10 Comments

Hey! Thank you so much for translating these articles! Honestly, for me translation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thank you! I have been doing a lot of reading about China´s Belt and Road Initiative and the Arctic Silk Road and it is a very big job trying to understand something so massive... So Im glad that what Im writing is resonating with someone out there...

Expand full comment

You're very welcome and thank you, too. Yup, the Belt and Road Initiative is a big fish to fry, indeed. As for every other topic, understanding it is really a matter of angle. I personally see it as a clear indicator of who will be put in charge of the next colonial empire.

You seem to go to several different sources - incidentally the same ones I go to (e.g. Iain Davis and Riley Waggaman) - which is always a good idea. My take is, they all have something interesting to say until they don't, because they're either out of their depth or on someone's payroll. Matthew Ehret, whom I helped with one thing or two in the past (he's actually quite a nice guy), is a case study for that, very astute and on point about the West, completely unreliable about Russia and China.

My present conclusion about the current state of affairs is that C. S. Lewis was pretty close to the mark when he wrote "The abolition of Man" (a very good article to read about that: https://evolutionnews.org/2020/08/why-c-s-lewis-wrote-the-abolition-of-man/, that I used on my blog). To put it bluntly, they gave us entirely too many tools that could have been potentially used to our advantage, and, sadly, weren't. We could have steered the boat towards more personal autonomy - especially energy- and technology-wise - but then we fell asleep at the wheel and became complacent. Now they're planning to take it all away bar a few, which usage thereof will be severely monitored and conditional (think CBDC), in order for them to remain at the top of the foodchain - quite literaly. Their MO has always been maintaining the status quo by reining in the natural evolution of society towards freedom. I believe our comfortable way of life and the very high efficiency of our daily life appliances - they can't have that - entailed a very violent blowback (WWIII, as you put it). In the age of 4 nanometer chips, we're facing going back to a time before fire and livestock helped humanity prosper - now it's windmills and crickets for all. You can see that yo-yoing all throughout History.

I initially meant a simple exchange of ideas but now I realize I've written a synopsis for my next article :-)

Looking forward to reading more from you.

Expand full comment

You have a lot of interesting thoughts here. I think that we have similar views. Interesting that you mention C.S. Lewis... I´ve been reading the Screwtape Letters lately and I think that it has flashes of brilliance, although Lewis is far too conservative for my tastes... (but it´s the type of conservatism that I respect - principled, moral, based on genuine lovingkindness towards our fellow man, which is what I think Christianity is supposed to be all about.)

I think that it´s interesting to note that Lewis literally did believe in demons. Has there been an important European thinker since Lewis who literally believed in the reality of demons?

I guess that I am part of the first generation of intellectuals in the Western intellectual tradition to believe in the existence of sentient beings who are not human. Really, I suppose that Terrence McKenna kicked off this whole tendency with his idea of the Archaic Revival.

Richards Tarnas wrote Cosmos and Psyche, which is an apology for astrology intend to convince Western intellectual skeptics that there is something of value in the ideas that ancient culture have bestown upon us... But I don´t believe that he goes so far as to suggest that invisible magical beings literally exist and are as real as human beings are. But the fact of the matter that many, many people have had experiences with hyper-real-seeming beings while high on DMT. Now, of course the skeptic

But really, how seriously would you take a microbiologist who refused to look into a microscope? If you are interested in understanding consciousness, you will use the tools that are available for consciousness change. This is by no means limited to psychedelics, but they are a safe and effective way to study one´s own mind, and if you don´t know anything about your own mind, you don´t know the first thing about life, the universe, and everything.

Now, the default opinion amongst university-educated secular materialists that the only type of intelligence approaching the genius of human beings would be aliens. Materialism allows for the possible existence of hyper-intelligent beings, possibly with God-like powers (made possible by their advanced technology). Or maybe computers could become intelligent, whatever that means. But invisible beings that appear to people in visions? Not allowed.

But here´s the thing - if a researcher into consciousness refuses to smoke DMT, as Richard Dawkins apparently did when Graham Hancock dared him to, he reveals that he is not curious enough about the subject he has

So, the fact of the matter is that there´s a whole hell of a lot of people who have smoked DMT and encountered different kinds of entities. You can even go over the forums at DMT Nexus and find trip reports in which people describe the different ¨species¨ or ¨categories¨ of entities that exist. The recurrence in which similar entities appear to different people of different cultural background suggests to me that the likeliest explanation is that these beings are real, or at least as real as we are.

