Jan Irvin GnosticMedia=CIA Disintel Agent.

Of course, Irvin is a Raging Jew-Hater, and severely psychotic. He spent quite a bit of time in San Berdadinio County Psychiatric Treatment center, where I met him. This was in the late 1980's and early 1990's, he has serious psychiatric diesease, and has a Police Record of Attacks and Verbal confronts.
BeefLegBeefLeg June 2013


Hrair
I think Gnostic Media was great for a while, when it first started. The interviews were really, really good. Then Jan started expressing his own opinions more and more and it got gross.
Read through the comments on a lot of his audio. He replies to so many in such an irrational way, all the while calling it "Trivium" and screaming "fallacy" at everyone, while his nonsense is just one fallacy after another.
I'm really disappointed in the way he's taken his work. He's done a lot of good, and put out so many hours of interesting material. But he really lost it. I think he let it all go to his head a bit.
BeefLegBeefLeg June 2013
Hrair
I just opened the last show to see the comment thread. Check out how he replies to EVERYONE saying "Where's your citations?" One of the first comments I saw was this:
"It’s nothing but specious rumor, from someone whom I pointed out was already in question – a man who sells blood diamonds to support the Zionists who have an agenda against the Vatican..."
In the same comment, all a rambling tirade against one short comment, he goes on:
"But my god, have the brains, the common sense, to understand what the onus of proof is and don’t be a lazy ass and spread lies if you haven’t verified them YOURSELF. If you have NO EVIDENCE it’s called arguing the arbitrary and is dimissed by default, so therefore you lose, no name calling or lazy ass excuses necessary. And how lame to go through life believing all these lies you tell yourself rather than spending just a few minutes to verify them before you believe them. I’ve said it so many times… why haven’t you heard that?"
The reason I point these out is that if you look through the comments of ANY of his shows, there's a thousand like this. The man is psychologically unstable and doing the psychedelic movement harm, in my opinion.
Sansome September 2013


Hrair
The thing is with people like Irvin, they are clearly on an agenda.
Someone posted earlier a response suggesting that Irvin can back up all his claims. Then I would suggest people go up and check out these sources before proclaiming his position infallible.
What is interesting is that they (Irvin and the likes of his followers and on-line big mouths like Thomas Sheridan, who says similar things, but if anyone question him, he calls them Psychopaths..easy is it not?) use interpretations of words and phrases to make their claims. These interpretations can be utterly ridiculous when looked at properly and then reveal that the entire argument is flawed at its most basic, and thus the entire conclusion is erroneous.
It also comes across as if this creating of a false premise and thus conclusion is deliberate. No one can be so silly surely.
One example requires us to believe that the Esalen adherents were Eugenists. The notion of Eugenist is implied as a maniacal monster who would kill people to reduce the world population. Yet if we look at any lecture on the subject by the likes of Terence Mckenna, it is clear what he means by Eugenics, and it is not sinister by any means, just his earnest concern about overpopulation and the entirely "Humane" ways in which mankind might keep it under control.
This also has to be taken into context as in the period of the 70's through to the 90's (and much longer before and after I'll wager) many people feared that the world population was to explode and become unmanageable. Hence many reasonable people would consider this in light of sustainability. Mckenna et al were such people. Right or wrong in this concern, should we condemn them as evil plotters of the down fall of the common man?
Aldous Huxley is also condemned in a way that must have him turning in the grave.
These arguments are entirely contrived and designed to create cognitive dissonance as some of the most enlightened minds and means (entheogen/Shamanic) are denigrated and denied to us by these "commentators".
edicius13HAHAedicius13HAHA September 2013


Hrair
I think dude's interesting.
[Deleted User] September 2013
I really enjoyed this conversation: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/an-interview-with-prof-john-rush-pt-5-entheogens-and-the-development-of-culture-171/
Post edited by [Deleted User] at 2013-10-02 13:06:09
[Deleted User] September 2013
This is a good place to start:
[Deleted User] September 2013
http://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/6FBA86B0-0C57-9FCA-5CF9-D742DA541AAA
prettygoodprettygood September 2013
Hrair
He needs to give that white Kangol a break.
Does it have Mrs. Piggy? Does it have a clown? Then why is it funny?
Sansome September 2013


Hrair
Just consider what I wrote please.
If people are deliberately colouring the waters, then nothing that they say can be taken at face value, or seriously.
Worse than that, it is a then is damaging tool of disinformation.
For truth to become contaminated it requires the smallest amount of toxic information. If that information is coming closer to the source of a matter (and this is, think about it, if people cannot use Shamanic tools for some inner growing and a clear objective look at what is supposedly "real", then most will not ever experience by any direct means, the truth of what we are involved in) , then that Truth is very powerful, but also utterly disempowered by the smallest of contaminations in the right place.
A little change here and there of words or even just the interpretation of a word here and there can Totally destroy the truth of a matter. Now if we cannot see that....?!
And that is certainly what this diatribe of Irvin sounds like.
In truth direct experience of the wider consciousness should be enough for people to know what is and what is not. Irvin's is an attempt to ensure that less people take this path....it is "exactly" the same message that the establishment put out.."don't go there, its DANGEROUS"!
Can it be any clearer?


