The New Eden
A NEW EDEN IS being built today, or perhaps it is merely a new face
being put on the old Eden. Today’s Eden is characterized by sterile
architecture and stylistic homogeneity. Inhabitants of modern Eden
are offered many ways to cope with the stresses of living in Eden;
among them are drugs that promise to change or control nearly every
negative human attribute (and every positive one, too). The new Edenites are taught philosophies which promise a materialist Utopia
within a spiritual wasteland. Despite all of these “advances,”
Edenites still commit suicide at a surprisingly high rate.
Tragically, a great many suicide
victims are young people. What are
some of those victims telling us? Perhaps it is that today’s Eden is
still Eden: a gilded cage, a pampered prison. Many young people
sense it and rebel by changing clothing or hairstyle, but they
find that they are still trapped not really understanding how or why.
Like Adam and Eve, many individuals, no matter how successful or
pampered they have been in life, find that they want to escape.
Today’s Eden continues to be strongly influenced by the
Brotherhood network and its outgrowths. Any discussion of the
Brotherhood in today’s world is, however, a delicate matter. We are
no longer talking about people and groups that reside comfortably in
the past, but we must now confront people and organizations that are
very much a part of today’s world.
Please allow me to therefore
reiterate two very important points:
1. The vast majority of people who join
movements and organizations
do so for the right reasons, including those who join Brotherhood
branches and Custodial religions. They have heard a bit of truth or
they have seen a solution to a genuine problem. They work in those
organizations to disseminate that truth or to solve that problem. As
has been true throughout all of history, almost none of them,
including most of their top leaders, are knowingly engaged in
Machiavellian activities.
They only know that they have been given a
just cause to pursue against some other human group, unaware that
somewhere else, in similar organizations, other people have been
given a just cause to pursue against them. The corruption within the
Brotherhood network, and the violence emanating from it, are as
upsetting to them as they are to everyone else.
2. My purpose is correction, not
condemnation. There are no saints on
Earth, and probably nowhere else, for that matter. Yes, there are a
great many very fine people who deserve to be helped, but there is
probably no being on Earth who has not at some time, in some way,
contributed to what we have discussed in this book.
To engage
in blame, punishment, or recrimination at this stage of the game can
only make affairs worse. I hope to encourage the idea that no matter
what we have done in the past, it is the present and future that
truly count. My purpose in writing this book is only to ask that we
take a moment’s pause to step back and look at what we may all be
caught up in.
Perhaps each of us can then carefully determine what we
need to do (or stop doing) to help bring about the changes required
to set things straight, without disrupting our lives or cherished
institutions. What is needed now from everyone is cooperation, not
recrimination.
As we survey the modern organizations and religions which arose out
of the Brotherhood network, we discover
something rather ironic. As the world continues its intellectual
flirtation with materialism, Brotherhood organizations and Custodial
religions are among the few sources which keep alive any idea that
man might be a spiritual being. As a result, many Brotherhood
organizations and Custodial religions attract some very fine people
within whom the spiritual spark has not died. It is difficult to
find a Jesuit father, an American Freemason, a Presbyterian minister,
or a Jewish rabbi who is not a very decent person.
The overwhelming
majority of them emphasize the truly benign and uplifting aspects of
their theologies. It is equally difficult not to feel good at a
Catholic mass on Christmas Eve, or to be stimulated by a
conversation with an articulate Rosicrucian about the meaning of
life. It is equally impossible not to appreciate the smile of a
young child basking in the warmth of a successful family unit
held together by the Hebrew religion, or to savor the aesthetics of an
exceptional Hindu artwork.
Children and elderly people are helped
every day through the kind works of Freemasons, Oddfellows, and
Shriners. Fascinating political discussions can be had with an
avowed Marxist and one can learn some of the most astonishing facts
from a dyed-in-the-wool ”right-winger.” Nevertheless, most of the
institutions that arose out of the Brotherhood network continue to
cause serious problems today.
In this book, we looked closely at the inflatable paper money
system. In the United States today, over 75% of the money supply is
created by commercial banks. When you deposit a dollar in a
commercial bank, that dollar becomes the bank’s to lend out, and the
bank creates an additional dollar which becomes the dollar in your
bank account. That dollar in your bank account, however, is not a
guaranteed dollar. It is simply a debt owed by the bank to you. That
debt, however, quickly turns into money because you can spend it
right away, and the bank still has your original dollar. In this
way, the bank has created money “out of nothing.”
Banks make most of
their profit by being allowed to create money in this fashion. The
interest banks charge on loans merely pays some of the administrative
expenses and, more importantly, it compensates for the inflation
that the banks inevitably cause by creating money in the manner that
they do. There are, of course, legally-mandated limits to how many
dollars a bank may create.
A commercial bank must maintain a minimum
base of cash (central bank notes) for every dollar deposited, but it
is only a small percentage. As long as people use their checking
accounts and do not demand too much actual cash, a bank will be safe.
A bank can go “broke,” however, if enough of its loans default or
if too many depositors demand actual cash and thereby wipeout a
bank’s small asset base.
The result of this whole system is massive debt at every level of
society today. The banks are in debt to the depositors, and the
depositors’ money is loaned out and creates indebtedness to the
banks. Making this system even more akin to something out of a
maniac’s delirium is the fact that banks, like other lenders, often
have the right to seize physical property if its paper money is not
repaid.
At the national and international levels, we read today of Third
World nations staggering under huge debts. Most of those debts are
“illusionary” in the sense that the bulk of the loans come from
banks which generate or channel “created out-of-nothing” money. Some
of those banks, such as some represented by the
International
Monetary Fund (IMF), have the right to dictate economic policies and
demand austerity measures within the indebted nations to get the
loans repaid. In Brazil, for example, the IMF imposed austerity
measures in the early 1980’s.
The measures included large scale wage
cuts for Brazilian workers, higher prices on all goods, devaluation
of the currency, and increased exports—all to pay back a debt founded
mainly on illusion. The result was a tremendous drop in the
well-being of the Brazilian people, and riots. The destruction of
Brazilian rain forests that we are witnessing today is being caused
in large part by Brazil’s need to repay loans based on illusionary
money. Studies prepared by
the World Bank blame population growth
for depletion of the rain forests, but conveniently leave out the
major role that the World Bank itself has played in causing Brazil’s
indebtedness.
Another example is the Dominican Republic, which had a $3 billion
debt as of the mid-1980’s. The country would like to spend its scarce
income on better housing for its people. In 1985, however, the
nation was faced with having
to expend more money to repay its loans than it could earn in foreign
currency. The IMF nevertheless demanded strict austerity measures,
including large price increases on basic goods, thereby triggering
riots. The IMF also mandated a devaluation of the Dominican
currency; this increased exports, but made imports much more
expensive.
Who were the real losers in all of this? The Dominican
people.
In the United States under the recent presidential administration
of Ronald Reagan, the American national debt was doubled. Most of
the loan money, of course, traces back to the
“created-out-of-nothing” money of large banks. Nevertheless,
interest on this money must now be paid. To pay it, federal social
services were cut under Reagan, thereby hurting the standard of
living of many Americans. What was much of this extra loan money
used for? Military needs.
On a smaller scale, the inflatable paper money system causes farmers
to lose farms. Most farmers do not lose their way of life because
they fail to work hard or because they do not produce something of
great value. They lose because they cannot meet the demands of the
paper money system. This allows large agribusinesses to step in and
buy up the farmland, resulting in the concentration of food
production in an ever-dwindling number of hands.
