This Phoenix Journal was generated by scanning a printed edition using optical character recognition (OCR). Although efforts have been made to correct errors readers should refer to the image-based or printed version if discrepancies need to be resolved.

/Ground Crew

Version 1.0
This version was converted from a MS Word document and should work fine on any newer devices (Smartphones, Tablets, etc.)


The Phoenix Journals are intended as a "real time” commentary on current events, how current events relate to past events and the relationships of both to the physical and spiritual destinies of mankind.

All of history, as we now know it, has been revised, rewritten, twisted and tweaked by selfishly motivated men to achieve and maintain control over other men. When one can understand that everything is comprised of "energy” and that even physical matter is "coalesced” energy, and that all energy emanates from God’s thought, one can accept the idea that the successful focusing of millions of minds on one expected happening will cause it to happen.

If the many prophecies made over thousands of years are accepted, these are the "end times” (specifically the year 2000, the second millennium, etc.). That would put us in the "sorting” period and only a few short years from the finish line. God has said that in the end-times would come the WORD--to the four corners of the world--so that each could decide his/her own course toward, or away from, divinity--based upon TRUTH.

So, God sends His Hosts--Messengers--to present that TRUTH. This is the way in which He chooses to present it, through the Phoenix Journals. Thus, these journals are Truth, which cannot be copyrighted; they are compilations of information already available on Earth, researched and compiled by others (some, no doubt, for this purpose) which should not be copyrighted. Therefore, these journals are not copyrighted (except SIPAPU ODYSSEY which is "fiction”).

The first sixty or so journals were published by America West Publishing which elected to indicate that a copyright had been applied for on the theory that the ISBN number (so necessary for booksellers) was dependent upon the copyright. Commander Hatonn, the primary author and compiler, insisted that no copyrights be applied for and, to our knowledge, none were.

If the Truth is to reach the four corners of the world, it must be freely passed on. It is hoped that each reader will feel free to do that, keeping it in context, of course.




ISBN 1-56935-056-6

First Edition Printed by


P.O. Box 27353

Las Vegas, Nevada 89126

July 1995

Printed in the United States of America





SAT., JUL. 30, 1994


SAT., JUL. 16, 1994
















SUN., JUL. 17, 1994



THE USURPERS, Part 8: by Medford Evans, Ph.D.




MON., JUL. 18, 1994



TUE., JUL. 19, 1994




THE USURPERS, Part 9: by Medford Evans, Ph .D



TUE., JUL. 19, 1994


THE USURPERS, Part 10: by Medford Evans




WED., JUL.20, 1994






WED., JUL.20, 1994

THE USURPERS, Part 10: by Medford Evans, Ph.D. (Continuation)



WED., JUL.20, 1994

THE USURPERS, Part 11: by Medford Evans, Ph.D.





THU., JUL. 21, 1994







THE NEWS DESK, Ed Cleary 7/15/94








THE NEWS DESK, Rick Martin 7/16/94


















THE NEWS DESK, Rick Martin 7/20/94












THE NEWS DESK, Ed Cleary, 7/20/94




MORE FROM RONN JACKSON, Bulletin #12 by Ronn Jackson

THE COMMITTEE OF 17 (List Of Names)



15 OF 50













BULLETIN #14 by Ronn Jackson






To all those robonoids who would prefer to change!



SAT., JUL. 30, 1994 10:00 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 348

SAT., JUL. 30. 1994

Let's tell it, this about Committee crimes and Hopi hopes, plans and then let us DREAM OF RECOVERY, FREEDOM AND GOODNESS--THAT WE MAY LIVE IN BEAUTY.

We MUST speak of crimes and criminals, misled, deceived and deceivers, schemers and hopes--but only that we may know where and upon whom and what to base and focus attention and action.

In the journal there will be a bit about black helicopters and thus and so--and what might be their purpose. Col. Gritz tells the world there are none of such. Well, he actually didn't mean it as reported by those who would pick his words to pieces. He SAID (in meaning) that he had experienced no black helicopters hovering about, terrifying citizens. Is there a difference? Indeed! Whatever might be the lacking in Col. Gritz--HE IS A PATRIOT TO THE U.S.--OR HE WOULD NOT HAVE SERVED WHEN CALLED IN THE FIRST PLACE. No one has all the answers and if one has LIVED BY THE SWORD--he shall know no other way in which to reclaim that which is physically in danger of being taken.

YOU need these strong men to lead and serve, friends. Whatever one Bo Gritz may be, he would serve freedom if he could find direction and valid REASON for doing a thing a different way than as he recognizes. TOUCH GOD AND YOU TOUCH INFINITY--all ELSE can be peeled away.

The most programmed of the programmed robonoids are lost to the ADVERSARY the MINUTE they fully are awakened to the TRUTH of GOD, pull back and REALLY SEE what is TRUTH relative to the partial expressions of doctrines and secret societies. Easy? NO! But nobody promised you a Rose Garden of "EASY" thornless beauty and being, locked away from all that is presumed or assumed to be evil and bad. The "evil" and "badness" abounding IS YOUR SCHOOL OF LEARNING--CHOICES AND DISCERNMENTS.

The "error" of this day in judgments is the placing me and my mission along side that which is touted on a daily basis in a hundred thousand different religions, beliefs and experiences. I fit NONE of these things, readers.

You will read in the "holy" books of all or. ANY doctrine from Hindu to Christianity to Zionism--and you will KNOW that there always were the encounters with brothers from "out there" somewhere. It is written. YOU NOW COME ALONG AND RELEGATE GOD'S WINGED BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO HIDDEN BASES UNDERGROUND AND LIZARD SKINS AND BLACK SERPENT SCALES. NO--there have ALWAYS BEEN GUARDIANS, MESSENGERS AND ANGELS--OF GOODNESS--SENT FORTH TO ATTEND THE ONES SEEKING GOODNESS IN EXPERIENCE THAT THEY MIGHT MOVE ON IN EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER PLANES OF EXPRESSION. You want me to simply be ANOTHER ancient astronaut, an "E.T. voice" who will prove to be nothing more than a temptation to turn away from life and be something or other that never happens. It is not comforting to follow goodness when the world is bankrupt within physical bindings of the senses and the soul is dying.

Where do you suppose the brothers went from such places as Atlantis and the Mayan cities where dinner has been found on the tables within the ruins? THINK ABOUT IT! Does it mean they WENT to GOD? NO! For most were steeped in blood murder sacrifices and had buried their very souls in darkness. But, in every civilization reaching nuclear technology--there is the evil teacher who can "rapture" you away--just like the U.S.S. ELDRIGE AND BLUE BEAM. The Godly people have always been lifted off into security at such times and the remainder are "vanished". You don't have to have meteors or asteroids--all you need is TECHNOLOGY for the Evil Elite--and CREATING by the troops of GOD.

Do "angels" have wings? NO--they don't need them. That which appears as wings is for your perception and represents a very large energy aura. YOU WILL ALWAYS CREATE THE IMAGE MOST COMFORTABLE TO YOURSELF--A DEVIL WILL REPRESENT FEAR AND NEGATIVE--AN ANGEL REPRESENTS THE LIGHT AND DISSOLVES FEAR. Further, if you think GOD cannot present what you need and offer that for which you pray—then you LIMIT GOD and GOD CANNOT BE LIMITED!

All of the books and teachers have promised you the messengers, the way, the word and ability to know Truth--before the END SHALL HAPPEN. These same teachers preach that you ARE NOW IN THE ENDING TIMES OF PROPHECY--WELL, GOOD READERS, YOU CANNOT THEN HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER!

Do I discount any speaker or any "truth" as simply being picky about that which I think and that which they think? NO--for all things are TRUTH--to someone--so in the ending ALL THINGS ARE TRUTH. However, if you speak of Truth of God and how it will be--you walk a very fragile line in that you cling to that which is "modernized" and attending to the physical expression and in so doing lock yourselves away from Truth of God and further your progress into the trap of the physical "housing". It is fine if that be your choice. However, MY mission is to bring you the WORD in Truth--that you have equal opportunity to make informed choices. No more and no less.

You of man have a massive assumed duty somehow--to kill the messengers and allow the physical indoctrinators to destroy you--so be it for it is YOUR JOURNEY.

The masses, without reading any of our work, denounce us, rise up against us and pronounce their opinions UPON YOU and YOU accept it--placing your very existence on ANOTHER'S OPINIONS.

Why do we write on those things which are in your consciousness instead of marvelous revelations about the unseen and wondrous journey of space and time? Because you don't have TRUTH in your consciousness and until you can accept that which IS, how can you even begin to accept that which is BEYOND?

Ronn Jackson said something on a taping a day or so ago which bears looking at. He said he didn't know if I was actually of God or not. He has not been exposed to almost any of my presentations or work or word. He knows very well that I EXIST for he knows me--the Godly part will have to come into comfort--AS I "NEVER" SERVE OTHER THAN LIGHT AND TRUTH--IN GODLINESS.

Does this mean I will not, as a Commander, ever become annoyed or set a stage--think not so, good readers, for I have a mission and I will see to that mission--and I SHALL SET TRAPS FOR MY ADVERSARY WHO CONSTANTLY SETS THE TRAPS AND LIES AGAINST ME AND MINE. I WILL SIMPLY USE HIS OWN TRAPS TO CATCH HIM IN HIS OWN GAMES--EVERY TIME I HAVE OPPORTUNITY--WHICH IS CONSTANTLY! Would I USE, for God's purpose, a murderer or a thief? Of COURSE! Would I allow use of funding from clandestine sources? OF COURSE--why not? Money is not evil, it simply IS. Man's attitude about same is the guiding measure. In fact, readers, I enjoy using the enemies' assets more than about anything you have going on that physical plane of intended theft and enslavement power wielded by my ENEMY.

I am continually told by YOU as to what to do and how to do it. I think NOT, readers--you haven't done so well up until now and if you had the answers, you wouldn't have the problems! I do not care as to whether or not you trust me, believe me or whatever--for that comes with experience in stability and longevity. Dharma doesn't even have to believe IN me or trust me or even have faith in me as a being--but to do her job she must be able to set that aside while we do our work--and therein lies the difference in "secretaries". She neither pretends nor claims to be anything other than that which she is in service. Much of the time she is stunned by that which I write--for it would appear to place her neck in the guillotine circle. She CHOOSES to write in spite of that and, in fact, her trust and faith is then proven--in me, that in the ending I will be her shield and buckler. In this very predicament her trust is honored and those things which I instruct and which are followed in action--have served EVERY TIME--even if the game be appearing otherwise. We have turned one disaster after another into proven asset and correct handling. Has this made her "rich"? No--but it surely has made my people wealthy in service and confirmation. Most of the time the appearance of negative "loss" IS NOT--unless YOU QUIT AND RETURN TO THE ADVERSARY--THEN, "HE" WILL GETCHA' EVERY TIME!

You ALL must "confront the now" and "create the future"--it is up to YOU. If you are content with the "now"--continue as you are. That means, however, that you are also content with the prophecies which will destroy you--right on schedule. Again, it is strictly UP TO YOU. I can but offer and in showing you that which is and how it impacts YOU and then showing you how you might CREATE a different scenario--we can CREATE MIRACLES.

I personally enjoy the revolvement of ones who have expressed great "badness" prior to now--because when they express "goodness" in service to humanity--THEY MEAN IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!

May YOU be given to know the difference...!

Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn


July 30, 1994



SAT., JUL. 16, 1994 9:44 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 334

SAT., JUL. 16. 1994


Let us have one more lesson in possibility/probability thinking:

You have a whole year of buildup to a day, a week, etc., of massive disaster--and suddenly on the day the comet is to hit Jupiter--the "Establishment" people haul off the interpretations! Mostly it NOW comes whamming back at you that there will "probably" be nothing even so much as "seen". What can this mean?



I wouldn't go that far, friends, but as of yesterday there came a major understanding WITH ME and my Command. I told them (and there is plenty of written verification of THAT STATEMENT TO ONES YOU RESPECT AND BELIEVE) THAT THE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE SAN ANDREAS WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND ALL BETS WERE OFF IF AGREEMENTS WEREN'T RAPIDLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MET. ONE OF THOSE AGREEMENTS NOW BECOMES THE RELEASE OF RONN JACKSON WHO IS A-17 OF THE COMMITTEE "OF 16"! Somehow the State of Nevada incarcerators think I am simply another one of those Area 51 nerdniks and fear is rampant that if Jackson is OUT--they may be IN! Not a bad observation.

There are two things happening here. I expect, STARTING TODAY, that we get more visible "earthbound" observation and assistance from our Austrian contact AND Jackson AND his legal team--along with some other pretty important show-and-tell. "Tell" doesn't long mean anything except loss of confidence, without "show". As in the biblical instructions: Faith (or words) without ACTION is nothing! Ronn CAN do what he says--it has just been inconvenient for the criminals to turn him loose and HE, IN TURN, doesn't get anything visibly done because he still FEARS A BIT THAT I AM JUST ANOTHER MANIPULATOR--OF WHICH HIS WHOLE LIFE HAS RE-VOLVED AROUND ABOUT. SEIZE THE MOMENT, PLEASE.


I suggest A-5 (Warren Christopher) STOP clinking around in Haiti, trying to start a WAR and get about joining your Committee brothers in getting something positive done for the United States--because if things are not handled pretty rapidly and pretty effectively--it is over--and that includes for the Committee ALSO!


Good grief, don't you see the message from Korea? They are holding off burying the murdered leader for even longer so that he remains on display and can't be tampered with. I suggest you better get your donkeys in a row and your elephants hooked up to the job--because things are SERIOUS and the "natural phenomenon" which is next LIKELY is a major example offered from China--behind that Comet crash you guys have dreamed up to sucker the mind-controlled world!

When asked by these criminals "....and don't you care?" my response is, I'm sure, quite familiar to you breathing dead: "FRANKLY, MY DEAR, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN!" You can't control Cosmic ENERGY--I CAN!


I am sent a copy of a UFO magazine which I find most interesting as Dharma thumbed through the pages to see if there was anything about which I would wish to speak. There is page after page of things about that which I would speak--but time in IMPORTANCE of subject material makes it unworthy of our time at this sitting.

I would comment on this, however, at very first and surface glance: The picture on page 51 from High Bridge, New Jersey is the IDENTICAL PICTURE FROM THE SAME NEGATIVE AS THAT WHICH IS OFFERED ON PAGE 59 to fit the story entitled: The Day a UFO CRASHED Inside Russia!--RIGHT DOWN TO THE ARTIFACT DETAILS AND LIGHT STREAKS. THAT IS BAD PUBLICITY FOR THAT WHICH YOU WISH TO BE BELIEVED AS TRUTH.

There are a LOT of valid things regarding craft (theirs and ours) out of Russia--very valid indeed!

However, I urge you ones to study the advertisements in the magazine/journal and I think you will get the point I effort to make--YOU HAVE TO BE DISCERNING!

ALMOST EVERY AD IS A MYSTIC OR OUTRIGHT SATANIC SUCK-IN, from "get the famous money magnet "to many ads for actual Witchcraft materials, Talismans--all with Satanic "meanings" along with such stories about abductions of humans by other-worldly beings as UFO ABDUCTIONS AND THE CELTIC OTHERWORLD "Otherworld???" And just what do you "inquiring minds" think is the "otherworld"?

Then on the back cover is a picture of a 'something', which is captioned: "Is this the legitimate photo of an alien body recovered at site of Roswell UFO crash and stored in hangar 18 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base?

Well, if it is--it certainly has some characteristics that are totally unexpected. The head is interestingly devoid of any semblance of "death" because with such huge bug-eyes as are described of THOSE particular beings--in death, as with humans--THE EYES WOULD BE OPEN.

The other observation is obvious: The suit is NOT made anywhere but on Earth!!! I am embarrassed that you would also NOT notice the Asian features--THE PRIME ENEMY OF THE SATANIC ANTI-CHRIST FORCES! So, we now have offerings to allow you ones to think that the Asian-featured people and beings are "bad for you".


Ah indeed, there WAS a "Philadelphia" experiment. I prefer to correctly identify it as part of the Montauk, New York experiments which were first called "Rainbow" and then "Phoenix" and thus and so. Because of the massive need for coverage of the MIND-CONTROL programs--the people offering the information (FALSE INFORMATION) are sent forth in mind-controlled stance to GIVE YOU WHAT YOUR LITTLE SCIENCE-FICTION MINDS WANT TO HEAR! Almost NONE of the information offered has much truth other than here and there among the garbage. Believe what you want to, readers, but be prepared for the punch-out when the truth is present and confronts you.

I don't wish to spend further time on this magazine in point but would like to offer another document which also came to us which certainly has merit:




















Quotation from The Scottish Himalayan Expedition by W.H. Murray, published by J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. 1951

Thank you, "Clays".


We are continually intrigued by the fact that US&P sends Mr. E.J. Ekker--REGULARLY--issues of their regular publication. This indicates on the mailing cover that US&P is A NONPROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID, WAYNESBORO, VA, PERMIT NO. 153. This is the place that has legal action against the Ekkers! They claim unfair competition (non-profit institution?)--Ekkers haven't published or competed in ANYTHING. Neither does the Institute (which is also included)--hold non-profit status--it is just a fact that there is NO PROFIT! Just for interest: YOU HAVE TO PAY TO GO THROUGH THEIR [US&P's] "HOUSE"--EKKERS DON'T HAVE A HOUSE--ANYMORE!


This is quite fine with me--however, the Christ statue featured [in the U.S. &P. publication] is not a rendition of any "Christ" claimed figure that I have ever seen--but IS a figure which looks very much like a young "Russell"--right to the rounded goatee on the chinny-chin-chin. I have nothing but respect for the SCIENTIFIC offerings of one Walter Russell, but I would wish that Timothy Binder, President of US&P, would heed his own words which, by the way, I will limit in wordage count to that which will not give cause to accusation of "contempt of court" or plagiarism:

From "President's Message", "The Proof of The Pudding"


.... It is a common human trait to not hold judgment in abeyance when a new concept of the universe is presented to us. We could suspend judgment until we have considered deeply and in meditation, as the Russells admonished us, the truth of any new concept and reserve our judgment as to the truth of anything new presented to us. Instead, we usually do as we always have done and act to protect our beliefs as they are, not choosing to take the time to consider the new concept. As a consequence, we are condemned to continue in our present beliefs with all of their concomitant repercussions. [H: emphasis mine.]

If you wish to evaluate your depth and breadth of understanding, I suggest you take the following test:

1) Do you understand the order of the universe and apply it to your actions and, as a test of that understanding, are you happy and content?

2) Do you have a sense of absolute justice? Do you accept what happens to you as your own creation?

3) Are you healthy? What are the true and deep signs of health?

I suggest that A SENSE OF ABSOLUTE JUSTICE is a signature of health that is more important than strength or other physical criteria.

4) Do you have a sense of humility? [H: Do YOU, Mr. Binder?] What is humility? Do you feel that you do your work and know what you know alone?

5) Do you have a sense of deep purpose, or do you have a sense of no purpose at all? Do you recognize how it might be possible that a sense of deep purpose can be congruent with a sense of no purpose?

6) Do you act from your source of inspiration or do you feel that you are manipulated by life or by others? Can you access your own source of inspiration?

7) Do you have a sense of reverence? If you think you have a sense of reverence, does it encompass all you experience? [H: Do YOU, Mr. Binder?] Does it encompass both that which is beautifully and exquisitely balanced to your time-space sense, and that not so apparently balanced? Can you evoke a sense of reverence wherever you place your attention?

8) Do you have a sense of joy or a sense of ecstasy, the emotion with no opposite?

9) And last of all, are you able to accept criticism of your ideas, actions, beliefs, and even your bodily self with equanimity? [H: And YOU, Mr. Binder?]

Sometimes I score better at this test than at other times. I find that as I make time to meditate and then self observe my daily actions in light of balance, that I score better....

* * *


Page 9, Light Waves, The Newsletter of the University of Science & Philosophy, P.O. Box 520, Waynesboro, VA 22980:


"We began opening the whole Palace for tours in January, and the response has been wonderful. People are really enjoying the opportunity to see the upper floors where the Russells lived, as well as the incredible view from the tower. We are open for tours seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. The cost is $5 for the first floor and gardens and $7.00 for the full Palace and gardens. We offer reduced rates for children, senior citizens, and groups. Please call ahead if you'd like to bring a large group. The mountain is truly beautiful this time of year, and we would love to have you visit!!"

* * *

Unfair competition: Ekkers can offer you a tour of the lot (adjacent to the home they once had prior to George and US&P), where they were ARRESTED for having been seen twice last year. Once when tents were set up to place things out of the winter weather at eviction and the other time was when they were in a vehicle on the easement roadway. This arrest took place in the midst of a public meeting when Mrs. Ekker was the speaker and speaking. A bench warrant was later issued for their failure to appear at a NON-SCHEDULED appearance on the aforementioned arrest arraignment or "something" as all records are sealed in the court's secret files. But, readers, the cost is quite cheap, really--nothing--but again, there isn't anything to see so I suppose it is in the right price-range. By the way, Ekker's hold an easement on the lot itself. Oh well, it just seems some people can't find enough things to give to avoid unfair competition.

This next might be considered a bit critical so I would rather prefix it by saying that I hate to see erroneous information placed into publication.

(from US&P)

"We are pleased to announce the creation of IN THE WAVE LIES THE SECRET, a book with a …….”

* * *

Did not your teachers of truth and universal knowledge ever give you the old rule of thumb: "People 'lie', things 'lay"? "People 'sit', things 'set'." Secrets don't "lie" they "lay" except in instances when "People" "lie" about that which "lays". This University does not have to worry about the Ekkers using the information in this book so the investigators can be called off. I think that neither will the teachers who gave the scientific data to Dr. Russell, or Dr. Russell himself, use it either.

I still ponder the fact that from the Ekkers, who have been proven to have nothing, you still harass and demand $42 thousand dollars IN CASH to drop your suits--along with, of course, destruction of the magazine issues in point. Why? Why don't you go back to Mr. Green whom you sued FIRST but now protect--he has held buried over $350,000 in gold coins--ample to have paid you in full--twice, which is what you are after. Ekkers can't even take a legal judgment against them for it would first demand a default statement indicating that they HAVE the wherewithal to pay you but "don't". I would say these are interesting legal maneuvers and I would remind our own beloved attorney that THEY SAY HE IS WORKING WITH THEM! People, do you have a nice world OR WHAT?

OK, one last sharing and we'll move on: If possible run a picture of the inside of the Palace "Looking from the Music Room toward the Christ Statue model on the first floor of the Swannanoa Palace museum, displaying the inspired sculpture art of Walter and Lao Russell." [See next 2 pages]

* * *

We surrender!! There is no way we can possibly compete with such opulence. If there has been gain at "unfair competition" from this resource--it certainly does not become visible. Boy, the lot on which the Ekkers are accused of trespass sufficient for INCARCERATION and ARREST is naught but dirt and weeds (which they kept mowed to avoid fire danger--according to the fire department demands).

Shall we look back at item number 2 from [the test, above by] Timothy Binder, President and the one suing the Ekkers, does this truly represent "ABSOLUTE JUSTICE"?

I do honor the "Purpose" as offered at first writing on the cover of this newsletter:

"Our purpose is to help unfold the spiritual nature of man [H: YOU ARE!] in order that the human race will find happiness and peace through the knowledge and practice of the Love Principle of Giving and Regiving which Nature alone practices and man defies." [H: OH??? Spiritual? You HAVE certainly offered a view of the "nature" of man.]

Now to you readers who don't understand--don't try to do so without information. I likewise find it interesting as to content and offerings which relate to the fact that this UNIVERSITY is a PALACE and offers "world-wide 'home' study..." IT IS A TAX-FREE NON-PROFIT-QUALIFIED ENTITY!

Well, Ekkers also receive breaks and cuts from the Government. These do not come in the form of tax-breaks, for they have no income--they DO get Federal Food Stamps (which seem to get cut every year). Unfair competition in business?? I guess the Christ Jesus had unfair competition accusations levied on him for crosses and briar-bush crowns in the cornering of the market on such items. I don't seem to see many of either around the Swannanoa Palace tax-free estate.

* * *

Since we are waiting for comets to blast off or fizzle or whatever the soothsayers are telling you, let us move on with more from Ancient Prophecies from the book DOOMSDAY, 1999 A.D.

I cannot, however, urge you strongly enough to GET PREPARED FOR WHATEVER--it CAN happen and probably WILL The special feature on one of your television programs last evening was a reminder to you all about the probability of MAJOR earthquakes soon in Southern California. Well, for Southern California that may be sufficient--but it is to happen EVERYWHERE! IT WILL HAPPEN--WHEN IS THE ONLY POINT IN QUESTION! WHY? BECAUSE THE FAULTS WILL SLIP, UPHEAVE AND BREAK--NO MORE AND NO LESS. THE "CAUSE" WILL BE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!