Seriously, I encourage the reader to go check out DMT Nexus, especially the hyperspace lexicon, which you can find here: https://wiki.dmt-nexus.me/Hyperspace_lexicon.

At the end of the day, I believe that reality is an illusion and that the only thing that we can speak truthfully about are the perceptions of our own nervous systems. So I´m a little reluctant to talk about things being real.

Anyway, thanks for bringing C.S. Lewis up. I know you just mentioned him in passing, but I had something about him and you provided the impetus for writing it down. I´ll be sure to read your article about him sometime soon.

Expand full comment

Ok, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be much too conservative for your taste. I usually am.

So, C. S. Lewis actually believed in demons. I didn't know that, never read him - just re-published the article I linked. As for the reality of demons, I have my own theory, from personal experience, which I will get into in a minute.

You mention DMT a lot. Interestingly, I've read somewhere that the fact it has been used by tribal people for its hallucinogic effects is a fiction, part of a bigger psyop. Apparently those tribes have only used it for its medicinal properties, in cases of gut ailments, nothing more. The "traditional" use of ayahuasca is a complete myth, that has flourished with the advent of drug tourism in South America, as is its use in shamanic rituals, another die-hard tale. I tend to believe that, since 99% of what we're told as legitimate history, even the recent or current one, is a fabrication, carried on by intelligence assets such as Castaneda and the likes (and let's not forget Sting), in order to derail everyone from the most basic common sense, better known as reality.

So no, I don't consider reality as an "illusion", quite the opposite. If you go down that road, you end up in solipsism, which is a polite way to say completely bonkers. By the way, same goes for the latest "leftist" - or woke - dogma, which tells us that man is an end within itself and that there are no such things as natural laws - you know, fire does not burn and there are no men or women. All part of the same decades-old op. That notion of absolute relativism (or something) has been the main axis of all kinds of ongoing mind control programs in the XXth century - you know the ones. The creeps you mention, Harvard's Richards Tarnas, Berkley's Terrence McKenna - plus others such as Ken Kesey, Hunter Thompson and of course Timothy Leary, who has even admitted as much - have been mostly outed as spooks, all working for intelligence programs (useful read here: http://mileswmathis.com/kesey.pdf). I really don't need to say much about Netflix (CIA) darling Graham Hancock. Another interesting read, about Richard Dawkins: http://mileswmathis.com/atheism2.pdf (yes, I read a lot of Miles and even translate some of it), since no word I know can even begin to convey the magnitude of the contempt I hold that wreck in.

Those projects have studied the "reprogramming" properties of drugs quite extensively and have used the aforementioned individuals, plus many others, to act as drug pushers towards the younger generations, while Big Pharma was doing the same towards their parents. We all know how LSD was used to squash the hippie movement, but the same even goes for marijuana - I remember Romain Bouteille, a French artist, reminiscing about the May'68 "revolution", explaining how dissent (which was manufactured in the first place, anyway) was essentially stopped in its tracks with some new variety of marijuana that came out of nowhere - meaning, intelligence. Nowadays of course, all of this is all mingled and overlapping, children being put on hard drugs (Aderall, notably) for no good reason from infancy while the parents consume mountains of cocaine, Fentanyl and whatnot. Or get prescriptions for psychoactive drugs from a psychologist they talk to on their smartphones using a telepsychiatry app - I kid you not.

Now to the demon thing. You don't actually see "demons" when you're high on drugs. As an aside, I don't believe there are any sentient beings who are not human. I don't believe that all humans are fully sentient either, which I'll explain further on. No drug whatsoever adds anything to consciousness, it can only take away from it - "enhancing" is a misnomer. I don't think it changes anything either, it just narrows consciousness down, which is not a good thing. I've read extensively on what the mind really is, where it originates from (hint: not the brain itself) and the way connections work in the brain - you don't grow extra neurons or create new connections when you're high, you just switch on or off the ones you have and end up having a waking nightmare. The fact that many people have the same kind of nightmare is no more conclusive of anything in it being real than the fact that people who go through a near-death experience all see the same thing. For all intents and purposes, the latter are not dead, their brain is just lacking oxygen. They don't see a glimpse of Paradise, or God, or anything even remotely related. Methinks something in the brain just kicks in, like some sort of buffer mechanism. Some say that the pineal gland switches to producing DMT, which brings us back to where I started. Now, one could argue that since the brain is supposedly a dignified wave receptor, it could pick up an unusual signal in certain conditions. I have nothing to prove or disprove that assumption. Again, considering the constant bullshit tsunami aimed at us that passes as science these days, I doubt it very much.