As we can see, the modern monetary system has had the effect of
destroying many benefits that mass production and advances in
science and technology would have offered the human race. By now, the
need for all-consuming toil for physical existence should be largely
ended; but the inflatable paper money system has helped to
preserve that need by creating massive debt, chronic inflation,
and general economic instability. The vast majority of people in all
nations today must still continue to spend the major portion of
their prime waking hours working to meet their financial needs. The
Custodial goal expressed in the Biblical Adam and Eve story of
making people toil from birth until death is still being fulfilled.
Another significant by-product of the modern money system is
taxation. Most Americans believe that the U.S. government creates
its own money. If that is true, then why would the government need to
tax anyone? Why does not the government simply allocate to itself the
money it needs to operate? That would obviously be far more sensible
than erecting enormous tax-collecting bureaucracies which can drive
people to despair and greatly diminished productivity.
The answer is that the U.S. government does not create money—the
Federal Reserve and commercial banks do, and they are not public
entities. To obtain some of the money those banking entities create,
the government must either tax or borrow. It does both, and the
citizens pay. Taxation, especially in nations with graduated income
tax schemes, makes it harder for people to save money and thereby
contributes to the need for most people to spend the majority of
their lives toiling for physical existence.
Despite the welcome political reforms now transforming Russia and the
Eastern bloc, communism remains a power in other nations where it has
inspired fearful oppressions in recent decades, as the people of
Ethiopia and Kampuchea have learned to their great sorrow:
On September 12, 1974, the monarchy of
Ethiopia was overthrown in a
military coup. Six months later, the monarchy was entirely abolished
by the revolutionary government and Ethiopia was made a Marxist state
complete with collective farms and government-owned industry. The new
Marxist rulers soon found themselves opposed by an independence
movement in the Ethiopian provinces of Eritrea and Tigre. That
independence movement was, and still is, kept alive to a large
extent by another Marxist group: the Popular Liberation Front. The
resulting battles between the Marxist regime and the Marxist
liberation have brought about a great loss of life.
The Ethiopian
famines we hear so much about today have been caused primarily by the
Ethiopian government’s attempt to squelch the Eritrean liberation
movement by hindering relief shipments to drought regions. This
amounts to an act of genocide. People have died horrible deaths as
they found themselves caught between two equally brutal factions.
Behind all of this we find once again evidence of the Brotherhood
network: the emblem of the Marxist regime prominently features the
Brotherhood symbol of the “All-Seeing Eye.”
On April 17, 1975, the capital of
Kampuchea (formerly Cambodia) fell
to communist revolutionary forces. A
virtual news blackout followed. The stories that leaked out were
horrifying beyond description. After the election of communist leader Pol Pot as premier in April 1976, Kampuchea suffered what some
experts believe to have been the worst genocide since World War II.
At least one million, and as many as three million, Kampucheans died.
Out of a population of 7.5 million, that represents a substantial
portion.
This genocide was part of a grand economic
plan formulated
by highly-educated Kampuchean leaders who boasted advanced degrees in
economics and social science from universities in France. Those
leaders decided that their nation should have an agrarian economy
... immediately.
The capital of Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, was forcibly
evacuated and its residents were compelled to enter the countryside
where rural “production cooperatives” awaited them. Private property
was abolished. Citizens who were perceived as standing in the way of
the new Kampuchean Utopia by virtue of their occupations or
education, and those people who objected to being forced into
slavery, were murdered. Children were often recruited to carryout
the murders, thereby helping to breed in the young generation of
Kampuchea a higher than normal incidence of psychopathology.
This
grand Kampuchean scheme under Pol Pot was a virtual carbon copy of
the brutal programs launched earlier in history by the revolutionary
council of 18th-century France, by the regime of Joseph Stalin in
Russia, and by the Cultural Revolution of Mao Tse-Tung in China. The
Pol Pot regime collapsed in January 1979 when Kampuchea was invaded
by the communist North Vietnamese, who were hardly models of
civility themselves. By 1990, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge
re-emerged. They were part of a coalition seeking to retake power by
military force. The coalition was supported by the United States
and, according to several eyewitnesses, CIA-provided weapons
continued to reach the still-brutal Khmer Rouge troops.
Prior to the dismantling of the Soviet Union,
many communist
movements in the world were supported by the Soviet KGB and other
Eastern bloc secret services as part of their mission to foment wars
of “liberation” around the world. Interestingly, Western
intelligence services had also assisted in the establishment of
communist regimes just as the German military had done in 1917.
The
United States initially backed Fidel Castro in Cuba and Ho Chi Minh
in Vietnam, both of whom afterwards established communist regimes in
their respective nations. Both nations still remain communist as of
this writing. The United States had also initially backed Pol Pot
and helped him achieve power in Kampuchea. The Communist world, both
past and present, was very much a product of Western activity.
Behind today’s political factionalism we continue to find evidence
of direct Brotherhood network involvement. The
Sovereign Military
Order of Malta (SMOM), for example, was strongly anti-Communist and
instilled anti-Communism in its adherents as a spiritual goal. There
is nothing wrong with that until it becomes another justification to
breed more violence, oppression and strife. One of SMOM’s Knights in
America, the late William Casey, headed the American CIA from
January 28, 1981 until January 29, 1987. During his tenure as CIA
chief, Casey did much to increase CIA covert operations, especially
in Central America.
There, CIA-backed “Contra” rebels and right-wing
“death squads” committed horrible atrocities against civilians in the
name of fighting communism. Other SMOM Knights in national
intelligence organizations have included James Buckley of Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty, John McCone (former director of the CIA under
President John Kennedy), and Alexandre de Marenches (chief of
French Intelligence under President Giscard d’Estaing, who was also
an SMOM Knight).
The American CIA is also influenced by Mormonism, Freemasonry, and
other lesser known Brotherhood organizations. Mormons are often
sought by CIA recruiters due to the overseas experience many Mormons
receive in their missionary work, and a few have reached very
high positions within the American intelligence community. Some
Masonic groups provide special scholarships for young members to
attend the Foreign Service School in Washington, D.C. That school
provides the nation with many of its State Department personnel,
diplomats, and spies. All of these Brotherhood influences have
combined to create an ideological hotbed in American foreign
policy. The result has been the maintenance of the United States
as an effective political faction for keeping conflict alive around
the world.
“Lone assassins” continue to be significant today. Earlier in the
book, we looked at the origin of the lone assassin phenomenon as a
political tool. The substantial “conspiracy” evidence surrounding
modern-day assassinations indicates that such killings continue to
be crude political weapons. The primary difference today is that
some “lone assassins” appear to be a cover for a second hidden
assassin, and a pretense is made that the “lone assassin” really did
act alone. In all other important respects, modern “lone assassins”
are nearly identical to those programmed by the Brotherhood’s Ismaili organization centuries ago in the Middle East.
To illustrate,
let us review some of the evidence behind recent assassinations.
A great deal has already been written about the November 22, 1963
assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, so I will only
summarize the events here. President Kennedy was killed by rifle fire
while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. Almost immediately
after the shooting, suspicions of a conspiracy arose. The alleged
“lone assassin,” Lee Harvey Oswald, publicly proclaimed that he was
only a “patsy.”
The ballistics and physical evidence strongly
suggested that Kennedy was hit by bullets fired from in front of him,
not from behind where Oswald was positioned. Oswald never had a
chance to elaborate on his claim that he was a patsy or go to trial
because, two days after his arrest, he was murdered while in police
custody by a night club owner, Jack Ruby—a man with known Mafia
connections. Ruby went to prison and died there less than four years
later.
