t all of these writers playing the same game ? Maybe lying/omitting things to readers on purpose, maybe not. If history and science and occultism are mostly junk lies.. how could you write about World War 2 science or inner/outer space and say it’s any kind of truth ? To me the only difference between Strieber and Farrell is that the life of a modern-day writer didn’t drive Farrell mad.
I guess you could say that these writers empower their readers.. to live “better” lives outside of the Matrix ? To learn REAL history and science.. for $20 a month you get even more empowerment..
Or we are back to the, ‘once your needs are met everything else is entertainment’ thing. At least Auticulture is free..
My end of a PM chat with Jason Witherspoon:
i guess i have always felt that levenda’s motivations were unclear, even back when i read those books
my wife says the best tell for someone being sincere is that they seem to be engaged with working on a personal mystery
i never got that from PL
[JW asked what PL’s “message” might be]:
hard to say but he does seem to have got a lot of mileage out of talking about weaponized islam lately
& talks at secret space program meets; and endorses strieber heavily
i got the sense after our last interview that he’d (PL) spoken too frankly and come off message
[JW asked about Farrell (speaking of secret space programs)]:
i have not read farrell but I am put off by his output
when you asked at the group “who is your favorite researcher” i was tempted to say “no one” (esp now mcgowan is dead)
i just don’t respond to most other researchers out there; they dont seem genuine, which doesnt mean they are spooks, or bad, just that they are spinning yarns without knowing it
(Which of course doesn’t mean I’m not; but where’s the *angst*? all these dudes are too smooth; and they have mustaches)
weaponized Islam is a big seller right now. secret space, not so much. too much anti-NASA/fake space/flat Earth stuff around
Farrell paints with such a broad brush that he can always make a living being jolly.. and wearing that cowboy hat
..doesn’t hurt that he has 30 books on Amazon
your Panama hat is nice.. but it comes across that you are trying to be honest
and it probably makes you unmarketable to plebs
and untouchable for.. ahem, alternative researchers
I’ve waited for someone to come along with an honest critique of Farrell’s work, but have yet to see one (unless you want to include UFO spook-extraordinaire Stanton Friedman panning his book on Roswell). Mustaches & Monetizing one’s research seem no great crime to me. Are all authors now expected to suffer day jobs to prove their authenticity? Jasun attempted the very same thing – sans the ‘stache. Is Farrell’s crime that he actually succeeded? From what I’ve heard he only barely makes his way, and that’s with continuous daily labor & output. If you imagine even 30 books on Amazon (on v. arcane subject matter) makes an author some kind of Ickean-level income, you’d be overestimating the ‘zon’s sales commissions. I wonder what you mean by “broad brush,” mikeb. Have you read even one of his books, or just skimmed the titles?
it might be more helpful to tell us what you like about Farrell; I have nothing against the guy, he replied to my email; I just didn’t get a green light when I listened to his voice, as in, yes, this is someone I can connect to. I often don’t, so all that really proves is that I don’t feel an affinity….
That said, my felt sense (aka bias?) is that 90% of alt. researchers are on message whether they know it or nor. There’s something about the work that’s out there (& I would include what I have read of Levenda here), it’s kind of weightless, without context. Disembodied.
Hey Alex, I’ve read the Banksters book, the Transhumanist one with Scott deHart and listened to dozens of episodes of the byte show.. and also, pretty hostel tone there.. anyway
I’ll start with “broad brush”.. In no way did I mean to imply that there is no detail in his books. what I mean is that he covers a pretty wide range of alt-subjects. so no matter the current trend is he can always generate a book. I think that plus his charming interview style make him successful
of course I don’t imagine that 30 books on Amazon makes you Neal Stephenson money. I’m saying, to me, it shows that he is accepted or safe
At best isn’t Ferrell assuming his research is close enough and then writing a book ? I’m not saying he needs to own a thrift store to be taken seriously as an alternative historian or soul-maker, but I can feel that he is just being silly and that’s ok
I do like his catch phrase “high-octane speculation” though and I think should be applied to his entire body of work
to be honest I have this same “might as well be fiction” opinion about all these alt space robot alien conspiracy dudes
I’d rather be reading Stephenson’s speculative fiction
Sorry if I triggered you dawg
Auticulture : comes for the jokes about alt researchers, stay for people who defend them
>>I’ll start with “broad brush”.. In no way did I mean to imply that there is no detail in his books. what I mean is that he covers a pretty wide range of alt-subjects. so no matter the current trend is he can always generate a book. I think that plus his charming interview style make him successful<>of course I don’t imagine that 30 books on Amazon makes you Neal Stephenson money. I’m saying, to me, it shows that he is accepted or safe<<
Not sure I understand you… you are saying he is "acceptable" because Amazon sells his books… are there really researchers out there so beyond the pale that Amazon won't sell their books? Jim Fetzer's Sandy Hook one comes to mind, I think, maybe? They sell Jasun's books, too, though, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea.