FROM CHAPTER 3, Ancient Prophecies, DOOMSDAY: 1999 A.D., by Charles Berlitz, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York (1981) ($11.95)


The Biblical prophecies doubtless contributed strongly to the medieval conviction that the world would end with the first millennium. When it did not do so the feeling of relief and thankfulness felt in the European Middle Ages may have encouraged the building of the vast cathedrals which flowered during this era, and no doubt, because of religious fervor, increased the zeal of the subsequent Crusades. Somewhat later, in the early 1350s the Black Death appearing suddenly in Europe and causing the deaths of a third of the population, with resulting breakdown of society and widespread madness, was thought by many, before it abated and life went on, to be the actual end of the world. After this visitation popular belief began to consider that perhaps Doomsday had been postponed, at least until the second millennium.

Some of the medieval European prophets made written predictions, often printed at the time, so that one can be fairly sure that they were not predated, that seem to link themselves to the events of today. Sometimes even the future year is specifically mentioned as in the case of Nostradamus who wrote in the middle of the 1500s:

The year one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine, the seventh month,

A great frightening king will come from the sky.

To raise the great king of the Angoulmois,

Before and afterwards Mars will reign uninterrupted.

This prediction has been variously interpreted by modern observers, as an atom bomb, a rogue planet, or an air attack, possibly by the Chinese (depending on a cryptic reading of Angoulmois as "Mongol"). [H: Might pay good and close attention to this one.]

Nostradamus, perhaps the best known of the medieval prophets, in realistic consideration of the climate of the time, usually wrote his prophetic quatrains in a somewhat camouflaged fashion to protect himself from accusations of heresy or to avoid political misadventure. His complete predictions were divided into twelve centuries of one hundred verses each, of which many have been lost. But some of those that remain have proved surprisingly accurate, at least if they have been read correctly. [H: Well, that is certainly specific and dependable.] Goethe once observed: "Every prophecy made by Nostradamus between 1555 and 1566 pertaining to then and to today has come true." [H: No THAT cannot be--it can only be assumed according to interpretation, not on factual evidence.] As many of Nostradamus' predictions refer to the politics of his time, it would of course be natural for an observant person like him to make an informed guess that would prove correct (as in the case of today's prophets). It is, nevertheless, something more than startling when a seer of the sixteenth century can accurately and in detail predict events which would take place two to four centuries later, such as the French Revolution, details of Napoleon's career and exile to Elba, events of World War II including the invasion of Europe, the Maginot Line, the initial triumph of Germany, the death of Mussolini, puns on the names of Hitler and Roosevelt, and the use of atom bombs.

A Libyan prince becomes powerful in the West France shall be preoccupied with the Arabs.

While the following could easily be interpreted, if written in our own day, as referring to the troubles of the Shah of Iran and the revolution directed from French exile by the Ayatollah Khomeini:

Rain, hunger, and unceasing war in Persia.
Excessive faith will betray the king.
Finishing there--begun in France.

Nostradamus limited the power of the British Empire, before it started, to 300 years. The peculiar ability of Nostradamus in predicting details of incidents hundreds of years in advance is especially notable in his description of the capture of Louis XVI by revolutionaries and his being brought back to the Tuileries (not yet constructed) and puns on the names of two participants, hundreds of years before their births. Because of the almost uncanny accuracy of some of his predictions many persons, other than psychics, are watching with considerable interest to see what will happen in the seventh month of 1999. Nostradamus also indicates several other possible dooms or combinations of catastrophes at the end of this millennium such as:

The world near its last period

Saturn will come back again, late.

The reference to Saturn is an interesting one as this will be one of the important planets in the planetary alignment of 1982, at which time some modern astronomers have suggested that the influence that the great planets in allineation will have on the molten tides inside the earth, pushing the rocky tectonic plates together, may set off a series of catastrophic earthquakes, especially on the fault lines. There seems to be an incredible reference to tectonic plates in another quatrain:

The fire at the center of the earth

Will make the new city tremble.

Two great rocks will contend

Against each other for a long time

And then Arethusa shall color the new river red ...

One of the most frequently contemplated dooms of modern prophets concerns the rising of the waters of the sea, since climatically or artificially induced melting of considerable portions of the stored ice at the North and South Poles would raise sea levels hundreds of feet. This would have specially catastrophic results for the modern world where so many of the great cities are seaports, and so large a portion of the population is clustered on the coastal plains often only a few feet above sea level. Nostradamus, in a letter of dedication written to his son, Caesar, on March 1, 1555, wrote: "Before the universal conflagration there shall happen so many inundations that there shall scarce be any land that shall not be covered by water . . ." In the same letter he seems again to indicate the present millennium as an end of this "revolution" for humanity:

We are now in the seventh millenary which ends all and brings us near the eighth which is where the great God shall make an end of this revolution...

His reference to the end of the seventh millennium can be interpreted as the five thousand years between the Biblical Creation and the birth of Christ, with two thousand years added to that to mark the end of humanity as we now know it. He is more definite in his letter to Henri II of France when he specifies the signs by which it will be recognized:

There will be a solar eclipse more dark and gloomy than any since the creation of the world, except after the death of Christ. And it shall be in the month of October that a great movement of the globe will happen, and it will be such that one will think the gravity of the earth has lost its natural balance and that it will be plunged into the abyss and perpetual blackness of space. There will be portents and signs in the spring, extreme changes, nations overthrown, and mighty earthquakes.

Another seer of the Middle Ages, who lived before Nostradamus, was known to history as Mother Shipton, specialized in writing the future history of England in couplets. She apparently had an unusual ability to foretell developments in countries that had not yet been mapped by Europeans, such as the U.S.A. and Australia, and even to foretell and describe the use of products not yet known in Europe, such as potatoes and tobacco.

As to the catastrophic ending of the world, she seems to have placed it 400 years after her time, adding certain feminine details for future identification, when she rhymes:

When women dress like men and trousers wear,

And cut off all their locks of hair,

When pictures look alive, with movements free,

When ships like fishes swim beneath the sea,

When men outstripping birds can soar the sky,

Then half the world, deep drenched in blood,

shall die .. .

Mother Shipton apparently claimed that the world would end in 1981 but a publisher of the nineteenth century, republishing some of her rhymes, apparently doctored the 1981 to 1881, thereby causing a near panic until the date was past. [H: But what about "1981"?]

Another strange prophecy of the Middle Ages was that of St. Malachy, an Irish monk who became the Archbishop of Armagh. Malachy's prophecies took the form of a roster of future popes, starting from his time in the first half of the twelfth century and extending to what seems to be the present time. He couched his prophecies in short Latin phrases descriptive of the reigns, origins, or characteristics of each pope, many of them strikingly apt. St. Malachy's roster predicts that the papacy will end with a pope called Peter at a time which, if calculated according to the average papal reign, indicates the end of the second millennium. According to his description of what is apparently Pope Pius XI, there will be six more popes after him before "Peter the Roman" who will be the last and, as the prophecy continues, "the City of the Seven Hills will be destroyed, and the Awful Judge will judge his people." Although St. Malachy died in 1148, his prophecies were not published until about 1595 after they were found in note form in the Vatican archives. Since then, they have often been referred to and their influence may have contributed to a vision attributed to Pope Pius XI (who would, according to St. Malachy's prophecy, be the eighth from last pope) in 1909. While he was holding an audience, Pius XI fell into a trance. When he recovered he declared, "What I see is terrifying! Will it be myself . . . or my successor . . . the pope will quit Rome and after leaving the Vatican he will have to walk over the dead bodies of his priests."

Others among the world's great religions also specify in their traditions a fateful time in their history occurring in about 2000 A.D., which of course would not occur in their traditional country although in years it comes out the same as the Western system of counting time.

In archaeological and other scientific terms 2000 A.D. is often referred to as 2000 C.E. (common era) and B.C. as B.C.E. (before common era) in an effort to render the scientific count of years more religiously neutral inasmuch as almost all national units now use the calendar whose identifying letters hitherto have stood for "Before Christ" or "In the Year of Our Lord." It is nevertheless remarkable that religions and traditions with no common starting point coincide in their prophecies of a date in Western count 2000 A.D. which will signify an end or new beginning of humanity.

For example, Buddhist tradition placed the end of the present world at 2,500 years from the birth of Gautama Siddartha, the. Buddha, at which time mankind will be redeemed by Maitreya, the future Buddha, and Gautama Siddartha, it may be noted, lived 2,500 years ago.

Tibetan and Mongolian Buddhist tradition had long foretold the end of the rule of the Dalai Lamas and a whole way of life after the reign of the thirteenth. This prophecy was fulfilled, as predicted, with the onrush of Communist troops from China.

Hinduism calculates the age of humanity as the yuga (epoch) of Kali, the Goddess of Destruction, and this is the age now drawing to a close.

The force for preservation in Hindu theology, Vishnu, has already saved humanity on a number of occasions, symbolically appearing as a savior in the form of a fish, tortoise, boar, manlion, dwarf, Parashurama (Rama with the ax), Rama, Krishna, and Buddha. He will finally appear, soon, as kalki, a white horse, destined to destroy the present world and take humanity to a different, higher plane. [H: Do you now see what fun and games would come out of an operation BLUE BEAM in the gathering into ONE the symbols of all?]

In the very heart of Asia, in the deserts of Mongolia and the mountain reaches of Tibet there has existed for many centuries the mysterious and mystical tradition of Arghati and its ruler, the King of the World. Arghati is believed by many to be an actual inner world existing under the high plateau in the mountains of Central Asia, a series of huge caverns with secret entrances to the surface of the earth through which ancient tribes sometimes entered and there continued a hidden civilization down to the present day. This underground Shangrila is still believed to exist underneath the Communist-dominated surface and whenever its ruler, the King of the World, makes prophecies the birds and animals on the surface of the earth suddenly become silent. Hundreds of years ago the King of the World made a prophecy which, counting from the time it was purportedly given, falls, as do so many other predictions, within the latter part of the twentieth century.

Men will increasingly neglect their souls. The greatest corruption will reign on earth. Men will become like bloodthirsty animals, thirsting for the blood of their brothers. The crescent will become obscured and its followers will descend into lies and perpetual warfare. The crowns of kings will fall. There will be a terrible war between all the earth's peoples... entire nations will die... hunger... crimes unknown to law... formerly unthinkable to the world. The persecuted will demand the attention of the whole world... the ancient roads will be filled with multitudes going from one place to another... the greatest and most beautiful cities will perish by fire. Families will be dispersed... faith and love will disappear... the world will be emptied... within fifty years there will be only three great nations. Then, with 50 years there will be 18 years of war and cataclysms. Then the peoples of Agharti will leave their subterranean caverns and will appear on the surface of the earth.

It is noteworthy that all the ancient predictions of doom, most of them fixing Doomsday within our own era, concern a mixture of final warfare, earthquakes, tempests, worldwide volcanic eruptions and overwhelming floods. Most of them deal with especially destructive warfare, with perhaps a suggestion that it will be a sign of, or a contribution to, final doom. [H: But has it EVER been different? Moreover, this King of the Earth had best be looked at carefully--King of the Earth indicates HUMAN EXPRESSION, OR, PHYSICAL INCARNATION--OF WHICH GOD IS NOT!]

Announcements of impending catastrophe are now becoming more frequent; they come not only from modern psychic prophets but from scientists of a variety of disciplines. While the prophetic ability of modern scientists has been immeasurably strengthened by calculations of computers, electronic memories, satellites, space probes, and investigative equipment of which past prophets probably never dreamed, it can still be said that they are the descendants and modern equivalents of the astrologers and necromancers of an earlier era.

And, curiously, the conclusions of some of these coincide with the ancient prophecies.

* * *

Oh readers, why do you not stop dancing around on the pin-tops? You will have CHANGES--that is what experience and expression are about. You even test me in your own way to get me to tell you something--in order that you can prove me WRONG--NOT "RIGHT". Only YOUR prophecies regarding self are VALID! Predictions are one thing, "prophecies" are ALWAYS a hoax by their very definition and someone being 80% right doesn't do a thing except validate that they are 20% WRONG. I do NOT tear down these persons--most are simply efforting to share with you the insight of probabilities as they are born of the MIND UNIVERSAL. IF YOU ATTENDED YOUR PREPARATIONS FOR THAT WHICH IS SPELLED OUT AND ACTED OUT AROUND YOU EVERY MINUTE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE--AS WELL AS YOU LOOK FOR YOUR ANSWERS OUTSIDE AND UNTO THE PSYCHIC SOOTHSAYERS--YOU WOULD KNOW TRUTH, BE PREPARED FOR TRUTH AND ACT IN TRUTH.

Are there "things" of another era--another age? Yes indeed, for in your physical conscious expression--you MUST HAVE that which represents and allows a bridging between that which is your illusion and that which IS.

I apologize for the length of this writing without break, but we need to move on with other topics. I don't want to spoil your fun and games, cop-outs or magic moments--enjoy for that is what the experience is all about--but confront the truth of it.

Where would I pay attention? To ones who have made the "journey" and share AND those who respond to physical frequencies in sensitivity to certain sound and light waves.

What do I REALLY think about Nostradamus? I don't. Those games are for YOU, not for me. Thank you.



SUN., JUL. 17, 1994 9:25 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 335

SUN., JUL. 17. 1994

I wish to thank all of you readers who contacted and congratulated Gaye for her accomplishments on behalf of Dharma and E.J. who could not be present at her big day of celebration. "Life is what happens, dear ones, while you are making other plans!" Sometimes it is the unexpected which MUST be attended instead of that which is preferred. I am appreciative to you loving friends who fill in the gaps for one another in their own time of inability.

By the way, there is more to Gaye than that upon which I have focused: She has gotten Gunther around the world, back again and to and fro--in security, along with many others of equal im-portance. I am indebted. This little lady suits her name and I am angered that the joyous term of "gay", as in exuberance, enthusiasm and pure joy in sharing with others, has come to represent diverted behavior of sexual preference. Gaye suits her name as she is a delight and a joy as are precious gifts from our Father. Where Gaye IS, the sun is shining even through the dark clouds which cross each and every pathway. May we please accept her thank-you in this format until time permits otherwise.







432 North Main

Cedar City, Utah 84720



Telex: 49570535

FAX: 801-586-8318


I also thank each of you who have written to James Schroepfer to share appreciation to him for his silent actions in arranging to get John back to his friends and out of the prison of an institution. Much is unfolding and it is NOT pretty, readers, and the trail of deceit and lies runs right back up the line to our old buddies in crime--Green et al.

John has been in contact several times with James who has checked on John's well-being to see to it that he is in good care and contentment. THIS is what is needed from family in love and support--not sheckels which are used for CONTROL.

John still has "confusion" as to details of many things--fortunately the happenings which brought him to incapacity are clear and valid--including his trip to Carson City to meet with George (he drove the car [which also has been taken in theft--a Mercedes] which took Bud, Leon, Eleanor and himself to meet with George). There is great irony in life, is there not? All of these great pains could have been avoided--at least as revolves around MONEY--if George had not taken the GOLD! That, with what other was taken through him and Anderson--would have repaid every cent and still have the reserve of gold in the Institute.

Our people are supposed to roll over dead and do nothing? Oh, I think NOT. To have ALL involved LOSE to suit a man's greed is hardly suitable. John is living proof that injustice abounds--but may we please allow goodness to prevail. John can be reached through CONTACT--until all is secure with his freedom. That should be accomplished this week as the first "freedom documents" have been judicially signed and served. Recovery is the next long, hard battle but that too shall come to pass.


I have a bulletin sent forth asking ones to attend hearings for officer (retired) Jack McLamb. It reads:

JACK needs YOU!



Phoenix Police Department's most highly decorated officer.

Jack McLamb has been falsely charged with impersonating an officer, while wearing his retirement uniform, at meetings where he presents his story of serving the people of Arizona while upholding the Constitution.

It's our turn to help Jack in his fight for his Freedom. Call to see how you can support Jack, and plan to be there!


7TH Street & Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona

Call For The Time or Update of Location: The Foundation Line: Message: 922-2802, Phoenix Arizona.

* * *

Ones in the area of Phoenix have asked about attending. Partly the inquiry comes because of Jack's association with SPIKE, etc.

I cannot answer FOR YOU. This is a patriot who has put his life on the line and undoubtedly needs support. He is the very kind of leader who will make the difference in success or failure of your patriot movement to reclaim your nation.

I do not know what are the regulations regarding uniforms of police departments and whether or not he was flaunting something against regulations. My thrust is and always has been to NOT DEFY THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS--ESPECIALLY IF IT ENTAILS EXCUSES FOR SHUTTING YOU DOWN. GET THE FACTS AND THEN ACT AS GUIDED.

Are there "retirement" uniforms? Are there regulations which CAN hold a court's ability within the law to respond against Jack? I have no information regarding those local regulations. Of course the set-up is obvious but what to do about JUSTICE is less obvious.


* * *

I realize you ones would rather hear about the top of the line players like Mellon, Warburg and the ever-busy J.P. Morgan and, as a matter of fact, the whole of the House of Morgan. But, I think I will let that settle a while longer. Perhaps Mr. Jackson would like to elaborate on some of these players and save me the time. You will have to understand that such as Mellon were early-on members of THE Committee and I don't want to spoil or scoop original information.

You might find it interesting at this point of some effort being made to get the U.S. (and the world hopefully) onto, or back onto, the gold standard that in late 1924 or somewhere around that time, Andrew Mellon was Treasury Secretary. He said that "Washington" approved of J.P. Morgan and the New York Fed HELPING BRITAIN TO GO BACK ON GOLD. Will coincidences just never cease?

I would like it here understood that J.P. Morgan was and is one of the most ruthless "business" men ever encountered. He was the major HELP of Nikola Tesla toward his DESTRUCTION. Did Morgan hate or despise Tesla? Neither--he simply would do anything necessary to maintain his own POWER and wealth. He allocated the "radio" to Marconi when it was Tesla's but then, didn't everything that Tesla offered--get usurped? Well, Tesla IS YET TO HAVE HIS DAY! So be it.

Now, I want to share some "gotcha" fun with you readers who think I just bring doom and gloom and always let the bad guys win. THAT is not my doing--that is YOUR doing!

From the New Federalist, July 4, 1994:


by Rochelle J. Ascher

June 29 (ERINS)--LaRouche supporters went after Henry Kissinger for treason last week, as the Fat One delivered a speech at Drew University in Madison, N.J. on June 23.

Organized by Drew's new president, Tom Kean (former Governor of New Jersey), the event was the first of a series sponsored by the New Jersey Forum, a group of corporate execs. Attendees were primarily wealthy country-clubbers; few students were there, given the steep admission price. While Henry was being grilled by LaRouche organizers inside, others outside the building distributed almost 1,000 copies of the LaRouche Exploratory Committee pamphlet demanding LaRouche's exoneration.

Kissinger's speech was his usual self-aggrandizement, plus potshots at Presidents Clinton and Carter for the recent successful Korea settlement. Having told the audience he was the person most concerned for the welfare of Rwanda, Kissinger had the audacity to feign concern for Bosnia, saying he had called for a humanitarian airlift rather than sending in ground troops. [H: When you stop barfing, we will continue.]

After two rather mild questions, LaRouche supporter Charles Hughes took over, reading from the treasonous May 1982 speech Kissinger gave at London's Chatham House, in honor of the 200th founding of the British Foreign Office. In it, Kissinger openly admitted that his allegiance to Great Britain predominated over the loyalty to the U.S., while he was serving as U.S. Secretary of State. Hughes lowered the boom: "Isn't it true that you are now and always have been a British agent of influence?" First Kissinger shrieked, "It's LaRouche. It's LaRouche literature!" Then he tried to pull himself together, saying that what he had meant was that our ally Britain should not be isolated in the world.

Hughes asked Kissinger why he and the Hollinger Corporation [H: Remember the "Hollinger Corporation" we wrote about some three weeks back? Please read it AGAIN!], on whose board he sits, are running a British intelligence destabilization of the American presidency. When Hughes alluded to New York's Carlyle Hotel (where Kissinger is rumored to have solicited sex from little boys) the open microphone was shut off.

It wasn't over yet for the Fat Henry, though. As he was brought out, Cloret Carl, another LaRouche supporter, confronted him on his infamous August 1982 "Dear Bill" letter, written to then-FBI Director William Webster, demanding LaRouche's IMPRISONMENT. As Carl discussed Kissinger's role in the frame-up of LaRouche, he crumpled. She attacked him also for supporting the Cairo depopulation conference, saying "THERE IS MORE--YOU HAVEN'T HEARD HOW HE WANTS TO BOMB THE ‘DARKIES'." A catatonic Kissinger was ushered OUT.

An article titled "It Is Time To Destroy Kissinger and His British Masters," to appear in a forthcoming issue of EIR [Executive Intelligence Review], was distributed to all present. Amidst heated debates between students and some Kissinger devotees, the LaRouche supporters were escorted off campus.

* * *

Just wanted to share that bit of good news--note that nobody even hit him with his KGB affiliation--but then, the part of "Britain" to which Kissinger is aligned IS the same thing for all practical purposes.

I want to turn back to THE USURPERS, please. We will take up the subject of:

by Medford Evans, Ph.D.

Western Islands (publishers), Belmont, Massachusetts 02178, 1968.

(The Operators)


Re: The Men Who Rule America. Special attention to: Dean Rusk, Walt Rostow, Robert McNamara, Clark Clifford, Abe Fortas, N. deB. Katzenbach.


That Robert S. McNamara departed from Johnson's cabinet a year before the 1968 election does not alter the fact that he was and is, in a substantive sense, one of the key figures in the Johnson Administration. In his new position as head of the World Bank he will be, as Newsweek observed in a thinkpiece, "...an international official". Realistically speaking, that's what he has been all along. The World Bank position merely makes the real McNamara more clearly visible. Another piece of the World Government becomes substance.

"The President feels," says Newsweek (Dec. 11, 1967), "McNamara is getting a great job--a job in which he can put into effect some of this thinking about Mekong River development and other projects." The reference is to a government-owned power project, similar to our Tennessee Valley Authority, which the United States is financing in war-torn Vietnam. McNamara has been working on the Mekong River and on other developments OUT OF THE PENTAGON. He will now work on them out of 1818 H. Street, NW. Newsweek, like the other news magazines, featured the question: "Why Is He Leaving?" A logically prior question is: Why Was He Ever There In The First Place? An answer to the latter might well imply the answer to the former. The two answers have a common element: To Serve The Establishment.

To write of McNamara the man is difficult. His robot-like facade seems impenetrable. Reporter Clark Mollenhoff in a thick book called The Pentagon has a chapter called "McNamara the Man." That this chapter title is such a complete misnomer--there is virtually no personal information in the chapter--indicates how hard it is to find out what makes this mechanical man tick. Fantastically, his middle name is "Strange". And suppose one did break through the facade? Would there be anything at all behind it? Or is this another of the T.S. Eliot hollow men--hollow except for the programmed mechanism which any automaton must have? [H: Everybody sticking with us?]

It was December 8, 1960 that Robert S. McNamara, then president of the Ford Motor Company, [H: Hummmnnn, "Ford" motor company? Nice name!] was introduced to John F. Kennedy, President-elect of the United States. As it happens, that was the same day Kennedy first met Dean Rusk. The coincidence of date goes further. Robert McNamara had not been president of Ford Motor Company very long. As a matter of fact, he was in the top job at Detroit so briefly as to suggest that it had served as a sort of transfer point for Washington; he assumed the number one post at Ford on November 9, 1960, the same day Dean Rusk gave his first Claremont lecture. Neither exercise was quite so much a trial heat as an escalation of reputation for men not then well known to the public, whom the Establishment had nevertheless reason to want to see in power.

John Kennedy was forty-three, McNamara forty-four, when they met. Neither seems to have been the sentimental type. Each was immersed in a sea of ambitious affairs. The relationship looked simply like a business deal.

Yet it became so closely personal that when John Kennedy's body was brought to the White House at 4:30 A.M., November 23, 1963, the widow was sustained by her brother-in-law Bobby on her left, AND ON HER RIGHT BOB McNAMARA. [H: And is there ever a LOT MORE TO THIS THAN MEETS THE EYE!] When, in March, 1967, the coffin of John Kennedy at Arlington was moved (few knew it was moved) McNamara was there.

These may be private matters that are none of your or my business, but McNamara's publicity build-up, and his public record, are very much your business! For here is the man who has disarmed America! He has done it in a multitude of ways: [H: Gosh, readers, I wonder how much we are going to have to spread around to the world before these blind idiots meet their agreements with ME? I think it is rather fun to unravel the riddles and solve puzzles of power brokers and unseen secret Committees!]