An official government panel was convened to investigate the JFK
assassination. Known as the “Warren Commission” after its chairman,
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, the panel concluded
that Oswald had acted entirely alone. Years later, a U.S. House of
Representatives panel spent 26 months re-investigating the murders
of John F. Kennedy and black civil rights leader Martin Luther
King, Jr. (who was slain in 1968 by an alleged “lone assassin”). The
House panel concluded that the “lone assassins” did not act alone
and that conspiracies lay behind the Kennedy and King killings. The
panel felt that further police investigation was
warranted. Despite rumors and evidence of CIA and Mafia
involvements in the Kennedy shooting, no convictions of
any co-conspirators have ever occurred.
John Kennedy’s younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy, was assassinated
almost five years later on June 5, 1968 inside the Ambassador Hotel
in Los Angeles, California. RFK was running for president at the
time he was shot and he was almost certain to win the Democratic
nomination.
He had just finished delivering a speech to enthused
campaign workers and began to walk through the back pantry area
surrounded by a throng of well-wishers and reporters. It was in the
pantry area that the convicted assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, opened fire
at close range with a .22 caliber pistol. A number of people were
hit and Kennedy fell to the floor with head and body wounds. Sirhan
was immediately apprehended.
Kennedy died the next day and Sirhan
went onto be convicted as the sole assassin. Despite the conviction,
a great deal of controversy remained. In an extraordinary feat
of investigative journalism, researcher Theodore Charach compiled a
large body of evidence indicating that a second hidden gunman, not
Sirhan Sirhan, had fired the shot which killed Kennedy.
Mr. Charach
used his evidence to create an astonishing feature-length
documentary film entitled The Second Gun. The movie enjoyed a short
theatrical release in the 1970’s and has recently been made available
on home videotape.* Mr. Charach’s research was picked up by others
and
it eventually brought about the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors hearings into the assassination.
* The Second Gun videotape was released by Video Cassette Sales, Inc. Please see
Bibliography for address.
The RFK “second gun” case rests on a great deal of fascinating
ballistics evidence and eyewitness testimony. For example, the Los
Angeles coroner performed an analysis of the gunpowder burns on
Kennedy’s head and clothing. The burns revealed that the muzzle of
the gun was not more than one to three inches from Kennedy’s head
when it fired the fatal bullets; i.e., the muzzle was at point blank
range. All eyewitnesses, however, reported that Sirhan’s weapon was
never closer than twelve inches; a significant difference as far as
powder burns are concerned.
The Second Gun suggests that the fatal
bullet may have been fired from the gun of a uniformed security
guard who was holding Kennedy by the right arm when the shooting
started. The guard admitted pulling out his gun during the melee,
but denied firing it. An eyewitness on the scene, however, did
testify to seeing the guard fire. There is no record that the police
ever examined the guard’s pistol.
A bizarre diary reportedly written by Sirhan, and discovered in his
apartment after the shooting, seems to lend weight to the conspiracy
theory. In that diary, Sirhan wrote several times of the need for
Robert Kennedy to die in connection with Sirhan receiving large sums
of money. One entry mentioned $100,000. The most interesting diary
entry is that one in which Sirhan, who seemed to relish the thought
of receiving large checks made payable to him, appears to repeat an
instruction that he has never heard a promise that he would receive
money for Kennedy’s death, which needed to happen by June 5,
1968—the date of the California primary.
Sirhan’s diary contained
the following words:
Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated Robert F.
Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June ‘68 Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated I have never heard please pay to the
order of of of of of of.1
The LAPD (Los Angeles Police
Department) considered the diary entries to be
nothing more than the
rantings of a mentally-deranged lone assassin. If that truly was
Sirhan’s writing, his references to money would certainly provide an
additional motive for him to take shots at Kennedy, whom he greatly
disliked anyway. The question is: who offered Sirhan the apparent
money and does Sirhan believe that he will still receive it when he
is finally released from prison? To this day, Sirhan maintains that
he acted entirely alone, and the FBI and Los Angeles Police
Department are content to agree with him.
If a security guard fired the shot which killed RFK, it is possible
that he did it accidentally. The guard may have
drawn his gun from his holster in an effort to defend Kennedy without
even realizing it. The police, however, never even considered this
possibility despite the powerful evidence that Sirhan’s gun did not
fire the fatal bullet. The LAPD was instead very one-minded in its
“lone assassin” theory and, as pointed out by a Los Angeles Times
article, badly mishandled some of the key physical evidence.*
*The mishandled evidence included ceiling panels from the pantry
area that may have contained bullet holes indicating the presence of
a second gun. Incredibly, the panels were destroyed by the police.
According to LAPD chief Daryl Gates, the destruction of the panels
had been done routinely. Mr. Gates said that this did not constitute
destruction of evidence because the panels had not been introduced
as evidence at Sirhan’s trial. He added, however:
... I just think that it [destroying the panels] was lack of
judgment. It was a lack of common sense and inexcusable
because the case had worldwide magnitude. More importantly, Sirhan
had been convicted and his appeal
was not even in prospect yet. Potential evidence should never
be destroyed until the entire case has run out. What the hell were
these things destroyed for? That borders
on Catch 22 insanity. It was just like they were opening up the
doors to total criticism and doubt. There’s no way it can be
explained.2
Rumors again abounded of a possible Mafia and/or CIA involvement in
the Robert Kennedy shooting, but no coconspirators were ever
arrested in the case.
In the early afternoon of March 30, 1981, President Ronald Reagan
finished giving a speech at the Washington Hilton Hotel. Surrounded
by his entourage and Secret Service agents, Reagan walked out to the
driveway where a limousine awaited him. As in the Robert Kennedy
shooting, an apparently crazed young man emerged from the crowd
firing a pistol. Reagan was pushed into the limousine by a Secret
Service agent, rushed to a hospital and underwent surgery to remove a
single bullet which had struck him in the left rib cage and pierced
his left lung. It is fortunate that the wound was not fatal.
The
“lone assassin,” John Hinckley, Jr., went on to be convicted of the
crime. According to a newspaper columnist, the FBI did all it could
to prove that Hinckley had been the sole assassin
on the scene. Some people, however, have expressed doubts about the
FBI’s conclusion. In a press conference held a month after his
recovery, Mr. Reagan answered questions indicating that he did not
feel the impact of the bullet that struck him until he was all the
way inside the limousine:
Q: What were your first thoughts when you
realized you had been hit?
A: Actually, I can’t recall too clearly. I knew I’d
been hurt, but I
thought that I’d been hurt by the Secret Service man landing on me
in the car, and it was, I must say, it was the most paralyzing pain.
I’ve described it as if someone had hit you with a hammer.
But that sensation, it seemed to me, came after I was in the car,
and so I thought that maybe his gun or something, when he [the
Secret Service agent] had come down on me, had broken a rib.
But when I sat up on the seat and the pain wouldn’t go away, and
suddenly I found that I was coughing up blood, we both decided that
maybe I’d broken a rib and punctured a lung.3
In a later, interview, Mr. Reagan’s wife,
Nancy, confirmed the
President’s impression.
Had Mr. Reagan simply suffered a delayed reaction to a bullet fired
from Hinckley’s gun, or had he actually been shot, perhaps
accidentally, inside the car by a Secret Service agent, as the above
testimony would suggest? According to the FBI, the bullet that
wounded Mr. Reagan had ricocheted off the limousine door just as Mr.
