extracted from the book 'Penetration'


The Preeminent Penetration Modality


Whatever may or may not be said regarding telepathy, two very clear and unambiguous statements can be made about it.

  • First, it CAN be said that IF telepathy exists, then it would be of such overreaching and extraordinary importance that all Earth-side institutions would have to be “reorganized" in the face of it.

  • Second, if a wide enough overview is accumulated about telepathy, and about how it is generally treated by Earth-siders, it is one human faculty that has a most excellent chance of being summarily shot down before it has a chance to open and wink its all-seeing eye.

The most visible explanation for this is that telepathy penetrates MINDS - and so its development is definitely cast into troubled waters where any format or element of mental secrecy might be involved. It must be more or less admitted that most Earth-side human activities cannot really get any where unless they are mounted upon this or that format of motivational secrecy or hidden agendas. Using this situation as a simple rule of thumb, one can then easy grasp the extent and nature of the anti-telepathic antipathies that can be generated and exerted from the top of societal pyramids down into the populations beneath them.

I have no hesitation in stating the above, because a full part of it is a fallout based on real experiences of mine. As but one significant example, for fifteen years I was involved in secret developmental Psi work at the prestigious Stanford Research Institute. The work (in developing remote viewing) was largely funded by the U.S. intelligence agencies. Because of this, many Washington types and many noted scientists visited SRI. Very many of them met only with my colleagues, and refused to meet little Moi, so much so that they would not even take lunch with me.

The reason: “Jesús, he can read my mind! I can’t let him get anywhere near me.”


This quote is NOT paraphrased. One of the amusing aspects of this is that IF telepathy is what it is, then one not need to be in the proximity of a telepath in order to have their mind penetrated. Another amusing aspect is that the funding agencies did sponsor the secret developmental work in remote viewing - somewhat on the grounds that it penetrates things, not minds.

This is to say that remote viewing pertains to penetration of “physicals,” not to penetration of “mentals.” In any event, the principal reason why ALL formats of Psi research are marginalized, treated to energetic diminishment, or suppressed altogether is that those formats do include potentials too near the hated and unwanted telepathic faculties. So, the whole barn of psychic research must be burnt down as quickly as possible, making sure that the telepathic horses don’t escape.

There is one notable exception to this, and one utilized for creative cover-up purposes. This exception involves the discovery of approaches to telepathy most noted either for the fact that they DO NOT work, or because they serve to disorient and defeat approaches that MIGHT work. Thus, the concept that telepathy is a mind-to-mind thing involving a sender and a receiver has been given extraordinary publicity - and has in fact become the principal Earth-side cultural model for it.

Intellectual phase-locking into this non-productive model is so intense and so widespread that Earth-siders literally cannot think of telepathy in any other way. With the exception of some few experiments in the former Soviet Union, and in the Peoples Republic of China, the sender-receiver model has not yielded anything more than slightly above-chance results. Even if the slightly above chance statistics are jerked around a little, none of them approach anything like telepathy plus. And yet the sender-receiver model of telepathy has been clung to for a little over a hundred years.

As my own information package about telepathy increased, it was logical enough to first assume that since telepathy could be seen as a threat to all sorts of Earth-side secrecy factors, those same secrecy factors would not, with any sense of humor, look upon the development of truly effective penetrative types of telepathy. This probability still remains paramount, and clearly has an Earth-side basis that can easily be established as such.

But if one approaches the concept that extraterrestrial intelligences might indeed be in possession of telepathy plus, then the Earth-side picture, that seems so certain all by itself, can easily take on some larger and astonishing dimensions. Earth-siders can think that if Space-side entities exist, then they are possessed of intelligence, and the same Earth-siders can indeed assume that alien intelligence to be, as often stated, “superior” to human intelligence. After all, the Space-side entities can build craft exceeding the limits of Earth-side scientific knowledge. And so not only their technology, but their “minds” as well MUST be superior.

Even so, the only mind-models Earth-siders have for "mind" are their own rather limited versions of what mind consists of - and from this Earth-side model has been sanitized all factors that Earth-siders themselves don’t want to consider or put up with. Thus, Earth-siders project THEIR minds as conceptualized upon all potential extraterrestrial entities. In this sense, the intellectual phase-locking regarding mind is planet wide, with the final situation being that the further one moves upward in Earth-side power structures the more constricted that phase-locking becomes.

