PJ#102, SACRED WISDOM

[wave]

PJ 102

CHAPTER 7

REC #2 HATONN

TUE., JUL. 12, 1994 2:41 P.M.. YEAR 7, DAY 330

TUE., JUL. 12, 1994

THE USURPERS, Part 7: (Continued)

We do know that it is extraordinary for any Secretary of State to endure, as Dean Rusk has done, through the terms of two such very different Presidents as John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Only a few Secretaries of State in United States history have served for any length of time under two Presidents. Among the few are Timothy Pickering, who served under Washington and John Adams; John Forsyth, under Jackson and Martin Van Buren; William H. Seward, under Lincoln and Andrew Johnson; John Hay under McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. In none of these cases was the contrast between Presidents so sharp as with John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. A possible exception in the case of Lincoln and Andrew Johnson--perhaps another of the curious parallels between the two Johnsons. In every case the Secretary of State was an outstanding man. And we can say that of Dean Rusk.

Andrew Johnson could not in practice do what any President can do in theory--simply fire one of his cabinet members. He had no reason to want to fire Seward, who alone stood with him against a hostile Congress. He certainly did, however, want to fire Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War. But Stanton's support in Congress was so strong that the "Tenure of Office" Act was passed, which formalized Congressional pressure to uphold the Cabinet Officer against the Chief Executive. When Andrew Johnson proceeded to try to force Stanton's removal, he was promptly the target for formal impeachment. Only the Constitutional provision that a two-thirds vote of the Senate is required to convict on impeachment saved Andrew Johnson from being himself removed from office instead of his Secretary of War. Thirty-five Senators voted against the President, nineteen for him. Had it been thirty-six and eighteen, Stanton would have stayed and Johnson would have gone. As it was, the President of the United States in 1868 was demonstrably one of the less powerful figures in Washington--not to be compared with Charles Sumner or Thaddeus Stevens.

There is today no Tenure of Office Act, but as a practical matter it seems doubtful that the President of the United States in 1968 could, if he wanted to, fire his Secretary of State. Rusk is clearly more intelligent and better educated than Johnson. But if Rusk were soft, or if his connections were anywhere weak, then, superior intelligence or not, he could have been cut down by a computer like McNamara or a Texas diamondback like Johnson. On the record, Rusk is of an enduring toughness. To appreciate that fact, do this instant replay:

The Korean War and the Vietnamese War represent a tremendous turn in the history of nations. What interests us at this moment is that Rusk is the common denominator in both wars! These wars represent, quite possibly, the beginning of the end of nationhood (to return to Rostow's phrase)--most notably for the United States, but ultimately for all other nations as well. Since nations must be ended, they say, to make way for World Government, these strange wars represent obscurely the first serious attempts to establish a world order not centering--as did the age of British Imperialism--around any national sovereignty. For the nation most heavily committed to both the Korean and Vietnamese Wars--i.e., the United States--has refused as a major point of policy to make its own national interest the measure of its conduct of either war. The United States fought in Korea under the banner of the United Nations. The United States in Vietnam, though now under its own flag, has an even less clearly defined objective than it had in Korea. In both wars the United States Government not only refused to make victory its objective, but took punitive measures against those who sought victory--against General Douglas MacArthur, against General Edwin A. Walker. Since the day that MacArthur was cashiered, no U.S. commander in any field of combat (except Oxford, Mississippi) has sought victory. And since the series of persecutions of General Walker, no officer has even spoken in recognizable terms of national victory.

It is generally admitted now that our military failure in Korea--we did fail, General Mark Clark himself said that he was the only U.S. commander in history who ever had to surrender on the field of battle--our failure was not due to superiority of the enemy, who indeed was inferior, and not due to mistakes made by our military officers. It was due completely and solely to a deliberate decision by the Administration in Washington to avoid victory and yield half of Korea to the Communists. The outstanding result of this decision by United States politicians was to make Red China what it had never been before--a great power. National prestige is greatly affected by achievement in war.

There was widespread reluctance to believe that American Communists would betray the United States to the Red Chinese and thus the stalemate in Korea and the American willingness to negotiate were accepted as evidence of previously unsuspected power in Peking. Even publication of undisputed facts showing that MacArthur had been restrained by Washington from winning the victory he could have won did not dispel the illusion of Communist China's military power, for these facts were too bizarre to be fully realized even when they were in cold intellect accepted.

To be short about the whole matter, Washington directed the Korean War in such a way as to make Red China a great power. Red China could not make itself a great power, and Soviet Russia could not make Red China a great power. Soviet Russia, could not to that end "take a dive"--to use boxer's lingo--for what would be the point in elevating Communist China if Communist Russia were downgraded in the process? But if the more or less hidden Communist sympathizers in the American government could induce Washington to "take a dive", then not only would the prestige of Red China be abruptly and enormously enhanced, but simultaneously, through downgrading of "non-Communist" America, the Soviet Union and the whole Communist bloc would be correspondingly elevated in "world opinion".

In the area of foreign affairs it is no novelty to suggest that United States officials supposed to guard the national interest have actually operated from an international point of view. The classic case is the role of our State Department and of the Institute of Pacific Relations in the revolution in China in the early days of Communist activity there. American experts--among whom Dean Rusk was a key figure--were indispensable to the assumption of power by the Communists. The misrepresentation of Mao Tse-tung and company as "agrarian reformers" could not have been intended to deceive anyone but the American public, for everybody else either knew the truth or did not care. The truth about the Chinese revolutionaries was nearer to what the State Department says today--has said since the great Sino-Soviet "split" began to be serialized on the networks. We are asked to believe that the Chinese "agrarian reformers" of 1949 are the fanatical Stalinist extremists of the 1960s! No suggestion is ever offered as to when, why, or how this radical transformation took place. The truth is that they are Communists now and they were Communists then.

The conspirators of Peking, Moscow, Berlin, London, Paris and Washington, D.C. are disciplined revolutionaries committed to the overthrow of all existing institutions. They may assume various and superficially conflicting roles from time to time according to circumstances, in order to serve more faithfully the one common purpose of universal destruction. In the 1940s American Communists were strong enough within the Institute of Pacific Relations [IPR] to make of that supposedly learned society a powerful instrument of Communist propaganda and policy-formation, with incalculable influence on the State Department's eventually decisive position on China. No single theme or catch-phrase of IPR propaganda was more effective than repeated suggestion that Mao Tse-tung's party was not really Communist, not in the ruthless style of Stalin. The Chinese Communists, we were told in 1947 and 1948, were not actually part of the sophisticated and brutal conspiracy of the Kremlin. As we have seen, they were said to be only simple agrarian reformers, indignant at the historic corruption of China, brothers under the skin with blunt, honest Americans like General Joseph W. "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell. Stilwell's disgust with his own government's support of Chiang Kai-shek had once led him to exclaim that he would like to "shoulder a rifle" with Chu Teh, the Chinese Communist--the Chinese agrarian reformer--general.

On the staff of General Stilwell in the China-Burma-India Theater in 1945 was Colonel Dean Rusk, who after World War II rose in the civilian ranks of the U.S. War and State Departments until at the time of the Korean conflict he was in a sufficiently high position--Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs--to take a decisive part in the ousting of General Douglas MacArthur. Dean Rusk's career as a government official--but not as a power in the Establishment--was interrupted by nine years of service as chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation. He had previously been close enough to this gigantic source of largesse to support a request for a grant from it to the Institute of Pacific Relations. [H: Henry Kissinger is a big player in that sector of "Pacific Relations" and has been for a long, long time.]

As recently as 1950 Dean Rusk stated publicly that the Chinese Communists were comparable to our own ancestors at Valley Forge and Yorktown--nationalistic patriots. He feared, however, that China might be threatened by "Russian Imperialism masquerading as world Communism." This prescient forecast of the now famous Sino-Soviet split is curious in that it suggests sympathy for the Chinese side--a suggestion quite compatible, of course, with the IPR line of old, but thornily incompatible with today's State Department approach toward detente with Russia, and its nervous detachment from the rigid reactionaries of Peking.

