bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter


How Harvard University Censored the Biography of William James

an open letter to Psychology Professor Matthew K. Nock

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

March 11, 2025



Dear Professor Nock1,

I am writing to suggest that Harvard make some reference to William James' views regarding laughing gas and the 'anesthetic revelation 2 ' in your online biography of the man at

https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/william-james 3

James urged philosophers to use such substances to study reality4, and Harvard's omission of that fact reads to me like academic censorship on behalf of Drug War sensibilities5. As someone who has written literally hundreds of essays on such topics, I am convinced that the Drug War ideology of substance demonization leads to suicides by denying fast-working feel-good medicine like laughing gas to the severely depressed -- under the apparent theory that suicide 6 is actually better than 'drug use.'7 In the same way, we use brain-damaging shock therapy on the depressed, apparently under the view that it is better to damage their brains than to let them use 'drugs.'8

Is this not insanity itself?

The fact is that there are hundreds of drugs that elate and inspire, some of which have almost NO addictive potential whatsoever (like the phenethylamines of Alexander Shulgin9) - and yet Drug Warriors are implicitly telling us that death is preferable to their use - death -- this despite the fact that Big Pharma drugs advertised on prime-time television report death itself as a potential side effect. Besides, surely even chemical dependency is better than the death of a suicidal individual. Americans clearly think so, insofar as 1 in 4 American women take a Big Pharma 10 11 drug every day of their life.

I guess we must abide by tyrannous drug laws, but that does not mean that we have to rewrite history to make it seem like those laws are just, or that the Drug War is some sort of natural baseline from which to study mind and mood. Nothing could be further from the truth. So I urge you to revise Harvard's online biography of William James to mention his work with laughing gas .

Sincerely Yours.

PS I write because I have a suicidal relative who recently visited the ER for severe depression - and it frustrates me that the modern protocol is to withhold from her anything that would clearly work. It seems to me that the modern physician's job is first and foremost to vindicate the materialist approach to mind and mood medicine (by prescribing 'meds' inspired by the doctrines of reductionism and behaviorism) and only secondarily to help the suicidal. But the suicidal need decisive help NOW, in the form of rapid-acting elation and inspiration, not theoretical help that might kick in, more or less, in a month or two if they're lucky.

PPS I am the only philosopher who has formally protested the FDA's recent plan to treat laughing gas as a 'drug.' I did this out of respect for William James and on behalf of academic freedom. I tried to encourage some Harvard philosophers to join me, but no luck. This is why I was disturbed to see that the Harvard bio of William James does not even mention laughing gas 12 . I fear that the Drug War has led to censorship at Harvard, or at least to self-censorship.

PPPS I should add that I am a 66-year-old philosophy major and chronic depressive. I have published hundreds of philosophical essays against the War on Drugs over the last six years at abolishthedea.com. During that time, I have written hundreds of personal letters to American and British philosophers on this subject and have yet to receive a reply from any of them. It seems to be 'more than people's jobs are worth' to discuss the philosophy of drug use - or to criticize the role of materialist science when it comes to mind and mood medicine -- but if you're an exception to this rule, I invite you to visit my site. My most recent essay on these topics is entitled: 'How the Myth of Mental Illness Supports the War On Drugs'13 (link below). I share physicist David Bohm's concern that modern psychology is still under the obsolete thrall of behaviorism, thanks to which it ignores all positive uses of drugs - whether suggested by anecdote, history and/or the common-sense motivations of incentives and anticipation. In this way, our modern psychologists give a veneer of 'science' to the DEA's lie that time-honored medicines have no positive uses whatsoever, even though drugs like Soma, coca and opium 14 have helped inspire entire religions in the past15 16.

https://www.abolishthedea.com/how_the_myth_of_mental_illness_supports_the_war_on_drugs.php

Author's Follow-up: March 31, 2025

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up




Are you sitting down?