You are obviously welcome to your own opinions and preferences, as am I.
Ugh… the formatting or something destroyed half the post I wrote. What gives?
>>I’ll start with “broad brush”.. In no way did I mean to imply that there is no detail in his books. what I mean is that he covers a pretty wide range of alt-subjects. so no matter the current trend is he can always generate a book. I think that plus his charming interview style make him successful
Agreed on his interview style helping him, but I would ask where in his output you think he “generated a book” to capitalize on a “current trend.” His latest is about 9/11, which has long past its expiration date as a trend. Before that was an rather unsexy book on the origins of the EU. Before *that* was ‘Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age’ which is about as dry and obscure a book on the middle-ages as the title sounds. Seems to me he writes what he wants whenever he wants to write it.
Yeah, my comment was more addressed to mike; I didn’t sense that you had any issue with him. Nothing wrong with not connecting to his material.
Sitting here trying to come up with reasons why I like him, I realize it’s much easier to critique someone’s apparent faults than it is to give them praise. I don’t want to come off like a sycophant, or that I think he’s Right About Everything. I think he does good, original work. I am personally open to a lot of different approaches to ‘alt. research,’ & to me Farrell’s take on history is admirably way further ‘out’ than most & yet simultaneously more plausible, backed by a rigor in his research that simply doesn’t exist in most conspiracy writers. It doesn’t hurt that I actually met him once, sat & talked with him at a picnic table during the SSP conference, where he was fully embodied, gracious, & humble. There’s no mystery with him, no self-imposed mythos, no ‘right-place, right-time’ stuff, as with PL. He appeared as just a bookish, chain-smoking nerd from South Dakota with an incredible mind for detail & a unique take on human history. Again, not saying he’s 100% the authority on everything, but I don’t see in him the possibility for sinister goings-on like I might with Levenda, who I respect, or certainly Strieber, who to me is the poster child for intel-backed social programming.
Now, anticipating the response: “but Farrell has been a guest on Strieber’s radio show! Simultaneously with Levenda, even! Hoagland, too! How can you say that Strieber is CIA (or whatever) while giving Farrell a pass?” I don’t think it’s as simple (or complex?) as that. At a certain point we are *all* CIA, ie, we are all vessels of some sort, & the moment we project ourselves into media-space, we are working for Them in some capacity. It’s when I get into this sort of speculation that I leave the Farrell/Levenda-type footholds behind (whose pictures of the world, however comprehensive, suddenly seem woefully incomplete) & rely on my own intuition to further climb the Holy Mountain, or whatever metaphor for truth-seeking you wish to use.
Well it counts for a lot that you spoke to the guy and can base your judgement on that. One thing I think I’ve noticed is that for many people there seems to be no line between addressing direct criticisms about a person’s output or behaviors and judging the person in toto as a human being. Yet the two are universes apart.
so it goes like this (?).. post 9/11 Farrell does an about-face and starts with Egypt n shit, 2003/2005, safe and easy. next is Nazis, then Space, then Banking, then Transhumanism and now Common Core education and the surveillance state (that last book comes out in a week)
again, Amazon.. yeah, the example of the Sandy Hook book is good. I’m just thinking more.. someone like Farrell isn’t rocking the boat too much, maybe it’s because his books are based on fake history and fake NASA science ?
as for J’s books being on Amazon.. I think if anyone could really grok what’s going on here we’d all be in trouble :p
Read Plato’s Apology. Jasun is Socrates and the Athenians are the Alternative Perceptions Community. It’s not long. It gives insight into what’s going on here, I think.
(I will try to read that; meanwhile, check out my page on Facebook!)
Well, he sure talks a lot for someone who knows nothing. My guess, Plato padded it out so he could get a TV pilot out of it.
This passage stood out: “This investigation has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies, and I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into the wisdom of anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god.”
Ugh. Writings by “Plato”. Whatta read.
What was Plato’s real name anyway?
Many lulz ahead of you on that search! Good luck.
