Until recently, impacts by extraterrestrial bodies were regarded as, perhaps, an interesting but certainly not important phenomenon in the spectrum of geological processes affecting the Earth. This has only been the case since Lyell, Laplace and Newton put a period to such speculations. What seems to have happened is that, through repeated cataclysms, man has been brought low, relegated to darkness regarding his history, and at the very point when he began to study and analyze his environment objectively, religion stepped in and put a period to such ideas. Velikovsky’s work was vilified by the scientific community, and shortly after, there came an onslaught of ideas promoting extraterrestrials as the source of civilization anomalies; and then, of course, Zecharia Sitchin’s infamous “10th Planet” hypothesis to explain away planetary disruptions that could not be adequately concealed.
The question is, why? What, in the name of all things reasonable, would prompt anyone to wish to hide these matters? What kind of sick mind would divert the attention of humanity away from what is evident all over the planet to those with open eyes, and promote so assiduously ideas that mislead, misguide, and generally placate the populace with an assurance that either nothing is going to happen, or if it does, it will be preceded by a long period of approach by a body that is well organized and clearly seen, and that the government can probably “fix it?”
Well, the clue is right there: “Placate the populace.” Control.
But, heavenly days! What kind of lunatics would want to keep everything under control in that sense if they have some idea that they, themselves, might be destroyed by the very processes they are concealing?
Obviously, they don’t think so. Obviously, they think they have a plan. That suggests that, obviously, they know a lot more about what’s going on, what the possibilities and probabilities are, than the rest of us. One of the “official views” of the subject that is available to the public tells us:
Our concept of the importance of impact processes, however, has been changed radically through planetary exploration, which has shown that virtually all planetary surfaces are cratered from the impact of interplanetary bodies. […] The Earth, as part of the solar system, experienced the same bombardment as the other planetary bodies.
Most of the terrestrial impact craters that ever formed, however, have been obliterated by other terrestrial geological processes. Some examples, however, remain. To date, approximately 150 impact craters have been identified on Earth. Almost all known craters have been recognized since 1950 and several new structures are found each year.
Meteorite fragments are found only at the smallest craters and they are quickly destroyed in the terrestrial environment. […] Although the number of known impact craters on Earth is relatively small, the preserved sample is an extremely important resource for understanding impact phenomena. They provide the only ground-truth data currently available and are amenable to extensive geological, geophysical and geochemical study. […] In some cases, the large size of terrestrial impact craters, up to approximately 300 km in diameter, requires orbital imagery and observation to provide an overall view of their structure and large-scale context. […]
The tendency to discount impact processes as a factor in the Earth’s more recent geologic history was severely challenged by the interpretation in 1980 that Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary sediments worldwide were due to a major impact event, and that impact was the causal agent for a mass extinction event. The acceptance of the K-T impact hypothesis by the more general terrestrial geoscience community was not instantaneous and considerable controversy and debate was generated. Today, there are few workers who would deny that there is abundant diagnostic evidence that a major impact event occurred at the K-T boundary. It is fair to say, however, there is less consensus on the role of impact in the associated mass extinction event, with some workers still having difficulty in accepting impact-related processes as the cause.
The impact signal of the K-T event is recognizable globally, because large impact events have the capacity to blow out a hole in the atmosphere above the impact site, permitting some impact materials to be dispersed globally by the impact fireball, which rises above the atmosphere. These materials do not require atmospheric winds for dispersal and have the capacity to encircle the globe in relatively short time periods, before eventually returning to the surface. Model calculations indicate that it does not require a K-T-sized event, which produced the buried 180 km diameter Chicxulub impact structure in the Yucatan, Mexico, to result in atmospheric blowout. Relatively small impact events, resulting in impact structures in the 20 km size-range can produce atmospheric blowout. […]
From estimates of the terrestrial cratering rate, the frequency of K-T-sized events on Earth is of the order of one every 50 to 100-million years. Smaller, but still significant impact events, occur on shorter time scales and will affect the terrestrial climate and biosphere to varying degrees. The formation of impact craters as small as 20 km could produce light reductions and temperature disruptions similar to a nuclear winter. […]
The most fragile component of the present environment, however, is modern human civilization, which is highly dependent on an organized and technologically complex infrastructure for its survival. […] There is little doubt that if civilization lasts long enough, it will suffer severely or may even be destroyed by an impact event. […]
[A]n impact anywhere in the Atlantic Ocean by a body 400 m in diameter would devastate the coasts on both sides of the ocean with wave run-ups of over 60 miles. The 1960 tsunami, generated by a magnitude 8.6 Chilean earthquake, is thought to have been the largest this century. An impact-generated tsunami ten times more powerful will occur with a typical recurrence time of a few thousand years.
Small impacting bodies release their energy in the atmosphere as an air burst. The threshold size at which this is exceeded depends on the strength of the impacting body. For example, iron impacting bodies up to 20 miles will deposit their energy in the atmosphere and not reach the surface; whereas, comets as large as 200 miles will deposit their energy in the atmosphere. Such air-burst explosions, fortunately, are not efficient at delivering their energy to the ground, because some of initial energy is blown into space. The Tunguska event in 1908 was due to the atmospheric explosion of a relatively small, approximately few tens of meters, body at an altitude of 10 km. The energy released, has been estimated to be 10-100 megatons TNT equivalent. Although the air blast resulted in the devastation of 2000 sq. km of Siberian forest, there was no loss of human life due to the very sparse population. Events such as Tunguska occur on a time-scale of hundreds of years. […]
The next large impact with the Earth could be an “impact-winter”-producing event or even a K-T-sized event. To emphasize this point, in March 1989 an asteroidal body named “1989-FC” passed within 700,000 km of the Earth. This Earth-crossing body was not discovered until it had passed the Earth. It is estimated to be in the 0.5 km size-range, capable of producing a Zhamanshin-sized crater or a devastating tsunami. Although 700,000 km is a considerable distance, it translates to a miss of the Earth by only a few hours, when orbital velocities are considered. At present, no systems or procedures are in place, specifically for mitigating the effects of an impact. [This author’s emphases]
The conclusion that I have reached after the research that went into Secret History is that the inner solar system experiences swarms of comets/asteroids on a fairly regular schedule. One major swarm comes at 3,600-year intervals, and there are minor swarms at other intervals; and these cycles are sub-cycles of even larger swarms, at intervals of hundreds of thousands of years, and even millions of years. The massive bombardment of the East Coast of the U.S. around 12,000 to 12,500 years ago, resulting in the Carolina Bays, is evidence of the great number and relatively small sizes of many of these bodies, indicating that they released their energy into the air above the ground, similar to the Tunguska event. Keep in mind, of course, that the air blast of a single small body over Tunguska resulted in the devastation of 2000 sq. km of Siberian forest. This pretty much confirms the Cassiopaeans’ remark about this, made on August 22, 1998:
Q: (L) Okay, we would like to know, what was this famous explosion in Tunguska?
A: Comet fragment.
This would also explain many other discontinuities in history that have destroyed centers of civilization without necessarily leaving any impact craters. Such events would also be viewed by uneducated peoples as “the wars of the gods.” Of course, larger asteroid type bodies are also well represented in the geological record with impact craters being discovered every day.
At present, the Carolina Bays (discussed in Secret History) are numbered at somewhere around 500,000. I want the reader to just stop and think about that for a minute. Think about 500,000 Tunguska-like events. Forget movies like Armageddon or Deep Impact where there is a single “big one” and the government can save us. Instead, go rent the movie Asteroid, and watch the rain of rocks on New York City for a much better idea of what we are talking about. The effect will be similar, only it may occur over the entire globe. Then just think about the fact that the Carolina Bay phenomenon covers several states. Put that together with the evidence of “nuclear” explosions in the great lakes regions, as well as other areas, dated to about the same time, and then consider a most interesting fact reported in the news quite recently: That one of the largest asteroids known to have approached the Earth zipped past about 450,000 km away on March 8, 2002 — but nobody recorded it until four days later. Yes, a miss is as good as a mile, but these “near misses” have been occurring with greater and greater frequency in recent years. This could be seen as a result of increased observational ability, or it could be because we are already experiencing the first influx of a swarm of such bodies entering the inner solar system.
On March 15, 2002, New Scientist magazine said that the object was “hard to spot because it was moving outward from the innermost point of its orbit, 87-million km from the Sun. When it passed closest to the Earth — just 1.2 times the distance to the Moon — it was too close to the Sun to be visible. Asteroids approaching from this blind spot cannot be seen by astronomers. If a previously unknown object passed through this zone on a collision course with Earth, it would not be identified until it was too late for any intervention.”
How many other “blind spots” are there?
How many other “objects” are out there zipping this way? How many of them are in “swarms” where any single one of them might not produce a “global” event, but taken together, could destroy our civilization and leave almost no trace of their activity other than the widespread destruction?
With just the brief review we have presented, it seems obvious by now that human civilization very likely has had a very different history than the standard teachings will admit. Here and in other volumes, we have presented only a tip of the iceberg of evidence. This evidence is available to the researcher who is diligent, thorough, and refuses to accept the material propagated in popular, mass-market books written by authors who either have not searched widely and deeply enough, or who have an agenda. Yes, it may be a bit harder to get, because it seems that the numerous government-sponsored scientific studies on the periodic rains of comets/asteroids are concealed behind obscure titles in technical journals, or on microfiche in university libraries. But with persistence, the material can be gathered together, examined, and extrapolated upon.
Again, we come back to the question as to why this topic is — at the very least — subjected to such extreme prejudice that it amounts to concealment? Why are there so many books about things like the 10th Planet, precessional alignments related to world ages, Stargates, Galactic Core Explosions, and so forth, that pass with only mild criticism; yet Velikovsky’s proposal of rains of cometary bodies was so viciously vilified? This brings us back to that most interesting passage written by Wilhelm Reich:
Why did man, through thousands of years, wherever he built scientific, philosophic, or religious systems, go astray with such persistence and with such catastrophic consequences?” […] Is human erring necessary? Is it rational? Is all error rationally explainable and necessary? If we examine the sources of human error, we find that they fall into several groups: Gaps in the knowledge of nature form a wide sector of human erring. Medical errors prior to the knowledge of anatomy and infectious diseases were necessary errors. But we must ask if the mortal threat to the first investigators of animal anatomy was a necessary error too.