Today, Secretary of State Dean Rusk is portrayed in the press as a hard man toward Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung, but a tolerant man with reasonable men like Marshal Tito, Wladislaw Gomulka, and Alexei Kosygin. Just when it was that the sensible not-really-Communist Communists of China and the dangerous super Communists of Russia reversed their respective roles has never been explained--not by Secretary Rusk, nor any of his subalterns in the State Department, nor any of his learned colleagues in the Institute of Pacific Relations. Even the zealots of the New Left, when they attack Dean Rusk--as they do, to the enhancement of his standing with the general public which despises the New Left--they never refer to his former benign attitude toward their revered Mao. They do not accuse him of equivocation. They simply classify Dean Rusk, as they do the whole Johnson Administration, as power-mad, ruthless imperialists, killing helpless little Vietnamese babies in order to put more dollars into their grubby pockets. This kind of inverted whitewashing has not worked very well, and millions of Americans still distrust the Secretary of State, in spite of all that the New Left says against him.

The enormous historical importance of Korea and Vietnam is reflected in the fact that these are the first major wars of the nuclear age--and in them nuclear weapons have not been used. The United States refused to employ atomic bombs in Korea although by so doing it could quickly and easily have won a victory. Political authority in Washington saw to it that the military never had a chance to use them. In spite of General MacArthur, the Establishment found a "substitute" for victory. It was "nuclear stalemate"--which did not require any actual nuclear weapons in a Russian stockpile, but just a flat policy of not using any in combat from the American stockpile--on the propaganda assumption that the Russians had a stockpile.

Whatever might have been done in Korea, it is less clear that victory could be won in Vietnam by use of nuclear weapons, for it is not at all clear what would constitute victory in Vietnam. After World War II the United States retreated from victory; in Korea the United States refrained from victory; in Vietnam the United States cannot even define victory. Thus we progress toward an end of nationhood and--apparently--toward a one world establishment.

Let's consider still further the fact that the personal common denominator of the Korean War and the Vietnamese War is Dean Rusk.

By his role in the Korean War, Dean Rusk won a job as head of the Rockefeller Foundation, and by his patience in the Rockefeller Foundation Rusk won the key spot for influencing the course of the Vietnamese War. No one has stayed more consistently with the mainline of United States foreign policy since World War II than has Dean Rusk, from the time when he was on Vinegar Joe Stilwell's staff in the CBI Theater, through civilian service in the State and War Departments (apparently a protegé of General George Marshall), through presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation, through, as Secretary of State, two administrations--that of Kennedy, that of Johnson.

If Dean Rusk is not the most powerful man in the government, his career has at least coincided with the course of all the consecutive relays of critical power for twenty-five years.

Dean Rusk was Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs in 1950, when the Korean War broke out, and in 1951, when General MacArthur was recalled. The Assistant Secretaryship is, as Roger Hilsman points out, "the first level at which the Government of the United States may be committed." Rusk is said to have been the first man in Washington to whom North Korea's crossing of the 38th parallel was reported Saturday night, June 24, 1950 (it was Sunday morning, June 25 in Korea) and to have recommended the plausible but fatal action which Truman took. Rusk is thought to have been the key policy adviser in bringing about the removal of MacArthur--an act which perhaps more plainly than any other points up exquisite contempt for the sentiments--of the majority of the American people. MacArthur's removal marks a watershed between the clear patriotic feeling of the people before that time, and their bewilderment after it.

Through nine years from 1952 to 1961 Dean Rusk was president of the Rockefeller Foundation, in which position he was at the precise center of those ultra or supragovernmental activities in which there is so serious an endeavor to anticipate--to control--the future. The purpose of the Rockefeller Foundation, as stated in its charter, IS "TO PROMOTE THE WELL BEING OF MANKIND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD"--a phrase which could come to stand for the ultimate in presumptuous do-goodery, justifying the maximum of self-righteous effrontery. The main medium of the Foundation is education. The Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and other foundations strongly set the course for what many intellectuals shall think, and from that the consequences are incalculable. [H: Why don't you nice people ask Ronn Jackson exactly who and what for is claimed: C.O.U.P.E.S.!!]

From the long-range point of view, Dean Rusk was presumably stepping down when in 1961 he left the Rockefeller Foundation to become Kennedy's Secretary of State. In the long run the Establishment would not have to worry over the nationhood of the United States, but as of the 1960s United States national sovereignty was still extant--to be used by "men of good will" if it could not yet be liquidated by them. Few events could more surely safeguard "the well being of all mankind throughout the world" than for a man who understood these things, as Dean Rusk undoubtedly does, to assume a position where he might well be able to prevent the United States from inflicting military or other damage on the rest of mankind? At the same time, with its fantastic productivity and artless generosity is it not, from that point of view, (if its foreign relations are expertly controlled) of the greatest hope? The United States must at all costs stand hitched.

Of all cabinet members and other high officials in Washington today, Rusk is the only one who has been continuously in the policy-shaping position since 1950. That does not necessarily mean that he is the most important of policy-makers today, or at any one time. For there may well be, undoubtedly are, men OUT of government who are, as he was from 1952 to 1961, more influential than is, necessarily, any governmental official. But, as indicated above, the fact that Dean Rusk may now IN government represent organized forces outside the government, may only increase his firmness.

The strength of Dean Rusk's position was shown and increased by the marriage of his daughter to a Negro. Only a supremely self-confident United States official would so flaunt three centuries of American history. Black Power Vietniks recognized their tactical defeat. "I wonder," said Lincoln Lynch of the marriage of Peggan and Guy, "to what lengths Dean Rusk has to go in order to gain support for his and Johnson's war in Viet Nam." (Time, Sept. 29, 1967.) The important thing here is that agitator Lynch never questioned that the interracial wedding would win political support for the father of the bride.

A student editor at an eastern college told Time the campus Liberals were embarrassed: "They had all these negative feelings toward Rusk, but now they have this charming story to contend with." Old RHODES SCHOLAR, Phi Beta Kappa, former college dean, Dean Rusk knows his campus Liberals. "Everybody," said somebody at a college in Iowa, "thought it [the wedding] was wonderful."

After John Kennedy had been elected President, but before he knew who his Secretary of State would be, Dean Rusk, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation, gave two lectures in the Claremont College annual Lecture Series in the Los Angeles area. The dates were November 9 and 10, 1960. The President-elect of the country and the president of the foundation had never met. Indeed, they were not to meet until after John Kennedy had been so nearly persuaded to offer Rusk the secretaryship and only one apparently perfunctory interview was required (December 8, 1960) to cement the appointment. The Establishment had its way.

The Claremont lectures are important because they show the way Dean Rusk was thinking, or at least speaking, at the time he was asked to take the number one post in the President's cabinet.

"I sometimes wonder," said the soon-to-be Secretary of State, "whether foundations might consider themselves to have a special parish in what might be called the future."

The phrase is, as Rusk's phrases seldom are, arresting--a parish in the future. The words occur in a lecture entitled: "Hard Advance Thinking on World Issues." One is reminded, ironically, of John Wesley's, "I look upon the world as my parish!" Reminded not because of a similarity, but because of dissimilarity.

That the gospel should be preached throughout the world, in the free marketplace of ideas, ideologies and religions, is not only logical, but the subject of a Divine command. And the various religions have their own compelling reasons for missionary zeal and good works. Furthermore, it may be a legitimate extension of compelling personal conviction to set up private charitable or educational foundation of worldwide scope. But to advocate that government should aim at worldwide missionary work is to ask people to render unto Caesar the things that are God's.