“That said, my felt sense (aka bias?) is that 90% of alt. researchers are on message whether they know it or nor. There’s something about the work that’s out there (& I would include what I have read of Levenda here), it’s kind of weightless, without context. Disembodied.”
All these “ancient” writings are bunk/weightless. Unless carved on stone (and even then!).
Blanket statement? Hell yeah. It’s true though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Estienne
“In 1578, he published a famous edition of the complete works of Plato, translated by Jean de Serres, with commentary. This work is the source of the standard ‘Stephanus numbers’ used by scholars today to refer to the works of Plato.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Serres
So where did Jean get his copy of “Plato” back in 1572? He sure as hell didn’t have stone tablets from 399 BC!
Hint: The Roman church had the only existing “copies” of all this stuff.
No originals can be traced or found anywhere.
Monks were cranking out this pulp fiction under contract. Much of it happened around 800AD.
There was a big push at that time to do it.
If you’re gonna rule the world, you gotta keep everybody on message. YOUR message.
Here’s a nice refreshing non fiction work by Lysander Spooner.
We do have actual copies of his work.
Posted up on the net by the inventor of Autocad:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html
Much of what he lays out applies to this discussion.
And then we have Catherine Austin-Fitts who rounds out the Breakaway Civilization round table, hanging with with the entire Cast of Characters – Farrell, Strieber, Hoagland, etc. She worked for Dillon, Read and Co, a mega Wall Street investment firm who produced many White House level spooks including herself. During the Roswell hoax in 1947, James Forrestal (top spook at Dillon, Read&Co) was installed as the 1st Secretary of Defense (originally Secretary of the Navy.) Forrestal was later ‘suicided’ in 1949.
Catherine speaks common sense with her financial spiel and then lures folks in with talk about trillions of dollars being stolen to fund this elaborate scheme called the Breakaway Civilization. Utter nonsense. Interestingly, Catherine never talks about her association with the 1st Secretary of Defense which is a very big deal, imo.
KK- totally agree about ‘ancient’ texts being manufactured by the Catholic church or changed to serve their purpose.
kate – tons of good info from John Bartram about the fraudulent manufacture of “ancient” documents and historical figures:
http://origins-of-christianity.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/some-real-conspiracies.html
” I do, of course, have an interest in this, as my evidence-based history describes a fraud which could fairly be described as conspiratorial: in the eighth century (most likely), The Holy Roman Empire – founded in imitation of the Roman Empire, in which the emperor is pontiff (Pontifex Maximus) and divine – changed Chrest to Christ in the sacred texts and invented a mythological, textual tradition for itself, posing as history.
I’ve described how this was achieved, through founding (Carolingian) monasteries, in which scriptoria produced both rewritten Roman histories (starting with those of Josephus) and inventing whole, new genres (such as anti-heresies and hagiographies), as well as both new histories and the fictional authors (e.g. Eusebius of Caesarea) to go with them.
Now, if you read Lysander Spooner’s writings, you will see an 1870’s look at this situation.
Part II has a bit directly related to this discussion:
“The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes—a large class, no doubt—each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.”
Many “conspiracy” writers and the like are either “Knaves” themselves, or employed by them (wittingly or unwittingly).
It’s all about keeping the current government of a country in power. Literally *everything* is tied to this fact.
The US govt. has flat out admitted this in writing a few times.
Writers who are over the target either catch flak, or are ignored.
Sometimes the target wants to remain silent for fear of being noticed.
Lysander details that whole secrecy deal very well.
Writers that don’t catch flak…and have a happy smooth money making career..aren’t over any targets.
Their work can safely and properly be placed in the realm of fiction.
And now for our musical break:
“Just like Hemingway, he showed me anyway. You can be a hero all you have to know is what to say…….”
http://www.afterschoolsatan.com/
these aren’t the droids you’re looking for
mikeb – That site would be hilarious if it was not sad.
First off…look at the little cartoon satan guy in lower right.
Looks like a cool guy to hang out with. Puke. A gross looking screwy eyed devil dude with a candycane!
It’s awesome how they show satan as a mascot though. It lets slip that he’s just a marketing gimmick of their own creation.
Now the next part.
Hey, ya know, satan is the *only* other choice you can have to counter those god people.
So nice of them to suggest you join their specific weak sauce creep parade.
It’s *always* about giving up your freewill.
Join a church (whatever flavor, even satans fake mirror image church), join up and swear an oath to defend a mythical govt. etc.
Become a “magician”, but “work with” (lol you mean beg) undefined “spirits” to give you a leg up.
It’s amazing anyone falls for this stuff these days.