The belief that the Earth was fixed in space was a necessary error, rooted in the ignorance of natural laws. But was it an equally necessary error to burn Giordano Bruno at the stake and to incarcerate Galileo? […] We understand that human thinking can penetrate only to a given limit at a given time. What we fail to understand is why the human intellect does not stop at this point and say: “This is the present limit of my understanding. Let us wait until new vistas open up.” This would be rational, comprehensible, purposeful thinking. (Reich, 1949)
The only problem here is that we have discovered that the material is available! There are many vistas of understanding that are open in our world to those with eyes to see! We have listed our sources. There are photographs and images of the proof that our planet has been repeatedly bombarded with showers of comets/asteroids; there exists stacks of evidence — recorded in books, papers, monographs, theories — that civilizations of greater advancement than our own have existed on the earth, and have been repeatedly destroyed. There are piles of evidence that attest to a far greater age of mankind than is presently accepted or taught by mainstream science. In every case, this evidence is ignored, marginalized, explained or argued away, and those who wish to make such information publicly available to a wider audience, are similarly marginalized and dealt with. What is even more interesting, as we noted previously, is the fact that the “mainstream occultists” have jumped on the uniformitarian bandwagon and are vigorously promoting reams of disinformation. Our own experience has been that our attempts to talk about this sort of thing have resulted in coordinated attacks from certain so-called “occultists,” who have even sunk so low as to spend inordinate amounts of time roaming the internet, denouncing our research group as a “cult,” writing libelous, defamatory public postings about us personally; and most importantly, attempting to destroy the Cassiopaeans’ material as a source of clues to our reality. Reich notes this problem and writes:
What amazes us is the sudden turn from the rational beginning to the irrational illusion. Irrationality and illusion are revealed by the intolerance and cruelty with which they are expressed. We observe that human thought-systems show tolerance as long as they adhere to reality. The more the thought process is removed from reality, the more intolerance and cruelty are needed to guarantee its continued existence. (Reich, 1949; this author’s emphasis)
Here is where we have to begin to really think about things in a reasonable and objective way. If there is so much evidence available — and there is — why is it so rabidly attacked and dismissed? Why is it necessary to defame, libel, crush, and destroy those who bring up these matters, and who also produce the evidence? Most especially, why is this so, when we know that there are groups — such as the government and certain academics — who do study these things, who do commission reports on them, who collect the data? Just what they heck is going on? Why do they permit — no, actually encourage — the crazy ideas about 10th Planets or galactic explosions or precessional clocks of world ages, when the simple truth is so evident?
Reich proposed that the “adherence to the surface of phenomena” was related to “a certain connection with the structure of the human animal.” He thought that the function of seeking the truth must be somehow “buried” since the tendency to “evade the obvious” was so powerful. In this idea, we are, of course, reminded of Castaneda’s “Predator.”
“We have a predator that came from the depths of the cosmos and took over the rule of our lives. Human beings are its prisoners. […] You have arrived, by your effort alone, to what the shamans of ancient Mexico called the topic of topics. I have been beating around the bush all this time, insinuating to you that something is holding us prisoner. Indeed we are held prisoner! This was an energetic fact for the sorcerers of ancient Mexico. […] They took over because we are food for them, and they squeeze us mercilessly because we are their sustenance. Just as we rear chickens in chicken coops, the predators rear us in human coops. Therefore, their food is always available to them.” […]
“I want to appeal to your analytical mind,” don Juan said. “Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradiction between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behavior. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of beliefs, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success or failure. They have given us covetousness, greed and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal.” […]
In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous maneuver — stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous maneuver from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators’ mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now. […] Through the mind, which, after all, is their mind, the predators inject into the lives of human beings whatever is convenient for them. (Castaneda, 1998, 213-220; this author’s emphases)
Reich, of course, decided that the cause of “needless human erring” was due to the “pathological quality of human character.” In fact, this fits quite well with what Castaneda has written: “The Predators gave us their mind.” Reich also pointed out, quite reasonably, that religion, education, social mores, suppression of a true understanding of love, and so on, were merely symptoms of this fact. This is what led Reich to conclude: “The answer lies somewhere in that area of our existence which has been so heavily obscured by organized religion and put out of our reach. Hence, it probably lies in the relation of the human being to the cosmic energy that governs him.”
As we have mentioned, Reich was moving dangerously close to describing the hyperdimensional reality. And, as a result, he, too, was subjected to overt intolerance and cruelty. He rightly noted: “Irrationality and illusion are revealed by the intolerance and cruelty with which they are expressed. […] The more the thought process is removed from reality, the more intolerance and cruelty are needed to guarantee its continued existence.”
It is in this last remark that we come to some clue about the matter: Intolerance and cruelty are needed to guarantee the “cover-up.” A certain kind of “human being” acts on behalf of this cover-up. A certain kind of human being acts as the playing pieces in the “Secret Games of the Gods.” The Cassiopaeans have said that this has something to do with economics.
This brings us to other strange matters, something called “Alternative 3” that is somehow mixed up with this cover-up of the ideas of the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, and the true history of mankind, including cyclic cometary destruction. Let me just insert here a couple of very strange little exchanges with the Cassiopaeans that I would like the reader to have in mind as we go along:
Q: OK, where is the Ark of the Covenant currently located?
A: “Alternative 3.”
Q: (L) “Alternative 3” is the plan to take all the people, all the smart guys, all the elite, off the planet and leave everybody else here to blow-up, isn’t it?
A: Maybe. Maybe not. [This “maybe not” was delivered in the midst of the next question and was originally included with the nest answer. But it rightly belongs here, and so I have moved it to retain the proper context.]
Q: (L) Where is it currently located?
Q: (L) We’re trying to discover, through our interaction with you. How else can we discover something as obscure as this? I mean, that’s a pretty darned obscure question, I would think. (SV) Who’s in charge of “Alternative 3,” Laura? (L) That’s too complicated…. (SV) Well, maybe they have it, who ever is in charge of it. (L) Well, are you going to tell us anything about it?
A: Study “Alternative 3” to find answer!
Curiously, as we will discover, the very next question relates to the subject of “Alternative 3,” though I did not know it at the time:
Q: (L) OK, the Matrix material says that Henry Kissinger is the current head of MJ-12. Is this correct?
Q: (L) Is he just a red herring, so to speak?
A: Yes. MJ-12 is no longer MJ-12.
Q: (L) What is MJ-12 now known as?
A: Institute of Higher Learning.
Q: (L) Are you talking about Brookings Lab, or Brookhaven?
A: Not really.
Q: (L) Is it a specific institute of higher learning?
We will soon discover that “Alternative 3” has a lot to do with HAARP as well:
February 17, 1996
Q: (L) Some people on the net want me to ask about this HAARP thing… seems to be some sort of antennae thing….
A: Disguise for something else.
Q: (L) What is that something else?
A: Project to apply EM-wave theories to the transference of perimeters.
Q: (L) What does that mean?
A: If utilized as designed, will allow for controlled invisibility and easy movement between density levels on surface of planet as well as subterranially.
Q: (L) Who is in charge of building this thing?
A: More than one entity.
Q: (L) What groups?
A: INVELCO is one guise as well as UNICON and banking interest.
Q: (L) Who is in disguise as INVELCO and UNICON? Are they just dummy companies for cover?
Q: (L) Can you tell us if this is a human organization, or aliens, or a combination?
A: Human at surface level. […]
Q: (L) Is there more you can tell us about this?
A: It has nothing to do with weather or climate. These things are emanating from 4th density, as we have told you before. […]
Q: (L) So, HAARP has nothing to do with the weather?
A: And also, EM [electromagnetic] associated with same as reported.
Q: (L) So, when is this HAARP thing scheduled to go into operation?
Q: (L) Is it currently in operation?
Q: (L) How long have they been working on this thing?
A: Since the 1920s.
Q: (L) What?! The 1920s?
Q: (L) Well, that certainly is strange.
So what is “Alternative 3”? On Monday, June 20, 1977, the UK’s Anglia Television broadcast the last program in a series of serious science documentaries called Science Report. All of the shows were produced by highly-respected science reporters and it was simulcast in UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greece, and Yugoslavia. The title of the segment was “Alternative 3,” and it was never broadcast in the United States. Some say that the “powers that be” prevented it from being screened here.
The documentary presented the following purported “facts”:
There is a secret joint US/USSR space program that has gone far beyond what the public sees. Astronauts landed on Mars in 1962. It has been discovered that there is other intelligent life in the universe. The earth is dying. We have polluted it beyond repair. The increasing “greenhouse effect” will cause the polar ice caps and glaciers to melt and flood the Earth.
There are three possible solutions for mankind:
Alternative 1: Stop all pollution immediately and blow two huge holes in the ozone layer. This would allow excessive UV light to reach the earth and millions would die of skin cancer.
Alternative 2: Immediately begin digging underground cities for the elite [the “New World Order”?] — the lucky ones deemed worth saving — and let the teeming billions perish on the polluted surface.
Alternative 3: Build spaceships and get the elite off the planet — to the Moon and Mars. Kidnap and take along some “ordinary” people for use as slave labor. Use “mind control” techniques to control them. Leave the remainder of humanity to wallow in its own filth.
After the television show was aired, a book was published with three authors listed: Leslie Watkins, Christopher Miles and David Ambrose. Christopher Miles, who also directed and co-wrote the documentary, is the brother of actress Sara Miles. The actual author of the book version, Leslie Watkins, was a writer of thrillers even before writing Alternative 3. Fortean Times later published an article in which Nick Austin, then editorial director of Sphere Books, revealed that he commissioned Leslie Watkins to write the book version for literary agent Murray Pollinger.
The question is, however, whether there was any fact behind that fiction. Bill Cooper, killed in a shoot-out with the law, incorporated many of the “Alternative 3” elements into his conspiracy theories. The stories came fast and furious, and “Alternative 3” was grafted onto the mythos of the Philadelphia Experiment that became the Montauk Experiment as promulgated by Al Bielek and others. What is most interesting are the comments of the author of the book about the correspondence she received after its publication:
In fact, the amazing mountains of letters from virtually all parts of the world — including vast numbers from highly intelligent people in positions of responsibility — convinced me that I had ACCIDENTALLY trespassed into a range of top-secret truths.
Documentary evidence provided by many of these correspondents decided me [sic] to write a serious and COMPLETELY NON-FICTION sequel. Unfortunately, a chest containing the bulk of the letters was among the items which were mysteriously LOST IN TRANSIT some four years later when I moved from London, England, to Sydney, Australia, before I moved on to settle in New Zealand. For some time after Alternative 3 was originally published, I had reason to suppose that my home telephone was being tapped, and my contacts who were experienced in such matters were convinced that certain intelligence agencies considered that I probably knew too much.
It would be a mistake to file Alternative 3 away too cozily with Panorama’s spaghetti harvest and other hoaxes. Suppose it were fiendish double-bluff inspired by the very agencies identified in the program, and that the superpowers really are setting up an extraterrestrial colony of outstanding human beings to safeguard the species?
I think that Leslie Watkins is onto something in saying that this story may have something to do with “top-secret truths,” but when we consider the modes of disinformation, we have to realize that the “truth” may not be necessarily the story that is promoted, as it is promoted. It may have little to do with the setting up of an extraterrestrial colony of “outstanding human beings in order to safeguard the species,” as Watkins suggests.