First, he has done it by taming the generals and the admirals. Those he couldn't tame he boxed in or forced out. Walker was first--and worst, from McNamara's point of view. Admiral George Anderson and General Curtis LeMay, being at the Chief-of-Staff level, were handled somewhat more politely, but also, perhaps more finally.

Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara would never tolerate an officer who wanted to win. The only victory he was concerned with was his own victory over the American brass. Of course he was never able to equal in any single encounter his colleague Dean Rusk's feat a decade earlier in getting General of the Army Douglas MacArthur cashiered. But McNamara deflated and defeated so many more United States general officers! He was able to escalate the policy, begun by others at the time of Korea or sooner, of purging generals and admirals who persist in the pursuit of victory.

The officers get both the carrot and the stick. The Establishment can have them cashiered or it can offer them lucrative military retirement with a top spot in some industrial corporation. I shall never forget the earnestness of a brigadier whom I met once in the Barclay Hotel in New York. Too young for retirement but not too young to be thinking about it, he assured me in awe-struck tones that "those people in Greenwich, Connecticut run this country!" I had no doubt of it, but I added that that's what's wrong with this country.


To show what military officers have been up against since McNamara became Secretary of Defense, it will be helpful to look further into the Walker Case. I have read the full investigative hearings and report of Lieutenant General Frederick J. Brown, the Inspector General who looked into Walker's record. The hearings are unpublished, and should be classified (to protect individuals, not security). The hearings would be classified if Secretary McNamara had not arbitrarily declassified them be-fore a Senate Committee in September 1961 in a transparent attempt to injure and humiliate General Walker.

Edwin Anderson Walker, native Texan and 1931 graduate of West Point, having served with valor and distinction in World War II and Korea, was in 1957, as a Major General, the Commander of the Military District of Arkansas, and all Federal troops sent to Little Rock to compel the desegregation of Central High School came under his command. From September 1957 to the early Fall of 1959 few soldiers were more hated by southern segregationists or more fulsomely adulated by ADA-type Liberals than General Walker. But Walker was not influenced by either the hatred or the adulation.

He has a singular sense of duty, and he carried out the orders which came to him through channels from the man who was Commander-in-chief at the time, President Eisenhower.

In the course of the operation at Little Rock, however, General Walker began to understand more fully, through both direct observation and study, how the "Civil Rights" movement, which he had been required to support, was strategically involved with the world Communist enterprise. More shockingly, he came to a realization that Communist influences were felt very widely in the United States Government and the United States military services. In August 1959 he submitted his resignation to Secretary of the Army Wilber M. Brucker. This resignation was rejected, and in October 1959 Walker was sent to Germany to command the 24th Infantry Division, with Headquarters in Augsburg in Bavaria. Here his record was brilliant; as far as official evaluation of his performance was concerned he moved upward from his already high level at Little Rock. Secretary Brucker wrote in the late Summer of 1960:

Dear General Walker: My visit to the 24th Infantry Division in Europe was an inspiring experience for me. I have the deepest admiration for the manner in which you are carrying out your responsibilities.

As late as April 6, 1961 the Chief of Information of the Department of the Army, in the Pentagon, Major General William W. Quinn, wrote:

Dear Ted: One of our basic philosophies is that commanders should tailor their troop information programs to their own ideas and needs. That is why we have followed the progress of your Pro-Blue program with interest and with pleasure.

But unofficial observers in the news media, and observers in the office of the then new Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara took no pleasure in the training program of General Edwin A. Walker, who had actually shown his hand--as far as the Liberals were concerned--when he offered his resignation in August 1959, for he had spoken of a "fifth column conspiracy and influence in the United States" which caused him to "have no further desire for military service." Despite the approbation of Secretary Brucker, and of all officers in the chain of command between the Secretary and General Walker, the decision was made at the White House level, in the jungles of the news media, and in the office of the Secretary of Defense to purge the "Pro-Blue" General, who, it was said, was actually affiliated with The John Birch Society. There was really nothing with which to charge him except his agreement with the general principles of The John Birch Society--i.e., "less government, more responsibility, and a better world", through education of Americans concerning the evils and dangers of the world Communist conspiracy. Ideas of this sort were common in military circles in early 1961 and the "Fulbright Memorandum" was to take note of the "alarming" situation. But only Walker could be plausibly linked with an organization which actually exhorted its members to be Americanist, as one way of countering those who are Communist.

As of early February 1961, when the plans against Walker were pretty far advanced, the general public had never heard of The John Birch Society. By the end of April, when Americans began to learn that an American General in Germany had operated a "Pro-Blue" training program, they had already heard--had just heard--of the "Blue Book" of The John Birch Society. And were conditioned to consider that both the Society and the General were "controversial".

When the time was thus ripe, Robert McNamara had Walker relieved of command of the 24th Division in Bavaria. The date was April 17, 1961, day of the Bay of Pigs--"a hard day at the Pentagon", as Walker laconically observed later.

But from McNamara's point of view it was a day of great achievement. Look at a map of Germany. You will see that Bavaria is south, not west, of the Soviet Zone of Germany (misleadingly called "East" Germany). In other words, Walker's 24th Division was on the left flank of the Red Army.

And, as Secretary Brucker had observed--and his observations would have been available to Secretary McNamara--the 24th was honed to a fine fighting trim, it was armed with nuclear weapons, and it was commanded by a general who taught anti-Communism and Americanism.

The investigation of General Walker produced nothing on which even a kangaroo court could base a reprimand. He was given an "oral admonition", which is not supposed to be a matter of record but was made so in this instance.

McNamara went before the Senate Armed Services Committee September 6, 1961. Walker was out of Germany. But the General was something of a national hero, and was slated to go to Hawaii as G-3 for the Pacific Theatre--a promotion. This "Birchite" General with his appeal to "flag-waving" types throughout the country had to be brought down a peg prestige-wise, if the Secretary of Defense could manage.

He tried. "The only case that I can recall," McNamara told Senator Saltonstall, "involving discipline of any kind relating to a public statement by an officer or civilian employee of the Department of any kind, including statements relating to Communism, is the discipline applied to General Walker."

As Walker told the same committee the following April, "It seems from this that my case is not merely unusual, but unique." The General spelled out for the Senators certain "inequities" in Secretary McNamara's handling of his case. Walker stated:

Under the President, action was directed by Secretary of Defense McNamara and certain of his assistants (including Arthur Sylvester and, reportedly, Adam Yarmolinsky), by Secretary of the Army Elvis Stahr, and by General Bruce C. Clarke, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army Europe, who on April 17, 1961, appointed V Corps Commander Lieutenant General Frederick J. Brown as Acting Inspector General to conduct an investigation and make a report. General Brown's report, reportedly pursuant to its approval by the President, became the basis for my oral admonition by General Clarke June 12, 1961. The fact that I was admonished was published. Two-and-a-half months later, September 6, 1961, Secretary McNamara, in privileged testimony before the Armed Services Committee, released the Brown report, together with other confidential matter derogatory to me.

Walker then listed nine "consequent inequities". Perhaps the most startling was the fact that in this quasi-trial the indictment was drawn and the bill of particulars furnished, not by anyone in the military, or even anyone in the government, but by the publishers of the Overseas Weekly--a sex and scandal-mongering tabloid newspaper--who had long prided themselves on bringing the brass to heel, and who were infuriated when this commander of the 24th Division barred one of their reporters from the casernes area under his authority.

After General Walker had been relieved of his command, the same reporter was to be barred from all Army installations in Europe by the same headquarters which "tried" Walker on "charges" concocted by the reporter's scandal sheet. John Dornberg, News Editor of Overseas Weekly, had told a group of 7th Army staff officers in December 1960: "Well, gentlemen, we have the choice of firing my reporter, or of firing General Walker." Eventually, both were "fired". But the publishers of Overseas Weekly got Walker first, and the only reason the reporter was ever fired was that he was convicted of criminal slander of Walker--in a German court.

To an American citizen, perhaps the most painful thing revealed by careful study of the Walker case is that, throughout, no one in uniform--except Ted Walker--ever presumed to "talk back" to a newsman, whether a smut-peddler like Dornberg, or a brassy brass-baiter like CBS's Daniel Schorr, who bragged in Dallas in early January 1962 that he had "sent him [Walker] back here" from Bavaria.

Doubtless Schorr did have something to do with it. The networks, the wire services, the media are powerful. But neither Dornberg nor Schorr nor a hundred like them could have triumphed over the general officers of our armed services (they have never fully triumphed over Walker) if they had not had--and known that they had--the cooperation of Defense Secretary McNamara.

Another of the "inequities", equally bizarre, was the peculiar responsibility of Secretary McNamara. Of course, the "trial" united in one person both "prosecutor" and "judge", and denied to the defendant the rights of confrontation and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. An Inspector General's investigation is not supposed to be a trial. Army Regulation 20-1 specifically states that Inspectors General "have no power to make legal findings or impose punishment and do not in any sense act in a judicial capacity." What the Inspector General did was find that there was no reason to bring General Walker to trial. The "oral admonition" which he received was itself proof that he had not violated any law or regulation, civil or military, for if he had done so an oral admonition would not have been the proper response. The fact that you and I know there was an oral admonition is itself contrary to policy, for such an admonition is not supposed to be a matter of record.

McNamara not only made it a matter of record, he made "a Federal case" of it--by implying that Walker had been subjected to some kind of trial, and had been treated fairly and justly in the alleged trail. In a show of affected candor, McNamara declassified and quoted from the record of the investigation, and quoted in such a way as to damage Walker's reputation as much as he could--all in a pretense of fairness and openness. Of course, the original reason for classifying the testimony and report was to protect Walker.

We know what the American Civil Liberties Union and other Liberal agencies would do if certain FBI reports were declassified and published. They would scream to high heaven--justly. McNamara released the report and hearing to the public before Walker got a copy. Worst of all, he quoted from it out of context before the Senate Armed Services Committee in such a way as to leave the impression that Walker had violated the Hatch Act--which Walker had not done, and has never actually even been accused of doing. It was a matter of McNamara's innuendo.

What McNamara did not know was the toughness of General Walker, who is a God-fearing man but hardly fearful of men. He cannot be intimidated or bought. Having been "admonished", General Walker was now to be offered a nice carrot. He was given the assignment to Hawaii as Chief of Operations and Training (G-3) for the Pacific Command of the Army--a staff position fully equal in prestige to his line command position in Germany, and a suitable tribute to the success of his "Pro-Blue" training program. Had he accepted this assignment quietly, all traces of his difficulties in Germany would undoubtedly have disappeared, and in due course he would have been able to bask in the sunshine and smiles of CBS and NBC and other news media.

[H: Golly-Gee, wouldn't it be encouraging to realize that there are a whole lot of ones JUST LIKE WALKER waiting to take this nation BACK? Well--GET ENCOURAGED BECAUSE THERE ARE!]

Had he accepted the assignment quietly! Ted Walker knew that if he stayed in the Army he would have to support without reservation whatever lies Arthur Sylvester might dictate. He knew he would not only have to take what McNamara deemed proper, he would have to appear to "like it". He could not like it. He would not take it.

General Edwin A. Walker could have retired--at one thousand dollars per month, and at his age at the time, fifty-two, he could have landed a soft job in a private corporation. Others have done so. My brigadier in the Barclay could have told him. But the retirement pay would have been a string to McNamara, the corporation job would have been a string to the Establishment. Walker had decided to cut strings. On November 1, 1961 he resigned, supremely free of compromise.

I doubt whether it cost General Walker many pangs to give up the thousand dollars a month and the corporation job. But I suspect that one thing did hurt when he resigned from the Army in which he had served thirty years faithfully, valorously, at times heroically--the thing which must have hurt is that his fellow general officers remained fastidiously aloof from his situation. In any social setting where it might be pretended that nothing had happened, the inbred congeniality of officers and gentlemen was unaltered; but in the maze of the mined and punji-staked routes to the E ring of the Pentagon, Walker was strictly on his own--excepting only the good wishes of helpless young lieu-tenants and excluded noncoms.

Confronted with the implacable face of the Establishment behind the rimless spectacles of Robert Strange McNamara, the West Point protective association was simply not of a mind to help him at all.

Not that General Walker ever spent any time crying over it. He recognized that a system which could not protect five star General of the Army Douglas MacArthur could not be expected to protect a Major General. Nor should it have to, really. The military, who in the United States of America certainly are convinced of the desirability of civilian control, can no more fight against civilians than a gentleman can strike a lady. In time of emergency a civilian can act in a military capacity, and at all times a soldier has a civilian status as well as a military one. He neglects it at his peril. What I think Walker saw was that the American crisis today is a civilian affair. The new warfare is not only too serious to be left to the generals, the average general doesn't even know what is going on. The most up-to-date of them think in terms of strategic or tactical use of nuclear weapons--which in fact the present powers will never permit them to use. Edwin A. Walker resigned from the U.S. Army because he knew that it is impossible in the 1960s to carry on the fight for America within the Army. A soldier cannot talk back to a McNamara. A civilian can. That is why General Walker chose to become Mister Walker.

At the conclusion of his prepared statement before the Stennis Committee in April 1961, Walker said in measured terms:

...as a division commander in Germany, I came into conflict with the real control apparatus, and was removed from my command and admonished.

I cannot explain all that happened. I did not run afoul of the Regular Army system of control. I was in high favor with ostensible military authorities. Yet I was obviously very much out of favor with the real decision-making apparatus. The sticking point seemed to be that the apparatus will not permit an Army division to be commanded by a persistently militant anti-Communist.

My experience and observation indicate that control has been taken from the hands of those legally responsible for it and placed in hands not fully identifiable, but which operate through the media of mass communication, the U.S. Department of State, and the information offices of the services. In soldier language, the 'PIOs' [public information officers] run the Army. What the average soldier does not realize is the extent to which outside media run the PIOs, and unidentified forces run the media.

The full Walker story is yet to be written, the significance of General Walker's contribution to the history of his country yet to be adequately evaluated. There are many of us who have no doubt that his name will acquire luster even as that of McNamara slides into some limbo between oblivion and dishonor. But the thing that remains for this historic moment the tragedy of our country is the fact that the Establishment felt that it could not--it did not have to--tolerate even one General Walker in the uniform of his country--for he persisted in thinking of it as the uniform of his country.

So little is known of Robert Strange McNamara, so much may be conjectured. The biographical data are sparse--the explanations all controversial. He was born June 9, 1916, in San Francisco, graduated A.B. from Berkeley in 1937, from Harvard two years later with a master's degree in business administration. McNamara is married, has three children, has been a seaman in the Merchant Marine, served as a noncombatant in the Air Force in World War II, worked at the Ford Motor Company fifteen years, ending as company president for one month, and was United States Secretary of Defense seven years, a longer period than any other man since the office was established.

Nothing McNamara is known to have done explains what he is known to have done. Why would an education shared by thousands, an experience shared by other thousands, why would accounting work--team accounting work, statistical control--and a successful managerial career in the Ford Motor Company lead a man to want to disarm his country? And to disarm it not from the vantage point of a pacifist soapbox, but from the privileged sanctuary of the chief custodian of its arms?

* * *


May you be given to ponder these things most carefully. Salu



MON., JUL. 18, 1994 9:58 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 336

MON., JUL. 18, 1994



Who in the world are Duggah and Hatonn? You, I hope, are asking. I don't know either but I shall point out a couple of things to watch for along the lines of the next writing--especially that which is between the lines for it will show up right up front that neither the person, nor the energy claimed, has studied very much of any of "our" information--good or bad. Remember, George Green told the world (everybody in earshot or on radio receiving waves, etc., that "Hatonn moved with him and Desiree to Nevada" and he, too, was receiving.

Now, comes this writing from "Duggah" as PROOF of Green's statements that the one in Tehachapi is some kind of nerdnick receiving from an unknown energy form. I am going to point out to YOU what it is you do when you hold such documents. Greens are now sending this message from someone called Hatonn to someone called Duggah. Truth and perception in truth are the SAME from any speaker or receiver--so, I want you to measure that which is offered against that which is documented and KNOWN. And, why would this unknown speaker reserve the information FOR THE ONES WHO ARE IN THE BATTLE?

How do I know that this "may" be true? Because the writing was sent to here from one in Florida who has been badgered constantly to join Green in the pull-down of the Institute--and who, by the way, would suffer great damage from such doings.



How can you tell if "Hatonn" is ME? Well, that is easy for "me"--but perhaps not for YOU. The reason? Because I am here and I have a style of writing and this does NOT match either my style OR THAT WHICH I KNOW. How can I tell "right off'? Because the "answer" is not in response to THE QUESTION and the answer given refers to ME when the "authors" in point--ARE NOT ME, never were and are part of the confrontation in the first place. THESE are the points you look for, glean the truth and discard that which is false. So, let us give the writing a go-over and see what is there. Why do I take time to do this? Because I am asked by S.Y. to do so and comment and she is dear to me.

As is typical of such types of writings and writers there is no information as to date of writing, time of writing, author, receiver (other than Duggah), etc. This is fine for the ones who are familiar with all this information but to comment on something which may have come yesterday or ten years ago is of importance. So, we will have to do some "assuming" which is usually a bad idea. However, since it does serve George Green so nicely--it must be recently written for it refers to the problems present in encounter as well as is being used to foster support for Green's position as regards US&P. It does not, however, SEEM TO REFER TO THE GOLD GEORGE THIEVED OR OTHER SMALL INSTANCES SUCH AS THAT! Therefore, you can deduce up front that the response does not fit the question in point -nor bring in the whole of the information of FACTS relative to the represented response, if it be valid. Indeed I WILL nit-pick along the way because, until you can judge such writings and discern purpose of such receivers--you CANNOT realize that which is valid from that which is not.


I am Hatonn. I come to you in Light and in service to the One who is All. Thank you, Duggah, for allowing me this opportunity to share with you. I am available to all who inquire of me for the sharing of information and awareness.

I am asked about the validity of the information coming from one who claims to receive from me in Tehachapi, California. Yes, the contact was initially a valid one. However, when the receiver first opened up to receive my energy, many psychological issues arose that she needed to confront.

[H: Alright, the question is: "validity of the information". WHAT INFORMATION--there are well over 25,000 pages in journals and another 20,000 pages in CONTACT (separate) and thousands of pages written before journals--by hand, along with probably 3-4 thousand HOURS of taped material. WHAT INFORMATION IS REFERRED TO? ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY "US" (NOT JUST ME) THROUGH THIS RESOURCE IN SOME SIX YEARS. WHAT INFORMATION DOES THIS ONE ATTACK? HOLD ON, IT WILL BECOME QUITE EVIDENT, VERY QUICKLY.

By the way, this receiver and that receiver and whichever receiver is VALID--EVERY TIME! So the point is never about the receiver--it is only about information and speaker. ALWAYS!]

First among these was the Ego. The Ego believed this experience to be an exciting one, but also one of which she was not worthy. If she had been strong enough in her own being at that time, she would not have had to look to the outside for validation and confirmation.

[H: Oh? Strong? Does this speaker and receiver question STRENGTH? SIX YEARS OF HELL AND THE TOTAL STRIPPING OF EVERYTHING AND STILL WE CONTINUE THIS SPITTING IN THE WIND--AND WE SPEAK OF STRENGTH AND EGO? This foolish observation, without knowledge or wisdom, embarrasses me and might well embarrass the entities in point. It reminds me of one who came to visit this place some six years ago and said: "I, by God, and going to do God's work but, by God, I am going to do it MY WAY!" Is "this" the kind of EGO "strength" to which this writing might refer?]

From her belief of unworthiness, a separation was created. My energy cannot be fully received on your level unless the receiver feels worthy of it. [H: Well, I guess this one in point feels pretty "worthy"--but I guess I don't so she/he better stay with what is there because in the end he/she is going to be left flat abandoned! I shall not stoop to further games on semantics--"he" has been accepted in the English language to suit either gender in writing--therefore I shall refer to Duggah as "he" with no offense intended to that "ego" involved.]

In the gap formed by the separation [H: Separation? Separation from what? By the way, uneducated ones--no physical expression can FULLY RECEIVE ON YOUR LEVEL any total energy form of etheric beings from Creator dimensions. If you THINK otherwise, that is part of your erroneous understandings. That does not mean you are lesser--only not grown in understanding and insight in your consciousness. I would NEVER ask any "secretary" to bear responsibility for FULLY RECEIVING MY ENERGY--what kind of stupidity would THAT represent? If I be the "teacher" would I do that to my "student"?] a psychological construct formed that normally could serve as an intermediary for contact between myself and others from your dimension preserving the integrity of each existence and serving further as an energy transformer. [H: Say what? Psychological construct? What in the world is that? Serve as an intermediary? Is it not your reliance on so-called intermediaries that has gotten you into this lack of responsibility in the first place? Why would Dharma need an intermediary? She is the first one to resign her job every day of her life—because it ain't so great, good friends! Now this "party" tells us that an intermediary between me and her "warped" lack of normalcy would serve as a transformer of some kind. Yes, I think so--transformers transform--from one thing TO ANOTHER and that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME--TRUTH IS OFFERED AND IT IS TRANSFORMED!!--TO SUIT THE NEEDS OF MY ADVERSARY!] If the receiver is clear within his or her being they would normally pull in my energy behind, so to speak, that of the intermediary. [H: Boy, this one "Duggah", "Hatonn", and Green would really like that wouldn't they?? I think it becomes obvious WHY GREEN didn't send this directly to ME or to Dharma! You see, you can always further JUDGE situations by how they are handled--don't take it to source but anonymously scatter the gossip. You have to understand that the information arrived to S.Y. without name but FROM BOZEMAN, MT--AND ALL OTHER SCRIBBLINGS AND DATA, INCLUDING THE ENVELOPE RETURNS, SHOWED IT TO BE FROM AMERICA WEST SOMETHING OR OTHER. THE ADVERSARY ALWAYS WORKS WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION! OR IN THE LIE AND SECRECY OF HOPED-FOR SECURITY OF DARKNESS. The intended meaning in this statement above is that the true entity would have transformation of information through that intermediary! I THINK NOT, READERS--YOU DON'T NEED AN INTERMEDIARY--YOU ONLY KEEP THEM AROUND TO ABSOLVE YOU OF YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY--i.e., "The Priest told me...!"] The intermediary is literally a combination of our energies and in this case has taken on a "life" of its own.

[H: Perhaps I misunderstand? Perhaps he is saying Dharma has created an intermediary? That couldn't be because he also states that there is "separation" and information is becoming somehow "transformed". But we will see later that the only subject in point as to information regards Mr. Green and WHY Dharma has a lawsuit from US&P. The fact that Mr. Green was FIRST listed, and still is, on the suit--seems to be overlooked by both this energy and receiver. Should a "speaker" be so ill informed while throwing boulders at another?]

Unfortunately, the intermediary can grow and become "addicted" to physicality. It will tend to form a secondary personality that becomes stronger and stronger until I am unable to be reached unless there is a window of some sort. [H: To you who know Dharma, this needs no comment!]

In essence, the intermediary is like a child and truly is the product of myself and the receiver.

[H: This cannot be truth--for I am NOT a child--in singular energy OR combined! Dharma may be that which she chooses--in her off-duty time.] In this case, it appears to be me [H: Doesn't appear to me to be "me".]; in other cases, it can appear to be either and/or both myself and the receiver. [H: Does this mean there is also total stupid chaos on the higher-teacher levels of perception? Appear? Other cases? TRUTH IS CONSISTENT AND INFINITE--TRUTH STANDS AND THE FALSE WILL GIVE AWAY ITS FALSENESS--IT NEEDS NO AR-GUMENT NOR DEBATE. TO MAKE ACCUSATIONS AND ESPECIALLY PERCEPTIVE ACCUSATIONS IN ABSENCE OF ALL FACTS SHOWS THAT STUPIDITY QUITE CLEARLY--DO YOU WANT YOUR TEACHERS AND LEADERS TO BE STUPID, ERRATIC, CHANGING IN THE WIND AND MORALLY CORRUPT? Do you see that we are already a long way off the subject of the question in point--is INFORMATION GIVEN through Dharma VALID? NOW, let me present you with another thought--"If Dharma's information was invalid, which it is not, regarding Green, US&P, etc., why would the proof in documentation PROVE that Dharma is not the one who is invalid? Further, will Dharma's opinion of one George Green, US&P or Hatonn--make any difference in the TRUTH OF INFORMATION WHICH FLOWS FROM HERE AS REGARDS THE MISSION TO YOUR PLACE AND SPECIES?

For instance, if I tell you that the circuits to one of the largest metals dealers in the world were locked on Friday and today--is that an opinion or a fact? Check it and see--that is exactly what happened on Friday and today. What might that indicate? Disaster, frozen prices, change in currency evaluation, what, what, what? Well, there are lots of possibilities and if you are a regular reader--YOU WILL KNOW WHAT THEY ARE! THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DHARMA, DORIS, DUGGAH, GREEN OR PURPLE PEOPLE EATERS!]

