|
Escape from Eden
IT is NATURAL for people to wonder how they might be able to improve
the world around them. A widespread misconception is that to be
effective, a person must either be rich, a politician, or a saint.
The truth is, one can successfully take responsibility for oneself
and for one’s fellow humans from exactly where one is without greatly
disrupting one’s life or livelihood. One may begin doing this
gradually by first improving one’s own life, then by giving help to
family and friends where it is wanted, then by joining or starting
groups with laudable social goals, and finally by pursuing a sense
of direct personal responsibility for the human race. It is
important that more people begin this process. As history has
clearly shown, if you do not create your own surroundings, someone
else is going to create them for you, and you may not like what you
get.
Major constructive changes to our world actually do not require much
to bring about. As a specific example, the inflatable paper money
system, which continues to create indebtedness and instability at
every level, can easily be replaced with a stable monetary system by
merely ending bank-created money and setting up a system whereby
money
is issued by national governments in proportion to their gross
national products and dispersed without engendering debt. Banks could
continue to participate in the system by being the conduit for the
release and circulation of the money; but banks could no longer
create money on their own.
Governments would no longer need to tax
anyone or borrow; they could simply allocate to themselves the money
they needed to operate, within limits imposed by their gross
national products. Under this plan, all debts owed to banks could be
instantly forgiven: banks could be paid by the governments for their
services in dispersing and circulating the money, and by consumers
for consumer services.
The Custodial society itself, if it exists, presents us with an
extraordinary challenge, as we have seen. To reduce the human ability
to meet that challenge by occluding the subject of UFOs and
spiritual phenomena with false reports, dubious “evidence,”
obfuscating “explanations,” and hoaxes is to do grave potential
damage to the future prospects of the human race. At this time,
scrupulous honesty from all sides is needed.
If Earth is indeed owned by an oppressive extraterrestrial society,
then there must somewhere exist communication lines between human
beings and the Custodial society. I am not talking about alleged
telepathic communication, I am speaking of face-to-face contact
between humans and Custodians. Part of the solution would be to find
those communication channels and use them to begin negotiating an
end to the pain and suffering on Earth. This proposal may sound
utterly wild as it would mean trying to start a
process of diplomacy
with an extraterrestrial society which most governments do not even
admit the existence of in order to win the freedom of the human
race—a race which most people would deny is even imprisoned.
On the other hand, some people might argue that such negotiations would be as
futile as San Quentin prisoners trying to negotiate their freedom
with the warden, or Nazi concentration camp inmates trying to
bargain with their SS guards. The Custodial society would need to be
assured that the human race desires no revenge or political
upheaval. Mankind seeks only an opportunity to work out its promised
salvation, and the human race would share its successes with the
Custodial
society. The goal would be to let bygones be bygones and to get on
with the future.
In the meantime, the problem of human warfare can be addressed
directly. It should be clear that there is no true “security”
during any state of war, “hot” or “cold.” People speak of nuclear
disarmament, but why bother making a small reduction in nuclear
arsenals when chemical and biological weapons are produced in
greater number? Fortunately, many people understand that true
national security is achieved through friendship and peace. Ask any
American if they feel threatened militarily by Canada, or any but
the most paranoid Canadian the same question about America.
Both
nations feel a sense of security not because they are pointing
hair-trigger weaponry at one another, but because they enjoy a basic
state of friendship. In Europe, one does not find the nation of
Belgium bankrupting its treasury to arm itself against the “Dutch
Peril,” or the Dutch arming itself to the teeth against the “French
Threat.” Reliance on weapons, espionage, propaganda, and other tools
of war to achieve national security will inevitably fail. Sooner or
later someone is going to build a better bomb or find a way to get
around yours. They will recruit a better spy or will tell a more
convincing lie. No one’s security should have to rely on such
shenanigans.
There are many people today throughout the world who are striving to
create security through friendship. Those people have not been able
to overcome several major hurdles. World leaders have their ears
bent by intelligence agencies which promote a chronic climate of fear
and danger through secret briefings, alarming reports and grim
scenarios. As long as artificial philosophical differences exist
between national leaders, those leaders will not be able to think
and communicate rationally with one another. If national leaders are
convinced that a great Utopia will arise if they maintain their side
of the struggle, there will never be peace. Peace will only arrive
if our leaders are willing to drop their great apocalyptic struggles
and join the rest of humanity in a simple pact of friendship.