I know, riiiiiight.. let us make these spooks.. and let us make them dark
😮 Officially gobsmacked. How about that video for an example of rationalism in action?
Is this actually happening?
From the site:
National Council for Civil Liberties was the tree from which P.I.E sprouted, so history may be repeating itself….
“These are the environments into which the After School Satan Clubs (ASSC) are being inserted and, in contrast to the Good News Clubs, our curriculum will focus on free inquiry, rationalism, and scientific understanding.”
Ahahahahahahahah. The nanosecond you mention “satan” there goes free inquiry, rationalism and scientific understanding.
“Proselytization is not our goal, and we’re not interested in converting children to Satanism.”
Ahahahahahahaha. Wink wink, satan with a candycane.
These people are liars of a second order.
Liars of the first order are the christian fakes that came first.
“Choose second best, choose satan!”
“Today, The Satanic Temple [TST] (an organization I co-founded and act as spokesperson for) announced that we will be operating after school clubs in public elementary schools across the nation this school year. ”
Follow the money as always….these fake fronts don’t do anything for free.
They would flip out if you showed up and handed their “students” some brochures about choosing freewill, Hegelian hijinks, govt. sponsored disinfo etc. Test *their* limits of free inquiry.
What about the acronym? ASS want your child(‘s ass)? I’m sorry, this isn’t funny. But it’s there in pain sight.
Yes.
“These are the environments into which the After School Satan Clubs (ASSC) are being inserted”
Satan’s “clubs”…are being inserted….into your children’s….environments.
This is probably some NLP type deal. That’s been all the rage for a while now.
I’ve always found Satanists and Christian Fundamentalist tend to stick together, like a codependent couple. Where you find a lot of one, you’ll find a lot of the other. Their belief systems appear to be opposed, but in fact are complementary.
E.g. ” the program places “a heavy emphasis on sin (~5000 mentions), obedience (>1000 mentions), punishment (~1000 mentions), and hell (>250 allusions, including 52 direct uses of the word “Hell”). Children are told, in very personal terms, that they are sinful, wicked, deceitful, and deserving of punishment, death, and an eternity of suffering in hell.”
Exactly. Well said. How both of them are very much alike is the fact not many want to face.
I think you did a pretty good job in your disscussion with Mr Levenda.
Yes, were there areas you speculated in or sounded somewhat biased? Absolutely. But we all are.
Mr Levenda came off a little grumpy and fired a few bombs when he didn’t need to. Such as the “witch hunt” comment. I don’t think you were doing any such thing.
That said, I myself am very happy to keep studying Mr Levendas work. I believe he carries a high degree of integrity.
Just as I’m learning from your site that you seem to also. Thank you.
A glacially slow reply from me on this topic.
This quote from a rambling webpage I found relates to Peter Levenda (and others of course).
It reminded me of something I noticed on his Rune Soup podcast appearance.
http://www.aamorris.net/
“These mysteries must remain unsolved or the audience won’t come back for more. An external guide or conspiracy guru is usually put forth as an ‘expert’ and ‘researcher’ who then, more often than not, and wittingly or unwittingly, proceeds to liberally mix some truth with a lot of fantasy. No real answers or only absurd ones are offered. The mystery remains an eternal and seemingly paradoxical one.”
Preaching to the choir I know…..
http://runesoup.com/2016/07/talking-spirits-and-geopolitics-with-peter-levenda/
@ 53:52 to 56:17 the question of why the “Sinister Forces” book title.
Especially the 55:25 – 56:17 part.
He ends with a description of these “sinister forces”.
“What is it?”…then a full screeching stop.
In that tiny moment he basically admits that he has no idea what these “forces” are.
Seriously, is that all you and Gordon White got?
Even though Levenda has spent his *entire* life supposedly documenting his “findings”, he is literally no closer than a random Joe Sixpack to *any* actual conclusive endpoint. He lords his supposedly superior knowledge of a couple mystical systems and magic over on anybody who questions…what good did learning all that occult crap do?
How can you tell if he is an authority on anything at all?
Why should anyone read his books if they only end in a question mark?
Sounds (smells,quacks etc.) just like John Keel. Note title of his posthumous website lol.
At least Western New Yorkers are honest!
JOHN KEEL: NOT AN AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING
http://www.johnkeel.com/?page_id=21
http://www.mothmanlives.com/john-keel.html
“Keel claimed that while in the Army he was trained in psychological warfare as a propaganda writer.”
Notice also that these guys never exhort their readers to get out there and help with getting to the bottom of things. Calls to activism are non existent.
