Please take the time to watch this 18 minute video and share. This is important. You cannot argue with this. It can all be verified.
Please take the time to watch this 18 minute video and share. This is important. You cannot argue with this. It can all be verified.
Yes the quality of this video is bad but it was ‘taped’ and then uploaded many times to several platforms over the years. Get yourself comfortable, put on your earbuds and listen. If you don’t wish to listen we have also provided you with the transcript in PDF format below the video. Share!
** I would like to address the fact that Strecker himself admits in this tape he utilized many methods of treating AIDS infected people without much success – bc he was also using AZT which was advocated and pushed by Fauci who at the time knew it was poison and would kill. If only they knew then what we know now many of our friends and family members would be here with us today. As well if the Rife method were allowed many many more would survive survivable illnesses.
We have the right to resist and an obligation and duty to do so! Know your rights!
Favorite quote from her motivating speech:
” after they codify mandates to turn this country into a slave ship,… and I don’t know about you,..but I’m not signing up for that cruise line”
** By publishing the following we do not condone the manner in which the message was sent – this is merely for informational and historical reference. Take the message here for how it may be applied to current events.
Theodore Kaczynski 1995
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization”. Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or “fellow”. The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion”. Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate”. They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hyper sensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghettodweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middleto upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is antiindividualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagohistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior.  But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a nonmoral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. 
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human being inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals  constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most leftwing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes  for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion aginst it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrialtechnological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
THE POWER PROCESS
33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the power process. This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clearcut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).
34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one’s power.
35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.
36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if non-attainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.
37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.
38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn’t need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.
39. We use the term “surrogate activity” to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the qake of the “fulfillment” that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito’s studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn’t know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)
40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the “fulfillment” they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.
41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the “mundane” business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.
42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective basis if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant. 
43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power (the good combat soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).
44. But for most people it is through the power process — having a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goal — that self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go through the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders. etc. 
SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS
45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren’t the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.
46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.
48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people’s hands. For example, a variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)
49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a smallscale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.
52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is “nepotism” or “discrimination,” both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. 
53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe tbey are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.
54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.
55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.
56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today’s society. 
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer’s need for the power process.
58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today’s industrial society. We contend that the most important cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don’t mean to say that modern society is the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its recent (midto late-20th century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.
DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY
59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.
60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives.
61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone  in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the effort needed to hold a job is “minimal”; but usually, in lowerto middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of OBEDIENCE. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not well served.)
62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual.  But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.
63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see paragraphs 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry , and through surrogate activities.
64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that appears repeatediy in the writings of the social critics of the second half of the 20th century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called by other names such as “anomic” or “middle-class vacuity.”) We suggest that the so-called “identity crisis” is actually a search for a sense of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the purposelessness of modern life.  Very widespread in modern society is the search for “fulfillment.” But we think that for the majority of people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that is, a surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.
65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money, climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in some other way, most people are not in a position to pursue their goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else’s employee and, as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even most people who are in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a chronic complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people who most need autonomy.
66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with rules and regulations , and techniques prescribed by experts must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.
67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in the pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. (“We live in a world in which relatively few people — maybe 500 or 1,000 — make the important decisions”, Philip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to more [than] a very limited extent. The individual’s search for security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of powerlessness.
68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. But psychological security does not closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.
69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.
70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to influence them. So modern man’s drive for security tends to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter etc.) his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)
71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that are necessarily frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3. One may become angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations it does not even permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one maybeinahurry,oronemaybeinamoodtotravel slowly, but one generally has no choice but to move with the flow of traffic and obey the traffic signals. One may want to do one’s work in a different way, but usually one can work only according to the rules laid down by one’s employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with the power process. Most of these regulations cannot be dispensed with, because they are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.
72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice “safe sex”). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.
73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda  to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to “commercials” and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer’s orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else’s employee.
74. We suggest that modern man’s obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The “mid-lffe crisis” also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.
75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on social power; we won’t discuss that here.) This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of “fulfillment.” We suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the power process — with real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.
76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say, “Society must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through the power process.” This won’t work for those who need autonomy in the power process. For such people the value of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain autonomy they must get off that leash.
HOW SOME PEOPLE ADJUST
77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people differ so greatly in their response to modern society.
78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the Old South. (We don’t mean to sneer at the “plantation darkies” of the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)
79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that game.
80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. Some are so susceptible that, even if they make a great deal of money, they cannot satisfy their constant craving for the the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their income is large, and their cravings are frustrated.
81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who aren’t interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process.
82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort (putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.). Thus material acquisition serves their need for the power process. But it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist of following orders) and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g., security, aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in paragraphs 80-82 because we have assumed that the desire for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course it’s not that simple. 
83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward those goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses it too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). Thus the U.S. went through the power process and many Americans, because of their identification with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power.  We see the same phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power.
84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the “fulfillment” that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp-collecting. Some people are more “other-directed” than others, and therefore will more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a person’s way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and (for some people) social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment (paragraphs 87-92).
85. In this section we have explained how many people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly “hooked” on a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization (see paragraphs 41, 64). In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses.
86. But even if most people in industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed to that form of society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to fulfill one’s need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals.
THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up.
88. The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn’t Dr. Teller get emotional about other “humanitarian” causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to “benefit humanity” but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.
89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.
90. Of course, it’s not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.
91. Also, science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).
92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government of ficials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.
THE NATURE OF FREEDOM
93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But, because “freedom” is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.
94. By “freedom” we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one’s environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).
95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government.  Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler’s will: There were no modern, wellorganized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.
96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don’t mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even ff these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.
97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a “free” man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois’s “free” man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the bourgeois). Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, “Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century,” page 202, explains the philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: “An individual is granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life requires such rights. By community Hu meant the whole society of the nation.” And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum Chang (Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party in China) freedom had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else prescribes? FC’s conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the theories are imposed.
98. One more point to be made in this section: It should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he SAYS he has enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological controls of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people’s ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by their real needs. For example, it’s likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.
SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY
99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.
100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory — the trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won’t be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered by only pushed a step ahead.
101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.
102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can’t permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.
103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)
104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.
105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.
106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.
107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.
108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.
109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American “Revolution” was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an offshoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be sure — there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step. But it was a step along the road that English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of lffe today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.
110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conciusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one’s thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.
INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED
111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one — soon swamped by the tide of history — or, if large enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not reformers.
112. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make such suggestions seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected.
113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbable that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
114. As explained in paragraphs 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda , educational techniques, “mental health” programs, etc.)
115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can’t function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits — just the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.
116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society’s requirements: welfare leeches, youth gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
117. In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a onemillionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant.  Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
118. Conservatives and some others advocate more “local autonomy.” Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far way. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.  Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn’t function if everyone starved; it attends to people’s psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn’t function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. To much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so withoutshowing signs of stress.
120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals — their “autonomous” efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer’s goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the smallbusiness person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.
THE ‘BAD’ PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE ‘GOOD’ PARTS
121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can’t have much Progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.
122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.
123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. 
124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical”. and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system. 
TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOOM
125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other’s land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, “OK, let’s compromise. Give me half of what I asked.” The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.
126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.
127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace; one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications… how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet, as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man’s fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence.  The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents.much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
129. Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back, but technology can never take a step back — short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.
130. TechnoIogy advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and computers, etc.). To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would require a long and difficult social struggle. Those who want to protect freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the rapidity with which they develop, hence they become apathetic and no longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution, not reform.
131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work is more important.
132. It is well known that people generally work better and more persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those who oppose technological invasions of freedom are working to avoid a negative outcome, consequently there are few who work persistently and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further erosion of freedom through technical progress, most would tend to relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology as it progresses would find ways, in spite of any barriers, to exert more and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent on the system.
133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a way as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given the pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom. and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago its seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least will weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. If such a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.
135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick, so tha he is unable to defend himself. The weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give the land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.
SIMPLER SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAVE PROVED INTRACTABLE
136. If anyone still imagines that it would be possible to reform the system in such a way as to protect freedom from technology, let him consider how clumsily and for the most part unsuccessfully our society has dealt with other social problems that are far more simple and straighfforward. Among other things, the system has failed to stop environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking or domestic abuse.
137. Take our environmental problems, for example. Here the conflict of values is straightforward: economic expedience now versus saving some of our natural resources for our grandchildren.  But on this subject we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from the people who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line of action, and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the environmental issue consist of struggles and compromises between different factions, some of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another moment. The line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of public opinion. This is not a rational process, nor is it one that is likely to lead to a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major social problems, if they get “solved” at all, are rarely or never solved through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work themselves out through a process in which various competing groups pursuing their own (usually short-term) selfinterest  arrive (mainly by luck) at some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact, the principles we formulated in paragraphs 100-106 make it seem doubtful that rational long-term social planning can EVER be successful.
138. Thus it is clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity for solving even relatively straightforward social problems. How then is it going to solve the far more difficult and subtle problem of reconciling freedom with technology? Technology presents clear-cut material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction that means different things to different people. and its loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk.
139. And note this important difference: It is conceivable that our environmental problems (for example) may some day be settled through a rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens it will be only because it is in the longterm interest of the system to solve these problems. But it is NOT in the interest of the system to preserve freedom or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in the interest of the system to bring human behavior under control to the greatest possible extent.  Thus, while practical considerations may eventually force the system to take a rational, prudent approach to environmental problems, equally practical considerations will force the system to regulate human behavior ever more closely (preferably by indirect means that will disguise the encroachment on freedom). This isn’t just our opinion. Eminent social scientists (e.g. James Q. Wilson) have stressed the importance of “socializing” people more effectively.
REVOLUTION IS EASIER THAN REFORM
140. We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be reformed in such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrialtechnological system altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature of society.
141. People tend to assume that because a revolution involves a much greater change than reform does, it is more difficult to bring about than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances revolution is much easier than reform. The reason is that a revolutionary movement can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement cannot inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular social problem. A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices. For this reasons it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective, permanent restraints on the development or application of any one segment of technology, such as genetic engineering, for example. Not many people will devote themselves with single-minded passion to imposing and maintaining restraints on genetic engineering, but under suitable conditions large numbers of people may devote themselves passionately to a revolution against the industrial-technological system. As we noted in paragraph 132, reformers seeking to limit certain aspects of technology would be working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries work to gain a powerful reward — fulfillment of their revolutionary vision — and therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do.
142. Reform is always restrained by the fear of painful consequences if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary fever has taken hold of a society, people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for the sake of their revolution. This was clearly shown in the French and Russian Revolutions. It may be that in such cases only a minority of the population is really committed to the revolution, but this minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes the dominant force in society. We will have more to say about revolution in paragraphs 180-205.
CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings of the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise, crowding, forcing human behavior into the mold that society requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately constant, or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds. Consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going wrong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaced by some more efficient form of society. 
144. Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing ways of modifying human beings.
145. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today’s society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)
146. Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the new methods of controlling human behavior that modern society is developing. Let us look at some of the other methods.
147. To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden video cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement).  Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communication media provide effective vehicles. Efflcient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don’t have work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise they get “bored,” i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.
148. Other techniques strike deeper than the foregoing. Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid’s behind when he doesn’t know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them. It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child’s development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools. “Parenting” techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make children accept fundamental values of the system and behave in ways that the system finds desirable. “Mental health” programs, “intervention” techniques, psychotherapy and so forth are ostensibly designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they usually serve as methods for inducing individuals to think and behave as the system requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat. His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into conformity.) Child abuse in its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if not all cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking, when used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person fit in well with the existing system of society. In practice, the word “abuse” tends to be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing that produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go beyond the prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs for preventing “child abuse” are directed toward the control of human behavior on behalf of the system.
149. Presumably, research will continue to increase the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior. But we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be used. We have already mentioned the use of drugs in this connection. Neurology may provide other avenues for modifying the human mind. Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in the form of “gene therapy,” and there is no reason to assume that such methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the body that affect mental functioning.
150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system’s economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won’t study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse, other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict (e.g., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will therefore be FORCED to use every practical means of controlling human behavior.
151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will have been passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in Paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system. 
152. Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom.  Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases there will be a humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist prescribes an antidepressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When Parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their children’s welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn’t have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn’t have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can’t change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn’t have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan.
153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred.  Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.
154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal, and suppose some sort of gene therapy can remove this trait.  Of course most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the system.
155. Our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good.
156. In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program, because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. This will lead more people to undergo the treatment; and so forth, so that eventually the pressures may become so heavy that few people will be able to survive without undergoing the stress-reducing treatment. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already with one of our society’s most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is “optional”: No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite recently in human histoy most people got along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would not have been able to get away with putting as much stressproducing pressure on us as it does.
157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.
158. It presumably would be impractical for all people to have electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could be controlled by the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so open to biological intervention shows that the problem of controlling human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem of neurons, hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that is accessible to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great advances will be made in the control of human behavior.
159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See paragraphs 127, 132, 153.)
160. To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we point out that yesterday’s science fiction is today’s fact. The Industrial Revolution has radically altered man’s environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.
HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS
161. But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these techniques into a functioning social system. The latter problem is the more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the “lab schools” where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them effectively throughout our educational system. We all know what many of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking knives and guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical advances relating to human behavior, the system to date has not been impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those of the type that might be called “bourgeois.” But there are growing numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels against the system: welfare leaches, youth gangs, cultists, satanists, nazis, radical environmentalists, militiamen, etc.
162. The system is currently engaged in a desperate struggle to overcome certain problems that threaten its survival, among which the problems of human behavior are the most important. If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say 40 to 100 years.
163. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several decades. By that time it will have to have solved, or at least brought under control, the principal problems that confront it, in particular that of “socializing” human beings; that is, making people sufficiently docile so that heir behavior no longer threatens the system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which is complete control over everything on Earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary, monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition, just as today the government, the corporations and other large organizations both cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent visa-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion. Only a small number of people will have any real power, and even these probably will have only very limited freedom, because their behavior too will be regulated; just as today our politicians and corporation executives can retain their positions of power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits.
164. Don’t imagine that the systems will stop developing further techniques for controlling human beings and nature once the crisis of the next few decades is over and increasing control is no longer necessary for the system’s survival. On the contrary, once the hard times are over the system will increase its control over people and nature more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered by difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival is not the principal motive for extending control. As we explained in paragraphs 87-90, technicians and scientists carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity; that is, they satisfy their need for power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting and challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding the human body and mind and intervening in their development. For the “good of humanity,” of course.
165. But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of the coming decades prove to be too much for the system. If the system breaks down there may be a period of chaos, a “time of troubles” such as those that history has recorded at various epochs in the past. It is impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of troubles, but at any rate the human race would be given a new chance. The greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to reconstitute itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly there will be many people (powerhungry types espeeially) who will be anxious to get the factories running again.
166. Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude to which the industrial system is reducing the human race. First, we must work to heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the likelihood that it will break down or be weakened sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. Second, it is necessary to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. Such an ideology can become the basis for a revolution against industrial society if and when the system becomes sufficiently weakened. And such an ideology will help to assure that, if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The factories should be destroyed, technical books burned, etc.
167. The industrial system will not break down purely as a result of revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary attack unless its own internal problems of development lead it into very serious difficulties. So if the system breaks down it will do so either spontaneously, or through a process that is in part spontaneous but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown is sudden, many people will die, since the world’s population has become so overblown that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth rate than through elevation of the death rate, the process of deindustrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be phased out in a smoothly managed, orderly way, especially since the technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it therefore cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe, but maybe not. In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to break the system down unless it is already in enough trouble so that there would be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself anyway; and the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences of its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries, by hastening the onset of the breakdown, will be reducing the extent of the disaster.
168. In the second place, one has to balance struggle and death against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us, freedom and dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but empty and purposeless life.
169. In the third place, it is not at all certain that survival of the system will lead to less suffering than breakdown of the system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to cause, immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and with their environment, have been shattered by contact with industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that that implies. Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate about what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?
170. “Oh!” say the technophiles, “Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!” Yeah, sure. That’s what they said 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or selfdeceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph 103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempts to end poverty and disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so than the present one. For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine by creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But this will allow the human population to keep expanding indefinitely, and it is well known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression. This is merely one example of the PREDICTABLE problems that will arise. We emphasize that, as past experience has shown, technical progress will lead to other new problems that CANNOT be predicted in advance (paragraph 103). In fact, ever since the Industrial Revolution, technology has been creating new problems for society far more rapidly than it has been solving old ones. Thus it will take a long and difficult period of trial and error for the technophiles to work the bugs out of their Brave New World (if they every do). In the meantime there will be great suffering. So it is not at all clear that the survival of industrial society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of that society would. Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from which there is not likely to be any easy escape.
171. But suppose now that industrial society does survive the next several decades and that the bugs do eventually get worked out of the system, so that it functions smoothly. What kind of system will it be? We will consider several possibilities.
172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.
173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machine off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of softhearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to “sublimate” their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.
176. One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other’s shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other’s tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, crime, “cults,” hate groups) unless they were biologically or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.
177. Needless to say, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem to us most likely. But we can envision no plausible scenarios that are any more palatable than the ones we’ve just described. It is overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the “bourgeois” type, who are integrated into the system and make it run, and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever on large organizations; they will be more “socialized” than ever and their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly to a very great extent) will be those that are engineered into them rather than being the results of chance (or of God’s will, or whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild). In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed.
178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychologically. If man is not adjusted to this new environment by being artificially re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long and painful process of natural selection. The former is far more likely than the latter.
179. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences.
180. The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don’t think it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here some indications of how to go about stopping it.
181. As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.
182. It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions were failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new kind of society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal form of society. Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.
183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, WILD nature: those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology.  It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even preindustrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or herdsmen or fishermen or hunters, etc. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.
185. As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society — well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too. To gain one thing you have to sacrifice another.
186. Most people hate psychological conflict. For this reason they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues, and they like to have such issues presented to them in simple, black-and-white terms: THIS is all good and THAT is all bad. The revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels.
187. On the more sophisticated level the ideology should address itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful and rational. The object should be to create a core of people who will be opposed to the industrial system on a rational, thought-out basis, with full appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved, and of the price that has to be paid for getting rid of the system. It is particularly important to attract people of this type, as they are capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others. These people should be addressed on as rational a level as possible. Facts should never intentionally be distorted and intemperate language should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to the emotions, but in making such appeal care should be taken to avoid misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy the intellectual respectability of the ideology.
188. On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology vs. nature in unambiguous terms. But even on this second level the ideology should not be expressed in language that is so cheap, intemperate or irrational that it alienates people of the thoughfful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of an unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However, propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old worldview goes under.
189. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution , the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.
190. Any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system, but one should be careful about what kind of conflict one encourages. The line of conflict should be drawn between the mass of the people and the power-holding elite of industrial society (politicians, scientists, upper-level business executives, government officials, etc.). It should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. For example, it would be bad strategy for the revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption. Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn’t need and that is very poor compensation for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with the facts. It is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy one should generally avoid blaming the public.
191. One should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that between the power-holding elite (which wields technology) and the general public (over which technology exerts its power). For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from the important conflicts (between power-elite and ordinary people, between technology and nature); for another thing, other conflicts may actually tend to encourage technologization, because each side in such a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African Americans by placing back individuals in the technological power-elite. They want there to be many black government officials, scientists, corporation executives and so forth. In this way they are helping to absorb the African American subculture into the technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage only those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the conflicts of power-elite vs. ordinary people, technology vs nature.
192. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is NOT through militant advocacy of minority rights (see paragraphs 21, 29). Instead, the revolutionaries should emphasize that although minorities do suffer more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is of peripheral significance. Our real enemy is the industrialtechnological system, and in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no importance.
193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics. 
194. Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some “green” party should win control of the United States Congress in an election. In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own ideology they would have to take vigrous measures to turn economic growth into economic shrinkage. To the average man the results would appear disastrous: There would be massive unemployment, shortages of commodities, etc. Even if the grosser ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted. Dissatisfaction would grow, the “green” party would be voted out o,f offfice and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above.
195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of us. Holy robots! The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a “democratic” industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one.  It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because dictator-controlled systems usually have proved ineffficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.
196. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to bind the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT are probably harmful to the environment in the short run, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations.
197. Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too much control over nature; they argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best these people are expressing themselves unclearly, because they fail to distinguish between power for LARGE ORGANIZATIONS and power for INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity, because people NEED power. Modern man as a collective entity — that is, the industrial system — has immense power over nature, and we (FC) regard this as evil. But modern INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS have far less power than primitive man ever did. Generally speaking, the vast power of “modern man” over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups but by large organizations. To the extent that the average modern INDIVIDUAL can wield the power of technology, he is permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. (You need a license for everything and with the license come rules and regulations.) The individual has only those technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him. His PERSONAL power over nature is slight.
198. Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had considerable power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say power WITHIN nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to find and prepare edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat cold, rain, dangerous animals, etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible compared to the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society.
199. Instead of arguing for powerlessness and passivity, one should argue that the power of the INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM should be broken, and that this will greatly INCREASE the power and freedom of INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS.
200. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries’ ONLY goal. Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal. More importantly if the revolutionaries permit themselves to have any other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal. If they give in to that temptation, they will fall right back into the technological trap, because modern technology is a unified, tightly organized system, so that, in order to retain SOME technology, one finds oneself obliged to retain MOST technology, hence one ends up sacrificing only token amounts of technology.
201. Suppose for example that the revolutionaries took “social justice” as a goal. Human nature being what it is, social justice would not come about spontaneously; it would have to be enforced. In order to enforce it the revolutionaries would have to retain central organization and control. For that they would need rapid long-distance transportation and communication, and therefore all the technology needed to support the transportation and communication systems. To feed and clothe poor people they would have to use agricultural and manufacturing technology. And so forth. So that the attempt to insure social justice would force them to retain most parts of the technological system. Not that we have anything against social justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to get rid of the technological system.
202. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using SOME modern technology. If nothing else they must use the communications media to spread their message. But they should use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack the technological system.
203. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, “Wine isn’t bad for you if used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good for you! It won’t do me any harm if I take just one little drink….” Well you know what is going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine.
204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person’s genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn’t matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on.
205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To ensure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world’s population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.
206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.
TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY
207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.
208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call smallscale technology and organizationdependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organizationdependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans’ smallscale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans’ organizationdependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.
209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factorymade parts or the facilities of a postindustrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator.
210. So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organizationdependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to build it the first time around. Surviving technical books would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without outside help, can only be built in a series of stages: You need tools to make tools to make tools to make tools… A long process of economic development and progress in social organization is required. And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for “progress” is a phenomenon peculiar to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.
211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally “advanced”: Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.
212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.
THE DANGER OF LEFTISM
213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.
214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.
215. The anarchist  too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.
216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.
217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most powerhungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with nonleftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists.
218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as “leftists” do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term “leftism” because we don’t know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)
219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism: everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal.  Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.
220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct; because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.
221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.
222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer’s book, The True Believer. But not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists. Presumably a true-believing nazi, for instance, is very different psychologically from a true-believing leftist. Because of their capacity for singleminded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement. This presents a problem with which we must admit we don’t know how to deal. We aren’t sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 200, 201).
223. Some readers may say, “This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don’t have all these totalitarian tendencies.” It’s quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others’ values (up to a point) and wouldn’t want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.
224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power-hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the powerhungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the powerhungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base.
225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the, USSR, leftish types in the West would, seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.
226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.
227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.
228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.
229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he ofte finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. 
230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.
231. Throughout this article we’ve made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don’t claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.