Reagan was being pushed into the vehicle. If the FBI explanation is
true, why did the bullet not explode upon impact with the door since
it was an exploding bullet? Perhaps the bullet was a “dud”?
It is
possible that two coincidences did occur at the Reagan shooting: a
dud bullet followed by a delayed pain reaction. Another explanation
which does not require a coincidence is that Reagan was shot,
perhaps accidentally, by the Secret Service agent inside the car:
this would explain both the failure of the exploding bullet to
explode (it did not hit an intervening metal door) and Mr. Reagan’s
own recollection.
The FBI did not pursue the “second gun” angle in the Reagan
shooting. This is troubling because the convicted assassin, John
Hinckley, Jr., claimed that there was a conspiracy involved in the
shooting. In its October 21, 1981 issue, the New York Times
reported:
A Justice Department source late tonight confirmed a report that
John W. Hinckley, Jr. had written in papers confiscated from his
cell in July that he was part of a conspiracy when he shot President
Reagan and three other men March 30.4
Hinckley’s allegation should have set in motion an intensive
conspiracy investigation. After all, John Hinckley, Jr., was not just
a random individual out of the American melting pot. He was the son
of a wealthy personal friend and political supporter of the
then-Vice President who, of course, would have become President if
Reagan had died. This is not to say that a conspiracy necessarily
existed, only that such circumstances typically trigger a much more
intensive investigation.
The New York Times states that the FBI
seized Hinckley’s papers, followed up on the leads, and concluded
that Hinckley’s conspiracy claim was untrue. The judge hearing the
case ordered attorneys and witnesses not to divulge the contents of
Hinckley’s papers to the public. The prison guards who had seized and
read the papers gave their testimony in secret to the judge. At
Hinckley’s trial, neither defense nor prosecuting attorneys ever
raised the issue of a “conspiracy,” nor the second gun possibility.
Instead, the entire trial centered around Mr. Hinckley’s very
visible mental problems.
Perhaps the three shootings just discussed really were committed by
lone assassins, with two of the shootings involving the accidental
discharge of a firearm by a security agent. An assassination in the
Philippines proved, however, that such scenarios may sometimes be
the cover for a murder committed by an intelligence organization.
The year was 1983. Benigno Aquino was a popular opposition leader in
the Philippine Islands. The Philippines were then under the
dictatorial rule of President Ferdinand Marcos. Marcos had declared
martial law in the 1960’s and
never saw fit to lift it. After three years of voluntary exile from
his homeland, Aquino made a decision to return to his country even
though six years earlier he had been sentenced to death by firing
squad for his political activities.
Aquino’s airplane landed at Manila Airport on August21, 1983.
Surrounded by Filipino security officers, Aquino had just descended
the stairs from the airplane when shots rang out. A bullet hit him in
the back of the head and killed him. The “lone assassin,” Rolando Galman y Dawang, was on the tarmac (runway area) and was instantly
shot dead by a security man near him. The government immediately
declared Galman the “lone assassin” and tried to close the case.
Suspicions arose immediately.
President Marcos had a motive for killing Aquino and Aquino had
already been sentenced to death. To quash these suspicions, Marcos
convened an official panel to investigate the killing, similar to
the Warren Commission impaneled twenty years earlier in the United
States to investigate the John Kennedy assassination. Critics
charged that the Marcos panel was one-sided and pro-Marcos. Many
doubted that the panel would come to any conclusion other than the
official one. Something unexpected occurred, however. The panel
pursued the investigation objectively. It heard evidence about the
powder burn on Aquino’s head indicating that the fatal bullet was
fired from 12 to 18 inches away.
The government claimed Galman had
come that close, but eyewitnesses did not confirm this. A journalist
on the plane testified that two security men standing right next
to Aquino had pulled out their revolvers and had pointed them at the
back of Aquino’s head just before the shots rang out. Overwhelming
forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony indicated that Aquino was
shot by one of the security men assigned to “protect” him. The “lone
assassin” was nothing more than a crude cover. The Marcos commission
issued a finding to that effect.
The panel findings resulted in .the criminal indictments of several
high-ranking military officers. At trial, however, all were
acquitted. The vagaries of the Filipino justice system did not
permit a great deal of crucial testimony acquired by the commission
to be introduced at trial. A number of important witnesses for the
prosecution did not appear. Several witnesses had reported
being intimidated. After Marcos was ousted from office and sent into
a plush Hawaiian exile by Benigno Aquino’s wife, Corazon Aquino,
witnesses came forward testifying that the trial had been rigged by
Marcos. Other eyewitnesses to the shooting also came forward with
further evidence corroborating that Benigno Aquino had been shot by a
security man.
The significance of the Aquino killing is that the scenario of the
shooting is virtually identical to other “lone assassin” episodes.
If, for example, there existed a conspiracy behind either the RFK or
Ronald Reagan shooting, then the modus operanti! would appear to be
identical to the modus operand in the Aquino shooting: a
mentally-disturbed or politically-fanatical “lone assassin” is used
as a cover for the true assassin who is on the scene as a security
escort for the victim. This is important because the Filipino
officers indicted for masterminding the Aquino shooting
included General Fabian Ver and men under his command.
Ver not only
led the nation’s military forces, but also its intelligence network.
In other words, the “lone assassin” shooting of Benigno Aquino was a
military/intelligence operation. This is significant because the
Philippine Republic was a major
U.S. ally at the time of the shooting, and the U.S. still has large
naval and air bases there. The Philippines receive a great deal of
aid from the United States, along with U.S. military and
intelligence advisors. The Filipino intelligence apparatus therefore
owes much to the American CIA and
U.S. military intelligence. This is not to say that American sources
were necessarily involved in the Aquino shooting.
It simply shows how
an important Western intelligence service recently utilized the
“lone assassin” technique, but used it so crudely that people saw
through it immediately. Even
U.S. newspapers which have been quick to accept “loneassassin”
verdicts in American assassinations ran editorials condemning the
acquittal of the Filipino military men. Our hats should go off to
those brave panel members who had the courage to look behind the
“lone assassin” myth, and to those eyewitnesses who were brave enough
to testify. Such integrity is a precious commodity.
Modern “lone assassins” are not just American-related phenomena; they remain international in scope. On May13, 1981 during
his public appearance in St. Peter’s Square, Pope John Paul II was
shot. He survived and still holds the Papacy today. The convicted
“lone assassin,” Mehmet Ali Acga, had fired from a crowd that
surrounded the Papal automobile. Interestingly, the Italian police
also arrested a second gunman in connection with the shooting
and accused Bulgarian intelligence agents of being involved in a plot
to kill the Pope.
Bulgaria was still a communist nation at the time.
Russia accused the American CIA of manufacturing this so-called
“Bulgarian Connection” for propaganda purposes; however, Western
newspapers reported that the CIA had actually stepped in and put
pressure on the Italian police to drop the “Bulgarian Connection” and
the “second gun” case. The Italians succumbed to CIA demands after
the accused assassin, Mehmet Acga, destroyed his own credibility by
flip-flopping on his story and by engaging in bizarre behavior.
In Sweden, a significant “lone assassin” episode involved the
killing of the very popular Swedish Prime Minister, Olaf Palme, on
February 28, 1986. Mr. Palme was strolling home with his wife from a
movie when a gunman ran up to the Prime Minister, fired twice, and
fled into the night. Suspicions of a conspiracy arose immediately,
but the word was quickly put out that the killing was the work of a
“lunatic.” A suspect was eventually arrested, but he denied
responsibility and was acquitted. In 1990, the Swedish government
even paid him restitution for the time he spent in jail. As of this
writing, no other suspect is due to go to trial.