The first thing that people can do to bring about human freedom is to
become aware of all of the small freedoms they have and expand upon
them. In our world, there is
a great deal of emphasis on broad and gigantic social, political and
spiritual freedoms, but many people find it difficult to exercise
even the smallest freedoms, such as simply expressing a fact or
opinion in a social circle. The irony is that broad sweeping freedoms
really exist so that people may enjoy all of the small freedoms that
make existence worthwhile. One can begin enjoying those small
freedoms simply by exercising them. As more and more people begin to
do this, freedoms for all will expand. It therefore follows that
sacrificing “smaller” freedoms in the name of achieving “broader”
freedoms will actually cause all freedoms to be lost.
Perhaps the greatest hope lies in the fact that all spiritual
beings, whether they animate human bodies, Custodial bodies, or none
at all, appear very similar in basic emotional make-up. There seems
to be a core of good and decency within every individual, including
within the most malevolent despots, that can ultimately be reached,
although reaching it in some people can admittedly be a difficult
undertaking! With persistence, intelligence, and compassion, it may
yet be possible to bring a resolution to all that we have looked at
in this book in a manner that will leave everyone happy.
There are plenty of additional problems to be solved in our world.
Now it is your turn to dream up solutions. Once you have thought
them up, communicate them and act on them. What you think, what you
perceive, and how you view the world around you is extremely
important because you have an inherently unique perspective not
shared by anyone else.
Say what you have to say, discover what you
want to discover, and pursue those humanitarian goals within you.
It
could help us all.
Back to Contents
The Nature of a Supreme Being
BEFORE BIDDING YOU adieu, there is one last subject for me to touch
on. It is a topic which has been lurking in the background of this
entire book, but one which I have successfully avoided thus far.
It
is the subject of a Supreme Being.
-
Does a Supreme Being of some kind
exist?
-
If it does, what is its relationship to life on Earth and to
the things we have discussed in this book?
I will try to tackle these
questions, but be forewarned that this chapter is the most
speculative and philosophical in the book. My discussion will be a
simplified one and it is not intended to be definitive; I advise the
reader to consult other sources for more information. If this is not
to your liking, then please feel free to proceed to the next, and
final, chapter.
It is unfortunate that the term “scientific method ” has become
almost synonymous with materialism. The two should not be equated.
The scientific method is simply an attempt to understand and explore
an area of knowledge in an intelligent and pragmatic fashion. It
strives to find cause-and-effect relationships and to develop
consistent axioms and techniques that will lead to predictable
results. This is the type of methodology which needs to be, and can
be, applied to the realm of the spirit, but it has not been done to
any large degree. The great universities and foundations are too busy
with their “man is brain” studies to do more than superficial studies
into the mounting evidence of spiritual existence. The major
religions already have their “word of God ” writings and so they
rarely undertake scientific studies into this area either.
Some people deny the existence of a Supreme Being altogether. It is
difficult to blame them considering the level to which spiritual
knowledge has deteriorated. However, the overwhelming evidence of
individual spiritual existence and the many characteristics which all
spiritual beings seem to share in common would suggest that a
“Supreme Being” of some kind probably exists as a common source of
all spiritual existence.
If a Supreme Being exists, it is likely that most people would not
recognize it if they encountered it. Many individuals expect a
Supreme Being to be a giant man in a flowing beard who rants, raves,
and kills people. Others think that a Supreme Being is a bright light
that exudes love and warmth. Still others perceive it as some
completely unfathomable mystery that no one can ever hope to
comprehend except through strained mystical contortions.
A Supreme Being is probably none of those things.
While researching this book, I encountered many ideas of what a
Supreme Being might be. Perhaps the best way to tackle the issue is
to first try to determine what an individual spiritual being is.
A spiritual being appears to be something that is not a part of the
physical universe, and yet it possesses both external awareness and
self-awareness. The Samkhya definitions on
pages 103 and 104 of this
book appear to be fairly accurate, and I refer the reader to those
pages. The mounting scientific evidence of spiritual immortality in
near-death episodes and in documented past-life memories indicates
that spiritual beings are best defined as timeless and indestructible
units of awareness.1
Every spiritual being, or unit of awareness, seems to be completely
unique and independent. Each appears to possess its own distinct
viewpoint which cannot be entirely
duplicated by any other unit of awareness. This uniqueness and
individuality of viewpoint appear to be the very essence and purpose
of spiritual existence. We may see some evidence of this in the fact
that when individuals are crushed into a sameness, they become
unhappier and worse off; their perceptions deteriorate and they are
less creative.
When true uniqueness and individuality are restored to
people, they regain their vitality and creativity.
It appears that every unit of awareness is capable of infinite
creation because creation by a spiritual being is accomplished by the
act of thought or imagination.*
* The words “thought” and “imagination” are probably not the best to
describe the actual process, but they are adequate for our purposes.