...This ultimately created a distortion in the reception and has limited the knowledge received to that obtained by the receiver from other sources or from the initial contact with myself. [H: Upon what basis of KNOWLEDGE does this energy or receiver DARE to foundation such garbage? Reread the above. How would either the energy OR the receiver above have any notion as to what happened in the mind of one, Dharma/Doris and me--another energy? From what source of educated, scientific realization COULD such a party, who knows not either entity--base such authoritative information statements--not speculate or "may be"--but "ultimately created..."?]

That is why the Tehachapi receiver has been faced with a lawsuit from an entity known as the University of Science and Philosophy. [H: NO, and it is certainly beyond STUPID to infer such a thing--her energy intermediary or transformer or fat little pickle plucker are NOT responsible for the problems with US&P--very earthbound physically produced STUFF is the reason--and validity of information OR psychic anything has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!] She was given the choice at the time to recognize that her contact was with the intermediary and not with me. Instead of facing that responsibility, she chose to blame the publisher of her material.

[H: If you readers don't see this one--then blindness is a hopeless handicap ye shall have to share. Firstly, the "authors" of the volumes of magazines in dispute WERE NOT "ME" (TRY "Russell" or "Germain" or...). Secondly, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PUBLICATIONS AS A PUBLISHER? Thirdly, DHARMA, DORIS OR ANYONE AROUND HER HAS NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING FOR THE PUBLICATIONS OF THAT PUBLISHER. Fourthly: The publisher got permits and information from OTHER authors of material--why suddenly did he fail to cover US&P? He claimed to be a good buddy of the President of that entity and SAID IT WAS OK TO USE THE INFORMATION. This could go on and on--but still does not take up the theft of the gold by Greens nor the other criminal activities worked out with such as Anderson, et al., OR address the real issues in point of his AGREEMENTS with US&P SEPARATE AND APART from the other "minor" named defendants in the original suit. It does not address how he made claims all about the globe that he had the books released TO HIM from the court and even got the poor attorney into trouble. It doesn't cover the other 95 volumes of writings--nor the ones through the first 50 some odd in which HE SHOWS AMERICA WEST COPYRIGHTS!

Do these documentations abounding--REALLY indicate that Doris has no possible reason to suspect that perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Green might just have done something rather unsuitable? Dharma WRITES and sometimes SPEAKS--FOR ME AND SOME OF MY COMPATRIOTS--so does Mrs. Green (or claims to do so) and so did Mr. Green indicate nationally that "Hatonn speaks to and through me and came with Desiree and me to Nevada!"

The writings here are turned into published form ONLY as magazine periodicals and newspaper--validly licensed and operating under the rules and regulations of news reporting--which means that no KNOWN LIES ARE PUBLISHED AS TRUTH! It is mandatory, further, to NOT use the hypothetical blitherings of some bodiless, vapor-trailed entity form--when truth of prior publication and fact is present! You want NEW REVELATION? THEN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE--THAT IS NOT MY JOB NOR INTENT! I personally hope that Mr. Green sends this writing of Duggah's off to everyone on every mailing list in the world mailing system--it can only HELP OUR CAUSE OF TRUTH!]

I have the utmost compassion for the receiver, but at this point, I can no longer allow her to state truly that the material she is receiving is from me. [H: Which receiver? No longer allow WHO to state truly that the material she is receiving is from me. Most of the information printed here with Dharma, is gathered right off your place--I just pick it out and comment! I guess "I" don't share the totally "unconditional compassion" of that other entity--for I will allow her and it, or him and it, to write anything they wish--for they ONLY MAKE MY POINT! I only suggest you get background on all information and THEN make decisions of YOUR OWN. This is obviously NOT worthy of further time wasted.]

I hope this answers your inquiry satisfactorily.

I am Hatonn. I take your leave in the Love and Light of Truth. [H: Well the old boy could have saved a bit of face by taking "his own leave" in love and light of truth---but "take your leave"? Ah it is always the little things that will spring the trap, readers!]

* * *

Yes, I could go on about this into volumes--but you are big kids now and must come into your own adult discernment. We have given you ways of measuring all things against that which God Creator offers as guidelines--but YOU have to shoulder your responsibility of all background work and thorough investigation. Anyone basing anything on one page of written answer to such narrow and foolish inquiry which has no basis, no names, no dates--nothing--is foolish at best.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to your inquiries--you who have received the paper in discussion. I have no further comments if you will allow me to go back to our important work.

There are so many things taking place right now as to boggle the system and they must be attended, watched and more background on players and the game, poured in.

Now what do you want in my comments about Green? His actions, too, speak louder than ANYTHING I could possibly say. John Schroepfer and others who have "blown the whistle" on Green and "the Plan" to bury John--speak louder than any words could ever say on the matter of integrity and TRUTH! If people will do THIS ATROCIOUS AND BITTER ACTION against a literal brother--what think you they would do to retain gold and secrecy of their actions? Yes, it IS bad--but it has been agonizing and HELL for John Schroepfer locked away in WORSE THAN A PRISON--to preserve George's and Eleanor's and associates' assets and plans.

I think you can stop worrying about this speaker or that speaker or this entity or that entity--those in point will give you the answer in EVERY INSTANCE as TRUTH "OUTS"! AND, TRUTH SHALL ULTIMATELY ALWAYS "OUT"!

Can we please turn back to our work in progress? Thank you.



TUE., JUL. 19, 1994 9:59 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 337

TUE., JUL. 19, 1994


This is a valid term and you had better get accustomed to using it, seeing it and hearing it. It is exactly what you are being set up for having on a massive and national scale. The encompassing things will be such as Haiti, O.J. Simpson, the new "Jackson" (Rev.) upheavals and even the "Elders" matter with the son who was arrested for "drugs" and thus and so.

The Simpson matter is taking front seat in publicity but what is happening right now is atrocious. A police officer is being set up as a cause for racial clashes in that case. You can't help but follow the case because a necessary move on the part of the media to precipitate desired results is to offer inflammatory information on cue to precipitate desired actions from otherwise uncaring citizens. At this point it will be basically a black v. white issue and black v. police issue. The fact that all of O.J.'s attorneys at this time are JEWISH will prove to be another focus as the trial continues--it looks like the Jews are on the side of the blacks--but this will prove to be OTHERWISE and there will then become a three-way uprising. Out of this will be possible the passage of "hate-crime" laws because of the so-called "anti-Semitic" elements involved.

It is a BIG plan, readers, and behind the splashing and sloshing of pebbles on Jupiter--you have a major world series of events coming down. Don't blink both eyes at once or you will get "behind" and "blind-sided" before you realize it.

Let me assure you that O.J.'s lawyers have had this information on the officer, Furhman, since upstart so you can be sure there is positive reasoning behind the maneuver now under way.

These riots will not be sloppy half-baked flings as prior skirmishes have been, my friends--this will be "big time", "world-cup" stuff of which WARS are made.

What will your "militia" do then? Indeed, you had better be considering these things--because the "Crips" and the "Bloods" are now WELL-TRAINED KILLERS--no more are they just children without a cause--THEY HAVE BEEN TRAINED INTO A "CAUSE"!

This little message is probably worthy of hot line as we want everyone to PAY ATTENTION! Thank you.


I am so often asked about such as the Pelly Papers and more often, the GOLDEN SCRIPTS. How valid is the information? I think I don't need to respond to THAT particular question other than by offering this presentment:




William Dudley Pelley,

Lawrence A. Brown, No. 7391 Cr.

Agnes Marian Henderson,

Fellowship Press, Inc.


* * *

I will not offer the case in point, here, at this time. Suffice it to say that there, was a Federal Grand Jury convened and an indictment for SEDITION brought against the above named parties and a publication called The Galilean Magazine.

To you who continue to prod and cause CONTACT to act more biased than an ordinary proper newspaper--are asking that the same be brought forth against the very resource of information.

If, in fact, the CONTACT ever digresses or, as some of you prefer, progresses, into seditious acts or insurrection printings, I will be considered withdrawn from any association with same. In that instance, I can promise you that there will be no "Contact" BEYOND THAT DATE.

A Newspaper and Current Information Magazines have responsibility to print what is brought forth, with credits to the authors of said information and if hear-say, is present in the information IT WILL BE SO STATED!

We have had ones who tout that the CONTACT backs THEM in their uprisings and urgings to do this or that. NO, we urge you to get informed, voice stance and ACT ONLY WITHIN REC-OGNIZED LAWS! To gather guns and go march on something is not acceptable to me OR TO YOUR VERY ENEMY AND YOU WILL BE STOPPED. An armed militia IS WITHIN THE LAWS OF YOUR CONSTITUTION AS A NATION. DO WITH THAT WHAT YOU WILL BUT DO NOT GO FORTH AND SAY THAT ANY AT CONTACT ADVOCATE WAR OR ARMED REBELLION.

If articles or writings are printed in the paper regarding such activities it is for information only and will be presented with disclaimer EVERY TIME, PLEASE EDITORS. There ARE ALWAYS LEGAL ways to change a system if you act in reasonable timeliness. Locking the barn door and burning down the barn AFTER the horses have been taken--is of no value whatsoever and if it is, in fact, a confiscated barn--you will be charged and convicted of treason and unlawful behavior. If a barn-tender (guard) is injured or slain--YOU WILL BE CHARGED, CONVICTED AND PROBABLY EXECUTED FOR MURDER!

I do want to offer you the EXACT indictment as it happened because you must see how dangerous it is to walk on the brink of such disaster. LaRouche is another prime example of unfair indictments and convictions--along with his people. Remember, one of LaRouche's secretaries, got something like 68 years in prison for simply being there. JUSTICE is not in point here--THERE IS NO JUSTICE so stop dwelling and time-wasting suggesting that this or that is not just--OF COURSE IT IS NOT JUST! YOU WILL WORK WITH "LAW" AND WITHIN "LAWS" OR YOU WILL BE INCARCERATED AND SHOT OR BOTH!


There is now afoot an attempt to "get the CONTACT” because of the letter of Ronn Jackson to Linda Thompson regarding "insurrection". No thank you, good friends. CONTACT, perhaps unwisely, printed Mr. Jackson's letter--along with an editorial disclaiming any association with anarchy or sedition. A lot of time and attention has been given by this paper and MYSELF to the freedom of Mr. Jackson. This is NOT for the purpose of shutting down the paper, arresting my writer or for gathering a glob of militiamen--armed or unarmed. It was printed because of FREEDOM OF THE PRESS in which all voices of the people can be heard and in result, wise counters and measures can be thought out and LAWS APPLIED AS RELATE TO FREEDOM THROUGH CONSTITUTION! If you want a warrior leader--it will not be me. I am a different KIND OF WARRIOR--I NEED NO GUNS OR SWORDS--SAVE THE SWORD OF TRUTH THROUGH CREATOR/CREATION. Neither do YOU so the only difference is that I KNOW and YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT YET KNOW!

To save precious time and still be able to cover lots of information I ask that Dharma take up with the Usurpers and let us write on that subject a bit each day--these are representative of very important players in the game afoot even if their tenure was "past" in apparent power. These are the tools of the RULERS who often grow to become the RULERS in FACT.

Our last writing on this subject was regarding McNamara and there shall we take up again:

by Medford Evans, Ph.D.

Western Islands Publishers, Belmont, MA 02178.

(TFX: Tactical Fighter, Experimental)

There is one important event in the disarmament activities of the former Secretary of Defense which can just as well stand for everything else, since in it are manifest all the personal characteristics of the man, especially his implacable refusal to countenance the least consideration for American victory on the field of battle.

The event to which I refer is known as the "TFX Scandal", which had been the subject of intensive Congressional investigation, was cut off just as it was reaching a first crisis by the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

"The multibillion-dollar TFX warplane contract was the most coveted prize the Pentagon ever dangled before bidders," writes Liberal journalist Clark Mollenhoff in his book The Pentagon.

Government spending, it was estimated, would exceed $6.5 billion [it was to run much higher] the largest contract for military planes in the nation's history. The program was planned to include more than 1,700 planes for the Navy and the Air Force. Such a contract could mean prosperity for an entire state, and the competition was intense.

Nineteen-sixty-two was the year of decision. There were two main competitors--Seattle-based Boeing, which proposed to build the plane at its Wichita, Kansas plant, and General Dynamics, which in cooperation with Grumman intended to produce the Air Force version at its Convair plant in Fort Worth, and the Navy version at Bethpage, New York. The states of Washington, Kansas, Texas, and New York were politically interested. The first two are hardly a match in political influence for the last two, even waiving the fact that the Vice President was from Texas. But that was something no one was quite willing to waive, particularly in view of Johnson's well-earned reputation for arm-twisting in the clinches. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington, in years gone by one of David Lilienthal's backers on the Congressional Atomic Committee, and more recently active with McNamara in the slandering of General Walker, now, awakening to alarm, raised a quite legitimate question with the Pentagon. Could it be that through Johnson and such, the state of Texas had the TFX contract sewed up and Boeing might as well forget it? He was assured that there was no bias anywhere, the contract would be awarded fairly.

On November 24, 1962 General Dynamics got the TFX contract. One wonders how this could have been, considering:

1) All four services--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps--expressed a preference for the Boeing plane, technically.

2) The Boeing plane was $100 million cheaper than General Dynamics in the experimental phase, and was estimated at more than $400 million cheaper on the total contract.

3) The Pentagon Source Selection Board, a top-level group of generals and admirals, were unanimous in preferring Boeing, both for performance and economy.

In spite of the foregoing facts, Defense Secretary McNamara, supported by Deputy Defense Secretary Roswell Gilpatric, Air Force Secretary Eugene Zuckert, and Navy Secretary Fred Korth ruled that General Dynamics should get the contract. Challenged as to why, McNamara replied, essentially "Because"! The arrogance of this decision was incredible. Indeed, the sheer preposterousness of the thing through shock value, seemed to be a kind of protection. Nobody could quite believe that an allegedly logical man like McNamara would not only make, but doggedly stick to, a decision of such importance without one shred of logic whatsoever to support him. That's what he did. Mollenhoff, in his 1965 book Despoilers of Democracy, tells of his own interview of McNamara, who received him in friendly fashion, leading off with flattering references to Mollenhoff s intellectual capacity. Mollenhoff does have intellectual capacity. He knows when he is getting the run-around. He poured pressure on the Secretary of Defense:

"How will you justify discarding the low bid on the basis of a rough judgment and without cost studies?" I asked.

"I'm a $500,000 a year executive," McNamara snapped back. "I was the second-highest-paid accountant in the United States. I was paid for my judgment on contracts involving millions of dollars. "

"But Mr. Secretary," I said, "assuming that you can make these judgments on multibillion-dollar contracts, do you feel it is good government operations when there are no documented cost studies to justify throwing out the low bids?"

"I know what I'm doing," he snapped, a little angry now. "I was the second-highest-paid accountant in the United States." (pp. 190-191.)

That interview was a good day in the education of Clark Mollenhoff, and he has since done good work in contributing to the education of American voters and taxpayers. [H: Yes perhaps--but look who seems to keep on paying and paying.]

Somebody has done some reading--and thinking. World Bank promotion or no World Bank promotion, Robert McNamara cannot in 1968 say as he did in effect in 1962: "I am Sir Oracle, and when I open my lips let no dog bark!"

The year 1963 was a turning point in many lives, though in the case of Robert Strange McNamara the effect was not yet to be conspicuous. Close-up observers in Washington, such as re-porter Clark Mollenhoff, and a few Congressmen, began to learn with the McClellan Committee Hearings, initiated in February 1963, such indigestible facts as these:

(1) By all the ordinary rules of contractor-selection Boeing won the competition with General Dynamics hands down; the Boeing plane was better, it was cheaper, it was more suitable to defense needs.

(2) Secretary McNamara hardly bothered even to allege reasons for his arbitrary selection of General Dynamics, except (a) to cite his own reputation, and (b) to predict long-term savings resulting from "commonalty" of parts between the Air Force and Navy versions of the plane--a contention in part purely speculative and in part dependent on a degree of similarity between the two versions which resulted, chiefly because of excess weight, in an inferior Navy plane. The Secretary also implied (c) that General Dynamics' higher bid was more realistic than Boeing's lower one! Thus, what might have been thought a Boeing advantage was turned into a liability. The reason McNamara knew General Dynamics' higher bid was actually more economical than Boeing's lower bid was that he could "just tell".

(3) General Dynamics desperately needed a financial windfall; since 1957, when under the late John Jay Hopkins the firm had earned $56 million on sales of $1.7 billion; it had, under placid former Army Secretary Frank Pace, sustained the biggest loss on one project in American corporate history--a loss of $425 million, more than twice as much as Ford Motor Company lost on McNamara's Edsel.

(4) Involved in awarding the life-saving multibillion-dollar contract was McNamara's Deputy, Roswell L. Gilpatric, a New York lawyer friend of Frank Pace. Gilpatric had represented General Dynamics. His firm, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, still did. He had quit the firm he said, but the record showed that he was still carried by the firm's group insurance. When, eventually (1964), Gilpatric resigned from the Defense Department he went right back to the law firm.

(5) Also involved in awarding the contract was Fred Korth, a Fort Worth banker whom John Kennedy had named as Secretary of the Navy when John Connally resigned to run for. Governor of Texas. Odd facts about Korth: He was, in 1952-1953, Assistant Secretary of the Army under the ubiquitous Frank Pace. Though Korth was Kennedy's Secretary of the Navy for nearly two years, his name does not appear in the indexes of Arthur Schlesinger's, Ted Sorensen's, or Pierre Salinger's books on Kennedy. Korth, who plainly knew nothing about naval aviation, overruled his top admirals' analytically documented preference for the Boeing plane, so that he could sign, along with Air Force Secretary Zuckert and Robert McNamara, the award of the contract to General Dynamics. Korth's bank had made a loan of $400,000 to General Dynamics, which loan was outstanding while Korth was deliberating the TFX contract. [H: Doesn't all this smack of things TODAY?]

The foregoing is the merest suggestion of what came out during Senator McClellan's 1963 investigation of the TFX contract. It became crystal clear that Robert McNamara, supported by Gilpatric, Zuckert, and Korth, had arbitrarily, in defiance of every rational indication of the merits in the case, awarded the biggest contract in history to a firm threatened with bankruptcy, having business and financial ties to Gilpatric and Korth, and--of course--having its Convair plant in Fort Worth in the home state of the then Vice President of the United States.

President Kennedy had said that he saw nothing improper in the handling of the TFX contract award--but at the same time he made it plain enough that the White House had not been directly involved, that the whole deal was handled by the Department of Defense.

Hindsight is easier to acquire than presight. In the case of the TFX contract the hindsight available in 1968 confirms the foresight which began to dawn on Clark Mollenhoff, Senator McClellan, and a few others in 1963. For we know now that McNamara's decision was not only arbitrary and unreasonable. It was wrong.

From an abundance of documentation available, I take from Science News of October 21, 1967 an article entitled, "The Flying Edsel". [H: How many of you remembered the fiasco of the "Edsel" automobile? Did you remember that it was McNamara's fiasco? No? Well then, don't continue to ask me why WE ARE WRITING ALL THIS OLD INFORMATION--IT IS BECAUSE YOU ONES DO NOT REMEMBER AND, THROUGH FORGETTING--YOU LOSE THE PLAYERS!] Writes science reporter Jonathan Eberhart:

Five years ago, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara overruled his source selection board and picked General Dynamics over Boeing to build the TFX, a jet superfighter now famous--or notorious--as the F-111. The plane's big advantage was supposed to be that both the Air Force and the Navy could use it. This, said the Secretary, would save at least $1 billion. It hasn't worked out that way.

Eberhart reports how Grumman Aircraft, responsible as a General Dynamics co-contractor and subcontractor, objected to the very concept of "commonalty" of parts between the Air Force and Navy versions--though "commonalty" was the only understandable piece of rationalization which McNamara had offered in support of his otherwise patently bad judgment. The problem was that the Navy needed a lighter plane than the Air Force did--to operate from carriers. But if in the interests of "commonalty" the Navy was stuck with various features which the Air Force wanted, then there was no way to get the weight down to a usable level for the Navy. Eberhart quotes Grumman as writing:

The weight savings achievable... are directly proportional to the permissible reduction in airframe commonalty, [which Eberhart translates]: "This airplane is too heavy and it's going to stay that way as long as the Navy has to worry about the Air Force's design limitations."

Actually, the TFX (Tactical Fighter, Experimental) turned into three planes for production: the F-111A, for the Air Force, the F-111B, for the Navy; and the FB-111, a strategic bomber, to replace the B-52, for heaven's sake! Don't ask why a plane which is already a mess because of attempts to make it serve incompatible purposes as (a) a land, and (b) a sea fighter, is now selected to fulfill also the radically different purpose of strategic bombing.

Meanwhile, all three versions are a continual headache to the military. The Air Force version is apparently least objectionable, but it too has "troubles of its own", according to Eberhart. Its loaded takeoff weight is six tons, or 17 per cent, more than what the contractor had guaranteed. There is a "speed brake" which "vibrates enough to cause buffeting of the aircraft," "improper location of... the center of gravity" has made landing hazardous, and finally--and inevitably--"production schedules have gone completely to pot." The Navy version is at present three years behind schedule--while the Navy's presence in Vietnamese waters is well ahead of schedule. Costs are astronomical. Both Air Force and Navy style F-111's were originally to have come to $2.9 million apiece (an increase of 21 per cent), the Navy version at a cool $8 million each, or an increase in unit cost of 175 per cent! [H: Still can't top that of the little stealth fighter at well over half a BILLION last year.]

There is a law of diminishing returns in pursuing too far a financial and managerial fiasco like the McNamara-TFX-General Dynamics thing, but one more point must be made: Boeing wanted to equip the TFX with a "thrust reverser", for reducing speed for landings. But Robert McNamara said no--too advanced, too risky. We must have a solid, safe, approved conventional dive brake such as General Dynamics had come up with.

Now hear this, from Science News writer Eberhart concerning the Navy's aerial monstrosity

The aircraft's speed brake, a panel that lowers into the air stream from the fuselage, needs strengthening and redesign because it vibrates like a loose shutter, and a device called the adverse yaw compensator does such a poor job of controlling the plane's side-to-side motion that it adds to the already considerable hazards of night landings on an aircraft carrier, from which the F-111B's will operate.

It isn't just a matter of dollars and cents, though dollars and cents are important. We must think of McNamara sitting there insisting that young Navy fliers have got to trust their lives, and the life of every sailor on the carrier, to the unmanageable bulk of one of these General Dynamics creations.

General Dynamics could have been helped financially far more simply, and without great commotion, simply by (1) continuing to produce B-58 "Hustler" bombers at the Convair plant in Fort Worth, (2) continuing to produce Atlas missiles at the Convair plant in San Diego, (3) going ahead with nuclear-powered naval vessels, a program in which General Dynamics, builder of the Nautilus, the first nuclear-powered submarine, could logically have been included. Instead, the B-58 and the Atlas were discontinued, and McNamara made another of his arbitrary decisions to build a non-nuclear aircraft carrier rather than a nuclear-powered one--once more against all the best naval, military, and other technical advice. [H: Does anybody except me see TREASON here?]

Mollenhoff writes, "With all of the opinions and facts against him, Robert S. McNamara made the decision that the United States should not go ahead with a nuclear carrier." McNamara's "Flying Edsel" may have been ordered to please General Dynamics; his "Floating Edsel" could have pleased no one but the Disarmament Lobby.

The chilling significance of Robert McNamara is this: that a dedicated opponent of American national defense could for seven years be American Secretary of Defense.

Admiral Canaris was Hitler's chief of military Intelligence for nine years, and he was also head of an underground plot against Hitler. [H: How many of you remember the name and person of "Canaris"? Well, now, how many of you remember the connection with Gunther Russbacher? So be it! Perhaps you simply can't hear these same things repeated often enough?] Most of us are not inclined to think that was morally so bad of Admiral Canaris. There are plenty of people who think it would be fine if a U.S. Secretary of Defense, sworn to defend our country, should actually think it his duty to help run the whole world in the interests of "peace," and to that end to use his position as a means of destroying armed might.

There are American intellectuals who consider that America is the threat to what they value in the world, and that they are doing their duty if they deliberately weaken America. Is this why McNamara sought more and more power? Should he be in a position of power--in the U.S. Government, the World Bank, or anywhere else?

What McNamara did for seven years--three under Kennedy, four under Johnson--was to use the pretext of economy for disarming America.

Newsweek said December 11, 1967: "Few men have worshiped planning as obsessively as the eighth Secretary of Defense--and few have been relieved of command [Italics added] in such a shambles of confusion." In such shambles of confusion totter and topple the towers of tyranny!