Dean Rusk, the foundation president, had words to Claremont College listeners which one can recommend to Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State:

The standing sin in our foundation business is the human temptation of trying to play God. It takes a good deal of thought and effort and self-criticism and bouncing back and forth with one's colleagues and people outside to avoid that corrupting influence on which Lord Acton and others have commented.

Rusk was alluding to the classic formula attributed to Lord Acton: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Well, if the Rockefeller Foundation, which spends some 30 million dollars a year in their piece of the worldwide parish, can tempt its officials to play God, what shall we think of the temptations within the Federal Government, which is spending in Vietnam alone an estimated 24 BILLION dollars a year, or 800 times as much? In itself, this makes the foundations sound puny, but we must remember that the Establishment, notably, the foundations--FORD, ROCKEFELLER, CARNEGIE AND OTHERS--SUCCEED IN GETTING MANY OF THEIR MEN INTO GOVERNMENT. This extends foundation influence tremendously, so that a large part of that parish in the future is to be reached through government. [H: Let me point out here, however, that the biggest mistakes they ever made were letting the Zionists into control of those foundations and thus directly into government. Indeed, I think it must be becoming clear to the "Committee" that some errors were made and it will take a heck of a lot of undoing to regain a measure of ability to reclaim anything--I repeat that YOU NEED ME A HECK OF A LOT MORE THAN I NEED YOU!]

The thing called the Establishment consists primarily of law firms, foundations, universities, and banks (commercial and investment). We are not to suppose, fortunately, that all of the people in these interlocking institutions are of one mind; yet obviously there is, in the Establishment, a consensus in favor of managerial expertise. But there is more than that: there is a discreet but ruthless elitism. The Establishment would not be the Establishment if it did not place its men in government. It is the function of these men to control the government while submitting to the control of the Establishment.

It was Richard Rovere who said that Dean Rusk is the head of the Establishment. Rovere pretends to have tongue in cheek, and in a sense the statement is absurd. But why did the thought occur to Rovere? William Manchester was not writing with tongue in cheek when, in Portrait of a President he referred to Rovere's article in The American Scholar in which John Kennedy is placed IN the Establishment, but NOT IN "the ‘Inner Circle'--as, for example, Dean Rusk is."

But, wherever Rusk is to be ranked within the Establishment, the fact is that he must bear immense responsibility for what happens in the Establishment-backed tragedy in Vietnam. For, behind a quiet facade, Rusk is IN CHARGE of Vietnam--that project which, as we shall see, is being made a gateway to that vast "parish in what might be called the future" where men play God.

* * *

Let us leave this book here, please. We will take up next, Robert McNamara. However, before we do so, I ask to offer the report information that "shows how Chinese outplayed the U.S.". It is just now declassified history containing transcripts of conversations between top officials in five U.S. administrations. I can't suggest we offer all of it but you had better get a good belly-full of what is going on.

Thank you.

CHAPTER 8

REC #3 HATONN

WED., JUL. 13, 1994 3:00 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 331

WED., JUL. 13, 1994

CHINA AND NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION

It has been told as scenario as to HOW China will conduct the massive encounter called "nuclear" war. It is planned and ready and there is nothing the Cosmospheres would or could do against such war--even if they wanted to do anything.

China, Korea, et al. buddies, would launch "neutron" or particle-charged warheads in full mass--but not AT the U.S. directly. They would launch the full load toward the poles--both North and South. These will be neutron loads which would be air-bursts. This would do many things--including wash [airborne] over the U.S. in a death shroud. In addition, the heat of such massive detonations will melt ice-caps and glaciers, which will then begin to devastate low-lying land masses. This will help cleanse the radiation--but will present massive waves of negatively-charged particulate which will also offer major attraction capabilities to devastating frequency transfer to the water masses which will cause all sorts of other chain reactions.

I am not here to offer chemistry or physics lectures--I just want you to know you are in major trouble and the Greenberg games are going to come to a screeching halt or I am going to have MY TEAM blow the very tops off the secrets and perpetrators. You are going to KNOW who destroyed your world, good buddies.

There is nothing on your globe that can neutralize this terrible power once unleashed--EXCEPT GOOD OLD "YOU-KNOW-WHO". I DO NOT KNOW IF I WILL EVEN BOTHER AT THE TIME. WORSE, EVERYONE WILL NOT BE OUTRIGHT KILLED--IT WILL BE A BLOODBATH OF HORROR BEYOND DESCRIPTION AND, FRANKLY, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHO DOES OR DOES NOT BELIEVE ME.

WORSE NUMBER THREE: THEY BELIEVE THEY WILL GIVE YOU A BIT OF A SHOW-AND-TELL TO COINCIDE WITH THE TRUMPED-UP PHONY "COMET THROW-OFFS".

"BUT YOU WILL INTERVENE, WON'T YOU'?" YOU ASK. NOT UNLESS SOME OF MY AGREEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT INTERFERENCE--ARE MET TIMELY. MY CLOCK SAYS THAT THOSE COMET FRAGS ARE TO START STRIKING "SOMEWHERE" ON THE 15-16 OF JULY [LESS THAN TWO DAYS FROM NOW]. So be it. Further, I have discussed this with all of you prior to this day--Ye who deny me before man--shall I deny before my Father who sent me.

The only reason I write this for the paper is that the bunch of star-peepers and psychics offer you dates of 20th, 22nd, and thus and so. That means that you have a WINDOW of possibilities. I think at this point of decision making I might go with the "probability" that I AM WHO I SAY I AM ON THE SHORT-TERM CIRCUIT, AND LONG-TERM YOU HAD BETTER GET OUT OF YOUR COCOON AND GET RIGHT CORRECTLY WITH GOD!

Through the insipid games of your Elite--THE CHINESE HAVE OUTPLAYED THE U.S. AND YOU WILL FIND THAT THEY LIKE A LOT OF YOUR "OLD EVIL EMPIRE" PLAYERS--BUT THEY HATE AND DESPISE THE KHAZARIAN ZIONIST ELITE--AND YOU RESIDE IN THAT "NEW ISRAEL" OF MR. DERSHOWITZ. Indeed, THE "Committee" needs me far, far more importantly than I need them--in EVERY RESPECT TO SURVIVAL. REMEMBER THE "AGREEMENTS", GOOD PEOPLE--THE INTENTS CAN BE DEALT WITH LATER--IF YOU HAVE A LATER. AND THAT "LATER" DEPENDS UPON WHAT YOU DO TODAY! THE CHINESE, IN ADDITION TO OTHER FACTS--DO NOT DENY THE BROTHERHOOD FROM THE SKY! IT IS WORTHY OF THOUGHT! IT PAYS TO REMEMBER THE PROVERBIAL PLAYERS IN "ARMAGEDDON"!

Before we return to The Usurpers and further speak in interactions with such as China, let us offer some sobering discourses on selected places and persons--regarding China.

THE OREGONIAN, 6/15/94, by a writer for Times-Washington Post Service.

[QUOTING:]

REPORT SHOWS HOW CHINESE
OUTPLAYED U.S.

The just-declassified history contains transcripts of conversations between top officials in five U.S. administrations.

Washington--A long-secret, two-volume history of U.S.-China negotiations, released by the CIA to the Los Angeles Times, shows how Chinese leaders repeatedly manipulated top officials, from the Nixon through the Reagan Administrations, often by playing them off against their domestic rivals. [H: Can this be trusted as valid information coming from one of their own controlled papers? NO--but you CAN know that something MORE IMPORTANT IS AFOOT OR IT WOULD NOT BE PLACED IN PUBLIC VIEW. THAT IS OFTEN FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN TRUTH OF CIRCUMSTANCES.]

The report, written by the Rand Corp. for U.S. intelligence agencies, is laced with examples of how the Chinese handled America's foreign policy elite.

Starting with Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai in 1971, the Chinese used a variety of tactics--from serving opulent banquets to playing U.S. presidential politics--to advance their interests on issues such as Taiwan and Indochina.

