Debunking Jan Irvin

Image result for jan irvin
Joe Rogan and Jan Irvin in happier times. Image: electriccaves.com

Part 2 here

It saddens me that it has had to come to this, but I have let this guy run on talking bullshit about me for about 18 months now, since the end of my series with him Silicon Valley’s Secret Weapon – The Shadow History of Burners. “Turn the other cheek” only goes so far, everyone has limits. Jan Irvin has become the new Douglas Dietrich.

Lately his lies about me have escalated and so has his platform. He has now been on Alex Jones for the 2nd and 3rd appearances, and his latest video guest hosting on Jesse Spots channel is being remixed and promoted by such salubrious Internet characters as Fkn Freddy, Matthew North and Monkey Savant. Are these people all evidence-based researchers? Or actors (lifetime or otherwise), trolls or LARPers trying to direct the narrative towards their own agendas?

In this post I am going to use Logic and Grammar to defend myself from a number of allegations that Jan Irvin has been making about me on various social media channels. Rhetoric will be kept to a minimum, and only to keep the dialog flowing. If you read it all the way to the end, then bless you: you are one of my truest fans, and do me the greatest honor. If you want to skip it and wait for something more entertaining, that’s perfectly fine too.

The main purpose of this post is to get factual information on the record in defense of spurious allegations against me. I will present evidence, and I ask my detractors to do the same.

The information presented is staggered, so in the earlier sections you will get the gist of the post, with important details presented further towards the end.

Meme Wars Begin

Editing a 23 year old video to cherry pick certain words is a new low for someone who claims to be a truther. Many in the comments are sadly “convinced” by this, that’s all it takes.

Jan edited this video to emphasize that in 1996 people using cia.gov email accounts bought software licenses from my company for $29.95. He misses out the many other government agencies and corporations around the world who also bought licenses, but supposedly my disclosure of this to an Australian news program in 1996 is “proof” that I was actually recruited by the CIA and working for them – doing what is never stated by these bozos, but the insinuation is it is something nefarious.

If you are going to accuse me of disinformation, then point to an example of the disinformation.

Here’s the very first slide from my 7.1 part series on Jan’s channel, The 23.5 hours of meticulously compiled and referenced content exposes a major project of the intelligence community, and much of this series is original research that has not been presented anywhere else on the Web. I draw your attention to the “Customers” section in the middle.

The claim that the CIA bought software from my company came directly from me, because it’s true. The software was $29.95, millions of people used it and tens of thousands of organizations, hundreds of thousands of people bought it.

There were more Deep State users than just the CIA, including others I listed on this slide. Why is Jan Irvin so obsessed with this one agency, as if none of the rest of them exist? Shouldn’t he have at least asked me about it? Why did Jan continue hosting me on his channel for dozens more hours of shows if he had any issues with any of my disclosures? Why would I disclose this if I was involved with it in any hidden way? Surely it would be classified.

My unique life experiences have made me an expert on the subject matter I choose to speak about on the Internet. Those who wish to call me a liar need to:

a) provide an example of something that was false

b) show that was deliberate misinformation and not a mistake

c) suggest a motive for me to lie

Reasonable request, right? I’m providing evidence, let my detractors do the same.

If you are going to accuse me of being a secret agent, you are going to have to speculate on what the motive would be. I have released tons of thorough research, much of it brand new to the Internet. How does that do anything for the CIA, or any other group? If you follow my Twitter feed you will see I’m pro-Trump and against the #DeepState and the #PedoGate perps. So are they saying that’s all pretend? Why? Who am I supposed to be spying on, fellow New Zealanders? Burners? They are happy to make insinuations and allegations against me but can’t be bothered to attempt a plausible theory of motive or objective.

I publish real research in my own name – like this #LimoCrash thread which is ongoing

The Front Lines of the Internet

Alex Jones seems to be using Jan Irvin as part of his “Jesus sent me” war against Joe Rogan. If you haven’t caught up with the biggest news in alt-media in 2019 yet here’s a quick introduction:

We have the #1 podcast in the world vs the #1 news broadcast in the world, so this is kind of a big deal. Potentially hundreds of millions of viewers of both audiences combined, with Alex Jones’ platform playing a massive part in the election of Donald Trump in 2016. As a result it is now at the front lines of the Internet battle for freedom of speech vs deplatforming of evidence-based reporting.

Jan Irvin turned Joe Rogan on to DMT and Ayahuasca, and they consumed many other types of hallucinogenic drugs together. Alex said that Jan was one of the people the CIA used to launch this movement on the American people.

Alex claims Joe Rogan is a CIA agent. I have recently shown evidence from Alex’s own statements about AJ’s recruitment into military intelligence. There can be no question that InfoWars is a military/intelligence operation, they even tell you that it is.

Coinciding with Alex’s claims that Joe Rogan is a CIA agent, his new re-guest Jan Irvin is now making the same claims about me – hence the unfortunate need for this post.

Jan claims to be some sort of Christian but has recently been promoting the Russian historical revision of Fomenko (but not the Mudflood), including his insistence that Rome is not in Italy, Jerusalem is not in Israel, and the New Testament was written before the Old Testament. #YMMV, in my opinion Jan has done some good research over the years but also skates a lot on the contributions of his guests and frequently refuses to credit those who have researched the same topics before him.


False Accusations

Jan has made a number of accusations against me recently:

  • that I am a CIA agent
  • that I run “teams of trolls” against him
  • that I am a “pseudo billionaire”
  • that I am a pedophile
  • that I am a Satanist
  • that I walk the Left Hand Path and promote the kabbalistic inversion of the Bible

Every one of these statements is false. I challenge them to present one piece of evidence for any of it – and point out that it is outrageous for people to make such accusations without providing proof.

I’m not a “pseudo” anything. I never claimed to be a billionaire or did anything to promote Satanism. I walk in the light.


Cybernetic Art

The art on the walls of my office is Hexen 2.0 by Suzy Treister. I like that it freaks some people out, art is supposed to have a provocative effect.

The text being read out in that video is Unofficial Burning Man Founder John Perry Barlow’s A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, which he wrote at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Have a look through the cards, there’s nothing evil there other than aspects of the subject matter itself. It is all about the Macy Conferences, cybernetics, the counter-culture, DARPA, the Internet – that is, all the things I talk about and research. There is nothing occult or Satanic in the artwork and I do not use the posters to play Tarot cards or do any witchcraft. The Internet is a net, and we all got caught in it. Suzy spent 4 years researching and illustrating the same complex, intertwined shadow history that I did. We came to many of the same conclusions, and I still learn things from her work. It is awesome to sit surrounded by 78 of these amazing artworks, very inspiring.

I commissioned the installation directly from Suzy, whom I have never had the pleasure of meeting. She was a pleasure to deal with and since then she was chosen by a jury of experts in art and science to become artist in residence for a fully funded two months at CERN followed by a month at FACT in Liverpool – which I just visited, but the gallery was closed.

Perhaps in the “connect the dots” logic of Logos Media, this will be “evidence” that I am an agent working for CERN – a UNESCO project founded by Julian Huxley.


Why the Names?

My HTML editor was called HotDog because the main competitor was HoTMetaL and I was trying to think of a name that went with sausage.com

Jan sees this as phallic, but I see a smiley face. #YMMV

My company was called Sausage Software because that was my nickname at college, I figured if they could have “Apple Computer” why couldn’t I have Sausage Software? When I first got on the Internet in 1994 I had my own corporation Sausage Software Pty Ltd and registered the domain name sausage.com . It turned out to be a great name, catchy and memorable and amusing. Oscar Mayer offered me $1 million for it 3 weeks after launching my company. I turned them down and it ended up being worth a lot more.

I created great software that made it easy for people to make web pages, in a time when that used to be pretty difficult. It’s something we take for granted today. WIRED magazine named HotDog as the #3 most downloaded sofware on the Internet in 1997. People liked it because it was good software, easy to use with good help files and a bit of irreverence. The media liked the name “Sausage” because they could come up with all sorts of double entendre headlines. I followed Donald Trump and Richard Branson’s (and Burning Man’s!) proven strategies of using the media for free advertising, the media lapped it all up. I took the company public, the stock went up and down, we got some big corporations like Intel, Telstra and St George Bank to invest large amounts of money (and make massive profits), and I managed to sell about half my stock before the dot com crash in 2000. The company made more than a dozen acquisitions and became something different from what I started, so I left.

What part of that was the CIA? People loved my software, downloaded it, typed in their credit card number and got a license key, some of them bought stock in the company. We saw the email addresses of our customers but never met the customers, there was no one from the CIA saying “hey can you go ask Jan Irvin for evidence, if you troll him we’ll buy another thousand licenses”. Tens of thousands of companies bought it, we had well over 90% of the Fortune 500 using it for example. Most major universities in the world bought licenses. We’re talking about the third most downloaded software on the Internet, it went everywhere. 250,000 downloads a day. How did anyone have control over that?

If someone who works for the CIA buys a copy of Lorde’s album , does that make Lorde a CIA agent? Of course it doesn’t, this is preposterous. Yet this is what is being alleged of me.


What Trolls?

As someone who professes to be trying to educate people about the Trivium, Jan understands well that it’s impossible to prove a negative [pseudologic]. I can’t prove I don’t run teams of trolls any more than I can prove I don’t own a spaceship. The burden is on the accuser to provide proof. In Jan’s case, he has not provided a single citation or any other kind of “evidence”. He appears to believe that anyone trolling him is being paid by me to do so – he can’t imagine a world in which anyone might genuinely question any of his increasingly erratic claims. Trolls get banned from his social media, to create an echo chamber where his “research” cannot be questioned – but people really need to send him money. This is a cult, not something grounded in #truth.

Here is evidence directly refuting Jan’s claim that I run teams of trolls against him two different people denying that they are troll accounts for me. How many denials are required before people realize Jan is making all this up? At what point should he have to produce evidence that a “troll account” has some connection to me?

The Lost Boys? WTF is he talking about? There is nothing about a zone in Lost Boys. He is the one off in Never Never (Show Evidence) Land.

I published this comprehensive guide on how trolls operate, taking information Jan had re-appropriated from the GCHQ playbook released by Edward Snowden and adding some of my own insights and research from other web sites. If Jan would like to accuse me of trolling, I suggest he takes a look at that guide for examples of the types of things he can show evidence for. I can’t prove I didn’t troll him, so he will have to prove that I did troll him. Since his claim is that I have been doing it with teams for years, it should be easy for him to provide just one example…right? I already found 2 denying it, and I’m not even involved with this claim.


Pizza Code

Jan is also insinuating (repeatedly) that I am a pedophile. Outrageous! Of course I am not, I believe pedophiles should be lined up in the public square in front of a firing squad. Get them out of the gene pool and off this planet.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I think kids at Burning Man is completely wrong and comes from Crowley worship. I’ve done way more to expose that than Jan has, that’s on record. I have denounced pedophiles on Jan’s show. Meanwhile he had an actual pedophile sex trafficker on multiple times, and even defended the guy after he had been exposed.

The Knight of the Crystal Blade was not the first pedophile in Jan’s circle of friends:

The basis of the allegation against me appears to be that “hotdog” is pedophile code for “boy”. This is something that came out when WikiLeaks released emails from Stratfor (Obama flying $65k of hot dogs into white house) and John Podesta (dreaming about your hotdog stand in Hawaii). Any serious #PizzaGate researcher would know that the origins of the “code words” have never been found to be anything other than 4chan. It is one of the weakest parts of the large body of evidence that suggests PizzaGate is real. Not saying the code’s not real…but nobody has been able to prove that it is real.