But to think that McNamara has now been "put out to pasture" is to fail to understand the nature of the fields into which he now has been turned. The World Bank is the pilot institution of the Government. Set up at Bretton Woods in July 1944, the World Bank, or "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development", along with the companion institution the "International Monetary Fund", was the first of the UN organizations to be established. The Bretton Woods conference was held two months before the Dumbarton Oaks conference at which was planned the more pretentious but hardly more influential organization that we call the United Nations. The UN had been set in motion under the guidance of. Communist Alger Hiss at San Francisco in April of 1945. Hiss was an official U.S. delegate and secretary general of the conference! The UN was to maintain "peace"--which hardly anybody thinks can really be done. The World Bank was to manage the flow of money in the world--which lots of people think is being done very effectively, though not in the interest of the United States.

Regarding our current predicament, my conviction is that the whole buildup in Vietnam has as its purpose the distribution of wealth throughout the world in such a way as to make that wealth, whether greater or not, more manageable. And whether we have war, peace or negotiations, the buildup goes on.

Viewed functionally and from the offices of the threatened world Government, the Pentagon is subordinate to the World Bank. Our vast military operations are a means of the buildup, exist in order to make the buildup possible. But such a means, however vast, is not to be compared in ultimate importance with the management of that buildup once it is attained.

In the Pentagon, Robert Strange McNamara did the sinister work of so directing the American military effort that a maximum of materiel buildup occurred in Vietnam, while a minimum of fighting which might really injure Communists or help the American national image was allowed to take place. Perhaps his job is virtually complete. The United States has unloaded in Vietnam enough military personnel and materiel to conquer a continent, without accomplishing any military purpose whatsoever. What could have more highly recommended Robert McNamara to the ministers of the dreamed-of World Government!

To aspire to a job formerly held by Eugene Meyer, John J. McCloy, Eugene Black, and even George D. Woods is no mean ambition. Newsweek is quite correct, concerning McNamara, in concluding:

As head of the World Bank, he will technically be an international official, and likely will remain publicly aloof from the war and the Presidential campaign. But there is no reason to doubt that Bob McNamara will some day find himself back in the thick of American public life--perhaps with even more power than he wielded so well at the Pentagon.

There may be reason to think that the head of the World Bank is more powerful than a mere defense secretary of a nation--even "the most powerful nation in the world".

Left-leaning writer Emmett John Hughes shows signs of distress when he writes: And as the din burbles ever higher, a brilliant and weary Robert McNamara prepares to depart from the Pentagon." "[yet] he cannot feel sheer anguish as he turns from Defense Department to World Bank." In fact, concludes Hughes with the wisdom of the heart, "It will be good for him to be back from the dark land beyond the looking glass," and adds semicryptically: "It will be even better when the nation can follow."

Does this mean when the nation can follow its erstwhile Secretary of Defense into becoming frankly and fully international?

McNamara's usurpations in the office of Secretary of Defense are impressive. His opportunity for grander usurpations from this point on will be even more so.

* * *

When we again write on The Usurpers we will take up a person whose name is not so well recognized--perhaps as in "Brzezinski" the effort to learn pronunciation and spelling is too much for most people to handle. So, Katzenbach becomes the the dubbed version and the heinous actions are lost in the effort to pronounce or spell the name of the traitor later. Remember that as in the case of Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski--the names were not originally THESE. The facts are that you the people do not know to whom you owe your debt of gratitude for the loss of your nation, freedom--and ultimately--planet. You don't even know who is Shirley Maclaine (Really), so how are you ever going to reclaim your property? From whom? Mostly you will find that, at the original source, as with the Bolsheviks and beginners of the Communists in Russia--they were all Jewish in origin and simply changed their names to fool as many as they could--IT WORKED!! NEVER FORGET--IT WORKED!! AND, IT IS WORKING AGAIN!!!



TUE., JUL. 19, 1994 1:45 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 337

TUE., JUL. 19, 1994


You continually want to know that which is elusive to you--not that you will prepare and do something--but only from curiosity do you seek--and/or--to know FIRST and show all sorts of wisdom and insider knowing. I won't do your homework--I will tell you this much, you had better find out what ones such as Stichin have written and along with that, what Jupiter is all about! Those are not cattail rocks hitting Jupiter and I can promise you as a species civilization on Planet Earth--that if you fail to bring order and balance again to your globe--there will be a RERUN OF JUPITER. THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE THAT THE FIRST "BIG ONE" WILL TAKE OUT THE EARTH POPULATIONS.

What is being witnessed and VERIFIED BY CURIOUS SCIENTISTS AND READINGS OF THESE JUPITER BLASTS IS THAT IT CANNOT BE COMET FRAGMENTS! Watch those next few "bigger" ones they claim to be expecting! If the atmosphere is not turned into a burning gas-ball, basically representing a new "sun"spot it will be interesting. Jupiter has WATER--why then, are there not vapor clouds? I suggest all of you earthbound energies take note--if something is not changed--YOU ARE NEXT! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO CALL IT.

Please allow us to move on with our ongoing subject in progress.

by Medford Evans, Ph.D.

Western Islands Publishers, Belmont, MA 02178 (1968).



Personalities serving to link the Old and New Left are not easy to find. If they were, it would--in espionage terms--"blow the cover" off the New Left, would reveal it as a stratagem of the Establishment. Yet there are such personalities, and I think I know who a few of them are. Perhaps the most strategically placed is Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach, the Under Secretary of State.

Katzenbach's office is of vastly more importance than the public is likely to realize. Dean Acheson was Secretary of State when he announced that he "would not turn [his] back on Alger Hiss," but he was Under Secretary of State with Communist Hiss. It was also during his term as Under Secretary that Acheson promoted the "Acheson-Lilienthal Report" on atomic energy which laid the foundation for the later psychological nuclear disarmament of the United States.

Dean Rusk and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach think alike on Vietnam; if they seem not to, then one of them is fooling the public; they cannot fool each other.

My own opinion is that it is Rusk who is at least trying to fool the public. His tough talk about Hanoi and Peking does not disturb Peking or Hanoi, for they know that Dean Rusk is, like themselves, incapable of a deep break with Moscow. McNamara used to indulge in tough talk, too, or had such talk attributed to him. Now that he is out, his "dovishness" is admitted. The essential point is that neither Rusk nor McNamara, and certainly not Katzenbach, ever intended to win anything for America in Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson doesn't either. The President's approval of his Secretary of State Dean Rusk is as implicit in the total situation as is Rusk's approval of Katzenbach. Also unanimous with them are those whispered-about powers behind Johnson's throne--Justice Abe Fortas and the new Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. In his newly acquired cabinet post, Clifford is not altogether behind the throne, but his total influence is undoubtedly greater than any cabinet post alone could make it.

What distinguishes Katzenbach from the others in this group, which could be enlarged to include Rostow and McGeorge Bundy, is his relative youth, forty-six, and his comparatively open identification with more respectable edges of the New Left. Writing in The New York Times Magazine, author Victor S. Navasky says Katzenbach's image has been that of a "courageous egghead, a civil-rights activist, an intellectual..." He was a "new Frontiersman and R.F.K. protege". Today, many who once saw that image see instead, says Navasky, a "mindless defender or passive accepter of a tarnished Vietnam policy". Navasky admits that either image may bear "little relation to his real role".

What is Katzenbach's real role? He had appeared to be a link between Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

He has been helped in this role by the transfers of jobs he has had during the Johnson Administration. At the outset, following the assassination, when he performed very crucial services, he was Deputy Attorney General, a position of great importance at the time because of the incapacitating crisis in the personal life of the Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy, whose brother had been the victim. Today, as we have seen, he is Undersecretary of State in spite of the fact that at the Justice Department he had been elevated to the top post.

The job of Deputy Attorney General, however important it may have been in such circumstances, is a logical stepping stone to only one other job, which is that of Attorney General. When Bobby left that job to run for the Senate in the Fall of 1964, Katzenbach was made Acting Attorney General, at Bobby's request. Four months later, in January 1965, Johnson nominated Katzenbach for Attorney General, and the Senate confirmed him. The important thing is the coincidence of Johnson's and Kennedy's shared confidence in this veteran of the government's campaigns against Mississippi and Alabama.

Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach, born in 1922, grew up with all the advantages of a well-to-do and reasonably prominent New Jersey family. Phillips Exeter, Princeton--interrupted by a wartime commission in the Air Force, which in turn landed him in POW camps in Italy and Germany--then Yale Law School, then, as a Rhodes Scholar, Oxford. [H: They just covered a lot of questions in that past paragraph didn't they?] He taught law at Yale and at the University of Chicago. He became a full professor at Chicago at age thirty-four, and with a Ford Foundation grant in 1960 worked at Geneva on a project in international law. Katzenbach was ready to help the Justice Department, the country, and Mankind by accepting in 1961, as a New Frontiersman, the post of Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, from which he moved rather quickly to Deputy Attorney General.

It was as Deputy Attorney General that Katzenbach went to Oxford, Mississippi in September 1962 to command the civilian government forces which overcame the more rambunctious Ole Miss students, assorted rednecks, and a handful of agents provocateurs. It was as Deputy Attorney General that the next summer he confronted George Wallace at Tuscaloosa and participated in the charade which integrated the University of Alabama. Ironically, while Katzenbach and the Mississippians alike suffered losses in the melee over James Meredith at Oxford, both Katzenbach and Wallace emerged with shining armor from the entirely bloodless encounter at Tuscaloosa. Image-wise, Wallace was the greater winner, since no party or faction anywhere has yet promoted Katzenbach as Presidential timber.

Katzenbach has, however, moved the levers of power. Navasky quotes "a prominent Washington attorney" as saying: "Nicholas Katzenbach has one genius, and only one genius. He knows how to handle Lyndon Johnson."

Katzenbach's wife Lydia seems to encourage the possibility. "If Nick were allowed to talk about what he is doing, a lot of our friends would be heartened." When Victor Navasky quotes Katzenbach's wife as making that statement, he indicates in the context that the "friends" in question are "members of the intellectual community", particularly various literary summer residents of Martha's Vineyard who had been upset by what they evidently regarded as Katzenbach's going over to the Establishment. Don't worry, Lydia seems to be saying, good old Nick is either going to sabotage those frightful hawkish plans of LBJ and Rusk--or else he knows that the plans don't really mean what the headlines say anyhow, and in the long run the Viet Cong will be better off for what we are now doing in Vietnam. So don't worry!

Maybe the Katzenbach's know how much truth there is in what an American construction foreman allegedly said at Bien Hoa in Vietnam not many months ago. One cannot imagine that Lydia Katzenbach would not read the December 1967 Ramparts, in which there is an article on Johnson's construction company, Brown and Root, who do lots construction these days in Vietnam. The construction foreman, just drunk enough to be telling the truth, is reported to have said:

We're just building all this for the VC anyway. They'll take it over when the time comes. Already we're paying 'taxes' to the VC to keep our equipment on the road. Half our Vietnamese work force are VC, come to work in the morning half-asleep because they've been up all night shooting mortars, and they steal us blind. But Brown & Root don't care: they'd build bases for the devil himself if the fee was good. (p. 61)

[H: I want to interrupt here long enough to remind you of the highways and other cute construction projects in which the U.S. both participated AND footed the bill. One biggie was in Afghanistan with the Soviets--building a road right to Moscow. Another among the MANY, was the super-road right to the doorway of Khun Sa in Shan (Golden Triangle) of Gritz fame. Yep--right to the palace doors! Your evil empire has built airfields, highways, underground complexes and other unimagined facilities all over the map. And you know what? You continue to wait for the "Fourth Reich"? You have it--some call it the Fourth Reich of the Rich and that isn't a bad label—because no matter what happens with the "top dogs"--all the players get a little richer--except for the slaves and servants who just get KILLED!]

If we Americans were over there really fighting Communism, as Dean Rusk says we are, (while Katzenbach, disappointingly enough, says nothing) then that in the eyes of the New Left would be a frightful thing. But if as a result of our being there the Viet Cong are going to inherit the great civil engineering works on which we seem to be doing so much better, and more successfully than we are in fighting, why then things are not so bad after all, and all the men and women of good will who so thoroughly despise the U.S. Establishment should "be heartened", as Lydia Katzenbach says.

Lydia King Phelps Stokes Katzenbach (Mrs. Nicholas de-Belleville Katzenbach) is a woman from about as pure an Establishment-supported intellectual background as you would ever want to run a file check on. Her father, Harold Phelps Stokes, Groton, Yale 1909 (Phi Beta Kappa), was a distinguished newspaper correspondent and editorial writer who once served as secretary to Herbert Hoover. His older and more famous brother, Anson Phelps Stokes, was an eminent Episcopalian di-vine, being Canon of Washington Cathedral for fifteen years, serving on innumerable boards, writing innumerable educational and theological books, and being cited many times in Appendix X of the publications of the House Committee on Un-American Activities for his efforts during World War II to promote Soviet-American friendship. He had lots of distinguished company, including Henry Sloane Coffin, father of Reverend William Sloane Coffin, now Chaplain of Yale--or should I say NOW Chaplain of Yale.

Lydia Katzenbach has from birth known nothing except the best Ivy League, Eastern seaboard, Establishment environment. Yet, she is something of a revolutionary-from-the-top.

Fortas and Katzenbach, who had nothing to do with the physical tragedy in Dallas, were coordinators of the coup d'état in Washington which resulted from the assassination. To achieve such coordination obviously required a link with Bobby Kennedy--then Attorney General of the United States, and next of kin to the slain President. Katzenbach was plainly such a link. Fortas, older, wiser (probably), closer to Johnson (certainly), recognized Katzenbach's indispensability in the touchy days from the coup d'etat of November 22, 1963 to the election of November 3, 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Katzenbach to a four-man panel to advise him on the execution of the Commission's recommendation.

Of Abe Fortas Current Biography says:

On November 22, 1963, after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Fortas received an urgent telephone call from Dallas, Texas. The call was from Johnson, the first he made after the tragedy. 'Abe,' he said, 'we're flying back. Stand by--I'll need you.' Fortas was at the airport to meet the plane. He was told to act as the private liaison man between the newly sworn President and Jacqueline Kennedy. [Italics added)

Not that there was anything more important than that, but Fortas was to do a great deal besides provide liaison with Jackie. His liaison with Katzenbach was pretty good also. William Manchester, in The Death of a President, gives details:

With the Attorney General out of action Nick Katzenbach was, in effect, Acting Attorney General, and he was proposing the investigative commission which the Chief Justice later headed. To his horror, Katzenbach learned that the new President had tentatively decided upon a Texas commission, with all non-Texans, including federal officials, excluded. Katzenbach went straight to Abe Fortas, the Washington attorney closest to Lyndon Johnson. He bluntly labeled Johnson's idea a ghastly mistake [this is the man whose 'one genius' is knowing 'how to handle Lyndon Johnson'?] From Fortas he heard for the first time that the President intended to release the forthcoming FBI report on the assassination the moment it was ready. That, too, would be improper, Nick argued, and he insisted that the report be channeled through the Attorney General [Bobby] and himself (pp. 458-459, emphasis added.)

It would be logical that the Deputy Attorney General should be a key man in a crisis of law (which was really a crisis of power) at a time when the Attorney General was stricken with a personal tragedy. Even so, Katzenbach's exercise of practical authority seems extraordinary. He insisted that the President do thus and so? Either directly or through Abe Fortas, how could this youngish sub-cabinet officer do that? Manchester has a tantalizing footnote to the passage quoted above: "Katzenbach took an exceptionally strong line on this issue, and like Fortas he played an unknown but vital role in the Commission's investigation." There is so much that is unknown about the assassination and coup d'etat! [H: No, that is not so--EVERYTHING ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION AND COUP D'ETAT IS VERY WELL KNOWN AND JUST WAITING TO GET TOLD! MOREOVER IT IS GOING TO INCLUDE ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY WHO EVEN "THOUGHT ABOUT IT" IF SOME AGREEMENTS AREN'T CONSUMMATED RIGHT QUICKLY NOW, GOOD COMMITTEE READERS. I AM ABOUT TO THE END OF THE MUSICAL CHAIRS AND SOME LAWYERS BETTER GET THEIR ASSETS IN ORDER AND THEIR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT OR NEW YORK MAY WELL LOOK LIKE THE POT-HOLES OF JUPITER. ME DO IT? GRACIOUS NO--I DON'T HAVE TO! I SUGGEST OUR "WATCHERS AND LISTENERS" GET THE WORD ON BACK, LIKE RIGHT NOW. FEET ARE DRAGGING FOR BEST ADVANTAGE AND SOON THERE WILL NOT BE DISCUSSION REGARDING ADVANTAGE FOR OTHER BIGGER GUNS ALREADY HAVE THE ADVANTAGE!

There was the matter of the weird commotion in Dallas over Johnson's taking the Presidential oath of office. When should he take it, and how should he go about it? It would be hard to imagine a simpler legal question. Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution reads: "Before he [any incoming President] enter on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation:" and the text of the oath follows. Johnson was eager to "enter on the execution of his office," as one supposes he should have been. Tactically, he was entirely right in wanting the oath administered at once. The amazing thing is that the intelligentsia of the New Frontier did not seem to know whether he should take it at once, who should administer it, or what the wording of it was.

Katzenbach came up with the answer about the oath. Over long-distance telephone from Washington, he dictated the words from the Constitution to Marie Fehmer, Johnson's secretary, aboard Air Force One, still on the ground at Love Field in Dallas. It was also Katzenbach who told Bobby Kennedy how any one of many people could administer the oath--"Anybody, including a District Court Judge... "imagine..." Katzenbach said, "he'll want Sarah Hughes." (The Death of a President, p. 271.) And he did. The staunch Left-winger for whom Johnson had wangled a Federal judgeship swore him in as President.

But Katzenbach's early activities included at least one pivotal decision more indispensable to the success of the coup d'état than advice about the oath. On Friday afternoon, within hours of the fatal six seconds, a lawyer in the Dallas District Attorney's office prepared, Manchester reports, "to charge Oswald with murdering the President as part of an international Communist conspiracy." When Barfoot Sanders [the real name of the U.S. Attorney in Dallas] heard of it from the FBI he phoned Katzenbach, who persuaded two members of the Vice President's [Johnson's] Washington staff to have their Texas contacts "kill it." (p. 287.) [H: Go read that again because I'm sure you missed the timing!]

A shrewd Yale Law School man like Katzenbach would see at once that no charge must be made of a Communist conspiracy, for that might retard the rapproachement with Russia. But the point was even more fundamental than that. No charge must be made of any conspiracy! For it would be only too credible that if there were a conspiracy at all, especially one tagged with a Communist-connected figure like Lee Harvey Oswald, then it could be easily presumed to be a Communist conspiracy. The Communists within it could be presumed to control it. Moreover, the Communist Party itself is conspiratorial in character, and if any one of its functionaries becomes involved in a special plot then he involves all Communists. Not just the government of Russia, but also all American Communists--Guss Hall, and (more important) Alger Hiss and all the undiscovered but potentially discoverable other Alger Hisses in America. The possibility of any conspiracy must be eliminated!

Law professor Nicholas deB. Katzenbach probably knew as much about the law of conspiracies as did Judge Irving R. Kaufman, whose instructions to the jury in the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, (notorious atomic spies) constitute for the layman one of the clearest expositions on the subject. I think extended quotation from Judge Kaufman's charge to the Rosenberg jury is justified in emphasizing how necessary it was in November 1963--necessary to survivors of the coup d'état--that there be no talk of a conspiracy. Judge Kaufman said, in part:

For two or more persons to conspire, confederate or combine together to commit or cause to be committed a breach of the criminal law of the United States is an offense of grave character which involves a plotting to subvert the law. It is almost always characterized by secrecy, rending detection difficult and requiring much time for its discovery. Because of this the statute has made a conspiracy to commit a crime a distinct offense from the crime itself [Italics added] From the point of view of the law there is danger to the public when two or more people conspire to do something that is unlawful because by virtue of the aggregation of numbers the intent assumes a more formidable disadvantageous aspect to the public.

What is a conspiracy? A conspiracy may be defined as a combination of two or more persons, by concerted action, to accomplish a criminal and unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself unlawful or criminal, by criminal or unlawful means. The gist of the offense is the unlawful combination or agreement to violate the law. As Mr. Justice Holmes said many years ago: 'A conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes.' [H: I might add hereat that all parties to a conspiracy are not required TO KNOW OF THE DIRECT INTENT OF THE CONSPIRACY--one can become part of a conspiracy simply by default or presence.]

However, it is not necessary in order to constitute a conspiracy that two or more persons should meet together and enter into an explicit or formal agreement for an unlawful scheme, or that they should directly, by words or in writing, state what the unlawful scheme was to be, and the details of the plan or means by which the unlawful scheme was to be made effective. [Italics added. this whole passage implies, among other things, that a person may be part of a Communist conspiracy, or of the Communist conspiracy, without ever at any time being recorded or recognized formally as a member of the Communist Party.]


It is sufficient if two or more persons, in any manner, or through any contrivance, impliedly or tacitly, come to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful design, knowing its object, and that one or more of them commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In other words, where an unlawful end is sought to be effected and two or more persons, actuated by the common purpose of accomplishing that end, knowingly work together in any way in furtherance of the unlawful scheme, every one of said persons becomes a member of the conspiracy, although his part therein be a subordinate one, or be executed at a remote distance from the other conspirators. (Printed Transcript of the Rosenberg Trial, pp. 1550-1551, Italics added.)

[H: I would hope that somebody makes Mrs. Eleanor Schroepfer and Leon Fort, along with Luke Perry and other involved parties with Mr. Green--aware that this is the very basis of any problems arising from your activities regarding the "Institute". You demanded, number one, that which was not entered into as agreement by personal entities--but rather through corporate regulations. Then, continued to conspire to destroy a corporation and, in fact, a corporation who was once jointly headed by one George Green. THE LAW demands fiduciary responsibility, under penalty of that law, to act in good faith and cause to defend said corporation. Parties who happen to be in opposition to your "druthers" are bound by those laws whether or not it pleases YOU. Further, it did not end at that point--there was CONSPIRATORIAL effort in mass amounts to keep Mr. Schroepfer from being allowed to have visitation with anyone--in an effort to hide ongoing conspiracy efforts. There has been continued CONSPIRACY attempts to bring the "Institute" into receivership and force bankruptcy--ACCORDING TO ALL DOCUMENTS SENT FORTH IN MASSIVE NUMBERS BY MR. GREEN--NAMING ALL OF YOU NICE PEOPLE IN EVERY MAILING. NOW, IN VIEW OF EVENTS ONGOING--IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED IT IS NOW AN INTENTIONALLY ENTERED INTO CONSPIRACY--AND NOT SIMPLY IMPLIED PARTICIPATION BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE OF ONGOING EVENTS.]

As you see, the Law, which often seems to go after individual criminals like a very sporting flycaster, drags with a seine when it fishes for conspirators. To the philosophy expressed by Judge Kaufman above, which makes it not difficult but easy to prove that so and so is a Communist or any other kind of conspirator you want, we must add the fact that evidence which in other cases would be ruled as hearsay and inadmissible, is in conspiracy cases ADMITTED AS PROBATIVE.

Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach realized immediately on learning of the tragedy in Dallas that not only must there be NO talk of a conspiracy, there must be an official finding that there was no conspiracy. [H: Back to the old assumption: "Until a thing is officially denied, we cannot be sure of its truth." Well, how long has George and conspirators DENIED involvement? Good grief, what is the matter with your attorneys? OR, IS "THAT" WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOUR ATTORNEYS? DO THEY THINK YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH? OR THE LAW??] If a conspiracy were posited in an affair of such tremendous public importance as the assassination of a President, when would the work of prosecution ever end? And who, among those who might have been in any way involved or suspected of having been involved, could ever again rest easy? As Judge Kaufman said, a conspiracy is "characterized by secrecy, rendering detection difficult and requiring much time for its discovery." [H: Sort of like burying the gold in the back yard?] The other side of that coin is that much time and great effort would be devoted to its discovery. There is no statute of limitations on murder, and people would never become bored with the murder, and the implications of the murder, of President John F. Kennedy.

Prevention of an indictment in Dallas referring to an "International Communist Conspiracy," which the sensitive William Manchester calls a "canard", was for Nicholas deB. Katzenbach only a preliminary to getting the Warren Commission established. There is much that is obscure about the birth of this Extraordinary Commission--its parentage, the midwives, and so forth--but one thing is certain: Katzenbach was in the obstetric ward when the Warren Commission was delivered. Little else could have made him so nearly indispensable to the Johnson Administration. New Leftists who do not understand this and who attack the Warren Commission do not understand very much.

* * *

Let us interrupt here and take up at this same topic point when we next write on this subject. Thank you for your attention--I hear you, it is "finally" getting interesting! So stay tuned. Salu.