232. All the same, we are reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. Just one possible weak point needs to be mentioned. We have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism. Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity, but as far as we can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were not nearly so evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a significant question to which historians ought to give their attention.
1. (Paragraph 19) We are asserting that ALL, or even most, bullies and ruthless competitors suffer from feelings of inferiority.
2. (Paragraph 25) During the Victorian period many oversocialized people suffered from serious psychological problems as a result of repressing or trying to repress their sexual feelings. Freud apparently based his theories on people of this type. Today the focus of socialization has shifted from sex to aggression.
3. (Paragraph 27) Not necessarily including specialists in engineering or the “hard” sciences.
4. (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle and upper classes who resist some of these values, but usually their resistance is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the mass media only to a very limited extent. The main thrust of propaganda in our society is in favor of the stated values. The main reason why these values have become, so to speak, the official values of our society is that they are useful to the industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talents of minority-group members who could be useful to the system. Poverty must be “cured” because the underclass causes problems for the system and contact with the underclass lowers the morale of the other classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents are useful to the system and, more importantly, because by having regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they want the family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in accord with the needs of the system. We argue in paragraphs 51, 52 that the system cannot afford to let the family or other smallscale social groups be strong or autonomous.)
5. (Paragraph 42) It may be argued that the majority of people don’t want to make their own decisions but want leaders to do their thinking for them. There is an element of truth in this. People like to make their own decisions in small matters, but making decisions on difficult, fundamental questions requires facing up to psychological conflict, and most people hate psychological conflict. Hence they tend to lean on others in making difficult decisions. But it does not follow that they like to have decisions imposed upon them without having any opportunity to influence those decisions. The majority of people are natural followers, not leaders, but they like to have direct personal access to their leaders, they want to be able to influence the leaders and participate to some extent in making even the difficult decisions. At least to that degree they need autonomy.
6. (Paragraph 44) Some of the symptoms listed are similar to those shown by caged animals. To explain how these symptoms arise from deprivation with respect to the power process: common-sense understanding of human nature tells one that lack of goals whose attainment requires effort leads to boredom and that boredom, long continued, often leads eventually to depression. Failure to attain goals leads to frustration and lowering of selfesteem. Frustration leads to anger, anger to aggression, often in the form of spouse or child abuse. It has been shown that long-continued frustration commonly leads to depression and that depression tends to cause guilt, sleep disorders, eating disorders and bad feelings about oneself. Those who are tending toward depression seek pleasure as an antidote; hence insatiable hedonism and excessive sex, with perversions as a means of getting new kicks. Boredom too tends to cause excessive pleasure-seeking since, lacking other goals, people often use pleasure as a goal. The foregoing is a simplification. Reality is more complex, and of course, deprivation with respect to the power process is not the ONLY cause of the symptoms described. By the way, when we mention depression we do not necessarily mean depression that is severe enough to be treated by a psychiatrist. Often only mild forms of depression are involved. And when we speak of goals we do not necessarily mean long-term, thought-out goals. For many or most people through much of human history, the goals of a hand-to-mouth existence (merely providing oneself and one’s family with food from day to day) have been quite sufficient.
7. (Paragraph 52) A partial exception may be made for a few passive, inwardlooking groups, such as the Amish, which have little effect on the wider society. Apart from these, some genuine small-scale communities do exist in America today. For instance, youth gangs and “cults.” Everyone regards them as dangerous, and so they are, because the members of these groups are loyal primarily to one another rather than to the system, hence the system cannot control them. Or take the gypsies. The gypsies commonly get away with theft and fraud because their loyalties are such that they can always get other gypsies to give testimony that “proves” their innocence. Obviously the system would be in serious trouble if too many people belonged to such groups. Some of the early-20th century Chinese thinkers who were concerned with modernizing China recognized the necessity breaking down small-scale social groups such as the family: “(According to Sun Yatsen) the Chinese people needed a new surge of patriotism, which would lead to a transfer of loyalty from the family to the state…. (According to Li Huang) traditional attachments, particularly to the family had to be abandoned if nationalism were to develop in China.” (Chester C. Tan, “Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century,” page 125, page 297.)
8. (Paragraph 56) Yes, we know that 19th century America had its problems, and serious ones, but for the sake of brevity we have to express ourselves in simplified terms.
9. (Paragraph 61) We leave aside the “underclass.” We are speaking of the mainstream.
10. (Paragraph 62) Some social scientists, educators, “mental health” professionals and the like are doing their best to push the social drives into group 1 by trying to see to it that everyone has a satisfactory social life.
11. (Paragraphs 63, 82) Is the drive for endless material acquisition really an artificial creation of the advertising and marketing industry? Certainly there is no innate human drive for material acquisition. There have been many cultures in which people have desired little material wealth beyond what was necessary to satisfy their basic physical needs (Australian aborigines, traditional Mexican peasant culture, some African cultures). On the other hand there have also been many pre-industrial cultures in which material acquisition has played an important role. So we can’t claim that today’s acquisition-oriented culture is exclusively a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. But it is clear that the advertising and marketing industry has had an important part in creating that culture. The big corporations that spend millions on advertising wouldn’t be spending that kind of money without solid proof that they were getting it back in increased sales. One member of FC met a sales manager a couple of years ago who was frank enough to tell him, “Our job is to make people buy things they don’t want and don’t need.” He then described how an untrained novice could present people with the facts about a product, and make no sales at all, while a trained and experienced professional salesman would make lots of sales to the same people. This shows that people are manipulated into buying things they don’t really want.
12. (Paragraph 64) The problem of purposelessness seems to have become less serious during the last 15 years or so, because people now feel less secure physically and economically than they did earlier, and the need for security provides them with a goal. But purposelessness has been replaced by frustration over the difficulty of attaining security. We emphasize the problem of purposelessness because the liberals and leftists would wish to solve our social problems by having society guarantee everyone’s security; but if that could be done it would only bring back the problem of purposelessness. The real issue is not whether society provides well or poorly for people’s security; the trouble is that people are dependent on the system for their security rather than having it in their own hands. This, by the way, is part of the reason why some people get worked up about the right to bear arms; possession of a gun puts that aspect of their security in their own hands.
13. (Paragraph 66) Conservatives’ efforts to decrease the amount of government regulation are of little benefit to the average man. For one thing, only a fraction of the regulations can be eliminated because most regulations are necessary. For another thing, most of the deregulation affects business rather than the average individual, so that its main effect is to take power from the government and give it to private corporations. What this means for the average man is that government interference in his life is replaced by interference from big corporations, which may be permitted, for example, to dump more chemicals that get into his water supply and give him cancer. The conservatives are just taking the average man for a sucker, exploiting his resentment of Big Government to promote the power of Big Business.
14. (Paragraph 73) When someone approves of the purpose for which propaganda is being used in a given case, he generally calls it “education” or applies to it some similar euphemism. But propaganda is propaganda regardless of the purpose for which it is used.
15. (Paragraph 83) We are not expressing approval or disapproval of the Panama invasion. We only use it to illustrate a point.
16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. We quote from “Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives,” edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, pages 476-478: “The progressive heightening of standards of propriety, and with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement (in l9th century America)… were common to the whole society…. [T]he change in social behavior is so long term and so widespread as to suggest a connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social processes; that of industrial urbanization itself…. Massachusetts in 1835 had a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly preindustrial and native born. It’s citizens were used to considerable personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans, they were all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the nature of their work made them physically independent of each other…. Individual problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause for wider social concern….”But the impact of the twin movements to the city and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835, had a progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the 19th century and into the 20th. The factory demanded regularity of behavior, a life governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar, the demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town, the needs of living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many actions previously unobjectionable. Both blueand white-collar employees in larger establishments were mutually dependent on their fellows; as one man’s work fit into anther’s, so one man’s business was no longer his own. The results of the new organization of life and work were apparent by 1900, when some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior which had been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere of the later period…. The move to the cities had, in short, produced a more tractable, more socialized, more ‘civilized’ generation than its predecessors.”
17. (Paragraph 117) Apologists for the system are fond of citing cases in which elections have been decided by one or two votes, but such cases are rare.
18. (Paragraph 119) “Today, in technologically advanced lands, men live very similar lives in spite of geographical, religious, and political differences. The daily lives of a Christian bank clerk in Chicago, a Buddhist bank clerk in Tokyo, and a Communist bank clerk in Moscow are far more alike than the life of any one of them is like that of any single man who lived a thousand years ago. These similarities are the result of a common technology….” L. Sprague de Camp, “The Ancient Engineers,” Ballantine edition, page 17. The lives of the three bank clerks are not IDENTICAL. Ideology does have SOME effect. But all technological societies, in order to survive, must evolve along APPROXIMATELY the same trajectory.
19. (Paragraph 123) Just think an irresponsible genetic engineer might create a lot of terrorists.
20. (Paragraph 124) For a further example of undesirable consequences of medical progress, suppose a reliable cure for cancer is discovered. Even if the treatment is too expensive to be available to any but the elite, it will greatly reduce their incentive to stop the escape of carcinogens into the environment.
21. (Paragraph 128) Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A’s shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favor. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favor by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is not point in Mr. A’s playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves. The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual’s life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate.
22. (Paragraph 137) Here we are considering only the conflict of values within the mainstream. For the sake of simplicity we leave out of the picture “outsider” values like the idea that wild nature is more important than human economic welfare.
23. (Paragraph 137) Self-interest is not necessarily MATERIAL self-interest. It can consist in fulfillment of some psychological need, for example, by promoting one’s own ideology or religion.
24. (Paragraph 139) A qualification: It is in the interest of the system to permit a certain prescribed degree of freedom in some areas. For example, economic freedom (with suitable limitations and restraints) has proved effective in promoting economic growth. But only planned, circumscribed, limited freedom is in the interest of the system. The individual must always be kept on a leash, even if the leash is sometimes long (see paragraphs 94, 97).
25. (Paragraph 143) We don’t mean to suggest that the efficiency or the potential for survival of a society has always been inversely proportional to the amount of pressure or discomfort to which the society subjects people. That certainly is not the case. There is good reason to believe that many primitive societies subjected people to less pressure than European society did, but European society proved far more efficient than any primitive society and always won out in conflicts with such societies because of the advantages conferred by technology.
26. (Paragraph 147) If you think that more effective law enforcement is unequivocally good because it suppresses crime, then remember that crime as defined by the system is not necessarily what YOU would call crime. Today, smoking marijuana is a “crime,” and, in some places in the U.S., so is possession of an unregistered handgun. Tomorrow, possession of ANY firearm, registered or not, may be made a crime, and the same thing may happen with disapproved methods of child-rearing, such as spanking. In some countries, expression of dissident political opinions is a crime, and there is no certainty that this will never happen in the U.S., since no constitution or political system lasts forever. If a society needs a large, powerful law enforcement establishment, then there is something gravely wrong with that society; it must be subjecting people to severe pressures if so many refuse to follow the rules, or follow them only because forced. Many societies in the past have gotten by with little or no formal law-enforcement.
27. (Paragraph 151) To be sure, past societies have had means of influencing human behavior, but these have been primitive and of low effectiveness compared with the technological means that are now being developed.
28. (Paragraph 152) However, some psychologists have publicly expressed opinions indicating their contempt for human freedom. And the mathematician Claude Shannon was quoted in Omni (August 1987) as saying, “I visualize a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to humans, and I’m rooting for the machines.”
29. (Paragraph 154) This is no science fiction! After writing paragraph 154 we came across an article in Scientific American according to which scientists are actively developing techniques for identffying possible future criminals and for treating them by a combination of biological and psychological means. Some scientists advocate compulsory application of the treatment, which may be available in the near future. (See “Seeking the Criminal Element,” by W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, March 1995.) Maybe you think this is okay because the treatment would be applied to those who might become violent criminals. But of course it won’t stop there. Next, a treatment will be applied to those who might become drunk drivers (they endanger human life too), then perhaps to peel who spank their children, then to environmentalists who sabotage logging equipment, eventually to anyone whose behavior is inconvenient for the system.
30. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis. It is true that in many societies religion has served as a support and justification for the established order, but it is also true that religion has often provided a basis for rebellion. Thus it may be useful to introduce a religious element into the rebellion against technology, the more so because Western society today has no strong religious foundation. Religion, nowadays either is used as cheap and transparent support for narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism (fundamentalist protestant sects, “cults”), or is simply stagnant (Catholicism, main-line Protestantism). The nearest thing to a strong, widespread, dynamic religion that the West has seen in recent times has been the quasi-religion of leftism, but leftism today is fragmented and has no clear, unified, inspiring goal. Thus there is a religious vacuum in our society that could perhaps be filled by a religion focused on nature in opposition to technology. But it would be a mistake to try to concoct artificially a religion to fill this role. Such an invented religion would probably be a failure. Take the “Gaia” religion for example. Do its adherents REALLY believe in it or are they just play-acting? If they are just play-acting their religion will be a flop in the end. It is probably best not to try to introduce religion into the conflict of nature vs. technology unless you REALLY believe in that religion yourself and find that it arouses a deep, strong, genuine response in many other people.
31. (Paragraph 189) Assuming that such a final push occurs. Conceivably the industrial system might be eliminated in a somewhat gradual or piecemeal fashion (see paragraphs 4, 167 and Note 32).
32. (Paragraph 193) It is even conceivable (remotely) that the revolution might consist only of a massive change of attitudes toward technology resulting in a relatively gradual and painless disintegration of the industrial system. But if this happens we’ll be very lucky. It’s far more probably that the transition to a nontechnological society will be very difficult and full of conflicts and disasters.
33. (Paragraph 195) The economic and technological structure of a society are far more important than its political structure in determining the way the average man lives (see paragraphs 95, 119 and Notes 16, 18).
34. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called “anarchist,” and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC’s violent methods.
35. (Paragraph 219) Many leftists are motivated also by hostility, but the hostility probably results in part from a frustrated need for power.
36. (Paragraph 229) It is important to understand that we mean someone who sympathizes with these movements as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have equal rights is not necessary a leftist. The feminist, gay rights, etc., movements that exist in our society have the particular ideological tone that characterizes leftism, and if one believes, for example, that women should have equal rights it does not necessarily follow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it exists today.
Whole Food Vitamins: Ascorbic Acid Is Not Vitamin C
– by Timothy O’Shea, medical researcher
Without further ado, here’s the kernel: ascorbic acid is not vitamin C. Alpha tocopherol is not vitamin E. Retinoic acid is not vitamin A. And so on through the other vitamins. Vast sums of money have been expended to make these myths part of Conventional Wisdom. If you have several college degrees and all this is news to you, don’t feel bad. Unless you think your education ended at Commencement. Which is generally true.
Wheels Within Wheels
Vitamins are not individual molecular compounds. Vitamins are biological complexes. They are multi-step biochemical interactions whose action is dependent upon a number of variables within the biological terrain. Vitamin activity only takes place when all conditions are met within that environment, and when all co-factors and components of the entire vitamin complex are present and working together. Vitamin activity is even more than the sum of all those parts; it also involves timing.
Vitamins cannot be isolated from their complexes and still perform their specific life functions within the cells. When isolated into artificial commercial forms, like ascorbic acid, these purified synthetics act as drugs in the body. They are no longer vitamins, and to call them such is inaccurate.
A vitamin is “a working process consisting of the nutrient, enzymes, coenzymes, antioxidants, and trace minerals activators.” – Royal Lee “What Is a Vitamin?” Applied Trophology, Aug 1956
Dr. Royal Lee was the pioneer researcher in the field of whole food vitamins. For decades he documented the basic facts summarized in this chapter. His work has never been scientifically refuted. Anyone who seriously undertakes the study of vitamins today corroborates Lee’s work. His story is a fascinating study in itself, a study of indomitable perseverance in the pursuit of true principles. Jensen tells us that Royal Lee’s work will not be appreciated until the next century.
Hasn’t happened yet.
Lee felt the full weight of organized drugs/medicine bearing down on him. Reading like something out of Schindler’s List, we learn that the FDA not only persecuted Lee for challenging the economics of synthetic vitamins, produced by giant drug companies, but that he was actually ordered by a court to burn all his research of the past 20 years! Burn his research! When has that ever happened in this country? They didn’t even do that to Larry Flynt.
Going off on a tangent, ever wondered how the FDA attained its present position as attack dog for the drug companies and food manufacturers? It’s another whole story in itself. The precursor of the FDA was the Bureau of Chemistry. Up until 1912 the Bureau of Chemistry was headed up by a man named Dr. Harvey W. Wiley. Here’s a quote from Dr. Wiley that illustrates where his interests lay:
“No food product in our country would have any trace of benzoic acid, sulfurous acid or sulfites or any alum or saccharin, save for medical purposes. No soft drink would contain caffeine or theobromine. No bleached flour would enter interstate commerce. Our foods and drugs would be wholly without any form of adulteration and misbranding. The health of our people would be vastly improved and the life greatly extended. The manufacturers of our food supply, and especially the millers, would devote their energies to improving the public health and promoting happiness in every home by the production of whole ground, unbolted cereal flours and meals.”
– The History of a Crime Against the Pure Food Law,1912
Now obviously we can’t have a dangerous lunatic like this in charge of the public nutrition, can we? Dr. Wiley actually filed suit against the Coca-Cola company in an attempt to keep their artificial product out of interstate commerce, and off the market. Fortunately, Wiley was eventually replaced by a saner individual, more attuned to the real nutritional needs of the American people, as determined by the experts who knew what was best for us: the food manufacturers. This was Dr. Elmer Nelson, and in his words we get an idea of the change in philosophy that marked the transformation of the Bureau of Chemistry into the FDA: “It is wholly unscientific to state that a well-fed body is more able to resist disease than a poorly-fed body. My overall opinion is that there hasn’t been enough experimentation to prove that dietary deficiencies make one susceptible to disease.” – Elmer Nelson MD, Washington Post 26 Oct 49
Bernard Jensen illustrates how the tobacco industry and the food giants like Coke were indirectly behind the legal persecution of Royal Lee. Cigarette ads in the 40s and 50s showed medical doctors promoting the digestive benefits of smoking Camels. Or the advertising of Coke and other refined sugar foods stating that “science has shown how sugar can help keep your appetite and weight under control.” (Empty Harvest)
During this same period, Royal Lee was kept in courts for years, fighting to keep the right to advertise his vitamin products, because he was a threat to the food manufacturers. Lee knew they were poisoning the American public. He proved that refined sugars and devitalized, bleached flours were destroying the arteries and the digestive system, causing heart disease and cancer.
Whole Vs. Fractionated
OK, natural vs. synthetic. Let’s start with vitamin C. Most sources equate vitamin C with ascorbic acid, as though they were the same thing. They’re not. Ascorbic acid is an isolate, a fraction, a distillate of naturally occurring vitamin C. In addition to ascorbic acid, vitamin C must include rutin, bioflavonoids, Factor K, Factor J, Factor P, tyrosinase, ascorbinogen, and other components.
In addition, mineral co-factors must be available in proper amounts.
If any of these parts are missing, there is no vitamin C, no vitamin activity. When some of them are present, the body will draw on its own stores to make up the differences, so that the whole vitamin may be present. Only then will vitamin activity take place, provided that all other conditions and co-factors are present. Ascorbic acid is described merely as the “antioxidant wrapper” portion of vitamin C; ascorbic acid protects the functional parts of the vitamin from rapid oxidation or breakdown. (Somer, p 58 “Vitamin C: A Lesson in Keeping An Open Mind” The Nutrition Report)
Over 90% of ascorbic acid in this country is manufactured at a facility in Nutley, New Jersey, owned by Hoffman-LaRoche, one of the world’s biggest drug manufacturers (1 800 526 0189). Here ascorbic acid is made from a process involving cornstarch and volatile acids. Most U.S. vitamin companies then buy the bulk ascorbic acid from this single facility. After that, marketing takes over. Each company makes its own labels, its own claims, and its own formulations, each one claiming to have the superior form of vitamin C, even though it all came from the same place, and it’s really not vitamin C at all.
Fractionated = Synthetic = Crystalline = Fake
The word “synthetic” means two things:
-occurs nowhere in nature
From the outset, it is crucial to understand the difference between vitamins and vitamin activity. The vitamin is the biochemical complex. Vitamin activity means the actual biological and cellular changes that take place when the stage is set for the vitamin complex to act.
Think of it like gas and a car. Pumping the gas into the tank doesn’t necessarily mean the car is going anywhere. Other conditions and factors must be also present, in order for Activity to occur. The gas line to the carburetor must be clear, the carburetor jets must be set, there must be an exact mixture of air flow, the ignition must be turned on, the spark plugs must be clean, the exact amount of gas must reach each spark plug right before it fires, no gas must be left over in the cylinder after the plug fires Getting the idea? If any of this stuff is missing, there’s no Activity: the car doesn’t run, or at least not very well.
Amazing as it may sound if you’re hearing this for the first time, vitamins are more than the synthetic fractions we are commonly taught they are. The ascorbic acid you buy at the grocery store every few weeks, thinking you are buying Vitamin C, is just a chemical copy of naturally occurring ascorbic acid, which itself is still only a fraction of the actual Vitamin C. Real vitamin C is part of something living, and as such, can impart life.
Your synthetic, fractionated chemical ascorbic acid never grew in the ground, never saw the light of day, never was alive or part of anything alive. It’s a chemical, a cornstarch derivative, a sulfuric acid by-product. In your body it’s just another drug. Synthetic vitamins have toxic effects from mega-doses and actually can increase the white blood cell count. Vitamins are only necessary in minute quantities on a daily basis. Whole food vitamins, by contrast, are not toxic since the vitamin is complexed in its integral working form, and requires nothing from the body, and triggers no immune response.
Scurvy is a disease caused by vitamin C deficiency. Scurvy is characterized by bleeding gums, slow wound healing, softening bones, loose teeth, ulcerations of the mouth and digestive tract, general weight loss and fatigue. From 1650 to 1850 half of all seamen on transoceanic voyages died of scurvy. It was discovered by ship surgeon Thomas Lind in the early 1800s that British sailors were spared the disease altogether simply by a diet rich in citrus fruits. Since limes traveled well, they were the common choice during the early years, and thus the expression “limeys” was coined to describe British sailors. It was later found both at sea and in prison fare that potatoes were equally successful in preventing scurvy, and much cheaper to obtain. (Lancet. 1842) We find that there is less than 20 mg of ascorbic acid in a potato. Yet this small amount, since it is complexed in a food source, is all the body needs not only to prevent scurvy, but also to cure it, even in its advanced state. Such a remedy is described in detail in Richard Dana’s amazing journal, Two Years Before the Mast, written in 1840.
Whole food vitamin C as found in potatoes, onions, and citrus fruits is able to quickly cure any case of scurvy. By contrast, the fractionated chemical ascorbic acid has been shown to be insufficient in resolving a scurvy condition, simply because it does not act as a nutrient. (Lancet 1842)
Ascorbic acid simply cannot confer vitamin activity, as taught by the discoverer of vitamin C himself, another Nobel Prize laureate, Dr. Albert Szent-Georgi.
Szent-Georgi discovered vitamin C in 1937. In all his research however, Szent-Georgi found that he could never cure scurvy with the isolated ascorbic acid itself. Realizing that he could always cure scurvy with the “impure” vitamin C found in simple foods, Szent-Georgi discovered that other factors had to be at work in order for vitamin activity to take place. So he returned to the laboratory and eventually made the discovery of another member of the vitamin C complex, as shown in the diagram above: rutin. All the factors in the complex, as Royal Lee and Dr. Szent-Georgi both came to understand, ascorbic acid, rutin, and the other factors, were synergists: co-factors which together sparked the “functional interdependence of biologically related nutrient factors.” (Empty Harvest, p120) The term “wheels within wheels” was used to describe the interplay of co-factors.
Each of the other synergists in the C complex has a separate function:
P factors for blood vessel strength,
J factors for oxygen-carrying capacity of red cells,
tyrosinase as an essential enzyme for enhancing white blood cell effectiveness.