If you imagine that there is a white
cat on top of this book, you have created a white cat, even if it
only exists for you. Such creations, when shared and agreed to by
others, eventually give rise to universes that can be shared and
experienced by all others. This seems to be how spiritual beings
create universes of their own and in cooperation with others, and
why there exists evidence in modern physics that our universe
appears to be ultimately based on thought.
For any universe or reality to exist, an infinity must first exist in
which a universe or reality may be placed. All reality, including
this material universe, arise out of infinity and not vice versa;
this has been demonstrated by some remarkable mathematics being done
at various universities. Every unit of awareness is the source of its
own infinity because thought and imagination have no bounds; any
amount of space, time or matter may be imagined by any spiritual
being and ultimately agreed to and shared by other spiritual beings.
Where did all of these countless units of awareness come from? Did
there exist at one time only a single unit of awareness from which
all others originated? The many similarities between all spiritual
beings make it appear so. That original unit of awareness would be
what is normally called a Supreme Being, which we might also call
the Primary Being.
It appears that individual spiritual beings are actually the units
of awareness of a Primary, or Supreme, Being, yet each unit is
possessed of its own self-awareness, personality, freewill,
independent thought, and infinite creativity.
This would mean that a Supreme Being had created, or had given
“birth” to, an uncountable number of unique and individual units of
awareness through which that Supreme Being could experience the
uncountable infinities, universes, and realities which all of those
spiritual beings could freely and independently create. A Supreme
Being might therefore be very crudely likened to a person sitting in
a television control booth who puts out trillions of video cameras.
Each camera (spiritual being) feeds a picture into its own
individual monitor screen in the control booth to be viewed by the
operator (Supreme Being). Each camera is situated a little
differently and so each has a different viewpoint and perspective.
Each camera is also capable of creating its own ”special effects”
(universes).
If the above theory is accurate, we might ask: how could a Supreme
Being have been so foolish? Why would it create awareness units that
were self-aware? After all, it is the quality of self-awareness, or
the awareness of being aware, that allows spiritual beings to be
completely independent and to engage in the silliness which has
caused them to suffer the sorry plight that they now appear to be
enduring on Earth and probably elsewhere. Why did a Supreme Being not
simply throw out an enormous number of awareness units that were
only externally aware and had no consciousness of their own
existences? Better yet, why did a Supreme Being not do the sensible
thing and simply retain its own single undivided viewpoint?
Self-awareness is apparently the quality which gives spiritual
beings the capacity for thought and imagination, and hence to be a
source of infinity and creation.
Without self-awareness, a spiritual being could not create on its
own. Self-awareness appears to act as the “mirror” against which a
spiritual being can be the source of an infinity, and within that
infinity can create realities and universes.
Theoretically, of course, a Supreme Being was already capable of
creating an infinity and of creating anything
within it, hut only from its own single viewpoint. A Supreme Being
could only be the source of one infinity: its own. If a Supreme
Being wanted to experience another infinity, it had to first create
another unique self-aware unit of awareness like itself. So it
apparently did just that. But it did not satisfy itself with just
one more unit of awareness: it appears to have put out an uncountable
number of them so that it could enjoy an almost infinite number of
infinities and realities. This suggests that the potential scope of
a Supreme Being extends far beyond the boundaries of this one small
universe—it encompasses trillions of potential infinities and
universes.
“Aha!” you might interject. “By definition, only one infinity can
exist. It is redundant for something already capable of infinite
creation to expand itself. Infinity multiplied by uncountable
trillions is still infinity.”
As noted, infinity appears to be solely the product of viewpoint.
Only units of awareness are capable of viewpoint. There therefore
would exist as many infinities as there are units of awareness
(spiritual beings). Infinity does not arise out of the mechanical
universe or from any of its laws; rather, the mechanical universe and
its laws all appear to arise out of infinity.
What went wrong? How did so many spiritual beings, each capable of
infinite creation, wind up with a dull thud on Earth thinking that
they are nothing more than meat and electricity?
There are apparently many factors that caused this, including those
discussed in this book. I will leave it to someone else to describe
other, perhaps even more significant long-range, causes. I will only
add that spiritual entities can become hopelessly caught up in the
labyrinths of their own intricate creations. Although the universe
appears to operate on very simple building blocks (please refer to
the discussion on pages
104 and 105 of this book), once those blocks
are put into place and other arbitraries are introduced, a universe
can become extremely complex and solid-looking, like the universe we
share now.
When that happens, spiritual beings may become fixated in
those universes like cameras anchored in a dense rain forest; the
cameras are unable to perceive beyond the foliage immediately in
front of them. After staring at the foliage
for a long enough time, the cameras may begin to believe that they,
too, are nothing but foliage and they forget that they are cameras.