"The most distinctive characteristic of Chinese negotiating behavior is an effort to develop and manipulate strong interpersonal relationships with foreign officials," the report concluded.

The study contains the first transcripts of top-level conversations between American and Chinese leaders to be made public. Among them are the visit of July 1971--when Henry A. Kissinger, President Nixon's national security adviser, became the first U.S. official in more than 20 years to visit China--and Nixon's own trip to China in 1972.

Until now, scholars say, virtually all public knowledge of these events has come from the sometimes self-serving accounts of Nixon, Kissinger and other U.S. officials.

The 1985 study, which the Los Angeles Times obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after five years of requests, paints a less heroic and less flattering portrait of the Americans than the accounts based on their memoirs.

In essence, the study shows how skillfully China conducted its diplomacy with the United States--a lesson demonstrated once again last month by Bejing's success in persuading the Clinton Administration to back away from its attempts to impose human-rights conditions on trade privileges.

From the earliest days of the Nixon-Kissinger initiatives, the study says, the Chinese tried to exploit individual insecurities, play off presidents against their domestic rivals and orchestrate meetings to maximize Americans' sense of "gratitude, awe and helplessness".

During the landmark 1972 Nixon visit, for example, Kissinger negotiated the "Shanghai communique"--in which the United States acknowledged that Taiwan was part of China--"late at night after a banquet of Peking duck and powerful ‘mao tai' liquor," the study says. In the afterglow of the sumptuous spread, Kissinger is quoted as telling his hosts: "After a dinner of Peking duck I'll sign anything."

Chinese officials tried, usually successfully, to carry out negotiations on their own turf and by their own rules. U.S. officials invariably were at the disadvantage of having to lay out their own positions first.

"We have two sayings," Vice Foreign Minister Qiao Guanhua told Kissinger in New York in October 1976. "One is that when we are the host, we should let the guests begin. And the other is that when we are guests we should defer to the host."

Kissinger, who became Secretary of State in 1973, joked about the imbalance but volunteered, "I will be glad to start."

The report says the Chinese were masters at keeping their visitors on edge and off balance. On a trip to Beijing in May 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, engaged in what Rand describes as "almost comical" exchanges with Deng Ziaoping and other Chinese leaders as he repeatedly tried over two days to inform them that Carter wanted to normalize relations with China.

The Chinese acted as if they didn't hear Brzezinski or believe him. "We are looking forward to the day when Carter makes up his mind," Deng said. Brzezinski finally burst out in frustration: "I have told you before, President Carter has made up his mind."

AUTHOR AN INSIDER

Rand completed the study in 1985. The author, Richard H. Solomon, a Rand specialist on China, had been an aide to Kissinger on the National Security Council and was a senior State Department official in the Reagan and Bush Administrations.

The report shows clearly that during the Nixon Administration's opening to China, Premier Chou En-lai and other leaders repeatedly played upon Nixon's fear that the historic first steps might be made by Democratic leaders.

As soon as Kissinger arrived in Beijing from Pakistan on his secret trip of July 9, 1971, a year and a half before Nixon's first term was to expire, Chou quietly told him, "The time that is left for President Nixon is quite limited."

"Which time period is the prime minister talking about: 5-1/2 years or 1-1/2 years?" Kissinger asked, a reference to whether he expected Nixon to be elected to a second term.

Chou replied that when Nixon came to China, "He will answer that question."

The next day Chou let Kissinger know he had "a great pile of letters (from other American politicians) on my desk, asking for invitations."

The quotes in the study also provide new evidence of the earthy, sometimes crude personality of Mao, the founding leader of the People's Republic of China. In late 1973, Mao wondered aloud to Kissinger why Americans were always "breaking wind" about Watergate.

Two years later, Mao taunted Bush, who was then head of the U.S. liaison office in Beijing: "You don't know my temperament. I like people to curse me. If you don't curse me, I won't see you."

At other times, the transcripts illustrate Mao's philosophical side and his self-proclaimed role as the embodiment of China.

"The Chinese are very alien-excluding," Mao told visiting Americans in early 1973. "For instance, in your country, you can let in so many nationalities; yet in China, how many foreigners do you see? You have about 600,000 Chinese in the United States. We probably don't even have 60 Americans here."

KISSINGER PITTED AGAINST RIVALS

China constantly tried to pit U.S. leaders against one another or to make use of frictions among the Americans, Solomon's study says.

During the Ford Administration for example, Chinese leaders played Kissinger against Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger. The study says China twitted Kissinger for years over Deng's 1974 invitation to Schlesinger to visit China.

"Don't be jealous," Huang Zhen, head of China's liaison office in Washington, told Kissinger on Aug. 18, 1976, as Schlesinger was about to make his trip. "You have been to China nine times, I believe. You even said yourself you wanted to go to Inner Mongolia."

"But I didn't get there," Kissinger answered. "I wanted to see the musk ox of Mongolia."

The Rand report makes it plain that the Chinese divided American officials into friends and enemies.

"In at least one instance, (China) actively attempted to block the appointment of an individual they comsidered to be hostile to them," the study says. That was Ray Cline, a former CIA station chief in Taiwan and a strong supporter of its interests, who was helping Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign.

When Bush, then Reagan's running mate, visited Beijing in August 1980, Deng asked tough leading questions about whether Cline's pro-Taiwanese views reflected Reagan-Bush policy, according to the report. And after Reagan's election, the Chinese, fearing Cline would be appointed assistant secretary of state for East Asia, published attacks on his views.

Cline did not get the job. In general, the study concludes, the Chinese did not try to cultivate skeptical or hostile Americans. "The Chinese seem to feel comfortable only in dealing with those who share a basic inclination to establish positive "guanxi" (relationships) at the human level," it says.

Despite China's occasional scorn, the report shows Kissinger went to great lengths to preserve the close relationship he had forged with Beijing. [H: Good grief! OF COURSE--he ran banks, American Express and Kissinger Associates IN CHINA AT THE DISPENSATION OF BEIJING!]

THE AFTERNOON OF AUG. 9, 1974, WITHIN HOURS AFTER NIXON RESIGNED AS PRESIDENT, KISSINGER ASSURED HUANG ZHEN, CHINA'S DE FACTO AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES, THAT ALL INFORMAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN NIXON AND THE CHINESE WERE CONFIRMED. [H: Informal agreements?? How long are you people going to continue to permit this? I wonder! I witness a lot of shocked eyebrows and denial as to believing--but funny thing, it is TRUTH and ME you seem to have trouble believing! So be it.] Kissinger then brought Huang in for a 15-minute meeting WITH FORD, WHO HANDED HUANG A LETTER TO MAO.

In the letter, presumably drafted by Kissinger's staff, Ford promised Mao that U.S. policy would remain unchanged, that Kissinger would stay on as Secretary of State and that Ford would give top priority to "accelerating" normalization with China.

In addition to analyzing Chinese negotiating behavior, the intelligence study was designed to serve as a secret history of the first 16 years of U.S.-China negotiations, from 1969 through 1984.

That was necessary because the classified records of top-level talks with China by the Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan Administrations were spread throughout various U.S. agencies and presidential libraries.

The Carter and Reagan Administrations had found that Chinese officials sometimes exaggerated what they had been promised by earlier administrations.

Rand was working for the National Intelligence Council, the U.S. Government's umbrella group that oversees the analytic work of the CIA and other agencies in the U.S. intelligence community.

The Los Angeles Times first sought access to the Rand report in a 1989 Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA. The CIA rejected the request last summer, releasing only part of the chronology that accompanied the study but none of the conversations or analyses.

Three months ago the newspaper filed a lawsuit against the CIA in the U.S. District Court here under the Freedom of Information Act. After reviewing the case, the CIA in late May declassified most of the study, including many of the conversations and the overall analysis.