WED., JUL. 20, 1994 9:31 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 338

WED., JUL. 20, 1994


Dear friends, I have to take up another subject before we can get at our work today. No, I am not angry and I do wish I had a hookup to every "personal" ear--but I do not--THROUGH DHARMA.

We sit to our work and she is devastated--absolutely swamped in questions, inquiries about this or that--and "ask Hatonn..."--NO! Her job is to write for me for 6-1/2 BILLION people and the evolution of the greatest cycle uniting of a planet. She types hours and hours EVERY DAY and has meetings "for me" in between. She has no life at all to call her own, no property and no corner on answers to her own pleading inquiries even as to how much longer can she continue this pace and output.

There are some 150 letters sitting to her right directed TO HATONN awaiting responses, a paper to write, a journal to finish, a meeting scheduled and a Court appearance tomorrow morning.

The letters which have her so upset in postponement and the inquiries in behalf of, and personal pleadings for direction and purpose are too much, readers. I can accept them all--SHE CAN NOT! What is painful, however, are the continual prodding’s and disappointments of: "I'm not getting any feedback from all my inquiries..." How do you expect the information to flow in response to your inquiries? Ah Ha! I thought so--THROUGH HER FINGERS??? It cannot longer be that way. Dharma is still "...and I'm waiting and seeking for my purpose...surely I'm not to just forever be a secretary!"


We will offer whatever we have and can share--we CAN DO NO MORE--do you all understand? The hazards of even commenting on "treatments" or possibilities--especially without having more than second or third hand inquiries is ludicrous. If you wish to confer with other holistic or brothers in the same line of healing--please do so--I AM NOT IN THE LOOP PLEASE! This is NOT an offense, please--we are going to follow regulations which honor whatever laws (right or wrong) are thrust upon us at ALL TIMES. YOUR inquiry answered--may well put Dharma into prison!

Neither can I respond to each of our readers with an outlay of YOUR PURPOSE OR NEXT DUTY! I can't, either, set aside EIGHT years of work on a motion picture already in another's charge--to fit a sudden awakening of someone elsewhere who would like to now work on Sipapu Odyssey.

I CAN tell some of you who continue to plead and prod for personal direction and input, instructions and placement: This is NOT the answer point--everyone here is buried in work and there are NO FUNDS AVAILABLE to hire help. Volunteers are NOT THE ANSWER for I have yet to have more than a mere few who can ACTUALLY attend themselves without support from other sources. I cannot attend your talents--YOU MUST ATTEND YOUR TALENTS--EXPERTISE COMES ONLY WITH EFFORT TOWARD THAT ACCOMPLISHMENT--IT DOES NOT FALL UPON YOU LIKE RAIN FROM THE HEAVENS!

Would you believe me if I tell you that most of you who inquire about sickness and healing have the answer in your cupboard?

But you have to utilize what is available. I have people over and over say "...well no--I don't use it regularly" or, "well, it didn't seem to do much and I used $25.00 worth of it..." and thus and so. Then you want some OTHER magic. No, THERE IS NO MAGIC HERE! If you are taking your Gaiandriana and other suggested supplements along with cleaning your water with food-grade hydrogen peroxide AND if you are having memory loss and other signs of aging, some added B-12 and a B-supplement emphasizing Niacin, then I can only suggest one other thing. If this is accompanied by "arthritis" or "rheumatism" take some added zinc--hopefully balanced with the proper amount of magnesium necessary for utilization. Then, add a tablespoon of CIDER vinegar to a glass of water or Gaialyte three times a day. Carbragaia would make up that difference but I understand the producer doesn't have any yet. Neither do I know what in the world happened to the cartilage supplement. A whole bunch of innocent sharks are meeting their doom waiting for you to get going, producers! This should have been available months ago. I cannot push harder--for one reason, the products have carried the paper and allowed for remaining in operation. I will ask no more of these people. Distributors of other products and supplements and even to make-up these new products (especially, I should say) REQUIRE FUNDING UP FRONT--A LONG WAY UP FRONT AND IN TOTAL! THERE IS NO SLUSH FUND TO COVER THIS!


Some of you write and pray and give all to me, Hatonn, of self, direction and service. NO, NO, NO!!!! Do not dump your responsibility off onto me for I will not accept it! My purpose, my mission and my Command is in the service of God and unto you I am commissioned to BRING THE WORD. YOU WILL CHOOSE OF YOUR PATHWAY AND YOUR JOB!


I know that, especially if you have read ALL of the journals and papers, that you are informed. Let's see. Without looking back, name the SIX persons I asked you to look for in the current ongoing writings about the usurpers.?.? Do I make my point? Dharma had to take this test just now--and even being the WRITER for me--could not name them. How can you expect to serve as my right-hand if you cannot even remember the names of players--and these are but small-fry players. I'm sorry--GRACE may shower upon you in an instant in glory--training and learning, education in knowledge DOES NOT! The heart and soul may find a burst of insight and understanding--but the physical tasks at hand must be attended by the knowledgeable in THAT task. To announce you want to be a "cameraman" in the movie or direct the show--when you don't even know the component parts of A CAMERA--is ludicrous. If you REALLY want to be a cameraman--GO LEARN EV-ERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND BE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. WALLY GENTLEMAN HEADS OUR MOTION PICTURE PROGRAM BECAUSE HE IS THE BEST AND UNDERSTANDS HIS TASK--IF NOT EVERYTHING (OR EVEN ANYTHING) ABOUT THE REST OF THE JOBS.

Right now, because some ones have been involved in various tasks consider that they are now IN CHARGE, either of funds, business acquisitions, etc. NO--IF YOU THINK I WOULD HAND OFF RESPONSIBILITY TO ONES WHO CAN'T FIND THEIR WAY OUT OF A LOCKED CLOSET--DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK I WOULD TURN OVER THE EVOLVEMENT NEEDS TO THEM? "WE" only have need of a PORTION of that which is to be made available and that, even, seems to be more than the usurpers wish to share even with the AGREEMENTS already established. I don't care if you are HEAD of the CIA--you are not in CHARGE! I HAVE BUILT MY FOUNDATION UPON WHICH I CAN BUILD OUR NEEDS--I DO NOT APPRECIATE PARTICIPANTS CONSIDERING IT THEIR DUTY TO TAKE OVER ANY PART OF SAME. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.



George Green continues to refer to ones here as a CULT--well the nearest there was EVER to a cult was when George Green went on a circuit pushing UFO connections. Those people, and Green, ARE GONE!

If we have a meeting, which we often do and it is other than a mere BUSINESS conference, visitors are welcome--no charge, no donation and no sign-in sheet. We are continually misrepresented by this--but confound it, we have friends in you readers who want to come to visit--and you shall always be welcome. Our enemies usually go forth and cause some immediate discomfort but there is never foundation upon which to base foolish claims or statements. We hide nothing for there is nothing to hide.

However, until you STOP considering the immediate workers as some sort of group-body then neither will our enemies. Ones of you in New Jersey are every bit as much a part of this GROUP as anyone here! Just because a man works for, or reads, The New Yorker magazine, does this make him a member of the New Yorker CULT?

We like everybody--red, yellow, black, brown, white and especially do we like purple and green people. We even like Baptists and Lutherans--although they don't like us much because I teach GOD'S LAWS--NOT MAN'S INTERPRETATION OF GOD'S LAWS--BUT, I DON'T INSIST YOU FOLLOW THEM!


Please, do not stop writing with these questions or offering input on subjects as it unfolds to you individually or from another. It is through the sharing that we grow and learn. I will answer every question as we can do so--or I will tell you why I cannot or will not do so--as we share together. I cannot ask my scribe to individually respond to each and every personal inquiry. If it can be shared openly--thank you. We will always protect privacy. I even honor the reason and need of you to write to me through Dharma for it often helps to simply put a thought to paper and EXPRESS IT. You will usually have answered your own PERSONAL question if you will but go back and REALLY read your own letter to me.

YOU are THE CREATOR of your "future" and your "pathway"--not I. As a friend I can help in understanding--but little more. If your desire has moved from service unto God to service unto Hatonn--it is incorrect direction and I DO NOT ACCEPT IT! WE ARE IN THIS THING TOGETHER! I KNOW THE WAY AND I KNOW HOW TO GET THERE--BUT I AM NOT DRAGGING ANYONE WITH ME--I MAY BE WILLING TO PUSH A BIT--BUT THAT INDICATES THAT I AM "BEHIND" YOU!

Now, let us get back to our own work, please.



WED., JUL. 20, 1994 1:16 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 338

WED., JUL. 20, 1994

by Medford Evans, Ph.D.

[Who is Medford Evans? He is a Ph.D. (Yale 1933) was Chief of Security Training for the United States Atomic Energy Commission in 1951-52. He is also the author of THE SECRET WAR FOR THE A-BOMB.] [H: Sorry to be so late in offering this information.]

The Usurpers, Medford Evans, Western Islands Publishers, Belmont, MA 02178 (1968).


Katzenbach understood. He was quick to see that Lee Harvey Oswald, before Jack Ruby made his contribution to history, probably could not get a trial which would stand up on appeal in any court in the country. For the nation had seen and heard so much on TV during those forty-eight hours in which Oswald survived Kennedy that no impartial jury could have been found. Manchester reports that by Friday evening, within hours of Oswald's arrest, Katzenbach "began to entertain serious doubts that any conviction of the suspect could survive appeal." Katzenbach saw that. It was Jack Ruby who did something about it.

After Ruby's work was done, there was no way of bringing Lee Harvey Oswald to trail, fair or unfair. Since he died without having been convicted, he must have been, under the Law, presumed innocent when he died. Immediately upon his death, however, there was little or no hesitation in speaking of him as the "murderer" or as the "assassin". This was not merely journalistic license, taking advantage of the fact that a dead man cannot sue for libel and his family are not likely to do so. The belief that Oswald was guilty, and he, solely, guilty, became an essential article of faith for those in the orbit of the Establishment. [H: How are we doing so far, Jackson?]

A trial in the Anglo-American tradition is a contest of adversaries--prosecution and defense. The accused is entitled to counsel, his counsel has status as an officer of the court, but has no other responsibility than to represent the accused to his greatest available advantage. One assumes it is not to his advantage to lie to the court, but he does not have to testify against himself. The spouse of the accused is not admitted to testify either for or against him. He has a right to confront his accusers, and to have his counsel cross-examine them. And he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the whole original burden of proof is on the prosecution. There are other restrictions on procedure. The system is widely regarded as the fairest application of the Law so far developed in the history of human society.

Reviewing the available record at this time, it is doubtful in the extreme whether the prosecuting attorney in Dallas could, under this adversary system, have convicted Lee Harvey Oswald of the murder of John F. Kennedy, except by appeals to the emotions of the jury and other methods which would have embarrassed any appellate court, including the Supreme Court. Katzenbach's fears were well grounded.

But what could hardly have been accomplished under the adversary system of trying a case might be, and was, readily concluded by a court of inquisition--the Warren Commission. In the United States, so far, an inquisitorial body can try only dead men. An inquisition has many advantages over a trail court--advantages, that is, in reaching a predetermined, and thus unfair, conclusion. They are not advantages from the point of view of the accused. An inquisition may admit whatever evidence it chooses--hearsay, testimony of a spouse, expressions of opinion from any source.

The most damaging testimony against Lee Harvey Oswald was that of his wife Marina, who could not have testified at all if her husband had been alive, but who, since he was dead, was the first witness called by the Warren Commission. Marina Oswald testified to the effect that Lee Oswald shot Kennedy, something she could not have really known, but she was protected by the Warren Commission from cross-examination. Before she went before the Commission, she appeared on television, to say, among other things: "I don't want to believe, but I have to watch facts, and facts tell me that Lee shot Kennedy." After that, the conclusion of the Warren Commission was inevitable as to Oswald's guilt; the reasons he could not be allowed accomplices we have already touched upon.

Marina Oswald was well protected. Chief Justice Warren ruled, after her TV appearance and before her performance at the inquisition, that there would be no "defense counsel"--no lawyer to represent the interests of the deceased, no adversary for the Commission's Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, who had fourteen lawyers for Assistant Counsel plus a professional staff of twelve. Later in the procedures, after Marina Oswald's dramatic first appearance, Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, was asked to keep an eye on proceedings to insure that they "conformed to the basic principles of American justice". He was a very tame adversary, if adversary he was, for he did so little and his name does not even appear in the Index of the Warren Report. Even so, he was not admitted as umpire, referee, or whatever, until Marina Oswald had set the stage for the inevitable denouement.

"The most striking element in the encounter of the Russian widow and the U.S. Chief Justice was Warren's solicitude regarding her," writes Leo Sauvage, who also reminds us that until Mrs. Oswald was adequately prepared for her public appearances she remained in the custody of Deputy Attorney General Nicholas deB. Katzenbach.

It should not be forgotten that the Justice Department of which Katzenbach was the operating chief in 1964, was in substantial control of the Warren Commission's activities, though the State Department, Treasury Department, and Central Intelligence Agency also had a hand in it. These agencies did all the investigative work. The FBI, which is part of the Justice Department, did most; the Secret Service, which is in Treasury, did next most. Abe Fortas, at the time a lawyer in private practice, was the key link to the White House; Katzenbach was the main channel to the bureaucracy. These two, as it appears from Manchester and others, were in effective working relationship with each other.

The Warren Commission, with all the vast machinery at its command, did not want to know the truth, though it must have known much of it; nor did the White House and the great executive departments want the Warren Commission to know the truth.

Author Leo Sauvage has something interesting to say at this point. Sauvage, correspondent in America for the Parisian journal Le Figaro, once stood high in the esteem of the polite Left, having written for The Reporter, The New Leader, and Commentary. He is a talented writer and industrious investigator. But Sauvage had trouble publishing his book on the assassination because his views did not coincide with those of the Warren Commission. His book, The Oswald Affair, was eventually published by World Publishing Company.

As Sauvage points out, had the Warren Commission really wanted to know the truth, the first thing the commission would have done would have been "to reconstruct some kind of acceptable substitute" for all the documents that were not prepared in Dallas the day of the murder. For, the most incredible thing is that there is said to be no transcript of the police interrogation of Oswald between the time of his arrest, Friday afternoon November 23, 1963, and the time of his execution by the lone vigilante, Jack Ruby, some forty-five hours later, on Sunday morning, November 25, 1963. To piece out such alarming gaps of information should have been, Sauvage contends, and it is hard to disagree, "Task Number 1 for the Commission". Instead,

...it appears that the Commission's idea of Task Number 1 ...was... to give Marina Oswald, who could not have been admitted legally as a witness before Judge Brown in Dallas, the opportunity to accuse her husband before the Chief Justice of the United States (p. 139).

Marina Oswald was not only the first witness to appear before the Commission (February 3, 1964), she was also the last (September 7, 1964). She gave the original impetus and direction; she gave the final clearance. Her influence is suggested in a striking passage in Edward Jay Epstein's Inquest. The Commission's legal staff, according to Epstein, felt that her testimony in February "contained obvious contradictions and inconsistencies," and thought she ought to be recalled and cross-examined. One of the lawyers, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memorandum:

Marina Oswald has lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and this Commission repeatedly on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world.

But Earl Warren is, in his own way, a resolute character. Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin reported, says Epstein, "that the Chief Justice considered himself to be 'a judge of human beings', and he and the other Commissioners fully believed her testimony."

That Marina Oswald be called as the first witness was suggested in a memorandum prepared December 28, 1963 by Howard Willens, vigorous young Yale Law School alumnus assigned by Katzenbach the job of liaison between the Commission and the Department. One psychological effect was to eliminate from the area of public speculation the possible involvement of others in the assassination, to eliminate, by dwelling on domestic details of the poor and unhappy Oswald household, the very thought that the assassination was part of anything so significant as a coup d'état.

In the main, that thought has been eliminated. Critics of the Commission who reject the proposition that the obscure Oswald by himself killed the President tend to suggest that several other equally obscure persons were involved. It is felt to be inappropriate, and perhaps risky, to remember that it was not any obscure person nor a collection of obscurities, but Brutus and twenty other eminent Romans who killed Caesar.

Jackie Kennedy was quite right, at least emotionally, in rejecting the thought that her husband had been killed by some "silly little Communist". [H: Well, now Jackie, it beats having "committed suicide" right there in public--which it undoubtedly some day will publicly be stated.] He wouldn't have been killed by a silly little anybody. He MUST have been killed by MAKERS OF HISTORY, whoever they were They could, to be sure, have been serious "big" Communists. For this reason it seems very strange that Jackie Kennedy should, on December 1, 1963, nine days after her husband's death, have written a personal letter to Nikita Khrushchev--a letter of gratitude and respect, a letter referring to, among other things, Khrushchev's "kindness... in Vienna". But--although Manchester's The Death of a President was a best seller, and although it includes the full text of Jackie's letter to Khrushchev--few people seem to know that President Kennedy's widow so promptly communicated with the man who was taken to be her husband's adversary on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

Even if history should eventually show that the shooting in Dallas November 22, 1963 was a special kind of urban guerilla warfare, in which the target was not a fireman or policeman but the President of the United States, and in which the purpose was not to produce temporary chaos but a permanent new order--even if the essential facts of the coup d'état come to be known and accepted, and all the falsehoods of the Warren Commission mercilessly exposed--yet still it will remain true that planning, principally in the Justice Department under Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach, delayed speculation about a conspiracy long enough to insure Johnson a landslide election in November 1964.

It would, of course, be absurd to say that the Warren Commission participated in the assassination of President Kennedy. Unfortunately, it is not at all absurd to say that the Commission, and President Johnson, whose Commission it was, are accessories after the fact in the murder of John F. Kennedy. The reason that shocking statement is not absurd is simply that we now know for a reasonable certainty--the book Six Seconds in Dallas, by Josiah Thompson knows it, if Edward Jay Epstein knows it, we may also be reasonably sure that the Commission knew it.

But if the Commission knew that Oswald could not have been a lone assassin, and yet published the conclusion that he was, then the Commission was aiding the others--whoever they were--to escape. [H: Now you come to a really hard one to swallow, thinkers in truth--at the time of the Warren Commission--guess who was not only head of the Warren Commission but also A-1 of the Committee of 16? I think you'll be real close if you guess, Earl Warren! Are you beginning to see just how handy it is to HAVE POWER?? I believe, further, that this also indicates as head of that Commission--that he was also Chief Justice of your highest judicial system in supposedly, the world--The SUPREME COURT! If all this did not take place at the same time, which I do not have any desire to look up--but Jackson can do so FOR you--then it was damned close! Is Earl Warren really gone? Let's just say that it doesn't matter--he certainly is NOT forgotten.] And this, I believe, is what is meant by the term: accessory after the fact. The charge, implicit here and in numerous other books, that the Warren Commission was lying is so shocking that many good citizens are reluctant to think about it. Some who do think about it search for plausible defenses of the Commission. It has been said that the Commission must have been telling the truth because the investigative resources of the Department of Justice were under the command of the dead President's brother. Bobby Kennedy was Attorney General throughout the working life of the Warren Commission. The answer to that is that Bobby Kennedy depended at this time on Katzenbach to run the Department. Katzenbach, as we have seen, was the first government official to propose the Extraordinary Commission which became known as the Warren Commission. It was set up with remarkable speed. The President's Executive Order 11130 which created it was issued November 29, 1963, one week to the day after the assassination. Even more remarkable was the speed, and the parallel thinking, of the Communist tabloid paper, The Worker, which on Tuesday, November 26, 1963, published its demand that just such a commission headed by none other than Chief Justice Earl Warren be appointed by President Johnson.

That Katzenbach was so largely responsible for the creation of the Warren Commission, and the Warren Commission was essential to the political security of the Johnson Administration, explains as well as anything could the "genius" Katzenbach has for knowing "how to handle Lyndon Johnson."

Katzenbach is today, of course, the Under Secretary of State--which means that he is the alter ego of Dean Rusk, LBJ's mentor in foreign affairs. Considering Katzenbach's former alter egoism for Bobby Kennedy, idol of the New left, and implacable foe of LBJ, we have a seeming paradox--unless we recognize Katzenbach for the link that he is between the New Left and the old.

* * *

Since we will be changing the heading to THE SCHEMERS I think it appropriate to take this off the computer and simply integrate it with writing one or stand alone--whichever is appropriate spacewise We will go on and label the next segment "Part 11". I have to ask you to write longer today because of the court appearance tomorrow morning and since it has to do with the criminal charges it may well take all day. Thank you.


REC #3

WED., JUL. 20, 1994 1:16 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 338

WED., JUL. 20, 1994

by Medford Evans, Ph.D.

The Usurpers, Medford Evans, Western Islands Publishers, Belmont, MA 02178 (1968.


A "schemer" is basically not an organization man, though he necessarily works through organizations, and sometimes in and for an organization. Essentially, however, he is a loner. He thinks of other men as resources, and the coolness of his calculations breeds in the others a curious amalgam of respect, admiration, distrust, and alienation. The Schemer is never a great commander or charismatic leader, and he himself is aware of this; he may suggest or control all or nearly all of the leader's actions, but he cannot take such action himself, for he will not be followed.

Since the Schemer lives by his wits, he has wit enough to appreciate the advantages of his own position, which is much freer than that of the commander, and this appreciation prevents his wasting time being jealous of the nominal superior to whom he furnishes ideas and methods. After all, it is rather fun to be a kingmaker, and to pay for the pleasure by yielding all the more splendid perquisites to the king is not a bad bargain. Besides, the comparative obscurity of the moment may be recompensed in the light of history. Hamilton is nearer to Washington in public esteem now than when both lived; Colonel E. M. House is gaining on Woodrow Wilson in fame since their time.

Three men--Walt Rostow, Abe Fortas, and Clark Clifford--have this in common: they are Schemers. Each has what Murray Marder of the Washington Post has described in Doctor Rostow as "a mind which formulates ideas in series of problems and answers." Until Clifford became Secretary of Defense, no Schemer had ever assumed major executive responsibility. Schemers are fixers, they are troubleshooters. Heaven knows there is plenty to fix.

Rostow is an academic, a Ph.D. from Yale. Fortas and Clifford are lawyers. Fortas has an LL.B. from Yale Law School. These men are all gifted with keen analytical intelligence. Rostow, being apparently more a theorist than the other two, may have developed more bias for his own theories, but on the whole all three seem to have the ability to examine with cool detachment a situation into which, with proper inducement, they are ready to throw themselves with great force and determination. They are professionals.


Walt Rostow has an academic cover--he is an old hand at undercover intelligence work--OSS during World War II, a big CIA assignment while ostensibly teaching at MIT in the 1950s. Together with an MIT colleague, engineer Jerome B. Wiesner, Rostow went to the "Pug-wash" conference in Moscow in November 1960, where he talked with V.V. Kuznetsov of the Soviet Foreign Office.

The Pug-wash conferences are get-togethers for Russian and American nuclear scientists, paid for by the self-professed admirer of Communists, financier Cyrus Eaton. Originally the conferences were held at Eaton's posh summer estate at Pug-wash, on Northumberland Strait, in Nova Scotia, Canada. By the sixth conference in November 1960 the spirit of international fraternity among the scientists was strong enough to result in a Moscow meeting. It had been immediately preceded by another conclave which Doctor Rostow attended also--"a series of closed meetings". Current Biography says it was comprised "of American and Soviet intellectuals held at Dartmouth College...under the sponsorship of the Ford Foundation." Apparently, the scientists and intellectuals so fear an open society, so need secrecy, that they find it necessary to hold "closed meetings" at which a highly elite group of Russians and Americans share sublime thoughts while 200 million dumb American "laymen" and a greater number of mulish Russian muzhiks and cynical Russian proletarians are excluded because they would not understand the technicalities and might understand all too well the politics involved in the discussions.

Rostow and Wiesner returned from Moscow prepared to guide White House policy on nuclear disarmament, and have pretty well done so ever since. Rostow told the late Marguerite Higgins of the now defunct Herald Tribune, when she asked him in July 1960 some question about the then Senator and Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, "Jack and I hit it off from the start." This brashness may account for the reservation which Arthur Schlesinger says Dean Rusk showed toward Rostow when Kennedy was filling key jobs just before the President's inauguration.

Rusk did not want Rostow in the State Department, says Schlesinger (A Thousand Days, pp. 124-125.), and Kennedy settled for making the OSS-CIA veteran a Deputy Special Assistant (deputy to McGeorge Bundy) for national security affairs. Later, Rostow got the job of policy planning chairman in the State Department after all. One wonders why Rusk gave in. But, today, under Johnson, Rostow is back in the White House itself, not now as deputy, but in Bundy's place as the Special Assistant to the President for national security affairs. Bundy went to the Ford Foundation. [H: Keep it all in the Committee!]

Dean Rusk's reservations about Rostow might very well stem from considerations of style. Rusk himself, while strategically audacious, is suave--deceptively deferential, even--in his manner; he wouldn't have called Kennedy Jack, he certainly doesn't call Johnson Lyndon, he probably doesn't even call Rostow Walt. But the two of them would not be basically at odds. They are in it all the way together--with Johnson, with Fortas, with Clifford--in the project in Socialist reconstruction in Vietnam.