So what are the things they call demons? First you have to agree with the notion that life is essentially a soul within a physical body - including animals. Then, that the soul needs to remain intact as much as the physical body does, and I'll tackle that issue in a moment. Someone said death occurs when the soul cannot stay inside the body anymore and I believe that to be true. And I believe madness is nothing more than a way for the soul to deal with unbearable events in order to save the connection for a while longer. I've seen that happen to many older people in my lifetime. I've seen it happen to every other person for the last three years, when four billion people did anything in order to not even consider the fact that others would want to kill them. They didn't know anything about demons, apparently.

Well, it just so happens I might be an authority on the subject, since just about everyone in my family is one, and I'll explain. While struggling for many years to steer away from their influence, I've come to understand that if you hurt or compromise your soul long enough, part of it simply dies and never comes back, which leaves an open space for something else to take over. I believe it is what happened to those fucking idiots. I have no idea what that something is but I know it sends a very bad vibe, one I can spot from a mile away - so can my dog and little children. I've heard stories about colours that children can see around people and I've heard it directly from them. Children and animals should always be taken very seriously. They are very hard to dupe, as most actors know. Maybe that's one of the reason children in particular are in the crosshairs right now, more so than for any kind of overpopulation nonsensical motive. The Schwabs, Faucis, Gates and Wolenskis of this world still need a thin veneer of legitimacy. Maybe they don't want to be seen frightening the children or making the dogs bark and snarl. As I said earlier, you don't see demons when you're high on drugs. You see them when your perception is perfectly tuned.

My unsolicited advice is, first and foremost you need to steer clear from any kind of mind-altering drug - and I mean any. Not just because they have been weaponized by the CIA but because all they can do anyway is cut you off from the constant stream of reality, from Nature mainly, you mind and body need to stay sane and thrive - one thing that the elites would very much like to take away from you, incidentally. You also want to be especially cautious about the long-term effects of drugs, which take a lot of time to recover from. And I'm not talking about physical damage, I'm talking about damage to your soul itself. To the point that, if you use any kind of drug in significant amount, I believe it would probably take longer than a lifetime to heal from them. And if you're really unlucky, you might join the ranks of the badly damaged souls. You probably know that a good number of trauma-based schizophrenia patients see demons all the time. What a coincidence.

Expand full comment

Okay. There´s a lot to respond to here. Thank you for taking the time to write me at such length. I have one Hunter S. Thompson-inspired tattoo and another Terrence McKenna-inspired tattoo. I believe that Terrence McKenna was a prophet and one of the most brilliant thinkers of all time. So I don´t think you calling them creeps. But I do agree with some of what you say, and I can tell our minds work alike in some ways, and I hope that you stick around and keep commenting, although I´m going to go on to take apart of your arguments.

First of all, a drug is a word without a clear meaning. Is sugar a drug? How about coffee? Alcohol? Tobacco? Are you against Tylenol? How about opiates for people undergoing surgery? How about electronically-adminstered drugs which cause measurable brain wave changes, such as TV? What about a slot machine? Is that a drug? Is a smart phone a drug? Are you really against drugs?

As for your comments about how everything is a conspiracy, all I can say is that it sounds to me like you are clinically paranoid. And lest I sound like I´m being dismissive, I´m not. I was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and have spent a lot of time in psych wards over the years. I want to share something that I learned years ago. That the combination of paranoia with the confirmation bias leads one to prove to oneself what one already believes... And if you believe that there are monsters under the bed, well, somehow you´ll manage to prove it to yourself...

Paranoia is just fear. That´s all it is. And fear is never useful for more than 15 minutes.

The truth is, of course, that just because you´re paranoid, doesn´t mean they´re not out to get you. The system is designed to make you a slave and turn your life-energy into a commodity that can be bought, sold, and gambled with.