Post edited by Sansome at 2013-09-28 04:22:36
orgoneorgone September 2013
I'm a Troll. Don't Feed Me.
@Sansome I agree with you on the effects, but I have a feeling Jan Irvin is a victim of the very fear about psychedelics he's spreading. I don't know how many drugs he's done, but he obviously needs to go back to the well.
The truth about psychedelics cannot be removed through the means of negative propaganda. The truth about psychedelics lies in their use. As long as they are there to be digested, those in the know will rightfully mock anyone who has put themselves in Irvin's psychic posture.
Post edited by orgone at 2013-09-28 23:39:34
image


mysterybuddhamysterybuddha September 2013
Hrair
Me thinks Jan needs to get laid, and stop with the "everyone who disagrees is working for the Mossad,CIA, Banks, etc". Fucking clown of the earth.
@mysterybuddha
www.suredesigntshirts.com
sherpa17 August 2014
Hrair
Guy sounds like a cross between Rush Limbaugh and Rainman with rabies on the latest THC.
http://thehighersidechats.com/
mysterybuddhamysterybuddha August 2014
Hrair
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
@mysterybuddha
www.suredesigntshirts.com
piledawg August 2014
Hrair
mysterybuddha said:
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If all one has is a hammer, then all one can do is strike out in any direction till contact with something is made generating a reaction. A nail would be nice but not necessary.


[DeletedUser] August 2014
Hrair
That THC interview was great despite Jan's argumentative approach. No one can deny that he is well researched and I admire that about him and in my opinion for that very reason (his dedication to accuracy in research) he brings far more to the table than any psychedelic aficionado.
That being said here are some of the qualms I had with some of the theories that Jan presented during that interview. It seems convenient that Jan changed his view from the early Christians used the mushroom for spiritual reasons to the early Christians essentially used them for mind control (suggestibility is the word I believed he used) much like the CIA. It would appear that had he stuck to Allegro's original theory that early Christians used the mushroom for spiritual purposes it would directly contradict his claims that R. Gordon Wasson in collaboration with the CIA was the first individual to invent this notion that mushrooms can be used for religious purposes. And that Wasson actually “forced” his “pre-conceived religion” on the Mexican tribe (Mahaca/Masatec [sp?] Indians) he spent time with to use the mushroom in this religious manner so that he could go around promoting the mushrooms in this manner to our society.
Prior to that the tribe used the mushroom for non spiritual purposes and Jan cites a lady by the name of Maria Sabina as evidence that Wasson came to Mexico in order to corrupt the Mexican tribe to help push his agenda to westerners (i.e. he couldn't admit that the CIA came up with this notion that psychedelics help you commune with God so he use these Indians as his source). According to Jan, Maria Sabina was “furious with Wasson” because prior to his arrival and subsequent coercion “nobody [in the tribe] took the mushrooms to commune with God”.
To be fair maybe he was only referring to the Mexican tribe that used the mushroom for things other than religious experiences and not every and I am also not sure if he was referring only to psilocybin mushrooms or also to the amanita muscaria (or also to all psychedelics which he seems to suggest later on in the interview when he claims that McLuhan came up with this idea of marketing psychedelics by introducing the idea that they will help you connect with God) which the Christian mushroom cult allegedly centered around (that last part wouldn't matter as much since he scraped his view that the early Christians used the mushroom to commune with God or for any other spiritual/religious reasons).
Side note: By the way what is Jan's counter-argument to the argument that the amanita muscaria is not native to the parts of the world where Christianity originated?
Later on in the interview he says that Marshall McLuhan originally came up with the idea of associating psychedelics with religion and spirituality and maybe I am reaching but Jan seems to suggest that this started with McLuhan and no people/culture in the history of psychedelic usage considered these drugs to have spiritual/religious purposes.
Jan however openly admits that one of the uses by tribal peoples of psychedelics is healing, yet he denies that they use it for spiritual reasons. The present day ancestors of Amazonian tribes (the shamans specifically) use ayahuasca to commune with spirits while on the drug (among other things) in order to conduct this healing if I am not mistaken. Communing with spirits would in essence be a spiritual usage of this psychedelic. Obviously Wasson did not individually go to every tribe that conducts this spiritual usage of psychedelics and force them to do this. In other words it predates Wasson's/McCulhan's supposed invention of the use of psychedelics for spiritual reasons. This is one aspect of his theory which I feel Jan should revise.
Side note: Jan also says that the mushrooms were used by the Mexican tribe not for religious reasons but “specifically to heal people from the sickness that our culture suffers from” (among other things). I wonder if he believes that this is a valid reason for the members of our society to use mushrooms. He implied that whatever name was assigned to mushrooms by the CIA would influence the experience of the user, so I don't see why he wouldn't believe that these drugs can be used in a positive psychologically healing manner despite the fact that he settled for the name “suggestogens” i.e. drugs that make you susceptible to “hyper-suggestibilty” (I also found it interesting that Jan still consumes marijuana).
It is getting late, if I still feel motivated I will comment on what Jan said in regards to the Kennedy assassination and Huxley's death tomorrow (I was too tired to proof read the above more than once, so my apologizes for any grammatical/spelling errors).