Salvation would come by restoring to those cameras their true
self-identities and by giving them the ability to come and go from
the rain forest at will.
If we look at individual spiritual beings on Earth, we see that they
are very small in relation to the universe. This is the situation
that apparently occurs when spiritual beings become enmeshed in
bodies or other physical objects. In that state, spiritual beings
have lost their power to change perspective in relation to the
physical universe. Perspective is apparently what determines the
“size” of a spiritual being. Have you ever stood on top of a
skyscraper and looked down? Your first reaction might be to think,
“Gee, those people sure are small. They’re the size of ants!” Those
people look so small, and really are so small, because of your change
in perspective.
A spiritual being in an entrapped state can
apparently change perspective in the same way in relation to the
entire physical universe. The universe can appear no larger than a
coffee cup, or an atom the size of a mountain. This is apparently
how a spiritual being becomes “bigger” or “smaller.” Changing
perspective in this fashion is not an act of mere thinking, however.
It is a matter of actually shifting direct spiritual perception in as
real and tangible a fashion as the person who hops an elevator to the
top of a skyscraper. Spiritual beings on Earth are largely confined
to the single perspective dictated by the physical bodies they
animate. Mental perspectives can still change, but not the direct
perspective of the spiritual entity in relation to the universe
itself.
The foregoing discussion has some rather clear implications in
regard to the rest of this book. The act of repressing a spiritual
being, entrapping it in matter, or otherwise seeking to reduce its
vision, creativity, or self-awareness as a spiritual being is the
act of trying to reduce a Supreme Being. If one reduces a Supreme
Being’s unit of awareness (i.e., a spiritual being)—even just one
unit out of many trillions—one has still reduced a Supreme Being by
that much. Since only other units of awareness can engage in such
repression, it follows that a bizarre psychosis has arisen. It is as
though extensions of the same ultimate body are trying to repress
other extensions, e.g., the left hand is trying to reduce and trap
the right hand. That appears to be one type of psychosis that can
arise when beings possessed of free will become entrapped.
Some mystical religions teach that one’s ultimate spiritual aim
should be to permanently “merge with” or “rejoin” a Supreme Being.
This appears to be a false goal. If spiritual beings were created to
act as unique and independent viewpoints, it would be contrary to the
purpose of creation to permanently “merge” with other awareness
units or with a Supreme Being. It may not even be possible to do so.
The true goal of any salvation program should be to fully
recover one’s unique spiritual self-awareness and perspective.
The above discussion suggests that many popular ideas about “God”
may be inaccurate. For example, some people with “near-death”
experiences report going through a tunnel and meeting a “being of
light” which instills in the near-death victim feelings of love and
“all-knowing.” I met a man who belonged to a Hindu sect which
attempts to contact and merge with this “being of light” in its
meditations. The man wrote a paper describing his personal
experiences. His descriptions of spiritually traveling down a
“tunnel” and meeting a “being of light” are very similar to
the statements of near-death victims. While I acknowledge the
importance and probable reality of many such experiences, I question
some of the beliefs which have arisen from them.
The feelings of
“love” and “all-knowing” conveyed by that “being” can be instilled
by drugs, electronic emanations, and by other artificial means.
Interestingly, some
UFO abductees have reported such emotions during
their alleged examinations aboard UFOs. In some of those UFO cases,
the surrounding evidence strongly suggests that the feelings were
caused by an electronic device used as a sedative. Whatever the
near-death “being of light” might be (and I will not even try to
guess), it is most assuredly not a Supreme Being. It may even be an
object that contributes to post-death spiritual amnesia.
People
should not be counseled to “merge with” or “go to” the “being of
light” during meditation or at death. They should stay away from it
if they can. In saying this, I do not mean to deny the otherwise
positive and profound feelings experienced by some Hindus and
near-death victims as a result of temporarily re-experiencing their
spiritual immortality. What are we then to think of the idea of a
Supreme Being sitting in “judgment” on the beings of Earth?
It is hard to imagine that a Supreme Being would condemn its own
units of awareness, no matter how small and entrapped they have
become, and no matter how insanely and destructively some of them
behave as a result.
Would a Supreme Being, seeing how bad everything has gotten, perhaps
end its experiment and vanish all other awareness units except
itself? If such a thing were possible, I dare say it would not be
done. Creating an almost infinite number of spiritual beings would
actually have been a brilliant move on the part of a Supreme Being
to expand itself immeasurably. The solution to what went wrong
would be to preserve the awareness units and encourage them to
achieve their salvation.
Spiritual salvation would probably not happen through the waving of a
magical Godly wand, however.