Ascorbic acid is just the antioxidant outer shell – the protector of all these other synergists so that they will be able to perform their individual functions.
Linus Pauling and Ascorbic Acid
Now I can hear you asking, what about Linus Pauling, double Nobel Prize laureate, and his lifetime espousal of megadosing on ascorbic acid – up to 10 grams per day? He lived to be 93. Are we saying that he took a synthetic vitamin all that time? Yes, that’s exactly right. Bernard Jensen suggests that ascorbic acid has an acidifying effect in the body, making an unfriendly environment for viruses, Candida, and pathogenic bacteria. “Most infectious pathogenic bacteria thrive in an alkaline pH.” Pauling’s good health was not the result of synthetic vitamin activity. Good genetics and the acidifying effect are likely what brought longevity to Linus Pauling. He eventually died of cancer.
Dr. Royal Lee’s phrase “biological wheels within wheels” always comes up in any discussion of whole food vitamins. Essentially it means that individual synergists cannot function as a vitamin in a chemically isolated form, like ascorbic acid. Vitamins are living complexes which contribute to other higher living complexes – like cell repair, collagen manufacture, and maintenance of blood circulation. Ascorbic acid is not a living complex. It is a copy of a part of a living complex known as vitamin C. Ascorbic acid is a fractionated, crystalline isolate of vitamin C.
Why are you a high school graduate or a college graduate or a doctor, and you don’t know this? Because drug manufacturers like things clean and simple and cheap to produce. To this simple fact add the politics which always comes into play when anyone mentions the word “billions,” and you are beginning to get the idea about where to begin your investigation. Burned his research???
Most vitamins cannot be made by the body. They must be taken in as food. The best sources then are obviously whole foods, rich in vitamins. Because of soil depletion, mineral depletion, pesticides, air pollution, and erosion, it is common knowledge that foods grown in American soil today have only a fraction of the nutrient value of 50 years ago. That means a fraction of the vitamins and minerals necessary for normal human cell function. Royal Lee described the American diet as the cultivation and production of “devitalized foods.” Dr. Weston Price describes these empty products as the “foods of commerce.” Think it’s gotten better or worse since their time? Thus the necessity for supplementation.
Vitamins and minerals are not functionally separable. They make each other work. Example: vitamin D is necessary for the body to absorb calcium. Copper is necessary for vitamin C activity. And so on. Mineral deficiencies can cause vitamin deficiencies, and vice versa. Epidemic mineral deficiency in America is a well-documented result of systematic soil depletion. (See Minerals chapter: thedoctorwithin.com)
So that is the other prime difference between whole food vitamins and synthetics: whole food vitamins contain within them many essential trace minerals necessary for their synergistic operation. Synthetic vitamins contain no trace minerals, relying on, and depleting, the body’s own mineral reserves.
Following the German agricultural methods of Von Leibig in the mid-1800s, American farmers found that NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) was all that was necessary for crops to look good. (Frost p7) As long as NPK is added to the soil, crops can be produced and sold year after year from the same soil. They look OK. But the other necessary trace minerals vital for human nutrition are virtually absent from most American soil after all these years. Many of these minerals, such as zinc, copper, and magnesium, are necessary co-factors of vitamin activity. Depleted topsoil is one simple, widespread mechanism of both vitamin and mineral deficiency in American produce today. This doesn’t even take into account the tons of poisonous herbicides and pesticides dumped on crops. According to the UN, two million tons of pesticides are used worldwide annually. (Jensen, p69)
American agri-business has one motive: profit. Such a focus has resulted in an output of empty produce and a nation of unhealthy people. The earth’s immune system is its soil. To be vital and capable of growing vital foods, soil must be rich in both minerals and soil-based organisms – life forms. Healthy produce naturally resists insects. Insects are like bad bacteria in the body: they are attracted to diseased tissue, though they do not cause it.
The Foods of Commerce
And we’re still only talking about people who actually eat raw fruits and vegetables, which is a minority. Processed food composes the majority of what most Americans eat. The only nutrients in most processed foods are “enriched” and “fortified” as described below.
When a doctor says that food supplements are all unnecessary because we can get everything we need from our food, that doctor is lacking basic information published and agreed upon by his own peers. Whether or not we need supplementation is no longer an issue, except for one who is totally out of touch. The issue is what kind and how much. Vitamin and mineral deficiency can be tagged to practically ANY disease syndrome known to man. DW Cavanaugh, MD of Cornell University actually concluded that:
“There is only one major disease, and that is malnutrition.” (Jensen, p8) Malnutrition of the affluent is the natural result of the foods of commerce.
The best vitamins are called whole food vitamins. It will be difficult finding this out on the Internet, however, because the Web is dominated by mainstream nutritional theory. In the area of vitamins, the Internet is 99% marketing; 1% actual information.
But then again, this isn’t Mission Difficult. This is Mission Impossible, Mr Hunt.
There are about 110 companies who sell vitamins in the US. Less than 5 of them use whole food vitamins. The reason is simple: whole food vitamins are expensive to make. A few of the largest pharmaceutical firms in the world mass produce synthetic vitamins for the vast majority of these 110 “vitamin” companies, who then put their own label on them, and every company claims theirs is the best! It’s ridiculous! Americans spend over $9 billion per year for synthetic vitamins. (Frost, p2)
Whole food vitamins are obtained by taking a vitamin-rich plant, removing the water and the fiber in a cold vacuum process, free of chemicals, and then packaging for stability. The entire vitamin complex in this way can be captured intact, retaining its “functional and nutritional integrity.” (DeCava p.23.) Upon ingestion, the body is not required to draw on its own reserves in order to complete any missing elements from the vitamin complex.
Mainstream marketing of vitamins and minerals has successfully created the myth that vitamins and minerals may be isolated from each other, that correct amounts may be measured out, and then we can derive total benefit from taking these fractionated chemical creations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vitamins and minerals, and also enzymes, work closely together as co-factors for each other’s efficacy. If one part is missing, or in the wrong form or the wrong amount, entire chains of metabolic processes will not proceed normally. Result: downward spiralling of health, probably imperceptible for long periods of time.
Marketing and Promotion
What is the marketing philosophy behind the prevalence of the type of synthetic vitamins available in the supermarket and mall vitamin stores? Simple: profit above all else. Once the public is shown that vitamin supplementation is necessary, the rest is marketing. Marketing is the art of persuading by suspending logic and twisting data into junk science.
Example: what’s the actual difference in composition between Wheaties and Total, two cereals put out by the same company? Total is advertised as being much more nutrient-rich than “ordinary” Wheaties. Look at the labels. What justifies the extra $1.30 for a box of Total? Answer: 1.5¢ worth of synthetic vitamins sprayed over the Wheaties. That’s it! That’s what “vitamin enriched” always means.
The other trick word is “fortified.” Generally that means that the food itself is devoid of nutrients or enzymes, so they tried to pump it up a little with some “vitamins.” Cheap synthetic vitamin sprays are all that is required for the manufacturer to use labels like “enriched” and “fortified.” These words are red flags – if a food needs to be fortified or enriched, you can bet it was already dead.
The mega-vitamin theory doesn’t really hold when it comes to synthetics: If A Little Is Good, More Is Better. Macro doses of vitamin E, and also vitamin D have been shown to decrease immune function significantly. (DeCava.) It stands to reason. Vitamins by definition are necessary in phenomenally small doses.
The discoverer of thiamine, a B vitamin, and the man who came up with the word vitamin, Dr. Casimir Funk, has this to say about synthetics:
“Synthetic vitamins: these are highly inferior to vitamins from natural sources, also the synthetic product is well known to be far more toxic.”
Nutrition authority DeCava describes it: “Natural food-source vitamins are enzymatically alive. Man-made synthetic vitamins are dead chemicals. ” — The Real Truth About Vitamins p209
Oxymorons: military intelligence, rap music, synthetic vitamins.
The marketing of fractionated crystalline synthetic vitamins has been so successful that most nutritionists and doctors are unaware that there is something missing from these “vitamins.” Vitamin manufacturers compete for customers with identical products – they all bought their synthetic vitamins from the same couple of drug companies. To differentiate their product, each makes claims of “high potency.” Our vitamins are higher potency than theirs, etc. The point is, the higher the potency, the more the druglike effects are present.
Natural whole food vitamins are very low potency. Remember the 20mg of vitamin C in a potato that was able to cure a patient of scurvy? That was low potency. Low potency is all we need. Low potency is enough to bring about vitamin activity. High potency overshoots the mark – the chemical is very pure and refined, like the difference between white sugar and the type of sugar that’s in an apple.
The Milligram Game
Generally speaking, if milligrams are being discussed at length, the author has no clue about vitamins. Synthetic vitamins are refined, high potency chemicals, and therefore may be accurately measured in milligrams, just like drugs. This has nothing to do with vitamin activity or nutrition, except in a negative way.
Half The Story
The same type of incomplete action can be seen with any synthetic vitamin. Let’s take beta carotene for a minute, which the body can turn into vitamin A. Now you’ll remember that vitamin A is necessary for good eyesight, DNA synthesis, and protects cells from free radicals. A study reported in Apr 94 in the NEJM of some 30,000 Finnish subjects showed conclusively that synthetic vitamin A had no antioxidant effect whatsoever. A true antioxidant helps to protect heart muscle, lungs, and artery surfaces from breaking down prematurely.
In this study, the subjects who received the synthetic beta carotene actually had an 8% higher incidence of fatal heart attacks, strokes, and lung cancer than those who got the placebo (sugar pill). Stands to reason: the synthetic brought no vitamin activity to the tissues that needed it. As a dead, purified chemical introduced into the body, the synthetic further stressed the immune system, the liver, and the kidneys which all had to try to break down this odd chemical and remove it from the body. It would be bad enough if they were harmless, but synthetic vitamins actually have a net negative effect.
was first discovered in 1919. By 1924, it had been broken down and separated from its natural whole food complex: “purified.” By 1931, LaRoche – one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, even today – had succeeded in “synthesizing” vitamin A. That means they had created a purely chemical copy of a fraction of naturally occurring vitamin A. Naturally occurring vitamin A is found associated with an entire group of other components:
– Vitamin C
– Vitamin E
– Vitamin B
– Vitamin D
-Minerals (Vitamins and Minerals, Somer, 1992)
Isolated from these other factors, vitamin A is a fraction which cannot perform its biological functions. Taken as a synthetic, it must then draw on this list of resources already in the body in order to complete its make-up. Whole food vitamin A, by contrast, is already complete and ready to go.
Most synthetic vitamin A consists only of retinal, retinol, or retinoic acid. The well-publicized potential for toxicity with mega doses of vitamin A involves one of these three. Vitamin A toxicity, known as hypervitaminosis, always results from an excess of synthetic, “purified” vitamin A, and never from whole food vitamin A. (DeCava, p 86)
Effects of vitamin A toxicity include:
– tumor enhancement
-joint disorders – osteoporosis
– extreme dryness of eyes, mouth and skin, – enlargement of liver and spleen
— is a precursor the body can convert to vitamin A. Unfortunately, as a supplement, synthetic beta carotene is usually “stabilized” in refined vegetable oils. In this trans fatty acid form, oxidation occurs and the chemically “pure” beta carotene can no longer act as a nutrient, because it was changed. Almost all synthetic beta carotene is produced by the Swiss drug giant Hoffman-LaRoche. This form can no longer be converted to vitamin A. The best it can be is worthless, and at the worst is toxic.
Natural vitamin A and beta carotene are well known as immune boosters and cancer fighters, in their role as antioxidants. Synthetic vitamin A by contrast has actually brought about significant increases in cancer. A study done in Finland provided smokers with large doses of synthetic beta carotene. Lung cancer incidence increased 18%! (NEJM Apr 94, “The Alpha Tocopherol Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group”)
These findings were corroborated two years later in another study written up in Lancet. Pharmacologic doses of syntheric beta carotenes were found to block the antioxidant activity of the other 50 naturally occurring carotenoids in the diet. Anti-cancer activity was thus blocked by the synthetic. (Lancet, 1996)
With the vast outpouring of wrong information about vitamins A and C, the findings of a 1991 article in Health Counselor are no surprise: 50% of Americans are deficient in vitamin A and 41% are deficient in vitamin C. Synthetic vitamins cannot prevent deficiencies.
Fake Vitamin B
In one experiment, synthetic vitamin B (thiamine) was shown to render 100% of a group of pigs sterile! 100% would be considered a significant finding. (Dr. Barnett Sure, Journ Natr, 1939) Perhaps the fact that synthetic vitamin B comes from coal tar, maybe that has something to do with it, you think? Then there’s vitamin B12, which comes from activated sewage sludge. (Frost p 60) Been shooting blanks since you started on those multi’s?
For the licensed dieticians and clinical nutritionists reading this in disbelief because it is too “unscientific,” consider the way Theron Randolph, M.D., delineated between natural and synthetic:
“A synthetically derived substance may cause a reaction in a chemically susceptible person when the same material of natural origin is tolerated, despite the two substances having identical chemical structures. The point is illustrated by the frequency of clinical reactions to synthetic vitamins – especially vitamin B1 and C- when the [same] naturally occurring vitamins are tolerated.”
According to Los Angeles naturopath, Dr. Jack Singh, all commercial lecithins in supplements, as well as most vitamin D, comes from irradiated vegetable oils. That’s rancid, oxidizing trans fatty acids! A birthday party of free radicals. This is the precise mechanism for arterial wall breakdown prior to plaque deposits, then arteriosclerosis, then heart disease. I thought we were supposed to be taking vitamins to stay healthy!
Why is this information so difficult to find? It’s in none of the “alternative” health ‘zines, or any of the mainstream media. Alternative-Lite guru Julian Whittaker, in his summer 1998 newsletter actually had the temerity to state outright “Synthetic vitamins and whole food vitamins are identical.” I’m sure his synthetic vitamin company and all its retailers were reassured by this incredibly arrogant and flagrantly inaccurate pronouncement. But who is objecting? Only those clients of the 5 companies who know enough to take whole food vitamins, because they have become educated to realize the difference. These are the vast minority, having no control of the media.
Royal Lee and Harvey Wiley lost. Nobody knows who they are today, except we few. This is no accident. What everybody does know is Pepsi and Viagra and Wonder Bread and prednisone and Double Whoppers with Cheese and Zantac and Baskin-Robbins and Long’s Drug Store. And grocery store vitamins: synthetic vitamins. That’s America, today as the product of yesterday. Control of information in America today is one of the most sophisticated systems of influence ever devised. The simple ideas contained in this chapter are simply not available to the mass consciousness. The documentation is out there, but you really gotta dig.
100 years ago if a medical doctor saw a case of cancer he would call all his colleagues to come and have a look, telling them it was unlikely they would see another case, as cancer was so rare. People rarely died of heart attacks; in fact the term heart attack itself didn’t even exist. There was no incidence at all of atherosclerosis. Diabetes was practically unheard of. What did they eat? Fruits, vegetables, meat, butter, and lard. But none of it was processed with drugs and chemicals.
Today one in three dies of cancer. One in two dies of heart disease. Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S. (Vital Statistics) Is that progress? If you are a food manufacturer it is, and especially if you are a drug manufacturer. In the 1980s the WHO ranked the US as #22 in the world in infant mortality. Male sperm count is less than 20% of what it was in 1929. (1981 University of Florida report, Natural vs. Synthetic) Infant mortality is up; birth defects are up. We spend $1.5 trillion per year for health care, most of which goes for administration and executive salaries.
Who are the largest advertisers for TV and the printed media? Right: drug companies and food manufacturers. Do they want to keep the ball rolling? You bet. Will they kill you to do it? You bet. Do they want people to take charge of their own health by natural inexpensive foods and supplements? Negative. A cure for cancer has been “right around the corner” since Nixon. People are starting to ask questions; they’re less inclined to believe the slick ads coming every 10 minutes on TV and in Newsweek.
Perhaps Hippocrates did not envision doctors as detail men or drug reps. He most likely thought like Henry Bieler, MD:
“Nature, if given the opportunity is always the greatest healer. It is the physician’s role to assist in this healing, to play a supporting role.” -Finding the Right Cure for You
So what do you do? Well, you now have some insight that your vitamin needs are not being met by the Safeway generics. Wallach used to talk about expensive urine from these unmetabolized grocery store synthetic placebos.
The water soluble vitamins are best obtained through organic produce grown in mineral-rich soil. The fat soluble vitamins, A, E, and D are best obtained through fish, raw dairy, avocado, raw nuts, raw coconut, and clean meats.
Beyond this it’s MLM marketing roulette, and if you can’t spot the mark in the first 5 minutes, baby, it’s you.
Note: Underlining added for emphasis
Using their own information from the CDC website it seems that those of us saying the numbers cannot be correct were right once again. Have a listen and see how doctors falsified records on supposed Covid-19 related deaths:
Cell Salts are minerals that have been compounded into pellets and serve the body as tonics to the organs, including the brain and the heart. They have biochemical effects which are used up in the complex chemical reactions of the cells. Cell salts are safe for children, pregnant women, and elders. Most health food stores sell them for a relatively inexpensive price. These naturally occurring minerals each pertain to a different sign of the zodiac– as was discovered through study by homeopathy and astrology.
Each of the signs constitutes a whole person, whether by personal astrological chart or DNA of our bloodline that may be infused with the influences of these signs. People born under different signs are more (or less) prone to specific ailments based on this. For instance an Aries or Aries-influenced person (as the 1st sign of the zodiac) may be prone to headaches. I have Aries as my rising sign, and as an already mental Aquarius, so I am likely to experiences a few headaches in a month. It is something I have been dealing with for quite some time and have gotten better at healing. Another example is the sign Virgo (the 6th sign of the zodiac) is liable to suffer from intestinal difficulties. Due to these likelihoods, cell salts promise to target the different issues that may afflict us at any moment. Furthermore, the cell salts that we take do not have to apply particularly to our signs but the dis-eases that may be affecting us. Understanding this, we can also understand how we can use our knowledge of these issues to study the astrological signs to also understand what qualities we need to implement into our lives for spiritual, emotional, and mental well-being, along with the physical.
Usually if we are having emotional, mental, or spiritual issues, we can look into our moon sign and further use that sign’s cell salt to bring balance back into our lives. Through personal study and aiding the healing process of my loved ones, I have come to find that the lunar sign cell salt is a very beneficial choice when deciding between what salt to start with first. Moreover, when a specific health problem presents itself, it is good to take the cell salt for that issue along with the moon sign cell salt. As always, it is wise that we trust our intuition to make the final decision about these things as the healing process is different for everybody.
Below I will outline the different cell salts and how they correspond to the astrological signs.
Aries: Kali Phos/Potassium Phosphate- Aries rules the internal, external, and structural parts of the brain and head. Kali Phos is great for headaches, insomnia, depression, irritability, hysteria, and memory problems.
Taurus: Nat Sulph/Sodium Sulfate- Taurus rules the throat, tonsils, thyroid, metabolic system, and lower jaw. Nat Sulph is good for colds, sore throats, digestive problems, sluggishness, gall stones, tiredness, the kidneys, jaundice, asthma, and constipation.
Gemini: Kali Mur/Potassium Chloride- Gemini rules the lungs, bronchial trees, shoulders, arms, hands, and the central nervous system. Kali Mur works wonders for bones, excessive mucus, swollen glands, inflammation, and tonsillitis.
Cancer: Calc Fluor/Calcium Fluoride- Cancer rules the breasts, body fluids, mucus membranes, and stomach. Calc Fluor is good for the hard tissue of the body, teeth, bones, fingernails, eyes, and the elastic fibers of the muscle tissue. It helps to treat malnutrition of the bones.
Leo: Mag Phos/Magnesium Phosphate- Leo rules the heart, upper back, diaphragm, and cardiac system. Mag Phos is beneficial for prevention of heart attacks, cramps, convulsions, spasms, paralysis, menstrual cramps, headaches, neuralgia, and acute asthma attacks. It is an amazing anti-pain salt.
Virgo: Kali Sulph/Potassium Sulphate- Virgo rules the small intestines, the spleen, and the lower alimentary system. Kali Sulph is a good cell salt for improving the body’s ability to take up nutrition. It is also great for oxygenating the skin, therefore it is good for eczema, dandruff, psoriasis, and any diseases that cause rash or scaling to the skin.
Libra: Nat Phos/Sodium Phosphate- Libra rules the kidneys, the lower back, and the acidic/alkaline balance of the body. Nat Phos is essential for maintaining balance of the acidity and alkalinity of the body. Furthermore, it is good for kidney stones, ulcers, stomach acidity, and mental imbalance due to emotional upheaval.
Scorpio: Calc Sulph/Calcium Sulphate- Scorpio rules the sex organs, colon, large intestine, eliminative channels, and the prostate gland. Calc Sulph is extraordinary for protective coating to these organs. Moreover, it provides its use for boils, skin eruptions, chronic constipation, impotence, fistula, and diarrhea.
Sagittarius: Silica- Sagittarius rules the liver, hips, thighs, sciatic nerve, and autonomic nervous system. Silica is good for hair, teeth, bones, the lens of the eye, splinters, abscesses, and scars.
Capricorn: Calc Phos/Calcium Phosphate- Capricorn rules the skeletal system, knees, joints, gallbladder, and the skin. Calc Phos is imperative for rickets, curvature of the spine, tooth decay, and gastric digestive function.
Aquarius: Nat Mur/Natrum Muriaticum- Aquarius rules the blood and circulation, the ankles, spinal cord, and the electrical force of the nerves. Nat Mur is good for watery colds, dryness or excessive salivation of the mouth, constipation, malaria, herpes, watery blisters, sleeplessness, and speech problems.
Pisces: Ferrum Phos/Iron Phosphate- Pisces rules the lymphatic system and the feet. Ferrum Phos is good for healthy red blood cell production, anemia, nervousness, sensitivity, and oxygen distribution to the organs and tissues.
Like us, cell salts are essential to a healthy and holistic approach to healing. We are all constituents essential to our progress.
You are a great part of the whole.
Magic and Philosophy of
TRITHEMIUS OF SPANHEIM;
containing his book of
DOCTRINE OF SPIRITS
with many curious and rare secrets (hitherto not generally known;) THE ART OF DRAWING SPIRITS INTO CRYSTALS, &c.
Willow, olive, palm, narcissus, lillies
Aloe Wood, camphor, wintergreen, Eucalyptus, jasmine, ylang ylang
Hickory, thistles, cacti, dandelion, nettles, ginger, arrowroot, bloodroot
Pepper, dragons blood, peppermint, mustard, cumin, turmeric, nicotiana
Ruby, garnet, bloodstone, red agate
Hazel, marjoram, lavender, ferns, medicinal herbs
Mastic ,gum arabic , star anise, sandalwood, bergamot
Banded agate, fire oil, carnelian
Pine, birch, mulberry, flax, borage, liverwort, sage
Saffron, nutmeg, pine gum, clove, sarsaparilla, hyssop
Ash, apple, myrtle, red roses, Hawthorne, vervain, myrtle, strawberry, foxglove
Ginger, sandalwood, rose, geranium, cardamom, spearmint
Emerals, jade, rose quartz, amazonite
Elm, violet, opium poppy, belladonna, horsetail
Brimstone, myrrh, cassia, patchouli, guac wood, spikenard
Laurel, oak, sunflower, chamomile, yellow roses, marigold, laurel, eyebright, st. johns wort
Red Sandalwood, Myrrh, Vetiver, frankincense, cinnamon, saffron, copal
Tiger’s eye, citrine, goldstone, topaz
The Picatrix is the most famous grimoire of astrological magic and one of the most important works of medieval and Renaissance magic. With all four books, the complete text, in one volume, translated and annotated by the noted scholars, magicians and astrologers John Michael Greer and Christopher Warnock, Picatrix takes its rightful place as an essential occult text for modern esotericists. The Illustrated Picatrix contains over 120 illustrations, with images of the 7 planets and 28 Mansions of the Moon by Nigel Jackson as well as images of the 36 decans and 12 signs by Renaissance artists. This is an authentic ancient magical text, lucidly translated and fully annotated with over 400 footnotes.