Post edited by [DeletedUser] at 2014-08-18 04:02:50
TodesangstTodesangst August 2014
Hrair
zor said:
Also, this 3 part interview is great
I've only watched part of the first vid, but I heard of Colin Ross years before I heard of Irvin, and in the midst of the case(s) he makes about mind-control, I heard some pretty sketchy stuff regarding himself and some of his past UFO views, and his contributions to the "Satanic Panic" of the 80s and disputed MPD theories that show up in so many conspiranoia circles. Here's an interesting article dissecting some of these allegations of malpractice around him (and his lazer eyes):


http://www.process.org/discept/2010/02/08/dr-colin-a-ross-psychiatry-the-supernatural-and-malpractice-most-foul/
"According to one expert witness, it was the worst case of medical malpractice he had ever seen. The patient, Ms. Roma E. Hart, had been grossly over-medicated into a prolonged state of deranged confusion, during which time the offending psychiatrist, Dr. Colin A. Ross, had instilled her with exotic and perverse delusions: To wit, the rather implausible belief that her family was involved in an occult crime-ring dedicated to a supernatural evil, and that Hart herself had been forcibly impregnated by extraterrestrials, birthing a hybrid infant (presumably in the course of a routine alien abduction). The magnitude of Ms. Hart’s mistreatment during her submission to psychiatric “care” brought her to the precipice of death on several occasions."
who are the head-fuckers here?


Post edited by Todesangst at 2014-08-19 01:11:16
image
mysterybuddhamysterybuddha August 2014
Hrair
well written piece on Jan.
http://groupnameforgrapejuice.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-ship-of-sun-is-drawn-1.html


@mysterybuddha
www.suredesigntshirts.com
psillytom October 2014
Hrair
Only amateurs and the ignorant take Jan Irvin seriously. It is no coincidence that *every single person* that ever supported him in the psychedelic research community wants nothing to do with him. From his former writing partner Andrew Rutajit (who has a restraining order against that lunatic) to Carl Ruck at BU (a TRUE scholar that considers Irvin a phony), no one with any historical training (or basic sense) believes Jan Irvin. Even Judith Anne Brown (John Allegro's daughter) thinks that Irvin is a fraud at this point. One person tried to give him a platform to speak, Ben Sessa, and Irvin started acting a maladjusted fool (as he is want to do), and Sessa pulled his invitation.
Why anyone takes that nutjob seriously is beyond me. His citations are nonsense. And he knows it, which is why he never actually defends them. He just tells *you* to study the Trivium (which he doesn't even pronounce correctly, btw).
Here is that buffoon's argumentation style broken down:
1. He says something ridiculous.
2. An intelligent person says, "Gee Jan, that sounds ridiculous."
3. Jan says, "You're making an argument to ridicule, so I don't have to answer to you!"
That's his entire method. Why do you think he claims to be such a *great* debater, but yet he never debates anyone?
I personally offered to meet him at the podium to discuss his ridiculous ideas and he cried and hid like the fraud he knows he is. Poor bastard. (BTW: this was *after* he said he'd mop the floor with me during an interview).
Pathetic.
He's also the most boring speaker and most horrific writer the psychedelic research community has ever known. Why do you think he publishes his own books? Cause no publisher that is concerned with the quality of its authors would ever give that fraud a deal. Park Street Press (my publisher), one of the more prominent publishers of psychedelic literature, laughed at him! Even North Atlantic Books (which is pretty lenient with who they publish) won't give that phony the time of day.
He's nothing more than a deadbeat dad, a washed up fool drunk on his own bullshit, and recently, an embezzler. FYI: if you donated any money at all to Irvin for film or research purposes in the past year, call a lawyer and sue him - cause he used your money to pay his rent and car insurance (i.e., embezzlement) instead of putting it towards his ...ahem .... "research" (if you can call it that).
Finally: his entire "1960s counterculture CIA op." bullshit theory can be easily debunked through a basic analogy:
Let's say you walk into a Starbucks and order a coffee. Then a masked individual comes in and robs the place at gunpoint. According to the genius Jan Irvin, since you were at the Starbucks you were in cahoots with the thief. YES - his connections and "citations" are as weak as that (again, why NO publisher will touch him).
Pathetic.


