May 27: Special Guest Allan Weisbecker: Defense of Ken Kesey

[Jerry Russell]

It occurs to me that if Richard's hypothesis of a rogue movement that developed out of MK-Ultra is correct, then Aldous Huxley might have been the ringleader of that rebellion. Taken at the surface level, his intellectual evolution seems to have passed through a phase of struggling against the threat to democracy and freedom posed by psychoactive drugs (as expressed in BNW) to an optimistic belief that the drugs would help to facilitate a genuine new spiritual Utopia (as expressed in his 1962 novel Island). Of course this same trajectory can be taken as an insincere propaganda gambit, meant to lead his followers down the rabbit hole to a drugged and enslaved state.

 

[Allancw]

Jerry,

If you're going to put an email from me on the forum, why not the one with all the attachments that shows Irvin's various dishonesties?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Allan,

Please see my post about Irvin, here:

http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/may-20-review-of-harrimans-philosophic-corruption-of-physics.1742/#post-5268

 

[Mike Dexter]

As the Presbyterian said as he was dusting himself off after falling down a flight of stairs, "Whew! I'm glad that's over!" (Presbyterians were known for believing in predestination, therefore it was inevitable that he was going to fall down the stairs.) (Also, it doesn't work if you have to explain them.)

I'm referring to the hour with Allan Weisbecker (hereinafter, AW), which I knew was probably coming at some point, and the fact that trying to explain anything to AW doesn't work.

I will make a few unconnected comments about this podcast.

AW is a self-admitted drug smuggler, among other things. I wondered if this had anything to do with his defence for others who distributed controlled substances.

My recollection about "The Trial of KK" was that KK's son had been invited to defend his father on the podcast, but declined. The "trial" aspect had been introduced when an actual debate had been planned, which did not eventuate.

AW's debating style includes choosing a point and defending it, not allowing for discussion. An example is the origin of the title of "Cuckoo's Nest". Anyone who has read the book knows the origin given by KK (the childrens' poem). Anyone who has read the book or seen the movie also infers at least one other meaning, that of the cuckoo's nest being a metaphor for an insane asylum. The reference to the nesting habits of cuckoos is another valid interpretation. AW defends KK's mentioning of the poem as the only possible meaning. His attempt to score a debating point on this only made him look stubborn and perhaps lacking in any imagination though I must credit AW with imagination if he wrote episodes of "Miami Vice".

AW did not endear himself to me when he suggested that I personally (though he did not mention me by name) have not read either "Catcher" or "Cuckoo's Nest". I am persuaded by Joe's POV on both books only because I actually have read both books and have studied them carefully in reference to Joe's interpretation.

There were other references to Freemasonry (FM) in "Cuckoo", though they are not as plentiful as they are in "Catcher". Joe mentioned one, a clear FM reference: "The doctors last three weeks, three months."

Joe quoted another without comment, but I think there is FM material in there as well:

"The other two black boys come two years later, coming to work only about a month apart and both looking so much alike I think she had a replica made of the one who came first. They are tall and sharp and bony and their faces are chipped into expressions that never change, like flint arrowheads. Their eyes come to points. If you brush against their hair it rasps the hide right off you."​

To me, the last two sentences suggest that the orderlies were literally chipped from stone, as by a sculptor or perhaps a (free) mason.

AW said something about attributing motive to KK, and that KK's motives in writing "Cuckoo" must have been pure and positive. He may think so, but after reading the book and Joe's analysis, I think otherwise.

"Catcher" may present more of a problem in assigning motive. While Salinger had HC speaking negatively of FMry, HC does end up as an intiate, and does portray some of the negative aspects himself. The problem I see is with Salinger himself. If "Catcher" was an assignment, he pulled it off well, but it seems to have troubled him greatly. The act of writing "Catcher" seems to have destroyed Salinger's life. I think he knew full well what he had done, and had a hard time living with himself after that.

It was good that you gave AW a chance to present his views, but I don't think you need do it again.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Good points Mike.