* * *

I'm sure that the facts are that the entire documentation would be interesting--however, unnecessary because of what is REALLY taking place here. The facts are that KISSINGER and bullies ALL know that very shortly the entire industrial base, banks, corporations and other such "informal agreements" WILL BE NATIONALIZED BY CHINA. Doesn't look too comforting for such as KISSINGER, to me--but then, nobody believes an empty voice from outer space which PROVES almost ALL PREACHERS do not hear GOD--BUT SOMETHING FROM THE OTHER SIDE!

How long do you think you can grovel at the Chinese feet for commercial interests? They don't give a damn about you or your human-rights lies. Did I say lies? Come now--you "humans" DON'T HAVE RIGHTS UNDER THIS SYSTEM--WHY SHOULD CHINA PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE GREED MONGERS? INDEED, BETTER LOOK AGAIN AT THE REVELATION PROPHECIES AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN SEE! I WOULD ALSO LOOK AT THE TIMING AND CONSIDER MR. KISSINGER'S PARTICIPATION IN THE DESTRUCTION OF A WORLD QUITE CAREFULLY. BUT DON'T JUST BLAME GOOD OLD HANK--LOOK TO THE MORMON-SCOWCROFT CONNECTION. HE HAS DESTROYED THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS ALONG WITH HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE DOWNFALL OF A PLANET INTO ARMAGEDDON. YOU ARE BLIND--NOT AS BATS (WHO ARE NOT BLIND) BUT AS THE NO-EYED SALAMANDER OF ALBINO CAVE CHARACTERISTICS AND IT HAS CAUGHT UP WITH YOU FOR IT IS THE TIME OF THE LORD AND SATAN'S BEDFELLOWS ARE MEETING THE OPPONENT--AND IT AIN'T ME!!

I again urge the ones of the Elite COMMITTEE(S) to look at this very, very carefully for through these pushers and politician grabbers--YOU WILL LOSE YOUR VERY WORLD AND, WITH IT--SHALL GO YOU! I AM NOT HERE TO PICK UP YOU WHO HAVE SERVED HUMANISTIC GOALS WITH ORCHESTRATED DEMOLISHMENT OF BEINGS AND OTHERS IN YOUR PATHWAY--UNDER THE GUISE OF C.O.U.P.E.S. OR ANY OTHER LIE. YOU DON'T HAVE A WAY OFF THAT PLACE WHEN THE BIG BANG COMES AND I WILL SEE AGREEMENTS KEPT, BEFORE YOU CAN DEPEND ON "ME"! MAY WISDOM GUIDE YOUR PATHWAY AS MR. CHRISTOPHER IS CLOSE ENOUGH WITHIN THE TANGLE TO KNOW I SPEAK TRUTH.

Enough for now as I hope I have given various ones plenty of thought material. I will repeat what I told Mr. Jackson: The ending is ever so much more important than the beginning--ESPECIALLY FOR YOU WHO ARE AROUND TO PARTICIPATE! If, in addition, I be Alpha--I AM ALSO OMEGA! I believe, further, that A-17 is, in the ending--far, far MORE IMPORTANT TO ALL OF YOU THAN IS A-1!

Good day and sleep well for soon the sleep may well be very long indeed!

[wave]

PJ 102

CHAPTER 9

REC #1 HATONN

THU., JUL. 14, 1994 10:03 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 332

THU., JUL. 14, 1994

BEGINNING AND ENDING

In any play there is a beginning and ending--not that all roles are finished in completeness or the stage is destroyed or any of the other indications of destruction of the theatre. So, what have you in sequence of perception? A beginning of some kind--which by all players and all scenarios is "already" under way and the play represents a pull-out or a scenario from within the overall master-story. Then the play progresses sequentially representing sometimes the passing of whole eons of consciousness and then in the final scenes is some kind of conclusion or "ending".

The beginning may be of interest to lay groundwork for the understanding of the sequential movement of the play and to recognize the characters and the direction or gist of the play itself. The ongoing sequential acts are unfolding the plot content which then builds to the conclusion or ending of the thought projected--to either go into sequential scenarios at another offering of ongoing story-line or to simply end the play.

Physical expression is identical in concept. The past is interesting as to beginning of YOUR play and the characters acceptable for identification and then you move on with whatever happens by either watching it, ignoring it, being victim or victimizer or whatever. You will form "beliefs" according to what you allow to control your mind-set. For instance, "reincarnation" was removed BY THE ANTI-CHRIST from your "Bible". Why? So that you would be easily controlled by the perception that once through is all there is and there could be no more. Therefore, the scriptwriters in power and control--rewrite, revise and remove that which allows the viewer or participant control over his own part in the play. Why is this important? Because YOU might not like the way the play ENDS and therefore might well take CONTROL and rewrite the SCRIPT!

Most of the masses of human beings are quite content to simply protect their roles by being "extras". I ask you--what happens to "extras" in a movie or play? Which are you? Are you a key character or simply a go-away extra? Key players CHOOSE to NOT be mere extras! They prepare, study, and yes, do the play over and over and over until they know they have the importance and capability of BEING THE SCRIPT WRITER AND DIRECTOR--AND--THE PRODUCER!

Now, actors, guess what? The ones in POWER already or wishing to attain the position of importance and power do what? They DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to never allow you mere actors and extras to EVER GAIN CONTROL OF ANYTHING! Moreover, they write the script so that you will never think yourselves capable of, nor interested in, changing the play--at all. Who loses and who gains? Well, THAT depends upon what is the goal and what is the desired "ending". Indeed, the "ending" is far greater than the "beginning" for if you are perceiving "it"--you are impacted by it--NOW. I can further cause notice to be taken that, therefore, the character actors NOW are far more IMPORTANT than are the beginning actors! So, for instance, in the Committee as example: A-17 becomes FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO THE PLAY THAN IS A-1!

COMETS HITTING JUPITER ON
A SPECIFIC DAY?

Golly, readers, you can't even see Jupiter--much less the comet fragments--what are you talking about? God has "thought" order into CREATION--do you not think HIM capable of managing the heavenly bodies? If, indeed, you are a "play" (and you ARE), then who put such rubbish into YOUR play? Could that comet not represent a part of scripting for Jupitarians--if AT ALL? WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS? WELL, IT IS YOUR BUSINESS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN CONJURED BY YOUR CONTROLLING SCRIPTWRITERS TO COVER THEIR HEINOUS DEEDS HAPPENING IN YOUR PLAY. No more and no less.

You are still here in your consciousness if you are reading this--right? Ok, WHAT HAPPENED IN DEC., AROUND CHRISTMAS, 1982 THAT WAS SO MASSIVE IT WAS TO BE "THE" MAJOR COSMIC EVENT BY WHICH ALL ELSE WOULD BE MEASURED.?!? I THOUGHT NOT! YOU DON'T KNOW DO YOU? YOU FOCUS ON THE WRONG THINGS, DIRECTIONS AND TRUTH! YOU, LIKE THE WIND, CHANGE WITH THE STRONGER CURRENTS OF AIR FLOW AND MISS THE CAUSES OF WIND IN THE FIRST PLACE.

To make this worthy of your thought attention, I will have to give you a parable. I have a book which I have recommended in the past and a few of you probably have it. Terry doesn't because he sent Dharma his copy--which we will see to that he gets back--sometime. It is called DOOMSDAY 1999 A.D. by Charles Berlitz.
I think we can "randomly" write about this but randomly, in point, we will pick Chapter 3: We will call this PART 1 so that if we write further on the subject we can identify our own writings on the computer and in your focus for convenience. Yes, that does mean, in fact, that you have one more thing to keep track of--but you are big kids now and the least you can do is keep up with your own doomsday predictions--although you WON'T.

ANCIENT PROPHECIES: Part 1
THE WORLD ENDS BY 2000 A.D.