Cell Salts: 12 Essential Minerals
Schuessler cell salts are the twelve minerals essential to your body’s functions. They include forms of calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium, sodium, and silica that work at the cellular level; hence, the name of cell salts. See Cell Salt Descriptions.
Without them you couldn’t think, bend at your joints, stand up straight, digest food, or eliminate toxins. Many health problems experienced today are because of the lack of particular minerals.
Deficiency of one or more of these minerals puts your body out of balance and into “dis-ease,” where your energy drops to nothing; you experience unclear thinking or depression, or may lose emotional balance; therefore these essential minerals help any condition or disease, and can help quickly.
Anyone can buy and use these twelve cell salts, separately or in combination, without fear of toxicity. This includes pregnant or nursing women, old or young alike, those taking medications, and even those using other natural therapies.
Cell salts do not react with medications because they are supplying minerals on a cellular level. They are easily given to children, as most children like the sweet taste. Purchase them individually or all 12 at once to make formulas for your particular conditions. See our website for cell salt articles on specific ailments for these powerful combinations, called Cell Salt Solutions.
Some of the common uses of cell salts include: See all cell salts >
Calcium (3 forms) for bone health, prolapse conditions, hard knots, and digestion (assimilation)
Iron inflammation, iron deficiency, hemochromatosis (iron buildup in the blood), and strength for veins and arteries, inflammation
Potassium (3 forms) for depression, anxiety, nervousness, lung health, mucus problems, nerve health, and skin problems
Magnesium for all types of pain (especially neuralgia), muscle spasms, and heart health
Sodium (3 forms) for digestive power, body water balance (edema or swelling), dry skin, and high body acidity
Silicea for bones, hair loss, skin and fingernail problems
Brief History: Dr. Wilhelm Schuessler, a medical doctor who was born in Germany in the 1800s, learned from the early pioneers of biochemistry about these twelve essential minerals required for cellular health. He developed cell salts homeopathically, while grinding them into milk sugar, so they could be easily taken and assimilated, and used on a cellular level. Healthy cells amount to a healthy person.
My Experience: As a nutritionist, herbalist, and homeopathic practitioner, I found cell salts tended to be overlooked in the English-Speaking world of Homeopathy. After reading a German book about how to see mineral deficiencies on a person’s face, Antlitzdiagnostik by Peter Emmrich, I began to study facial diagnosis. Signs of deficiency can be seen by looking at a person’s face. They are seen in the texture or color of skin, puffiness, dryness, greasiness, lines, moles, or bumps.
I began using cell salts in my practice. The results were astonishing! People began asking for more information, so I wrote the book Facial Diagnosis of Cell Salt Deficiencies. Soon, a local artist sketched faces of what the facial deficiencies would look like for each of the twelve tissue remedies. They are included in The Power of Cell Salts Seminar available in the workbook along with audio recording. You can also find great information in Dave’s new booklet 12 Essential Minerals for Cellular Health.
Since that time, a 6-month practical study was done with our customers, including 63 cases (results coming soon). Comments from participants include:
“I think it made me feel more energetic and mentally balanced. All my white spots in fingernails went away,” writes D. Michel, age 51.
“My face cleared up a lot and that has improved my emotional state. I seem more able to do sports with less problems than I’ve had in the past,” says S. Krohn, age 45.
“I feel healthier and have a better vision of life. The cell salts have helped my
immune system and my digestion,” from D. Scavezze, age 31.
Use: Cell salts may be taken internally, or used externally in crèmes, baths, or sprays. Cell salts are generally used in the 6X potency (strength). There are several manufacturers. I prefer the Hyland’s brand, which are available at most health-food stores. They dissolve within seconds in the mouth, water bottle, bath, or lotion.
Most clients put their tablets into a water bottle and sip it all day. When taken in water, they can even be acceptable by lactose-intolerant people. If the water method is not sufficient for those who are lactose intolerant, there are homeopathic cell salts available in liquid. Cell salts may also be taken straight from the bottle to the mouth. For more information, see 6 Ways to Use Cell Salts.
Experience the power of cell salts for yourself,
to better your condition, or as a tonic
to improve your immune system.
Copyright 2019 by David R. Card
12 Schuessler cell salts are minerals essential to your body’s functions. These minerals include forms of calcium, iron, potassium, magnesium, sodium,and silica that work at the cellular level; hence, the name CELL SALT. Having the right amount and proper balance brings cellular health. Healthy cells amount to a healthier you!
Learn more about cell salts in Dave’s book Facial Diagnosis of Cell Salt Deficiencies and his seminar download Power of Cell Salt Seminar. See also 6 Ways to Use Cell Salts, About Cell Salts, Cell Salt Solutions
#1 Calc Fluor (Calcium Fluoride)
Calcium fluoride is the first of the 12 Schuessler cell salts. It is essential to the connective tissue of the body. It is helpful for all conditions of tissue weakness, prolapse, or excessive hardness. Tendons, ligaments, and joints benefit from this salt. Calcium fluoride strengthens tooth enamel. Therefore, it is a popular fluoride treatment for children in Europe. (It should be popular in the United States.)
Anywhere you may find hardness of tissues, this remedy applies. Cataracts as well as hard bumps or swellings make it very valuable. Also, any extreme sagging of muscle or tissue calls for this salt.
Facial signs for calcium fluoride deficiency include blue lips, brownish black circles under the eyes. Sings also include white skin flakes and translucent tips of teeth. Raised or fan-shaped wrinkles around the eyes are a calc fluor sign as well as cracked lips.
#2 Calc Phos (Calcium Phosphate)
Calcium phosphate is the second of the 12 Schuessler cell salts. It is important for bone health, injuries, and osteoporosis. Disturbed calcium metabolism can cause osteoporosis or bone spurs – same problem, different manifestations. This salt treats both of them over the course of several months. It is also useful for teeth and digestive problems.
Facial signs for calcium phosphate deficiency include a yellowish waxy appearance, translucent tips of teeth. White flakes appear in the teeth or fingernails. There is also a stretched-skin appearance on the cheekbones, and small or thin lips.
#3 Calc Sulph (Calcium Sulphate)
Calcium sulphate is a great salt for infections, pus, and general toxicity of the body. Discharges are usually yellow and filled with pus. Thus, this salt is helps detoxify the body and improve digestion. Other uses are to finish or clean up chronic infections.
Facial signs of calcium sulphate deficiency include an alabaster or dirty white coloring along the lower face or jaw line. Also, there can be liver spots or brown spots on the face.
#4 Ferrum Phos (Ferrum Phosphate)
Iron phosphate is important for blood and oxygenation of the blood. It is very useful for low fevers and the first signs of a cold or flu. It is the most useful cell salt for nose bleeds or other blood conditions, and is helpful in the case of hemorrhages. Ferrum phos can be used for balancing iron in the body whether it is high or low, such as in pregnancy. It works to reduce anemia by helping the body to absorb iron.
Facial signs of iron phosphate deficiency show in bluish black circles under the eyes. Acutely, in fever conditions, we see red cheeks and ears. A person with this deficiency also may appear to sleep deprived or hung over. Paleness of face can show chronic conditions such as anemia.
#5 Kali Mur (Potassium Chloride)
Potassium chloride is useful for mucus conditions, especially for the lungs with coughs or allergies. The discharges for this cell salt are grey or thick white mucus. Kali mur is an important remedy that helps with medium fever conditions.
Facial signs of potassium chloride deficiency are a milky appearance to the skin which may be mixed with red, purple or blue. I have seen much success in acne rosacea for underlying spider veins, as well as raised bumps just below the shoulders on the upper arms.
#6 Kali Phos (Potassium Phosphate)
Potassium phosphate is the fifth of the 12 Schuessler cell salts. It helps the nerves and gray matter of the brain. When the nerves are depleted by stress, we can see depression or sleeplessness. This is also used in pain and paralysis, fear, suspicion, and weakness of memory. This cell salt is for the anxious and nervous person. Nerves affected by Kali Phos are those of the central nervous system.
Facial signs of potassium phosphate deficiency show in an ashen gray appearance. Especially noted is a dull appearance of the eyes (they don’t sparkle). In more chronic conditions, sunken temples or cheeks may give the sign of deficiency of this cell salt. Bad breath and body odor (nervous sweat) is also a sign.
#7 Kali Sulph (Potassium Sulphate)
Potassium sulphate is specific to the third stage of inflammation or resolution. We find yellow discharges wherever there is a lack of sulphate in the system. With potassium sulphate deficiency there is breakdown of the skin, and high fevers may occur, from infections or inflammations. This is the body’s attempt to get rid of self-inflicted toxins from a poor diet, or polluted conditions modern living. When this cell salt brings sweating, it is near the end of the toxic condition. Kali sulph helps many skin conditions such as eczema, sinusitis, asthma, psoriasis, and more.
Facial signs of potassium sulphate deficiency are seen as brownish-yellow pigmentation across the nose-mouth area. Liver spots, pregnancy mask, freckles, or a lack of pigmentation (vitiligo) also show signs of deficiency of this salt.
#8 Mag Phos (Magnesium Phosphate)
Magnesium phosphate is a nerve remedy alike Kali phos, but deals with muscle nerves and fibers. Cramping is a majors symptom of deficiency, therefor, as a result, it is a great antispasmodic, useful for many areas of the body, including menstrual cramps. This mineral feeds the heart and cardiovascular system. Using heat and pressure will relieve pain. This is an important keynote of magnesium deficiency. For example, if applying heat relieves your pain or cramps, your are magnesium deficient.
Facial signs of magnesium phosphate deficiency are seen as blushing, in acute conditions. In chronic situations we see a constant redness of the cheeks or nose that we call “magnesium redness.” This may be a sign of liver damage, including those who are alcoholics.
#9 Nat Mur (Sodium Chloride)
Sodium chloride is the first sodium of the 12 Schuessler cell salts. It one of the most famous cell salts for digestion, arthritis, and water distribution problems. The keynote to this cell salt is dry mucus membranes or excessive watery discharges. Emotionally, a person with need of this salt may display grief and personal isolation. They are very sensitive and prefer to be alone. Deficiency of this cell salt may also manifest in malnutrition, constipation, anemia, and thin salty watery discharges.
Facial signs of sodium chloride deficiency show as a gelatinous appearance in the lower eyelid border. Along the hair line the skin is often red and greasy. Large pores are a sign of sodium chloride deficiency, as well as dandruff, puffy cheeks and a bloated appearance.
#10 Nat Phos (Sodium Phosphate)
Sodium phosphate governs the acid balance of the body. Alkalinity is health while over acid conditions promoter disease. Signs of acidity include sour body smell or sour-smelling discharges. Indigestion is a sign of lack of this salt. Candida infections, or vaginal yeast, as well as parasites come with over acid conditions as well.
Facial signs of sodium phosphate deficiency are seen in blackheads and a greasy combination skin. Yellow raised pimple-like bumps around the eyes can show deficiency. The chin is red. Cheeks have a dry or greasy appearance. Rings or metal jewelry can cause discoloration on the skin because of acidity. The tongue can have a yellow mucus coating.
#11 Nat Sulph (Sodium Sulphate)
Sodium sulphate is responsible for liver health, so it could be a great remedy to help in hepatitis problems. It is specifically for those with head injuries where the person becomes depressed and irritable. There are yellow discharges, as with all sulphates. This salt is responsible for helping the body to get rid of excess water, thus it is valuable for water retention. Sodium sulphate is also used for diabetes, asthma in children, and especially symptoms heightened in damp weather. Deficiency may also cause bad smelling gas.
Facial signs of sodium sulphate include a slight greenish cast (from underlying yellow) in acute conditions, as well as yellow eye sclera. Swollen lower eye bags are a sign of deficiency of this cell salt. In chronic conditions, where the liver is damaged, a swollen purplish red nose will appear, again in alcoholics.
#12 Silicea (Silica)
Silicea is the last of the 12 Schuessler cell salts. Its deficiency is responsible for connective tissue weakness. It also has a special ability to help the body rid itself of foreign objects. For example, the body creates pus to push things out. This cell salt can dissolve scar tissue, therefore it is very useful for keloid scars, skin problems, and vaccination reactions. Emotionally, those needing Silica are timid, and their hands and feet are continuously cold. Similarly they often wear sweaters in the heat of the summer.
Facial signs of silica deficiency show in a glossy polished shine, as a bald man has. Wrinklies are also a sing. Specific to silica, wrinkles run parallel to the ears. There will also be crow’s feet (wrinkles from squinting or laughing). Generally, you will see deep set eyes. Their hair may be brittle, along with finger and toe nails. Red eyes are a deficiency sign.
Bioplasma is a combination of all 12 Schuessler cell saltss which provides a broad-spectrum mineral supply. While feeding and nourishing the body it also acts as a mild detoxifier, cleaning on the cellular level.
Biochemic Phosphates is a combination of 5 cell salts (all phosphates) that feed and strengthen the nerves. It is a great help for our fast-paced lives because it has the alkalizing phosphates which relieve depression, anxiety, stress, and nervousness.
-Calc phos affects the nerves associated with bones and digestion.
-Ferrum phos soothes nerve inflammation and oxygenates the body.
-Kali phos strengthens the central nervous system and feeds the brain.
-Mag phos helps nerve pain, cramping, and relaxes muscles.
-Nat phos affects the nerves by regulating the acid-alkaline balance.
Fantastic interactive website to learn more about the Tree of Life. Simply click the sepharoth and read about it. They also sell a wonderful Tarot deck, astrology key charts, and more. This is a website I keep on an open tab at all times. . . its that good.
This is a fantastic series of videos by Andrew T. Austin whereas he explains in great detail LBRP. Its well worth a watch!
Includes section on – Gardening by Astrological Signs!
Initiation Into Hermetics
A Course of Instruction of Magic Theory & Practice
Part 1: Theory
There is no doubt that every one who has been searching for the true and authentic cognition, in vain looked for years, if not even for a lifetime, to find a reliable method of training. The ardent desire for this noble aim made people again and again collect a mass of books, from near and far, supposed to be the best ones, but which were lacking a great deal for real practice. Not one, however, of all the seekers could make any sense from all the stuff collected in the course of time, and the goal aimed at so fervently vanished more and more in nebulous distances. Provided the one or the other did start to work on the progress after instructions so highly praised, his good will and diligence never saw any practical results. Apart from that, nobody could reliably answer to his pressing questions, whether or not just this way he had selected, was the correct one for his individual case.
Just at this time Divine Providence decided to help all those seekers who have been searching with tough endurance to find means and ways for their spiritual development. Through this book universal methods are given into the hands of mankind by a highest initiate who was chosen by Divine Providence for this special task.
It can be said without exaggeration that never before has these complete magical methods been accessible for the public.
Picture of the Magician: The first Tarot card ~ Interpretation of the Symbolism Below you will find the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms expressed in a symbolic manner.
The female on the left side and the male on the right side are the plus (positive) and the minus (negative) in every human being.
In their middle is seen a hermaphrodite, a creature personifying the male and female combined in one as the sign of concinnity between the male and female principle
The electrical and magnetical fluids are shown in red and blue colours, electrical fluid being red, magnetical fluid blue.
The head region of the female is electrical, therefore red, the region of the genitals is magnetical, consequently blue. As for the male, it happens to be in inverted order.
Above the hermaphrodite there is a globe as a sign of the earth sphere, above which the magician is illustrated with the four elements.
Above the male, there are the active elements, that of the fire in red and the air element in blue colour. Above the female there are the passive elements, the water element in green and the element of the earth in yellow colour.
The middle along the magician up to the globe is dark purple, representing the sign of the akasa principle
Above the magician’s head, with an invisible ribbon for a crown, there is a goldedged silvery white lotus flower as a sign of the divinity. In the inside there is the ruby red philosophers’ stone symbolizing the quintessence of the whole hermetic 9
science. On the right side in the background there is the sun, yellow like gold and on the left side we see the moon, silvery-white, expressing plus and minus in the macroand microcosm, the electrical and magnetical fluids.
Above the lotus flower, Creation has been symbolized by a ball, in the interior of which are represented the procreative positive and negative forces which stand for the creating act of the universe.
The eternal, the infinite, the boundless, and the uncreated have been expressed symbolically by the word AUM and the dark purple to black colour.
The cell salts are also great for people of any age. The two groups of people who benefit the most from using the cell salts are children between the ages of 0 – 3 a period when there is rapid growth in children. In children you can really build them up especially during growth. During growth periods you can use them for extended periods of time giving them daily for 1 to 2 years at a time. The elderly benefit because they are gentle, yet helps to nourish and to balance deficiency. For the elderly and children it is a way of doing homeopathy nutritionally. 6X is = to 1 part per million. 12X is one part per billion. Homeopathy raises the vital force, the cell salts rebuild. Homeopathy has a bigger range of action especially psychologically. The tissue salts have a narrower range but rebuild. In a way the cell salts are the “vitamins & minerals” of homeopathy. When a homeopathic remedy relapses, the cell salts come in and stabilizes it. You can take a Cell Salt remedy for 6 months to a year for supporting a chronic problem.
Dosing: Remedies are taken generally 4 tablets 4X a day but they can be used acutely much more frequently, for example Mag Phos is one of the best remedies for hiccups and can be taken every 5 minutes as needed. You can be very flexible with the doses depending on the circumstances.
The cell salts are broken into 5 groups. The biggest groups of cell salts by far are the calcium group. Calcium cell salts are frequently our true constitutional remedies. Calcium Carbonate i.e. Calc Carb is the biggest single remedy used in homeopathy.
1) Calcium group Calc Flor, Calc Phos, Calc Sulph
2) Sodium group Nat Mur, Nat Phos, Nat Sulph
3) Kali group (Potassium group) Kali Mur, Kali Phos, Kali Sulph,
4) Magnesium group Mag Phos
5) Ferrum (Iron) Ferrum Phos
6) Silica or Silicea
Sodium, Potassium, and Calcium are in 9 of the 12 remedies. Sulphur is in 3 remedies.
An example of the connection between the cell salts and homeopathic remedies is colocynth is a plant that is highest in the mineral magnesium. Its biggest symptom keynote is severe abdominal or pelvic pain. They bend over double and deep pressure feels better. The cell salt Mag Phos is the complementary remedy but they like a hot water bottle placed over the point of pain. These are both used for basically the same health problem but with a variation. Pulsatilla has the same relationship to Kali Sulph, so it has a similar symptom picture so Kali Sulph can be considered the cell salt equivalent of it. You can understand the actions of many plant and mineral remedies in homeopathy when you understand the actions of the cell salts.
Elasticity Salt – tissue builder, muscular weakness, impaired circulation. For hemorrhoids, varicose veins and muscular soreness
General tonic – General nutrient, ideal tonic,
impaired digestion and chilblains
Blood purifier, minor skin ailments, pimples and slow healing wounds
Oxygen carrier, coughs, colds, chills,
fever, headaches, inflammations
Blood conditioner, congestion, coughs, colds, bronchitis,
The Children’s Remedy
Nerve nutrient, nervous exhaustion, depression, irritability
Oxygen exchanger, bronchial catarrh, minor skin eruptions with scaling, brittle nails, poor hair condition
Nerve stabilizer, spasmodic pains, cramps, neuralgia, flatulence
Water distributor, dryness or excessive moisture in any part of the body, colds, loss of smell
Acid neutralizer, digestive upsets, heartburn, rheumatic pain
The liver salt – excess water eliminator, biliousness, influenza
The Cleanser, impure blood, boils, pus formations
To learn about the Schuessler’s Homeopathy and more details, please refer below references.
 The 12 Tissue Remedies of Schussler by BOERICKE W.
 Peter Brodhead CN”, The 12 Tissue Salts or Cell Salt Remedies Fundamental homeopathic remedies, A lecture presented by Peter Brodhead CN 5/22/01, www.brighterdayfoods.com/PDFDocs/l/LR72WHCKJQ1V9LTGKT8CGWX7TM5B1NP5.PDF –
 Robin Murphy ND – Lecture notes, Homeopathic Cell Salts Lecture, Saturday & Sunday, October 9th & 10th 1999 Atlanta, GA
 Homeopathic Remedy Guide by Robin Murphy 1/2000
 Repertory & Materia Medica of the Biochemic Remedies – Dr. S.R. Phatak 1937
 Homeopathy and Minerals – Jan Scholten 1993
BY A. E. THIERENS
INTRODUCTION BY A. E. WAITE
IF ever a book should be written on the Romance of Symbolism, its hypothesis of interpretation, its traditional and imputed histories, a considerable space would be allotted assuredly to Tarot-cards; while seeing that at this day there is more concern in the subject than was felt even in the past, there would be a call not only to survey that which lies behind us, a strange field of speculation and reverie, but the prospect extending in front, since every year brings forth some new proposition and provides material for future imaginative flights. It is very curious to contrast those comparatively sober terms in which Court de Gebelin introduced his discovery of the cards, 1 though he sought to prove that their origin was in Ancient Egypt, with the fantastic declamations of Éliphas Lévi, who affirmed not only that they were the Alphabet of Enoch, Hermes Trismegistus and Cadmus but the Gospel of all Gospels, a synthesis of science and the universal key of the Kabbalah. . . .
THE EGG: by Andy Weir
You Have Died.
You were on your way home when you died.
It was a car accident, nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.
And that’s when you met me.
“What.. What happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”
“You died” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.
“There was a… a truck and it was skidding…”
“Yep.” I said.
“I… I died?”
“Yep, but don’t feel bad about it. Everyone dies.” I said.
You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you & me. “What is this place?” You asked. “Is this the afterlife?”
“More or less.” I said.
“Are you God?” You asked.
“Yep.” I replied. “I am God.”
“My kids… my wife,” You said.
“What about them?”
“Will they be alright?”
“That’s what I like to see,” I said. “..You just died and your main concern is your family. That’s good stuff right there.”
You Looked At Me With Fascination.
To you I didn’t look like God. I just looked like some man or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty.
“Don’t worry.” I said. “They’ll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn’t have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it’s any consolation, she’ll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.”
“Oh,” You said. “.. So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?”
“Neither.” I said. “You’ll be reincarnated.”
“Ah,” You said. “.. So the Hindus were right.”
“All religions are right in their own way,” I said. “.. Walk with me.”
You Followed Along As We Strode Through The Void.
“Where are we going?”
“Nowhere in particular,” I said. “.. It’s just nice to walk while we talk.”
“So what’s the point, then?” You asked. “When I get reborn, I’ll just be a blank slate, right? A baby…So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won’t matter.”
“Not so!” I said. “You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all past lives. You just don’t remember them right now.”
I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders.
“Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It’s like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it’s hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you’ve gained all the experiences it had.”
“You’ve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you haven’t stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for a long enough, you’d start remembering everything. But there’s no point to doing that between each life.”
“How many times have I been reincarnated, then?”
“Oh lots. Lots and lots… An in to lots of different lives.” I said. “This time around, you’ll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.”
“Wait, what?” You stammered. “You’re sending me back in time?”
“Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your Universe. Things are different where I come from.”
“Where you come from?” You said.
“Oh sure,” I explained. “.. I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know you’ll want to know what it’s like there, but honestly you wouldn’t understand.”
“Oh,” you said, a little let down. “.. but wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.”
“Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you don’t even know its happening.”
“So what’s the point of it all?”
“Seriously?” I asked. “Seriously? You are asking me for the meaning of life? Isn’t that a little stereotypical?”
“Well it’s a reasonable question,” You persisted.
I Looked You In The Eye.
“The meaning of life, the reason I made this Whole Universe, is for YOU to mature.”