But as for Hunter S. Thompson, Terrence McKenna, Tim Leary, and Richard Harnas all being pawns in the game of some sinister. You´re sounding like Cynthia Chung accuses Hermann Hesse, Peter Kropotkin, Carl Jung, and Mikhail Bakunin of being crypto-Satanists because they all visited the same part of Switzerland which was also frequented by Theosophists, Thelemites, and other occultists.

I´m really curious how you´re forming your opinions of the writers you mentioned, by the way? Which books of Hunter S. Thompson´s have you read? Have you read any books by Terrence McKenna or Tim Leary or Richard Harnas? If so, which ones? I´m honestly confused about all of those except Leary. I wouldn´t bend over too far over backwards defending Leary, but you do know that the guy went to prison for passing a joint to someone, right? If he was the Establishment´s bitch then why did they lock him up?

I know that this isn´t well-structured, but I hope you do reply... I think that you´re wrong about some things, but I´m sure that there is a lot that you know that I don´t also.

Expand full comment

First of all, thank you for your reply and sorry for the long delay - I was rather busy.

To answer your questions about drugs, my understanding is that they have been categorized, so there shouldn't be any doubt about what the word means. I generally agree with the basic categorization, which is "soft" or "hard" - with exceptions - the main point being that the hard ones effect your perception, the addiction part of the definition being rather wobbly.

Sugar acts like a drug in some way: it is highly addictive and gives you a "rush" but it's mainly food. It should be consumed as unrefined as possible and in limited amounts, in order not to exert your pancreas. By the way, wheat is addictive, too, since it acts on certain brain receptors the way opiates do. Anyway, it should be avoided for its inflammatory/allergenic effect on the immune system and its highly detrimental effect on the gut.

Coffee contains caffeine, which is theoretically a soft drug, but it remains addictive. I drink coffee, too much so but I work a grueling job.

Alcohol is addictive and modifies perception, so it clearly is a hard drug. Its detrimental effects are impossible to overstate. As I wrote, I can't imagine why someone who has been intoxicated would ever want to try that again.

Tobacco contains nicotine, which is addictive but has no effect on perception, so it's a soft drug. By the way, it works very well against some of the brain damage in Covid.

It's funny that you should mention Tylenol because I actually wanted to write about it in my previous post. It's a drug in the medical sense of the term but of course it has nothing to do with a "recreational" drug. However, I know from experience that it has a strange calming effect, which I attribute to quick pain relief while your body still produces natural pain killing hormones. I use its equivalent now and then.

About medically administrated opiates, there is no doubt that they are hard drugs - to say the least. I was given morphine once in the hospital, for a serious case of stomach inflammation so I can testify firsthand that it acts on perception and puts you in a carefree state of mind. Fortunately, it's not addictive at all. On a different occasion (hand surgery following an accident) in addition to the local anaesthesics, I was also given some sort of calming drug (they never told me which one) which completely relaxed me and kept my heartbeat rate at 64 for the entire procedure, very impressive stuff. It also shaved off the anxiety (that was the purpose) and left me feeling quite sorry about my predicament. My point here, again, is those drugs actually take something away from your perception, and that is what can be construed as adding a newfound form of clarity. Clarity is actually always present, but is more often than not drowned in a noise of parasitic thoughts and conflicting emotions. That might explain people getting a higher IQ, or inspiration like Kary Mullis supposedly had, under influence.

TV and smartphones (and computers, for that matter) are (or can be) in my opinion a high-tech version of the escapism that chemical compounds used to provide. They can easily become addictive and modify perception when abused or used improperly, which is most of the time. Even worse: I have published a very interesting article by Elliott Freed on my blog, explaining how screens essentially impede the creation of neuronal connections in children, and leave them impaired for the rest of their life. This is of course a very serious matter with dire consequences, especially now that a good number of toddlers spend hours in front of television and smartphone screens. For the record, Taiwanese authorities have now enacted laws that severly punish parents who let little children in front of any type of screen.

You did not ask about cannabis, but here it is. I already brushed on the subject. What is sold and trafficked under that name has nothing to do with what it was 40 years ago. The THC content has been increased 40-fold. It is one of the most dangerous drugs in circulation. It is not a soft drug at all, it is one of the hardest drugs ever. In addition to its baseline psychosis inducing effects ratio on the long term, there are increasing numbers of accidental deaths while under influence. You have been warned.