Looking at the first “fact,” and considering it as an item of disinformation, can we speculate about what it is designed to cover up or distract attention away from?
There is a secret joint US/USSR space program that has gone far beyond what the public sees. Astronauts landed on Mars in 1962. It has been discovered that there is other intelligent life in the universe.
The first part is the “joint US/USSR space program” that is concealed by political posturing and maneuvers. Keeping in mind that disinformation is generally composed of “truth wrapping a lie,” we can suppose that there is, indeed, a “One World Government” at some level, where the US and Russia are unified in some effort. But it seems sort of transparently obvious that the statement is promoting the idea that it is a human government. The statement seems designed to distract our attention from the highly advanced technological capabilities of hyperdimensional existence, and focuses it on a somewhat advanced human technology. The next part of the disinformation above seems to be that there is a space program that is far beyond what the public sees. How else to cover up UFO and extraterrestrial activity? It’s too evident to deny, so give a different “reason” for its existence.
The next item: “Astronauts landed on Mars in 1962 and there is other intelligent life in the universe.”
We see here the program of Richard Hoagland, Zechariah Sitchin, Courtney Brown, and many others. If it is suggested that this intelligent life is “Martian,” or even related to a “10th Planet,” it is a lot easier to accept its existence. It is, after all, more or less “like us” in the idea that it exists in our reality. Again, this distracts our attention away from the hyperdimensional nature of this “intelligent life,” and conceals its true capabilities. We can all go back to bed and get some rest if “aliens” are more or less physical beings as we are, with the same limitations and the same reliance on human-oriented technology. What’s more, it covers the fact that there may be anomalies on Mars or the Moon that are difficult to explain. If too many people start looking at the history of the Earth, they may discover something frightening, and we can’t have that happening. Let’s attribute everything to the “Martians” and then we won’t have to deal with the ongoing, multi-millennial manipulation of human beings here on our own planet. After all, a tall blonde Martian or Annunaki is socially acceptable; hyperdimensional beings who manifest a form truer to their intrinsic nature are not invited to the best parties! As the Cassiopaeans pointed out when the existence of rocks from Mars on Earth was announced:
Q: (L) OK, what’s the scoop on this Mars rock? […] Is this rock from Mars?
Q: (L) How long have they known that rocks from Mars are on the planet?
A: 12 years.
Q: (T) About the same length of time it took them to analyze the soil samples that they got from Mariner probes. (L) OK, Why all of a sudden are they revealing or releasing this information about this Mars rock in such a big and manipulative way? (T) You just said it!
A: You have already figured it out yourselves. […]
Q: (L) Well, OK, but is this Mars rock, and is this opening of the doors concept, is this leading up to some definite, overt interaction with aliens?
A: Gradually. […] Notice how you heard nothing about the Mars Probes until the rock announcement?
Q: (T) This is the new stuff? […]
A: The excavation robot spacecraft. One Probe is already on its way, another to follow. No further explanation about “loss” of Mars Explorer.
Q: (L) What did happen to the Mars Explorer?
A: Blacked out. You see, “too risky.” And too much too soon, due to pressure from Hoagland and others.
Q: (T) My own opinion is that they’ve already been there, and they know what’s there.
A: No. Microbes are easier to swallow than humans in togas! […]
Q: (T) OK, you just mentioned that somebody from this planet already launched a Mars Probe. A new Mars Probe, that no one in public knows about. Because it’s never been talked about. So, it’s a secret probe. Who does it belong to?
A: Was secret US government. […]
Q: (T) What is the purpose of these probes?
A: Excavation to display living organisms.
Q: (T) Display? (L) Yes, for public consumption. In other words, not only do we have a rock now, that shows evidence that there was…. (T) Oh, “display,” as when they find it and dig it up, they’re going to show it on camera! (L) Yes! (T) Connie Couric will interview it! (L) Right! (F) First they said they found no evidence, then they said it was inconclusive…. Now, who the hell knows what they found! In revealing things, we’ll start with fossilized life, and then move on.… (L) So, they’re going to display the discovery of living organisms on Mars to take the next step to acclimate.…
Q: (L) So, in other words, this process is going to be something of an ongoing thing, and all of these people who are cranking around about, you know, alien landings.…
A: No faces, though.
Q: (L) There’s not going to be any “Faces On Mars?” They are not going to show us.…
A: Won’t be revealed, what do you think happened with Mars Explorer?
Q: (L) Well, what did happen with the Mars Explorer? (T) Now, now, now, let me….
A: Hoagland forced their hand.
Q: (T) What do we think happened to the Mars Explorer? I think they switched channels. They just moved it from one communication post to another, and it’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to be doing. And they did it in such a way, that the NASA people really didn’t know what happened, so that when they were asked, they could say, “We don’t know what happened to it!” Because they really don’t know what happened! (L) When we’re talking about attack, as we were before, as in plane crashes, the Olympics, all these different things — this dealing with these Mars Explorers — is all this stuff, or most of this stuff, coming from the 4th density manipulations of human minds, rather than.…
Q: (L) …rather than actual, physical entry [into our plane of existence] and doing of deeds? Is that it?
A: Yes. […]
Q: (T) I have a question. They’re going to display live organisms, like… how did they put that…? “Living organisms”? How big are these living organisms going to be? How advanced?
Q: (T) So, we’re still talking about microscopic organisms here?
Q: (J) So, they won’t wave at us!
A: But these will be alive. Can’t you see the progression here? Don’t want to scare Grandma Sally Bible Thumper/Stockmarket Investor!
Again there is a reference to economics as the means of control. But getting back to the next purported fact in “Alternative 3”: “The earth is dying. We have polluted it beyond repair. The increasing ‘greenhouse effect’ will cause the polar ice-caps and glaciers to melt and flood the Earth.”
It is an obvious fact that there is most definitely something going on in terms of weather. What we see here is the effort to divert attention away from hyperdimensional manipulations. At the same time, what this manipulates us to feel is that we are in deep doo-doo and we need Big Brother to haul us out of the soup.
Some time ago I wrote about Climate Change as being probably the most pressing problem facing humanity today. It is so pressing that I am convinced that possibly 90% of the human race — over 6-billion people — could be at risk of certain death in the very near future, perhaps within ten years, if this matter is not addressed adequately and appropriately very, very soon by our “glorious leaders,” who seem to have little on their mind other than blowing up innocent people.
But then, that war-mongering has a hidden agenda behind it: To grab and hold resources. However, rest assured that the intent is not to grab and hold those resources for you and me; it is to get them for the “elite,” that 6% of humanity that is on the top of the heap and intends to stay there, regardless of the fact that those genes should never be passed on.
Well, the Climate Change confusion factor is heating up.
The U.K.’s Channel 4 recently broadcast a special on the “Climate Change Swindle,” that was intended to “expose the myths about climate change that have been promulgated in order to hoodwink the world into accepting the man-made theory of Global Warming.”
As far as it went, this special wasn’t too bad. However, it didn’t really tell the whole story, which is that, yes, Climate Change is real and a serious threat, but not for the reasons given.
Keep in mind that this is really just a distraction, something to keep the masses busy so that they don’t see the real agenda — that it is intended that they should be “left out in the cold,” because they didn’t act to get rid of corrupt leaders in time to do anything to prepare for what is coming.
How many of you have seen the movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” based on the book by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber? If you haven’t, the thesis of the movie is that Global Warming causes large areas of the Arctic to melt, so that the northern Atlantic Ocean is diluted by large amounts of fresh water, which changes the density of the water layers causing a disruption of the Thermohaline current. This then leads to a rapid and unnatural cooling of the northern hemisphere which triggers a series of anomalies, eventually leading to a massive “global superstorm” system consisting of three gigantic hurricane-like superstorms, which suck up heat and drop the super-cold upper atmospheric air down onto the planet, resulting in an “Instant Ice Age.”
This idea is nothing new and it didn’t really originate with Art Bell and Whitley Strieber. A NASA report from 2004 tells us “Andrew Marshall, a veteran Defense Department planner, recently released an unclassified report detailing how a shift in ocean currents in the near future could compromise national security.”
In a 2003 report, Robert Gagosian cites “rapidly advancing evidence [e.g., from tree rings and ice cores] that Earth’s climate has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past.” For example, as the world warmed at the end of the last ice-age about 12,500 years ago, melting ice sheets appear to have triggered a sudden halt in the Conveyor, throwing the world back into a 1,300-year period of ice-age-like conditions called the “Younger Dryas.” It is also now known that the Gulf Stream weakened in that “little ice age.”
On December 6, 2005, Michael Schlesinger, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, leading a research team, said: “The shutdown of the thermohaline circulation has been characterized as a high-consequence, low-probability event. Our analysis, including the uncertainties in the problem, indicates it is a high-consequence, high-probability event.” See also: “Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age.”
There is another danger that comes with Global Warming: release of huge amount of methane from the methane clathrates buried in the arctic seabed, and even from other subterranean sources as the Earth struggles to shift around and balance itself. Methane can contribute to Global Warming, but it is a highly unstable gas. Mostly it just stinks, and can kill. Consider a September 2006 report (“Methane gas leak kills miners in Ukraine”) which says: “Emergency Situations spokesman Ihor Krol said ‘an unexpected eruption of a coal and gas mixture’ — later identified as methane — ‘occurred early this morning at a depth of 3,500ft’…”
We learn from further research that a high number of mining accidents are the result of methane pockets igniting or poisoning miners.
In short, if big bubbles of methane gas are released from the ground and a flock of birds happen to be in the area, they could very easily die and fall to the ground within a few minutes. Now, of course, methane itself is odorless, but it is a byproduct of organic decomposition and, as a consequence, is often associated with hydrogen sulfide, and a “rotten egg” smell. If you can smell it, the level is probably unsafe.
Of course, there is tremendous dispute about this, with a whole raft of critics (some of them scientists with questionable loyalties) pooh-poohing the idea and continuing along the line of “It’s all Global Warming, and if we concentrate on cutting emissions, over time, things will stabilize.”
Not very likely.
Why do we think so?
In December 2006, for almost a week, the Gulf Stream ceased to flow northward to Europe. Now, keeping those dates in mind, let’s look at some headlines selected from the SOTT Weather Archive from the days during and after the temporary reversal of the Thermohaline current:
December 14, 2006: “Duck die-off in Idaho sparks fears”
December 19, 2006: “Lewiston residents unnerved by dead crows”
December 21, 2006: “Colorado reels under blizzard”
December 26, 2006: “Christmas storm brings devastation”
January 2, 2007: “Sections of Colorado Remain Buried in Snow”
January 3, 2007: “Cherry Blossoms Bloom In Brooklyn”
January 3, 2007: “Record snowfall buries Anchorage”
January 4, 2007: “Warm winter wreaks havoc”
January 4, 2007: “Scientists Say 2007 May Be Warmest Yet”
January 5, 2007: “2 dead after strong storms, tornadoes rip through southern Louisiana”
January 8, 2007: “Gas-like odor blankets Manhattan”
January 8, 2007: “Ducks die en mass in Vietnam’s southern province”
January 8, 2007: “Dead birds shut down Austin”
January 8, 2007: “Outgassing: The environmental ‘surge’ you’re not hearing anything about”
January 8, 2007: “NY gas smell shuts trains, forces evacuations”
January 8, 2007: “Wacky warm weather throws birds and bees off balance”
January 9, 2007: “Warm December Pushes 2006 to Record Year”
January 10, 2007: “Are the dead porpoises on Scottish beaches more evidence of Global Warming?”