The final episode worth looking at occurred in West
Germany on April 25, 1990 against Oskar Lafontaine. Mr.Lafontaine was premier of the Saarland state and running as
the Social Democratic candidate for the office of Chancellor
of Germany. He was on stage with another leading Social
Democrat, Johannes Rau, during a political rally. A person
who appeared to be a security guard led a woman up on stage;
the woman was carrying a bouquet of flowers. When she
reached Mr. Lafontaine, she calmly whipped out a butcher
knife and slashed his throat.
Fortunately, Mr. Lafontaine
survived despite a significant loss of blood and he went on to
finish his unsuccessful campaign. The assailant, Adelheid Streidel,
was immediately apprehended and labeled a mentally-deranged “lone
assassin.” The attack, however, has the hallmarks of several
previous “lone assassin” episodes we just looked at: involvement of
apparent security personnel, the so-called “lone assassin” showing
signs of severe mental tampering, and the act committed openly. The
use of the butcher knife instead of a gun makes Ms. Streidel even
more like the Assassins of medieval Persia, who used bladed weapons.
This assassination attempt occurred at a politically crucial time:
Mr. Lafontaine was running against Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Mr. Kohl
was a prime advocate for rapid German reunification and European
unity, which would involve major shifts in world economics, politics,
and military matters. Mr. Lafontaine and the Social Democrats were
running on a platform of slowing down the German reunification
process.
As in the case of Adelheid Streidel, a significant element of nearly
all recent “lone assassin” cases is the mental state of the “lone
assassins” at the time of the assassinations. The apparent “mental
illness” exhibited by so many of them may very well be evidence of
mental tampering. Sirhan Sirhan was known to have been repeatedly
hypnotized by “friends” whom the police inadequately investigated.
Eyewitnesses reported that Sirhan seemed to be almost in a trance on
the night he fired at Robert Kennedy. John Hinckley, Jr., had had a
great deal of psychiatric intervention during his pre-assassination
days, and we still do not know what all of it consisted of.
Did
Hinckley receive any visionary implants similar to the ones that
Adolph Hitler had received as a psychiatric patient at Pasewalk? Like
the ancient assassins of Persia, Hinckley was motivated by a crazed
notion that he would attain to heaven by killing Reagan, except that
Hinckley’s heaven was the unattainable love of a certain female movie
star. Hinckley thought that he would win that love by killing the
President. The peculiar mental states of Mehmet Ali Acga and other
modem assassins (such as ”Squeaky” Fromme who tried to murder
President Gerald Ford in 1975) are further indications that mental
tampering may be a significant factor in most modern “lone assassin”
episodes, just as it had been in medieval Persia.
In light of the above, it is perhaps not surprising to
discover evidence of the Brotherhood network directly or
indirectly linked to some modern assassinations. John Hinckley, Jr.,
for example, belonged for a while to an American Nazi organization.
Modern American Nazism, through such organizations as the Aryan
Nations, is as deeply influenced by Brotherhood-style mysticism as
was original German Nazism. “Squeaky” Fromme was a follower of
Charles Manson, who preached a bizarre apocalyptic mysticism in
a small California commune. Manson and his “Family” were the ones who
committed the horrific Tate-La Bianca murders in Los Angeles in 1969.
Interestingly, Manson was once a police informer.
As long as the “lone assassin” technique continues to go unopposed,
those nations victimized by it will never rise above the level of a
banana republic. That includes the United States and nations in
Europe. One need only look at the way in which such assassinations
have influenced the succession of American Presidents to appreciate
just how damaging the technique is to a democracy. The problem with
American leadership today is not so much a difficulty caused by
the electoral process or by shortcomings in the Constitution. The
problem is that the electoral process and Constitution have been
severely undermined by the assassination of leaders and candidates.
When police organizations contribute to this by ignoring and
suppressing evidence, and by otherwise hindering proper
investigations, those police organizations become accessories to the
crimes in a very real and legal sense. That is when democracy dies.
Throughout this book, we have noted the role of the Brotherhood
network in perpetuating revolution. Revolutions and armed
resistance movements are expensive to run, and so we find that most
of them are financed today by intelligence organizations. One
unfortunate by-product of this activity is terrorism.
Terrorist groups are an effective way to keep conflict alive. An
interesting book entitled,
The Terror Network by Claire Sterling,
reveals the strong interconnections that have existed between
seemingly unrelated terrorist groups. Terrorist organizations from
around the world and of conflicting ideologies have been supported
by mutual “safe houses” and suppliers. The Terror Network reveals
that many of those mutual supply sources had connections to the
Russian KGB, although the book fails to mention the role of Western
intelligence services in supporting various forms of terrorism.
The goal of some terrorist groups is to maintain a
so-called ”Permanent Revolution,” i.e., a violent revolution that
never ends. This goal is rooted in the Marxist concept that class
struggle is inevitable and must continuously occur for a Utopia to
emerge. As we recall, this idea has its ultimate roots in the
Calvinist teaching that a world at war is a world closer to God. The
“Permanent Revolution” is therefore designed to keep people fighting
constantly so that we will all be able to enjoy a future Utopia. This
sounds crazy, you say? Of course it is. The “Permanent Revolution,”
which has been financed by various intelligence services and is
inspired by concepts that came out of the Brotherhood network, is yet
one more way to keep mankind in a constant state of war and disunity.
Efforts to generate nonstop strife on Earth have apparently been so
successful that they threatened to wipe out most of humanity.
Powerful atomic weapons were built in preparation for yet another
“Final Battle” between the forces of “good” and “evil.” To those who
believe that nuclear war is unthinkable: think again. In the climate
of endless confrontation we share on Earth, rarely have weapons gone
unused. Two atomic bombs were already dropped during World War II
and, if we are to believe some evidence, they may have been used to
wipe out human civilizations in the ancient past. There is a great
irony in this.
If manipulations by a Custodial society do indeed
ultimately lie behind human turmoil, the Custodial society could
soon find itself owning a very damaged piece of real estate. It is
true that nuclear weapons are notoriously unstable so that many
atomic warheads will not explode if launched, but there has been
enough of an “overkill” built to ensure that considerable damage
would result from a nuclear exchange. Happily, the end of the Cold
War brought about pledges for significant reductions in U.S. and
Russian nuclear arsenals. There is irony in this, too, in light of
the factions and hostilities that have replaced those of the Cold
War. Once nuclear arsenals are reduced far enough, large-scale
warfare
will be possible again without the threat that such warfare would
render Earth useless to apparent Custodial owners.
The lingering danger from remaining nuclear weaponry and
proliferation would not come from unstable flying missiles, but from
stationary bombs hidden at their target locations. The Pentagon
expressed concern about such a possibility in a top secret military
report produced in 1945. This concern was expressed again in more
recent years when efforts were under way to develop a so-called
“Star Wars” anti-missile defense system which utilizes laser beams
to shoot down enemy missiles.*
* Star Wars can also be converted to an offensive weapon for rapidly
destroying enemy cities with laser beams. Such laser weapons would
be far deadlier than a nuclear arsenal and could, if developed,
replace our atomic stockpiles. In 1992, the president of the new
Russian Republic suggested a joint venture with the United States to
create such a weapons system.
Some strategists were afraid that a
successful “Star Wars” system would encourage a hostile foreign power
to smuggle and plant atomic bombs in the United States if it felt
that its missiles would be ineffective. Such bombs can be easily
stored and kept mobile in trucks or vans.