So to answer your main question - am I against drugs? No, I am not against drugs per se. But while they can be helpful in some cases, I am against their use outside of well-defined, reasonable purposes. The same can be said about practically everything: for example, if you must go anywhere within walking distance, there is no valid reason to use a car. This is the ultimate problem Western civilization is facing now. Basic human needs are really very humble. Once they have been provided for, everything else is distraction, gadgetry, or worse, that come with a pricetag on them as with everything in life. Consumerism has created whole populations of spoiled children with zero autonomy, who hardly ever emerge from their constant state of stupor. As they were engineered by the soon to be defunct system of laissez-faire, they must realize that the next eugenicist one will not be so kind unto them. A lot of people will suffer or die if they cannot adapt and/or find some way to self-sufficiency. Euthanasia is the new trend for a reason. As I wrote earlier, I never even liked this civilization but the next one will be an entirely different ball game. The top of the financial mafia, after having plundered all they could from the current model they helped create, needs the current all-out war to bring down what's left of it, bring the next one about and consolidate it with new technologies at hand. I'll write about that later, but essentially it's the end of white Christianity, to be replaced by Eastern philosophies that hold human life in total disregard.

I can tell that you have a hard time finding out where I stand about many things, so I'll explain. First, I can assure you I am not clinically paranoid, which is not an actual condition but a semi-dignified way to demonize anyone who doesn't buy into the current model, or is aware of its dangers. You'll remember we've seen plenty of that kind of pseudo-medical assessment for two years now, about the "anti-vaxx", and it's just getting started: good old psychiatric wards (or digital outcasting, pick up one) on the way for those who entertain the funny idea that it's better to stay alive or even - God forbid - enjoy their retirement, in a time where Man is officially a toxic, climate-changing parasite on Earth. As for "everything is a conspiracy": according to its basic definition, a conspiracy is when two people speak about a third person, so the question is rather, what is NOT a conspiracy. What you think you read in me is actually what I would call a frame of mind, and I actually know where it comes from. I was more or less abandoned at an age (9 months) where confidence builds up in a child, so I had to use my brain ever since, and assess every situation and person as I go along. That makes me sometimes look and sound as a brainiac, it's very tiresome and energy-consuming and it has its traps, in which I fall occasionally, which is why I make a point to listen to every possible point of view. It is though very hard to lie to me and get away with it, and I'm almost never wrong about those who make a living out of it. So while I'm overly picky about, well, everything, I also know when I'm being realistic and the other is just naïve. This is why it's always a good idea to listen to what I say. About conspiracies, there are benevolent ones, I might add, like setting up a surprise birthday party for someone. There are well-intentioned conspiracies, like sending your child to school. Good or bad, conspiracy is, and has always been, the driving force of all social groups, and it's counter-productive and futile to try and deny it.

(I'm replying to your other questions in a separate post below)

Expand full comment

(continued)

Now just to be clear, I'm not just talking about psychedelic drugs, although they are the most destructive. I'm talking about little things such as cannabis or alcohol. And I'm not talking about downing a bottle of whisky or vodka before noon either, I'm talking about minute amounts of wine, beer, cider, whatever. I'm talking about half a glass a year. There is no such thing as a safe amount and certainly no risk/benefit ratio in any case. You might not believe this but it becomes crystal clear once you're out of it.

Anyway, I for one cannot even fathom why anyone would want to modify one's perception when it's already hard enough to take in anything in a "normal" state. Then maybe that's the whole point. Maybe some people simply don't want to take reality as it is. Their loss.

If I may, I'll illustrate this latter point with an example taken from a different topic. I've had this conversation about television (an appliance that is strictly forbidden in my household) on one occasion:

"Why don't you have a TV set?"

"Do you have one?"

"Well, yes."

"Have you ever watched it?"

"Of course."

"Would you watch it again?"

"Sure."

"Then I'm sorry, I cannot answer you question and there's nothing I can do for you."

The point being that the issue is not some risk of side effect. The issue is that drugs, and indeed television - and smartphones, for that matter - work. That is the real danger in and unto itself. I hold the rather unpopular belief that drugs have derailed whole civilisations from the get-go, that they are the main reason, or at the very minimum the symptom, why we have been going nowhere ever since and that cultures where drugs are tolerated - to say nothing of ingrained - are doomed. Now that we have so many different ways to escape reality, and that more is on the way - the high-tech brain control thingys - I'm afraid this civilization is over. Not in danger, not dying: dead. It's been spewing out too many lies for its own good, to the point where it cannot do anything else, and too many people believed them. Although I've always really hated it in the first place, I've tried hard to fight for it these last three years, to no significant avail. If you must know, I only did it for the children.