January 10, 2007: “Freak tornado-like storm hits Barbados”
January 12, 2007: “Storm Warnings Across UK”
January 13, 2007: “Icy Weather Hits U.S. Midwest”
January 13, 2007: “Record Cold, Snow in Southern California!”
January 13, 2007: “Smelly Outgassing in Louisiana”
January 13, 2007: “Staten Island: More Bad Smells — Outgassing?”
January 14, 2007: “Powerful storm dumps ice and rain on central U.S.”
January 14, 2007: “Ice storm lashes much of U.S. — 20 dead”
January 15, 2007: “Near Hurricane Force Storm Batters Baltic States, 2nd time in 2 years for ‘once in a lifetime’ event”
January 17, 2007: “Schwarzenegger seeks disaster aid for freeze ruined crops”
January 17, 2007: “Ice plays havoc with U.S. power grid”
January 17, 2007: “Thousands shiver as storm death toll hits 51”
January 17, 2007: “Big freeze hits $1bn crop”
January 17, 2007: “Wildfires burn in southern Australia”
January 17, 2007: “Scores killed, crops devastated in harsh U.S. winter weather”
January 17, 2007: “Storms forecast to batter UK”
January 17, 2007: “Warm spell in Russia wakes up the bears”
January 18, 2007: “Snow in Malibu!!!”
January 18, 2007: “Severe storms batter northwestern Europe”
January 18, 2007: “Travel in Europe disrupted by wild storm”
January 19, 2007: “Hurricane force winds rip into eastern Europe”
January 19, 2007: “Storm kills 27 in northern Europe”
January 19, 2007: “Germany limps back to life after storm claims 10 lives, wind gusts up to 202kph”
January 19, 2007: “Killer of 29, Kyrill Hurricane approaches Russia: ‘The Day After Tomorrow’?”
January 19, 2007: “Experts can’t find source of mysterious NYC odor”
January 19, 2007: “Okla., Mo., and Texas brace for storm”
January 19, 2007: “Icy storm blamed for 65 deaths in U.S.”
January 19, 2007: “Germans told to stay indoors as hurricane nears”
January 20, 2007: “Europe counts cost of storms as stricken freighter is beached”
January 20, 2007: “New winter storm stalks southern plains”
January 21, 2007: “Snow storm rolls across plains; 8 dead”
January 25, 2007: “Getting colder in U.S. northeast, polar plunge underway”
January 25, 2007: “Anchorage hit with twice normal snowfall”
The $64,000 question: Is there a connection between the reversal of the Gulf Stream in December, the numerous reports of birds falling dead from the sky, and the wild and deadly weather during the first half of January?
The next question is: Does this small example suggest what might happen if the now highly unstable Gulf Stream finally and completely stops flowing North to Europe?
Meanwhile, on January 23, President Bush told the American Congress “we must confront the serious challenge of global climate change.” However, the main thrust of his speech was to ask that Congress and the American People give his war escalation plan yet another chance.
Now, even though Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) responded to this nonsensical speech in a very appropriate way, telling Bush that “the majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military, nor does the majority of Congress,” Senator Webb himself is probably not aware of the truly great danger that may be looming over all of us, rich and poor, in every country of the world. Just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, the leaders of our world are acting as though they have unlimited time to play their political games.
The question is, will any of us survive the threat to our civilization that is inherent in a Global Warming that can turn into an Ice Age in an instant while Bush and other world leaders engage in endless arguments about wars and economics? The real enemy is not “over there,” it is “out there,” in terms of changes to our environment that we all need to understand as fast as possible. We mean all people. When the sword falls, the billionaire oil tycoons will suffer just as much, if not more, than the Third World subsistence farmer.
Over the past few years, we have been saying repeatedly that there is something up in the Cosmos, and it isn’t going to be just business as usual for the next few years. We have even speculated that whatever it is, the Powers That Be are somewhat more aware of it than the general public, and that, in fact, they are hiding a lot of things from the masses of humanity.
What seems to me to be true about this line of thinking is that it is a layer of “disinformation” that has been promulgated to even many of the outer circle of the “insiders” in order to induce them to put forth effort to deal with the human population issues as well as the “survival” of the elite. How better to induce scientists to work on such projects than to convince them that the future of the planet depends on it? This means that they will be busy building shelters, seeking technology to “transcend” the problem, and just generally creating an infrastructure of control that they think is designed to solve this problem, but which is actually intended for something else altogether.
One of the primary problems of dealing with a large human population in such terms seems to be economics and most particularly “Game Theory.” This brings us to John Forbes Nash and his time at Princeton, which is where he came up with his ideas about Game Theory. Keep in mind, of course, what we discussed in a previous volume about the “economics” of Stockholm Syndrome — it’s a lot more energy efficient to get the victim to like his captivity and to even help you to use and abuse him or her. It’s all a matter of economics.
It was a curious set of “coincidences” that led me to the subject of John Nash, and the insights of his life story and how it relates to our subject of “economics” and the mysteries behind our apparent reality.
For me, the issue right after finishing Chapter 55 (in the previous Wave volume, Facing the Unknown) was how to move back into the past — the recapitulation — and I did as I usually do when preparing to write, I sort of pace around the house, looking at things, doing a little cleaning here and there, maybe cook a little, do a little gardening, or whatever attracts me in an instinctive way. After some time of allowing my mind to lie fallow, the flow begins again and I get an “urge” to do something that opens the door to the clues.
During this process, I remembered having read some things that would be useful in explicating this deep-level reality, since grasping 4th density is what seems to be the big chasm over which so many people simply cannot cross. The book was Nigel Pennick’s Secret Games of the Gods.
I pulled it out and put it on my desk. A bit later, Ark and I were discussing several other individuals we were aware of who met unusual ends — either through death or insanity — while engaged in research on the boundary of physics and mathematics. One case in particular that always intrigued us was the story of Armand Wyler. Ark also mentioned that Hugh Everett (who first proposed the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum physics) mysteriously dropped out of academic physics, and later died rather young.
As I was thinking over Chapter 55, I kept coming back to this issue of M1 and G5, and the “economics” reference. This, in concert with the recent Enron debacle and several discussions on the e-group, kept popping up in my head. What the heck did “economics” have to do with anything? Was Enron involved? Are all of these things occurring at the present time simply the moving of the playing pieces in the ‘Secret Games of the Gods”?
I mused over the fact that the guy who visited us, just before Vincent Bridges entered our lives in a direct way and Frank Scott exited, was an economist. He had done his Ph.D. under Milton Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Laureate in economics.
One thing that bothered me was the fact that Bridges had pretended not to know this guy when I first wrote and told him about the impending visit. Bridges had, in fact, been planning to visit and attend a session, and after I wrote and suggested he might enjoy meeting this man, there was about ten days of no response. The guy came and went with no news from Bridges about whether he was coming, and if not, why. Then, what was more puzzling was the fact that it was just a few days after this visit that Bridges wrote to inform me that whatever I was doing, it was “hot,” and he had been under severe attack from dark forces — both physical and ethereal — for even talking to me! But, not to worry! He was so determined to help me that he would manage somehow. Of course, it was obvious to him that I needed help — and fast! At this point, Bridges began “winding me up” to think that I needed his services as a hypnotherapist and specialist on government/Satanic mind control programs.
Seven months later, when I mentioned this economist again to Bridges, with the idea of identifying who was or was not part of a COINTELPRO operation — though I didn’t call it that then — Bridges suddenly revealed that he had met him in Egypt in 1995 when they were in the same “tour group.” He effectively deflected my suspicions by describing the economist as just a “harmless New Age groupie,” and I was not to worry about him!
The reader should keep in mind that this was at a point in time when Bridges was working very hard to convince me that everybody in my environment was an “agent” out to get me, and the only one I could trust was Bridges himself. Meanwhile, there was a whole series of truly bizarre behaviors being manifested by people in our e-group, so that everything Bridges was saying seemed to be backed up by evidence in the environment.
So, the question becomes: Why did he wish to deflect my attention away from this economist whose presence at our house was immediately followed by serious maneuvers by Bridges to gain our confidence, control of our material, and me? What does this have to do with the almost simultaneous sudden defection of Frank Scott for the most absurd reason that anyone can imagine? Also, how was this connected to the sudden appearance of several people who wanted to join our e-group, to get inside the research group, and who later turned on us viciously and became, effectively, clappers for the Williams/Bridges gang? Was this entire scenario set up and scripted and controlled from higher levels in order to “herd” me into a corner where Bridges would be able to accomplish certain aims on behalf of these forces? Even if there was the possibility that he and the other players were unconscious of the maneuvers?
After the research team and e-group had investigated the matter, after we had assembled any private emails that any of us had received from the various parties involved, the “scripting” became even more evident. Each individual involved seemed to have been scripted to write and act in certain ways designed to “trigger” certain responses in myself and the group at large. The chronological assembling of the emails and comparison of one thread to another demonstrated clearly that there was a concerted, unified intent behind them. However, unless it could be determined that they all knew each other prior to joining our e-group, or that they had connections to some human COINTELPRO operation — and that did not seem likely — then the only conclusion that could be drawn was that each of them was, more or less, an “alien reaction machine,” or a playing piece on the board of the “Secret Games of the Gods.”
Most interesting of all, the one theme that they all had in common was “time travel,” the search for the “deepest secrets,” which they all sought to extract from me by emotional button pushing, manipulation, and later, intimidation and threat.
However, even when Bridges wrote about his connection to the economist, the lightbulb did not go on in my head. It was to be many more months before we even had the idea to investigate the many links between some of these people, coming to the realization of what we call the Cosmic COINTELPRO operation. Could it be a human-orchestrated operation? Well, sure; it’s possible. We have certainly found enough links, nebulous though some of them are, to suggest that all the “players” know each other at the human level. But I am still inclined to think that most of the parties are being manipulated hyperdimensionally and that some of them are even unaware of the fact that their actions are “agent oriented.” Perhaps that is my failing, that I cannot conceive of all of them being deliberately evil and manipulative to the extent that the evidence will show. But I will leave it to the reader to make their own assessment.