Because spiritual beings possess free
and independent will, salvation appears to be something that
spiritual beings must take responsibility for themselves. It is up
to every individual to seek out his or her salvation in an
intelligent fashion. Salvation appears to be something that can be
achieved as pragmatically as any other goal in life, provided that a
rational understanding of how to attain it is developed.
Many theologies teach that a Supreme Being is opposed by an enemy.
Perhaps there is an element of truth to this, even if the truth has
been distorted. We do observe that at every level of existence there
exists a condition or “game” in which survival is challenged. At the
personal level, an individual’s survival is constantly opposed by
aging, disease, and other factors. The survival of a family unit is
often tested by financial problems, hostile relatives and outside
sexual temptations. Organizations and nations usually
have competitors and enemies. In the animal kingdom, the survival
drama is most vividly played out in hunter-prey relationships. All
physical objects face inevitable deterioration. Spiritual beings
themselves appear to face survival challenges by being trapped in
matter.
Since this survival game seems to exist at every level of existence,
it is possible that it also exists in regard to a Supreme Being—a
game in which a Supreme Being’s own survival is tested by the
diminishment of its awareness units and perhaps by the ultimate
diminishment of the Supreme Being itself. For such a game to exist,
a Supreme Being would have had to either negotiate with one or more
of its own awareness units to be the Supreme Being’s opponent(s), or
a Supreme Being would have had to create in one or more of its
awareness units an apprehension that a Supreme Being posed a threat
to the continued existence of all other spiritual beings.
A Supreme
Being’s opponent would not be any different or inherently more evil
than any other spiritual being, any more than one neighbor who sits
down opposite another to play a game of Monopoly is innately more
evil just because he or she plays a different side.
An opponent would
simply be one who became a different marker on a game board and
played as well as possible. If such a game has indeed existed, then
we can certainly hope that it may end soon by a Supreme Being
conveying thanks to the opponent(s) for a game well-played, promising
the indefinite survival of its awareness units, and asking that the
game be stopped.
It seems time to put many old games to rest so that
everyone may start moving into a new phase of fundamentally-improved
existence.
Back to Contents
Back to Gods and Religions on Planet Earth
To the Researcher
It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies.
Thomas Huxley
THANK YOU FOR staying with me. I realize that many
of the ideas I
expressed have probably been as challenging for you to deal with as
they were for me. If nothing else, I hope that you found some of the
information in support of my ideas interesting. I have always
enjoyed new perspectives and I believe that it is important to be
willing to express them. Every perspective has something to
contribute, but no perspective can contribute anything unless it is
communicated.
An important fact to keep in mind is that knowledge is, to a degree,
an historical phenomenon in itself. Nearly every civilization, at any
given moment in history, has possessed a broadly-accepted body of
historical, social, and scientific teachings to explain nearly
everything. The irony, of course, is that many of those teachings
are different today than they were back in the 1300’s. More than
likely, scholars working five hundred years in the future will be as
amused by some of our 20th-century teachings as we are
by some of the established teachings of the 14th century. It is
therefore helpful to step back from one’s own time and to understand
that knowledge has never been an “absolute,” despite assertions to
the contrary. Rather, knowledge has been an ever-changing commodity
as it is enhanced and refined over time.
The completion of this book marks the completion of my research.
Except for the possibility of one revision to correct any errors
which I may discover or which are pointed out to me, I plan to do no
more work in this area. This book demanded enormous financial,
emotional and social sacrifices that were enough to last me a
lifetime. I hope to pass the torch of research to others.
Despite its length, this book is but an outline. It only begins to
present all of the information and evidence available on the subjects
discussed. There exists an enormous body of data that I never had the
time, money or inclination to pursue, yet it is all highly relevant.
I was also limited to the English language, so I barely utilized any
non-English books or sources. Every chapter in this book could
easily become a book in itself. My biggest problem was not one of
scant and insufficient evidence; it was of being deluged with too
much. I discovered that I could easily spend another eight to ten
years accumulating it all and build a multi-volume encyclopedia from
it, but that was not my purpose. When I began to realize the enormity
of the project, I deliberately wound it down so that I would have
some hope of presenting a one-volume book on the subject. I am
trusting that others will add to what I have done by publishing
writings of their own.
I ran across many theories that I did not use. As radical as the
ideas expressed in this book may seem, they are, in fact, somewhat
conservative compared to other theories in current circulation. I
tended to accept historical facts, dates, and personages as they are
commonly accepted by historians. This may have been a mistake in
some
cases, but it is the approach I chose to take. A person researching
the topics covered in this book will encounter many revisionist
theories that attempt to overturn commonly accepted historical facts.