The media-publicized
“nuclear terrorism” scare of the 1970’s indicates that some
stationary bombs may already be in place in the United States. It is
also important to keep in mind that the source of such bombs may not
always be an enemy government or hostile terrorist group. There
always exists the danger that a nation’s own government may
secretly plant nuclear bombs within its own cities as part of a
“scorched earth” contingency war plan, in the same way that
Switzerland has placed mines on all of its own bridges in the event
an enemy invades and tries to use the bridges. In xenophobic
nations, an internal nuclear threat of this kind can become very
real. It is something that the people of every country with atomic
weapons should remain wary of.
The Cold War between the United States and former Soviet Union
affected us in many ways still felt today. Higher taxes, intrusive
military and intelligence agencies, and a host of other ills were
imposed upon human populations in the name of protecting against the
enemy. We have
been affected in other ways which are less well-known, but equally
significant.
During the second half of the 1970’s, revelations of American
military and CIA germ warfare experiments emerged in the public
press. Surprisingly, many of those experiments were conducted in
U.S. cities and were directed against U.S. citizens. In the 1950’s,
for example, a “germ fog” had been sprayed by a Navy ship at San
Francisco.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
In an experiment designed to determine both attack and defense
capabilities of biological weapons, a Navy ship blanketed San
Francisco and its neighboring communities with a bacteria-laden fog
for six days in1950, according to U.S. military records.
The records contain the conclusion that nearly everyone of San
Francisco’s 800,000 residents was exposed to the cloud released by a
Navy ship steaming up and down just outside the Golden Gate.
The aerosol substance released by the ship
contained a bacteria known
as serratia, which was believed harmless by the military at the time
but which has been found since to cause a type of pneumonia that can
be fatal.5
The LA. Times added that at least twelve people were hospitalized
around that time for serratia pneumonia. One of them died. That was
just the beginning. The army disclosed that it had conducted 239
open-air tests between 1949 and 1969! Of those, 80 were admitted to
have contained actual germs. The tests were directed against
Washington, D.C., New York City, Key West, Panama City (Florida), and
San Francisco. If we accept the army’s figure of 80 live-disease
experiments, we discover an average of four “germ attacks” against
U.S. cities every year for twenty years!
Other government documents
have revealed additional CIA germ warfare experiments carried out in
the same manner. This means that several major U.S. population areas
were under fairly intensive germ bombardment for an admitted
twenty-year period, all by the nation’s own military and
intelligence
organizations!
These germ “experiments” reportedly ended in 1969. However,
justified suspicions have arisen about sudden outbreaks of more
recent diseases, especially those which do not seem to conform to
our understanding of epidemiology. The most recent of such diseases
is AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). After the AIDS
epidemic broke, the Soviet Union published charges in its official
newspapers that
AIDS was a biological weapon developed by the
United States military. The charges have been generally dismissed as
false propaganda and the Soviet Union later publicly retracted the
statements after pressure from the United States. Despite the
retraction, a number of researchers in the United States contend
that there is evidence to support the original claim.
U.S. citizens have not only been hit by germs, but also by another
type of bombardment. An intriguing segment of the television
program, NBC Magazine with David Brinkley, aired July 16, 1981,
revealed that the northwestern United States was continuously
bombarded by the Soviet Union with low frequency radio waves. The
radio waves are set at the approximate level of biological electronic
frequencies.
Mr. Brinkley stated:
As I say I find it hard to believe, it is crazy and none of us here
knows what to make of it: the Russian Government is known to be
trying to change human behavior by external electronic influences. We
do know that much. And we know that some kind of Russian transmitter
is bombarding this country with extreme low frequency radiowaves.6
A U.S. government spokesperson stated that the radio beams were a
kind of low-frequency radar system, but he was at a loss to explain
how such a “radar system” worked. The fact is, low-frequency waves of
that type will affect neurological and physiological functioning,
usually by reducing mental functioning and by making people
more suggestive. That is apparently the intent. A May 20, 1983
newspaper article from the Associated Press reported that a machine
known as the Lida has been used by the Soviet Union since at least
1960 to influence human behavior with a 40 Megahertz radio wave.
The Lida is used in Russia as a tranquilizer and it produces a
trancelike state.
The Russian “owner’s manual” calls the Lida a
“distant pulse treatment apparatus” for dealing with
psychological problems, hypertension, and neurosis. The machine has
been offered as a possible substitute for psychotropic drugs. When
the AP article appeared, a Lida machine was on loan to the Jerry L.
Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital in the United States through a
medical exchange program. According to the chief of research at the
hospital, the machine may eventually be used in American
classrooms to control the behavior of disturbed or retarded children.
The Lida is apparently a small-scale version of the very same type of
machine described in the David Brinkley show, as the AP article
reveals:
[The chief of research] said some people theorize that the Soviets
may be using an advanced version of the machine clandestinely to
seek a change in behavior in the United States through signals
beamed from the
U.S.S.R.7
It appears that Americans were receiving
electronic tranquilizing
treatments courtesy of the Soviet government. It is incredible that
the United States did not loudly demand an immediate stop to the
intervention. Ironically, but not surprisingly, America appeared to
have become more militant during the “treatments.” Anti-Soviet
sentiment increased and so did the military build-up. Certainly the
increased militancy of the United States cannot all be attributed to
the Russian machines, but, at best, the Soviet treatments were
ineffective in making America calmer. In actual fact, electronic
tranquilizers appear to be deep irritants which will ultimately
contribute to heightened aggression. The Russians, and anyone else
still operating such devices, would do well to shut them off and
keep them off.
As the evidence has shown, major military and intelligence
organizations have taken over doing to human populations precisely
what UFOs and some “Ascended Masters” reportedly did earlier:
they
have spread dangerous germs and have bombarded human populations
with
behavior-altering electronic radiation. When we consider these
facts, it might be significant that military and intelligence
organizations, at least in the United States, were foremost in
debunking UFOs for many years.
The first known official American government investigation into the
UFO phenomenon was begun on January 22, 1948 by the U.S. Air Force.
The investigation was known as “Project Sign.” The startling
conclusion of Project Sign, as announced in its “Estimate of the
Situation,” was that UFOs were craft from “another world.” This
conclusion was immediately rejected by the Chief of Staff, General
Hoy S. Vandenberg, who dismissed the evidence as “insufficient.”
A new
study group called
Project Grudge was subsequently launched on
February 11, 1949. The purpose of “Grudge” was to investigate the UFO
phenomenon from the basic premise that extraterrestrial aircraft
could not exist. Project Grudge pursued its work for several years
and was eventually upgraded to the famous “Project Bluebook” in
1952—a year in which there was a dramatic increase in UFO reports.
Project Bluebook concluded (not surprisingly, considering the basic
premise upon which its predecessor, Project Grudge, was founded)
that UFOs were all explainable natural phenomena.
In the year after “Project Bluebook” was established, the CIA
entered the UFO controversy with an investigation of its own. In
1953, the CIA established a panel of eminent scientists known as
the
“Robertson Panel.” The CIA Panel quickly rubber-stamped the official
view that UFOs did not represent an extraterrestrial race. The Panel
added that UFOs were not a direct physical threat to national
security, and were therefore of no interest. The Panel did state,
however, that reporting UFOs could be a threat to national security!