Thus, there is some pungent and meaningful kind of hidden story here. But whatever it is, it clearly begins with the fact that Earth-side science, philosophy, religion, sociology and psychology DO NOT sponsor research into what can collectively be called Psi - while those same noble institutions are rather noted for condemning it. The modern Space Age facilities need not bother with the existence of extraterrestrial minds because those same facilities insist that nothing of the kind exists - near Earth, anyway.

Most surprisingly, one might think that Ufologists would consider mental processes of extraterrestrials, since they are so energetically involved with extraterrestrial equipment and technology. None of the above will touch the topic of Psi with a ten-foot pole, and all of the above protest any feasible, positive necessity for acting any other way - although some psychologists studying abduction phenomena have begun to notice the telepathic factor.


At least two observations can be made relevant to the above.

  • First, one might consider that the Earth-side retreat from Psi is something akin to protesting too much.

  • Second, if I were an ET with highly developed Psi skills (and which might have led in the first place to the evolution of superior technology), I wouldn’t particularly want Earth-siders to develop Psi faculties. And if telepathy was an element in, say, consciousness universal, I'd soon figure out how to telepathically impregnate Earth-side human consciousness with intellectual phase-locking that was detrimental to positive telepathic plus development.

The reason might be very obvious. After all, what ET would want Earth-side telepaths penetrating Space-side affairs, especially, perhaps on the Moon so near to them?

Thus, in this, at least, Space-siders and Earth-siders might have something in common - the Telepathy War, won hands down so far by the Space-siders.


The Earth-Side Concept of Telepathy

In the previous chapter, I pointed up that the modern concept of telepathy has not produced much in the way of evidence for telepathy much above some very low threshold activity. In other words, human telepathic faculties are known to exist. But, with the exception of spontaneous examples of telepathy, it does not function in a high-stage way. There could be any number of reasons for this. But one reason is that the concept is at odds with what telepathy really consists of. Because that concept is assumed to be so correct, it is never questioned - resulting in failure to move beyond it.

This is the same as saying that the concept is so wide-spread that strong intellectual phase-locking of the concept has taken place. During modern scientific times, the standard images of telepathy usually picture two heads or brains facing each other. The two heads or brains are meant to represent two MINDS. But since no one seems to have figured out how to render a mind into a pictorial image, an image of a head or brain stands in for one.

Between the two heads or brains are usually placed something like squiggly lines. The squiggles are meant to be suggestive of vibrations or waves telepathically traveling from one mind to the other mind. Sometimes one of the two heads is indicated as “sender,” the other as “receiver.” Since telepathy is identified with thoughts, the squiggly lines are meant to represent them. The modern idea fundamentally holds that telepathy is MIND-TO-MIND, and that the brain, or at least the head, is assumed to be the Seat of the mind or the mind itself. This fundamental idea seems entirely logical.

However, the above only represents the chief THEORETICAL model of telepathy as envisioned by some early psychical researchers about a hundred years ago.
But because of its apparent logic, the theory was assumed to be the truth of telepathy. Since the theory seemed so logical, the mind-to-mind concept quickly underwent wide-spread intellectual phase-locking to the degree that it soon obtained the planetary-wide status of unquestioned and unchallenged consensus reality.

Whether things are true or not, consensus reality usually casts them into cement. Thereafter, it is very difficult to tamper with a consensus reality - especially one that has “gone planetary" so to speak. But if the modern concept of telepathy is somewhat dispassionately examined, then, as we will shortly see, the first and major problem encountered relates to where and to what the mind is - and to IF it is. Beyond that, we can see that the modern concept of telepathy has hardly any long-term historical tradition which would establish it as a natural constituent of our species.

So one has to rummage around in early history in a kind of archaeological dig in order to discover what there was in the way of antecedents to telepathy. The ancient Romans identified two major terms which apparently referred to two different kinds of thought processes.


We continue to use them two today, but in quite different ways.

  • The Latin INTELLECTUS referred to the processes of thinking while in the awake state. The thinking was based on the physical senses, but included the senses of emotional feeling, the will, and decision-making based on perceived evidence.