Applying logic to deconstruct this claim against me, what they are saying is in 1995 in Melbourne, Australia I must have been a 22 year old pedophile who knew the US code words. I called my company Sausage and my product HotDog to signal to other pedophiles. Then sex traffickers at the CIA bought licenses for $29. Then…what? It is hard for me to reverse engineer their theories because they are so ludicrous. Why would I campaign against children going to Burning Man and expose the pedophiles that do go there, if I were actually one myself? These claims are not simply false and offensive, they are also self-contradictory.

Maybe “hot dog” is a pedophile word, how would I know? I got out of that company 20 years ago so what does any of that have to do with the research I am sharing? “Hot Dog” is definitely a word used to describe a food item that is widely sold around the world. Not everyone who likes to eat a hot dog or a cheese pizza is a pedophile, if you think that way you have been mind controlled.

If “hotdog” was pedophile code in 1995 then there should be evidence of that somewhere – a web page or a book or an email or a magazine article or a letter using it in that context. The #PizzaGate community routinely refer to the FBI list of pedophile symbols revealed by WikiLeaks in 2007, why wouldn’t it be in there?

To make this case, the accuser needs to:

  • Prove that anyone anywhere was using “hotdog” as pedophile code before 1995.
  • Show how I could have got that information.
  • Demonstrate what any of that has to do with an HTML Editor, which is like a cross between “Word” and “Notepad”.
  • Show how the CIA created my fortune and compromised me to make me their agent.
  • Provide an example of one thing I did on the CIA’s behalf in my whole career.

I’ve just told you the true version of events, why I chose the name, where the money came from. I made a product that people liked. Millions of people downloaded the software for a free 30-day trial, hundreds of thousands liked it enough to pay $29.95 (or $99.95 for a Professional version) and tens of thousands of corporations used it. Millions of web pages were created with it. I took the company public at 75 cents a share and the first trade was $1.50. The peak share price was $8.20 and at one point it was as low as 8 cents. We did big deals and grew the company and I sold the shares. It was a public company so all of this is on the record.

If you want to dispute any of that, provide evidence. If you have another version of events in which none of the above was real and the CIA just “did” it all, provide evidence. At least suggest a motive or a logically feasible hypothesis.


Presenting Proof

Since I can’t prove or disprove a negative, in this post I am going to stick with what evidence I can share. I’m not expecting anyone to be interested enough to read this all the way through, but I do need to get this on the record. The Internet is forever, after all. I can live with people criticizing me, and have always welcomed open dialog here and on our Twitter and Facebook groups – total following, about 300,000. I have only had to block a tiny handful of people over the years, people talking extreme smack about me don’t get blocked…isn’t that right, Pooh Bear/aka/whatevs ?

Source: 4chan.org/pol

Meanwhile, Jan the self-proclaimed promoter of the Trivium “Method” (and constant discusser of “kabbalistic inversion”) blocks me, then escalates his slander about me knowing I can’t respond. Even if I made another account to respond, that would be blocked too. Is this truly evidence-based research? Or a cult of personality, manipulating and distorting the Trivium, beguiling people with rhetoric and emotional triggering into following a path far away from sound logic and solid grammar?

Jan will no doubt describe this as a “hit piece” on him; when in fact it is a response to the escalation of his recent attacks on me:

  • calling me out (but not by name) on Jesse Spots show
  • asking Jesse Spots to ban me from his channel for asking “evidence please” when Jan started lying about me
  • releasing an edited 18 minute segment of the Jesse Spots interview to paint me further into his narrative
  • blocking me from comments on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter
  • making a video edited to highlight me talking about selling my HotDog software ($29.95) to the CIA
  • calling me a CIA agent
  • calling me a Satanist
  • saying I run teams of trolls to manipulate people against him
  • gaslighting his audience with many logical fallacy-based criticisms of me, all done behind my back where I have no opportunity to respond.

All I can do is to share the evidence I have, people can consider it and make up their own minds. I invite Jan to do the same…I will even present some of his so-called “evidence” in this post.

I would be able to share much more information if Jan hadn’t gone to great lengths to block me and erase all history of our interactions from social media. This is the best of what I am able to put together from what I saved of our interactions.


I can categorically state:

  • I am not a Satanist, my family are Christians. I believe in intelligent design, a God of Infinite Love, and the values of 1776 America. The revolutionary spirit enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I disavow all Satanists and Luciferians, and have published plenty of work that supports that.
  • I do not run teams of trolls, against Jan or anybody. Why would I?
  • I only ever tried to help Jan, with research, money, advice, contacts, books, ideas. He is the most ungrateful person I have ever met in 25 years on the Internet, since before there was Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo! or Google
  • I do not (and have never) work(ed) or acted for in any way the CIA, the “5 Eyes”, or any other organization or agency or secret society or cult or religion. I have been self employed for more than half of my life and quite successful at that, which is well documented public knowledge with hundreds of mainstream media articles.
  • Nobody has ever paid me to write anything on this blog, ever, in almost 2000 posts in more than 7 years; or anywhere else
  • I have never promoted drug use or cultural debasement; I point you to many posts written by our (paid) guest writer Terry Gotham specifically for harm reduction. There is very little of this content on the Internet, and both Terry and I stand by the information that has been shared here.
  • My only agenda is the truth
  • Every single person on the Internet criticizing me at the moment is e-begging for donations and subcriptions at the same time. I challenge any of them to show they have done more research than me, or presented more evidence to support their claims.

Jan Irvin has done far more in his life to lead people towards the “left hand path” of hallucinogenic drugs and debauchery than me. I’m not saying I never indulged in it, but I never sought after it and never promoted it. Too many other things to do in this world that require focus and full mental faculties.

My life’s journey has exposed me to many people who abused psychedelic drugs, and some of the behavior I am forced to deal with from Irvin is consistent with known side effects of long term drug abuse. I should also point out that some of it is consistent with more recent drug abuse, comedowns, withdrawals and so on. Jan claims to have given up all drugs including marijuana, only drinking alcohol (tequila). However we do not know what prescription medications he may be on; he admits to eating an unusual diet where “if I eat wheat I will die”. He believes that veganism is the same as Satanism.


It seems like I am living rent-free inside Jan’s head

Jan Irvin is lying, which is easy to prove. My last show with Jan was actually at the time of Burning Man: August 26, 2017. As you will see from other posts here, Jan was still working with me then and actively trying to recruit me into his attacks against Joe Atwill. October 10 2017 is when he turned on me over Facebook, I will share the full dialog at the end of this post.

Let’s show another example of Jan lying. Remember this is no ordinary YouTube scammer, this is someone who insists that he is living in the Word of God (Logos) and that he uses the Trivium Method so everything he says is evidence-based research and demonstrably true:

Here’s the video he’s referring to. As you can see, it was published by Brian Smith, the first programmer I handed off HotDog code to when I had to concentrate on being a CEO and growing the company. He put it on the web in February 2007.

Whether or not Jan did any due diligence before having me on his show and saw this video before we did our series together is irrelevant, since I told everybody that the CIA had bought software from me in my very first slide. There is no deception here. I started the YouTube series in 2016, so you’re talking about a few $29 transactions from 21 years earlier. What was I supposed to do, refuse to do business with US government agencies? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to buy my software if they like it? How does them buying a software license prove they recruited me to become a secret agent doing their bidding? This is a non-sequitur.


Summary of Financial Transactions

I am reluctant to donate to any other content creators after my experience with Jan Irvin and Gnostic Media – since renamed to Logos Media.

I was reading the essay by Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin Manufacturing the Deadhead: A Product of Social Engineering while Burning Man was on in 2014. It inspired me to sign up for a year’s subscription to the archives at his web site. As far as I know this was my first ever contact with Jan:

Then I posted his article Entheogens What’s In A Name at this blog.

We met face-to-face on August 5 2015 at Jan’s home in Southern California. Jan had reached out to me on Facebook asking me for advice on monetizing his Internet platform. I took him for a spin in my McLaren, which he seemed to appreciate.

Jan encouraged me to make the Silicon Valley’s Secret Weapon – the Shadow History of Burners series as long as necessary to get everything out. I felt bad that he had to do a lot of editing so I could include slides and brief video clips. Initially I paid him for his time, and later I helped set him up with OBS so that he could live stream his shows and bring my PowerPoint slides up on the screen as I was talking.


Paypal.com transaction search

All up it comes to $8,706.26. I’m sure most YouTubers would be happy to get that sort of cash donation from someone in their audience, and wouldn’t feel the need to attack their guest once the money stopped.

If you believe his claim that I am a CIA agent, then this must be evidence that he is on the payroll of the CIA. To me it’s just even more evidence that he’s a douchebag.

In addition to the transactions listed here, I bought him books and computer equipment and paid for his travel and meals when he came up to San Francisco to meet with Joe Atwill at my home.

Amazon.com order history
Jan touring the Presidio SF on my dime

At the very least, you would have to say that he is ungrateful to probably his biggest ever donor. On top of the cash and gifts is his ability to monetize and gain subscribers from all the high quality content I have given him, which has been widely praised and has now been seen by hundreds of thousands of people on his channel. I brought him many subscribers from my large social media following.


Standing On The Shoulders of Giants

Jan keeps talking about “his research” but most of what he talks about was first exposed by other people. This 1978 Executive Intelligence Review (RIP Lyndon LaRouche) article exposes Aldous Huxley’s role in MKULTRA and Timothy Leary as a CIA agent.

Jan insists he has still never read this article. Why not, given that it is some of the earliest research published on the topics he seems focused on? As a researcher why would you not read it when it had repeatedly been brought to your attention by others?

Jan was not the first person to say that Gordon Wasson was part of the CIA’s MKULTRA program. Carl Ruck was talking about it (and Huxley) in 2010.

Jan was also not the person who found original documents linking Robert Gordon Wasson (RGW) to the CIA’s MKULTRA Sub-project 58.

John Marks got the documents by FOIA request for his 1979 book. Marks is dismissed by Jan because he had insider connections to the CIA, and therefore the book must be a limited hangout. It’s funny how so many whistleblowers, myself included, get accused of that identical thing by Jan – and yet, he never bothers to point out what disinformation is being provided. A limited hangout where everything is 100% true is not a psyop designed to trick people. Are 30 whistleblower books about the intelligence community all lies? Is Douglas Valentine’s? Fletcher Prouty’s? This is the knowledge I promote.

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/mkultra/mkultra4/DOC_0000017457/DOC_0000017457.pdf

The extent of Jan’s counter-cultural research publications is his 5 essays, one co-written with Joe Atwill. He kept wanting me to alter my brain database so it would be easier for him to ingest all the content from it into his. I deliberately kept the two separate.

Many of the books that Jan dismisses as “Limited Hangouts” in fact do a great job of exposing the CIA’s involvement in the counter-culture. Dave McGowan’s Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon, John Marks’ The Search for the Manchurian Candidate , Marty Lee’s Acid Dreams, Jay Stevens’ Storming Heaven, Jesse Jarnow’s Heads, and Fletcher Prouty’s The Secret Team are all great places to start.


How Jan Met Holly

Here are the original messages from Carl Hassell to Jan on January 1, 2018, bringing his attention to this girl speaking about his work. [As an aside, Carl and I will be recording the next CryptoBeast Part 2 of Mana – the Man of Mystery very soon]

The video they are talking about has now been removed. Jan trying to control the narrative again?

The relationship progressed staggeringly quickly, from commenting on a stranger’s YouTube video to getting married less than 3 months later. How long was it between their first meeting in person and heading to the courthouse? It seems to have been perhaps 1 month. Holly says they got married in May, Jan says it was April, in fact they announced that they had got married on March 27 2018. It seems a rather important detail to get straight, doesn’t it? How could they both be wrong?


Jan’s “Slut Shaming” of Holly Before Dumping Her

The clip below is seriously one of the worst things I have ever seen on the Internet. Jan publicly humiliates his wife while telling her he loves her. If you watch one video in this post, watch this one – just the first couple of minutes will give you the general idea.