The Panel wrote the following words to suggest that
suppressing UFO
reports was desirable in the national interest:
... continued emphasis on the reporting of these phenomena, in
these parlous [dangerous] times, result in a threat to the orderly
functioning of the protective organs of the body politic.8
As a result, the CIA and FBI investigated many people who reported
UFOs. The U.S. Air Force cooperated by issuing regulations in 1958
instructing Air Force investigators to give the FBI the names of
people who claimed to have contacted UFOs in some way, on the
grounds that such people were “illegally or deceptively bringing the
subject to public attention.”9 Although these regulations have
been eased and the FBI reportedly no longer investigates UFO cases,
there existed back in the 1950’s and early ‘60’s a definite
intention within the American government to inhibit public reporting
and discussion of the UFO phenomenon.
Today, the U.S. government is publicly out of the UFO business. Most
of the debunking torch has been passed to a private group called the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal (“CSICOP”). CSICOP boasts an impressive roster of
scientific and technical consultants, many of whom hold
professorships at prestigious universities. CSICOP has inspired the
creation of local branches usually known as “skeptical societies.” CSICOP publishes a quarterly journal called
The Skeptical Inquirer.
A basic premise upon which CSICOP operates is that UFOs are not
proven to be extraterrestrial craft. CSICOP also debunks all other
phenomena that it considers phony or “pseudoscientific,” such as
clairvoyance, spiritualism, Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, the Loch
Ness monster, and all spiritual phenomena. It brands any effort to
seriously study UFOs or spiritual phenomena as “pseudoscience”—a term
it bandies about freely. CSICOP naturally practices only “real”
science. Many CSICOP and local skeptic members are quite energetic
and some of them appear regularly on radio and television shows.
The influence of CSICOP today is quite strong.
In addition to its
presence in universities through CSICOP-affiliated faculty, CSICOP
has exerted influence in the media. Celebrity astronomer Carl Sagan,
for example, is listed as a Fellow of CSICOP. Other Fellows have
included,
-
Bernard Dixon, European editor of Omni magazine
-
Paul
Edwards, editor of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-
Leon Jaroff,
managing editor of Discover magazine
-
Phillip Klass, senior avionics
editor for Aviation Week & Space
Technology magazine
-
the late B. F. Skinner, author and famous
behaviorist who did so much to promote the stimulus-response model
of human behavior in our own generation.
CSICOP has gained a following primarily because the organization
successfully promotes an image of objectivity. In CSICOP’s statement
of purpose, for example, we read the following words:
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal attempts to encourage the critical investigation of
paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific
point of view and to disseminate factual information about the
results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the
public. The Committee is a nonprofit scientific and educational
organization.10
The Committee sounds like a wonderful organization. The world can
greatly benefit from objective research into UFOs and paranormal
claims. It is especially important for serious researchers to sort
out the legitimate from the fraud, and that is not always easy to
do. Sadly, CSICOP does not provide the objectivity needed to
accomplish that task. The result of a CSICOP investigation has always
been, to my knowledge, an utter debunking. This has puzzled those
people who cannot understand how some evidence can possibly be
rejected if it is looked at objectively. The solution to this puzzle
comes by discovering who started CSICOP and why.
CSICOP was founded in 1976 under the sponsorship of the American
Humanist Association. The
American Humanist Association is, of
course, dedicated to advancing the philosophy of “humanism.”
“Humanism” itself is difficult to define because it often means
different things to different people. Essentially, humanism is a
school of thought concerned with human interests and human values as
opposed to religious interests and values. It deals with questions
of ethics and existence from the perspective of
human beings as physical entities on Earth. “Religious humanists”
will have spiritual and theological concerns, but will approach them
from a human-centered focus as opposed to the God-centered or
spirit-centered orientation of most religions.
The best-known form of organized humanism in the United States today
is called “secular [non-religious] humanism.” Secular humanism
admits only the reality of physical existence and rejects spiritual
and theological reality. It is a philosophy of strict materialism.
Many secular humanists adhere to the stimulus-response model of human
behavior.
The founding and current chairman of CSICOP is Paul Kurtz, professor
of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo. For
many years, Mr. Kurtz had served as the editor of The Humanist
magazine. He was one of the drafters of the Humanist Manifesto II
and authored a book entitled
In Defense of Secular Humanism. His
book is interesting because it expresses some of the doctrines and
goals of the organized secular humanist movement. Those doctrines
and goals are significant in light of the role that Professor Kurtz
and other secular humanists have played in founding CSICOP.
On the
subject of spiritual existence, Professor Kurtz wrote:
Humanists reject the thesis that the soul is separable
from the body or that life persists in some form after the death of the body.”
According to the Humanist Manifesto II:
Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from
natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total
personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a
social and cultural context.12
Such ideas are fine for those people who choose to believe them. The
point I am making is this: individuals and organizations which
actively promote such ideas will find it difficult to be genuinely
objective when they investigate evidence which flatly contradicts
their established view.
They have already declared what they believe and what they reject.
Objectivity is even more difficult when those same people actively
seek to spread their way of thinking as a social goal. According to
the Humanist Manifesto II:
We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for
united action—positive principles relevant to the present human
condition. They are a design for a secular society on a planetary
scale.13
We see in this quote that there exists a united
intention among many
secular humanists to create a worldwide secular society. The founding
chairman of CSICOP, Professor Kurtz, helped draft the document which
announces that intention. There is nothing wrong per se with having
such a goal. It is common for activist religions and philosophies to
try to shape the world in their own images. There is, however, a
price to be paid for such activism: CSICOP and its affiliated skeptic
groups lose their credibility. They have to be viewed as advocates
for a certain point of view, not as disinterested investigators. They
are prosecutors in the courts of inquiry, not the judges or juries.
We see in groups like CSICOP a problem that has existed for
centuries. Most ideological battles are fought by extremists. Secular
humanists, for example, represent a materialist extreme and they
often do battle with modern ”Christian fundamentalists” who represent
the “religious” extreme. Both sides are extremist in that they hold
views which can only be kept alive by ignoring large bodies
of evidence. They make easy targets for one another because they both
have so many flaws; yet people are encouraged to side with one or the
other on the basis that because one side is so wrong, the other side
pointing out those wrongs must be right.
This can be dangerous logic
to follow. It happens frequently that two people will passionately
debate a fact, each certain that he or she is correct, but when they
finally learn the truth, they discover that they were both wrong.
Two lunatics can argue endlessly over which of them is the real
Napoleon Bonaparte, but woe to the outsider who takes sides and
swears allegiance to either one of them!
As
extremists fight, the truth often lies ignored in a completely
different direction.
Despite the efforts of secular humanists and others of similar
ideological inclination to negate religion and theology, religion
continues to be a powerful force inhuman society. If all of the
surviving truths from all of the long-established religions and
mystical systems were to be brought together today, they would be
insufficient to get a person over the formidable barriers which
stand in the way of full spiritual recovery. At best, those
accumulated truths would only offer clues to assist in wholly new
research. This is not to disparage the genuine rewards that a great
many individuals still receive as a result of following various
religious paths. Most theologies do have something of value to
enrich a person’s life.
It is as true today as it has been throughout all of history that
new religions come and go in great numbers. Very few of them survive
very long, let alone become major religions. Despite this, new
religions are attacked as frequently today as they were in the past.
Modern attacks take the same form as they have for centuries: new
religions are labeled mysterious evils that undermine everything
good. The word “cult” is tossed around quite a bit today to label
new religions, even though a great many of those religions are not
“cults” in the true sense of the word. Properly used, “cult” refers
to a subgroup of a larger religion, such as a Christian cult or a
Moslem cult. Any completely new or autonomous religion is properly
called a “sect,” or better yet, simply a new religion. The word
“cult” has apparently become popular because of its phonetic
qualities. It also fits well into newspaper headlines.