Rostow would not compare with Clifford or Fortas as a Schemer in the area of domestic politics--he does not begin to understand ordinary Americans as they do. On the other hand, he has more knowledge of Europe (probably also of Asia) than Fortas and Clifford do, and he is part of the "intellectual community" in a way that they can never be.

Fortas and Clifford may well be more intelligent, in every meaningful sense of that term, than Rostow, but belonging to the "intellectual community" sometimes has surprisingly little to do with intelligence. In one of Rostow's books, The United States in the World Arena, he has written:

It is a legitimate American national objective to see removed from all nations--including the United States--the right to use substantial force to pursue their own interests... it is, therefore, an American interest to see an end of nationhood as it has been historically defined (p. 549).

This clearly threatens the continued existence of the United States. Yet it is doubtful whether Doctor Rostow could be convicted of treason, even if he had been observed in overt acts to further the national suicide which he says is "an American interest"; or had been observed "adhering to their [the United States'] enemies," (as the Constitution provides must be done to sustain a treason charge). The 1960 Moscow meeting of Rostow, Wiesner and Kuznetsov was quite evidently not a parley at arm's length as is proper between hostile powers, and indeed Rostow and Wiesner had no diplomatic credentials to represent the Government of the United States. They were giving free advice to a high-ranking Soviet diplomat on how best to deal with diplomatic representatives of the United States--on how best to achieve Soviet purposes. Only the argument that the Soviet Union was not an enemy--an argument which makes nonsense of Cold War history and of such organizations as NATO--could seriously trouble a prosecutor who wished to build a case of treason against Rostow and Wiesner. Famed defectors Burgess, McLean, and Philby could not have told the Russians as much, for they did not know as much.

The defense of Doctor Rostow and Dean Wiesner--in practice an adequate defense against charging them with treason--is that they are simply typical of the Liberals whose principles have dominated policy these past thirty years not only in the United States but throughout the Western world. Edmund Burke said, "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people," and the Liberals are a whole international class of people--far along in bringing about the "suicide of the west", as James Burnham has so lucidly set forth in his book by that title. The pity is that, numerous as they are, Liberals are a small minority of the entire population of the United States and of the West. Yet by their power, which is largely due to the prestige of their supposed intellectual attainments, the Liberals are taking the majority down with them.

Doctor Rostow is, of course, an economic determinist which is to say he is some kind of Marxist. A Communist is some kind of Marxist, too. What is said to be his most influential book, The Stages of Economic Growth, extrapolates from Marx the curve of social development. Rostow postulates five "stages" in the life of any continuing society: (1) the traditional society, (2) the preconditions for takeoff (this term may be his chief addition to Marx, who died before the airplane was invented), (3) the takeoff, (4) the drive to maturity, (5) the age of high mass consumption. In the fifth stage, where there is enough of the world's goods to satisfy all, the state, if it does not wither away, can at least be transformed into a management staff, concerned with production "from each according to his ability" and with distribution to each according to his need. Such a state will be nonaggressive. In the United States, we are approximately in the fifth stage. The Soviet Union can be expected confidently to enter the same stage at any historical moment now. It would then, this Schemer seems to say, be desirable for the United States and the Soviet Union to merge. In the meantime, according to Rostow, our proper stance is indeed one of readiness to prevent the Soviet Union from hurting us, or at least to minimize such hurt, but above all one of vigilance to prevent reactionary elements in our own society from--say through reckless use of nuclear weapons--destroying the rapidly maturing Soviet society. Indeed, we must do everything possible to help the Soviet Union--and, of course, all other societies as well, particularly those of "underdeveloped countries." As part of their development, part as it were of their "national adolescence," the underdeveloped countries have not reached the stage where they should do away with nationhood. These societies may break out into a kind of collective juvenile delinquency, which we are to contain and tolerate as well as possible, while continuing to give them every fundamental kind of assistance. We are to be Big Brother to the world--until one day the world is one, with policies planned by the Rostows of the future--who, if geriatrics is successful, may even be the Rostows of the present! Let's consider another way of looking at the Schemer's apparent line of reasoning.

A Big Brother (USA) who is attacked by his Little Brother (USSR) takes measures to defend himself, and may even give the kid a thorough workout, a pretty fair working over. But Big Brother fighting Little Brother always to some extent pulls his punches. Big Brother does not seek victory. Big Brother wants to see Little Brother grow up to be as much of a man as he is himself. When that time comes, the two will surely be friends as well as brothers. Meanwhile, though boys lose their tempers with men, men do not lose their tempers with boys. Teach the kid's lesson, but take it easy, don't really hurt him.

What consummate conceit! No wonder Russian and especially Asiatic Communists do not return the love which American and West European "Liberals" proffer! There is in the Western attitude an arrogant presumption of superiority (imagine a Chinese trying to digest the thought that the United States is a more mature country than China!) which must be far more infuriating than any flat declaration of hostility could be.

Unfortunately, some such presumption underlies our whole operation in Vietnam of which Doctor Rostow is one of the chief Schemers.

Doctor Rostow is a strategic pacifist, since he envisions a disarmed world where fully mature societies live, without "nationhood", in his euphoric fifth stage of high mass consumption. But Doctor Rostow is no tactical pacifist. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. writes that Rostow's "combination of the spacious historical review with a passion for counter-guerilla warfare caused much joking about his being 'Chester Bowles with machine guns', all of which he took with gentle tolerance." (A Thousand Days, p. 353.) By 1967 many Liberals were no longer joking about the matter, and a somewhat shook-up Mary McCarthy was referring to "the sinister Walt Rostow, and now to be closest to the cupped Presidential ear." (Vietnam, p. 62.)

I gather that Mary McCarthy thinks Walt Rostow has sold out to the military-industrial complex--or somebody who wants to make money and get increased power out of the Vietnamese War. I suspect that Mary McCarthy, subtle writer though she is, has not penetrated to the reaches of thought where Walt Rostow has concluded that a large-scale military operation in Vietnam--provided it is equipped with a governing device to prevent the military from seeking a "military solution"--i.e. , victory--can contribute enormously to the economic growth of Southeast Asia and eventually of China, advancing the day when high mass consumption will replace the incidental and almost random killing which we must expect for a while from both the Viet Cong and our own troops.

Walt Rostow is an action-type intellectual. In this he bears comparison with the New Left. Unlike them, however, he is not interested in theatricals, and more completely than Katzenbach he chooses to work within, and through, the bureaucracy rather than against it. He influences official policy all he can, but is evidently determined to identify himself with it, whatever it is. And how else could he stay in the White House? He has been identified with official policy, both under Kennedy and under Johnson--conspicuously so--since he was sent with General Maxwell Taylor in October 1961 to survey the Vietnamese situation and make a report to Washington. It was in pursuance of that report that the American buildup in Vietnam began.

Rostow's--and Taylor's--influence has never ceased to be felt in the type of fighting we do in Vietnam. It may be remembered that the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II was a paramilitary outfit, and Walt Whitman Rostow attained the rank of major in the OSS. As a logical consequence of that experience, "guerrillas were", as Arthur Schlesinger puts it, "an old preoccupation of Walt Rostow's". As a special case of Maxwell Taylor's "Doctrine of Flexible Response", which among other things means don't use nuclear weapons unless the other side uses them first, Rostow urged upon Kennedy a new emphasis on "counterinsurgency", Special Forces, and "unconventional warfare"--phrases which mean a willingness to cut throats at night and build bridges in the daytime, just like the Viet Cong. Schlesinger says that in the wake of recommendations by Rostow, Taylor, and others, and after reading Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara for himself, President Kennedy "insisted that the Special Forces be schooled in sanitation, teaching, bridge-building, medical care and the need for economic progress. "

The whole policy amounts to: introduction into Asia of the most advanced methods of socialistic reconstruction and development, coupled with an absolute veto of the most advanced methods of waging a victorious war.

In the tug-of-war between United States officers who would like to win in the field in Vietnam and Schemers in Washington, such as Rostow, who want to stay in the field but avoid victory, there has developed the fantastic use of the helicopter. Ask yourself, for you don't have to be a military expert to know the answer, how long a helicopter would last in a war against a well-equipped enemy. The fact that, prior to the North Vietnamese February attack with Soviet tanks, helicopters had been the outstanding success of our operations in Vietnam, shows as clearly as anything could that the enemy was not well-equipped. In any case, it must take managerial skill of the highest order in the White House and the Pentagon to keep our military from winning in Vietnam!

The helicopter is a police weapon. It is perfect in situations where massive firepower cannot be directed against you; it is a hovering duck against such firepower. A helicopter military attack on an armed city would be suicide for the attackers. In contrast, helicopters over a city in peace are an admirable means of intimidating and controlling motorists or other civilians who have no anti-aircraft weapons. This is perhaps a minor illustration of the fact that the whole counterinsurgency program and method of fighting in Vietnam condition our troops to control civilian populations. Moreover: It should be remembered that if we have not subdued the Viet Cong. we have certainly subdued all the South Vietnamese except the Viet Cong!

The American presence in Vietnam is one part stimulus to economic growth of all East Asia, one part counter-guerilla warfare, and one part internal police for the area. All three of these are special interests of the brilliant theoretician, Walt Whitman Rostow.

[H: I really don't think the major reason for the war is lost on this author--but I surely don't want it lost on YOU. The war was a MAJOR TESTING OF THE MIND-CONTROL TRAINING AND PROGRAMMING--AND THE PROTECTION AND STRUCTURING OF FURTHER BUSINESS IN ARMS AND ESPECIALLY IN DRUGS! Another major item in this little experience was to see how far ordinary soldiers would go to follow orders and/or simply kill innocent civilians--women and children. I think the results proved that they would do anything for anybody without much hesitation if triggered by authority to do so. This insures total willingness to control the populations at home. However, the intent would be to have "aliens" provide police action against any given population--i.e., foreign troops patrolling, say, Los Angeles where there is no personal involvement emotionally. It is not a pretty world, readers, and this is what the "schemers" come up with and had carried out by the mind-control programmers.]

Rostow's role in the so-called disarmament program has been crucial. The great result of his and Doctor Wiesner's trip to Moscow in November 1960 was the forwarding of negotiations eventually leading to the Test Ban Treaty of August 1963, and to the later "Nonproliferation Treaty". Much more promptly, the unauthorized Rostow-Wiesner negotiations of 1960 led to the formation in September 1961 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the adoption by the United States of a program of General and Complete Disarmament (State Department Publication 7277), according to which the world would not be disarmed at all, but all weapons suitable for war between nations would be transferred to a United Nations Peace Force, while the nations would retain only such weapons as are suitable for internal-police purposes, including, no doubt, helicopters; and, of course, rifles, tear-gas grenades, pistols, and some anti-personnel tanks. Individual citizens, for their part, would not have any weapons at all. That would be the real disarmament. Thus, the so-called disarmament is really a concentration of arms in the hands of the managers of the World Government.

Like so many of his fellow intellectuals, Rostow's great fears seem to center not on what other nations or peoples may do, but on what the United States may do, what the American people may do. We are the main threat to the world order which Doctor Rostow seeks. Again, I accuse of him of no special personal astigmatism here; it is an occupational hazard of the ruling intelligentsia, it is almost a requirement of entrance to the profession, to assume that for Americans to adhere firmly to American interests--at least to American interests as popularly defined--is a danger to world peace. In a way, the exaggerated opposition of American intellectuals to what they might call American chauvinism is itself unconscious chauvinism. For it credits the United States of America with a special importance attributed to no other country.

The Soviet Union is assumed to be also a superpower, in uneasy equilibrium with which, we are expected to maintain a precarious balance of terror through nuclear stalemate. Yet the attitude is implicit in all the literature of the politically sophisticated that the maintenance of this balance is a peculiarly American responsibility!

[H: I hope you understand that the really terrorizing fact involved here is that the sophistication has grown and the control overlapping--this book of observations was written a quarter of a century (26 years) ago!]

The Russians, we are informed, may be expected (1) to insist upon rigid respect of the sovereignty of the USSR, and (2) to be capable on provocation of using nuclear weapons first if they go to war. These attitudes are precisely the ones which the United States must NOT assume, we are told, for they are unreasonable. At the same time we must not dwell upon their unreason-ableness when they are assumed by the Soviet Union! Even in the midst of the theatrical "Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962", which is the nearest that Establishment intellectuals have come to accusations against Moscow. (Adlai Stevenson himself spoke harshly on television to Ambassador Zorin.) Paul Nitze (today's Deputy Secretary of Defense) told reporter Elie Abel.

The greatest danger of war as we saw it then was that we would sink a Russian ship trying to run the blockade. If that happened, it seemed highly doubtful that Khrushchev would hold still without further action. (The Missile Crisis, p. 153, Italics added.)

The then Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, had a knock-down-and-drag-out encounter about this with the then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral George W. Anderson. Unfortunately, Admiral Anderson was the first of the two to be dragged out--and sent to Lisbon as Ambassador to Portugal, five years before McNamara moved to the World Bank. The Admiral did not like the sea-hobbles that were put on him when McNamara explained, as related by Abel, that the purpose of the celebrated eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation "was not to shoot Russians but to communicate a political message to Chairman Khrushchev. The President wanted to avoid pushing Khrushchev to extremes. The blockade must be so conducted as to avoid humiliating the Russians; otherwise Khrushchev might react in a nuclear spasm" (p. 155, Italics added).

Increasingly for twenty years now, the attitude of the intellectuals has been: avoid humiliating the Russians. The United States must avoid even a reasonable act which might provoke the Russians to an unreasonable one. At the same time we must continually approach these unreasonable people. We must tame the bear with kindness. But that is not really very flattering to the Russians, is it? And if it were a fair description of the situation, do bear-tamers really associate with bears on terms of full liberty, equality, and fraternity?

Dr. Rostow assures us that the bear is evolving, and through stages of economic growth will soon be ready for complete fraternity with the human, if somewhat backwoods-ish, Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, the important thing is Uncle Sam's own self-control. He must under no circumstances shoot the bear! Well, if the beast starts a direct charge we might shoot him in the shoulder, if we can't sidestep, but do not shoot to kill. Above all, do not use the nuclear rifle--unless the bear uses his first. Does the bear have a nuclear rifle? Oh, yes, of course. He is a very clever and well-trained bear. We trained him!

It seems credible that one of the incidental purposes of the expedition in Vietnam is that it keeps the American military occupied in an operation which cannot actually humiliate the Russians. "As fire drives out fire," so a war in Vietnam--limited in scope, limitless in duration, and of course non-nuclear--may prevent a war with the Soviet Union. Critics of the war in Vietnam say that no American interest is at stake there. That is not the important thing. The important thing to such special intellectuals as Walt Rostow who promote the war in Vietnam may well be that no RUSSIAN interest is at stake there. We Americans have nothing to fear so much as our own military power--goes the theory--and Vietnam is like a roped-off arena where we can go work some of it out of our system without endangering the neighbors. Of course, again, Vietnam also brings about a reduction of tension through blood-letting.

In the mind of the special intellectual who is the Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, expedients such as the Vietnamese expedition may serve the cause of the eventual, enforced peace pending such time as we can actually see an "end to nationhood". That phrase of Doctor Rostow's is so famous, or infamous, by now that it seems only fair to give the full context in which he introduced it. It appears in the peroration of his book The United States in the World Arena, published in 1960 by Harper, in an "Appendix A," which is a self-contained essay entitled "The National Interest," and is written by Doctor Rostow for the purpose of "permitting the readers to isolate the author's presuppositions for critical examination." Doctor Rostow says that the American people have both military and ideological interests which are subject to various threats, notably the concentration of military power in, or the acceptance of totalitarian ideology by, the nations of "Eurasia", which he defines to include Africa. It is of some interest to note that he seems to classify the Soviet Union as more of a military than an ideological threat; vice versa, one gathers, for Communist China. Noting this "dual character of the national interest", Rostow optimistically, from his point of view, opines that we in the United States can meet "current and foreseeable challenges". But, he says, you don't get something for nothing. We have to give a little. What we have to give is indicated in the following climactic passage, which I have italicized in part to clarify a bit the meaning I think is there:

[Rostow's heading]

Among those challenges is the problem of using American power and influence to tame military force by effective international accord; for the nature of modern weapons in a context other than American monopoly is a danger to the national interest sufficiently grave to justify acceptance of important constraints on the nation's sovereignty. Put another way, it is a legitimate American national objective to see removed from all nations--including the United States--the right to use substantial military force to pursue their own interests. Since this residual right is the root of national sovereignty and the basis for the existence of an international arena of power, it is, therefore, AN AMERICAN INTEREST TO SEE AN END TO NATIONHOOD as it has been historically defined. [H: YOURS!]

The pace at which means of communication are now under development argues, further, that the present nations of the globe will move into relations of increasing intimacy and interaction.

Between them, the urgent imperative to tame military force and the need to deal with peoples everywhere on the basis of an accelerating proximity argue strongly for movement in the direction of federalized world organization under effective international law. And, should effective control of military power be achieved, it might prove convenient and rational to pass other functions upward from unilateral determination to an organized arena of international politics.

It is not easy or particularly useful to peer far beyond the time when this great human watershed is attained (p. 549, Italics added).

These are the words of one of the most influential Schemers in the government--in the Establishment. Doctor Rostow does not write to the laity, does not write to make the best-seller list, does not write, actually, to be read. He writes to influence the men of power within the Establishment. What he writes could be said far more briefly and appropriately in an interoffice memorandum. It could be said orally over coffee. And I am sure it has been said in memoranda and over coffee. The memoranda and the talk have undoubtedly had far more immediate influence than the books, which few people read. But decision-makers in our country do read the memoranda and listen to the talk because Rostow has written a book explaining how the stages of growth work, or a book explaining what is the true interest of the United States in the world arena.

Notice that Rostow says we must use "American power" which would include American military power "to tame military force" which would include American military force! To point out that this means logically using American military force, or power, against itself is not logic-chopping. That is exactly what Rostow and innumerable fellow "Liberals" want to do. It is exactly what McNamara did with great effect as Secretary of Defense. The excuse for this gradual national suicide is that "modern weapons" are "a danger to the national interest", that is, the American national interest. Other Liberals than Doctor Rostow have said more explicitly the same thing, which is that America is in danger from America's nuclear weapons. And that is incontrovertible, for America's nuclear weapons have not all stayed in America, and it is even doubtful whether all of those in America are under what most Americans would recognize as American control. Nevertheless, it is hard to see how Doctor Rostow's conclusions follow--that national sovereignty should be sacrificed, that we should "see an end of nationhood", and that "control of military power" should be put into the hands of "federalized world organization".

If the United States today is in danger from some quantity of nuclear weapons in possession of foreign powers, chiefly the USSR, powers which are, however, to some extent quite obviously "deterred" by nuclear weapons under American control, why would the United States, deprived of its nationhood, not stand in much greater danger from a federalized world government? For that world government would possess ALL the nuclear weapons in the world, and would be guided (as Doctor Rostow indicates elsewhere that democratic governments should be) by the formula: one man, one vote. Consider that under such a government the United States would have only 6-2/3 per cent of the vote, and you will understand precisely what Doctor Rostow intends.

* * *

Still think you don't have any problems? Now, 26 years later--CAN you undo it? I honestly don't know if you WILL! So be it. I like to think that THE COMMITTEE simply had no REAL IDEA WHAT IT WAS DOING. We shall see...!



THU., JUL. 21, 1994 3:31 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 338

THU., JUL. 21, 1994

The following presentation is "hot" enough that it has been brought to me for consideration as to how to handle it. Well, it is not the "heat" of the document which is in point but rather the quality of the documents from the FAX machine.

Because I want this type of information dispersed along with the other usurper information--we need to put everything of this nature to computer disc for use now as well as later--and of course, for publication.


This is classified information and therefore I think that until I have clearance from parties involved--I will refrain from using sources for the information itself. Let us be grateful to have as much as has come through. We will type exactly as presented to us but readers must understand right up front that the last sentence or so of EACH FAX page is missing or so inked that it is not legible. In most instances it is not important so we will go with what we have and as others get copies perhaps you can fill in the missing portions or incorrect copy, please. This document has been so "classified" that even Senators have been unable to obtain a summary of it. We are under the impression that THIS is a summary. Senators seeking a summary have been denied under the shelter of "Foreign Policy".

The source of this material we pass on has an information comment also: "I am told that the President can issue an executive order, or PDD (Presidential Decision Directive), or similar order--legally. This was tested in the Supreme Court based on the powers of the Executive office.

[From intro to Fax:] "A President can also 'delegate' his power and authority, according to the court. This may soon be challenged."

It is obvious by Executive Order 12919--that the above is true in fact, even if not lawfully. These are the things you MUST attend, readers, as bit by mortal piece is torn away from your lives of freedom and Constitutional government.



Last year, President Clinton ordered an inter-agency review of our nation's peacekeeping policies and programs in order to develop a comprehensive policy framework suited to the realities of the post-Cold War period. This policy review has resulted in a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD). The President signed this Directive, following the completion of extensive consultations with Members of Congress. This paper summarizes the key elements of that directive. [H: Wouldn't you like to know WHICH members of Congress?]

As specified in the "Bottom-Up Review", the primary mission of the U.S. Armed Forces remains to be prepared to fight and win two simultaneous regional conflicts. In this context, peacekeeping can be one useful tool to help prevent and resolve such conflicts before they pose direct threats to our national security. Peacekeeping can also serve U.S. interests by promoting democracy, regional security, and economic growth.

The policy directive (PDD) addresses six major issues of reform and improvement:

1. Making disciplined and coherent choices about which peace operations to support--both when we vote in the Security Council for UN peace operations and when we participate in such operations with U.S. troops.

To achieve this goal, the policy directive sets forth three increasingly rigorous standards of review for U.S. support for or participation in peace operations, with the most stringent applying to U.S. participation in missions that may involve combat. The policy directive affirms that peacekeeping can be a useful tool for advancing U.S. national security interests in some-circumstances, but both U.S. and UN involvement in peacekeeping must be selective and more effective.

2. Reducing U.S. costs for UN peace operations, both the percentage our nation pays for each operation and the cost of the operations themselves.

To achieve this goal, the policy directive orders that we work to reduce our peacekeeping assessment percentage from the current 31.7% to 25% by January 1, 1996, and proposes a number of specific steps to reduce the cost of UN peace operations.

3. Defining clearly our policy regarding the command and control of American military forces in UN peace operations.

The policy directive underscores the fact that the President will never relinquish command of U.S. forces. However, as Commander-in-chief, the President has the authority to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander when doing so serves American security interests, just as American leaders have done numerous times since the Revolutionary War, including in Operation Desert Storm.

The greater the anticipated U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement operation that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions.

4. Reforming and improving the UN's capability to manage peace operations.

The policy recommends 11 steps to strengthen UN management of peace operations and directs U.S. support for strengthening the UN's planning, logistics, information and command and control capabilities.

5. Improving the way the U.S. government manages and funds peace operations.

The policy directive creates a new "shared responsibility" approach to managing and funding UN peace operations within the U.S. Government. Under this approach, the Department of Defense will take lead management and funding responsibility for those UN operations that involve U.S. combat units and those that are likely to involve combat, whether or not U.S. troops are involved. This approach will ensure that military expertise is brought to bear on those operations that have a significant military component.

The State Department will retain lead management and funding responsibility for traditional peacekeeping operations that do not involve U.S. combat units. In all cases, the State Department remains responsible for the conduct of diplomacy and instruction to embassies and our UN Mission in New York.

6. Creating better forms of cooperation between the Executive, the Congress and the American public on peace operations.

The policy directive sets out seven proposals for increasing and regularizing the flow of information and consultation between the executive branch and Congress; the President believes U.S. support for and participation in UN peace operations can only succeed over the long term with the bipartisan support of Congress and the American people.



The Role of Peace Operations in U.S. Foreign Policy. (For simplicity, the term peace operations is used in this document to mean the entire spectrum of activities from traditional peacekeeping to peace enforcement aimed at defusing and resolving international conflicts.)

Serious threats to the security of the United States still exist in the post-Cold War era. New threats will emerge. The United States remains committed to meeting such threats.

When our interests dictate, the U.S. must be willing and able to fight and win wars, unilaterally whenever necessary. To do so, we must create the required capabilities and maintain them ready to use. UN peace operations cannot substitute for this requirement.

Circumstances will arise, however, when multilateral action best serves U.S. interests in preserving or restoring peace. In such cases, the UN can be an important instrument for collective action. UN peace operations can also provide a "force multiplier" in our efforts to promote peace and stability.