For example, I ran into the “George Washington-Adam Weishaupt”
theory
which speculates that George Washington had been secretly removed
from the U.S. Presidency and that
Adam Weishaupt of Bavarian
Illuminati fame, who actually looked a bit like George Washington,
had taken Washington’s place after Weishaupt’s disappearance from
Bavaria.
Another theory doing the rounds is that the television
transmissions of U.S. astronauts on the Moon were actually filmed in
a studio. Yet another is that
the Earth is hollow and that UFOs
originate from a civilization in the world below. Perhaps one, two,
or all three of these theories are correct, but because I did not
find enough information to conclusively validate them in my own
mind, I did not adopt them.
People researching the role of secret societies in world history
will sooner or later encounter the writings of Nesta H. (Mrs.
Arthur) Webster. Mrs. Webster’s works were published during the
first two decades of the 20th century and they bear such titles as
The French Revolution, World Revolution, The Socialist Network,
Surrender of an Empire, and Secret Societies and Subversive
Movements. The main thrust of her books is that
secret societies,
especially
the Knights Templar Freemasons, have been responsible for
instigating most of the major revolutions of the past two hundred
years. Her works have provided later researchers with a great deal of
ammunition upon which to build “conspiracy” theories of history.
It is unquestioned that Mrs. Webster was very successful in bringing
forth a great deal of valuable information that probably would not
have otherwise reached us today. All of her books reveal exhaustive
work. Mrs. Webster might have gone down as the top researcher in her
field, and her contribution to mankind might have been enormous, had
her own personal perspective not been clouded. Mrs. Webster made a
fatal mistake by concluding that the world’s apparent Machiavellian
source was a so-called “Jewish conspiracy.” In her book,
Secret
Societies and Subversive Movements, she devoted an entire chapter to
“The Real Jewish Peril” in which she blames the Jews for the
Christian world’s subversion.
This anti-Semitic slant is so strong,
as is an anti-German slant, that the value of her research is lost
because a researcher cannot readily trust all of the information she
presents. This is a shame, but it is also a good lesson to any
researcher. It reveals that an anchored bias can utterly ruin any
benefits that might otherwise accrue from this type of research. It
also indicates the need to remain flexible in the face of changing
history and evidence. Had Mrs. Webster lived longer and seen what
happened to the Jews during World War II, her outlook might have
been different.
There were many avenues of investigation that I never had time to
pursue, but which could bring forth some fruit (although I make no
guarantees). I present them here in no particular order for those who
might be interested in digging further:
1. Throughout the world there is a very strong political and economic
force: the labor union. Labor unions have done a great deal to
improve working conditions for many working people, but there is no
question that some union tactics have generated continuous conflict.
Unionization has also had the effect of creating a mild form of
feudalism by magnifying the superficial distinction between managers
and non-managers, and bringing the two groups into conflict.
Interestingly, one of the key forces behind the early American labor
union movement was an organization known as the “Knights of Labor.”
The Knights were a secret society with secret oaths, just like other
Brotherhood organizations. Although the Knights later dropped their
mystical practices and eventually declined in strength, they played
a role in creating the American Federation of Labor (A.F.L.), which
has since grown to become the major union in America. Questions to
research might be:
-
Who started the Knights of Labor?
-
Were any of its
founders members of other Brotherhood organizations, as seems likely
from the character of the Knights of Labor?
2. One argument against the idea that there has been a
Machiavellian
source behind human warfare is the fact that primitive tribal
societies untouched by the Western world have also engaged in
repeated warfare. This would seem to disprove the “Brotherhood
connection” and suggest that perhaps warfare really is just a part
of human nature.
Let me repeat that there are definite psychological factors behind
human warfare that must be handled before the entire problem is
solved. Machiavellian machinations merely increase the frequency and
severity of war; conflicts can still erupt without such
machinations. It is, however, a remarkable fact that
Brotherhood-style secret societies are extremely pervasive
throughout the entire world and exist even among very primitive
peoples. In fact, such societies appear to be as common in the
“primitive world” as they are in the “civilized” one.
For example,
Captain F. W. Butt-Thompson, writing in his book, West African
Secret Societies, says of Africa:
The Native Secret Societies found amongst the peoples and tribes of
the West Coast of Africa are many. Nearly one hundred and fifty of
them are referred to in the following chapters.1
Captain Butt-Thompson divided those societies into two basic groups:
mystical and political. Of the mystical type, he wrote:
These approximate in organization and purpose the Grecian
Pythagoreans, the Roman Gnostics, the Jewish Kabbala and Essenes,
the Bayem [Bavarian] Illuminata, the Prussian Rosicrucians, and the
world-wide Freemasons. In the course of the years they have evolved
an official class that may be likened to the priesthood founded by
Ignatius Loyola [the Jesuits].2
Some of the African secret societies were
obviously brought in from
the outside, such as the Muhammedan societies. In many primitive
areas, however, from Africa to New Guinea, such societies are
native. Questions to be researched might include:
-
Just how pervasive
is this form of mysticism in primitive society?