CHAPTER 3

[QUOTING:]

CHARLES BERLITZ, Doubleday & Co., Inc. [H: And already by checking the status of the publisher in intent and control--you can know that the book is intended as false projection--not truth of even the revelations.] Garden City, New York (1981) [H: The DATE of writing, 1981, tells you even more about it. That date is not so long past as to anything but furtherance of brain-washing information in an ongoing attempt to mislead, misinform and distract you.]

Throughout the world of today, already beset by a multitude of other worries, there is growing an increasing nervousness about a cosmic event that will occur in 1982. The preview of these effects may already have begun. This occurrence will mark, by a coincidence in their orbits, a concentration of most of the planets in our solar system on the side of the sun opposite the earth. [H: JUST LIKE THE JUPITER "THING"--"ON THE SIDE OPPOSITE THE EARTH". My, my--lightning does strike twice in the same place doesn't it?] This will occur around Christmas time 1982 and, it is theorized, the pull of the planets on the sun will cause sunspots, flares, and possibly resultant earthquakes around the world and also, through the tidal effects exercised on the inner core of the earth, cause enormous earthquakes especially at the boundaries of the slowly moving tectonic plates on which the land masses and the oceans ride. [H: Anybody hear this one LATELY? LIKE FOR BETWEEN THE 15TH AND 22ND OF "NOW"? The adversary NEVER HAS TO CHANGE HIS STORY--IT WORKS WELL ENOUGH OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO NEVER HAVE TO CHANGE IT! Does this mean you WON'T have anything happen? Don't count on it--it depends on what the controllers have in mind for dumping on you. Satan CAN CONTROL THE PHYSICAL PLANE INCIDENTS, GOOD BUDDIES! HE SIMPLY CAN'T ORIGINAL-CREATE! I suspect there may be some massive things take place--not the least of which may well be a showing by the Chinese anti-anti-Christ of major importance--see yesterday's writings. On the other hand, if the intent is to test your brain-washing and cause you to IGNORE the NEXT warning--there won't even be a notable mention--including of the Jupiter destruction because there will not be any such thing as that, I promise you! THIS "Jupiter ‘thing' ‘on the backside (AWAY FROM EARTH VIEWING) is exactly NOTHING. Whatever happens on earth is OF earth.] These temblors, occurring along fault lines, such as that of San Andreas, may be of much higher intensity than those of the past and might initiate a self-propagating earthquake era, with disastrous results for civilization. As earthquakes have been increasing in frequency and intensity during the last decade, some scientists as well as psychic observers have suggested that the approaching global catastrophe has already started and that the great earthquakes of the sixties and seventies in Peru, China, Alaska, Mexico, Turkey, and Iran are merely the before shocks of greater seismic catastrophes to come. [H: More "frequently" than "when"? The entire face of the planet has been changed over and over again by CONTINUAL earthquakes and ebbs and flows. Ah, and here comes "Jupiter" again--so, I wonder WHERE "THEY" GOT THE IDEA FOR "THIS" ONE?]

According to British astronomers John Gribbin and Stephen H. Plagemann [H: Do you KNOW these guys?] (The Jupiter Effect: 1974), an even more dangerous condition will exist in May, 2000 A.D. for those of us who are here to observe it. At this time Mercury, Mars, and earth will be in direct allineation with the huge planets Saturn and Jupiter as well as with Pluto and the earth's moon. Venus will also be close to Mercury in this cosmic line-up. The effect of powerful earthquakes brought about by this positioning might be strong enough to disturb the earth's rotation, causing it to wobble on its axis and perhaps to bring about a magnetic reversal of the poles.

But this "worst case" situation, which is now being commented on with increasing frequency by present-day astronomers, geologists, and oceanographers was also noted and commented on by Berossus, a Babylonian astrologer-historian who lived more than 2,300 years ago [H: Babylonian??? Home of the anti-Christ??? Guess so! How many of you knew Berossus? Was there ever such a one as Berossus? HOW DO YOU KNOW?] One wonders through what telescopic equipment and what lost techniques Berossus and the Babylonian magicians (then a word for astronomers) [H: STILL FITS!] arrived at their calculations. [H: YOUR astronomers still pronounce our craft as stars and planets and do not even BOTHER TO EXPLAIN THE STROBING RAINBOW LIGHTS WHICH CAN EASILY BE SEEN WITH THE UNAIDED EYE!] The Roman poet, Seneca, related some 300 years later what Berossus originally caused to be inscribed in wedge-shaped cuneiform syllables pressed into wet clay tablets:

. . . these events take place according to the course of the stars; and affirm it so positively, as to assign the time for the Conflagration and the Deluge. He maintains that all terrestrial things will be consumed when the planets, which now are traversing their different course, shall all coincide in the sign of Cancer, and be so placed that a straight line could pass directly through all their orbs. But the inundation will take place when the same conjunction of the planets shall occur in Capricorn. The first in the summer, the last in the winter of the year . . .

Berossus, in speaking of "the year" was referring to the sidereal year, the precession of the equinoxes, which takes 25,827 of our years. (This figure is the time it takes the earth's polar axis, which changes in space from day to day, to return to its original position in space in relation to the zodiacal band. The twelve constellations of the zodiacal band as they succeed each other in the night sky have formed a convenient cosmic clock for earth observers for many thousands of years.)

Was Berossus making a prophecy or merely an educated guess several millennia in advance of his time, based on many millennia of observation and research before his own era? The astronomical observations of distant antiquity, generally connected with prophecy, were often included in legends of the gods or disguised as a code, perhaps to restrict the information to the priestly caste. The extent of the sidereal year can be recognized in the sum of the crossed diagonals of the Great Pyramid at Gizeh [H: Say what???] which give a total of 25,826.6 pyramidal inches. How did Berossus know about, or the Fourth dynasty of Egypt measure the sidereal year? [H: Well, they DID NOT DO IT YOUR WAY!] And this is only one example of cosmic information contained in the Great Pyramid. [H: And THAT is NOT "cosmic"; that is simply mathematics at worst--poor mathematics at best!]

While archaeologists generally accept the Pharaoh Cheops (Khufu) [H: Or could that be Tofu, Foofoo, Tuhu or Sununu?] of the IV dynasty as the builder of the Great Pyramid, this is questioned by a tradition held by the Copts, the purest descendants of the ancient Egyptian stock. [H: No, they are not! Who gave forth this incorrect information??] This tradition declares that the Great Pyramid was there for many centuries BEFORE Khufu, thereby inferring that Khufu may have repaired it only and then have taken credit for its construction (a maneuver not unknown to the rulers of Egypt who often "erased" their predecessors' names from monuments and substituted their own). [H: You know, sort of like rewriting history to suit the desires and then making it against LAW to speak of the truth of the matter? Sort of like the FACTS as actually happened and numbers involved in what is now recognized as the HOLOCAUST as a specific definition of something that happened which did not--as presented.]

According to a history of ancient Egypt written by Masoudi, a medieval Coptic historian, the two greatest pyramids (those of Cheops and Chephren) were built by Surid, one of the Kings of Egypt before the flood, who built them as a result of a prophetic dream wherein "the sky came down and the stars fell upon the earth." His interpreters of dreams, when queried, predicted that "a great flood would come accompanied by a fire from the constellation Leo, which would burn up the world. King Surid thereupon ordered the two pyramids to be built and to be recorded through their walls all the secret sciences together with knowledge of the stars as well as all they knew of mathematics and geometry, so that there would be a witness for those who would come after them."