You will never believe this, but Professor Nock has not yet seen fit to vouchsafe me a response viz. my scruples about Harvard censorship. To be fair, however, I imagine that he's struggling with the issue. I can sense that he is losing sleep over the implicit message that he might be sending via a non-response. "Shall I stop ghosting Brian and face Drug War censorship head on," quoth Matt, "or shall I not rather steer the course of mainstream propriety and continue pretending that Drug War prohibitions represent a natural baseline from which to study reality?"

Wait, the vision is becoming clearer. I see a wife... or a significant other of some kind... approaching our Matt.

"Stop beating yourself up," quoth he... or is it a she... or even a they? "Brian cannot expect you to discuss drug-related issues openly with him -- especially given the fact that he lacks the tenured status that, time out of mind, has constituted the minimum entry-level barrier for access to the Ivory Tower stalwart. And believe me, mister, you are as stalwart as it comes when it comes to the Ivory Tower, or my name is not..." ...whatever his or her name is, which, I cannot quite make out that level of detail in my otherwise inspired reveries. "I mean, look at you, you are chairperson of the Harvard Psychology Department, for Peter's sake!"

But what's this?

I see Matt shaking his head with doleful vigor, as who should say, "Yes, but do I deserve my status, given the fact that I am brazenly ignoring the psychoactive legacy of the very man thanks to whom I have this job?!"

It makes one feel kind of bad, to be putting our professor through this probable wringer -- to be forcing him to face these probable demons and to catechize himself in these probably derisive terms.

Why, it's probably terrible of me!

*william*

Notes:

1: Professor Matthew K. Nock, Department Chair, Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology, DIB Committee Co-Chair, Harvard University (up)
2: The Anaesthetic Revelation and the Gist of Philosophy (up)
3: Soma and the Anesthetic Revelation (up)
4: Will to Believe (up)
5: Coverup on Campus (up)
6: Why Americans Prefer Suicide to Drug Use (up)
7: Suicide and the Drug War (up)
8: Electroshock Therapy and the Drug War (up)
9: Scribd.com: PIHKAL: A Chemical Love Story (up)
10: How Drug Company Money Is Undermining Science (up)
11: Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of The FDA’s Drug Division Budget? (up)
12: Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide (up)
13: How the Myth of Mental Illness supports the war on drugs (up)
14: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton (up)
15: How psychologists gaslight us about beneficial drug use (up)
16: Soma and the Anesthetic Revelation (up)







Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US




I should have added to that last post: "I in no way want to glorify or condone drug demonization."

Getting off some drugs could actually be fun and instructive, by using a variety of other drugs to keep one's mind off the withdrawal process. But America believes that getting off a drug should be a big moral battle.

William James claimed that his constitution prevented him from having mystical experiences. The fact is that no one is prevented from having mystical experiences provided that they are willing to use psychoactive substances wisely to attain that end.

Here's the first step in the FDA process for evaluating a psychoactive drug: Ignore all glaringly obvious benefits

We won't know how hard it is to get off drugs until we legalize all drugs that could help with the change. With knowledge and safety, there will be less unwanted use. And unwanted use can be combatted creatively with a wide variety of drugs.

The Partnership for a Drug Free America should be put on trial for having blatantly lied to Americans in the 1980s about drugs, and using our taxpayer money to do so!

Someone tweeted that fears about a Christian Science theocracy are "baseless." Tell that to my uncle who was lobotomized because they outlawed meds that could cheer him up -- tell that to myself, a chronic depressive who could be cheered up in an instant with outlawed meds.

It's really an insurance concern, however, disguised as a concern for public health. Because of America's distrust of "drugs," a company will be put out of business if someone happens to die while using "drugs," even if the drug was not really responsible for the death.

Drug prohibition is the biggest tyranny imaginable. It is the government control of pain relief. It is government telling us how and how much we are allowed to think and feel in this life.

The formula is easy: pick a substance that folks are predisposed to hate anyway, then keep hounding the public with stories about tragedies somehow related to that substance. Show it ruining lives in movies and on TV. Don't lie. Just keep showing all the negatives.


Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us






Why Americans Prefer Suicide to Drug Use
How the Myth of Mental Illness supports the war on drugs


Copyright 2025 abolishthedea.com, Brian Quass

(up)