-
How did the primitive
secret societies begin and do they have legends of
extraterrestrials?
-
To what degree have they taught mystical beliefs
that exalt and encourage war?
3. If a Custodial society exists, then Earth’s history may simply be
a tragic footnote in a much broader history beginning long before
human civilization arose on Earth.
-
What might that history be?
-
What
caused the apparent
ethical, social and spiritual decay of the Custodial society?
-
Is
there any way to find out?
4. On November 18, 1978, a tragedy occurred in the South American
nation of Guyana. More than 900 men, women, and children were
mysteriously murdered in an isolated religious commune known as the
“People’s Temple” (“Jonestown”). A large vat of drink containing
poison was found at the scene, leading to an initial assumption that
the deaths were caused by suicide. The victims’ bodies were
discovered lying side by side in neat rows as though the people had
drank the poison and had then lain down together and died. However,
when autopsies were performed on the victims, it was discovered that
700 of the 900 people had died of gunshot and strangulation, not
poison.
They had not committed suicide at all;
they were brutally
mass murdered. It is very likely that those who drank the poison
either did so involuntarily or did not know what they were drinking.
The only people to escape the tragedy were not present when the 900
victims were murdered. There are no known witnesses to the entire
event. The question is:
On September 27, 1980, investigative journalist
Jack Anderson ran a
column about the Jonestown incident. One newspaper headlined the
column, “CIA Involved in Jonestown Massacre?” Mr. Anderson cites a
tape recording made of People’s Temple leader, Jim Jones, in which
Jones referred to a man named Dwyer. According to Mr. Anderson,
investigators have concluded that this was Richard Dwyer, deputy
chief of the U.S. mission to Guyana. Dwyer had accompanied U.S.
Representative Leo Ryan to the Jonestown encampment on that ill-fated
day.
Leo Ryan became one of the murder victims, but Richard Dwyer
somehow was not affected and even claimed later that the reference
to him by Jim Jones was “mistaken.” Richard Dwyer, as it turns out,
has been listed in the East German publication, “Who’s Who in the
CIA,” as a long-time CIA agent. Dwyer had reportedly begun his
career with the spy agency in 1959. According to Mr. Anderson’s
column, Dwyer replied “no comment” when asked if he was a CIA agent.
After the massacre, investigators found at Jonestown large
quantities of weapons and drugs. The drugs included powerful
psychotropics: Quaaludes, Valium, Demerol and Thorazine. Another
drug found at Jonestown was chloral hydrate, which had been used in
the CIA’s secret mind control program known as “MK-ULTRA.” Was
Jonestown a CIA mind control experiment which recruited subjects,
especially poorer black people, through the guise of religion? The
Jonestown massacre was triggered when a U.S. Congressman, Leo Ryan,
flew to Guyana to investigate Jones-town personally after he had
failed to obtain information about it from the State Department.
Leo
Ryan never lived to tell what he discovered and nearly every last
man, woman, and child was silenced. The massacre occurred during a
time when many American newspapers were carrying stories about CIA
mind-control experiments—experiments which the
CIA claimed that it
was no longer conducting. Did the CIA slaughter 900 people to cover
up the fact that it was still conducting such experiments on a
massive scale in a small jungle compound in Guyana?
Additional questions to be researched are:
-
What is the true history
of the People’s Temple prior to Jonestown?
-
What is Jim Jones’
background?
-
Who supported him and his early ”church”?
5. Books, movies, and other art forms tend to give
a romantic twist
to UFOs, spies, assassination conspiracies, and so on. As we are
perhaps beginning to realize, behind the “romance” there lie some
cruel and brutal psychoses. A significant problem in any society
geared for overt and covert warfare is that sociopathic
personalities tend to find a home in government. Sociopaths are not
affected by qualms of conscience and often delight in harming
others.
They are frequently promoted to high positions within
agencies engaged in warfare because such personalities are able to
attack and harm others repeatedly without it adversely affecting them
emotionally. Sociopaths with high IQs can be quite clever in how
they harm others; this deviousness is often valuable to intelligence
agencies. As history has shown, the more that a nation is oriented
towards war, the more it will become dominated by sociopathic
personalities.