Keel literally warned his readers (in print) not to even try to do any real life research themselves!
To me, this is one of the giant red flags that outs writers of fiction/propaganda/etc.
Jasun, your writings are solidly gonzo first person compared to these guys.
You also try to reach real conclusions, not just question marks.
Real writers have to have the balls to come out and say “I think it goes like this…..”
Thanks KK, this is meaningful criticism & praise.
I actually think Keel’s work is a lot more committed (and personal) than PL’s, and definitely more insightful. I might not like it so much now, since I’d say his speculation is rather whole-cloth-y ; he may also have been writing fiction, a la Strieber, he seems to be keen to jump all the way to metaphysical readings well before turning over every last stone of human subterfuge.
White strikes me as an occultism-advocate, like so many of these guys, which is becoming less & less defensible as a position, except for the (lame) argument that we need to fight the forces of evil using their own weapons, or something.
Another random tidbit…..
Reading “The Eighth Tower” from Keel now (Pg 31):
” Parapsychologists claim that everyone has psychic ability, but I question this.
When a nonpsychic undertakes a program to develop these abilities,
he or she runs the risk of so-called ‘possession’. That is, some
outside force, or the percipient’s own unconscious mind, is
able to interfere with the conscious mind, which has made
itself receptive to such interference through psychic training.
Many talented psychics are themselves ‘overshadowed’ or
possessed when they adopt extreme beliefs. ”
“Those who enter into and attempt to practice witchcraft and the black arts
run the same risk and very often end up being controlled by
the very forces they are trying to control.”
John Keel shows his hand. This guy corresponded with Keel and met him in person only 3 or 4 times per the article:
https://digitalseance.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/john-keel-vs-ufology/
“I have a personal history with Keel, whom I have known since if memory serves early 1967, when Charles Bowen, then editor of Flying Saucer Review, brought us together. We entered into correspondence. I was young, impressionable, modestly read, uncritically minded, and in the fashion of the period susceptible to paranoia.”
“In any event, I grew up, and away from Keel, though once he had confided his hope that one day I would be the next generation’s John A. Keel. Though I had thought the parting was amicable, I was wrong. As late as the 1990s, long after our personal interaction consisted in its entirety of no more than the rare pleasant note and the even rarer crossing of paths, he was madly spreading slanders whose subject was lapsed Keelist Jerome Clark. When at last I confronted Keel on the matter, he replied that he was only pointing out the obvious, which is that I… “live in a world of paranoid conspiracies and illiterate misconceptions. To curb this you may need extensive psychotherapy, coupled with drug treatment. You are ill and have been haunted by this illness all your life.” And so on. In short, the usual charming way of dispatching critics: they say those things because they’re crazy, in the most clinical sense of the adjective. For good measure, he added the to-me-amusing observation that I have fallen for hoax after hoax.” [xiii] (xiii. Letter dated March 27, 1996.)
So yeah. These “gatekeeper” types are legion.
Good thing is, they always wind up revealing themselves to varying degrees.
They have to “stick to the script” and can’t deviate from it.
This manifests in all kinds of behavior. Lording stuff over on people, appeals to authority, pissy blog posts toward any questioners, non responses to direct questions in public forums etc. And of course direct threats in writing.
Peter Levenda has apparently “come out” as a former intelligence officer:
“He is also a member of AFIO (the Association of Former Intelligence Officers: https://www.afio.com/)”
(see: http://oneradionetwork.com/all-shows/peter-levenda-shocking-alternative-conventional-views-american-history-castro-watergate-manchurian-candidates-deep-state-government-november-28-2016/)
A little odd since he recently made a point of stating, after the pic of him & Podesta came out, that he had never belonged to the CIA or other agencies; I forget the exact wording but it was meant to indicate that he had never done intell. work….
Clap. Clap. Clap.
Wonder if he has the mousepad and the “Secret Ops Of The CIA” calendar on his wall!
That’s some sweet swag!
Oh, I checked the membership ethics section:
“AFIO’s Board of Directors vests the President of AFIO with the power to enforce these membership obligations by removing from membership, with concurrence of the Executive Committee [EXCOM], any member who, in the judgment of the EXCOM, gives cause for dismissal. Such causes include, but are not limited to:
1. Any material misrepresentation of service, employment, or credentials in application for membership, during the duration of membership or when serving in any office in the Association or its chapters.”
So I’m assuming you have to actually be legitimate to join as a member.
Welp…that seals the deal.
No further questions your Honor 😉