You might not want to accept any of that, which is fine by me. I can understand why one could think things don't look that dire. I might be wrong. I can't prove it, either. There is no "control group", is there? Just dead civilizations paving the way of history, and nobody can tell exactly why.

Expand full comment

You´ve never been to Mexico, have you? There are ancient cultures here which have preserved cultures in which entheogenic substances were revered as sacraments. I don´t think that what you say stands about human societies dooming themselves by taking drugs in reference to the anthropological records, but I would certainly be interested to hear your arguments. I think that looking at human history through the lens of drug use is fascinating, and something that researchers often neglect. Consider the effect on meth use on the history of WWII. Pretty significant, right? Does it not then follow that the history earlier societies might have been heavily effected by widespread drug use? I have no idea what the deal with mainstream archaeology is but they seem very uninterested in both sex and drugs when imagining ancient socieites.... Like... how much do people today know about sex and drugs in the ancient Mayan world or amongst the Mexica at the time of contact? There is quite a bit that is known about those subjects, though much also remains mysterious. But archaeologists don´t seem interested in it. And I don´t even know where to find reasonably historically accurate erotica set in ancient Mesoamerica (if someone can point me in the right direction, please do!) Don´t archaeologists become archaeologists because they´re curious about the ancient past? Don´t they like imagining things? How can you think about any society without thinking about what people did for fun or how they got it on? I mean, I guess we know quite a bit about the different versions of the ball game... but information has been pretty scant on the sex lives of ancient cultures.

The leading work on the ethnopharmacology, of the Lacandon Maya, for instance, hasn´t even been translated into English. How insane is that? Billions of dollars spent sticking cotton swabs up people´s noses to harvest their DNA whilst simultaneously letting them know that they´re your little bitches and they´re yours to do what you want with, yet humanity can´t spare the effort to translate a book containing magic incantations from the survivors of the Classical period who preserved it by living in hiding deep in the jungle for centuries. And it hasn´t even been translated into English. And no one of this stuff is of interest to most people. I honestly do not understand other people´s brains.

Like, the Ancient Mayan magic toads might not be the bufo alvarius toads. Let that sink in.

And then consider the fact that the ancient Maya were so far ahead of the rest of the world in astronomy. Could their knowledge of pharmacology offered them some sort of cognitive advantage which explains how they arrived at such an insane degree of mathematical sophistication?

The priests of Chichen-Itza were able to accurately predict transits of venus thousands and thousands of years in the future. That´s insane.

At the time of contact, most Europeans still believed that the Morning and the Evening star were two different planets.

Could a performance enhancing drug from a magical jungle toad have something to do with their fabulous success, quite possibly unequalled in human history?

The jury´s still out. I mean, probably it is was the morning glory seeds (mayan priests are known to have taken these seeds, which contain LSA, a close relative of LSD). But, hey, the world didn´t know about bufo until quite recently. The world is full of secrets.

Speaking of acid, I know you´re a big acid-hater, but you might want to consider looking into the research that was done on LSD before Leary got on his Pied Piper party tip.

Specifically, you might want to look into research done into the effects of LSD on IQ test performance. I can´t remember the details but people high on acid consistently scored higher on IQ tests. That´s supposed to be impossible. The general consensus among the people who believe in such things is that IQ cannot be raised through techniques that can be taught, or at least no one has figured how to raise IQ levels yet. Another case of experts believing lies because they´re just repeating lies told to them for political reasons that they themselves might be totally oblivious to. The real reason that LSD is illegal is because it makes you more intelligent.

Which brings me to another point - The fact is that the only real conspiracy is the conspiracy of idiots against intelligence.

I mean that. Maybe some of you will already know exactly what I mean but if you don´t please take some time to think about it and let me know if you figure it out. I´ll probably get around to explaining this idea at some point.