“How Lies Can Destroy A Marriage”

https://archive.org/details/HowBurlesqueandModelingRuinedmyMarriage

About 5:50 in Jan describes it as an “arranged marriage”. At 36 minutes in Jan asks for more superchats so he can buy a steak. I shit you not.

The poor girl looks about half Jan’s age. She is now his third ex-wife. Holly was in tears by the end, and so were many people in the chat. Almost everyone in the live chat and YouTube comments were supportive of Holly and disgusted by Jan; so he disabled the comments, and then took down the video. A typical pattern of trying to control the spin through rhetoric rather than dealing in the world of truth: grammar and logic.

I did manage to screenshot some of the comments before they were removed:

Somehow this horrific public crucifixion of his wife gets twisted around by Jan into I’m a Satanist gang-stalking him with trolls. Can he not even take responsibility for this? I was just a guy watching the live stream in dismay, crying along with Holly and everyone else.

“Turns out he was a Crowley type Satanist”. Again, evidence please.

Here’s a series of emails from Jan salivating over a 2-volume first edition of Aleister Crowley’s Equinox being available for $1200-1500. Perhaps he was dropping a hint for me to buy it for him; he was already traveling to see his girlfriend (Elizabeth, not Holly) based on a $1000 donation I sent him.

I never bought the books, why would I? I collect rare books because I am looking for rare knowledge, I don’t need a fancy edition of something readily available in print. I have never read any of Crowley’s books, or Austin Osman Spare for that matter, but I have some of their books on my shelf for reference. I bought “Anathema of Zos” because I liked the name, but that was many years after the club was sold. Thanks to Amazon, I can prove it:

My Amazon order history, which dates back to 1995, also disproves another claim that Jan has made publicly: that he is the one who got me into reading Richard Spence’s excellent book about Crowley Secret Agent 666. I purchased it May 10, 2014, before I ever met Jan or made any contact with him.

Are you getting the picture yet? Under the guise of the Trivium he just constantly puts out disinformation.

Aleister Crowley is a major figure in my research. Up there with Charles Babbage on how influential he was. If I worshipped him and promoted his values then where is the evidence of me doing that, ever? It is nonsense again.

Meanwhile Jan’s third wife is dressing as a witch for All Seeing Eye themed events and doing nude photo shoots; here’s some evidence of that:

A couple of Holly’s burlesque rituals were saved to the Internet archive in July 2018:

https://archive.org/details/October072016HollyDangersIlluminaughtyBurlesqueOpeningSceneVID01

https://archive.org/details/March092017PortCityPeepShowHollyDanger

I personally don’t see anything wrong with any of this, Holly was a free adult (24) when she participated in these plays. Jan glosses over the part of the story where he deceived her about his second divorce never being finalized, which is arguably a worse sin. Why not just deal with all this in private? Call me old fashioned, but why not get to know each other before deciding to marry?

Holly’s earlier videos talking about marriage and slut-shaming are sad in light of what happened. Did Jan even watch these videos and understand this woman’s worldview before promising to spend the rest of his life with her? Or was she deliberately targeted for a takedown by a narcissistic disinformation operative because she made these videos?

Any researcher worth their salt could easily find out about Holly’s background, since she was not ashamed of it and not trying to hide it.

It’s a little harder for me to understand Jan getting married to someone who championed transgender rights for children, given his many shows talking about the “transgender agenda”

https://www.pressherald.com/2017/11/28/portland-school-board-adopts-comprehensive-transgender-policy/

A year before, Jan had been madly in love with Elizabeth, also out on the East coast. The anti-Semitic positions he expresses in this email are a little hard to reconcile with a frequent InfoWars guest.


Jan Unhinged vs Chris Dorsey

This video discussion with Commander of the Virginia Militia Chris Dorsey is extremely revealing. Jan does not seem to be in a balanced emotional state.

A good point is raised here. How many false allegations that others are government agents does one have to make, until suspicion turns on the alleger themselves?


The “Agent” List

Here are some of the people who’ve gone from being Jan’s friends or guests to being secret agents out to get Jan in the last couple of years.

  • Bill Joslin
  • Chris Dorsey
  • Jay Dyer
  • Clint Richardson
  • Robert Roe
  • Jacob Duellman
  • Pearl Chandler 
  • Carl Hassell
  • Steve Outtrim
  • Joe Atwill
  • Darrell Hamamoto
  • Mark Devlin
  • Matt Carney
  • Robert Forte
  • Camron Wiltshire
  • Henrik Palmgren
  • Lana Lokteff 
  • Jerry Russell
  • Tim Kelly
  • General Bert Stubblebine
  • Rima Laibow
  • Iona Skye 
  • Colin Ross
  • John Marks
  • Joel van der Reijden (www.isgp.eu)
  • Hank Albarelli 
  • Alex Jones 
  • Coraticum555
  • Nino Teaoneaux
  • Richard Grove
  • Mark Passio
  • James Corbett
  • Paul Verge 
  • Joe Rogan
  • Craig Bickford
  • Dave Asprey
  • Miles Mathis
  • Bob Tuskin
  • Tommy Decentralized
  • Christopher Knowles
  • John Potash
  • Elizabeth
  • Holly Seeliger 

Maybe some of these people actually are agents, I’m open to it. Robert Roe turned out to be a pedophile from a weird Mormon cult. Some of these people openly admit they have intelligence community connections. But all of them? Are they really secret agents in some massive propaganda/disinformation campaign, or are they just people who disagreed with Jan so got blocked?

The best case scenario for Jan is that he’s an appalling judge of character and easily duped by the Deep State.

Usually the people running round the village saying “I’m surrounded by agents” are sent to the loony bin. In Jan’s case, there is some indication from YouTube comments that he has spent time in such facilities – though this has to be treated as hearsay, it doesn’t meet the standard of court-admissible evidence. The second person is at least claiming direct, first-hand knowledge and that there is paperwork and other metadata to back it up.

Patton State Mental Hospital does check out as a real place that is very close to Jan’s house. I could find no specific place named “San Bernardino County Psychiatric Treatment Center” but there are several of these facilities in the area.


Court says: Must attend Anger Management Classes

Court Orders do meet the standard of evidence admissible in court. There is obviously some sort of underlying issue, since a court required Jan to complete anger management classes.

I have blacked out the name of Jan’s ex-wife and other identifying information, but this information is on the public record. I am not trying to doxx anyone, but this does show a pattern of behavior that has been going on for quite some time now

A *Real* Pizzagate Connection?

If there was one event that seems to have marked a turning point in Jan’s life, and a dramatic shift in his behavior and treatment of those around him who thought of themselves as his friends, it would have to be his involvement with someone from an infamous CIA family. Nora Maccoby made a video about “growing up in a CIA family”. Her Dad is James Alefantis’ lawyer. She seems to have reached out to Jan and tried to engage with him around the time he started turning on everyone.

Further bizarre connections to this family come from Stephen Biss, who happens to be the lawyer for Defango, Robert David Steele, and Timothy Holmseth. Biss’s wife has been giving large superchat donations to truther channels under the name Ahme, trying to “correct the record” about the Maccoby’s Friends of the Orphans charity not being the same one that Haitian child trafficker Laura Silsby and her lawyer were connected to.

As you can see from the dialog, Jan is the one actively cultivating relationships with the CIA and Pentagon in 2017. I am the one trying to warn him about it. Why would I do that if I was in fact a CIA agent? Part of my cover is to always be working against their interests?

What Jan admits he was doing is much more intimate and immediate than me meeting a guy at a charity event 10 years ago who worked at the CIA 14 years before that. After he started talking to Nora, everything seemed to change and his behavior started becoming increasingly erratic.

It was not long after the above exchange with Jan that I was contacted by Matt Carney.


Whisper Campaigns – Black Magic

Going behind peoples’ backs to spread disinformation in direct messages is a propaganda technique known as a whisper campaign. It’s commonly used in the Burnersphere. I have caught Defango doing it against me, trying to poison my relationships with other researchers. In fact as I was writing this post Titus Frost admitted that exact thing in the comments to Jan’s video about me:

Titus is an evidence-based researcher, so Defango’s trick fell flat.

Here, Jan was caught red-handed in a whisper campaign. This is the technique of a coward and a sophist, not a scholar. This particular attempt did not work because Matt just laughed at Jan and contacted me. It was not something Jan did as a one-off, there is a pattern of behavior and this is one of the tactics he frequently employs. There is also a playbook of behavior, and it is interesting to see Jan Irvin and Defango both utilizing that same playbook.

A year and a half later, Jan is still spreading his disinformation by direct message. You have to wonder, why? I have not spoken about him since we did Part 7, unless it was to promote his work. He has blocked me everywhere so I don’t even see his messages. I only occasionally watch one of his shows, they used to be quite good when Atwill was on but lately the guests and topics haven’t been as interesting to me.

Why does he have this obsession with me, and this belief that I am chasing him with teams of trolls/agents?


Carl was understandably freaked out to receive this message out of the blue from Jan. Paid by me to help CIA agents attack him? None of us even know what he is talking about. Why would it matter that he is banned from Facebook, since he blocked me there ages ago? What did he get banned for?


CIA Fact Check #1 – Facebook Spying

FACT CHECK: False. Vahid is not the head of Amazon and there is nothing special about any Facebook groups.

Jan’s theory is that I work with the “head of Amazon” and use two secret Facebook research groups to study the responses of the members. He wants people to leave the groups without telling me why and stop collaborating with me on research.

As usual, no evidence is posted about What, Where or When nor any logical explanation given about How or Why. A Facebook group is just people sharing links to web pages. Facebook itself is “the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented”, the Deep State already has back-door access built-in, why would they need additional projects talking about conspiracy theories and shadow history? Jan should know this since it’s information I presented at length in both the first and last episodes of our Burners series. Maybe he wasn’t paying attention.

The basis for Jan’s claim here appears to be that my friend Vahid who was a mod in one of the groups is the “head of Amazon”. Amazon cloud hosts some databases for the CIA, therefore anyone who works at Amazon is CIA and anything they do outside of work is actually a secret CIA project. I mean, that really is Jan’s theory, as far as I can tell from this interaction with Matt. He repeated it again here:

You can read Vahid’s book Ethics In Tech Or Lack Thereof about his experiences at Amazon for free here. Decide for yourself if that’s a cover story for a secret agent, or someone’s actual life story. He was a mid-level sales guy who got shafted by Amazon and Computer Sciences Corporation. He’s a victim of the Deep State not an agent for them. Vahid organized the NSA Comedy Tour in 2013 and the Big Tech Comedy Roast in 2018. I guess the biggest threat to Homeland Security is laughter, so the NSA has to create these events to secretly spy on tech comedy aficionados, in between identifying conspiracy theorists and plotting their responses.


Magic and Misinformation

He’s saying that because I go by zos.org I am a devotee of Chaos Magic. That’s because a famous magician named Austin Osman Spare wrote a book called “Zos Kia”. Elsewhere Jan points out that the name ZOS stands for Zone of Separation. These two facts cannot both be true at the same time, if it was named for one then the other could not be the reason and therefore must be false. So at least one of his statements is a falsehood, by its very premise. In fact both his statements are false, the real reason I go by “zos.org” is that my nickname is Saus, like Sausage – that’s why my company was called Sausage Software. The business owned sausage.com but I was not able to get saus.com/net/org in 1995. I was able to get zos.org though. I used to play a video game at the fish and chip shop called “Galaga”, where if you got in the high score leaderboard you could enter 3 initials. I put “SOS” once meaning “Saus”, and my buddy looked at it and read it out “S – O – S” – like the emergency call. So next time I put ZOS.

I have read a few books about Crowley, but not any written by him. I’ve bought a few over the years, they’re sitting on the shelf unread.