ehhrrwalehhrrwal October 2014
Hrair
psillytom said:
Only amateurs and the ignorant take Jan Irvin seriously. It is no coincidence that *every single person* that ever supported him in the psychedelic research community wants nothing to do with him. From his former writing partner Andrew Rutajit (who has a restraining order against that lunatic) to Carl Ruck at BU (a TRUE scholar that considers Irvin a phony), no one with any historical training (or basic sense) believes Jan Irvin. Even Judith Anne Brown (John Allegro's daughter) thinks that Irvin is a fraud at this point. One person tried to give him a platform to speak, Ben Sessa, and Irvin started acting a maladjusted fool (as he is want to do), and Sessa pulled his invitation.
Why anyone takes that nutjob seriously is beyond me. His citations are nonsense. And he knows it, which is why he never actually defends them. He just tells *you* to study the Trivium (which he doesn't even pronounce correctly, btw).
Here is that buffoon's argumentation style broken down:
1. He says something ridiculous.
2. An intelligent person says, "Gee Jan, that sounds ridiculous."
3. Jan says, "You're making an argument to ridicule, so I don't have to answer to you!"
That's his entire method. Why do you think he claims to be such a *great* debater, but yet he never debates anyone?
I personally offered to meet him at the podium to discuss his ridiculous ideas and he cried and hid like the fraud he knows he is. Poor bastard. (BTW: this was *after* he said he'd mop the floor with me during an interview).
Pathetic.
He's also the most boring speaker and most horrific writer the psychedelic research community has ever known. Why do you think he publishes his own books? Cause no publisher that is concerned with the quality of its authors would ever give that fraud a deal. Park Street Press (my publisher), one of the more prominent publishers of psychedelic literature, laughed at him! Even North Atlantic Books (which is pretty lenient with who they publish) won't give that phony the time of day.
He's nothing more than a deadbeat dad, a washed up fool drunk on his own bullshit, and recently, an embezzler. FYI: if you donated any money at all to Irvin for film or research purposes in the past year, call a lawyer and sue him - cause he used your money to pay his rent and car insurance (i.e., embezzlement) instead of putting it towards his ...ahem .... "research" (if you can call it that).
Finally: his entire "1960s counterculture CIA op." bullshit theory can be easily debunked through a basic analogy:
Let's say you walk into a Starbucks and order a coffee. Then a masked individual comes in and robs the place at gunpoint. According to the genius Jan Irvin, since you were at the Starbucks you were in cahoots with the thief. YES - his connections and "citations" are as weak as that (again, why NO publisher will touch him).


Pathetic.
Makes sense.
Welcome to the forum, if you're who I think you are based on a google search, it would be supremely fantastic if you could start a thread (or 50) about your work. I hope you didn't visit just to talk about Jan Irvin, I'm definitely interested in learning about you and what you've published.
Gargoyles, garglin' oil
80088008 October 2014

Hrair
not wasting my time in Jan is my thought
As the twig is bent, so grows the tree
GandalfsPipeGandalfsPipe October 2014


Hrair
Tell us more @psillytom, mostly about yourself and your books. Irvin has always offended me just on the fact that he is BORING. I would love to know some of the places to go for honest psychedelic scholarship or communication.
image The wizard finds beauty in all... and smokes mad bowlz!
tea_top-n_eviltea_top-n_evil October 2014


Hrair
He's a part of the diet, only an idiot would whole heartedly cling to his every word or claim, let alone anyone's words or claims. Every one out there pumping out "content" says retarded stuff and has dumb ideas mixed with the good, including duncan, joe, school sucks, jan, peace revolution, molyneux, corbet. If you have a good digestive system for separating the nutritious from the shit, then you're in good shape and you don't need to limit your self from people out of fear of mental corruption, but if your the other way, then yes you need to find the best host possible to suck and parasite from. So is Jan good? it depends on weather you are mentally parasitic or not! There's no shame in being a parasite if that's your nature. I would also recommend religion of some sort for the parasitic, or host seekers seeking a new lord of some sort!
Post edited by tea_top-n_evil at 2014-10-01 14:18:24
tea_top-n_eviltea_top-n_evil October 2014


Hrair
Jan, if your reading, I just got done watching " frozen ground". my woman and I were conversing and we concluded that there seems to be a connection of the 60's drug culture, the Vietnam war, and serial killers developing in this decade, it went from 19 documented serial killers in the 60's to 150 some odd killers in the 70's, peaking to 200 in the 80's, and now they are in decline with nearly all of them being subjected to the 60's. Probably nothing there but seems rather fishy. It would be neat if you could connect some dots yo!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2011/01/blood_loss.html
Post edited by tea_top-n_evil at 2014-10-07 00:55:21