Expand full comment

No, I have never been to Mexico. Never will. I live in Belgium and it's a bit far away for my taste. I've only taken a plane three times in my life (well, six times including the way back). Once to Warsaw (very impressive city) to meet a girlfriend, once to Verona (a place filled with pure magic, just wow) to accompany a girlfriend and once to Palma de Mallorca for a completely forgettable shitty vacation with a girlfriend. Otherwise, I know France very well, I had family there and my wife is French. I love that beautiful country, but then I don't think I'll ever go again. Some things I cannot forgive, one of them is Macron. I found flying quite amusing, compared to those who are afraid of it, but I don't think I'll ever do it again either, sadly. I've never read much about South American native cultures, except that they are now made up much brighter now than they really were - but then it's just one read I did not follow upon.

I am vaguely familiar with Cynthia Chung, the wife of Matthew Ehret if I remember correctly. I've never read anything she writes, she sounds like a limited hangout to me - but in this day and age, who doesn't? Her pointing out the people you mention as satanists is of no consequence. First, I don't believe satan is real - no more real than the beings you mentioned earlier. At most, it is a projection of oneself's perversions into a cartoon character. Second, if one should count the "satanists" of this world, one could end up with billions of them - anyone who thinks he can cheat his way out of life and go for the easy way would be a good candidate.

I haven't read anything from the authors you mention, which probably doesn't give much credibility to my assessing their intent. I usually trust Miles on those issues, as a very astute thinker and analyst, who gives his methodology - always a good sign. But then, I wouldn't even need to read him to come to the same conclusions, because I see a major giveaway with all those people. Life is not all about experimenting, taking chances. Youth is probably the right time to do that but then there comes a time when carelessness becomes destructive. Adults behaving like forever adolescents are the death toll of any society. Being the child of two raging imbeciles who fell for that kind of trap, I come from a place where I can safely say that everything was set up against the "free" generation in order to destroy families, social order and society in general. Some point to Russian destabilization programs (see Yuri Bezmenov), but I think it was a worldwide Intelligence collaborative effort, going on full throttle to this day, doing unprecented damage to the point where it would take generations to simply have a society back in working order. I'm a little older than you are and I remember the world I grew up in, and how impossibly fast it just went away. So yes, I'm positive those people you mention were issued a memo from above on how to turn a perfectly fine system (from their point of view) into a rubble - and I doubt any one of them ever went to jail. You should definitely read Miles' paper about Manson, you might have an epiphany about the whole thing being an op. I kind of knew someone, a regular pothead, now deceased, who held on to the notion that they were really legitimate, and I felt sorry for him not wanting to face the con to his last breath. My gripe with drugs specifically is that if they alone were taken out of the picture now, people would get really grumpy and the power structure currently working hard against humanity would be taken out in two weeks.

About sex, while I think it's an essential part of life, in my experience there is only one basic principle to understand: sex is (or should be) the natural way to balance male and female energies. It involves very subtle canals (the chakras) but then again, they are really not hard to spot with fully operational perception capabilities. I'm curious to eventually learn about different practices in different cultures but so far I haven't bumped into anything that different. While I suspect there can only be so many variations on the theme, I still keep an open mind. It's one of my main interests, actually. It frees your mind much better than any drug could.

As synchronicity would have it, there was a mention in the NoAgenda podcast (yes, the one with John C Dvorak, who's an expert in wine, and Adam Curry, who's a 24/7 pothead) of a new trend in America for microdosing ayuahuasca, which follows up a similar trend in 2017, as a cure for, well... things. Interestingly, it seems to target well-to-do Karens with a suburban existential angst problem, which I always imagined were the base customers for these kind of latest fads. Again, I am not against limited therapeutic usage of drugs, though this particular one is a little too close to MK-Ultra programs for comfort. As for therapeutics for myself, I prefer no chemicals whatsoever. In a now ancient bout of nervous breakdown, I had been prescribed anti-depressant pills, that the psychiatrist assured me were harmless and were given two at a time to children. I took a quarter of one just to stay on the safe side and ended up having a 28-hours non-stop nightmare, the worst I've had in my entire life. So you see that my defiance towards drugs is not entirely unsubstantiated. Punch line: the guy had the gall to ask me why I interrupted my treatment, I kid you not.

As for your last point, I believe the opposite: it is a conspiracy of Intelligence (with a capital I) against idiots. It has always been so, and you don't change a winning team. And LSD is only illegal for public relations purposes. Otherwise, it would not be manufactured and provided by the biggest drug trafficker on the planet: the CIA.

Expand full comment