Zone of Separation

When they wanted to name the club ZOS was one of the names suggested because I had the domain name in my portfolio. My friend Lee Glezos, Playa name Cusp, who came with me to our first Burning Man in 1998 was I think the one who came up with “Zone of Separation”. He may have had more time to think about acronyms in the past, given that he had the letters in his own name.

Glezos @ ZoS , the Moser Room

ZoS had the words “REALITY” over the dance floor entrance and “ILLUSION” over the exit door. The Zone of Separation, the fine line between reality and illusion. The “Twilight Zone” might have been in our thinking, but “Temporary Autonomous Zones” were not. There was nothing in Burning Man’s marketing materials back then about Hakim Bey or “Zone Trip 4” or Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker.

It was only later that I learned “Zone of Separation” was a term used to refer to the Inter-Entity Boundary Line aka “No Man’s Land” dividing Serbia and Bosnia. There’s even a TV series about it now. Funny because Jan was there back in those days…doing what, he’s never said.


I was never involved in the management or operations of ZoS Entertainment but they always worked hard to maintain an excellent standing with the local authorities and community. The last thing a nightclub in Australia – where police wait outside festivals with rows of drug dogs – would want to promote to anyone is a “Temporary Autonomous Zone”, ie a place where laws and rules do not apply. Melbourne has one of the most highly regulated clubbing environments in the world – which doesn’t stop Melburnians from partying hard AF. They just try to make it safe. Zos Entertainment promoted their clean track record, health and safety compliance, cameras, metal detector, and carefully chosen professional security. Like every other large club in Australia, there were multiple undercover police officers there every night. The cops held events there and brought their own security – which was by far the most raucous crowd I’ve ever seen! Trust me when I say I’ve seen a lot, I mean I’ve been to Burning Man 11 times. Imagine what you see in that alone. But I digress.

The club had a rock wall of giant Easter Island-style faces, carved out of foam by one of the stonemasons who worked on Lord of the Rings. They looked dope, if I do say so myself. I guess you could argue that’s occult, “graven idols” or whatever, but have you ever been to a nightclub with a 24/7 liquor license and the world’s top DJs playing that had big statues of Jesus, Mary in the manger and so on? Maybe that sort of thing is cool in San Bernardino but it would never fly in Melbourne, Australia. It was more about lasers and glowy shit.

If the image on one of the nightclub’s web pages is supposed to be “Satan” then what is Jan’s supposed to be? An alien? A self-transforming machine elf?

Jan has combed through the Wayback Machine looking for examples to cherry pick, but he is not showing you the other images from the club web site like the most recent one saved:

The image below was a placeholder page before the club’s web site was built. It looks like a dancing spaceman to me, some people see horns, some see an eyeball or a fireball. There’s no tail or anything, to say this is Satanic symbolism is drawing a very long bow. Is it tribal tech house? Fuck yeah! Sure looks like that to me.

In previous exchanges Jan has said the ZOS logo looked like a “Crowley Hat”

I can’t see the resemblance in any way. Maybe someone can try to explain it to me in the comments. A pointy tip? I guess I can kind of see how one could get a hint of “All Seeing Eye” out of the ZoS logo, but if so it’s very different from the “Egyptian eye” in Crowley’s hat.

The actual, main public logo, in neon above the club entrance is below for comparison. The effect is slightly different.

See the line of people waiting to get in. Do they look like Satanists? Have you *seen* how Satanists like to dress up? Would they be going to a place because it had pentagrams and stuff? If they were, wouldn’t they take a photo of a pentagram?

I always thought of the bit behind the O as a shield or a Star Trek-style badge. Maybe a window. I can sort of see an eye, I guess. Is it the Illuminati “all seeing eye”, though? I can’t see that. I can definitely confirm that we never briefed any graphic designers to put anything Satanic in the logo or fitout or web site or anywhere.

Designer Ralph Moser created the look of the club, one of the most talented people I’ve ever worked with. He never struck me as a Satanist or into the occult. The theme I gave him was “tribal tech house”, which is also my favorite style of music. Once the venue is fitted out and opens, the nights at a club are all sub-let to promoters. The music and themes of club nights are normally nothing to do with the club owners. Promoters bring the DJs and the crowd, they choose marketing that attracts the crowd they want. Whatever images they used were up to them, I never saw anything overtly Satanic and I don’t think our staff would have found that acceptable. Some of them did use occult imagery or names like “Majik” or “Babylon”, but that doesn’t mean I got into the nightclub business for Satanic reasons. If I did, why wouldn’t it be full of that symbolism – a la Voodoo Donuts? Decide for yourself, here’s photos and video of the opening night. INXS were there! Everyone’s having a great time, that’s what it’s all about: entertainment. I just loved the music and the club’s sound system got international recognition.

The VIP Room was called the Moser Room in honor of the club’s designer, Ralph Moser

If the whole thing is a Satanic dark occult thing, where is the evidence of that in any of the photos or video? Wouldn’t we have to be promoting it because that’s what we were all into? Surely there would be at least one pentagram or something? Another claim that leaves me scratching my head because the logic makes no sense, there’s no grammar, only empty and accusatory rhetoric.

In 2002 Virgin booked the club for a VIP event for the re-opening of the Virgin Megastore next door to ZoS on Chapel St, which is the main fashion street in Australia. It was the biggest event in Melbourne that year. Closing Chapel St to traffic is the equivalent to when Howard Street outside the Moscone Center gets closed for Salesforce or Oracle conferences in San Francisco. It is absolute chaos for the rest of the city, and I’m not sure if it has ever happened again since.

Virgin’s corporate booking of the venue was the biggest bar tab and best crowd ZoS ever had. It wouldn’t look great for their PR to have Sir Richard Branson, owner of famous London nightclub “Heaven“, dressing up as a monk only to be photographed surrounded by Australia’s biggest celebrities going to a Satanic club – and these people are the best in the world at PR. Read the brief: “media attention was the primary focus of the night”.

Source: Visual Event Management

Jan Irvin, of course, says that Richard Branson is a CIA agent. Never mind that he’s a British citizen with a knighthood bestowed directly by the Queen.


CIA Fact-Check #2: “Dinner With the DCI”

Fact Check: FALSE. Jan is knowingly repeating disinformation.

I distinctly remember a conversation with Jan and Joe Atwill at my house in Marin County where Joe said “you’re an asshole, but I like that about you”. My memory is Jan taking offense to that and walking into the kitchen, I don’t remember the situation he’s describing other than that. I wouldn’t have thought that anyone at the CIA would want to work with Jan given all the stuff he says about them, but as it turns out maybe they did…more on that later.

As for “dinner with the DCI” Jan knows the complete story, I have reminded him many times of the details. He is choosing to mischaracterize the situation, he is only interested in his distorted spin not the true story. Again it is information that comes from me, freely volunteered.

I met James Woolsey at a fundraising dinner for Conservation International in Washington D.C. in 2009. At the time Woolsey had been retired from the CIA for 14 years. I was a +1 for my friend Pablo Sanchez-Navarro (may he rest in peace). We were both guests of Nick Pritzker, family friends with Pablo since he was a small boy. Nick’s son Joby and Pablo’s brother Santiago are both Burners. Also at the table was William McDonough (“call me Bill!”), widely regarded as the godfather of eco-conscious architecture. I was seated next to James Woolsey (“call me Jim”). I recognized him from Fox News. At the time he had just served as John McCain’s Energy Policy Advisor for his Presidential Campaign.

I used the opportunity to pick his brains, within the context of energy. I didn’t ask him if Burning Man was a Deep State operation, I’d never even considered that possibility at that stage. I did ask him about Tesla energy, and felt he skillfully deflected the question. He recommended I read the book “Empires of Light” by Jill Jonnes, about Tesla, Edison, and Westinghouse – which was one of the best history books I’ve ever read, 10/10, a must read. He also recommended “Florence of Arabia”, which was OK but nothing special. He told me about fracking, and how it was going to change the world’s geopolitical landscape given the massive domestic oil and gas reserves that could now be unlocked. This advice actually made a difference in my decision to abandon plans to pursue a $20 million solar plant we’d been working on in Cabo San Lucas when the Global Financial Crisis hit in 2008. I could see solar having a lot of challenges to be cost competitive if there was about to be an oversupply of natural gas. So if you’re reading this Jim, thanks very much! I got out of renewables at the right time, one day their time will come again.

At no time did Woolsey say anything about the CIA, or try to recruit me into anything. We didn’t even exchange business cards. Nor did anyone else at the table. It was a great night with a fascinating group of older people. Nick regaled us with stories of his adventures around the world with his mates like U2, and was a lively and entertaining host. Harrison Ford dropped by our table, one of the patrons of the charity. He was pretty wasted, and had a flashy diamond earring in one ear. The charity showed some encouraging slides about their projects to reforest the Amazon. Steven Chu’s speech was a little boring. I met Tom Friedman, nice guy.

When I met Woolsey he had not been in the CIA for 14 years. Jan knows this, but continues to mischaracterize this chance encounter with a long-retired former employee at a charity event as “Steve had dinner with the Director of Central Intelligence”.

Again, this is a piece of evidence that I volunteered freely, rather than something Jan dug up from his own research. If I was recruited at this meeting then why would I tell people about it? It is guilt by association once again. To meet famous people is really not that big of a deal if you live a life where that happens frequently. I’ve had a long and successful international career and have met many elite people, including Mr & Mrs Trump. How does that make any of my information invalid? Isn’t that more of an indication that I really know what I’m talking about, and have to be careful to only speak the truth?



Why Spy?

I have been a self-made man since the age of 22, why do I need to work for anyone? Isn’t the CIA supposed to hire American citizens? What am I doing now, spying on New Zealand for Australia? There is no logic to these theories, there is no evidence, there is a huge amount of sophistry and ad hominem attacks.

Why did I work with Jan in the first place? General Bert Stubblebine was the highest level whistleblower from the military/intelligence community about 9/11. He felt comfortable going on Jan’s show and confirming at least some degree of British involvement in MKULTRA. He was the boss of the team of “JEDI warriors” in Project GRILL FLAME that I talked about in Part 2 of my Shadow History of Burners series. So it seemed like a channel that was a good fit for my content, if it was OK for a whistleblower General to go on it then it should be fine for me.

Sadly, later Jan would tell me that General Bert was “dirty”.


Conclusion

Douglas Dietrich and Jan Irvin seem to both be mentally unhinged, suffering from consequences of long term drug abuse, and convinced that I am a secret agent gang stalking them with teams of trolls. Welcome to the Internet!

I spent years helping Jan, not to mention thousands of dollars, and none of my time trolling him or causing trouble. Not one second. This post has taken time to write that I would rather have spent elsewhere, but at least now everything is on the record. People are welcome to make up their own minds, I’ve presented as much evidence as I thought was relevant, now the onus is on Jan Irvin to present his.

Appendix

The rest of this post is a series of message dialogs that will show the timeline of what really happened between Jan, Joe and I.


The Most Recent Run-In

Here’s the video I’m talking about, which Jan holds up as “evidence” that I was recruited by the CIA. If I had been, why would I then go on TV to talk about it? This is a logical fallacy known as non sequitur.

Sausage Software sold software license keys from a web site, in exchange for credit card numbers. We never met our customers. Most of the Fortune 500 used our product HotDog, and thousands of universities. Does that mean I was recruited by all of them too? Another logical fallacy is at work here, guilt by association – but how can they claim I am “associated” with people and organizations I have never met, who pay $29 for a 20-digit software license key?

You can read Clint Richardson’s Open Letter to Jan Irvin for yourself. There’s a lot of confirmation in the comments too. If you do, I think you will find it hard to characterize it as “a hit piece cause [Jan] found out he’s gay”.

There is no evidence that I do chaos magic or run trolls, I know that for a fact because I don’t do those things. For merely asking “evidence, please” in the chat to his live stream with Jesse Spots, he accused me of trolling and demanded I be immediately banned.