  • The Latin INTUITOS was taken to refer to anything that did not fit into the parameters of INTELLECTUS, but which anyway influenced persons AND what happened or was to happen to them.

It was considered that INTUITUS was greater than individuals, but that individuals had a kind of intuitive thought processing capability. Some had more of this INTUITUS than others, and so INTUITUS was a Roman extension of the great traditions in antiquity regarding shamans, oracles and seers. This great tradition was world-wide, and far antedated even the ancient Romans and Greeks. In this very ancient tradition, it is quite probable that what we now specify as clairvoyance, intuition and telepathy were all housed within the same concept and not identified separately.

The usefulness of INTUITUS was that it provided information to users, and they didn’t much care how it was gotten, only that it was. We have only to add our contemporary idea of mentally processing information to the concepts of INTELLECTUS and INTUITUS, and we come up with a rather clear picture of the past. But like the ancients, we would have to specify different mental processes for different kinds of information.


We do this by indicating that there is a difference between:

(1) information derived from immediately objective sources
(2) information subjectively derived from sources that are not immediately objective

The only real difference between the ancient and the modern ideas of intellect and intuition is that we today think of them as THINGS -while the ancients considered them as information-acquisition processes or functions. But there is one more quite subtle difference. When we think of intellect and intuition as things, we will then try to use our things as tools to acquire information. In this sense, we first position the tool ahead of the information it is supposed to deal with.

Since we think of intellect and intuition as things, we suppose that the ancients did likewise. But the evidence is quite strong that they first positioned the information to be acquired by whatever means, and didn’t really conceptualize thing-like tools needed to acquire it. This subtle tradition still goes on, albeit outside of modern science and psychology. Many highly functioning people want information - and they still don’t particularly care how they get it as long as they do get it. We well understand that between intellect and intuition quite different thought processes are involved.

However, since in our modern times we don’t know what intuitive thought processing consists of, we attempt to utilize intellectual thought processing to achieve intuitive results. The results achieved by this mismatching are not much better than chance expectation. It was not until the sixteenth century that the concept of clairvoyance made its appearance in France. This commenced the distinction of separate INTUITUS factors. In French, the term was first utilized in the contexts of keen insight, clearness of insight, insight into things beyond the range of ordinary perception. These French definitions are approximate to the early Roman idea of INTUITUS.

The emphasis, of course, was on INSIGHT.

The route of the French CLAIRVOYANCE into English is not clear, but it seems it was not adapted into English usage until about 1847. When it did appear in English, it carried a slightly different definition: a supposed faculty of some persons consisting in the mental perception of objects at a distance or concealed from sight. Unless the difference is pointed up, it probably won’t be noticed. There is a strategic difference between the concept of insight and the concept of perceiving objects at a distance or concealed from sight.

Within the context of this book, the definitions of INSIGHT are somewhat amusing:

  • the power or act of seeing into a situation

  • penetration

  • the act of apprehending and penetrating into the inner nature of things or seeing intuitively

The use, in English, of the term CLAIRVOYANCE served to detach it from insight, and then to establish a special category limited to the “seeing" THINGS. The emphasis thus shifted toward a specialty interest only as regards mental mechanisms via which clairvoyance might function. With the English concept of clairvoyance thus established as seeing THINGS (not seeing insight, as it were) it then becomes obvious that a companion category having to do with penetrating minds was necessary. After all, human experiencing IS involved with things AND mental activities.

This special category already existed when the English concept of clairvoyance came into existence. The category was called THOUGHT-READING, and had a history going back for some centuries. The history was rather wobbly, though, since thought-reading had been used as a form of entertainment, and was thus heavily occupied by frauds.

The only concept of real thought-reading that has survived down unto today is expressed as someone “reading" someone else's “beads” - thereby gaining insight, etc. In any event, the parameters of what might constitute thought-reading were vague - and also carried the disadvantage of being related to the idea that thought-reading could be “picked up” in group kinds of ways. Such spreading about could, by some unknown subliminal means, result in infectious hysteria of what was latter termed “mob psychology."