[H: Ah so, now we begin to get the truth of the matter. At that time there were MESSENGERS, just like we are NOW. The people were told of the happenings which would come and that they should prepare. WITH HELP--AND I MEAN REAL HELP, massive excavations were made INTO the earth and along with the pyramids--BECAME THE SURVIVAL PLACEMENTS. THE SECRETS IN THE PYRAMIDS ARE NOT OF KINGS AND NERDS--THE REVELATIONS WILL BE OF SURVIVAL FROM THAT WHICH COULD DESTROY THE WORLD OF PEOPLE--JUST LIKE THE PHOTON BELT FOLLOWING IGNITION OF THE RADIATION BELT BY PRANA OR NEUTRON-ORGONE ENERGY--DELIBERATELY ESTABLISHED--BY EVIL BEINGS WISHING TO DEPOPULATE AND OWN THE WORLD! YOU ARE IN "RERUNS", VIEWERS! The pyramids BECAME tombs, thoughtful students! Sorry to bash your daydreams!]

Some of the other measurements and calculations yield surprising results, almost as if the Great Pyramid, as has been mentioned by Egyptian Coptic writers in the intervening centuries, is not a tomb but a compendium of mathematical and astronomical knowledge. For example:

• 1. Base perimeter divided by twice the height= 3.1416. (The modern value of Pi. [H: MODERN "VALUE" OF Pi? How can you have a "modern" value of a FIXED absolute?] Archimedes, the famous Greek mathematician, who lived thousands of years later, never got closer than 3.1428.) [H: So, one or the other or BOTH are wrong--right? And YOU would place your entire existence on such stupidity?]

• 2. Fifty pyramidal inches= 1 ten millionth of the earth's polar axis. [H: Really? No it doesn't!] (Some among the ancient Egyptians must have had access to information indicating the true size and weight of the earth. The shape was well known to them and the concept of a round earth in space was taught to young students of the priestly schools.) [H: Oops! Could the history and knowledge again have been REWRITTEN to enslave people? When, then, did the world get pronounced to be FLAT, IF IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN TO BE ROUND? BETTER CHECK YOUR HISTORY BOOK AND WATCH FOR THE LINEAGE OF BRITISH KHAZARIANS!]

• 3. Base perimeter= 356,240 pyramidal inches (or number of days in year). [H: Well, here again, if you go back to #1 above, the figures can't be correct--can they? Further, if you use "MODERN" calculations--the number of days in a year--cannot be correct EITHER!]

• 4. Height X 1,000,000,000= approximate distance [H: "Approximate"--in finite mathematics? Approximate?] of earth to sun at autumnal equinox. [H: Ah but now you use the old argument that they didn't have no "sophistication" away back thar! No? They seemed to have done damned well--to me! Pi, for instance, would not be the value of 3.1428 or anything else--UNLESS IT WAS THE SAME EVERY TIME INTO INFINITY! I am reminded that the New York legislature once offered a bill to "round off Pi" to get rid of the annoying fractions! IS THIS THAT UPON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR EXISTENCE JOURNEYS? I THINK SO, READERS!]

• 5. Weight of pyramid X 1 trillion= approximate weight of the earth. [H: Wow--another sure thing in mathematical wizardry: "approximate"???]

• 6. Base perimeter X 2=1 minute of a degree at the Equator. [H: Balderdash!]

Because of the scientific information still being discovered within the Great Pyramid [H: I certainly HOPE SO!], a belief has grown among psychics [H: Ah so, now we get there--THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL BASIS--IT IS THROUGH PSYCHICS? THEN, DEAR ONES--YOU DON'T HAVE REALLY ANYTHING UPON WHICH TO BASE ANY OF THIS NONSENSE--DO YOU?] that there must be a message of prophecy indicated by measurements of the interior passageways calculated by pyramidal inches. [H: Could it not be that the involved people made the passages convenient to get the traversing travoices through the pathways? I guess that would be TOOOOO simplistic? Well then, how about sarcoficusses?? (No, leave the misspelling for everything else about this writing from this book--is equally stupid and incorrect! By the way, what is an inch? I understand you are to be on a metric system which takes away the "inch" in favor of other countings--WHAT IN THE DAFFY-DAZE IS A "PYRAMIDAL INCH" IF YOU HAVE NO SUCH THING AS AN "INCH"?] Measurements have revealed a series of breaks and variations built into the twists, turns, and protuberances of the galleries and inner chambers which are considered as indicative of important events in the past, the present, and the future. Believers in these prophecies have included at least one well known astronomer, Charles Piazzi Smyth [H: How many of you know this one?], once the Astronomer Royal of Scotland. These predictions in stone are believed by many pyramidologists to have begun on a date equivalent to September 22, 4000 B.C., and will end on September 17, 2001 A.D., the end of the sixth millennium.

[H: Let us assume for a minute that some of you have the foresight to actually dig a shelter. Further, let us assume you do so and set it up with fine technological record-keeping equipment such as computers, etc. Now comes a biggie--and you don't have anything with which to run your computers? They now are useless things which must be gotten out of your way--so you take them and dump them where, over the eons of time, they are vanished. What would you do if you were a historian or a story teller? What will be in YOUR caves after there is no power and you are working only on oral stories and tellings of history? Will your walls not be filled with the graffiti of an experience and are those not HISTORY instead of PROPHECIES? Readers, unless you come to grips with possibilities other than that which is destructive to you--you CAN'T CHANGE!]

While remembering that this is an interpretive prophecy, mainly after the fact, it is still intriguing to observe that certain modern events appear to have been indicated in advance, that is, since the time the key was thought to have been discovered in the early part of the twentieth century--the gallery measurements apparently indicated critical events which would occur at dates corresponding to World War I, the Armistice, World War II, the Atomic Age, and crucial events of the fifties and seventies. But the measurements--and history itself--seem to break off in 2001.

A calculation by Heraclitus of Ephesus, a Greek philosopher of the Ionian school, can be interpreted as a forecast of the next world catastrophe. Ancient Greek cosmic outlook was influenced by a theory held by Plato [H: No, I do not hold Plato in positive esteem either--he was the beginning of the downfall of civilization by his incorrect and stupid philosophy which all of you bought into. It was NOT that which Socrates espoused or taught--you better go back and really check out THIS ONE!] and other philosophers that there were and would be periodic destructions of the earth by fire and flood. [H: Good grief, any being with a brain could come up with this incredibly brilliant observation!] Heraclitus, who was not influenced by Plato's account of the destruction of Atlantis, since he predated him, calculated that the world would be destroyed AGAIN in 10,800 years, counting from the last time it suffered almost total destruction. If we take Heraclitus' time span of recurring catastrophes and calculate it from a date in Plato's account of the sinking of Atlantis (9,000 years before his time) we obtain a date for the next catastrophe fairly close to the end of the second millennium. This theory was proposed centuries before our present year count began. It is one more instance of a correlation in time of ancient predictions of catastrophes, kept alive in various world traditions throughout the centuries.

Scientific expertise and cosmic information interpreted through legends mixed with prophecy sometimes occur in remote corners of the world far removed from the advanced cultures of Egypt, Greece, and Mesopotamia.

* * *

Since we are running "long" on this chapter, let us break it here and we will take up at the paragraph about the "Hopi". Thank you.

CHAPTER 10

REC #2 HATONN

THU., JUL. 14, 1994 4:11 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 332

THU., JUL. 14, 1994

ANCIENT PROPHECIES (CON'T.)

THE HOPI

The Hopi, a small Amerindian tribe of very ancient traditions, apparently knew that the earth turned on its axis. In a Hopi legend the axis of the earth was guarded by a pair of cosmic giants who, when they left their positions, caused the earth to falter in its spin, resulting in the end of a world and the start of a new era, eventually to be followed by still another. The beginning of the end of the present or Fourth World is considered by the Hopi to have already started and will be consummated after the appearance of a now invisible star, rushing toward earth from space. Strangely, the Hopi concept of catastrophe caused by the earth faltering on its axis is a preoccupation among certain scientists of today and yesterday who, attributing the future cause to overloading of ice on the poles, shifting of the inner magma tides of the earth, a series of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, or a cosmic collision or near collision, foresee basically the same results as the Hopi prophetic visions--the world's end in earthquake and fire.