Jan seemed to turn on many of his friends at the same time.

I emphatically deny that I am “spinning chaos magic” or “running trolls”. These allegations are absurd, and presented without evidence: they are literally the rantings of a madman.

I did indeed go on his show talking about “Teen Love”, when he invited @auticulture and myself on Unspun 63 with @joeatwill. Jan chose the topic for his show. I wanted to get more information from Jaysun about the Isis-Urania sect.

We did 50 Years of Flower Power with Hans Utter on the 50th Anniverary of the Human Be-In, exposing the shadowy connections between the military/intelligence combine and the “Summer of Love”.

We were all friends back then. Did we all suddenly turn into agents at the same time? Or did something change in Jan?

If we’re all agents, then how does any of the information help any Deep State agenda? We are presenting evidence-based research from primary sources, including videotapes of people saying these things themselves. How could this be disinformation or propaganda of any kind? The Trivium requires logic, but Jan is unable to back up evidence-based claims with logical explanations. Point to some disinformation! Criticize some of the evidence!

As Miles Mathis points out, Jan Irvin has strangely light Internet footprints. I have asked him several times about his time in Yugoslavia, and how it coincided with America’s involvement in the Serbian war. He has changed his appearance a great deal since those days.

So I don’t have the CIA or any other groups or their money or any occult crap. I guess that means I have nothing. His rebuttal to the allegations made at ISGP (reproduced at the end of this post) are “he has an HP printer”. Make of that what you will, I am providing plenty of examples in this post of false information and misrepresentations being made by Jan, meanwhile anything I’ve ever seen at ISGP has been of the highest calibre research available online about parapolitics. #YMMV

I think Jan’s done good research. But he’s lying about me and misrepresenting the Trivium. You could argue he’s running a kabbalistic inverstion of the Trivium, where the grammar is based on false premises and distorted assumptions, the rhetoric is all ad hominems and other logical fallacies, while the logic itself is preposterous. Why?

Who sows confusion? Who sows chaos? Who presents true information with confirming evidence? Me, the last one. Never the first two. Can Jan say the same? I have pointed to plenty of his disinformation here, and plenty of my own evidence.

Here you see the hypocrisy on open display:

he calls people out for “banning like cowards” while banning me like a coward
How is “Brave New World” Jan Irvin’s work?

Alex Jones was talking about this stuff long before Jan Irvin ever was. Alex has shared the story of technocracy all the way back to the 19th century, encompassing IBM, the birth of the UN and cybernetics, and the evolution of programming devices via weaponized Disney and MindWar.


Where The Rift Began: Jan vs Joe

The falling out seems to have at first been triggered over some headphones, which later Jan would try to argue was actually some form of weaponized Jesuit hypnosis black propaganda attack. No really:

So I decided to go back to UnSpun 065 to see when/if Joe starts messing with the interview when the feedback loops derail my line of thought.  I am pretty sure I nailed him in the act.  Start at approx 28:00.  At 28:30 I am equating the return of Borneo headhunting to the communion ceremony of Catholicism, or,  the body and blood of Christ, ie cannibal symbolism.  Joe verbally lets out a grunt “yuuuhh” and then drops his hand when I say this.  The feedback starts IMMEDIATELY along the course of Joe’s reactions.  It’s all there.  WATCH!  He is trying to derail my train of thought  This was a huge connection that I was excited to share and this just seems too coincidental.  He knows through my notes that I am onto cultural manipulation, weaponized anthropology, fake cultures and all the leads I gather from Tom Harrisson lead me further into the faking of Israel and historical chronology through the Left Book Club, the Gollancz Family, Rothschilds, the British Academy and the Mandate—which I will be exposing further thanks to the source materials I am putting together over the course of the last several months.  

On top of this, our high suspicion of a Saturn Cult and the ties of this into Fomenko’s work really starts to add up.  Saturn devours his children.  Jesus is the son of Christ.  Catholicism is devouring Christ, the original religion and is passing on its cannibal joke, ie the god as noun versus God as verb.  Joe seems to be covering the field by leading a false narrative of ancient Rome when none of these timelines are correct and these Emperors might be fabrications or other rulers in Europe/Asia/Mediterranean at a different time entirely.

Jacob Duellman and Jan Irvin email thread to Steve Outtrim, Aug 28 2017

The spat quickly escalated to perhaps its true nature, Jan’s new-found love for Russian alternative history theorist Anatoly Fomenko. Fomenko’s ideas are making a resurgence at the moment in the guise of “Mud Flood”, which is a fascinating rabbit hole that I enjoy exploring on YouTube.

Jan seemed excited that Fomenko could disprove Joe, even though to my mind there was no reason why Caesar’s Messiah couldn’t be compatible with Fomenko’s chronology. After all, Fomenko was not saying there were no Caesars. I could never get Jan to even entertain that possibility or find a way to keep working with Joe and research Fomenko at the same time

You can see from the exchange above than Jan and Joe had a falling out over his mic, headphones, and Fomenko. Nothing to do with anyone being an agent; that all came later.

Jan claims Fomenko “proves” the New Testament was written before the Old Testament (so much for “god’s word”, I guess). In Jan’s eyes, this invalidates the claim of Joe’s book Caesar’s Messiah that Jesus was a psyop created by the Roman Flavian emperor family.

Joe has given me permission to share their chat exchange and a recording of a phone call.


———- Forwarded message ———
From: Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Fomenko
To: jan@gnosticmedia.com <jan@gnosticmedia.com>

Jan

Formenko claims that the Gospels were written before the OT. He provides evidence for the claim on P 180 and 181.

Formenko cites a possible connection (note that Morozov only “suggests” the connection and does not claim he can prove it) between Zechariah and the term ‘thunderer’ because ‘thunderer’ was synonym for Jupiter who was based on Yahweh.  But Formenko does not mention the possibility that the ‘thunder’ aspect could have been added to Jupiter at some later point in time and was never been a synonym for Yahweh.

Formenko then claims that “All this together with distinct astrological hue leads to the thought” (notice the ambiguity of the terms “hue” and “leads to the thought”) that the ‘Thunderer’ in the OT isn’t some unknown Hebrew god but Jesus.  

Formenko’s claim is total bullshit. There is no logical foundation laid by Morozov’s conjecture concerning Yahweh being thought of as a ‘thunderer’ and the notion that the OT authors knew about the character in the Gospels.

Formenko then gives his evidence and presents the OT story with the of thirty pieces of silver and the Potter which he compares to the Gospels story with the thirty pieces of silver and the Potter’s field.

Formenko then claims that, “this alone” should tell us Zechariah was written after the Crucifixion.

Formenko’s claim is total bullshit. The relationship only shows dependency, not that the OT was written first.

Formenko then switches from erroneous logic to outright sophistry and changes his conclusion. He claims (P 182) that the dependency between the OT and the Gospels “most probably” (notice his claim is now just a “probably”) means either they were written at the same time or the “editing” of the Gospels lasted hundreds of years.

Obvious sophistry. Formenko knows his analysis is bullshit and so he changes his conclusion to one that cannot be disproven. In other words, he changes from his bullshit claim that the Gospels were written first to their being written at the same time, to maybe, sometimes, in some cases, being written before.  

Ask Formenko to provide a single example of OT typology in the Gospels that proves they were written first.

Otherwise don’t waste my time with bullshit.

J


[6/16/17, 9:56:45 AM] joe atwill: you around?

[6/16/17, 11:29:36 AM] joe atwill: Call

[6/16/17, 11:30:20 AM] Jan I: with my son and very busy. We’ve put together a rebuttal of your comments and omisions and straw man. I never said to read only pages 181 and 182 but the entire book. But you entirely omit a paragraph there that debunks your own email. I’ll get to writing you soon.

[6/16/17, 11:30:59 AM] Jan I: I had mentioned to read the entire book, not 2 pages… that’s a hefty straw man you’ve created there.

[6/16/17, 11:31:40 AM] Jan I: This message has been removed.

[6/16/17, 11:32:22 AM] joe atwill: you could not cite any grounds for your claim to debunk my work. Instaad you told me to read the book to somehow find in it your basis. Right?

[6/16/17, 11:35:35 AM] joe atwill: my critique exposed Fomenko’s claim regarding the Gospels being written first as crackpot. I don’t need to do any more.

[6/16/17, 11:36:00 AM] Jan I: You created a bogus straw man and ignored most of the evidence he presents.

[6/16/17, 11:36:07 AM] joe atwill: bullshit

[6/16/17, 11:36:07 AM] Jan I: You don’t like the use of “suggest” and requires more diligence in asserting Jupiter and YHVH.  One page of a book equates to obvious sophistry and time-wasting bullshit?  What about the paragraph prior to the one he questions?

“The combination YHVH was pronounced as Jehovah by the translators of the Bible; it is often translated as The Lord God.  “YHVH” can also be the future tense of the verb “to be”-“God-to-be,” or “God-to-come.” Latins transformed this word into Jovis, or Jupiter–an abbreviation of Jovis-Pater, or Jovis-Father.  The Greeks transformed this name into Zeus.  This historian Eunapius who had allegedly lived in 347-414 A.D. writes that “the Italians call Zeus Iovius” ([132], page 86).

N.A. Morozov suggests translating the name YHVH, or Jehovah, as “Thunderer,” since it is a widely used synonym for J-Pater (Jupiter).”

 History: F or S? 179-180

In Google Translate, Jupiter translates to Iovi.  If memory serves correctly, the letter ‘J’ did not exist at this time and the letter ‘I’ was used in its place.

Zeus /ˈzjuːs/[3] (Ancient Greek: Ζεύς, Zeús, [zdeǔ̯s];[4] Modern Greek: Δίας, Días [ˈði.as]) is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who ruled as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. His name is cognate with the first element of his Roman equivalent Jupiter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus

Questions worthy of investigation—-not outright dismissal.

A funny citation here: 

http://www.france24.com/en/20170426-israel-uncovers-ancient-roman-history-mediterranean-port

They’re still looking for evidence of Jews in the area… hilarious. 

“Officials said a small mother-of-pearl tablet engraved with a menorah was testimony to an ancient Jewish presence at the site” 

You spell Fomenko, “Formenko” repeatedly.  Is that intentional? Or more of your typical slaughter of last names? 

Here is a text purported to be from 1682, in Latin, spelling out Iovis-Pater. https://books.google.com/books?id=vctlAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=iovis-pater&source=bl&ots=6QP-ORYjge&sig=8JJa9ihqCJebwWlt0wBggNRlb9s&hl=en&sa=Xved=0ahUKEwjv_MXA6cDUAhUFcz4KHVnWA3gQ6AEISjAE#v=onepage&q=iovis-pater&f=false

“Jupiter” comes, ultimateley from the Sanskrit root “Dyaus Piter” = “Sky Father”. “Dyaus” also was the root for “Zeus” and for “Jove”. Please note (as we were taught in Latin) that “J” is pronounced and “Y” and “V” as “W”, so “Jove” comes out more like “Yahweh”, which is the Hebrew name for god. For which I suggest you read Elias Auerbach’s book “Moses”.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=40284

[6/16/17, 11:37:27 AM] joe atwill: nothing in your stream of consciousness takes away from my analysis right?

[6/16/17, 11:37:29 AM] Jan I: Fomenko tells you directly: 

The analysis of the Bible he can look in the Chronology 1, Chapter 3 and Chapter 5. In particular from the point of view that New Testament preceeds to the Old Testament (from the chronological point of view).  I am sending the corresponding  fragments of the Content:

Chapter 3 The new dating of the astronomical horoscope as described in the Apocalypse By A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy

[SNIPPED – Jan posted the contents pages from some of Fomneko’s chapters – Ed.]