Part of the problem with the secret societies is the manner in which they recruit people. People don't come to them, they come to the recruit, and either beforehand or once initiated already have, or develop, a plan for utilizing that person based upon their respective personas and skills. Famously, the Templars and Hospitallers (now the Catholic Knights of Malta) used the rubric of doing good as a cover for their hidden agenda of the day. The Templars were to protect Christians visiting Jerusalem and the Hospitallers ran .... hospitals. Hospitals? ... Hmmm mental hospitals?

They probably have profiles of people they are looking for, and possibly Kesey's and Salinger's profiles fit the bill for them. I think here is where one might cuckhold an agenda - for a culture modification - by employing a person who has come to sincerely believe that there is a better path for such as mental care and for other purposes. This works where there are overlaps in the interests of the sponsors of the secret society and the unwitting agent.

Here, remember the technique of the Ismaili Assassins, who used hashish to drug recruits and have them brought to a staged vision of paradise with 70 beautiful virgins that would await them on the completion of their mission.

Possibly without being as dramatic as the Assassin's approach, but maybe with a positive outcome of a 'trip', encouraged by equally enthusiastic researchers (having also been co-opted by CIA grant money), and then having literary concepts (say like the Christ typology) discussed with his fellow literary colleagues, that this is how it all came together.

To me, this is a form of intellectual Jiu Jitsu, where one uses another's momentum (or other characteristics) against them, as is well taught in The Art of War, made available to the West by the Jesuits. Operating so is much more efficient for hidden sponsors because they don't have to limit their recruiting pool to strictly malevolent individuals or paid whores whose loyalties are most suspect.

Further, one can then shoehorn in the more deleterious drugs on the back of the sincere enthusiasm over LSD.

*********
Having been raised as a Presbyterian, I was rather curious about Predestination (of the Elect), as it was completely deemphasized in the northern, post Civil War Church, at least. I'm not sure about the southern Church. In any case, I was rather surprised to learn from one of the books I inherited from my father that the Jesuits admit in their precepts that Predestination is indeed an operative theological principle of the Catholic Church, as it is biblically explicite. As with the Roman Church catechism, they are instructed not talk about it, as it would not do to tell congregants that their good works are not quite as important.

The original statement of Faith of the Baptists included Predestination, and then they quickly figured out the same problem as the Jesuits, and redacted it. The elect is just another word for 'elite', as it is from 'Elector' noble peers of the realm that a new, non-dynastic king must be selected from by vote. So it is the insider elites who get to preferentially bypass the suffering of the years of tribulation as the ugly sausage making for a new age is delivered by such means as cultural degradation and wars, etc..

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for listening, and for your support.

I've been mulling over AW's comment that he believes it's OK for authors to lie in the surface narrative, but a great sin to lie in subtext.

Based on Joe's analysis in CM, I would say that the Gospel authors were lying in the surface narrative (painting a largely false portrait of Jesus as a peace-loving, pro-roman prophet) and lying in the subtext as well (proclaiming Titus as a God suitable for worship, although he too was only a man.) Yet it's also possible to argue that the surface narrative is true in a sense, at least to the extent that many find Jesus' teachings appealing.

Shakespeare was writing fiction, but I would argue that his fiction was telling a rich, humanistic truth on the surface. Along with Asquith, I agree there was a layer of Catholic vs. Protestant subtext that was subversive against radical Catholicism. And Joe's insight is that there is a layer that reverses the Flavian injustice. But, Joe and I disagree about how to interpret this layer: I see it as 'Shakespeare' speaking the truth to power, and calling for vengeance against the guilty nobility; while Joe sees it as a racist vendetta.

Catcher's surface narrative appears to be the story of a troubled teenager, suffering from the hypocrisy of his elders and peers. Seems honest and truthful. The subtext about Freemasonry, taken together with the subtext about incest and child abuse, seems not only false, but also designed to hurt the reader.

I would argue that Cuckoo's Nest is honest in the surface narrative, and according to Joe it's also dishonest in subtext, leading the reader down the path to the LSD counter culture. AW and also Richard are contending that the subtext was honest, and that Kesey was a genuine advocate for LSD. Maybe the best evidence for dishonesty is that Kesey portrayed FM as the enemy 'combine', and yet also sometimes used FM symbolism in a positive context (in the Magic Trip audiotape) and hung out with FM Grateful Dead?