Toltec-Aztec world-ending concepts also prophesied that the present world or sun would end within the present era by earthquakes, a cataclysmic denouement shared by Berossus of Babylon, ancient prophets, medieval seers, and a number of modern astronomers and psychics.

Within the Judeo-Christian religious tradition there exist in the Bible, as expressed by some of the Old Testament prophets, predictions in which although the years are not mentioned, certain conditions are specified which seem to locate the end of the present world within our own time period, very close to now, the final days being identified as the time soon after the Jews have been established once more in their own land. [H: Well, that can't be now because the Jews are NOT established in THEIR OWN LAND--THEY ARE ESTABLISHED IN PALESTINIAN AND AMERINDIAN (U.S.) LAND! But you can see here--that we are getting to desired point of view as is intentionally being established. Besides, the ones in Palestine are Khazarian Jewish impostors--not Judeans of the Hebrew.] At this time, as written in Zechariah 14, the Lord declares: "...I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle..." These prophecies are also contained within Ezekiel Chapters 36, 37, 38; in Daniel, 11, 12, 14; Joel 2 and 3; and Isaiah 23 and 24. [H: And, does it mean that all nations who are against Israel's Jerusalem as today will be gathered against those of Israel's Jerusalem? Or, does it mean that all nations who were and ever are somehow against the "Jews" will be gathered into some kind of finishing-off battle of their own? It really does make a difference how you read a sentence. Further, the Talmudic "Jews" who now inhabit Israel (Palestine's property) are not only not Hebrew in origin BUT they are "Talmudic" people--not of the Old Testament as referred to here. So, what in fact, does any of this mean--or is it basically confused and meaningless? I too like the old fun and games of speculation--but it appears that without a lot more factual historical KNOWLEDGE you can't speculate very well--much less can you base the demise of a planet.]

In the Book of Ezekiel we find a specific reference in the Lord's prophecy to Ezekiel recalling the scattering of Israel "among the heathen" in the past. But the Lord promises that He will "gather you out of all countries and will bring you into your own land..." and that "...the wastes shall be builded...and the desolate land shall be tilled..." and "...the waste cities shall be filled with flocks of men... I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountain of Israel." [H: Fine! But exactly where is ISRAEL? No, I do not mean the part of Palestine defined, stolen from the Palestinians and unlawfully given to the Khazarian Zionists BY THE UNITED NATIONS IN ABOUT 19 HUNDRED AND 48 YEARS A.D. Do you suppose those are sidereal years or calculated according to the pyramidal inch-year measurement?]

[H: Wow, now we REALLY go for it...] However, further along in Ezekiel's prophecy, we find that a great invasion shall come from "Gog" in the north and a great war will ensue when "everyman's hand will be against his brother." [H: So far so good...but...] This prophecy continues with a promise of divine intervention--"with pestilence and with blood...and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands... an overflowing rain and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone... and I shall send a fire on Magog..." and "seven months shall the house of Israel be burying them."

[H: The term "israel" does mean "God's chosen". But WHO are God's chosen? Do you actually believe it to be the self-named, self-styled Khazarian Zionists who have labeled THEMSELVES "Jews" to confuse the lineage and heritage? These are the ones who kill, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, no forgiveness only REVENGE and thus and so. Does this ACTUALLY SOUND TO YOU LIKE "GOD'S CHOSEN" IN HIS OWN IMAGE?]

These predictions have been interpreted by many Biblical students as a direct reference to the final battle of Armageddon, when Jerusalem will be attacked by many nations and the next millennium will be at hand. As this attack and threat of attack is located within the present century, if we link it to the prophesied return of the Jews to Israel, we have the feeling that Biblical prophecy is being corroborated by events in the daily press.

Hal Lindsey, author and theological student (The Late Great Planet Earth: 1970), even suggests a battle plan, based on Daniel's prophecies such as, "at the time of the end (italics added) the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind... with chariots, with horsemen, and with many ships..." A somewhat free interpretation of the above and the ensuing verses indicates to the author a Russian amphibious assault to the south of Israel, to coincide with an invasion from the northern flank to push down through Israel north to south before the final battle is joined at Armageddon. After this conflict the Day of Judgment will come: "...many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and contempt." [H: I suggest that some of this might well be on target, but then Mr. Lindsey goes on and does the bit on RAPTURE which is NOT EVER mentioned anywhere in any BIBLE! The Rapture you are told about by the self-styled prophets is a man-manufactured PROJECT BLUE BEAM IN WHICH A WHOLE BIG BUNCH OF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SENT TO HELTER-SKELTER STATUS IN NEVER-EVER LAND!]

The prophecies in Joel deal with destruction before a future Day of Judgment as they describe: "...wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood and fire, and pillars of smoke [H: Yep, good old Blue Beam!]--the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord comes." And in Isaiah, we also hear rumblings of a future doom, one with cosmic overtones: "...the windows from on high are opened, and the foundations of the earth do shake... the earth is utterly broken down... The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard... it shall fall and not rise again. The Lord maketh the earth empty... and turneth it upside down." [H: Now THIS sounds pretty interesting to me and I wonder where all the people will go?? I repeat--there is no "RAPTURE" as you are told! Further, GOD WILL NOT ALLOW EVIL BROUGHT INTO HIS PLACES--where is that going to leave YOU?]

In the New Testament the mystical and frequently obscure Book of Revelation of St. John of Patmos contains vivid descriptions of the catastrophes which will occur during the approaching period of the Apocalypse and the Final Judgment and refers to a final battle, the greatest of earth's history. This will be the Battle of Armageddon (Meggido, on the map) in which will contend an attacking army of 200,000 cavalry spouting "fire, smoke, and brimstone", which is how modern armored cavalry units would appear to a prophet of ancient times. Mention is made and interpreted by some students of the Bible as a recognizable reference to thermonuclear warfare, of the power "to scorch men with fire" and that men were "scorched with great heat and blasphemed the name of God..." and of an earthquake "such as was not since men were upon the earth so mighty an earthquake and so great," and that "...every island fled away, and the mountains were not found..." [H: But it does NOT say ANYTHING about any such thing as a RAPTURE!]

THEIR FLESH SHALL CONSUME AWAY WHILE THEY STAND UPON THEIR FEET, AND THEIR EYES SHALL CONSUME AWAY IN THEIR HOLES...

...a phenomenon familiar to observers of the effect of atomic bombs. Also reminiscent of what one hopes we will avoid in the future is a forewarning contained in the Book of Esdras of the Apocrypha which tells of:

...great and mighty clouds...shall rise to destroy all the earth and its inhabitants...and they shall destroy cities and walls, mountains and hills, trees of the forest and grass of the meadows and their grain...no one shall be left to cultivate the earth or to sow it...

In the Gospel according to St. Luke and also mentioned by St. Matthew there is a prophecy attributed to Jesus Christ which describes a period wherein "Jerusalem encompassed with armies" will be a sign of the approaching Final Judgment:

When you shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall be from heaven. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

* * *

This is enough to finish the first part of earlier today. We will continue about these Ancient Prophecies before we go back to The Usurpers. I do, however, suggest you begin to get serious with REASON lest you lose your head--literally. You have to understand that this was all thought to be going to happen at the turn of the last millennium and the one prior to that. Indeed, I WARN YOU AGAIN--THE RAPTURE BEING TOUTED TODAY--IS OPERATION BLUE BEAM AND IT IS VERY MAN-MADE METHODS TO SOCK-IT-TO YOU BLIND, UNTHINKING "BELIEVERS" AND IT IS NOT A NICE BUNCH OF ANGELS WHO HAVE CONJURED IT FOR YOU. YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM BUTTON THAT "THEY" DO NOT HAVE ANY INTENTIONS OF JOINING A "RAPTURE". THEIR INTENT AS IS ALWAYS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN--TO TOTALLY RULE THE PHYSICAL WORLD!

MAY YOU BEGIN TO SEE...!