[6/16/17, 11:38:25 AM] Jan I: You also ENTIRELY avoid the issue of the dark ages being manufactured which creates a massive problem with your whole “debunking bullshit” theory.

[6/16/17, 11:39:25 AM] joe atwill: how?

[6/16/17, 11:40:04 AM] Jan I: You’ll need to finish reading the book rather than creating a straw man from 2 pages and omitting one paragraph that directly refutes your own claim against Fomenko.

[6/16/17, 11:40:11 AM] joe atwill: bullshit

[6/16/17, 11:40:22 AM] joe atwill: you are in dream world

[6/16/17, 11:40:37 AM] joe atwill: you show me the error in fact or reasoning

[6/16/17, 11:40:44 AM] Jan I: That’s enough for today. With my son. 

Chronology is entirely off. You clearly haven’t even gotten to Tartary yet.

[6/16/17, 11:40:54 AM] joe atwill: I am not going to do your scholarship

[6/16/17, 11:41:11 AM] Jan I: I know… you’ll just avoid it. I figured you would. It threatens your entire thesis.

[6/16/17, 11:41:16 AM] joe atwill: we will talk later

[6/16/17, 11:41:26 AM] joe atwill: avoid what?

[6/16/17, 11:41:33 AM] joe atwill: you are in a dream world

[6/16/17, 11:41:51 AM] Jan I: Reading the rest of Fomenko’s work… I never cited you to those 2 pages… you cherry picked that out of 3000+ pages.

[6/16/17, 11:41:53 AM] joe atwill: please cite your position and evidence

[6/16/17, 11:42:05 AM] Jan I: I cited it above. Read. thanks.

[6/16/17, 11:42:21 AM] joe atwill: what?

[6/16/17, 11:42:27 AM] joe atwill: the list?

[6/16/17, 11:42:36 AM] Jan I: If you can’t read the work, just admit it. But don’t create a straw man of 2 pages when I never cited those two pages to you. I had said to read the entire book.

[6/16/17, 11:42:54 AM] Jan I: That’s just Chron 1 of 7 books of THAT series, of 30 books on the subject in English.

[6/16/17, 11:43:08 AM] joe atwill: please reference the error in my critque

[6/16/17, 11:43:12 AM] Jan I: The problem gets pretty serious with the dark ages, which you’ve avioded reading entirely since that’s ch. 7

[6/16/17, 11:43:18 AM] joe atwill: LOL

[6/16/17, 11:43:25 AM] Jan I: I already did… I cited how you omited that paragraph entirely.

[6/16/17, 11:43:35 AM] joe atwill: how can it be serious if you won’t explain how it even exists?

[6/16/17, 11:44:04 AM] joe atwill: how does the timing of the dark ages effect analysis in CM?

[6/16/17, 11:44:12 AM] Jan I: Joe, you want me to give a full analysis of someone else’s work rather than just reading it. That’s lazy and a circular arguement. You want me to present all of Fomenko’s work as if I’m fomenko.. again, that’s Lazy. Just read it.

[6/16/17, 11:44:46 AM] joe atwill: Dude you said you had the grounds to debunk CM but wouldn’t give it

[6/16/17, 11:44:53 AM] joe atwill: you said read the book

[6/16/17, 11:44:59 AM] Jan I: What you’re worried most about is his theory that the old testament comes after the new… if the Dark Ages didn’t exist, then all of that chonology, even when the books were written, has to be entirely questioned.

[6/16/17, 11:45:40 AM] joe atwill: I have shown that his analysis of the NT coming before the OT is crackpot

[6/16/17, 11:46:04 AM] Jan I: You can’t even admit ANY of the points he raises about Scaligerian chronology, and using the trivium, he’s clearly correct about massive chunks of history. 

You didn’t show it was crack pot, you cherry picked 2 pages out of the book and used that to create a straw man. Finish the book.

[6/16/17, 11:46:24 AM] joe atwill: so there is some magic stuff in Foment that you won’t tell me but if I read the book it will be clear?

[6/16/17, 11:46:27 AM] Jan I: Even if his work is only 10% correct, massive chunks of history must be reconsidered.

[6/16/17, 11:46:47 AM] joe atwill: what 90% is incorrect?

[6/16/17, 11:46:56 AM] Jan I: You’ll need to finish reading the book rather than creating a bogus straw man of 2 pages which I never suggested. Just read the work in an honest way using the trivium.

[6/16/17, 11:47:19 AM] Jan I: I didn’t say 90% was incorrect… you’re using a straw man again.. that’s bullshit sophistry, Joe… I said EVEN IF ONLY…

[6/16/17, 11:47:38 AM] joe atwill: I won’t do your scholarship – too busy – if you have something please send it to me

[6/16/17, 11:48:02 AM] joe atwill: but you can’t right?

[6/16/17, 11:48:11 AM] joe atwill: so why should I waste time?

[6/16/17, 11:48:12 AM] Jan I: No, I’ve read the book. I won’t do YOUR scholarship. Again with your sophistry… you also ignored / avoided how he destroys carbon dating.

[6/16/17, 11:48:22 AM] joe atwill: how?

[6/16/17, 11:48:34 AM] Jan I: thought you read it? you clearly didn’t. You’ve been bullshitting. I have to go.

[6/16/17, 11:48:57 AM] joe atwill: let me know if you come up with something

[6/16/17, 11:50:35 AM] Jan I: Oh, we have… but you’re clearly avoiding this and using sophistry for a reason. You even pretended to have studied Fomenko in the call yesterday… but reading 3 paragraphs of wiki is not studying his work… You should deal wiht his work honestly as we’ve done on any other subject, rather than creating straw mans and avoiding the work and cherry picking. I thought you’d be more honest than this.

[6/16/17, 11:50:50 AM] joe atwill: I recorded call

[6/16/17, 11:50:57 AM] joe atwill: what are you claiming I said

[6/16/17, 11:50:59 AM] Jan I: Me too.

[6/16/17, 11:51:04 AM] Jan I: I record all calls.

[6/16/17, 11:51:15 AM] joe atwill: so what did I say?

[6/16/17, 11:51:19 AM] Jan I: With my son. Gotta go. You avoided all the points already posted above, too.

This was followed up a couple of months later by a long email thread from Jan and Jacob Duellman trying to tag-team me into joining their “gang” to go after Joe:

I never bought into the game these guys were playing, and they ended up going their separate ways. I remain friends with Joe Atwill and hope to do more shows with him in the future, we are both semi-retired scholars.


Where The Rift Began: Jan vs Steve

Here is a Facebook conversation from October 10 2017, I am using Zos Dotorg my personal account (and Burner name). This is where Jan’s attacks on Joe now widened to include me too. I was blocked by him almost immediately after this exchange, luckily I anticipated he would do that and was able to screenshot much of our conversation. His misuse of the Trivium is predictable, and is displayed once again.


Other links

I am far from the only person Jan has publicly called a CIA agent, then blocked so he can continue to lie about them without giving them the chance to rebut his claims with evidence.

http://mileswmathis.com/irvin.pdf

https://nazihomelessholocaust.blogspot.com/2016/06/jan-irvin-gnosticmediacia-disintel-agent.html

https://psychedelicwitch.com/roasting-jan-irvin/


Joel over at the superb web site ISGP had his own run-in with Irvin:

Why share your research if you don’t want to share your research? I bet there are links to ISGP articles in Jan’s brain. That’s just how the Internet works. If we are all trying to promote truth and awareness of the secret societies manipulating order in the Matrix, isn’t it great if we all build upon each others’ research? That only works if the research can be trusted, and by extension the researcher.


I have no idea how HP came up in the logs when Jan was going through ISGP’s site in the Netherlands. I do know that Jan said “they’re dirty”, just like me and everybody else. Again, no evidence offered. All I said about HP was this had never been addressed, to my knowledge. Jan addresses it here by saying he had an HP printer. VPN maybe? Or perhaps Jan really is being spied on by the Deep State, via some sort of “man in the middle” interception.

I don’t recall saying he worked for HP, and the speculations from ISGP was more along the lines that he may be receiving donations via their network of foundations. Publish the emails, or something, Jan. Whatever you got. Evidence beats speculation.

It’s interesting that Joe Rogan’s first question of this dramatically younger looking Jan is about Anthony Bourdain, whose name came up on Holly’s witchcraft show too. Jan proudly told me how close he lived to Satan’s castle.

Video

50 Years of Flower Power [Full Show]

For the 50th anniversary of the Human Be-In, we take a look at the 50 Years of Flower Power that was kicked off by this event and the Summer of Love.

You can download the presentation here.

 

Silicon Valley’s Secret Weapon: The Shadow History of Burners Part 2

Part 1 is here and the presentation is here.

In part 2, we lay out some of the Where and When of this story. It’s free, amateur content, based on Open Source Intelligence. Please forgive some minor slips of the tongue; references for the claims are in the notes to each slide.

You can download the presentation as a PowerPoint with detailed notes and citations or as a PDF of the slides and a PDF of the notes.

Please download and share this video widely, they are trying to suppress it.

 

One error – although Jim Channon was involved in promoting the concept of Be All You Can Be, credit for coming up with the phrase should go to his Task Force Delta colleague Frank Burns.

Can Radical Inclusion Handle the Truth? Welcome to Shadow History

unpleasent truths

Part 1 starts here. There is a lot of information, a lot of ground to cover, a lot of foundations to lay. Burning Man is not just a rave. There is much more to it, and when we look at it in its proper historical and geographical context, an incredible story unfolds.

.

Download the presentation:
Shadow History of Burners Part 1
Powerpoint file with notes (recommended)
PDF of the slides

Audio-only Podcast: Gnostic Media Episode 247


Yesterday I shared some of my personal Burning Man stories. How I first got caught up in this thing. Even though Cargo Cult was not so long ago, a lot has happened in my life since then.

I have tickets for this year, and my plan is to attend…if they’ll have me. Which is the point of this post. Are we really all welcome? Even the critics? Even people who speak truth, and debunk propaganda? How far does Radical Inclusion really stretch?

If you speak out against the Ruling Group, do you get blacklisted (like a cult)? Or is this truly a city of freedom and inclusion?

I started this blog in February 2012 to comment on what is being said about Burner culture on the Internet. Since we began, the global Burning Man hype has been catapulted to unprecedented levels. Now, I’m not claiming sole credit for that. New stories about Burning Man appear in the media at least once per week, giving me a steady stream of content to share opinions about. How do those stories get there? BMOrg’s team of at least half a dozen full time PR staff may have contributed; The Simpsons and Oprah sure didn’t hurt. Having a year-round Burning Man reporter embedded at the Reno Gazette-Journal didn’t hurt either.

In that context, 1500 stories about Burning Man going to an audience of millions is just more momentum to the avalanche…

Bringing truth into an environment constructed upon propaganda and magical thinking has not occurred without ruffling a few feathers. That’s the nature of truth.

I feel that we have been successful in waking some people up. But for every Burner who may have seen the light, there’s at least one who has been brainwashed into thinking we’re the Enemy.

As Bohemian Grover Mark Twain once said, “it’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”

This year Burning Man celebrates its 30th anniversary. Attendance is higher than ever, ticket prices are higher than ever, demand is higher than ever. Everything seems great, right? Why do I have to complain, when it’s clearly all just swell?

At the same time, we’re told “we’re saving the world”. That’s good, right? Surely we can just talk about how we’re saving the world, rather than complaining?

Well, I would love to. But it’s not up to me: I don’t hold the purse strings of their nearly $40 million annual budget. We have to look at where the money gets spent. Is it really going towards world-saving activities?

The best the Org could come up with at their recent Global Leadership Conference was $3000 of art grants split between 4 projects. And they think this is making the world a better place? IT’S TWO DA VINCI TICKETS AND A VEHICLE PASS. Plus tax, handling fees per item, $22 to post a letter, etc.