During the Cold War, the United Nations could resort to multilateral peace operations only in the few cases when the interests of the Soviet Union and the West did not conflict. In the new strategic environment such operations can serve more often as a cost-effective tool to advance American as well as collective interests in maintaining peace in key regions and create global burden-sharing for peace.

Territorial disputes, armed ethnic conflicts, civil wars (many of which could spill across international borders) and the collapse of governmental authority in some states are among the current threats to peace. While many of these conflicts may not directly threaten American interests, their cumulative effect is significant. The UN has sought to play a constructive role in such situations by mediating disputes and obtaining agreement to ceasefires and political settlements. Where such agreements have been reached, the interposition of neutral forces under UN auspices has, in many cases, helped facilitate lasting peace.

UN peace operations have served important U.S. national interests. In Cambodia, UN efforts led to an election protected by peacekeepers, the return of hundreds of thousands of refugees and the end of a destabilizing regional conflict. In El Salvador, the UN sponsored elections and is helping to end a long and bitter civil war. The UN's supervision of Namibia's transition to independence removed a potential source of conflict in strategic southern Africa and promoted democracy. The UN in Cyprus has prevented the outbreak of war between two NATO allies. Peacekeeping on the Golan Heights has helped preserve peace between Israel and Syria. In Former Yugoslavia, the UN has provided badly-needed humanitarian assistance and helped prevent the conflict from spreading to other parts of the region. UN-imposed sanctions against Iraq, coupled with the peacekeeping operation on the Kuwait border, are constraining Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors. [H: Are you impressed or sick? This is pure unadulterated lies and garbage!]

Need for Reform

While serving U.S. interests, UN peace operations continue to require improvement and reform. Currently, each operation is created and managed separately, and economies of scale are lost. Likewise, further organizational changes at UN Headquarters would improve efficiency and effectiveness. A fully independent office of Inspector General should be established immediately. The 'U.S. assessment rate should be reduced to 25 per cent.

Since it is in our interest at times to support UN peace operations, it is also in our interest to seek to strengthen UN peacekeeping capabilities and to make operations less expensive in our interest to identify clearly and quickly those peace operations we will support and those we will not. Our policy establishes clear guidelines for making such decisions.

Role in U.S. Foreign Policy

UN and other multilateral peace operations will at times offer the best way to prevent, contain or resolve conflicts that could otherwise be more costly and deadly. In such cases, the U.S. benefits from having to bear only a share of the burden. We also benefit by being able to invoke the voice of the community of nations on behalf of a cause we support. Thus, establishment of a capability to conduct multilateral peace operations is part of our National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy.

While the President never relinquishes command of U.S. force, the participation of U.S. military personnel in UN operations can, in particular circumstances, serve U.S. interests. First, U.S. military participation may, at times, be necessary to persuade others to participate in operations that serve U.S. interests. Second, U.S. participation may be one way to exercise U.S. influence over an important UN mission, without unilaterally bearing the burden. Third, the U.S. may be called upon and choose to provide unique capabilities to important operations that other countries cannot.

In improving our capabilities for peace operations, we will not discard or weaken other tools for achieving U.S. objectives. If U.S. participation in a peace operation were to interfere with our basic military strategy, winning two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously (as established in the Bottom Up Review), we would place our national interest uppermost. The U.S. will maintain the capability to act unilaterally or in coalition when our most significant interests and those of our friends and allies are at stake. Multilateral peace operations must, therefore, be placed in proper perspective among the instruments of U.S. foreign policy.

The U.S. does not support a standing UN army, nor will we earmark specific U.S. military units for participation in UN operations. We will provide information about U.S. capabilities for data bases and planning purposes.

It is not U.S. policy to seek to expand either the number of UN peace operations or U.S. involvement in such operations. Instead, this policy, which builds upon work begun by previous administrations and is informed by the concerns of the Congress that our use of peacekeeping is selective and more effective. Congress must also be actively involved in the continuing implementation of U.S. policy on peacekeeping.

* * *

I. Supporting the Right Peace Operations

i. Voting New Peace Operations

The U.S. will support well-defined peace operations, generally as a tool to provide finite windows of opportunity to allow combatants to resolve their differences and failed societies to reconstitute themselves. Peace operations would not be open-ended commitments but instead linked to concrete political solutions; otherwise, they normally should not be undertaken. To the greatest extent possible, each UN peace operation should have a specified time frame tied to intermediate or final objectives, an integrated political/military strategy well-coordinated with humanitarian assistance efforts, specified troop levels, and a firm budget estimate. The U.S. will continue to urge the UN Secretariat and Security Council members to engage in rigorous, standard evaluations of all proposed new peace operations.

The Administration will consider the factors below when deciding whether to vote for a proposed new UN peace operation (Chapter VI or Chapter VII) or to support a regionally-sponsored peace operation:

* UN involvement advances U.S. interests, and there is an international community of interest for dealing with the problem on a multilateral basis.

* There is a threat to or breach of international peace and security, often of a regional character, defined as one or a combination of the following:

* International aggression, or;

* Urgent humanitarian disaster coupled with violence;

* Sudden interruption of established democracy or gross violation of human rights coupled with violence, or threat of violence.

* There are clear objectives and an understanding of where the mission fits on the spectrum between traditional peacekeeping and peace enforcement.

* For traditional (Chapter VI) peacekeeping operations, a ceasefire should be in place and the consent of the parties obtained before the force is deployed.

* For peace enforcement (Chapter VII) operations, the threat to international peace and security is considered significant.

* The means to accomplish the mission are available, including the forces, financing and a mandate appropriate to the mission.

* The political, economic and humanitarian consequences of inaction by the international community have been weighed and are considered unacceptable.

* The operation's anticipated duration is tied to clear objectives and realistic criteria for ending the operation.

These factors are an aid in decision-making; they do not by themselves constitute a prescriptive service. Decisions have been and will be based on the cumulative whole of the factors with no single factor necessarily being an absolute determinant. [line missing] ----up for regular renewal by the Security Council to assess the value of continuing them. In appropriate cases, the U.S. will seek voluntary contributions by beneficiary nations or enhanced host nation support to reduce or cover, at least partially, the costs of certain UN operations. The U.S. will also consider voting against renewal of certain long-standing peace operations that are failing to meet established objectives in order to free military and financial resources for more pressing UN missions.

ii. Participating in UN and Other Peace Operations

The Administration will continue to apply even stricter standards when it assesses whether to recommend to the President that U.S. personnel participate in a given peace operation. In addition to the factors listed above, we will consider the following factors: [H: Go read that again please. I thought the President IS the Administration???]

* Participation advances U.S. interests and both the unique and general risks to American personnel have been weighed and are considered acceptable.

* Personnel, funds and other resources are available;

* U.S. participation is necessary for operation's success;

* The role of U.S. forces is tied to clear objectives and an endpoint for U.S. participation can be identified;

* Domestic and Congressional support exists or can be marshalled;

* Command and control arrangements are acceptable.

Additional, even more rigorous factors will be applied when there is the possibility of significant U.S. participation in Chapter VII operations that are likely to involve combat:

* There exists a determination to commit sufficient forces to achieve clearly defined objectives;

* There exists a plan to achieve those objectives decisively;

* There exists a commitment to reassess and adjust, as necessary, the size, composition, and disposition of our forces to achieve our objectives.

Any recommendation to the President will be based on the cumulative weight of the above factors, with no single factor of the above being an absolute determinant.

II. The Role of Regional Organizations

In some cases, the appropriate way to perform peace operations will be to involve regional organizations. The U.S. will continue to emphasize the UN as the primary international body with the authority to conduct peacekeeping operations. At the same time, the U.S. will support efforts to improve regional organizations' peacekeeping capabilities.

When regional organizations or groupings seek to conduct peacekeeping with UNSC [UN Security Council] endorsement, U.S. support will be conditioned on adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and meeting established UNSC criteria, including neutrality, consent of the conflicting parties, formal UNSC oversight and finite, renewal mandates.

With respect to the question of peacekeeping in the territory of the former Soviet Union, requests for "traditional" UN blue-helmeted operations will be considered on the same basis as other requests, using the factors previously outlined (e.g., a threat to international peace and security, clear objectives, etc.). U.S. support for these operations will, as with other such requests, be conditioned on adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and established UNSC criteria.

III. Reducing Costs

Although peacekeeping can be a good investment for the U.S., it would be better and more sustainable if it cost less. The Administration is committed to reducing the U.S. share of peace-keeping costs to 25% by January 1, 1996, down from the current rate of 31.7%. We will also inform the UN of Congress's likely refusal to fund U.S. peacekeeping assessments at a rate higher than 25% after Fiscal Year 1996.

The Administration remains concerned that the UN has not rectified management inefficiencies that result in excessive costs and, on occasion, fraud and abuse. As a matter of priority, the U.S. will continue to press for dramatic administrative and management improvements in the UN system. In particular, the U.S. is working hard to insure that new and on-going peace operations are cost-effective and properly managed. Towards this end, the U.S. is pursuing a number of finance and budget management reforms, including:

* immediate establishment of a permanent, fully independent office of Inspector General with oversight responsibility that included peacekeeping.

* unified budget for all peace operations, with a contingency fund, financed by a single annual peacekeeping assessment;

* standing cadre of professional budget experts from member states, particularly top contributing countries, to assist the UN in developing credible budgets and financial plans;

* enlargement of the revolving peacekeeping reserve fund to $500 million, using voluntary contributions;

required status of forces/mission agreements that provide preferential host nation support to peacekeeping operations;

* prohibit UN "borrowing" from peacekeeping funds to finance cash shortfalls in regular UN administrative operations;

* revise the special peacekeeping scale of assessments to base it on a 3-year average of national income and rationalize Group C so that higher income countries pay their regular budget rate.

Moreover, the U.S. will use its voice and vote in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations to contain costs of UN peace operations once they are underway.

IV. Strengthening the UN

If peace operations are to be effective and efficient when the U.S. believes they are necessary, the UN must improve the way peace operations are managed. Our goal is not to create a global high command but to enable the UN to manage its existing load more effectively. At present each UN operation is created and managed separately by a still somewhat understaffed UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). As a result, support to the field may suffer, economies of scale are lost, capabilities, particularly in complex operations, need substantial improvement. Structural changes at UN Headquarters, some of which are already underway, would make a positive difference.

A. The U.S. proposals include the reconfiguration and expansion of the staff for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to create:

* Plans Division to conduct adequate advance planning and preparation for new and on-going operations;

* Information and Research Division linked to field operations to obtain and provide current information [word missing]

* Operations Division with a modern command, control and communications (C3) architecture based on commercial systems;

* Logistics Division to manage both competitive commercial contracts (which should be re-bid regularly on the basis of price and performance) and a cost-effective logistics computer network to link the UN DPKO with logistics offices in participating member nations. This system would enable the UN to request price and availability data and to order materiel from participating states;

* Small Public Affairs cell dedicated to supporting on-going peace operations and disseminating information within host countries in order to reduce risks to UN personnel and increase the potential for mission success;

* Small Civilian Police Cell to manage police missions, plan for the establishment of police and judicial institutions, and develop standard procedures, doctrine and training.

B. To eliminate lengthy, potentially disastrous delays after a mission has been authorized, the UN should establish:

* a rapidly deployable headquarters team, a composite initial logistics support unit, and open, pre-negotiated commercial contracts for logistics support in new missions;

* data base of specific, potentially available forces or capabilities that nations could provide for the full range of peacekeeping and humanitarian operations;

* trained civilian reserve corps to serve as a ready, external talent pool to assist in the administration, management, and execution of UN peace operations;

* modest airlift capability available through pre-negotiated contracts with commercial firms or member states to support urgent deployments.

C. Finally, the UN should establish a professional Peace Operations Training Program for commanders and other military and civilian personnel.

D. Consistent with the global objectives outlined above, the U.S. will actively support efforts in the Fifth Committee of the -----[line missing].

* detail appropriate numbers of civilian and military personnel to DPKO in New York in advisory or support roles;

* share information, as appropriate, while ensuring full protection of sources and methods;

* offer to design a command, control, and communications systems architecture for the Operations Division, using commercially available systems and software;

* offer to assist DPKO to establish an improved, cost-effective logistics system to support UN peacekeeping operations;

* offer to help design the database of military forces or capabilities and to notify DPKO, for inclusion in the database, of specific U.S. capabilities that could be made available for the full spectrum of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations. U.S. notification in no way implies a commitment to provide those capabilities, if asked by the UN;

* detail public affairs specialists to the UN;

* offer to help create and establish a training program, participate in peacekeeping training efforts and offer the use of U.S. facilities for training purposes. [H: Go back and read it again!]

V. Command and Control of U.S. Forces

A. Our Policy: The President retains and will never relinquish command authority over U.S. forces. On a case by case basis, the President will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under the operational control of a competent UN commander for specific UN operations authorized by the Security Council. The greater the U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement mission that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalition.


There is nothing new about this Administration's policy regarding the command and control of U.S. forces. [H: Well, you JUST GOT IT! WITH A STATEMENT LIKE THAT YOU KNOW YOU ARE "HAD"!] U.S. military personnel have participated in UN peace operations since 1948. American forces have served under the operational control of foreign commanders since the Revolutionary War, including in World War I, World War II, Operation Desert Storm and in NATO since its inception. We have done so and will continue to do so when the President determines it serves U.S. national interests.


This has been a bitch to do and our scribe is now in an incredibly bad mood! Maybe Rick can get a phone call through and get "whoever" to read him off that which I couldn't translate or was simply missing--I think I got most all of it correctly decoded elsewise. Thank you, Dharma, and Salu.





Ed Cleary 7/15/94


From an Associated Press article in THE ORLANDO SENTINEL dated May 30, Panama City, "The first of 10,000 U.S. troops stationed here return home this week as the United States begins the end of nearly a century of military presence in Panama.

"By the end of next year, 4,000 troops will be gone, but the rest of the pullout will not be completed until the end of the decade.

"By then, the United States will have turned over to Panama the U.S. military bases here, the waterway itself and about 80,000 acres of real estate in the canal zone.

"The moves are mandated by the 1977 Panama Canal Treaties signed by President Carter and Panamanian strongman Omar Torrijos in which the United States agreed to hand over the canal it has controlled since taking over its construction in 1903.

"Although the United States reserves the right by treaty to defend the Panama Canal, the likelihood of danger to the waterway in the post-Cold War is small, U.S. officials say."


In THE ORLANDO SENTINEL (Reuter's) an article dated May 28, Paris, "The OECD, the club for rich industrial nations, finally buried the Cold War Wednesday by signing a cooperation accord with Russia and agreeing to admit four new members from eastern Europe.

"The Organization for Economics Cooperation and Development said ministers meeting in Paris had asked it to start membership talks with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

"They also agreed the OECD should open talks with South Korea, widely expected to apply to join shortly. The four eastern European countries already have applied to join."


From the ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL an Associated Press dispatch dated June 12, Brussels, Belgium, "Russia will join NATO's military cooperative plan for east Europe, ending months of uncertainty about whether Moscow would sign the accord at the heart of NATO's post-Cold War plans for Europe.

"Russian Foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev will sign the Partnership for Peace agreement on Wednesday during a visit to NATO headquarters, NATO spokesman Florent Swijssen said Friday.

"At a June 10 meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, the NATO foreign ministers reiterated Russia must first sign the partnership deal before there can be any discussion of broadening the relationship.

"The partnership opens the door to political and military cooperation including joint military exercises and Western help in converting military factories to civilian uses.

"Eighteen of Moscow's former Warsaw Pact allies have signed partnership accords with NATO."


In an article from the June 12, 1994 edition of THE ORLANDO SENTINEL--[quoting:] Washington--The dream of a world where nuclear weapons disappear, light bulbs last for years, bicycles outsell cars and people live longer is coming true.

The good news, some of it surprising on a planet tainted by pollution and shaken by post-Cold War violence, is part of Worldwatch Institute's Vital Signs 1994, released Saturday.

But overall, the planet is not doing so well, says Lester Brown, Worldwatch president and principal author of the compilation of trends.

"Of all the key-indicators measuring the health of the planet, we have succeeded in reversing the decline in only one--namely, the manufacture and production of chlorofluorocarbons" that deplete the ozone layer, he said.

"All the other trends--carbon emission, deforestation, loss of species, population growth and soil erosion--are still headed in the wrong direction."


Some key signs that bode ill for the Earth, according to World-watch Institute:

Birds are disappearing, with two-thirds of all species on the decline and 1,000 threatened with extinction.

Destructive insects are developing resistance to more poisons, with at least 17 species now unaffected by any insecticide on the market.

The sea is yielding about all the edible creatures it can.

Grain supplies are at their lowest level since the mid-1970s, although there are hundreds of millions more people to feed.

The number of refugees is at a high--19 million--and the world population continues to grow at alarming rates.


In an article from the June 24, 1994 edition of THE ORLANDO SENTINEL--[quoting]: The Whitewater prosecutor struck a plea bargain Thursday that will keep a lid on testimony by a man who claims then-Gov. Bill Clinton pressured him into making a loan. The agreement came four days into a trial peripherally related to the Whitewater investigation of Clinton's real estate dealings. The case involves two men accused of conspiring to defraud the Small Business Administration. A third man involved, David Hale, was to take the stand, but Whitewater prosecutor Robert Fiske Jr. feared his testimony could jeopardize the Whitewater probe by tipping off people under investigation. Fiske agreed to reduce felony fraud charges against Charles Matthews and Eugene Fitzhugh to misdemeanors in exchange for guilty pleas.


In an article by John Davis and Craig Sowers from LFWC International Israel--[quoting]: While on long-term assignment in Israel, Lockheed F-16 field engineer, Aubrey Richardson, played a key role in the reopening of Qumran, site of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovery.

He became interested in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls after reading numerous historical accounts of the excavations made at Qumran in the early 1950s; he compared those findings with a translation of the famous Copper Scroll unearthed during those digs.

The Copper Scroll, which now resides in Amman, Jordan, describes the location of numerous hidden treasures of gold, silver and various religious articles.

Unable to reconcile the absence of the treasures described in the Copper Scroll in prior archaeological undertakings, Aubrey advanced the theory that these hidden treasures may lie in the Qumran plateau subsurface that served as a campsite for archaeological expeditions. He concluded that the treasure was, literally, "right under their noses."

Studying the Essene sect (as noted in the Bible), Aubrey reasoned that the Essenes, having lived in the Qumran area more than 200 years, would have fabricated and cached more scrolls and religious items than found thus far.

He also noted that of the scrolls found, numerous errors were contained, making them unusable in Essene religious ceremonies. As such, it seemed reasonable that usable articles, revered and protected by the Essene community, would have been hidden from possible intruders.

To validate his assertion that not all Essene artifacts had been found, Aubrey pursued and obtained permission to undertake mini-excavations in and around the man-made cave of the plateau in 1989.

Working closely with an Israeli archaeologist assigned by the Israeli Antiquities Department, pottery shards and charcoal-ashes were exhumed from various sites.

Also found was a false floor in one cave as described in the Copper Scroll; unfortunately, the earthen vessel, scroll and silver described therein had been previously removed.

Discovery of these trace artifacts supported Aubrey's theory and prompted the Department of Geophysics at Tel Aviv University to sponsor a non-destructive investigation of the plateau in 1992.

Using ground penetrating radar and seismic reflection equipment, a complete, integrated geophysical survey was conducted. Several promising targets were detected and mapped at depths of 4 to 15 meters. Of particular interest were the deeper targets, which are interpreted to be manmade "voids" in geophysical terms.

Aubrey's theory--that these geophysical voids are the man-made vaults described in the Copper Scroll--was embraced by the Israeli Antiquities Department.

In November 1993, physical excavation was begun on the shallow targets. A month later, euphoria swept through the excavation team as the first evidence of man-made structures was revealed. The excitement swelled as three man-made storage vaults were viewed for the first time since their burial 2,000 years ago. Clay pottery, shards and miscellaneous artifacts were found in the vaults.

The most important discovery, however, was an intact copper vessel of sizable dimensions. While its contents have yet to be revealed by the Israeli Antiquities Department, its presence in one of the vaults corroborates Aubrey's theory that not all of the Essene's treasure and scrolls have been discovered.

Rick Martin 7/16/94


In an article from the July 1 edition of The JOHNSON CITY PRESS, written by Paul Recer, [quoting:]

Intensifying ultraviolet radiation is wiping out insect larvae that are a major food source for fish in North America, a researcher reports. [Regular CONTACT and JOURNAL readers will be aware that there is much more to this subject than the ultraviolet radiation tale--how about greatly intensified NUCLEAR RADIATION fallout from past nuclear testing! However, the JOURNAL which explained in detail what is taking place has been BANNED by court order from availability to the public.] The finding suggests that UV effects on the natural food chain could be worse than previously suspected.

Max Bothwell of the National Water Research Institute in Burlington, Ontario, reports in the journal SCIENCE that a type of radiation from the sun called ultraviolet-B, or UVB, is more damaging to the midge larvae than expected and that this could, over time, cause a decline in the number of freshwater fish.

The food chain is the natural pattern that transfers food or energy from plants to lower animals to higher animals and eventually to humans. The first link in the chain are plants that use photosynthesis to convert sunlight to an organic form of energy. The plants are then eaten by animals and the energy is passed upward to a new level in the food chain.

Researchers have determined that the intensity of ultraviolet radiation falling on the Earth has increased sharply in recent years. [How about plain, old-fashioned radiation?]


In an article from THE TORONTO STAR (Reuter's), GENEVA [quoting:)

The estimated number of full-blown AIDS cases worldwide increased from 2.5 million to 4 million in the past 12 months--a rise of 60 percent, the World Health Organization said today.

The U.N. agency said the epidemic was spreading fastest in Asia, where there was an eight-fold jump in estimated cases of AIDS to 250,000 cases from 30,000 in July, 1993.

The largest number of estimated AIDS cases--more than 2.5 million--is in sub-Saharan Africa. The region also has more than 10 million adults infected with the HIV virus which causes the killer disease, according to the WHO report.

[Can you imagine what the real numbers are?]


In an article from the July 6 edition of THE ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL, SANTA FE--"New Mexico's fifth case this year of bubonic plague was confirmed Tuesday in a 53-year-old woman from a rural area in Otero County.

"The state Health Department said she is hospitalized and is recovering.

"Plague is rare in Southern New Mexico, so the department's Epidemiology Division is notifying doctors in the area of symptoms that could indicate plague.

"Symptoms of bubonic plague in humans resemble those of flu, including headache, fever, chills and possibly painfully swollen lymph nodes in the armpit, groin or neck areas. In its pneumonic form, the disease spreads to the lungs."


In an article appearing in a recent edition of Southern California's DAILY NEWS, "In November, Dr. Avi Ben-Abraham, president of the American Cryogenics Society, told an audience in Washington, D.C., that several high-ranking Roman Catholic Church leaders support human embryo cloning, despite the church's public stance against such research. According to Ben-Abraham, those church leaders hope to reproduce Jesus Christ from DNA fibers found on the Shroud of Turin."


In an article from the July 1 edition of THE JOHNSON CITY PRESS, CHICAGO--"As many as 10 U.S. nuclear reactors have developed cracks in steel shrouds surrounding radioactive fuel, a problem the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says could lead to a meltdown in the event of an earthquake.

"Cracks were first found last fall in a reactor in North Carolina, but industry officials expressed surprise at the number and the extent of fractures found in recent inspections.

"A reactor operators group reported cracks in welds at 10 reactors, including two in Europe and China, and indications of cracking at two others in the United States."


In an article from the July 6 edition of THE JOHNSON CITY PRESS, written by Duncan Mansfield, KNOXVILLE--[quoting:]

As plans draw near to bring enriched uranium from warheads in Russia to East Tennessee for storage and possible processing, some environmentalists have begun worrying about how it is going to get here.

Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin [TM], is negotiating to reap some of the post-Cold War commercial benefits of U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreements announced in January.

The United States Enrichment Corp., created by Congress, will buy $12 billion worth of weapons-grade uranium--550 tons--over the next 20 years. The material will be diluted and sold for nuclear fuel to atomic power stations worldwide.

All shipping is classified because of the nature of the work, the same as when we're producing fuel for the United States nuclear navy (from the late 1950s until last year). We have never publicly discussed transportation issues at NFS."


In an article appearing in the June 26 edition of THE SUNDAY TIMES, [quoting:]

Since THE SUNDAY TIMES broke the news in April that a Russian aerospace factory was building a flying saucer called the Ekip, Alexander Yermishin, director of the project at Saratov, 400 miles southeast of Moscow, has had a busy time, writes Dorothy Dawson.

More than 80 American companies have expressed an interest, and Yermishin spent last week negotiating with the Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation in California.

The Ekip has some attractive characteristics; it is versatile, cheap to run and cheap to build (a passenger version could be developed in Russia for 2 billion, as opposed to 10 billion in the West). Yermishin believes its potential merits development by an international consortium.