Among the things that this economist who visited us revealed about himself was a close relationship with Drunvalo Melchizedek, as well as certain members of what we now know of as “The Aviary” (discussed in Book Six, Facing the Unknown). He also claimed that he had worked under a security clearance at Wright Patterson Airforce Base, famous for the “Hanger 18” legend. He regaled us with stories about the underground storage facilities there — under a golf course, he said — and confirmed the rumor that there were “alien craft” stored there. We were suitably impressed that an individual with such credentials and obvious intelligence was giving such open credibility to some of the stranger stories of UFO mythology. He was also a past president of the American Cybernetics Society, a group with a very interesting membership.
At the time he was telling his stories, it never occurred to me to ask what in the world an economist was doing at Wright Patterson. What the heck did they want an economist for?
After posting Chapter 55 online, I brought up these questions to Ark. He agreed that there was something strange about all this that we ought to think about. Right after placing the Nigel Pennick book on my desk, I had an overwhelming urge to go to Sam’s Club and see if I couldn’t find my son a new shirt to wear to a webmasters’ conference he was going to attend with his employer. I could have gone the next day. But, for some reason, I wanted to go right then. I had that “antsy” feeling that I just had to do something.
We went, and after finding a shirt, we strolled through the book aisle and Ark noticed Sylvia Nasar’s book A Beautiful Mind, about John Nash. (All subsequent quotations relating to Nash are taken from Nasar’s book.) He picked it up and read the blurb on the back — which tells how the guy spent most of his life as a schizophrenic who thought that aliens were communicating with him, and how he had been awarded a Nobel Prize in economics for his contribution to Game Theory — and had the idea that perhaps I ought to read this book for clues. We bought the book. The history of the rise of Princeton as the “mathematical center of the universe,” and Nash’s interactions with Johnny von Neumann and Einstein was most revealing. CNN published an article on March 18, 2002, which began:
The makers of A Beautiful Mind (which has just won a couple of academy awards), have objected to what they say is a whisper campaign to hurt the Oscar chances of their movie, which is up for eight Academy Awards including best picture.
In a CBS 60 Minutes interview, Nash and his wife, Alicia, denied allegations that he was gay, anti-Semitic or a poor father. And Sylvia Nasar, author of the 1998 biography, A Beautiful Mind, on which the film was based, wrote a commentary in the Los Angeles Times last week that accused many media outlets, including The Associated Press, of misstating details of Nash’s life. […] Both Nash and Nasar said his anti-Semitic remarks were made while he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
“I did have strange ideas during certain periods of time,” Nash, 73, said on 60 Minutes. “It’s really my subconscious talking. It was really that. I know that now.”
Other aspects of his life not mentioned in the movie were a son he fathered by another woman before he married Alicia, and the fact that Nash and Alicia later divorced. The divorced couple lived together for many years and eventually remarried in 2001. […] Nasar also criticized some reports that said Nash was a homosexual. Despite a 1954 indecency arrest and allusions in her book to his flirtatious behavior with men, she said he is an avowed heterosexual. The indecency charge was later dropped, she said.
I nearly choked when I read that both Nash and his wife denied that he was “gay, anti-Semitic or a poor father,” when the book is full of evidence that Nash was all of those things, and his wife was certainly an enabler. Nash’s quoted remarks above — “I did have strange ideas during certain periods of time. It’s really my subconscious talking. It was really that. I know that now” — raises the important issue of how such things “arrived” in his subconscious mind. There is, of course, the ever popular “my parents damaged me as a child” routine that he could adopt to back this one up — after all, his parents are conveniently dead. And, if he is going to denigrate his “strange” subconscious ideas about some of the “politically incorrect” subjects, what are we going to do with the ideas he claims came from the same source for which he won a Nobel Prize? An interesting exchange between Nash and Harvard professor George Mackey is described in the prologue of the book:
“How could you, how could you, a mathematician, a man devoted to reason and logical proof… how could you believe that extraterrestrials are sending you messages? How could you believe that you are being recruited by aliens from outer space to save the world? How could you…?”
And Nash answered: “Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously.” (Nasar, 1998)
The entire time I was reading A Beautiful Mind, I kept wondering when we were going to get to the part where the mind became beautiful. Everything in the book describes something repellent and cold and barely human. John Nash’s brain was brilliant, oh, indeed! But at the end of the book there had not been a single thing of “beauty” about either his thinking or his life. In fact, as I read, my skin crawled with the realization that I was reading about a person whose life story was identical to that of Frank Scott.
John Forbes Nash was big and brainy, handsome and arrogant. He had virtually no social graces or redeeming qualities despite the fact that he was carefully brought up in an environment that one would have thought would have inculcated some human values. He was, indeed, a star of the mathematical scene that promoted human rationality as the supreme virtue, and for ten years he was viewed as a kind of wunderkind who was going to push the mathematical boundaries of Games of Strategy, economic rivalry, computer architecture, the shape of the inverse and geometric space, number theory and more. Some commentators suggested that Nash had that “extra-human spark.” But reading his story, one comes to the idea that he had very little human about him at all. It wasn’t a beautiful mind, it was a deadly efficient machine; unnatural and mysterious.
Then, curiously, at the age of thirty or thereabouts, he suddenly manifested “paranoid schizophrenia,” psychotic delusions, and was in and out of mental hospitals for a period. After his wife divorced him and his mother died, and his sister could no longer cope with his psychosis, he became a “phantom,” haunting the halls and corridors of Princeton for twenty years as the resident idiot savant. If any of the readers have watched the very funny movie Sheer Genius, they will remember the strange character of Laszlo, the “burned-out genius” who used a closet in a dorm room as an entry to a vast underground laboratory, a secret world hidden from the eyes of the university authorities. It’s rather a somewhat sympathetic and idealized portrait of Nash during his psychotic years at Princeton.
In the 1990s, Nash’s “illness” more or less went into “remission.” The question has been raised: Did he really suffer from schizophrenia? Psychotic symptoms do not necessarily, as psychiatrists now agree, make a schizophrenic. And, absence of overt evidence of psychosis does not mean a person is cured of whatever afflicted them. They can most certainly still be suffering, but having learned to cope with it, able to conceal it. Nash himself described his long illness as a persistent dreamlike state with bizarre beliefs not unlike those of other people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Mostly, however, he noted that his illness consisted in being unable to reason. Despite claims of recovery, Nasar quotes him as telling several people that he is still having “paranoid thoughts” and still hears “voices,” though the noise level is greatly modulated. He has compared his “recovery” to simply learning how to police his thoughts, to recognize paranoid ideas and to reject them.
“Gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking […] the rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort. […] A key step was a resolution not to concern myself in politics relative to my secret world because it was ineffectual. […] This in turn led me to renounce anything relative to religious issues, or teaching or intending to teach.” (Nasar, 1998)
Nash’s son has also been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. His illness became apparent when he “disappeared” one day. When he reappeared, he had shaved his head and become a born-again Christian. He began to read the Bible obsessively and had fallen under the influence of a fundamentalist cult called “The Way.” Not too long after, it was clear that he was hearing voices and believed that he was a great religious figure who had to save the world. Reportedly, he occasionally talked about extraterrestrials, and once threatened a history professor. But, somehow, in spite of his illness, he managed to get a Ph.D. Despite his lack of a high school or college diploma, he was admitted to Rutgers on a full scholarship. That fact raises questions of its own.
Let’s leave Nash for the moment, and come back to Armand Wyler. There is, in physics and mathematics, something called the “Fine Structure Constant.” The Fine Structure Constant has a value very near 137, and many physicists think that this indicates fundamental characteristic of space, time and matter. Armand Wyler came along and suggested that it is a geometrical property of a suitably defined seven-dimensional space-time, and that the correct theoretical value is 1/137.03608. He then related this to proton-electron mass ratios.
Although the numerical values Wyler derived were close to experimental data, the physical reasons he gave for using the particular volumes he chose were not clear. Freeman Dyson invited Wyler to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton for a year to see if Wyler could explain what he was thinking in clearer terms. The general story told about what happened at Princeton was that, because Wyler was primarily a mathematician, he was unable to rise to the task. And, naturally, since he couldn’t explain what he was doing and why, his results were dismissed as “numerology.”
Q: (A) It came to my mind that perhaps Einstein, when you spoke about variable physicality, that Einstein was afraid when he understood that in his work. I thought about this and I think that Einstein determined that the future must be determined from the past and present, and when he found that he had a theory where the future was open, he dismissed it and was afraid. Is this a good guess that variable physicality, mathematically, means a theory where there is a freedom of choosing the future when past and present are given?
Q: (A) Is it related to the fact that we should use higher-order differential equations, not second-order?
A: Yes. Einstein found that not only is the future open, but also the present and the past. Talk about scary!!
Q: (A) All you have said so far points to an idea by a Swiss guy named “Armand Wyler.” This Wyler found a way to compute from geometry so-called Fine Structure Constant, which is a number and can be found experimentally. Then, of course, he was invited to Princeton to explain how he did it, and apparently he failed to explain himself, and he ended in an asylum for the mentally deranged. The question is: If I follow his way of thinking, can I succeed in deriving and understanding the nature of this Fine Structure Constant?
Q: (A) Well, if I do it, should I keep it a secret so that I won’t end up in an asylum?
A: The problem with Wyler was with the audience, not the speaker.
Q: (A) What does that mean? (L) I guess it means that the people he was talking to couldn’t grasp it, not that he couldn’t explain it. Did he really lose his mind, or was he sort of ‘helped’ to go crazy?
A: He suffered a “breakdown.”
The fact that Wyler was locked away in an institution for the insane is not widely known. We only learned it directly from a fellow Swiss physicist who was in Geneva at the time and had direct knowledge of the event. He told us over lunch one day that Wyler had “lost it” while at Princeton, and was sent home and institutionalized.
The question that occurred to me at this point was: What was Nash working on when he went bonkers? In Nash’s biography, we discover an interesting passage:
He apparently had devoted what little time he spent at the Institute for Advanced Study that year talking with physicists and mathematicians about quantum theory. Whose brains he was picking is not clear; Freeman Dyson, Hans Lewy, and Abraham Pais were in residence at least one of the terms. […] Nash made his own agenda quite clear. “To me one of the best things about the Heisenberg paper is its restriction to the observable quantities,” he wrote, adding that “I want to find a different and more satisfying under-picture of a non-observable reality.”
It was this attempt that Nash would blame, decades later in a lecture to psychiatrists, for triggering his mental illness — calling his attempt to resolve the contradictions in quantum theory, on which he embarked in the summer of 1957, “possibly overreaching and psychologically destabilizing.” [This author’s emphasis]
One might also conjecture that such a program would attract certain attention. We also notice the presence of Freeman Dyson mentioned in reference to both Wyler and Nash, and both men went mad upon probing too deeply into hyperdimensional physics.
After we had discussed Wyler, we moved on to Everett.