What was wanted in order to break away from thought-reading was a concept that specifically identified “direct action of one mind on another, independent of the ordinary senses.” No such restrictions could be applied to thought-reading because of its somewhat notorious group-link characteristics. To fulfill the idea of direct action of one mind on another, the concept of THOUGHT-TRANSFERENCE appeared in England between 1876 and 1881. However, this concept was short-lived, because it remained somewhat cluttered with a confusion revolving around the idea that some kind of trance-like rapport was involved regarding the transference of thoughts and emotions. The transfer of emotions was still quite close to group responsiveness via some kind of entrainment.

All of these problems were gotten around (or so it was thought) with the coining, in about 1882, of the term TELEPATHY by the psychical researcher, F.W.H. Myers. One of the most cogent summaries of telepathy is found in the 1920 Encyclopedia of the Occult compiled by Lewis Spence.

Therein we read that,

"The idea of intercommunication between brain and brain, by other means than that of the ordinary sense-channels, is a theory deserving of the most careful consideration.”

Compacted this way for research purposes, “The idea" sounds absolutely great, doesn’t it?

Well, as already mentioned, “The idea” represents the chief horror of all horrors - in that very few humans relish the idea of having their brains penetrated in this way at all. As Lewis Spence (among other of his contemporaries) noted in 1920, inter-communication by means other than that of the ordinary sense-channel is something deserving of careful consideration. But this implies that there would have to be a desire to commence the consideration in the first place. After all, one has to establish the need or willingness to consider something before one can go ahead and “carefully" consider it.

Since the idea of telepathy is somewhat in conflict with preserving the idea of secretive power, the road of telepathy begun in 1882 was to find itself filled with major social blockages. In any event, Myers established a rather precise definition for the new term:

“a coincidence between two person’s thoughts which requires a causal explanation.”

The “causal explanation" was theorized as being like radio broadcasting “waves” which were sent and duplicated by receivers known as radios.

TELEPATHY replaced the earlier term, THOUGHT TRANSFERENCE, largely because the latter did not avail itself of the radio-wave hypothesis as THE causal explanation. Thereafter, the image of telepathy I've outlined at the head of this chapter has held complete sway. However, and as established, since telepathy cannot really exist without its major substance - thoughts - the telepathy situation still revolves around thoughts and their direct transfer from one brain to another. We now encounter the first of the major stumbling blocks. Everyone realizes that a thought contains information. And so here we are in the vicinity of a quite good analogy - a bottle of wine. Thoughts are the wine. But what does the bottle consist of?

THOUGHT is one of those terms that have many definitions - too many to bring any clarity to the issue.

THOUGHT: the action or process of thinking; serious consideration; recollection; reasoning power; the power to imagine; something that is thought; the individual act or process of thinking; intention; plan; the intellectual product of organized views and principles of a period, place, group, or individual; characterized by careful reasoned thinking.

As an addendum to the above definitions of THOUGHT, some, but not all, dictionaries also attach the term MINDFUL, the principle definition of which is “inclined to be aware.” So, one can read all of the eleven definitions of THOUGHT - and observe that thought-activity of any or all of them COULD proceed without any professed inclination to be aware of anything.

In the event of this, however, only the most gross cases might become noticeable. They would be dubbed as MINDLEES - that term referring to “inattentive, destitute of awareness, mind, or consciousness.”

All of the above might seem like extraneous excursions into words. But actually, one might well wonder if someone would telepathically pick up someone else’s mindless thoughts - such as utilizing rather mindless and dull cards of symbols and color shapes to test for telepathy. As it was back in the nineteenth century, most of these definitions for THOUGHT, and the confusions they carried, were easily available. And so Why-O-Why that term was seized upon at all as relative to telepathy is virtually inexplicable.

A vastly more cogent term would have been INFORMATION TRANSFERENCE.

As to TELEPATHY, this was a neologism put together from two terms: TELE meaning across; and EMPATHY traditionally referring NOT to thought, but to “the capacity for participating in another’s feelings or ideas as a result of becoming infused with them.” INFUSE is taken to mean to pour in, to introduce into, to insinuate, inspire, and to animate.

If the reader has found all of the above to be more than a little confusing, well, don’t worry. The concept of telepathy makes perfectly logical sense - IF it is discussed WITHOUT including its attendant difficulties.

If the attendant difficulties are mentioned, then various cognitive problems begin to arise - largely because the assumed logic of the telepathy model DOES NOT consider the “bottle” that contains the wine (thoughts).