 

[Richard Stanley]

I would argue that Cuckoo's Nest is honest in the surface narrative, and according to Joe it's also dishonest in subtext, leading the reader down the path to the LSD counter culture.

"Well, a little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down, the medicine go down, ... in the most de light ful way"

I would reframe Joe's position as perhaps "leading the reader to go down the general counter-culture path using the enthusiasm of the sugary Kool-Aid drink. I was discussing this at lunch yesterday with a friend, a once part time LA hippy, who did not take a trip btw, and she brought up one of her common refrains about how helpless today's younger generations are compared to us old farts. Of course, in some respects they are more adept, and less sensitive to cultural race boundaries. Of course, this culture change was brought about by massive redirection in public education, started under the Raygun Administration. Or perhaps did Poppy Bush, of Skull and Bones - CIA notoriety cuckhold Reagan's agenda using a Hinkley Cudgel?

AW and also Richard are contending that the subtext was honest, and that Kesey was a genuine advocate for LSD.

I am only suggesting that it may be honest from Kesey's POV, based upon his experiences and such. And I am saying this in that with such as secret societies and intelligence agencies, the front line operatives (and even their handlers) are almost never aware of what the ultimate objectives are, whether good or bad. This is yet another reason why I think Joe's take on the reunion video is incorrect. His take fits within the naive view that all Freemasons (and the like) are fully illuminated as to the ultimate goal of the ostensibly Jewish Hidden Hand (that perforce is not so Hidden by their inept Machiavellianism). Some of the YouTube comments were hilarious that all these people at the reunion were oligarchs. Oligarchs who were also happy that their bus trip project seemed to be generating "kinder" people. Wow!!! Black is white after all, but the "illuminated" Jesuits only pretend that it is so for the betterment of their cause. This is proof positive.

Loren, of course, was at these early acid partys, frollicking like an adept. Ironic that he is now Joe's most ardent fan. But, he has repeatedly admitted to being the kind of well intentioned guru-seeking individual that is a prime profile for, and who has repeatedly been led astray mentally. One instance of this has caused his strong desire to go forth and multiply at a relatively late age in a Fijian state of Kesian Primitive Revival. But, I am sincerely certain that Loren is not a Freemason or a Jesuit, or a Catholic Knight of Malta. The refrain of the age was, "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss", but with Loren lately, it gradually seems to be being inverted to "Return to the (constructs of the) Old Boss, Same (hidden identity) as the New Boss (although I'm (Loren) certain that the Boss is Jewish because my (Loren's) gurus du jour tell me so.)"

So, if Loren was sincerely enthusiastic about what was happening then, was he likely an unwitting agent of transmission for the hidden agenda? Let's assume yes. Well, if so, could the same apply to Kesey and some of the others albeit at a closer level?

Joe says he has proof of individual intent via the respective CIA research contracts to various individuals. But similar researchers are notorious for taking grant money from sources that might otherwise make them feel that they need to pinch their nose from. Especially if it lets them continue their real interests, perhaps on the QT.

Maybe the best evidence for dishonesty is that Kesey portrayed FM as the enemy 'combine', and yet also sometimes used FM symbolism in a positive context (in the Magic Trip audiotape) and hung out with FM Grateful Dead?

Maybe Kesey was just as confused about the relationships of secret societies, such as FM, to who is the real Hidden Hand as most everyone else is? This is why most analyses lead one into contradictory pretzel logic. The closer one gets to the true model, the more the contradictions are resolved. This is why we need the org chart and analysis of group attributes, even though several people have already pointed to the correct direction. The biggest cultural stumbling block, however is confusing or conflating the sheepdog employee with the shepherd employer. This is the opposite side of the coin from not really knowing if you are a Gentile or not, or if you have had your vanity toyed with.

BTW, in electrical engineering parlance, FM is not frequency modulation, but F...ing Magic.