Rockefellers Funded Terence McKenna?

[schizotypal]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/07/12/rockefellers-funded-terence-mckenna/">www.timboucher.com/journa...e-mckenna/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Is this true? <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

ChI-Ching! <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Laurence has always had an interest in non-mainstream and paranormal issues, so it doesn't surprise me he gave some money to McKenna's organization.<br><br>I don't think we should assume anything sinister, especially about McKenna. After all, many organizations working outside of the mainstream are often underfunded, and they'll take money from almost anyone. <br><br>Interesting tidbit, though. I wonder how much money actually went to the Green Earth Foundation. <p></p><i></i>

[schizotypal]

Well I searched the web and came out with that after I saw a video from mckenna where he talks about human consciousness, AI, and a possible fusion between the 2, something like that. That got me thinking.<br><br>Also he talks about an Archaic Revival, or something on the lines of civilization going back to basics. Reminds me of Maurice Strong... <p></p><i></i>

[Pissed Off Cabbie]

Laurance Rockefeller also funded Dr. John Mack, the late Harvard abduction researcher and author. Dr. Stephen Greer's Center For The Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence was funded, as well.<br><br>It's my take that Laurance was creating a new-age cult movement, and further obscuring exotic technology. Laurance founded McDonnell/Douglass, who may have developed some of that technology.<br><br>Alien abduction also serves to obscure mind-control experimentation. Dr. Mack never discussed his clients who insisted that they were abducted by humans in uniforms, and not aliens. <p></p><i></i>

[dugoboy]

i firmly believe environmentalism is just another elite constructed movement made to enslave people to 'save the world'. <p></p><i></i>

[Byrne]

I bought Terence McKennas 'Food of the Gods' a few years back & at the same time a compendium book entitled 'Archaic Revival' which had some articles/essays by McKenna.<br><br>McKenna wrote a fascinating article on Gordon Wasson, who together with his Russian wife, was a keen amateur researcher into hallucinogenic mushrooms.<br><br>I was always intrigued by the fact that Gordon Wasson was a vice president of J.P. Morgan & Co of New York; he partook of expeditions to South America to further his research into mushrooms. His article in Life Magazine ( in 1957 - Seeking the Magic Mushroom (see <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.imaginaria.org/wasson/life.htm" target="top">here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->) was a catalyst in the widening interest in the subject.<br><br>McKennas essay into the strange literary trail of publications relating to the naming of a particular stain of mushroom has always stayed with me - fascinating stuff, I'll need to dig it out. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=byrne@rigorousintuition>Byrne</A> at: 5/11/06 4:50 pm<br></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>i firmly believe environmentalism is just another elite constructed movement made to enslave people to 'save the world'.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I believe you are wrong. If you are right, the vast majority of biologists, climatologists, toxicologists, geologists, ecologists, and other scientists who study the Earth are misled, incompetent, or in cahoots with the "elite."<br><br>Such a bold statement begs some evidence to back it up. Got any?<br><br>Ever talked to anyone who actually studies this stuff? <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

<br><br>I believe "dugoboy" is right. Do you have any evidence that he's wrong, Mr. Pan? (Wow, this whole PPan approach of 'announcing' conclusions and then highhandedly issuing homework assignments is sweet. Now I can go right back to reading a good book, or something.)<br><br>By the way, Mr. Pan, I express all of these things in a good-natured sense. I don't want there to be any poison in the air, and I certainly hope I have many other exchanges with you and others here over time but...doggone it, you deserve a brisk comeback like the one above. That's pretty breathtaking self-authorization you assign yourself.<br><br>Let's apply your (failed?) attempt at logic to 9/11, for example--- I'll quote you, and insert 9/11:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"I believe you are wrong about a 9/11 conspiracy . If you are right, the vast majority of reporters, researchers and various experts are misled, incompetent, or in cahoots with the "elite."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>You see? Your 'argument' is actually a non-argument. Now go do your homework. (I jest.) <br> <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Yeah, I have plenty of evidence, Roth. An abundance, in fact, which is what I said in my reply to dugoboy. In fact, there is so much evidence that the environmental movement grew out of real concerns (Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" being the genesis of the movement, for those who care), and that it continues to work as a force against rampant industrialization and consumerism, that it's almost impossible to figure out where to start.<br><br>Some of my work has involved interviewing scientists who study environmental contaminants and their effects on humans. I've also been an environmentalist for most of my life, and I've associated with people in the environmental movement and read extensively about environmental issues.<br><br>Why should I have to defend my position against an unsubstantiated, baseless statement of belief?<br><br>And your 9/11 comparison is irrelevant -- you're comparing two different things. Environmental science is the work of decades of research and validation, whereas 9/11 scholarship has taken place in the last five years. You're also comparing history and social science with hard science like biology and climatology.<br><br>Sorry, roth, but your increasing attempts to portray me as a knee-jerk debunker don't quite cut it. <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