“You mean mankind? You want us to mature?”
“No, just YOU. I made this Whole Universe for YOU. With each new life YOU grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.”
“Just me? What about everyone else?”
“There is no one else,” I said. “.. In This Universe, there’s just YOU & ME.”
You stared blankly at me. “But all the people on Earth…”
“All you. Different incarnations of YOU.”
“Wait. I’m everyone!?”
“Now you’re getting it,” I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.
“I’m every human being who ever lived?”
“Or who will ever live, yes.”
“I’m Abraham Lincoln?”
“I’m Hitler?” You said, appalled.
“And you are the millions he killed.”
“And you’re everyone who followed him.”
You fell silent.
“Every time you victimized someone,” I said, “… You were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you’ve done, you’ve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by YOU.”
You thought for a long time.
“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”
“Because someday, YOU will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”
“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”
“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you’ve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”
“So the Whole Universe,” You said, “… it’s just…”
“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”
And I sent you on your way.
The feeling you feel right now like you are levitating over yourself that’s your mind being blown. Elevated. You’ve Ascended to a whole new level.
I wish you have a mirror right now to see your face
And yes, it is inevitable to think about this when you meet someone else.
You will start questioning yourself “Can my mother, or my brother, my kid, my wife, my best friend, all be me?” You’ll think of this when you talk with them.
You’ll start questioning even more, “Can this sexy waitress, or Leonardo DiCaprio, or Ghandi, all those terrorists, politicians, soldiers who died in wars, my boss.. Could all of them be really ME?”
But that’s ok.
Question. Question everything and everyone.
Start seeing The Universe through this prism. Start seeing The World and everyone in it with this eye.
So what if this is just a story, it’s the story we believe in that matters. And maybe it’s time to change the story and accept a new one. A story which will make The World a better place.
It’s not which story is true. ALL OF THEM ARE.
It’s which story makes YOU a better person. A GOD.
P.S. When I think about it, YOU wrote this text for yourself.
Michael Tsarion’s List of authors of eminence speaking about world conspiracy…
List of Names
Winston Churchill (Prime Minister)
Benjamin Disraeli (Prime Minister)
Woodrow Wilson (US President)
George Washington (US President)
John Quincy Adams (US President)
J. Edgar Hoover (FBI Director)
Whiting Willauer (Ambassador)
Chester Ward (Admiral)
J. Edgar Hoover (FBI Director)
J. F. C. Fuller (General)
Erich von Ludendorff (General)
James Gritz (Luitenant Col.)
Smedley Butler (Maj. General)
Fletcher Prouty (Colonel)
Oleg Penkovskiy (Colonel)
Ted Gunderson (Chief of FBI)
Guy Carr (Captain)
John DeCamp (Senator)
Gary Allen (Senator)
Arthur Spiridovich (Russian Count)
Carroll Quigley (Eminent Historian)
James Billington (Eminent Historian)
Anthony Sutton (Eminent Historian)
Nicholas Hagger (Eminent Historian)
Lyndon Larouche/Tarpley (Congressman)
John Robinson (Professor)
Jason Jorgani (Professor)
Joseph Willard (Harvard President)
Arnold Toynbee (Eminent Historian)
Ezra Pound (World Renowned Poet)
Avro Manhattan (English Baron, Knight of Malta)
Phyllis Schlafly (Multi-published Conservative author)
Rudolf Steiner (Philosopher)
A. E. Waite (Occult Expert)
Aldous Huxley (Eminent Whistleblower)
George Orwell (Eminent Whistleblower)
H. L. Mencken (Eminent Whistleblower)
Whittiker Chambers (Eminent Whistleblower)
Stanton Evans (Eminent Whistleblower)
Yuri Besmenov (KGB)
Carroll Reece (US Congressman)
Norman Dodd (Aid to Carroll Reese)
John Stockwell (CIA)
John Loftus (CIA)
A. K. Chesteron
G. Edward Griffin
H. G. Wells
THE MYSTICAL QABALAH
BY DION FORTUNE
The Tree of Life forms the ground-plan of the Western Esoteric Tradition and is the system upon which pupils are trained in the Fraternity of the Inner Light.
The transliteration of Hebrew words into English is the subject of much diversity of opinion, every scholar appearing to have his own system. In these pages I have availed myself of the alphabetical table given by MacGregor Mathers in The Kabbalah Unveiled because this book is the one generally used by esoteric students. He himself does not adhere to his own table systematically, however, and even uses different spellings for the same words. This is very confusing for anyone who wishes to use the gematric method of elucidation, in which letters are turned into numbers. When, therefore, Mathers gives alternative transliterations, I have followed the one which coincides with that given in his own table.
The capitalisation employed in these pages may also appear unusual, but it is the one traditionally used among students of the Western Esoteric Tradition. In this system, common words, such as earth or path, are used in a technical sense to denote spiritual principles. When this is done, a capital is used to indicate the fact. When a capital is not used, it may be taken that the word is to be understood in its ordinary sense.
As I have frequently referred to the authority of MacGregor Mathers and Aleister Crowley in matters of Qabalistic mysticism, it may be as well to explain my position in relation to these two writers.
I was at one time a member of the organisation founded by the former, but have never been associated with the latter. I have never known either of these gentlemen personally, MacGregor Mathers having died before I joined his organisation, and Aleister Crowley having then ceased to be associated with it.
THE PICTORIAL KEY TO
BEING FRAGMENTS OF A SECRET TRADITION UNDER THE VEIL OF DIVINATION
BY ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE
WITH 78 PLATES, ILLUSTRATING THE GREATER AND LESSER ARCANA, FROM DESIGNS BY PAMELA COLMAN SMITH
The Emerald Tablet of Hermes By Unknown
HISTORY OF THE TABLET
History of the Tablet (largely summarised from Needham 1980, & Holmyard 1957)
The Tablet probably first appeared in the West in editions of the psuedoAristotlean Secretum Secretorum which was actually a translation of the Kitab Sirr al-Asar, a book of advice to kings which was translated into latin by Johannes Hispalensis c. 1140 and by Philip of Tripoli c.1243. Other translations of the Tablet may have been made during the same period by Plato of Tivoli and Hugh of Santalla, perhaps from different sources.
The date of the Kitab Sirr al-Asar is uncertain, though c.800 has been suggested and it is not clear when the tablet became part of this work. Holmyard was the first to find another early arabic version (Ruska found a 12th centruy recension claiming to have been dictated by Sergius of Nablus) in the Kitab Ustuqus al-Uss al-Thani (Second Book of the Elements of Foundation) attributed to Jabir. Shortly after Ruska found another version appended to the Kitab Sirr al-Khaliqa wa San`at alTabi`a (Book of the Secret of Creation and the Art of Nature), which is also known as the Kitab Balaniyus al-Hakim fi’l-`Ilal (book of Balinas the wise on the Causes). It has been proposed that this book was written may have been written as early as 650, and was definitely finished by the Caliphate of al-Ma’mun (813-33).
Scholars have seen similarities between this book and the Syriac Book of
Treasures written by Job of Odessa (9th century) and more interestingly the Greek writings of the bishop Nemesius of Emesa in Syria from the mid fourth century. However though this suggests a possible Syriac source, none of these writings contain the tablet.
Balinas is usually identified with Apollonius of Tyna, but there is little evidence to connect him with the Kitab Balabiyus, and even if there was, the story implies that Balinas found the tablet rather than wrote it, and the recent discoveries of the dead sea scrolls and the nag hamamdi texts suggest that hiding texts in caves is not impossible, even if we did not 2
have the pyramids before us.
Ruska has suggested an origin further east, and Needham has proposed an origin in China.
Holmyard, Davis and Anon all consider that this Tablet may be one of the earliest of all alchemical works we have that survives.
It should be remarked that apparently the Greeks and Egyptians used the term translated as `emerald’ for emeralds, green granites, “and perhaps green jasper”. In medieval times the emerald table of the Gothic kings of Spain, and the Sacro catino- a dish said to have belonged to the Queen of Sheba, to have been used at the last supper, and to be made of emerald, were made of green glass [Steele and Singer: 488].
THE ILLUSTRATED KEY
TO THE TAROT
THE VEIL OF DIVINATION
ILLUSTRATING THE GREATER AND LESSER ARCANA
EMBRACING THE VEIL AND ITS SYMBOLS. SECRET TRADITION UNDER THE VEIL OF DIVINATION. ART OF TAROT DIVINATION. OUTER METHOD OF THE ORACLES. THE TAROT IN HISTORY. INNER SYMBOLISM. THE GREATER KEYS.
BY L. W. DE LAURENCE
What is a symbol? Webster tells us that a symbol is “something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; esp: a visible sign of something invisible.” [Emphasis mine throughout] This is important to know because when we see a symbol we now know that there is a meaning BEHIND what is actually being shown since a symbol is “a visible sign of something invisible.” A related word, symbolism, is “the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of DIVINE BEINGS AND SPIRITS.” This, too, is important because many of these symbols also represent gods and goddesses.
Since this book will be covering many occultic and Masonic symbols, a few quotes from Masons about symbols would be in order. Masonic author, George H. Steinmetz, shares the following: “The symbols are not used in the commonly accepted meaning. It is ‘NOT BY EXACT RESEMBLANCE’; there IS a more recondite [meaning occult or esoteric] interpretation, as we suspected; it is one of ‘SUGGESTIONS OR ASSOCIATION IN THOUGHT.’
“There is a SECRET DOCTRINE in Freemasonry. That secret doctrine is concealed, rather than revealed, by the very lectures which, we are told, offer a ‘rational explanation’ of the ceremonies of initiation. If we were to accept these ‘rational explanations’ as final, and seek no further, Freemasonry would be a farce.” [Italics and caps in the original; Boldface added]
Carl Claudy, a Masonic writer, mentions that there are secrets inside secrets in symbolism.
He wrote: “CUT THROUGH THE OUTER SHELL AND FIND A MEANING; CUT THROUGH THAT MEANING AND FIND ANOTHER; UNDER IT IF YOU DIG DEEP ENOUGH YOU MAY FIND A THIRD, A FOURTH—WHO SHALL SAY HOW MANY TEACHINGS?”
In an Eastern Star book we are told: “A symbol is a figure of something intellectual, moral or spiritual, a visible object, REPRESENTING to the mind the semblance of SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT SHOWN but realized by association with it.”
ABOUT THE BOOK OF ZOHAR
The Book of Zohar is the most mysterious, and at the same time the most significant book of Kabbalah. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that although The Book of Zohar was written eighteen centuries ago, it was actually written for our time. Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag (Baal HaSulam) opened it to us and rekindled what has long been forgotten from our hearts.
The depth of the wisdom in The Book of Zohar is locked behind a thousand doors.
–Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag (Baal HaSulam), “Preface to the Book of Zohar” Since the dawn of humanity, unique individuals climbed the spiritual ladder and achieved the highest level of bonding with the Upper Force, the Creator. We call those people “Kabbalists.”
Through this bonding, they came to understand that the whole of reality, from the highest spiritual worlds down to our world, is founded on love and bestowal. They realized that there is nothing in the world except for this Force, and that everything that happens in reality was made only to bring humanity to permanent existence with this sensation.
Kabbalists have searched and found the answers to every question they asked—the purpose of our lives, the structure of the world, and how we can determine our destiny. They wrote about what they discovered in books such as Raziel Hamalaach (The Angel Raziel), Sefer Yetzira (The Book of Creation), Etz Chaim (The Tree of Life), and others.
Of all the books, the most seminal, mysterious, and profound is The Book of Zohar (The Book of Radiance). The Book of Zohar describes the hidden system of the Upper Guidance. It depicts the worlds, the great powers that govern them, and how one who chooses to study Kabbalah affects his or her own fate and that of humanity. 12
The Zohar also explains how every event cascades from the Upper World to ours, and the dressings it acquires here. But what makes The Zohar unique is the fact that it was not written for its contemporaries; it was rather intended for a generation that would live two millennia later—our generation.
Dr. Bruce Lipton, PhD is an internationally recognized leader in bridging science and spirit. Stem cell biologist, bestselling author of The Biology of Belief and recipient of the 2009 Goi Peace Award, he has been a guest speaker on hundreds of TV and radio shows, as well as keynote presenter for national and international conferences. In 1982, Dr. Lipton began examining the principles of quantum physics and how they might be integrated into his understanding of the cell’s information processing systems. He produced breakthrough studies on the cell membrane, which revealed that this outer layer of the cell was an organic homologue of a computer chip, the cell’s equivalent of a brain. His research at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, between 1987 and 1992, revealed that the environment, operating though the membrane, controlled the behavior and physiology of the cell, turning genes on and off. His discoveries, which ran counter to the established scientific view that life is controlled by the genes, presaged one of today’s most important fields of study, the science of epigenetics. Two major scientific publications derived from these studies defined the molecular pathways connecting the mind and body. Many subsequent papers by other researchers have since validated his concepts and ideas.
“And Jehovah God commanded the man saying, Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. “And the woman said unto the serpent, ‘Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
by Manly P. Hall – 1922
THE HIDDEN TREASURES OF THE ANCIENT QABALAH
BY ELIAS GEWURZ
WHAT IS THE QABALAH?
The Qabalah is the Secret Doctrine of the Jews, handed down throughout the ages by the great teachers to their beloved disciples under the solemn vow of secrecy.
In the Twelfth Century, however, the principal text-book of the Qabalah was written down by a very learned Rabbi named Moses de Leon. This book is known as the Zohar, and contains inexhaustible mines of occult knowledge. Priceless treasures of mystic lore are scattered in its volumes, awaiting discovery by the intelligent student. The language of the Zohar, however (the Hebrew Chaldaic), known to a very few scholars only, constitutes the main difficulty in the way of those desirous of studying the Qabalah.
The learned assemblies of olden times, in which the great Masters of Israel held forth their doctrines, have been the original sources of the philosophy of these latter days. Modern Occultism, too, is derived from the same quarters, and should the pages of the Holy Qabalah be accessible some day to the English student, he will be astonished and delighted at the wealth of occult truth he will find in them.
The books of the Qabalah are fountains of living waters and at a time of great spiritual need, as the present is, the strength and consolation offered us through its teachings are doubly welcome.
The greater part of my life has been devoted to this study, and the teachings given out in my books are all based upon this ancient wisdom of the Rabbis
Krotona, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, May, 1915.
The question of “who?” is the focusing energy of the “messages” is a difficult question to answer tactfully and yet completely. “Isness” is the focus to be sought by each individual awareness. As each expands within the process of self-identification so does the ability to allow the flow of “Isness” to move through their experience. Each will attract into their awareness knowledge to live into wisdom. The vibratory rate of the planetary environment and of the members of humanity on earth is low enough that this ability is currently virtually inaccessible. To assist willing members of mankind to access the necessary information to provide a way to transcend this current aberrant state, various volunteer awareness points within higher vibrational frequencies have acted as booster stations to focus this information through those willing to participate on the earth plane. Knowing the custom of earth’s inhabitants requiring the “personify to identify” mode, names from the exotic to the ridiculous have been given as sources of this information. The information included exercises in discernment, most participants failed the discernment tests. Much was filled with profound truth, but much of it was drained of energy by the continual parade of victims wanting their personal problems solved for them. The information became distorted as the foci were withdrawn and the volunteers winged it (faked it) on their own for their sincerity was lost in the notoriety and greed that resulted.
Thank you the Illusion for another fab video. WAKE UP PEOPLE
Guys, don’t be a coincidence theorist and see we’re being mocked by The Jesuit Order/Media every single day! Their ability to deceive and manipulate us is what allows them to keep their power and control. It is now time to see through what they are doing before it’s too late!
Please support his work: It is well worth the $5-10 a month. (Better to give it to him then the global elite) Copy and paste the following link: Patreon.com/seethroughtheillusion
Fantastic presentation was given by Nate Kap live in Rutland, Ohio at the SEED 3-Sprout event in Skatopia.
The topics covered are:
Solar, Stellar, Lunar cults
The Circled Dot
The mission of this presentation is to help serious students who seek to understand the dialectics that control and ultimately have been separating humanity for thousands of years. If one brings enough knowledge and understanding, one will reveal some of the deepest roots in the cosmos and ultimately have the key to understanding higher degrees of origins and evolution of religion. References: Mark Passio Manly P Hall Douglas Martin Jordan Maxwell David Ike Santos Bonacci Albert Churchward Howard Crowhurst Brandon Martin The Kybalion(Book) Website http://cubbywhole.com/
Our Future without privacy…Are we constantly being watched?
Are we constantly being controlled?
STRANGE LOOP FILMS Presents “Dissidence” In the year 2084, a government agent chooses to go without his mandated phone. This begins to open his eyes as he learns the consequences of speaking out against the surveillance state he is living in. Directors Statement: “Dissidence (2084) was first inspired by my study abroad trip to Budapest Hungary. As I learned more about Hungarian history and culture, I was extremely fascinated by how fascism and communism affected Hungarian culture. In a period of 2 years 1/20 Hungarians were sent the the Russian Gulag for political crimes. Today, these horrors seem like the distant past. However, with the the rise of cellphones and other technologies perfect for surveillance use, Dissidence stands as a warning to the importance of freedom of privacy and free speech often traded for convenience and ‘safety’. This film was carefully planned to not alienate modern day viewers with a world happening in the distant future, or a far away place as many Sci-Fi’s traditionally do. This is because the ideas in this film have already started to become a reality in our society.”
Please follow John Leckrone and pay attention to his words – The following is todays live stream:
is Johns blog. Go get lost down this hole for a while!
In “The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix”, Martin Gardner introduces us to this extraordinary man, Dr. Irving Joshua Matrix. Believed by many to be the greatest numerologist who ever lived, Dr. Matrix claims to be a reincarnation of Pythagoras. He was, however, completely unknown to the scientific community until Gardner wrote about him in “Scientific American” in 1960.That first report and the subsequent ones that appeared with each new encounter are collected here in their entirety. We follow Dr. Matrix as he roams the world and assumes new identities and discovers new manifestations of the power of numbers to explain and predict and entertain. Always at his side is his beautiful Eurasian daughter, Iva, who abets and protects her father in each new adventure. As you delve into “The Magic Numbers of Dr Matrix”, you will master some significant combinatorial mathematics and number theory. The many remarkable puzzles of Dr. Matrix are all clearly answered in the back of the book, together with commentary and references by Gardner to enlighten the uninitiated and entertain the inquiring reader.
The above video is the premiere episode of FreemanTV on November 9th 2010. It is definitely worth your time listening to Freeman on his YT channel but also go to his own website, listen to his podcasts and interviews. He is a very interesting man.
From his website:
Freeman has been on the forefront of conspiracy theory for nearly two decades. He is an internationally-known, award-winning TV producer, film maker, radio talk show host and lecturer. Freeman is considered an expert in the fields of the occult, trauma-based mind control, Illuminati symbolism, and ancient civilizations by his peers and professionals within his industry. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Freeman has lectured extensively on the secret signs and symbolism of Freemasonry, the ancient astronaut hypothesis, trauma-based mind control, social engineering, government conspiracy, human cloning, technologies of the future and synchronicity.
Freeman presents hope displayed in the creative spirit of humanity.
He is an internationally-known award-winning TV producer, film maker, radio talk show host and lecturer. Freeman is considered an expert in the fields of the occult, trauma-based mind control, Illuminati symbolism, and ancient civilizations.
Freeman graduated with an Associates of Arts with honors in Interdisciplinary Studies and attended Kansas University, specializing in ancient and environmental architecture.
Freeman publicly announced his fears that a false flag event would occur on 9/11, that “W” would be forced into office, the economy would collapse on 10/13 and that the next President of America would have his natural born status questioned.
Freeman has appeared on HBO, Discovery Channel, in the studio with Alex Jones and he has been a guest on many radio shows including: Fade To Black, Ground Zero Lounge, Dr. Deagle’s Nutri-Medical Report, Texe Marrs’ Power of Prophecy, Outside the Box, Deadline Live, The American Voice with Gianni Hayes Ph. D., Intel Strike Report, Paranormal Response Team, and the Kevin Smith Show.
Freeman has been a guest on many international broadcasts including Red-Ice Creations in Sweden, Edge Media TV in England, and Conspiracy Hunters in Australia.
Freeman’s articles have been published in Drunvalo Melchezidek’s Spirit of Ma’at, DavidIcke.com, and The Sovereign NY publications.
As president of Blue Fly Productions Freeman produced and hosted an Austin based TV show “The Freeman Perspective” in which Freeman interviews some of the leading thinkers of our time such as, Michael Tsarion, Texe Marrs, Gaylon Ross, Dr. Michael Salla, Stewart and Janet Swerdlow, Eric Jon Phelps, Alan Watt, and exclusive interviews from magicians such as Paul Laffoley, Isaac Bonewitz, and Rex Diabolus Church of the Church of Satan.
Freeman performed in and documented the first ever all night Winter Solstice ceremony with the Mayans at the pyramids in Tikal. The film is in production and a short film of the event placed in the One Minute Shift competition for the Institute of Noetic Sciences.
Freeman’s film subjects include the occult meanings of corporate logos, America’s goddess, Columbia, weather modification and space-based weapons, chemtrails, ancient astronauts, Anna Nicole’s death, Britney Spears and Disney mind control, cloning technology in the ancient past and today.
Catherine Austin Fitts and Dolores Cahill interviewed by World Freedom Alliance Chairman Maneka Helleberg in Basel. If YT removes this I have a backup. Please send us an email if this link is broken.
indethinkr @ pm.me
Good thing we downloaded a copy of this since YT removed it within hours.
Watch and share:
Give a chance to change your perception of reality and I promise that you will not regret it! The aim of this channel is to reveal truth by using gematria. This channel will make you question your whole reality, and you will discover that coincidences do exist, but they are not as common as you may believe.
Learn gematria yourself by clicking on the following link: http://www.gematrinator.com/calculator/index.php
A sovereign, self-governed, self-ruled and self-controlled person takes personal responsibility over their thoughts, emotions and actions which are the only things we have a right to control. Creating institutions of power and control to govern our lives and do things for us is abdication of personal responsibility. Taking personal responsibility for our thoughts, emotions and actions is the basis for discovering and understanding Natural Law. We have to be honest with ourselves to face what we are currently choosing to be through the three manifestations of consciousness.
Taking a paycheck to violate other people’s rights is not acceptable. Currently our economic system and basis for survival promotes such positions to be filled in order to survive, but it is not simply just a matter of doing a job. Following orders is not an excuse for violating the Natural Law rights of others when you do not have a right to do that.
“They must find it difficult… those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.”
– Gerald Massey
This same story has happened many times in our recent history and further back. There are those who accept claims of authority over other living beings and usurp their Natural Law rights. Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and going back every century into the Roman times and even before that there have always been people who have claimed imaginary rights of authority over others. Those who line up and take orders are automatons imagining that they can give up their personal responsibility for the wrong-actions they commit and claim it’s all just a job and they are just following orders. Excuses, justifications and defensive rationalizations are always employed by those who need to validate the wrongs they are engaged in. People want to claim that they are not responsible for what happens as a result of their actions. But the truth is that they are, they simply want to be irresponsible so that they can continue doing what they are doing without pointing the finger at themselves. Instead, pointing the finger at someone else and claiming someone else is responsible for their behavior.