Everett’s name may be familiar because of what is called the “Everett-Wheeler” interpretation of quantum mechanics, a rival of the orthodox “Copenhagen” interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. The Everett-Wheeler theory is also known as the “many worlds” interpretation.
Hugh Everett did his undergraduate study in chemical engineering at the Catholic University of America. Studying von Neumann’s and Bohm’s textbooks as part of his graduate studies under Wheeler, in mathematical physics at Princeton University in the 1950s (at the same time Nash was there), he became dissatisfied with the collapse of the wave function. While he was at Princeton, during discussions with Charles Misner and Aage Peterson (Bohr’s assistant, then visiting Princeton), he developed his “relative state” formulation. Wheeler encouraged his work and preprints were circulated in January 1956 to a number of physicists. A condensed version of his thesis was published as a paper for “The Role of Gravity in Physics” conference held at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in January 1957.
Not long afterward, Everett flew to Copenhagen to meet with Niels Bohr and discuss his ideas, but Bohr gave him the bum’s rush and brush off, and this was the general response he received from physicists in general. Everett left physics after completing his Ph.D., going to work as a defense analyst at the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group at the Pentagon, and later becoming a private contractor. He was very successful, becoming a multimillionaire. In 1968 Everett worked for the Lambda Corporation, now a subsidiary of General Research Corporation in McLean, Virginia. His published papers during this period cover things like optimizing resource allocation and maximizing kill rates during nuclear-weapon campaigns.
With the steady growth of interest in the “many worlds” theory in the late 1970s, Everett began to make plans to return to academia in order to do more work on measurement in quantum theory. In the late 1970s, he visited Austin, Texas, at Wheeler’s or DeWitt’s invitation, to give some lectures on quantum mechanics. Not long afterward, he died of a heart attack in 1982. He was only 52 years old.
I was curious about Everett’s work for Lambda. A recent search of the literature turns up a paper written by Joseph George Caldwell entitled “Optimal Attack and Defense for a Number of Targets in the Case of Imperfect Interceptors.”
This article is an extraction, with some amplification and minor notational changes, of portions of the report: Caldwell, J. G., T. S. Schreiber, and S. S. Dick, “Some Problems in Ballistic Missile Defense Involving Radar Attacks and Imperfect Interceptors,” Report ACDA/ST-145 SR-4, Special Report 4, prepared for the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency by the Lambda Corporation (subsidiary of General Research Corporation), McLean, Virginia, May 1969. […]
These results were also published as Appendix F of the report, Caldwell, J. G., “Theater Tactical Air Warfare Methodologies: Automated Scenario Generation,” Final Report Contract No. F33657-88-C-2156 prepared for the USAF Air Force Systems Command, Aeronautical System Division by Vista Research Corporation, July 1989.
The summary of the paper tells us:
This article describes the optimal defense of a set of targets against an optimal attack, in the case of imperfect interceptors. This solution is obtained from a mathematical representation of strategic nuclear warfare as a two-sided resource-constrained optimization problem. The attacker and defender are assumed to know each other’s total force sizes, and it is assumed that the attacker “moves last,” i.e., the attacker allocates his weapons to targets after observing the defender’s allocation of interceptors to targets. A one-on-one (or fixed salvo-to-one) firing doctrine is assumed. The attacker’s goal is to maximize the total damage to the targets, and the defender’s goal is to minimize this damage. It is assumed that damage on any single target can be adequately described by the “exponential” damage function defined below.
Aside from the fact that we see evidence of the use of pure mathematics — Game Theory, in fact — in matters of warfare strategy, which includes source notes connecting this work to Wheeler, we find Joseph George Caldwell to be a bit interesting for other reasons. He has a website where he promotes the following idea:
What is the sustainable human population for Earth? I propose that a long-term sustainable number is on the order of ten-million, consisting of a technologically advanced population of a single nation of about five-million people concentrated in one or a few centers, and a globally distributed primitive population of about five million. I arrived at this size by approaching the problem from the point of view of estimating the minimum number of human beings that would have a good chance of long-term survival, instead of approaching it from the (usual) point of view of attempting to estimate the maximum number of human beings that the planet might be able to support. The reason why I use the approach of minimizing the human population is to keep the damaging effects of human industrial activity on the biosphere to a minimum. Because mankind’s industrial activity produces so much waste that cannot be metabolized by “nature,” any attempt to maximize the size of the human population risks total destruction of the biosphere (such as the “sixth extinction” now in progress). [This author’s emphasis]
Let’s stop right here and ask the question: Is this “sixth extinction” something that is generally “known” in the circles that do this kind of research? Is this why they are doing it? What do they know that the rest of us don’t? Or better, what do they think that they aren’t telling us? Caldwell writes:
The role of the technological population is “planetary management”: to ensure that the size of the primitive population does not expand. The role of the primitive population is to reduce the likelihood that a localized catastrophe might wipe out the human population altogether. The reason for choosing the number five-million for the primitive population size is that this is approximately the number (an estimated 2-20 million) that Earth supported for millions of years, i.e., it is proved to be a long-term sustainable number (in mathematical terminology, a “feasible” solution to the optimization problem). The reason for choosing the number five-million for the technological population size is that it is my opinion that that is about the minimum practical size for a technologically advanced population capable of managing a planet the size of Earth; also, it is my opinion that the “solar energy budget” of the planet can support a population of five-million primitive people and five-million “industrial” people indefinitely. (www.foundationwebsite.org; this author’s emphases)
Mr. Caldwell’s ideas are a techno-representation of synarchy, a clue to the real “Stargate Conspiracy.” It seems that there is, indeed, something very mysterious going on all over the planet in terms of shaping the thinking of humanity via books, movies and cultural themes, but at this point we understand that most of what is promulgated is lies and disinformation. We hope to come to some idea of what the “insiders” know that they aren’t telling us, and perhaps we will find some clues as we continue our investigation here.
Princeton is often referred to as the “mathematical center of the universe.” But it wasn’t always that way. Until the Rockefeller family endowed scientific research in the mid-1920s (keep in mind that the Cassiopaeans referenced the mid-1920s as the beginning of certain “projects” related to HAARP, that this was connected to “Alternative 3” and the “Ark of the Covenant”), a student could learn little more than what amounts to high-school math and science there. Here I am not going to go into any background on the Rockefellers because there are enough researchers already who are doing that. I urge the reader to do his or her own research in those areas. Again, whether or not there is a conscious conspiracy I cannot say.
Nevertheless, when thinking about conspiracies, it is extremely difficult to conceive of these activities in strictly human terms. Yes, humans carry them out, but the real question is “Why?” What drives them?
Practically next door to Princeton is the Institute for Advanced Study. This ivory tower of academia was the result of a “synchronous” act of philanthropy. The Institute was founded in 1930 with a gift from Mr. Louis Bamberger and his sister, Mrs. Felix Fuld, under the guidance of the famous educator Abraham Flexner, who originated the concept from which the Institute took its form. The Bambergers originally thought of endowing a dental school, which is probably why they consulted Flexner when they decided that they wanted to give away some of their fortune.
Flexner was a high-school principal who wrote a report on American Colleges. Based on this report and the recommendation of his brother (a pathologist with connections to existing medical schools), he was chosen by the Carnegie Foundation to do a study of American medical education just after the turn of the century. Flexner visited medical schools across the nation on a schedule that barely allowed him a whole day each for the evaluation of some schools. His efforts were closely linked with the American Medical Association, which provided resources. Although purporting to be objective, the report actually established guidelines that were designed to sanction orthodox medical schools and condemn homeopathic ones and alternative therapies. In short, it was biased toward allopathy and the A.M.A.
Is this evidence of a conspiracy to gain control of medical education, doctors, and therefore the entire population by means of promotion of certain drugs designed to control human beings, or to modify their behavior? I can’t say. All I notice is that there seem to be so many “coincidental” threads that weave together, bringing the inhabitants of our planet to the present state, that it is truly difficult to not see some “grand design” behind it. But can it be a human design? It doesn’t seem so. When you track such conspiracies back in time and space, you discover that there is so much historical evidence that the groundwork for the present conditions was laid long, long ago — back in the mists of prehistory even — that conceiving of it as just human activity, or the results of human nature, is extraordinarily difficult.
In any event, Flexner’s report had a tremendous impact on American medicine, and it was to him that the Bambergers turned for advice regarding the founding of their proposed dental school. Who knows, maybe they suffered from frequent toothaches?
Flexner had a better idea: Why not found a research institution with no teachers, no students, no classes — only researchers, shielded from the cares of the real world so that they could just hang out and produce great thoughts?
Believe me, I think it was a great idea! The only problem is: Who’s on first? Just who might be “influencing” those thoughts? Just what thoughts might be being encouraged and rewarded? This is not a rhetorical question, as we will see.
One of the more curious things about Flexner’s idea was that he initially thought that a school of economics ought to be at the core of the Institute, but decided on mathematics since it was more “fundamental.”
Once the Institute was set up, Flexner set about finding talent. This “just happened” to coincide with Hitler’s takeover of the German government and the mass expulsion of Jews from German universities, which had until then been the seats of higher learning in mathematics and science. Negotiations were begun to get Einstein, who finally agreed to become the second member of the Institute’s School of Mathematics. Kurt Godel came, followed by Hermann Weyl, who wanted Von Neumann. In short, overnight Princeton became the new Gottingen.
Q: (A) What I do not understand is why a few years later [Einstein] completely abandoned [UFT in terms of Kaluza-Klein theories] and started working very hard on a completely different solution. If he knew….
A: Was under control.
Q: (A) Can you control somebody and make him spend years…. Oh! Mind control! They got him!
A: Why do you think he emigrated to the United States in the first place?
Q: (A) Well, that is not a surprise. He was a Nobel Prize winner and America was getting together every possible Nobel Prize winner, and also there was the persecution of the Jews, so it was natural.
A: More to it than that. What about Freud?
Q: (L) I guess they didn’t want Freud! He didn’t know anything about UFT! (A) Now, apparently Von Neumann was also involved in application of UFT. But Von Neumann was, as far as we know, doing a completely different kind of mathematics. He didn’t even really know geometry, differential geometry. He was doing completely different things [Game Theory, to be precise]. So how come the UFT that was discovered by Einstein involved Von Neumann? What did Von Neumann contribute to this project?
A: Von Neumann was one of three overseers at Princeton, with level-7 security clearance and a clear budget-request permittance.
Q: (L) My question is about Von Neumann; as I understand it, Von Neumann was supposed to have been involved with the creation of a time machine, right?
Q: (L) Did he succeed in such a project?
Q: (L) Well, why was it that, when he developed a brain tumor and realized he was going to die — and I read that he screamed and yelled like a baby when he knew there was no hope — if he was somebody who had access to a time machine, why wasn’t he able to do something about it instead of carrying on like a madman? The stories about his screams echoing all over the place are horrible. He realized that his great mind was going to soon be still; if he had access to a time machine, one would think that he would have used it, would have pulled every string he could, to forestall his own death.