That’s what the new 2016 innovation of “Art Tickets” bought. A total of 2 of these VIP tickets were used for doing good in the world. The other *cough* 998? We will probably never know what happened to that money.

Just the increase in vehicle passes from $40 last year to $50 this year brings BMOrg an extra quarter of a million dollars cash. For providing nothing. And we’re supposed to bow and scrape about this $3k?

Nobody could really be that stupid. Which makes me wonder if this is all some sort of giant Kool-Aid test. How much bullshit can we dump on this community and still get away with it?Ticket and art budget shenanigans being two recent cases in point.

They’ve employed Ministers for Propaganda for 23 of their 30 years. Their magickal cauldron is called the Devil. The event takes place inside a pentagon, with satellite images freely available. It is all right there in everyone’s face. No irony required.

Over the last few years, in addition to writing this blog I have also been working on a book about the Shadow History of Silicon Valley. It has been an intriguing, surprising, baffling, and exhausting adventure. There is no “Hero’s Journey” here for me. I am no longer trying to discover myself, or figure out how the world works. I know how the world works – and it scares me. There should be more people trying to spread awareness, to break people out of their trance. Instead, society is being deliberately dumbed down. Propaganda, logical fallacies, and cultural Marxism rule the day. Facts like “vaccine problems get prosecuted in a secret court get conflated with propaganda like “anti vaxxers are ignorant and want to kill little kids”. Or “Trump supporters are all racist Nazis”.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” George Orwell, 1984

Why should you care? Maybe you shouldn’t. Nobody is forcing you to read this blog. I am just writing to share my opinions to whoever is interested. The BJ is doing that too, and if you like their propaganda better than our facts, then please enjoy.

dumbed down

 


What is my motivation?

I am researching the history of computers. Burning Man plays a small but important part in this story.

I am certainly not trying to harm Burning Man in any way by learning about it and writing about it. I love Burning Man. I think everyone should go at least once in their lives. What drew me to this party in the first place was the idea of experimenting in different ways of civilization. Let’s get back to that.

I have chosen a very specific channel for publishing my research at this time: Gnostic Media. Jan Irvin’s work is founded on the Trivium Method, which I encourage everyone of any age to learn. It is one of the most powerful tools I have in my life, one of the few antidotes to propaganda that I have ever discovered. It is a framework you can use to relate to your reality. This happens to be the claim made by the “Hero’s Journey” framework that Esalen promotes:

heros journey

The main difference that I see between the two frameworks is that the Trivium Method encourages you to focus on facts and what is known and visible to the five senses. It encourages logic, analysis, and critical thinking. The Monomyth Method, on the other hand, encourages groupthink and magical thinking. It is excellent for consensus decision making, inclusion of minority viewpoints, positive emotions, a sense of teamwork, and a feeling that we are all one. It is woefully inadequate for r/K selection theory K breeding of closely knit clusters of success.

I believe that to survive and thrive in the new digital world we need to rely on the most ancient of skills: Grammar (Who/Where/When/What), Logic (Why), and Rhetoric (How). If you get the grammar right – meaning that you have a clear understanding of Who the players are, Where everything is happening, and the timeline of what is going on – then the What, How, and Why can become self-evident: they unfold automatically.

The Magical Thinking Propaganda method means that you use words and charisma to trigger peoples’ emotions. You want them connecting to the leader and following them; you don’t want them thinking too much about the Why, How, and What. Using this method, you can lead people into doing illogical things that are against their own self interest. Drugs and hypnosis can be used to enhance suggestibility.

The Trivium Method wants us to consider crystal clear facts, and identify speculation and contradictions. As much as possible we use primary source documentation. Whenever we quote someone, we are quoting them verbatim. We provide citations and references supporting our claims. References used by the Magical Thinking method will most often be to prior examples of Magical Thinking, that are presented as authoritative.

Disciples of the Magical Thinking method will say that the Trivium Method is negative and fear based, or they will otherwise try to discredit it. They will say that their positive methods uplift people, while negative approaches only hold people down and create limitations.

The Trivium is thousands of years old, and is the basis for a classical education. If the results of applying it are negative, it is because what is being considered is negative to begin with. Magical Thinking is only ever positive; reality is relative, something to be distorted and manipulated.

Which one should you believe? Magical thinking says trust the charismatic leader. Trust the cult that wants to disconnect you from the outside world. The Trivium Method says learn how to do your own research and make up your own mind. We present facts and evidence; consider them. We don’t say “our method is superior”. We say “prove us wrong!” It is significant that competing philosophies do not share such a focus on the truth.

Think for yourself, question authority.

What would I have to gain from lying to you? Money? What money? This is free. I’m not selling any thousand dollar tickets. Power? What power? Burning Man doesn’t impress people any more. There’s no power in blogging. Friends? I have plenty. If anything I could lose social capital from this course. Ego? I would be better off writing my own memoir than studying the exploits of others.

If you doubt my motivation, perhaps allow your head to entertain for a moment the possibility that I am an honest man with good intentions. If I was, then what would I do? How would it look different from what I’m doing right now? I am putting my good name (already smeared by these people) and perhaps even the health and wellbeing of myself and my family on the line. For what gain?

What if there actually isn’t an expectation of gain? What if it is about Gifting, and Communal Effort? Noblesse oblige. Leaving someone else’s alleged principles aside, what if I really want to Leave A Big Fucking Trace? Something permanent, that might last beyond my years. The same Beasts the Founding Fathers tried to fight – Tyranny, Secret Societies, Central Banking, and Imperialism – are alive and well, and stronger than ever. Now in the 21st century becoming smarter and smaller and less visible, attacking our very minds and even our souls with electronic, chemical, biological, and anthropological weapons.

We, humans, our species, we need to wake up – urgently. Corporations and Artificial Intelligences should not be allowed to become the apex predator species on this planet. They can never be punished, never be jailed. Who do they account to? We have had 2 full Presidential terms since the Wall Street crimes of 2007-8, which have been clearly exposed in movies like The Big Short, Inside Job, Margin Call, Too Big To Fail…not to mention all the mainstream media. And yet, nobody gets in trouble. Why not? Why do we just passively accept corruption, corporate coups, and human rights abuses? Am I supposed to just sit down, shut up, and take it? ARE YOU?

If you’re still wondering WTF I’m talking about, please allow me some time. It’s taken me three years to get to the point where I can publicly share this research. The introduction is more than 2 hours because there is a lot of ground to cover. [I’ll try to make the next part shorter, I promise!] I think you’ll find it interesting, I certainly have putting it all together.

Am I trying to hurt Burning Man or the Org? Absolutely not. I love Burning Man. Everyone should go, at least once. See for yourself. Be inspired at what there is in this world, Disneyland, the Maker Movement, Art Basel, and Spring Break all wrapped up together. That’s still – after 30 years – a pretty unique and special combination, no matter who’s pulling the strings.

I have made an effort to place my research into a broader historical context, which should not in any way impede the Burning Man Project’s ability to raise donations and Black Rock City LLC’s ability to sell tickets.  I am not responsible for any organizational turnover or management issues within that group of companies – which recent times have seen a lot of.

I’m just a Burner, checking things out for myself, doing the research, and sharing it with you all, for free. Open your mind, or not, it’s up to you, I’m not preaching anything but truth. After truth comes reconciliation. I hope that then, the creativity and advancement of humans can truly be unleashed.

 

 

How To Spot An Online Troll [Update]

obvious troll

Recent events have highlighted the unfortunate use of cyber-bullying tactics by some in the Burner world. It seems unnecessary, and counter to the Burning Man Project’s mission to extend the culture from the Burning Man event around the planet. Does Radical Inclusion mean that we must promote and encourage the worst aspects of our society, as well as the good parts? Or does “making the world a better place” require us to strive to be the best versions of ourselves?

It is my hope that by educating people, we can reduce the amount of this negative activity. I believe Burners are better than this, and we expect more from our community’s leaders.

Let’s start with some definitions.

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. [Source: Wikipedia]

Sockpuppet: an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person. The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization, or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer [Source: Wikipedia]

Cyberstalking: the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group, or an organization. It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass.  [Source: Wikipedia]

Mobbing means bullying of an individual by a group in any context, such as a family, friends, peers, school, workplace, neighborhood, community, or online.

When it occurs as emotional abuse in the workplace, such as “ganging up” by co-workers, subordinates or superiors, to force someone out of the workplace through rumor, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation, it is also referred to as malicious, nonsexual, nonracial, general harassment. [Source: Wikipedia]

Gang stalking is organized harassment at it’s best. It the targeting of an individual [by a group] for revenge, jealousy, sport, or to keep them quiet, etc. It’s a psychological attack that can completely destroy a persons life, while leaving little or no evidence to incriminate the perpetrators. [Source: Urban Dictionary]

According to a U.S. Department of Justice special report a significant number of people reporting stalking incidents claim that they had been stalked by more than one person, with 18.2% reporting that they were stalked by two people, 13.1% reporting that they had been stalked by three or more [Source: Wikipedia]

Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents) is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed in pursuit of this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites (like Facebook), hacking, and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism, hacktivism and cyber-bullying. [Source: Wikipedia]

Doxing is the process of retrieving, hacking and publishing other people’s information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and credit card details. Doxing may be targeted toward a specific person or an organization. There are many reasons for doxing, but one of the most popular is coercion. [Source: Techopedia]

Doxing made the news this week with an online troll publishing the name of a gang rape victim who was the subject of a controversial article in Rolling Stone. There was a good piece on it on NPR a couple of days ago:

.

Some have tried to argue that simply publishing the name of someone doesn’t constitute doxing; however, publishing where someone lives and personal photographs definitely counts. There’s a good overview of some of the legal issues here:

Doxing“…can range from revealing the name of a person who uses an alias, but more commonly refers to revealing whatever the person doing it feels will harm, shame, humiliate, endanger, or put the person at some risk.   Doxing is a form of stalking or threatening and is illegal under many different federal and state laws, depending on the exact facts and location…

Think about only using a name, it is probably a violation of law, but maybe not.  However, once you go beyond the name IT IS ALWAYS A VIOLATION OF LAW.

None of the above practices are acceptable in civilized society, or necessary to promote an arts festival or raise funds for a charity.

anger trolllSo why is there so much trolling going on in the Burner world? What compels people to use sockpuppets and doxing to express their viewpoints about Burning Man? Is this really the way the Burning Man Project aims to make the world a better place? Isn’t it sufficient for them to employ a full-time Minister of Propaganda, and a large Communications team trained in the art of “spin”?

Trolling and other forms of cyber-bullying are frequently encountered by advocates of truth in the alternative media. One recent victim was the Bay Area’s Abby Martin, who went from founding citizen journalist group Media Roots and covering the Occupy Oakland protests from the front lines, to hosting her own show Breaking The Set on RT. She says:

it’s not just countries that are responsible for contributing to the growth of toxic online dialog…it’s corporations too…BP used PR firm Ogilvy and Mather to hire online trolls to attack and bully individuals who complained about the company‘s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. And we’d have to be naive to think that most multinational corporations aren’t copying this exact technique of controlling their online image…that’s just 21st century PR“.

Her brief segment on this topic is well worth a look:

The social engineers who seek to control populations through electronic, rhetorical, and sometimes even chemical means don’t like people who shine the light of truth on shady activities. Since they can’t argue directly against facts and evidence, they resort to character assassination and wordplay to sow confusion and discord.

Researcher Jan Irvin from Gnostic Media has shared a useful guide he’s compiled to help identify when someone in an Internet discussion is not being genuine, and instead is trying to distract readers from a topic they don’t like, or question their credibility. Jan has done a lot of research into the military/intelligence links behind the Psychedelic movement that emerged in the late 1950’s then changed the world forever in the Sixties. As a result, he cops an incredible amount of trolling. He also educates people in the Trivium: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric.

trivium_front_tile-960x3001

Jan has used his experience to compile a handy guide for all of us in how to spot trolls and other cyber-bullies.