This domination, in turn, leads to a rapid decay of a
nation
and will eventually cause its ruin. This is one of the great dangers
any nation faces when it becomes involved in long-term conflict, no
matter how democratic and humane that nation might otherwise be.
Questions to be researched might include:
-
To what extent are true sociopathic personalities dominating governments today?
-
Why do
people tolerate them?
-
Have those Custodial religions which demand
the worship of criminally insane beings as “angels” and “God ”
perhaps blinded many people to being able to see sociopathology for
what it is?
6. This book barely touched on
the influence of Brotherhood
organizations in Asian history. I discussed Hinduism, but there is a
great deal more to be found. For example, the bloody Boxer Rebellion
of China in 1900 was instigated by members of an Asian branch of the
Brotherhood network: the Boxers. The Boxers were fiercely
anti-foreign, they massacred over 100,000 people (and often
photographed the beheaded victims), and they stirred up a revolt
which brought to China the armies of several major western powers to
quash the uprising.
Questions to be researched might include:
7. A topic I had wanted to research deeper was the subject of
drugs.
We discussed drugs several times, but not in any great historical
depth. While drugs seem to have always been a part of human culture,
-
Was there a time when drugs were really first “pushed” on society?
-
If there was, when was it and who did it?
8. One highly-publicized problem today is that of
vanishing children.
Many children are abducted every year by parents during custody
disputes, by relatives, and by strangers. Many more children vanish
by running away from home. Runaways and parental abductions are easy
to account for and they constitute the majority of missing child
cases. There has been, however, some confusion about the extent of
child abduction by strangers. In the early 1980’s, the nation’s
leading missing child agency, Child Find, Inc., stated that anywhere
from 20,000 to 50,000 children were
vanishing every year as the result of abductions by strangers. In
1985, Child Find revised that figure down to 600.
I called Child Find
to learn what caused such a dramatic change in the number. I was told
that the earlier figure was really a broad “catch all” and that 600
was the true number of stranger abduction cases per year. To further
confuse the issue, I later learned from another source that out of
all runaways, about 3,000 in the United States disappear yearly
without a trace. Will that figure also be changed? As the reader can
see, there seems to be some genuine confusion regarding how many
children are really vanishing. Many children are eventually found, of
course.
Others vanish completely.
I became interested in this problem because of reported
abductions
of humans by UFOs. The UFO abductions we learn of today are those in
which the human victims are returned. Are there many known cases in
which UFO abduction victims are not returned? Might some of
those instances involve children? I even found myself asking
this unthinkable question: if the human race had been created as a
slave race, might it still be providing manpower, perhaps in the form
of human children, to the Custodial society?
A respected UFO researcher of this generation is
Jacques Vallee, who
has authored several influential books about the UFO phenomenon. Mr.
Vallee was one of the first researchers to focus on the fact that
the UFO phenomenon has been very closely linked to episodes of
social change throughout history. Mr. Vallee also noted an
apparent connection between ancient folklore and UFOs. Some of the
“little people” in folklore have been described in much the same way
as modern UFO pilots. UFO-like phenomena have also occasionally been
described in old stories of the “little people.”
One activity attributed to the “little people” in folklore was their
frequent kidnapping of children. Many of those children would never
be seen again. This was a major source of upset between humans and
the “little people.” This raises some rather startling questions:
-
Are there any recent child-stealing episodes with a UFO connection?
-
Is it conceivable that there could exist on Earth today a
child-stealing network which feeds an ongoing Custodial demand for
human labor?
These questions are admittedly “far-out” and the stuff of
supermarket tabloids (and certainly the most speculative of any
asked in this chapter), but they may actually be worthy of
investigation by some brave soul in light of all that we have come
to know about the UFO phenomenon.
I hope that some of the above questions will provide good starting
points for additional research. In the final analysis, the important
thing is to be flexible with ideas, and even to have fun with them.
By sticking my neck out as I have done in this book, I hope that I
will encourage other people to explore those topics about which they
are curious, and to share what they find. You and I may not always be
right; the important thing is that we are willing to explore and
communicate. Be careful that you do not base all of your beliefs
upon a mere handful of writers, teachers, ministers, or scientists.
Learn from them, but also explore on your own, and have fun doing
it. Do not always look to others for approval of what you have
discovered. If your integrity says that something is a certain way,
stick to it, regardless of any snubs or criticisms. On the other
hand, be ready to change if you discover, in your own mind, that you
are wrong. Learning that one has erred is often a hard pill to
swallow, but it is a part of the learning process. The man who
pretends that he has always been right is either an egoist or a
liar, and he does not learn much of anything either.
Good luck ... and happy sleuthing!
Back to Contents
|