A: No Laura, it does not work that way. And besides, if you had a brain tumor, you could be forgiven for a few mental peculiarities too!
Q: (L) I just don’t understand why, when he knew he was sick, that he didn’t just use the time machine to go forward in time for a cure, or backward in time to correct something in his past.…
A: The time machine was not his property.
Q: (L) So they got what they needed from him and let him die. (A) It is not clear. He got this cancer so suddenly, it may even have been induced. (L) Well, that’s a thought.
What we are basically seeing in the above recitation of the endowment of Princeton as a mathematical center, and the luring of scientific talent to America, is part of the truth of one of the ideas of “Alternative 3.” It was effectively a “brain drain” on Europe. All the geniuses who were capable of certain specific things were being brought to America and settled in Princeton. This produced an almost immediate scientific earthquake. Of course we see that the scientific revolution in America did not begin after WWII, as many conspiracy theorists would like to believe, but rather before — in the 1920s, to be exact.
Something happened to stimulate this activity. In the 1920s, during which time the Rockefellers and other monied groups made enormous contributions to “education in America,” and during which the preparations for the Hitler drama were underway, another event that may or may not be connected took place. In Mark Hedsel’s book The Zelator, we discover the “intimations” of this event. In Chapter Five of the referenced work, Hedsel informs us that:
At the end of the last century an astounding revelation was, as a result of dissent among members of Secret Schools. Information, hitherto guarded jealously by the most enclosed of the Inner Orders, was made public. The secrets disclosed pertained to a far deeper level of knowledge than has hitherto been made exoteric by the Schools — even in this enlightened age.
Our purpose here is not to document how so deep an esoteric idea was made public — or even to assess whether it was wise for this idea to be brought out into the open. All this has been dealt with in the literature.… (Hedsel and Ovason, 2000; this author’s emphasis)
The speaker in Hedsel’s book, his teacher, promises to provide titles via which this most curious item might be researched, but dies before doing so. He later mentions A.P. Sinnett, and Hedsel himself speculates that it is the Theosophical ideas of A.P. Sinnett and Helena Blavatsky. I don’t agree, because of what the teacher says next:
In a nutshell, what was made public during this conflict in the Schools was the truth that our Moon is a sort of counterweight to another sphere, which remains invisible to ordinary vision. This counterweighted sphere is called in esoteric circles the Eighth Sphere.
The truth is that this Eighth Sphere does not pertain to anything we are familiar with on the physical plane, yet we must use words from our own vocabularies whenever we wish to denote its existence. Were we to use a word which fits most appropriately this Sphere, then we should really call it a vacuum. Certainly, Vacuum is a more appropriate term than sphere, for the Eighth Sphere sucks things into its own shadowy existence. [This author’s emphases]
The reference to the Moon brings us back in a loop to the so-called Philadelphia Experiment which was promoted on the platform of the death of Morris K. Jessup. What the Philadelphia Experiment distracted attention away from was Jessup’s ideas about the gravitational neutral zone of a three-body system which we have also identified as being connected to the Chandler wobble-cycle of 18.6 years, which then connects to the “dancing of the god” at Stonehenge every 19 years, which is called the Metonic Cycle. Of course, we are beginning to realize that all of this connects to the ideas of the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, and certain periods — cyclical in nature — in which transfer of perimeters is most easily accomplished! Remember what Jessup wrote:
While I believe that these space islands probably use both earth and moon for their own convenience, I suggest that their most natural and permanent habitat is at the gravitational neutral of the earth-sun-moon three-body system which is well within the orbit of the moon.
It has been postulated that gravitation need not be considered as acting with uniform continuity, from the center of the attracting body outward, even if subject to the inverse square law. Such a concept, today, would be especially horrendous to physics and astronomy. […]
Refinements of Bode’s law indicate nodes in the gravitational field, at which planets, asteroids, and possibly comets and meteors tend to locate themselves. An extension of the theory to the satellite systems of the major planets indicates a similar system of nodes on smaller scales, where planets, rather than the Sun, are gravitational centers. […] It might well be that these gravitational nodes are occupied to some degree by navigable construction. […]
Many researchers have extended the law so as to establish nodes right down to the surface of the central bodies, and in so doing the nodes become closer and closer together so that there may be many of them at short distances from the parent body. Thus, if the law or its derivatives have significance, there could be a number of these orbital nodes between the moon and the surface of the earth. […]
There may even be hints available to us regarding gravity. For instance, no final settlement has ever been made of the argument over the opposed wave and corpuscular theories of the propagation of light. An assumption that the ether, a necessary adjunct to the wave theory, is identical with the gravitational field, whatever that may be, would reconcile the opposing theories and a quantum of light would then be merely a pulsation or fluctuation in the gravitational field. Intense studies of the movements of space-navigable UFOs might furnish vital clues to such problems. (Jessup, 1955; this author’s emphases)
Let us stop right here and consider the above remarks. Jessup has suggested that a “quantum of light would then be merely a pulsation or fluctuation in the gravitational field.” This connects us directly to several remarks made by the Cassiopaeans, curiously in the context of questions about Sufism:
A: Now, learn, read, research all you can about unstable gravity waves. […] We mean for you, Laura, to meditate about unstable gravity waves as part of research. […] Unstable gravity waves unlock as yet unknown secrets of quantum physics to make the picture crystal clear. […]
Q: (L) Gravity seems to be a property of matter. Is that correct? […]
A: And antimatter!
Q: (L) Is the gravity that is a property of antimatter “antigravity”? Or is it just gravity on the other side, so to speak?
A: Binder. […] Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal through unstable gravity waves!!! […]
Q: (L) Is light the emanation of gravity?
Q: (L) What is light?
A: Gravity. […] If gravity is everything, what isn’t it? Light is energy expression generated by gravity. […]
Q: (L) According to what I understand, at the speed of light, there is no mass, no time, and no gravity. How can this be?
A: No mass, no time, but yes, gravity.
Q: (L) A photon has gravity?
A: Gravity supersedes light speed.
Returning now to Jessup’s comments:
There is increasingly strong evidence that gravity is neither so continuous, so immaterial, nor so obscure as to be completely unnamable to use, manipulation and control. Witness not only the documented movements of UFOs in the form of lights, discs, nebulosities, etc., but the many instances of stones, paper, clothes baskets and many other things which have been seen to leave the ground without apparent cause. The lifting of the ancient megalithic structures, too, must surely have come through levitation. […]
It is my belief that something of the sort was done in the antediluvian past, through either research or through some fortuitous discovery of physical forces and laws which have not as yet been revealed to scientists of this second wave of civilization…
It is my belief that the possibility of gravity control, or at least gravity reactance, has been strongly indicated by the phenomena listed in this book.
There seems to be something of periodicity in events of celestial and spatial origin. This has been called to our attention by John Philip Bessor in the Saturday Evening Post as early as May 1949; but no one has thus far been able to catalogue and classify enough of this data to determine for certain whether such cycles exist, much less their time period or cause. It is not particularly astonishing that these phenomena should be cyclic, for practically everything astronomical is periodic. If periodicity could be firmly established for these phenomena, that fact alone would be proof of their reality and integration with the organic world about us. […]
It is no longer necessary to explain [aliens] as visitors from Mars, Venus, or Alpha Centauri. They are a part of our own immediate family — a part of the earth-moon, binary-planet system. They didn’t have to come all of those millions of miles from anywhere. They have been here for thousands of years. Whether we belong to them by possession, like cattle, or whether we belong to each other by common origin and association is an interesting problem, and one which may soon be settled if we keep our heads.
In final summary, the UFOs have been around us for a long time and probably are a connecting link with the first wave of terrestrial civilization. (Jessup, 1955; this author’s emphases)
Now, the question is: Who was it who revealed this “great secret of secrets” at the end of the last century, as Hedsel’s teacher has remarked? We have been directed to think about Sinnett and Blavatsky, but we are already wise to such tactics. It is important to know who the “revealer” was in order to know what was revealed. This will then lead us to understand what was done with that knowledge and how it affects us today.
We have also been directed to look at a certain time period that would correspond to the activities of such sources, and so we might wish to look at the vast array of literature for internal clues. In reviewing all of this literature, in casting our net far and wide, there is only one source that “fits” the description: Gurdjieff’s metaphor of “Food for the Moon.” There is, in fact, a singular remark made by Gurdjieff in conversation with P.D. Ouspensky, recorded by the latter in his book, In Search of the Miraculous, which confirms that the information revealed by Gurdjieff was, in fact, related to the cyclic catastrophes and their relations to hyperdimensional realities. It also confirms that he was the one who really “knew” something:
“The intelligence of the Sun is divine,” said Gurdjieff. “But the earth can become the same; only, of course, it is not guaranteed and the earth may die having attained nothing.”
Gurdjieff’s answer was very vague. “There is a definite period,” he said, “for a certain thing to be done. If, by a certain time, what ought to be done has not been done, the earth may perish without having attained what it could have attained.”
“Is this period known?” I asked.
“It is known,” said Gurdjieff. (Ouspensky, 1949)
As we note from the remarks of Hedsel’s teacher, the idea that there is “ancient wisdom” guarded by hidden custodians or Masters is often attributed to Helena Blavatsky. In fact, her disciple Annie Besant wrote a book about it. Thirty years later The Mahatma Letters — supposedly written by two of these “Masters” to A.P. Sinnett — was published. A careful investigation of the matters surrounding Blavatsky and Sinnett will bring the thoughtful person to the conclusion that they were either taken in by “wishful thinking,” or were themselves part of some sort of disinformation campaign. Unfortunately, most so-called “occultists” have either knowingly or unknowingly relied upon the Blavatsky/Sinnett interpretations as foundations for their own ideas.
Joscelyn Godwin, in his books Arktos and The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, attempted to trace the threads of these ideas to the original sources. Geoffrey Ashe, in his book The Ancient Wisdom, made a similar attempt with much better results. Ernest Scott, in The People of the Secret, states the problem as a legend that the ebb and flow of history are subject to purposive direction from a higher level of understanding, the process being manipulated by a hierarchy of intelligences, the lowest level of which makes physical contact with humanity.
We come now to Gurdjieff’s comments about “planetary evolution,” “secret schools,” esoteric and exoteric teachings, in relation to our present subjects of “Alternative 3” and the “Secret Games of the Gods.” In these remarks we will find, I believe, the Terrible Secret, the astounding revelation, the information hitherto so jealously guarded by the most enclosed of the Inner Orders, the secrets pertaining “to a far deeper level of knowledge than has hitherto been made exoteric by the Schools, even in this enlightened age.” Read it slowly; ponder it; reread it; and consider the implications of how the denizens of the Eighth Sphere might react to this revelation, how their “agents” among humanity might be manipulated to deal with it in order to conceal it, to cover it up, to distort it, to nullify it, and most of all, to make it come to naught.