“Accept responsibility for yourself and your actions, thoughts and words. You alone make choices. You alone are answerable to the consequences of your behavior. The feeble excuse that your boss required it, the establishment expected it, holds no truth or justification. (…) What is the point of having principles if you allow others to dictate your behavior? At the end of the day, you will judge your performance and the contribution you have made to Creation. It will not be based on what another expected of you, or what you did because you felt trapped.” – David Icke
We have the free will to choose to integrate with the current system we are living in or to refuse to cooperate with this system that is enslaving people. We either do not follow Natural Law or we follow Natural Law regardless of the deception people are living in. The responsibility lies on our shoulders, each one of us as an individual is the way out of our current condition of suffering. We need to understand principles of Natural Law, right and wrong, claim personal responsibility and stop making excuses in order to develop true sovereignty and self-governance. The answer is in the mirror. We are the answer through the expansion and evolution of our consciousness in true education. Spending our time and paying attention on raising ourselves because we were not properly raised, to raise our conscious awareness and understanding of ourselves and reality. This is the requirement for us to advance, change and evolve as a species up the ladder of consciousness and breaking the chains of our current condition into a new world peace, harmony and prosperity.
The Choice is Ours!
We have much to learn and face in ourselves if we are to alter our current course.
Living in Harmony with Natural Law leads to:
Freedom, Peace, Prosperity, Survival, Evolutionary Progress
Living in Opposition to Natural Law leads to:
Control, Enslavement, Poverty, War, Evolutionary Stagnation, Extinction
= With Knowledge Comes Responsibility; to Understand;
and with Understanding Comes Responsibility; to Act; In Accord With That Knowledge.
➝ Natural Law, The Science of Justice:
➝ Its not our time to rise into becoming who we really are:
➝ As our contribution to an awakening humanity, we boldly enter the light, in order to inspire many others to make such a shift:
➝ Abdicating Personal Responsibility:
➝ People are afraid of Truth:
➝ Society, as a whole, has been deliberately dumbed down:
➝ The System Has Everyone Thinking Legal Means Right.
Truth is the Measure of Authority, Not ‘Authority’ That’s the Measure of Truth:
➝ The Science of Righteous Living. Natural, Moral, Universal Law:
Here is the official English version of Archbishop Viganò’s open letter to President Trump warning him of Deep State/Deep Church and the Great Reset of 2021:
Official Vigano OPEN LETTER TO THE POTUS download.
Full text here:
DONALD J. TRUMP
Sunday, October 25, 2020
Solemnity of Christ the King
Open Letter to POTUS Mr. President,
Allow me to address you at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity. I write to you as an Archbishop, as a Successor of the Apostles, as the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America. I am writing to you in the midst of the silence of both civil and religious authorities. May you accept these words of mine as the “voice of one crying out in the desert” (Jn 1:23).
As I said when I wrote my letter to you in June, this historical moment sees the forces of Evil aligned in a battle without quarter against the forces of Good; forces of Evil that appear powerful and organized as they oppose the children of Light, who are disoriented and disorganized, abandoned by their temporal and spiritual leaders.
Daily we sense the attacks multiplying of those who want to destroy the very basis of society: the natural family, respect for human life, love of country, freedom of education and business. We see heads of nations and religious leaders pandering to this suicide of Western culture and its Christian soul, while the fundamental rights of citizens and believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny
A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations. In several nations this plan has already been approved and financed; in others it is still in an early stage. Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.
The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.
Mr. President, I imagine that you are already aware that in some countries the Great Reset will be activated between the end of this year and the first trimester of 2021. For this purpose, further lockdowns are planned, which will be officially justified by a supposed second and third wave of the pandemic. You are well aware of the means that have been deployed to sow panic and legitimize draconian limitations on individual liberties, artfully provoking a world-wide economic crisis. In the intentions of its architects, this crisis will serve to make the recourse of nations to the Great Reset irreversible, thereby giving the final blow to a world whose existence and very memory they want to completely cancel. But this world, Mr. President, includes people, affections, institutions, faith, culture, traditions, and ideals: people and values that do not act like automatons, who do not obey like machines, because they are endowed with a soul and a heart, because they are tied together by a spiritual bond that draws its strength from above, from that God that our adversaries want to challenge, just as Lucifer did at the beginning of time with his “non serviam.”
Many people – as we well know – are annoyed by this reference to the clash between Good and Evil and the use of “apocalyptic” overtones, which according to them exasperates spirits and sharpens divisions. It is not surprising that the enemy is angered at being discovered just when he believes he has reached the citadel he seeks to conquer undisturbed. What is surprising, however, is that there is no one to sound the alarm. The reaction of the deep state to those who denounce its plan is broken and incoherent, but understandable. Just when the complicity of the mainstream media had succeeded in making the transition to the New World Order almost painless and unnoticed, all sorts of deceptions, scandals and crimes are coming to light.
Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as “conspiracy theorists” those who denounced these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one, up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it is happening all over the world, even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider to be a small enchanted country, with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming cities, its characteristic villages. And while the politicians are barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like Persian satraps, businesses are failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from living, traveling, working, and praying. The disastrous psychological consequences of this operation are already being seen, beginning with the suicides of desperate entrepreneurs and of our children, segregated from friends and classmates, told to follow their classes while sitting at home alone in front of a computer.
In Sacred Scripture, Saint Paul speaks to us of “the one who opposes” the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity, the kathèkon (2 Thess 2:6-7). In the religious sphere, this obstacle to evil is the Church, and in particular the papacy; in the political sphere, it is those who impede the establishment of the New World Order.
As is now clear, the one who occupies the Chair of Peter has betrayed his role from the very beginning in order to defend and promote the globalist ideology, supporting the agenda of the deep church, who chose him from its ranks.
Mr. President, you have clearly stated that you want to defend the nation – One Nation under God, fundamental liberties, and non-negotiable values that are denied and fought against today. It is you, dear President, who are “the one who opposes” the deep state, the final assault of the children of darkness.
For this reason, it is necessary that all people of good will be persuaded of the epochal importance of the imminent election: not so much for the sake of this or that political program, but because of the general inspiration of your action that best embodies – in this particular historical context – that world, our world, which they want to cancel by means of the lockdown. Your adversary is also our adversary: it is the Enemy of the human race, He who is “a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44).
Around you are gathered with faith and courage those who consider you the final garrison against the world dictatorship. The alternative is to vote for a person who is manipulated by the deep state, gravely compromised by scandals and corruption, who will do to the United States what Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing to the Church, Prime Minister Conte to Italy, President Macron to France, Prime Minster Sanchez to Spain, and so on. The blackmailable nature of Joe Biden – just like that of the prelates of the Vatican’s “magic circle” – will exposehim to be used unscrupulously, allowing illegitimate powers to interfere in both domestic politics as well as international balances. It is obvious that those who manipulate him already have someone worse than him ready, with whom they will replace him as soon as the opportunity arises.
And yet, in the midst of this bleak picture, this apparently unstoppable advance of the “Invisible Enemy,” an element of hope emerges. The adversary does not know how to love, and it does not understand that it is not enough to assure a universal income or to cancel mortgages in order to subjugate the masses and convince them to be branded like cattle. This people, which for too long has endured the abuses of a hateful and tyrannical power, is rediscovering that it has a soul; it is understanding that it is not willing to exchange its freedom for the homogenization and cancellation of its identity; it is beginning to understand the value of familial and social ties, of the bonds of faith and culture that unite honest people. This Great Reset is destined to fail because those who planned it do not understand that there are still people ready to take to the streets to defend their rights, to protect their loved ones, to give a future to their childrenand grandchildren. The leveling inhumanity of the globalist project will shatter miserably in the face of the firm and courageous opposition of the children of Light. The enemy has Satan on its side, He who only knows how to hate. But on our side,we have the Lord Almighty, the God of armies arrayed for battle, and the Most Holy Virgin, who will crush the headof the ancient Serpent. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31).
Mr. President, you are well aware that, in this crucial hour, the United States of America is considered the defending wall against which the war declared by the advocates of globalism has been unleashed. Place your trust in the Lord, strengthened by the words of the Apostle Paul: “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). To be an instrument of Divine Providence is a great responsibility, for which you will certainly receive all the graces of state that you need, since they are being fervently implored for you by the many people who support you with their prayers.
With this heavenly hope and the assurance of my prayer for you, for the First Lady, and for your collaborators, with all my heart I send you my blessing.
God bless the United States of America!
+ Carlo Maria Viganò
Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America
This video is long but well worth it!
If you speak to someone who studies numerology they will tell you that there is an uncanny relationship between numbers and words. They’ll tell you that letters and words all have a numerical value and weight that is implicit of deeper meaning, connecting other words of similar weight. In fact, this concept has been given merit and studied in relation to biblical texts for hundreds of years. Kabbalist Jewish scholars call this study gematria and believe that there is a hidden code in the Torah that contains clues to current and future events.
The concept of gematria numerology stems from the idea that mathematics is the universal language of nature and within it may be the keys to explaining our universe or evidence of supernatural power. Marty Leeds has taken this concept of the Kabbalistic gematria and applied it to the English language, believing that he has found a cipher in our alphabet to prove this theory.
In Hebrew, every letter is given a numerical value and those values can be added up to achieve the numerical value of a word. While some might think that this is a system of drawing arbitrary connections, practitioners of gematria believe there to be an intentional context to the sounds of the vowels and consonants that we use in language with an interconnected mathematical meaning.
An example of the influence of gematria in Judaism can be found in the tzitzit, the shawl worn during a Jewish ceremony. Combing the numerical value of the knot, and the number of strands of knots, with the value of the word tzitzit, results in the number 613, which is the same as the number of commandments in the Torah. Or some look at the number of windings of the thread between each knot, of 7-8-11-13, broken down into their corresponding Hebrew letters and find the spelling of God’s name.
Hebrew scholars are not the only ones who have given consideration to the concept of gematria, as it is also common to other religions and cultures. Plato made reference to Greek gematria, and the Abjad numerals are the Arabic equivalent. Many of us even have similar beliefs when it comes to superstitions that are seated in religion, whether we know it or not. 666 is a number we associate with words like devil or beast. Some have found the gematria of 666 to be a reference to Nero Caesar.
Leeds says that it makes sense that a language could be distilled down into basic numbers since we already do this with binary code. The intricacies of everything that is digital can be broken down into 1s and 0s. And science often relies on the simplicity of Occam’s Razor, a.k.a. the law of parsimony, where the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is preferred or at least the best place to start.
The main focus of the Kabbalistic use of gematria is on the name of God. The tetragrammaton, or the Hebrew name of God in four letters, YHWH, was the original focus of gematria. Leeds has applied his cipher of the English alphabet to the tetragrammaton and believes there is something there.
He breaks down the 26 letters of the English alphabet into two parts, as a representation of duality in our world. He uses the number 7, representing the seven days of creation, to assign numbers to each letter of the alphabet. He then points to the summation of the non-prime numbers, denoted by the Jewish menorah, equaling 22. When 22 is divided by 7 the result is 3.142, or pi. This is where he says to have found the name of God, in pi, an archetypical number of creation that is central to mathematics, extending infinitely in its calculation.
When the numerical value of the Hebrew letters of the tetragrammaton is added up, they come out to 26, the number of letters in our alphabet. The characters themselves, according to Leeds, look like they symbolize pi begotten by 7 and pi begotten by 7 – or the same way that he has used gematria to break up the English alphabet to create his cipher. In Leed’s cipher, the numerical value of the words Lord and God both add up to 13, which combined equals 26.
Leeds says there is innate evidence like this in many aspects of our world, like with the number three. Three can be found in descriptions of the divine throughout a number of religions. This can be seen in the Christian holy trinity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost or the Hindu Holy Trinity of Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahama. The primordial sound AUM is often spelled with three letters and has a 3 in its character. Time is represented by the past, present, and future and, of course, pi is represented by 3.1415. The 3 degrees and 33 degrees are also very symbolic in Freemasonry.
The evidence of gematria in freemasonry is thought to be seen in the strange way masons letter their passwords. This evidence of a kabbalistic influence dates back as far as the early 1700s. Some have pointed out that the word God is thought to be an acronym rooted in Freemasonry and Hebrew. And Leeds points to the G in the symbol of the Freemason’s square and compasses as having a connection to the number 7 in his cipher. But are these alphanumerical connections evidence of a secret code that is undeniable proof of a creator, or merely coincidental and cherry-picked? What more can we glean from this code if it is significant? Does your name in gematria tell you anything?
Bruce Wayne’s great-grandfather founded Yale’s Skull and Bones, an exclusive club of cutthroat future businessmen and politicians. 1966, Series 01 Episode 33 – Fine Finny Friends
Note the 33 for the 33rd degree Freemason.
This revelation is way too diabolical to even fabricate in Hollywood. In the 33rd episode of the Batman television series, starring Adam West, entitled Fine Finny Fiends (1966), two attendees of Bruce Wayne’s “millionaire’s gathering”, Aunt Harriet Cooper and one of the party goers are engaged in a discussion concerning Bruce’s great-grandfather:
Party Goer: “That is Bruce Wayne’s grandfather, Mrs. Cooper?”
Aunt Harriet: “His great-grandfather.”
Party Goer: “I understand he was tapped for Skull & Bones.”
Aunt Harriet: “Tapped for it? Sir, he founded Skull & Bones.”
If the irony of the 33rd (the number of a master level Mason) episode and the title of the episode Fine Finny Fiends (F is the 6th letter of the alphabet; hence 6-6-6) wasn’t lost on you then the fact that great grandpappy, Alan Wayne, was one of the three founding fathers of modern Gotham City might amuse you as well.
As the story line evolves, the three founders, Wayne, Theodore Cobblepot and Edward Eliot, set out to reshape the city and hired two stepbrother architects, Nicholas Anders and Bradley Gates, to build three bridges carrying the namesake of the triumvirate, each being a gateway into the city. Aptly, the bridges were nicknamed the Gates of Gotham. A name the stepbrothers would also soon share as brother Anders legally changed his surname to Gates to match their accomplishment.
A fourth bridge, a colosal enterprise to connect Gotham to the outer suburbs and create the greatest city in the world, was proposed by the founders but was met with skepticism by Bradley Gates. He felt the project was not to the brother’s benefit and tried to persuade Nicholas towards other causes. Meanwhile, the three founders were conflicted by their own land holdings and jealousies towards which direction the super bridge should exit the city.
Enter Cameron Kane, the owner of the county north of Gotham, and an unscrupulous purveyor of gambling, prostitution and violence, into the fray. A bridge in his direction would obviously boost his standing in the region and thus he boisterously lobbied for the bridge while the others positioned themselves to claim the prize as well. With each man unwilling to cede the bridge to the other, lest they gain an unfair political and financial benefit, the decision was left to brother Nicholas. His admiration for Alan Wayne ultimately swayed his decision much to Kane’s chagrin, who proceeded to storm out of Wayne Manor in a huff.
During the construction of the bridge Bradley was killed and Nicholas quickly suspected that Kane was involved in the collapse of the structure. He confided his suspicions with Wayne but was surprisingly rebuked: “Wayne threatens Nicholas to keep his assumptions to himself because secrets can be influential, powerful and dangerous if not kept.” Sound like any secret societies you know?
Realizing that the founding fathers were corrupt Nicholas planned his revenge and ultimately killed Kane’s son Robert while trying to assassinate his father before being carted off to prison. He once more vowed revenge and forever cursed the founders. Years later, a masked crusader named “The Architect” took up the cause and bombed the three bridges.
Ironically, Alan Wayne, in later years, developed a fear of birds. Namely, “A Court of Owls,” (think Molech, Bohemian grove, The Illuminati) which was named after a children’s nursery rhyme. He believed that the birds were roosting in his home which caused further paranoia.
He died after falling into a manhole and his corpse was found several weeks later and identified by dental records. Batman investigated the death, exhumed the body, performed tests and found that Alan died from multiple tiny stab wounds likely caused by the Owl Court assassin, The Talon. Dust on the skeleton also seemed to confirm that the death wasn’t caused by the fall into the sewer.
More ironically, William Huntington Russell, the real life founder of Skull and Bones, is said to have died after attempting to fend off a group of boys who were throwing stones at birds in a New Haven, Connecticut park. He fell unconscious from a ruptured blood vessel and died several days later.
AN ENCYCLOPEDIC OUTLINE OF MASONIC, HERMETIC, QABBALISTIC AND ROSICRUCIAN SYMBOLICAL PHILOSOPHY BEING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE SECRET TEACHINGS CONCEALED WITHIN THE RITUALS, ALLEGORIES, AND MYSTERIES OF ALL AGES
Thank you to J.P. Sears for another brilliant video. Please support J.P. using the following links:
Listen and Subscribe to my NEW Podcast here:
It’s also available everywhere else you get podcasts. Just search and subscribe to “Awaken With JP Sears Show”
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
The sustainable goal is the elimination of the middle class. The world cannot support 6+ billion people. The plan behind Sustainable Development includes population control. It is a program for land control, education control and population control. The leaders of the Sustainable Movement said that the world human population should not exceed 500 million people. That is a 93% reduction in today’s population. In 1992 while the Rio conference
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conference_on_Sustainable_Development ) was going on, George Bush, then president, was there. He was just off shore in Prince Charles’ yacht where he executed the Agenda 21 protocol on behalf of the US and brought it back to Washington DC. Within a year Bill Clinton by Executive Order, established the President’s Council for Sustainable Development ( http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/ ).
In 1993 Bill Clinton set up the President Council on Sustainable Development and one of the dictates for Agenda 21 is that every country in the world should set up a National Council to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21. I have listened to Gorbachev explain: “We are writing a new set of 10 or 15 Commandments to replace the original 10” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones ). Which one of the 10 do you think these guys don’t like?
Thou shalt not lie?
Thou shalt not steal?
Thou shalt not covet?
Because I will tell you what. These people have lied to us, they’re in the process of stealing all of this nation’s natural resources, and they covet everything you have left.
To explain the map ( www.watersworld.us/agenda-21-map-thmb52b.jpg ). The red are areas that will be off limits to human beings. If you live there, you won’t. Yellow areas are for major control of all human activity. If you live there, you won’t. Black dots are the smart growth zones, where human beings are to be stacked and packed in small living units along rail tracks. The smart growth program also only has jobs assigned and children cared for by the state.
And in conjunction with Codex Alimentarius, food will be limited and water consumption will be decreased to 10 gallons per day per person. That is over a 90% reduction in people’s average daily water consumption. And along with shortages of food and water, the food we will be provided with will be genetically manipulated and nutrient deficient. Genetic manipulation of food causes complications in metabolizing and utilizing food for energy.
In January 2003 scientists reported that the gene sequence of the inserted genes into crops had actually changed their order. They had re-scrambled, so that genetic inserts are not stable. Another laboratory confirmed this and found that it changed the same varieties in different ways, so not only is it unstable and changing, it is not even uniform in the way it is changing. This is incredibly dangerous. Nutrient deficiencies due to Codex’s planned vitamin and mineral ban will cause billions of preventable diseases. Both of these will ultimately lead to billions of deaths.
In 1970 just three years after the publication of the Iron Mountain Report, which calls for , if we are going to create a world government we can no longer use war as a mechanism to cause fear amongst populations and therefore allow us to control the behavior of populations through fear. And they settled on, in 1967, in their publication called the Iron Mountain Report, the Environmental Holocaust. In 1970, 3 years after that publication the Council of Foreign Relations ( http://www.cfr.org/ / http://www.chathamhouse.org/ ) began to publish a series of articles describing ecological holocaust that was facing the world and in this particular issue, the first issue done by George Keenan, to prevent a world disaster it sums up in three points that the eco-crisis is a global threat so great that it endangers all of life on earth. Aurelio Peccei who actually created the Club of Rome ( http://www.clubofrome.org/ ), and is in the inner, inner circle of the global elitists in 1991 stated that while searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming and the like would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention. The real enemy then is humanity itself ( http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Global-Revolution-Council/dp/0679738258 The book itself was printed in 1991 but the sentence in question is referring to something that occurred ~20+ years prior).
Let’s take a look at Al Gore’s award winning and Nobel Peace Prize movie An Inconvenient Truth ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/ ).
It will shake you to your core, If you love your planet, If you love your children, You have to see this film.
If you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured, they have all occurred in the last 14 years and the hottest of all was 2005. We are causing global warming. This is really not a political issue so much as a moral issue. Temperature increases are taking place all over the world and that is causing stronger storms. Is it possible that we should prepare against other threats besides terrorists?
The Arctic is experiencing faster melting. If this were to go, sea level world wide would go up 20 feet. This is what would happen in Florida. Around Shanghai home to 40 million people. The area around Culcutta – 60 million. Here’s Manhattan, the World Trade Centre Memorial would be under water. Think of the impact of a couple of thousand refugees and then image one hundred million. Those who deny global warming are just flat out wrong, Helen Goodman from the Boston Globe wrote ‘Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with holocaust deniers’.
Scientists silenced for questioning the threat of global warming. I’ve had several friends who have essentially been told if you speak out on climate change, you must do so as citizens. If you do so through our organization, our institution, you will essentially be fired. Once you realize how many holes there are in the consensus solution you may begin to open up your mind to the other side of the global warming debate as a whole. The only consensus I am aware of is that it is warming in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there is this thing called the Oregon Petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don’t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change. I can’t tell you how many calls I have received from parents saying their kids are now being shown an Inconvenient Truth completely unchallenged not just in science class but in art and math classes. I have to speak out and say that the science we have is still incomplete and the science we are being told by the IPPC ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) is really incorrect science.
Lets put this to you bluntly. Global warming is a complete fallacy. All Gore received a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize for a film that is filled with holes and mis-truths.
Ice cores taken 2,000 meters below the surface have enabled us to look at the last 160,000 years. We believe that in Greenland, the medieval warming period was about one and a half degrees warmer on average than today.
And they also show consistently warmer temperatures thousands of years ago before man made green house gasses existed.
You can see that in the period between 4,000 years ago and back to the period 2,000 years ago, which is actually the Roman Age, the temperatures have been decreasing in Greenland by two and a half degrees.
Al Gore is made out to be a revolutionary figure attempting to save the planet, which is quite true, he just doesn’t mention the fact that saving the earth does not involve you. According to his agenda, it will result in massive land repossessions and extreme limitations of food and water and fossil fuels for the public. And please note that Al Gore is a sustainable developer. The Global warming lie is very popular today because it receives major media coverage and has an attractively titled goal of ‘saving the planet’. But how does this tie in with Agenda 21?
The result of the 1992 Earth Summit Conference in Rio de Janeiro was the Kyoto Treaty ( http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php ). The Kyoto Treaty states that every country must drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels by mandate of the United Nations ( http://www.un.org/en/ ).
Bill Clinton) Concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are at their highest levels in more than 200,000 years. If the trend is not changed, scientists expect the seas to rise 2 feet or more over the next century. Island chains such as the Maldives will disappear from the map unless we reverse the predictions.
And as of June 2007, 172 nations and other government entities have ratified the Treaty. And if you were wondering how this ties into putting the earth’s priority above human survival in accordance with pagan beliefs, every country’s deadline for the implementation of Agenda 21 and the kyoto Treaty is in 2012. And if this wasn’t enough, when the Pentagon was damaged in 911, they set a goal to have a completely new and improved Pentagon in December 2012 ( http://www.azicri.org/Default.aspx?pageId=1101701&eventId=530614&EventViewMode=EventDetails ).
So CODEX Alimentarius ( http://www.codexalimentarius.org/ ) goes into effect at the end of 2009 which gives it three years for the Codex regulations on food to start the process of creating billions of preventable diseases and deaths. When citizens of every nation are dying of starvation and diseases and fear for their lives because of global warming and major catastrophes, they will do what the public has been proven to do in times of great peril. They will beg for their government to step in and do something.
How are they going to get you to join the new economy? They are going to say, “we have a solution”. You see one of the tricks of the Illuminati is they create a problem and then they provide a solution when you beg them to. And pray tell, what will the United Nations suggest when there is a global problem? They will demand a global government, a New World Order, Exactly as the Maya, Hopi, Kali Yuga and many other pagan civilizations prophesied.
By 2012 the Kyoto Treaty, Agenda 21, CODEX Alimentarius and the new Pentagon will be fully operational to enforce a New World Order (once they decide to trigger the next phase). And the New World Religion is obvious, we will all worship the earth, Gaia, the mother goddess we saved from extinction from global warming.