The greatest danger from new religions is not that they represent
anything especially new or different, it is that they can be
effective tools for breaking people into factions, just as religions
did in the past. This can be accomplished even through no fault of
the religion itself. Just by existing and being attacked, a modern
religion may become an embattled faction when it finds itself
operating in a social climate of “cult hysteria.” This type of
social climate is easily generated today because most educated people
fancy themselves knowledgeable about human psychology.
By
appealing to that vanity, it is easy to breed animosity against new
religions in otherwise-tolerant people by couching religious
intolerance in psychological terms. Ironically, most of the anti-cult
activism today comes from the so-called Christian “right-wing” in
its effort to stamp out the “works of Satan,” which includes all
religions not adhering to fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Christian
bookstores are the primary outlets for anti-cult books in the United
States today. These Christians have found strange allies in groups
like CSICOP and in those other strict materialists (e.g., some
psychiatrists) who view all religion as unhealthy and find easy
targets in the newer religions.
The key to analyzing new religions, therefore, is not to lump them
all into an ill-defined category called “cults” and then spout out
generalities about them. The proper approach is to look at each new
religion individually, to recognize the unique features of each, and
to analyze the good and the bad within them according to the
specific characteristics of each. Some will be found to be but an
unhappy continuation of all that we have looked at in this book,
others will be sincere attempts at spiritual enlightenment. The
reason it is important to try to remain objective about new
religions is that genuine spiritual knowledge will probably only
come about through a newer religion. The older theologies will not
stray far from their established doctrines and most modern sciences
will not even consider evidence of a spiritual reality.
There is one recent religious movement worth mentioning. It is the
loosely-knit “New Age” movement. The New Age movement is called that
because it seeks the dawn of a New Age on Earth in which spiritual
freedom, physical health, and world peace will prevail. Some of the
unique music associated with the New Age movement is quite nice and
the New Age emphasis on eating natural, healthy foods is a very
positive element of the movement. Some New Age doctrines contain
maverick ideas about the nature of the spiritual being, but like
Hinduism, most New Age systems destroy the full benefits of those
maverick ideas by mixing in large doses of mysticism, Custodial
doctrine (e.g. some holistic doctrines that preach the desirability
of a union of mind, body, and spirit instead of a separateness), and
self-help methods that include hypnosis and subliminal
programming (neither of which should be recommended).
Of primary interest to us are some New Age ideas about UFOs. A great
many people throughout the world have been exposed to the
“ancient
astronauts” theory with its postulate that some ancient religious
events were the doings of a space age extraterrestrial society. This
has caused the veil of myth that once surrounded UFOs to partially
fall. Perhaps as a result, an effort has been made through the New
Age movement to re-establish the old religious beliefs that the
extraterrestrial race seen flying about in our skies is composed of
enlightened almost-Godlike beings who should be accorded reverential
awe and looked to as a source of salvation.
This worshipful
attitude has certainly been promoted through some New Age literature
and in recent American motion pictures like Close Encounters of the
Third Kind and Cocoon. Many other Custodial doctrines, including
End-of-the-World messages, are now being promulgated with a modern
twist in the New Age movement by people who claim to be getting
messages from UFOs (and perhaps a few of them are). Instead of
“angels,” however, the New Age offers us “Space Brothers.” If history
is any indication, our nearby “Space Brothers” appear to have little
to offer us but oppression and genocide unless they can be
convinced to change their ways. It seems that it is the human race
that must teach the extraterrestrial race compassion, and not vice
versa.
The reported Custodial humanitarians who may occasionally
visit Earth and do nice things for human witnesses and abductees
would seem to be a distinct minority which is powerless to do
anything truly meaningful for the human race. Like the doctors,
social workers, and priests who enter prisons to give comfort to
inmates, Custodial humanitarians have never broken down the prison
walls. It would appear that the only “angels” and “Space Brothers”
available to you are you and your very down-to-Earth neighbors.
As this edition of the book goes to press, the world is witnessing
many changes. Some are extremely welcome, such as the dismantling of
communism in many nations, the current efforts of the South African
government to ease apartheid, and the increase of democratic
elections around the world. These events show that conditions can
be improved, perhaps even enough to eventually bring amend to the
human plight suggested by this book.
Unfortunately, ethnic strife and the continuation of the inflatable
paper money system in changing Europe are signs that something is
still amiss. As the world passes through the 1990’s, we appear to be
in an era much like the one that existed two hundred years ago (see
pages 294 and 295) when republican-style governments were
established around the world.
As back then, factions with Brotherhood
roots are still active in breeding war and social ills today:
Ballistic weapons are proliferating rapidly in Islamic and Third
World nations, aided by China and Western countries; meanwhile,
Islamic radicalism continues to cause upheaval in the Middle East
and elsewhere. In 1990, a radical Islamic sect called
the Muslim
Brotherhood swept to victory in municipal elections in the
Jordanian cities of Zarqa and Aqaba.
As of this writing, Marxist revolutionaries are still killing people
in Peru and the Philippines. In Peru, the most feared Maoist
guerrillas are members of a secret society called the Sendero
Luminoso which, roughly translated, means, “Luminous (Shining)
Path,” or “Way of Illumination.”
Drug cartels have become political powers unto themselves; as in
Colombia where a cocaine cartel waged a violent war against the
Colombian government. Evidence of Brotherhood involvement in the
shadow of the world of drugs may be seen in the Sendero Luminoso of
Peru, which has been involved in coca growing, and in the heroin
trade where powerful Asian heroin-dealing triads are presently formed
by secret societies with roots in the 17th century.
Rightist nationalist organizations, although generally unpopular in
the world, still receive support from government entities, such as
a current Russian alliance called the People’s Russian Orthodox
Movement which uses a cross symbol against a yellow background
reminiscent of a swastika. In 1990, people affiliated with the
movement were sponsored by the United States Information Agency to
give talks in the United States, despite protests that the speakers
were anti-Semitic.
In May 1990, the widely-publicized desecration of Jewish graves in
Haifa, Israel was discovered to have been carried
out by a secretive Jewish millenarian sect. A member of the sect
admitted that his group perpetrated the desecration with the
Machiavellian intent of heightening conflict between Jews and
anti-Semitic forces.
New AIDS-like immune-destroying viral diseases are being predicted by
the World Bank, and a group of doctors from the United States was
sent on a five-year mission to Africa in March 1990 to find new viral
diseases and conduct other activities.
The grant money for this
mission was provided by the U.S. government’s principle AIDS
research agency: the Institute for Allergy and Infectious
Diseases. One of the doctors, Nicholas Lerche from the University of
California at Davis, is quoted on page A8 of the March 15, 1990
issue of the San Francisco Chronicle:
“This is the problem of what
we’re beginning to recognize as emerging viral diseases, and there
may well be other animal viruses waiting in the wings to move into
humans and ultimately to cause new diseases.”
In light of
allegations and evidence that AIDS may have been induced
deliberately into human populations, there are some legitimate
concerns about how the new diseases discovered by the doctors may be
used by some of those people sponsoring the research.
By the time you read this, many new events will have occurred.
Leaders, political personalities, and institutions will come and go
from the world scene; warring factions will continue to arise and
disappear. I hope that the long-term historical patterns described
in this book will provide an interesting, and perhaps useful, tool
for investigating the causes of future conflicts as they occur.
Better yet, we can hope that this book will one day become nothing
more than a reminder of a bad dream from which we have all managed to
awaken ourselves.
Back to Contents
|