Gurdjieff noted that standard scientific teachings tell us that life is “accidental.” Such ideas fail to take into account the idea that there is nothing accidental or unnecessary in nature, that everything has a definite function and serves a definite purpose of Cosmic Consciousness. Gurdjieff then says:
“It has been said before that organic life transmits planetary influences of various kinds to the earth and that it serves to feed the moon and to enable it to grow and strengthen. But the earth also is growing; not in the sense of size but in the sense of greater consciousness, greater receptivity. The planetary influences which were sufficient for her at one period of her existence become insufficient, she needs the reception of finer influences. To receive finer influences a finer, more sensitive receptive apparatus is necessary. Organic life, therefore, has to evolve, to adapt itself to the needs of the planets and the earth. Likewise also the moon can be satisfied at one period with the food which is given to her by organic life of a certain quality, but afterwards the time comes when she ceases to be satisfied with this food, cannot grow on it, and begins to get hungry. […] This means that in order to answer its purpose organic life must evolve and stand on the level of the needs of the planets, the earth, and the moon.
“We must remember that the ray of creation, as we have taken it, from the Absolute to the moon, is like a branch of a tree — a growing branch. The end of this branch, the end out of which come new shoots, is the moon. If the moon does not grow, if it neither gives nor promises to give new shoots, it means that either the growth of the whole ray of creation will stop or that it must find another path for its growth, live out some kind of lateral branch. […]
“If organic life on earth disappears or dies, the whole branch will immediately wither. The same thing must happen, only more slowly, if organic life is arrested in its development, in its evolution, and fails to respond to the demands made upon it. The branch may wither. […]
“General growth is possible only on the condition that the ‘end of the branch’ grows. Or, speaking more precisely, there are in organic life tissues which are evolving, and there are tissues which serve as food and medium for those which are evolving. Then there are evolving cells within the evolving tissues, and cells which serve as food and medium for those which are evolving. In each separate evolving cell there are evolving parts and there are parts which serve as food for those which are evolving. But always and in everything it must be remembered that evolution is never guaranteed, it is possible only and it can stop at any moment and in any place.
“The evolving part of organic life is humanity. Humanity also has its evolving part. […] If humanity does not evolve it means that the evolution of organic life will stop and this in its turn will cause the growth of the ray of creation to stop. At the same time if humanity ceased to evolve, it becomes useless from the point of view of the aims for which it was created, and as such it may be destroyed. In this way the cessation of evolution may mean the destruction of humanity.[…]
“[E]xamining the life of humanity as we know it historically, we are bound to acknowledge that humanity is moving in a circle. In one century it destroys everything it creates in another and the progress in mechanical things of the past hundred years has proceeded at the cost of losing many other things which perhaps were much more important for it. Speaking in general there is every reason to think and to assert that humanity is at a standstill and from a standstill there is a straight path to downfall and degeneration. […]
“[W]e see that a balanced process proceeding in a certain way cannot be changed at any moment it is desired. It can be changed and set on a new path only a certain ‘crossroads.’ In between the ‘crossroads’ nothing can be done. At the same time, if a process passes by a ‘crossroad’ and nothing happens, nothing is done, then nothing can be done afterwards and the process will continue and develop according to mechanical laws; and even if people taking part in this process foresee the inevitable destruction of everything, they will be unable to do anything. I repeat that something can be done only at certain moments which I have just called ‘crossroads.’[ …]
“Of course there are very many people who consider that the life of humanity is not proceeding in the way in which according to their views it ought to go. And they invent various theories which in their opinion ought to change the whole life of humanity. […] All these theories are certainly quite fantastic, chiefly because they do not take into account the most important thing, namely, the subordinate part which humanity and organic life play in the world process.
“Intellectual theories put man in the center of everything; everything exists for him. […] And all the time new theories appear evoking in their turn opposing theories; and all these theories and the struggle between them undoubtedly constitute one of the forces which keep humanity in the state in which it is at present. […]
“Everything in nature has its aim and its purpose, both the inequality of man and his suffering. To destroy inequality would mean destroying the possibility of evolution. To destroy suffering would mean, first, destroying a whole series of perceptions for which man exists… and thus it is with all intellectual theories.
“The process of evolution… which is possible for humanity as a whole, is completely analogous to the process of evolution possible for the individual man. And it begins with the same thing, namely, a certain group of cells gradually becomes conscious; then it attracts to itself other cells, subordinates others, and gradually makes the whole organism serve its aims and not merely eat, drink, and sleep. This is evolution and there can be no other kind of evolution. In humanity as in individual man everything begins with the formation of a conscious nucleus. All the mechanical forces of life fight against the formation of this conscious nucleus in humanity, in just the same way as all mechanical habits, tastes and weaknesses fight against conscious self-remembering in man.”
“Can it be that there is a conscious force which fights against the evolution of humanity?” [Ouspensky] asked.
“From a certain point of view it can be said,” said G[urdjieff].
“There are two processes which are sometimes called ‘involutionary’ and ‘evolutionary.’ The difference between them is the following: An involutionary process begins consciously in the Absolute but at the next step it already becomes mechanical — and it becomes more and more mechanical as it develops; an evolutionary process begins half-consciously and conscious opposition to the evolutionary process can also appear at certain moments in the involutionary process. From where does this consciousness come? From the evolutionary process of course.
“The evolutionary process must proceed without interruption. Any stop causes a separation from the fundamental process. Such separate fragments of consciousnesses which have been stopped in their development can also unite and at any rate for a certain time can live by struggling against the evolutionary process. After all, it makes the evolutionary process more interesting.
“Instead of struggling against the mechanical forces there may, at certain moments, be a struggle against the intentional opposition of fairly powerful forces though they are not of course comparable with those which direct the evolutionary process. These opposing forces may sometimes even conquer. The reason for this consists in the fact that the forces guiding evolution have a more limited choice of means; in other words, they can only make use of certain means and certain methods. The opposing forces are not limited in their choice of means and they are able to make use of every means, even those which only give rise to a temporary success, and in the final result they destroy both evolution and involution at the point in question. […]
“Are we able to say for instance that life is governed by a group of conscious people? Where are they? Who are they? We see exactly the opposite: that life is governed by those who are the least conscious, by those who are most asleep.
“Are we able to say that we observe in life a preponderance of the best, the strongest, and the most courageous elements? Nothing of the sort. On the contrary we see a preponderance of vulgarity and stupidity of all kinds.
“Are we able to say that aspirations towards unity, towards unification, can be observed in life? Nothing of the kind of course. We only see new divisions, new hostility, new misunderstandings.
“So that in the actual situation of humanity there is nothing that points to evolution proceeding. On the contrary when we compare humanity with a man, we quite clearly see a growth of personality at the cost of essence, that is, a growth of the artificial, the unreal, and what is foreign, at the cost of the natural, the real, and what is one’s own.
“Together with this, we see a growth of automatism.
“Contemporary cultures require automatons. And people are undoubtedly losing their acquired habits of independence and turning into automatons, into parts of machines. It is impossible to say where is the end of all this and where the way out — or whether there is an end and a way out. One thing alone is certain, that man’s slavery grows and increases. Man is becoming a willing slave. He no longer needs chains. He begins to grow fond of his slavery, to be proud of it. And this is the most terrible thing that can happen to a man.
“[A]s I pointed out before, the evolution of humanity can proceed only through the evolution of a certain group, which, in its turn, will influence and lead the rest of humanity.
“Are we able to say that such a group exists? Perhaps we can on the basis of certain signs, but in any event we have to acknowledge that it is a very small group, quite insufficient, at any rate, to subjugate the rest of humanity. Or looking at it from another point of view, we can say that humanity is in such a state that it is unable to accept the guidance of a conscious group.”
“How many people could there be in this conscious group?” someone asked.
“Only they themselves know this,” said G[urdjieff].
“Does it mean that they all know each other?” asked the same person again.
“How could it be otherwise?” asked G. “Imagine that there are two or three people who are awake in the midst of a multitude of sleeping people. They will certainly know each other. But those who are asleep cannot know them. How many are they? We do not know and we cannot know until we become like them. It has been clearly said before that each man can only see on the level of his own being. But two hundred conscious people, if they existed and if they found it necessary and legitimate, could change the whole of life on the earth. But either there are not enough of them, or they do not want to, or perhaps the time has not yet come, or perhaps other people are sleeping too soundly.” (Ouspensky, 1949; this author’s emphases)
Now, interestingly, this idea has repeatedly surfaced in UFO research and lore: the idea of mankind being “lunch” for the aliens. It is not quite that simple, but the Cassiopaean source indicates that there is an energy that is released when the soul separates from the body and this is ostensibly the reason that higher-density beings are often noted at times of great disaster and during wars; they are feeding on this awareness. Now, note, they are not feeding on the soul, but the energy of awareness! And, we have to look at the ideas of cyclic catastrophes in this light.
The Book of Revelation says:
Then I saw a single angel stationed in the Sun’s light, and with a mighty voice he shouted to all the birds that fly across the sky, Come, gather yourselves together for the great supper of God, that you may feast on the flesh of rulers, the flesh of generals and captains, the flesh of powerful and mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all humanity, both free and slave, both small and great! […] And all the birds fed ravenously and glutted themselves with their flesh. (19:17, 18 and 21, Amplified, Zondervan)
We now realize, of course, that we have found the answer to the questions we posed at the beginning of this chapter:
The question is, Why? What, in the name of all things reasonable, would prompt anyone to wish to hide these matters? What kind of sick mind would divert the attention of humanity away from what is evident all over the planet to those with open eyes, and promote so assiduously ideas that mislead, misguide, and generally placate the populace into an assurance that either nothing is going to happen, or if it does, it will be preceded by a long period of approach by a body that is well organized and clearly seen?
Well, the clue is right there: “Placate the populace.” Control.
But, heavenly days! What kind of lunatics would want to keep everything under control in that sense if they have some idea that they, themselves, might be destroyed in the very processes they are concealing?
Obviously, they don’t think so. Obviously, they think they have a plan. And that suggests that, obviously, they know a lot more about what’s going on, what the possibilities and probabilities are, than the rest of us.
We begin to have a glimmer of understanding of how economics and Game Theory fit into the picture. It is by means of Game Theory strategies that control of economics is obtained. Since in our reality, Money is Power, those who control the economy control the world.
We begin to understand why members of the “elite” on our planet, having been apprised of this fact, immediately went to work to discover the ways and means for their own escape. We understand why they funded Princeton and other institutions of higher learning, and why they imported all the brains on the planet, to put them to work to devise a method that could be activated at a certain point in time to transfer perimeters. We also begin to understand why they have made so concerted an effort to keep the masses of humanity deaf, dumb and blind: they are the sheep who will be the “Food for the Moon” while the “Masters of the Game” escape.