<br><br>That is amazingly arrogant to dismiss an entire body of work and all of the thinkers, scholars and scientists who oppose leftist environmentalism...as unsubstantiated and baseless. And then based on that utterly bizarre assertion you then excuse yourself from the reasoning process. I quote-- "..Why should I have to defend my position...".<br><br>It underscores all the more that you have a sense of entitlement to do as you just did here--- walk into a conversation and announce your conclusions. You assign "dugoboy" a homework project and excuse yourself.<br><br>Then you say my 9/11 comparison is "irrelevant"? That's it? That's all you have to do? Just announce the 'irrelevancy' of your opponent's point? <br><br>You charge me with the grave offense of "comparing two different things". Pan, that's what comparison is for-- you take "two different things" and you...compare them.<br><br>The rest of your comment is some of the most astounding triple-talk gobbledygook I think I may have ever seen. You dug yourself a huge hole by saying, in essence, that leftist environmentalism MUST be right because otherwise all the leftist environmentalists would be wrong. Wow.<br><br>Besides the spectacularly circular nature of that statement, we have the example of 9/11 where it can be easily seen that the length and breadth of experts/journalists HAVE been duped or corrupted, and mistaken. <br><br>The leftist environmental movement began (according to you) forty-four years ago and the 9/11 revisionists started up five years ago. OK. Were we supposed to understand what your point is here? What principle kicks in for forty-four years but not for five? <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

My vote, if that counts for anything, is with professorpan. And I'm limiting myself to the proposal that 'the environmental movement is an elitist conspiracy'.<br><br>I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people who simply blurt out a statement like "I don't believe blah blah blah.." to back it up with something at least resembling evidence or argument. At the same time professorpan has given us his explanation for his statement. Seemed reasonable to me.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[NavnDansk]

movement can be highjacked by the elites as much of the 60s movement was by Operation Chaos and others that specifically targeting a good truth movement examining and distributing information on government lies including the lies that led to Vietnam.<br><br>A writer I like, Marge Pierce was deeply involved in SDS and quit when she could see it had been heavily infiltrated by government agents promoting violence and divisions between the real members. <p></p><i></i>

[chillin]

The thread was interesting when it started, something about Laurence Rockerfella contributing to McKennas work. What's so strange about it? Anyone with an open mind and unlimited funds would surely throw a few bucks his way. Same goes for Mack, I'd see the courage he displayed by taking on such a bizarre topic and just think 'great dude, go for it!'.<br><br>And Greer may end up being a major contributor to the unveiling of new energy tech, regardless of where it really comes from and the aura of strangeness that he seems to emit. To me it's not such a stretch to see Laurence as having had legitimate concerns about the self-destructive course we're on.<br><br>The way I see it, intelligent people will see the merits of an individual's work and not be swayed into some kind of brainwashed cult behavior as a result of it. And some people will get all twisted up even over non-controversial topics. So supporting something one finds interesting isn't necessarily an indication of some nefarious hidden agenda.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[dugoboy]

hello, i didn't mean to throw a rogue wave at this thread with my statement about environmentalism. i do have a link or 2 about this topic, but i'll have to go find them. also i don't mean to say all of environmentalism is a falsehood, what i meant was certain aspects are influenced and other aspects not so displayed for the public to see. there is pollution, ozone decay, global warming and contamination. but not to the extent some people think it is. peak oil is definately a scam idea. another thing, did you see that day after tomorrow movie? can you say propaganda?? <br><br>now you may think im some republican scum but i'm not. i've been a lefty most of my life, i even voted for kerry in '04 (fear of bush, naivety mostly). but after how i saw kerry not just drop the ball but walk over and HAND it to bush in ohio (voting in ohio was without a doubt rigged my sources say) i became very disillusioned with the demolican-republicrat bullshit and i started to take alex jones a bit more seriously, you see that the current national poltical stage is really, well, stage managed. 2 skull and bonesmen, lol, this is what its come to. <br><br>anyway, i'll try to dig around for those links. but i think the jist of it is that you get all these people together thinking they are saving the world, and then in the end what you realize is that alot of the ideas put forward to limit environmental damage (which is overstated) are very fascist in nature, yes its pushed by the democrats but who said the democrats have a rosy future planned for us either? <p></p><i></i>