We will be told that to keep from repeating the mistakes that we made in the past, we must hold the earth in higher regard than humans, just as pagan traditions require.
This is too obvious to ignore. It is right in front of our faces, yet we still refuse to see it. Why do you think the United Nations are consistently trying to disarm the public and the nations? They don’t want us to be capable of fighting back. One poof of this is in the film released by the UN called ‘Armed to the Teeth: The Worldwide Plague of Small Arms’ ( http://films.com/id/5967/Armed_to_the_Teeth_The_Worldwide_Plague_of_Small_Arms.htm )where it demonizes gun ownership. It is also shown in the Freedom from War Policy ( http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html ) put in place by JFK in 1961. President John Kennedy went to the United Nations September 1961 and he presented the US Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World during a speech and he said this is the official program of the United States of America. It is a disarmament program, and it calls for the US to turn over its military to the UN. Let that sit for a second. It calls for the US to turn over its military to the United Nations. The program ends by saying progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN peace force. The UN would have all military power.
This policy outlines some pretty scary scenarios when you understand what it reads. It calls for the disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsoever, other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a UN Peace Force. This clearly shows that the UN is calling for all military power to be under their control.
Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armament in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process. Strategic delivery vehicles reduced. Arms and armed forces will be reduced and all the while UN peace keeping powers would be strengthened.
A United Nations peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace. Establishing of a permanent international peace force within the UN and depending upon the findings of an experts’ commission, a halt in the production of chemical, biological and radiological weapons and a reduction of the existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses… Peaceful uses of chemical biological or radiological weapons?? Do you see how they are perverting the word ‘peace’ and making this policy seem unilaterally good? There is no other way to read this publication. It clearly states that all nations will hand over all their military forces to a Global United Nations Military.
There are over a dozen videos in this series.
I Claim no rights to any of the material, pictures, diagrams or information provided in this video, please feel free to download, copy and share. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
I Claim no rights or ownership to any of the material, pictures, music, diagrams or information provided in this video. For creative purposes only.
Thank you once again Dee for yet another wonderfully insightful video
To follow Dee:
“The Principles of Truth are Seven; he who knows these,
understandingly, possesses the Magic Key before whose
touch all the Doors of the Temple fly open.”–The Kybalion.
The Seven Hermetic Principles, upon which the entire Hermetic Philosophy is based, are as follows:
1. The Principle of Mentalism.
2. The Principle of Correspondence.
3. The Principle of Vibration.
4. The Principle of Polarity.
5. The Principle of Rhythm.
6. The Principle of Cause and Effect.
7. The Principle of Gender.
These Seven Principles will be discussed and explained as we proceed with these lessons. A short explanation of each, however, may as well be given at this point.
1. The Principle of Mentalism
“THE ALL IS MIND; The Universe is Mental.”–The Kybalion.
This Principle embodies the truth that “All is Mind.” It explains that THE ALL (which is the Substantial Reality underlying all the outward manifestations and appearances which we know under the terms of “The Material Universe”; the “Phenomena of Life”; “Matter”; “Energy”; and, in short, all that is apparent to our material senses) is SPIRIT which in itself is UNKNOWABLE and UNDEFINABLE, but which may be considered and thought of as AN UNIVERSAL, INFINITE, LIVING MIND. It also explains that all the phenomenal world or universe is simply a Mental Creation of THE ALL, subject to the Laws of Created Things, and that the universe, as a whole, and in its parts or units, has its existence in the Mind of THE ALL, in which Mind we “live and move and have our being.” This Principle, by establishing the Mental Nature of the Universe, easily explains all of the varied mental and psychic phenomena that occupy such a large portion of the public attention, and which, without such explanation, are non-understandable and defy scientific treatment. An understanding of this great Hermetic Principle of Mentalism enables the individual to readily grasp the laws of the Mental Universe, and to apply the same to his well-being and advancement. The Hermetic Student is enabled to apply intelligently the great Mental Laws, instead of using them in a haphazard manner. With the Master-Key in his possession, the student may unlock the many doors of the mental and psychic temple of knowledge, and enter the same freely and intelligently. This Principle explains the true nature of “Energy,” “Power,” and “Matter,” and why and how all these are subordinate to the Mastery of Mind. One of the old Hermetic Masters wrote, long ages ago: “He who grasps the truth of the Mental Nature of the Universe is well advanced on The Path to Mastery.” And these words are as true today as at the time they were first written. Without this Master-Key, Mastery is impossible, and the student knocks in vain at the many doors of The Temple.
2. The Principle of Correspondence
“As above, so below; as below, so above.”–The Kybalion.
This Principle embodies the truth that there is always a Correspondence between the laws and phenomena of the various planes of Being and Life. The old Hermetic axiom ran in these words: “As above, so below; as below, so above.” And the grasping of this Principle gives one the means of solving many a dark paradox, and hidden secret of Nature. There are planes beyond our knowing, but when we apply the Principle of Correspondence to them we are able to understand much that would otherwise be unknowable to us. This Principle is of universal application and manifestation, on the various planes of the material, mental, and spiritual universe–it is an Universal Law. The ancient Hermetists considered this Principle as one of the most important mental instruments by which man was able to pry aside the obstacles which hid from view the Unknown. Its use even tore aside the Veil of Isis to the extent that a glimpse of the face of the goddess might be caught. Just as a knowledge of the Principles of Geometry enables man to measure distant suns and their movements, while seated in his observatory, so a knowledge of the Principle of Correspondence enables Man to reason intelligently from the Known to the Unknown. Studying the monad, he understands the archangel.
3. The Principle of Vibration
“Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.”–The
This Principle embodies the truth that “everything is in motion”; “everything vibrates”; “nothing is at rest”; facts which Modern Science endorses, and which each new scientific discovery tends to verify. And yet this Hermetic Principle was enunciated thousands of years ago, by the Masters of Ancient Egypt. This Principle explains that the differences between different manifestations of Matter, Energy, Mind, and even Spirit, result largely from varying rates of Vibration. From THE ALL, which is Pure Spirit, down to the grossest form of Matter, all is in vibration–the higher the vibration, the higher the position in the scale. The vibration of Spirit is at such an infinite rate of intensity and rapidity that it is practically at rest–just as a rapidly moving wheel seems to be motionless. And at the other end of the scale, there are gross forms of matter whose vibrations are so low as to seem at rest. Between these poles, there are millions upon millions of varying degrees of vibration. From corpuscle and electron, atom and molecule, to worlds and universes, everything is in vibratory motion. This is also true on the planes of energy and force (which are but varying degrees of vibration); and also on the mental planes (whose states depend upon vibrations); and even on to the spiritual planes. An understanding of this Principle, with the appropriate formulas, enables Hermetic students to control their own mental vibrations as well as those of others. The Masters also apply this Principle to the conquering of Natural phenomena, in various ways. “He who understands the Principle of Vibration, has grasped the scepter of power,” says one of the old writers.
4. The Principle of Polarity
“Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its
pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are
identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet;
all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be
This Principle embodies the truth that “everything is dual”; “everything has two poles”; “everything has its pair of opposites,” all of which were old Hermetic axioms. It explains the old paradoxes, that have perplexed so many, which have been stated as follows: “Thesis and antithesis are identical in nature, but different in degree”; “opposites are the same, differing only in degree”; “the pairs of opposites may be reconciled”; “extremes meet”; “everything is and isn’t, at the same time”; “all truths are but half-truths”; “every truth is half-false”; “there are two sides to everything,” etc., etc., etc. It explains that in everything there are two poles, or opposite aspects, and that “opposites” are really only the two extremes of the same thing, with many varying degrees between them. To illustrate: Heat and Cold, although “opposites,” are really the same thing, the differences consisting merely of degrees of the same thing. Look at your thermometer and see if you can discover where “heat” terminates and “cold” begins! There is no such thing as “absolute heat” or “absolute cold”–the two terms “heat” and “cold” simply indicate varying degrees of the same thing, and that “same thing” which manifests as “heat” and “cold” is merely a form, variety, and rate of Vibration. So “heat” and “cold” are simply the “two poles” of that which we call “Heat”–and the phenomena attendant thereupon are manifestations of the Principle of Polarity. The same Principle manifests in the case of “Light and Darkness,” which are the same thing, the difference consisting of varying degrees between the two poles of the phenomena. Where does “darkness” leave off, and “light” begin? What is the difference between “Large and Small”? Between “Hard and Soft”? Between “Black and White”? Between “Sharp and Dull”? Between “Noise and Quiet”? Between “High and Low”? Between “Positive and Negative”? The Principle of Polarity explains these paradoxes, and no other Principle can supersede it. The same Principle operates on the Mental Plane. Let us take a radical and extreme example–that of “Love and Hate,” two mental states apparently totally different. And yet there are degrees of Hate and degrees of Love, and a middle point in which we use the terms “Like or Dislike,” which shade into each other so gradually that sometimes we are at a loss to know whether we “like” or “dislike” or “neither.” And all are simply degrees of the same thing, as you will see if you will but think a moment. And, more than this (and considered of more importance by the Hermetists), it is possible to change the vibrations of Hate to the vibrations of Love, in one’s own mind, and in the minds of others. Many of you, who read these lines, have had personal experiences of the involuntary rapid transition from Love to Hate, and the reverse, in your own case and that of others. And you will therefore realize the possibility of this being accomplished by the use of the Will, by means of the Hermetic formulas. “Good and Evil” are but the poles of the same thing, and the Hermetist understands the art of transmuting Evil into Good, by means of an application of the Principle of Polarity. In short, the “Art of Polarization” becomes a phase of “Mental Alchemy” known and practiced by the ancient and modern Hermetic Masters. An understanding of the Principle will enable one to change his own Polarity, as well as that of others, if he will devote the time and study necessary to master the art.
5. The Principle of Rhythm
“Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides;
all things rise and fall; the pendulum-swing manifests in
everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the
measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.”–The
This Principle embodies the truth that in everything there is manifested a measured motion, to and fro; a flow and inflow; a swing backward and forward; a pendulum-like movement; a tide-like ebb and flow; a high-tide and low-tide; between the two poles which exist in accordance with the Principle of Polarity described a moment ago. There is always an action and a reaction; an advance and a retreat; a rising and a sinking. This is in the affairs of the Universe, suns, worlds, men, animals, mind, energy, and matter. This law is manifest in the creation and destruction of worlds; in the rise and fall of nations; in the life of all things; and finally in the mental states of Man (and it is with this latter that the Hermetists find the understanding of the Principle most important). The Hermetists have grasped this Principle, finding its universal application, and have also discovered certain means to overcome its effects in themselves by the use of the appropriate formulas and methods. They apply the Mental Law of Neutralization. They cannot annul the Principle, or cause it to cease its operation, but they have learned how to escape its effects upon themselves to a certain degree depending upon the Mastery of the Principle. They have learned how to USE it, instead of being USED BY it. In this and similar methods, consist the Art of the Hermetists. The Master of Hermetics polarizes himself at the point at which he desires to rest, and then neutralizes the Rhythmic swing of the pendulum which would tend to carry him to the other pole. All individuals who have attained any degree of Self-Mastery do this to a certain degree, more or less unconsciously, but the Master does this consciously, and by the use of his Will, and attains a degree of Poise and Mental Firmness almost impossible of belief on the part of the masses who are swung backward and forward like a pendulum. This Principle and that of Polarity have been closely studied by the Hermetists, and the methods of counteracting, neutralizing, and USING them form an important part of the Hermetic Mental Alchemy.
6. The Principle of Cause and Effect
“Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause;
everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name
for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation,
but nothing escapes the Law.”–The Kybalion.
This Principle embodies the fact that there is a Cause for every Effect; an Effect from every Cause. It explains that: “Everything Happens according to Law”; that nothing ever “merely happens”; that there is no such thing as Chance; that while there are various planes of Cause and Effect, the higher dominating the lower planes, still nothing ever entirely escapes the Law. The Hermetists understand the art and methods of rising above the ordinary plane of Cause and Effect, to a certain degree, and by mentally rising to a higher plane they become Causers instead of Effects. The masses of people are carried along, obedient to environment; the wills and desires of others stronger than themselves; heredity; suggestion; and other outward causes moving them about like pawns on the Chessboard of Life. But the Masters, rising to the plane above, dominate their moods, characters, qualities, and powers, as well as the environment surrounding them, and become Movers instead of pawns. They help to PLAY THE GAME OF LIFE, instead of being played and moved about by other wills and environment. They USE the Principle instead of being its tools. The Masters obey the Causation of the higher planes, but they help to RULE on their own plane. In this statement there is condensed a wealth of Hermetic knowledge–let him read who can.
7. The Principle of Gender
“Gender is in everything; everything has its Masculine
and Feminine Principles; Gender manifests on all
This Principle embodies the truth that there is GENDER manifested in everything–the Masculine and Feminine Principles ever at work. This is true not only of the Physical Plane, but of the Mental and even the Spiritual Planes. On the Physical Plane, the Principle manifests as SEX, on the higher planes it takes higher forms, but the Principle is ever the same. No creation, physical, mental or spiritual, is possible without this Principle. An understanding of its laws will throw light on many a subject that has perplexed the minds of men. The Principle of Gender works ever in the direction of generation, regeneration, and creation. Everything, and every person, contains the two Elements or Principles, or this great Principle, within it, him or her. Every Male thing has the Female Element also; every Female contains also the Male Principle. If you would understand the philosophy of Mental and Spiritual Creation, Generation, and Re-generation, you must understand and study this Hermetic Principle. It contains the solution of many mysteries of Life. We caution you that this Principle has no reference to the many base, pernicious and degrading lustful theories, teachings and practices, which are taught under fanciful titles, and which are a prostitution of the great natural principle of Gender. Such base revivals of the ancient infamous forms of Phallicism tend to ruin mind, body and soul, and the Hermetic Philosophy has ever sounded the warning note against these degraded teachings which tend toward lust, licentiousness, and perversion of Nature’s principles. If you seek such teachings, you must go elsewhere for them–Hermeticism contains nothing for you along these lines. To the pure, all things are pure; to the base, all things are base.
I’ve attempted to summarize some of the coincidences described in this book. While doing so I came across even more coincidences to add to this burgeoning list.
There may be fundamental relationships between space, time and life which have not yet been understood.
Is it all just a coincidence, or do the patterns perhaps explain the scientists?
There are seven clearly visible moving heavenly bodies and they may be arranged around a heptagon in order of their apparent speed against the fixed stars.
The Moon appears to move the fastest, then Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
Each heavenly body was assigned to a day of the week. Starting with the Moon, the order of the days of the week can be derived by first following the path towards Mars:
The Moon (Monday), Mars (Tuesday), Mercury (Wednesday), Jupiter (Thursday), Venus (Friday), Saturn (Saturday), the Sun (Sunday).
In English, the names for several of the days of the week come from Norse mythology.
Tuesday is Tīw’s day. Tīw is equated with Mars (Martedì, Mardi).
Wednesday is Wodan’s day. Wodan is related to the Germanic god known as Mercury by Roman writers (Mercoledì, Mercredi).
Thursday is Thor’s day. Thor is associated with Jupiter, also known as Jove (Giovedì, Jeudi).
Friday (venerdì, vendredi) is Freyja’s or Frigg’s day. The Norse name for the planet Venus is Friggjarstjarna (Frigg’s star).
In antiquity the seven planets corresponded with the seven known metals, their compounds giving rise to color associations.
This ancient system predicts the modern order by atomic number of the metals.
Iron – 26 (Mars)
Copper – 29 (Venus)
Silver – 49 (Moon)
Tin – 50 (Jupiter)
Gold – 79 (Sun)
Mercury – 80 (Mercury)
Lead – 82 (Saturn)
The electrical conductivity sequence also appears round the outside starting with lead.
The orbital motion of the planet correlates in sequence with its corresponding metal’s conductivity. The slower a planet moves, the less able its corresponding metal is to conduct electricity!
Ratios, Rhythms and the Golden Section
In the 17th century Johannes Kepler set about to calculate the Harmony of the Spheres.
He noticed that ratios between the extreme angular velocities of the planets were all harmonic intervals. He wrote a book called Musica Universalis that shows the relationship between geometry, cosmology, and harmonics.
A century after Kepler’s death, the Titius–Bode law or Bode’s Law hypothesized that the bodies in some orbital systems, including the sun’s, orbit in a function of planetary sequence.
Since then, many more patterns have been discovered.
The periods of the planets sometimes occur as simple ratios of each other. For example, Jupiter and Saturn have a 2:5 ratio, with an accuracy of 99.3%.
It takes Jupiter 11.86 Earth years to orbit around the Sun, and Saturn 29.5 years, forming the 2:5 ratio.
Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are especially rhythmic and harmonic, displaying a 1:2:3 ratio of periods with an accuracy of 99.8%.
Neptune completes its orbit approximately every 164 Earth years, and Uranus every 84 years. Add them together to get Pluto’s 248 year orbit.
Another example is the 1:2:4 resonance of Jupiter’s moons Ganymede, Europa and Io.
Our two planetary neighbors resonate a 3:4 rhythm, a deep musical fourth. Earth kisses Mars three times every 780 days for every four Venus kisses, every 584 days, with a 99.8% accuracy.
Earth and Mercury kiss 22 times in 7 years, and Mercury and Venus are beautifully in tune after 14 kisses.
The first planet is remarkable, for one Mercury day is exactly two years, during which time the planet has revolved on its own axis exactly three times.
And now we meet the Golden Section (Φ or phi).
The golden section often appears as 0.618, 1.618, or 2.618, and is found throughout plant and animal life.
A pentagram, embodying the Golden Section proportion, both spaces Earth and Mercury’s mean orbits and sizes their relative physical bodies with 99% accuracy.
Another instance of a two planet relationship like this also involves Earth. Earth and Saturn’s orbits and sizes are related by a fifteen-pointed star.
For the next coincidence take three circles and put them together so that they all touch. The orbits of the first two planets are hiding in this simple design.
If Mercury’s mean orbit passes through the centers of the three circles then Venus’ encloses the figure. (99.9% accuracy).
Venus, our closest neighbor, kisses us every 584 days. Each time one of these kisses occurs the Sun, Venus and the Earth line up two-fifths of a circle further around, so a pentagram of conjunctions is drawn, taking exactly 8 years, or 13 Venusian years (99.9%).
Notice the Fibonacci numbers: 5, 8, 13. The periods of Venus and Earth (583.92/365.25) are also closely related as 1/Φ (99.6%).
The harmony of Earth and Venus draws a beautiful pattern.
In case you think this is all pure lunacy, then you’re in luck, for we’ve arrived at the moon herself.
Have you ever wondered why the Moon appears to fit precisely over the Sun during an eclipse? The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, yet it’s also 1/400th of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
Isaac Asimov described this as being ‘the most unlikely coincidence imaginable’.
The sizes of the Moon and Earth also relate as 3 to 11 (99.9%).
The sum of the radii of both the Earth and Moon (in miles) is 3960 + 1080 = 5040. This means that the sum of their diameters is also the number of minutes in a week (7 days × 24 hours × 60 minutes = 10,080).
The ratio of the radius of the moon and the radius of the earth is 1080/3960, which simplifies to 3/11. This ratio can also be expressed as (4 – π)/π, when using 22/7 as the value of π. The sizes of the earth and the moon are related by a simple function of π.
The sum of their radii in miles is 5040, which when divided by 14 is 360 (the number of degrees in a circle). This would not happen for another pair of objects with radii in the same ratio—it only happens when the sum of their radii is 5040.
If you draw down the Moon to the Earth, then a circle through the center of the Moon will have a circumference equal to the perimeter of an earthly square enclosing the Earth.
The sizes of the Moon and the Earth “square” the circle. The ancients seem to have known about this, and hidden it in the definition of the mile.
Radius of the Moon = 1080 miles = 3 x 360
Radius of the Earth = 3960 miles = 11 x 360
Radius of Earth + Radius of Moon = 5040 miles = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 = 7 x 8 x 9 x 10
Diameter of Earth = 7930 miles = 8 x 9 x 10 x 11
There are 5280 feet in a mile = (10 x 11 x 12 x 13) – (9 x 10 x 11 x 12)
The 3:11 ratio is also invoked by Venus and Mars, as the closest:farthest distance ratio that each experiences of the other is 3:11.
3/11 rounds to 27.3%, and 27.3 is the number of days it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth, and 27.3 days is the average rotation period of a sunspot.
There are an average of 12.37 full moons in a year. This number can be derived using two simple mathematical techniques:
First, draw a circle, diameter 13, with a pentagram inside. Its arms will measure 12.364, almost the right number.
An even more accurate way is to draw the second Pythagorean triangle (the 5-12-13), and divide the 5 side into 2:3. The resulting hypotenuse has a length of 12.369 (99.999%).
The numbers 18 and 19, when combined with the golden section, express many of the major time cycles of the Sun-Moon-Earth system. When multiplied together, they produce the following results:
18 years = The Saros eclipse cycle (99.83%)
18.618 years = Revolution of the moon’s nodes (99.99%)
19 years = The Metonic cycle (99.99%)
18.618 x 18.618 = The eclipse year, or Draconic year. (99.99%)
18.618 x 19 = The lunar year, or Islamic year (99.82%)
18.618 x 20.618 = 13 full moons (99.99%)
Robin Heath, who discovered many of these relationships, calls this feature of the Sun-Moon-Earth system “the evolutionary engine”.
The Outer Planets and Beyond
The average orbits of Jupiter and Mars can be formed from four touching circles or a square (99.98%).
A pair of asteroid clusters, called the Trojans, orbit around Jupiter at exactly 60° ahead and 60° behind the planet.
Using the orbit of Jupiter and the pair of Trojan asteroid clusters, you can produce Earth’s mean orbit by drawing three hexagrams (99.8%).
The outermost circle represents Jupiter’s mean orbit, and the image of Earth represents Earth’s mean orbit.
One of the most fascinating examples of hexagonal patterns in the solar system is Saturn’s hexagon. The sides are about 8,600 miles long, greater than the diameter of the Earth.
Interestingly enough, 8,600 / 1.618 gives the number of feet in a mile to 99.3% accuracy (my own observation…I was unable to find a more accurate number than 8,600, so the relation between Saturn’s hexagon, the golden section and the mile may be more or less accurate than 99.3%).
The Earth-Saturn synodic period is 378.107 days and the Earth–Jupiter synodic period is 398.883 days.
The golden section can be seen defined here in time and space to a very high accuracy (99.9%).
The lunar year, or 12 lunar months, is 354.37 days.
Jupiter’s synodic year relates to the lunar year with an 8:9 ratio (99.9%). Saturn’s synodic year and the lunar year have a 15:16 ratio (99.9%). These two ratios are fundamental in music, as the tone and halftone respectively.
Jupiter and Saturn’s orbits are in the proportion 6:11, double the 3:11 ratio between the Moon and Earth (99.9%).
The dwarf planet Makemake may also be in a 6:11 resonance with Neptune.
Saturn’s orbit invokes π (pi) twice.
The circumference of Mars’ orbit matches Saturn’s orbit (99.9%).
The diameter of Neptune’s orbit matches the circumference of Saturn’s orbit (99.9%).
The orbital period of Neptune (approximately 60,000 days) is twice that of Uranus (30,000 days) and two-thirds that of Pluto (90,000 days).
One of the most amazing symmetries is that the Milky Way, the plane of our own galaxy, is tilted at almost exactly 60° to the ecliptic, or the plane of our solar system. (99.7%)
Every year the Sun crosses the galaxy through the galactic center, and, remarkably, being alive in these times means this happens on midwinter’s day.
In this idealized image, the midwinter Earth is shown superimposed on the starry sphere, tilted back slightly from the horizontal plane of the ecliptic.