[Update 12/16/14 11:30am This is an update of an earlier draft of this material]

Re-blogged from Gnostic Media

How to Identify and Remove Facebook Trolls, Gang-Stalkers, and Disinfo Agents

By Jan Irvin

Dec. 16, 2014

www.gnosticmedia.com

Have you ever had someone post on a thread you created who is mean to everyone trying to have a conversation – name calling and ridiculing, or just plain lying about the information? Have you ever had someone who contacts everyone on your friends list and tells them lies about you? Have you ever had someone who just about every time you post a new thread they’re the first to reply – posting nonsense, or attacks? Have you ever had someone make repeated comments to a thread while never seeming to stay on topic?

If you can say yes to any of the above questions, you’re likely a victim of paid online cyber-bullying: trolls, gang-stalkers, and counterintelligence agents.

After going through many hundreds of friend requests each month on Facebook I’ve learned to spot many, not all, but many paid cyber-trolls, gang-stalkers, and counterintelligence agents. I’ve decided to share this information the public to help you identify them as well, if you too are experiencing the problem. Even if you aren’t, the tools here will be useful to you and your friends to help identify these potentially unsavory types in the future.

The more Facebook and internet users learn to identify paid trolls, gang-stalkers and counterintelligence agents, the less we all have to deal with them.

By exposing and sharing their methods we make them impotent and ineffectual.

In this day and age of high technology it’s important that we all realize the reality of, and learn to identify, expose, and stop, cyber-bullies, trolls and counterintelligence – for many reasons:

Trolls, cyber-bullies and counterintelligence agents waste billions of your tax dollars to intentionally mislead you on serious public matters.

Trolls, cyber-bullies and counterintelligence agents waste huge amounts of your time in productivity, etc.

Learning to identify trolls, cyber-bullies and counterintelligence agents, and expose them, we lessen their cost and impact on the rest of society.

By exposing trolls, cyber-bullies, and counterintelligence agents, we also expose their misinformation and attempts to mislead us where correct information for proper decision making is of great importance to everyone.

While this article focuses specifically with Facebook, many of the tools provided here will be relevant across the internet: on Youtube, Twitter, internet forums, news feeds, etc. Please share this article with everyone you know so that we may all benefit and prosper by the identification, and especially removal, of these counterintelligence infestations.

At the end of this short article I provide additional study materials on trolls, gang-stalkers, and counterintelligence agents, et al., for your continued study.

Psychology:

The basic psychology of the paid internet troll, gang-stalker and counterintelligence agent is essentially of someone who gets off on kicking over sand castles and trying to destroy what others build. They’re psychopaths and pseudo-psychopaths (-someone under the influence of a psychopath), and, surprisingly, they’re quite often paid for misleading others online.

Most trolls and counterintelligence agents seemingly have no talent or ability of their own, or at least they haven’t fostered any – but lying, cheating, and misleading – and various other forms of sophism. Often because of their lack of talent or ability, as with most socialists, they take jobs with the government. They live off the backs of others who create and do hard work. But their psychopathology leads them to think that they’re doing good by manipulating, rather than uplifting, “the herd,” hence trolls and counterintelligence types are more often than not paid by governments. Some also work for the “private sector”.

Identification:

There are many ways to help you identify trolls and other government employee unsavory types:

1) When you receive a friend request check to see if the person has a history. Did they create the account yesterday, or in 2007? Or someplace in between? You may check this on the right side of their user profile. If their account was created very recently, it’s likely a troll. If it was created this year and also has the below signs, you’re almost assuredly dealing with a paid troll.

Note: Often you may have to first approve the friend request before you may see the details of their account. Afterword, if you identify them as a troll/counterintelligence type, you may immediately “unfriend” them.

2) Do you have any friends that you personally know who also have them as friends? Check the mutual friends on the left.

3) Many trolls and cyber-agents will use loads of those cheesy, thoughtless, cliché images – the ones with all those cheesy New Age, Vegan, environmental (and many other) quotes and all.

4) Most trolls and cyber-agents will NOT have any personal or family photos. If they do have what appear to be family photos, check their upload history (they should not be all in one day, etc) and make sure that they show consistent places, dates, events, people, etc., and that places, dates, events and people match up.

5) On their walls, trolls, gang-stalkers, cyber-counter intelligence agents typically don’t write anything on their posts. They’ll very often post only the above mentioned cheesy images with no words or comments. If they do comment, it’s very brief – only a few words. If you see long, thoughtful, original, well thought out comments, it’s likely not a troll or counterintelligence agent, at least not a low level one anyway.

6) Many trolls and gang-stalkers friend each other and their friends will often have similar type profiles.

7) Sometimes looking for Hermetic, Kabbalistic, Crowleyan, and other forms of occult and Masonic type symbolism helps to spot trolls and counterintelligence agents. This is because “intelligence” is all about the “occult,” so these types often show off their knowledge of the occult like some high school girl seeking provisional self-esteem. Such symbolism is often in the top banner on their wall, or in their avatar.  Sometimes the symbolism may be associated to specific geographical regions and countries. For example: an Israeli counterintelligence agent might use an occulted Star of David.

Troll, gang-stalker, and counterintelligence agent interactive online tactics include:

1) Being the first poster on a new thread, and will typically post up irrelevant information, or snide comments to prevent others from commenting or following the thread.

2) Comments will typically avoid any data or material actually presented – at all costs. Trolls, cyber-bullies, and counterintel agents will nearly never say anything intelligent about the material itself. Like telemarketers, it’s not about original thought, so they stick to a script – what I call “Sticking with Stupid”. Their script says name call, ridicule, lie, etc, but it doesn’t say consider any fact or comment you’ve raised rationally. These types are usually under-educated, often high school drop outs or university students (or at least seem so). Most of them have socialist leanings. But be careful. We’ve seen some who were Harvard educated.

3) Scripted comments will typically attack the presenter with name calling, ridicule, and other fallacious attacks, or just any bit of irrelevant nonsense. Often they seem incapable of even the slightest bit of critical thinking.

Learning and memorizing the trivium method and the logical fallacies is one of the best ways to protect yourself and your family. See www.triviumeducation.com.

4) Many will try to befriend you, and then when you present information they’ll try to distort what it actually says, or try to make you feel stupid for thinking it – even if the facts are right in front of you.

5) Gang-stalkers and cyber-bully agents will often harass other members on your friends-list. They may send your friends direct messages, name call at them, talk shit behind your back – such as try to win them over with some made-up lie that they’re spreading about you or your work.

6) Trolls and counterintelligence agents will often try to keep you in the conversation, pretending that they really care. The more posts, the more they get paid.

Be careful also not to confuse a useful/willful idiot with a real troll / counter intel agent. We’ve all been willful idiots at one point or another. A willful idiot, usually within 15 to 20 posts, will often begin to consider your information rationally and will actually study it and comment on it – constructively. Look for cognitive dissonance before giving them the ultimate ban.

7) Counterintelligence agents, trolls, and cyber-bullies, love to hide amongst those who’re misinformed so that they can continue to mislead them – and it gives them a cover – hiding in plain sight. Again, it’s a psychopathology and provisional self-esteem issue, their own and the victim’s, which they love to play on.

What can you do?

1) The first line of defense is checking each friend request over carefully before you add them. If you find too many of the above signs, or sometimes even one of them, it’s likely that the person is a paid troll / gang-stalker / or counterintelligence type.

2) Spread this article! The more who know this information, the less we’ll all have to deal with it.

3) If you’ve mistakenly added someone whom you think is a troll or counter intel / disinfo agent, you may test them. When you bring up information do they avoid the topic? Do they name call or ridicule you or your friends? Do they harass you and other members? Are they always the first to post or comment?

4) Create categories of friends. Name one as trolls / disinfo types and then tag people in that category that you’re unsure of. You can add them to that list as you test them, or just ban them all together.

5) Let others know that you think someone is a troll or counterintelligence agent. But be careful. Sometimes you may just let your other friends know privately to block someone you’ve identified as a troll. But if you post up the troll’s personal information, they can come back at you.

6) Study the trivium method. By learning the trivium method you can learn the tricks that are being used against you and protect you and yours. My website www.triviumeducation.com is dedicated to providing this information for free, but your donations are encouraged!

7) Get informed. Learn as much as you can about the reality of these disinformation types – often paid for by your and other governments.

 


Burners.Me:

Readers should familiarize themselves with common Logical Fallacies. YourLogicalFallacyIs has created this handy infographic, which you can download from their site in poster size.

LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2

Relativelyinteresting.com have a number of useful explanatory videos.

China employs 500,000 trolls in its “50 Cent Brigade”.

Thanks to Gnostic Media for these links:

The Intelligence playbook for these techniques was exposed by Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept.

As Abby Martin explained above, the COINTELPRO techniques used by government agents to discredit dissidents, are now being used by corporations as “21st Century PR”.

This guide to Gang Stalking can help you identify groups of trolls working together. This is now starting to happen to people off-line as well as on-line.

Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists: Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response. Published on September 18, 2014 by Jennifer Golbeck, Ph.D. in Your Online Secrets:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

There is also some useful information in The Gentleman’s Guide To Forum Spies.


The Gentleman’s Guide To Forum Spies

re-blogged from Pastebin:

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a ‘uncontrolled forum.’

Technique #1 – ‘FORUM SLIDING’

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum – it can be quickly removed from public view by ‘forum sliding.’ In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to ‘age.’ Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a ‘forum slide.’ The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a ‘forum slide’ and ‘flush’ the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then ‘replying’ to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting ‘slides’ down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 – ‘CONSENSUS CRACKING’

A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is ‘consensus cracking.’ To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made – but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger ‘evidence’ or disinformation in your favour is slowly ‘seeded in.’ Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then ‘abort’ the consensus cracking by initiating a ‘forum slide.’

Technique #3 – ‘TOPIC DILUTION’

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE BURN.’ By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’ By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 – ‘INFORMATION COLLECTION’

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a ‘show you mine so me yours’ posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your ‘favourite weapon’ and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite ‘technique of operation.’ From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

Technique #5 – ‘ANGER TROLLING’

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes – without the requirement to ‘stage’ a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to ‘lead’ the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you ‘do not care what the authorities think!!’ inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 – ‘GAINING FULL CONTROL’

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings – and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the ‘ultimate victory’ as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a ‘honey pot’ gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

CONCLUSION

Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘mentally ill’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.

c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

______________________________________________________________________________________

How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn’t get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent’s job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

“You’re dividing the movement.”

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of “dedication to the cause.” Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she – being truly dedicated to the movement – becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that “on purpose.” It’s amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: “they did that unconsciously… they didn’t really mean it… I can help them by being forgiving and accepting ” and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

“You’re a leader!”

This is designed to enhance the activist’s self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is “malignant pseudoidentification.” It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist’s identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist’s vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist’s general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist’s self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of “twinship”. It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist’s “felt quality of perfection” [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim’s own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is “mirroring” them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that “twinship alliances” between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally “lose touch with reality.”

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be “helpers” endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist’s narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent’s expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being “emotionally hooked,” will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that “the play has ended, the curtain has fallen,” and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn’t need leaders, it needs MOVERS. “Follow the leader” is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ….

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone’s time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist’s work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish “leaders” to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sign in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up “exposure,” they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.

If an agent is “exposed,” he or she will be transferred or replaced.

COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program’s stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. “National Security” means the FBI’s security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people’s civil liberties.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven’t reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

 


Burners.Me:

I hope readers have found this information interesting and useful. Understanding these techniques makes it easier to spot the trolls who are doing it for kicks, as well as the slicker corporate-backed disinformation.

authenticity simon mainwaring barbara