Kepler, Newton, Einstein and others to this day have looked for simple and beautiful relationships in nature, and then expressed them as equations whenever they could. What will the scientists of the 21st century discover?
The golden section, long associated with life, plays lovingly around Earth.
Does this have something to do with why we are here and what we might really be? Could these techniques be used to locate intelligent life in other solar systems?
The Bohemian Club, an elite invitation-only social club founded in San Francisco in 1872 by a group of male artists, writers, actors, lawyers, and journalists, all of means and interested in arts and culture. Since its founding, the club has expanded to include politicians and affluent businessmen. The club is known especially for its annual summer retreat at what is known as Bohemian Grove in the redwood forest of California’s Sonoma county, an event that continued into the 21st century. Notable members over the years have included Clint Eastwood, Henry Kissinger, Walter Cronkite, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Charles Schwab, Ambrose Bierce, Bret Harte, Mark Twain, and Jack London.
Members of the Bohemian Club, including California Gov. Ronald Reagan (centre left) and U.S. Vice Pres. Richard Nixon (centre right), at Bohemian Grove, California, 1967.
Roy Kaltschmidt/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
The Bohemian Club was founded by a group that included journalists who wrote for the San Francisco Examiner. The term bohemian was meant to conjure the cultured intellectual urban bohemian, as opposed to the impoverished type. They chose an owl as the club’s totem and gathered regularly to socialize, drink, and put on and enjoy theatrical and musical performances. The club inhabited temporary locations until it established its permanent headquarters in the early 1930s on Taylor Street in downtown San Francisco.
The annual trip to Sonoma began in the summer of 1878. In the 20th century the members’ retreat garnered a reputation for involving highly secretive and cultish rituals, the most well-known of which was the “Cremation of Care,” instituted in 1881—an opening ceremony whose purpose was to make the club members “carefree” from the outset of the retreat. That performance took place in front of the large concrete owl (built 1929) in the centre of the camp at Bohemian Grove.
Over the course of more than a century, the Bohemian Club has grown to a membership of approximately 2,500, including several former United States presidents and high-ranking politicians and military officials. The site for the club’s retreat covers approximately 2,700 acres (1,093 hectares), and it has become increasingly inaccessible, which lends further mystery to the events and their participants. It is thought that the 16-day “encampment” (as it is called) involves, among other things, concerts, theatre, informal lectures (called “Lakeside Talks”), parties, and casual networking and government policy review—all taking place out of the public eye.
In the 21st century the Bohemian Club maintained its reputation for being highly exclusive with a predominantly Caucasian membership composed of the richest and often most politically conservative men in the United States. Journalists have occasionally infiltrated the confines of the encampment and have succeeded in exposing details about club activities, members, and famous guests, and activists have staged numerous protests outside Bohemian Grove, pointing to economic inequality and other social justice issues.
Communist Subversion | A Plan for World-Wide Total Control | Part 1
Communist Subversion Part 1 provides a high level overview on the many layers to understanding the culprits involved in the New World Order. Part 1 provides a review and commentary by Jeremy Elliott on the classic works of G. Edward Griffin and Yuri Bezmenov as they relate to the New World Order and current events.
G. Edward Griffin
Griffin provides details on the mysterious and infamous “They,” the Secret Societies, the puppet-masters behind the scenes who control the governments of the world through carefully constructed “Rings of Power.” These power groups maintain generational plans for the implementation of a world wide communistic government, ushering in a New World Order. Griffin notes that this single unified government aspiration is enacted using:
– A Collectivist ideology
– Communism (under the banner of socialism)
– A Fabian strategy
– Pincer military tactics
…which leads to the consolidation of all national sovereignty, into the hands of a small, but elite group, in the “Rings of Power.”
G. Edward Griffin Books:
– The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations – G. Edward Griffin
– The Creature from Jekyll Island – G. Edward Griffin
Communism Good Reads:
– Communist Manifesto – (originally, Manifesto of the Communist Party) – Karl Marx
– On the Nature of Revolution (The Marxist Theory of Social Change) – Herbert Aptheker
– The New Program (2nd draft)
– American Negro Problems – John Pepper (Alias: Joseph Pogany)
– Political Affairs Magazine (online)
– Color, Communism and Common Sense – Manning Johnson
– The Revolution Betrayed – Leon Trotsky
– The Watts Upsurge (A Communist Appraisal) – Communist Party of the United States of America. Southern California District.
– The Peoples World – Online: Peoplesworld.org
– The Worker – Communist Party USA
– The Crusader – Robert F. Williams
– The New Role of National Legislative Bodies in the Communist Conspiracy – Jan Kozak
– And Not A Shot Fired – Jan Kozak
Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov (Alias: Tomas Schuman)
Yuri Bezmenov details the process of how a non-communist country is converted into communism through the 4 stages of ideological subversion. Once Ideological Subversion is in focus, we can see clearly how the entire world is being duped to accept this long standing communistic world government agenda enforced by governments on behalf of the “Rings of Power.” Together, Griffin and Bezmenov provide key insights into how the “they” subvert the world under their control, from behind the scenes, but in plain sight.
– Deception Was My Job (The Testimony of Yuri Bezmenov Propagandist for the KGB) – Yuri Bezmenov
– Love Letter to America – Yuri Bezmenov
The Tavistock Institute
Dr. Pierre Kory came into the public eye in May when he implored before the senate the use of corticosteroids in critical care for COVID-19, and his proposal turned out to be live-saving for many patients. On December 8, he appeared as a witness before the senate again. Taking part in the hearing called “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution”, he presented a new treatment protocol called I-MASK+ and the use of repurposed drug ivermectin, which the FLCCC Alliance has been tirelessly researching.
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, that Dr. Kory is the president of, was initially formed as a working group under emergency conditions. Their founding members include professors, pulmonary and critical care specialists, and physicians, who dedicate their time to the nonprofit cause of repurposing efficacious drugs rather than focusing on costly and lengthy processes of developing new drugs and vaccines.
Dr. Pierre Kory is board-certified in critical medicine, pulmonary diseases, and internal medicine. He has worked closely with critical COVID-19 patients across the US throughout the pandemic. He is the chief of the critical care service and medical director of the trauma and life support center at the University of Wisconsin.
Dr. Paul Marik, who Dr. Kory calls the group’s “intellectual leader”, is endowed professor of medicine and chief of the division of pulmonary and crucial care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School.
This is the scientific manuscript that Dr. Kory referred to in the Senate hearing.
I compiled very recent clips of Pierre Kory (including his Senate Testimony) talking about Ivermectin as an extremely cheap and effective prophylactic drug, into the twenty-minute video above.
However YouTube has been aggressively censoring this video, community striking it “medical misinformation”. As such I’m likely to lose yet another channel very soon.
Please try to loosen dependence on YouTube, e.g. install LBRY app on your phone.
Subscribe to LBRY channel. Please signup to receive these posts by email (see bottom of each post).
Each separate clip is time-stamped below.
Yeah, your exact words during your testimony were, “I can’t keep doing this.” You’re talking about a drug, repurposed drugs in particular, and one that could have a miraculous impact on not just treating, but preventing COVID-19.
Our group, again, we have come to the conclusion after reviewing months of data that have all come out in last few months, this is all new data. We never believed that ivermectin was the answer. We thought it might be early on because there was some theoretical rationale that it might work.
But what we uncovered in the last three months is nothing but repeated studies in trial showing phenomenal effectiveness in multiple areas, not only in prevention, but early and late treatment.
And the most, the most overwhelming data is in the prevention of transmission of COVID-19. If you are on ivermectin, the studies and their randomized control trials, large and well done show, if you’re taking ivermectin, you will not contract COVID-19. I repeat. If you are taking ivermectin, you will not contract COVID-19.
You know, I’m in the healthcare system, I’ve worked for many large institutions, some major academic medical centers, but the way that government works around health care and what those health care authorities or institutions do, it’s not clear to me, but from the outside, what I’ve observed is it seems that it’s stating the obvious.
It seems that they’re looking for big solutions. And I think they’re listening to maybe business interests looking for, you know, systematic populations, usually something novel, right? And so that seems to be their first way to address this. So like for instance, this overemphasis on a new vaccine, developing vaccines and, or these novel medications.
Your question was about like, why aren’t they pushed for trials on various solutions. I don’t know why they’re looking for novel stuff when we have so much therapeutics available to us.
I’m going to say my concern is if the major, like sort of Big Pharma and governmental institutions haven’t done that, I’ll say I would ask a question. Where’s the big philanthropy, right?
There’s large philanthropic organizations that could have come in and said, you know, this seems to be a rather available novel solution, which has some efficacy. Why aren’t they coming in and funding some of these trials.
My team, my group, my colleagues, we have discovered the cure for COVID. And so there’s nothing new that’s happening right now that hasn’t, that wasn’t changed already. Dr. Marik is the first one who brought our attention to it. He put a video on his YouTube website weeks ago, months ago, and all I’ve done is worked very closely with him at amassing the data. Our manuscript needs to be reviewed by the NIH, and they need to formulate treatment recommendations, now.
The drug. Is it ivermectin? I want to make sure I get it right.
Ivermectin. And so you have to be clear on what ivermectin is. It already has won the Nobel prize in medicine for its discovery because of its global health impact. So it’s already rid the world of a number of parasitic diseases, half, a 60% of Sub-Sahara Africa take ivermectin regularly to rid themselves of the scourge of parasites.
What we discovered and what the studies show, it has phenomenal antiviral activity. It absolutely blocks the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So you don’t get sick. The virus can’t infect, can’t replicate and can’t kill you if you’re on ivermectin.
Is the drug readily, readily available, affordable? And does it come in pill form?
It’s a pill. And what’s crazy is for treatment as little as one dose is effective.
Let me talk about first that we, so as a group, it was Dr. Paul Marik, very famous doctor, you know, one of the, probably the most published intensivist in the world. So we’re, the core group of us were critical care specialists.
We work in intensive care units. You know, our predominant expertise is dealing with patients with multiple forms of, or numbers of organ failure. So we, we take care of the sickest of the sick. We’re close colleagues and friends with Dr. Marik.
And when the pandemic first started to hit the US, a couple other colleagues of ours reached out to Paul and said, listen, you know, you got to figure out how to treat this thing. And he called in his close number of colleagues, and we formed our group and we were, I don’t know how many months it’s been now, but we’ve just been reading and reading and reading and discussing.
DECEMBER 8, 2020
“If you’re taking ivermectin, you will not contract COVID-19. I repeat. If you are taking ivermectin, you will not contract COVID-19”
And we came up with, first one protocol, and now more recently, and that’s what we’re going to talk about today, a more recent protocol. But our first one that we first got a lot of attention to. It was called the MATH+ protocol, and that’s for hospitalized patients.
And that’s really where our expertise lies is how to treat the very ill patients whose lungs are starting to fail in the hospital.
And the MATH is, stands for the first main components, which is methylprednisolone, intravenous ascorbic acid, thymine, and heparin.
We’re aggressive with our anticoagulation. We’re aggressive with our anti-inflammation with the methylprednisolone, as well as the ascorbic acid.
And then for the organ support the thymine. We also would call it the MATH+ cause we have a number of other elements and that protocol has been adopted in varying amounts throughout the world.
We’re in contact with many different physicians in many countries who found that they’ve used it to very good effect. When we came out with it, which was around April, I just wrote a review paper, it’s about to be published in a week.
We have now numbers and numbers of trials, which have validated each component. And so like, we’re, we’re very sort of proud that we put that out there.
I mean, it’s not standard of care, none of the big institutions or healthcare societies adopted it. But it’s validated and it’s really therapeutic and impactful.
The hospitals in which we’ve measured the outcomes – far lower than any other published data that we’ve seen. And so, that’s the MATH+ protocol. The I-MASK+ protocolis the one that we came to recently.
And that was really centered around the fact that we discovered the rapidly emerging cumulating evidence on ivermectin, which is so consistent, reproducible, and profound, and its efficacy at multiple phases of the disease.
We decided to build a new protocol. We call that the I-MASK protocol and that’s centered around ivermectin, and obviously MASK with some other supportive medicines like vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, which we know can be effective in optimizing the body before getting ill.
Dr. Marik noticed when he was looking at, you know, what’s out there on ivermectin, this is maybe three, four weeks ago. We started to see some studies being posted on clinicaltrials.gov. There were some mentions on trial site news of a couple of studies on preprint servers and seemed like everywhere he looked. And this is early on because we found lots of stuff since three or four weeks ago. I mean this, the ivermectin data is accumulating rapidly, but he first had sort of an aha moment, maybe three or four weeks ago, just on like three or four trials, which were lining up as prophylaxis and early treatment.
And he said to us, I think this is going to be an effective therapy. We listened. And then we started to look and as a group, we just started reviewing, reviewing, reviewing the studies that are coming out and we just found more and more data. And it’s, since he first picked up on that signal, it’s done nothing but continuously accumulate, all uniformly, positive, potent and profound.
Can we just not commercialize this once? Can we take a break from current commercialization and just help humanity that’s suffering right now? And again, I hate to sound like a naïve idealistic gentleman, but really it just, it’s somewhat maddening.
Usually when you say phase three, it implies a placebo controlled trial. I want to go back to my point before about the fact that well conducted observational controlled trials and randomized control trials, generally and almost always lead to the same conclusions.
However, they have to be well-designed. You can do propensity matching on the observational side, or you can do randomization with placebo.
To do a placebo controlled trial, right now, I could never be an investigator on that because I do not have clinical equipoise.
I believe that there’s sufficient data that exists now, just needs further validation because some of it hasn’t come through peer review, but there’s enough data now to support you can do it.
The placebo controlled trial, if you know, it’s life saving, how can you enroll a patient in a pandemic and give them a placebo when you know that this is life saving from multiple studies that are available to us throughout the world, there’s studies coming, I’ve Argentina, Egypt, Bangladesh, Brazil, Peru.
We know that this stuff is working. And so again, I’m talking as a naïve doctor, I can’t imagine doing a phase three trial, at least a placebo controlled one.
What I would like is those authorities that you mentioned do an observation, a well-designed observational one [study] when we have such big data available. We have electronic health records with millions and millions of patients data, why wouldn’t we just roll out ivermectin in a series of, let’s say a thousand patients just taking it and then find propensity match, similar patients, identical by name, age, race, sex, comorbidities.
And then you can compare the two. That is a totally valid research design, and you don’t have to use a placebo. And I’m going to tell you, unlike hydroxychloroquine, the signal would be loud, the benefits would be large and unmistakable.
So we just try to put out good rational, scientific sort of reasoning and insight. We’ve written a number of papers. I think it’s been the most productive period of my life. I know I’ve published maybe four or five papers, and where we’ve reviewed the pathology of the disease.
We’ve reviewed the evidence behind the therapeutics and we’re going to continue to do so. You know, the paper that I just published on, put up on a preprint server, we think that’s the best way to disseminate good knowledge because we, it was a, it’s a scientific review of the emerging evidence behind ivermectin.
And it basically concludes based on the available evidence, it concludes that ivermectin would be a global solution to the pandemic if it was, if it underwent widespread use and distribution.
And that’s a scientific conclusion, it’s not opinion, we’re not promoting anything. We’re not making money off of anything. We have no interest, conflicts of interest, and we just want to help.
And based on our expertise and our review and interpretation of the existing evidence, that is our message that we want to put out there is that ivermectin is a profound prophylactic agent and early and late treatment agent.
Need the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA to step in. And even the WHO. I just want to mention a lot of our data in my manuscript, which is available for review by all of those agencies, also includes epidemiologic analysis by two analysts that we work with. And one in particular, Juan Chamie, he has been doing epidemiologic analysis since early on the pandemic showing in region after region, after region, that does widespread distribution of ivermectin case counts and death rates plummet. We have numerous examples of that. We know that this is effective.
Our next witness is here in person, Dr. Pierre Kory. Dr Kory Is the former associate professor and chief of the critical care service and medical director of the trauma and life support center at the University of Wisconsin. And recently joined the ICU service at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee.
He is board certified in critical medicine, pulmonary diseases, and internal medicine. Dr. Kory has traveled across multiple States in the US to care for COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. He’s also the president of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
A nonprofit organization of critical care specialists led by professor Paul Marik, whose mission over the last nine months was focused on the research and development of effective treatment protocols for COVID-19 using repurposed drugs.
He received his MD from St George’s University School of Medicine. And I’ll only add that we added Dr. Kory very late to our, I think, a hearing in May because I had heard of his development of, I guess, anti-inflammatory steroids in critical care on COVID and Dr. Kory, I have to tell you, I’ve had doctors come up to me and thank me for holding that hearing, where they listened to you, change their thinking.
They believe they’ve saved their patients’ lives because of your testimony at that hearing. I hope your testimony will be as impactful today. Dr. Kory.
Senator. Thank you. And thank you for holding this hearing. I just want to start out. I didn’t think I’d have to say this, but I want to register my offense at the ranking members opening statement. I was discredited as a politician. I am a physician and a man of science. I’ve done nothing, nothing but commit myself to scientific truth and the care of patients. And to hear that I’m here because of a political angle, I am not a politician.
I’m a physician. I want to start out by saying that I’m not speaking as an individual. I’m speaking on behalf of the organization that I’m a part of.
We are a group of some of the most highly published physicians in the world. We have near 2000 peer reviewed publications among us led by doctor, professor Paul Marik, who is our intellectual leader.
We came together early on in the pandemic, and all we have sought is to review the world’s literature on every facet of this disease, trying to develop effective protocols.
You just mentioned that I was here in May and I touted, I wouldn’t say I recommended that it was critical that we use corticosteroids in this disease. When all of the national and international healthcare organizations said, we cannot use those. That turned out to be a life saving recommendation. I am here again today with a new recommendation.
In the last nine months in our review of all of the literature as a group. Again, we are some of the most highly published physicians in our specialty and the world.
We have done nothing, but try to figure out how to identify a repurposed and available drug to treat this illness.
We have now come to the conclusion after nine months. And I have to point out, I am severely troubled by the fact that the NIH, the FDA and the CDC, I do not know of any task force that was assigned or compiled to review repurposed drugs in an attempt to treat this disease.
Everything has been about novel and/or expensive pharmaceutically engineered drugs, things like tocilizumab and remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies and vaccines.
We have hundred years of medicine development. We know we are expert in all the medicines we use, and I do not know of a task force that has been focused on repurposed drugs.
I will tell you that my group and our organization, I will say that we have filled that void.
We, that is all we have done, is focused on the things we know and things we do.
And I’m here to tell you, Dr. Writer, he just presented. It was one. He has one study of the many that I want to talk about. And I want to talk about that. We have a solution to this crisis. There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact. And when I say miracle, I do not use that term lightly.
And I don’t want to be sensationalized. When I say that that is a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months.When I am told, and I just had to hear this in the opening sentence, that we are touting things that are not FDA or NIH recommended.
DECEMBER 8, 2020
“We have a solution to this crisis. There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact.
And when I say miracle, I do not use that term lightly.”
Let me be clear. The NIH, their recommendation on ivermectin, which is to not use it outside of controlled trials is from August 27th.
We are now in December. This is three to four months later. Mountains of data have emerged from all, from many centers and countries around the world, showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus.
If you take it, you will not get sick. I want to briefly summarize the data. My manuscript, again, published by some of the most, we have contributed more to the medical knowledge of our specialty in our careers than anyone else can claim as a group, and our manuscript, which was posted on medicine preprint server details all of this evidence.
I want to briefly summarize it. Number one, we have evidence that ivermectin is effective. Not only in prophylaxis, in the prevention. If you take it, you will not get sick.
We just came across a trial last night from Argentina by the lead investigator of ivermectin in Argentina, Dr. Hector Carvallo, they prophylaxed 800 healthcare workers, not one got sick. In the 400 that they didn’t prophylax with ivermectin. 58%, that’s 237 of those 400, got sick. If you take it, you will not get sick.
It has immense and potent antiviral activity. We know that from the first study in Monash, it has made the bench to the bedside.
Prophylaxis – we now have four large randomized control trials totaling over 1500 patients. Each trial showing that as a prophylaxis agent, it is immensely effective. You will not get sick. You will be protected from getting ill. If you take it. In early outpatient treatment, we have three randomized controlled trials and multiple observation, as well as case series.
Showing that if you take ivermectin, the need for hospitalization and death will decrease. The most profound evidence we have is in the hospitalized patients.
We have four randomized controlled trials there, multiple observation trials, all showing the same thing. You will not die, or you will die at much, much, much lower rates. Statistically significant, large magnitude results. If you take ivermectin.
It is proving to be a wonder drug. It is already won the Nobel prize in medicine in 2015 for its impacts on global health. In the eradication of parasitic diseases, it is proving to be an immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agent.
It is critical for its use in this disease. We, again, stand by our manuscript. It is a scientific menagerie. it’s been submitted for peer review, but please recognize peer review takes time. It takes months. We do not have months. We have a hundred thousand patients in the hospital right now dying.
I’m a lung specialist. I’m an ICU specialist. I’ve cared for more dying COVID patients than anyone can imagine. They’re dying because they can’t breathe. They can’t breathe.
They’re on high flow oxygen delivery devices. They’re on non-invasive ventilators and or they’re sedated and paralyzed and attached to mechanical ventilators that breathe for them.
And I watch them every day. They die. By the time they get me in the ICU, they’re already dying. They’re almost impossible to recover. Early treatment is key.
We need to offload the hospitals. We are tired. I can’t keep doing this.
If you look at my manuscript and if I have to go back to work next week, any further deaths are going to be needless deaths. And I cannot be traumatized by that.
I cannot keep caring for patients when I know that they could have been saved with earlier treatment and that drug that will treat them and prevent the hospitalization is ivermectin.
This is, I am here today. I’m calling to action. The NIH, their last recommendation was August 27th, August 27th. I want to be clear. I am not here as a politician or a dramatist or sensationalizing, what I’m recommending.
I’m going to be very clear and very simple. All I ask is for the NIH to review our data, that we’ve compiled of all of the emerging data. We have almost 30 studies.
Everyone is reliably and reproducibly positive showing the dramatic impacts of ivermectin. Please. I’m just asking that they review our manuscript. It is a serious manuscript by serious, highly experienced physicians and researchers.
DECEMBER 8, 2020
“I’ve cared for more dying COVID patients than anyone can imagine.”
We have, I cannot call on more credibility than we have. We’re not just a random doctor who’s saying that we have a cure. I don’t want to say I have a cure. I’m just asking review our data.
We have immense amounts of data to show that ivermectin must be implemented and implemented now.
Senator, the last thing I want to say is, you know who’s dying here. It’s our African American and Latino and elderly. It’s some of the most disadvantaged and impoverished members of our society. They are dying at higher rates than anyone else. It’s the most severe discrepancy I’ve seen in my medical career.
And we are responsible to protect those disadvantaged members. We have a special duty to provide countermeasures. The mount of evidence to show that ivermectin is life-saving and protective is so immense. And the drug is so safe. My colleagues have talked about it.
It must be instituted implemented. I’m asking the NIH to review our data.
‘”I CAN’T KEEP DOING THIS”: Doctor pleads for review of data during COVID-19 Senate hearing’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq8SXOBy-4w (Copyright FOX News Network LLC, December 8, 2020)
PREVENTING COVID-19: Dr. Pierre Kory Pushes for Approval of Ivermectin Treatment For Covid-19′, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSL7sqOudoE (Copyright FOX News Network LLC, December 8, 2020)
‘Dr. Pierre Kory Talks Covid-19, Ivermectin and the FLCCC | Podcast E43’, https://trialsitenews.com/dr-pierre-kory-talks-covid-19-ivermectin-and-the-flccc-podcast-e43 (Trialsite News, November 25, 2020)
Safe to click – unable to upload here but available at link below to share:
Number Games | 9_11 to Coronavirus copy
THANK YOU Zach for sending us a second amazing book that EVERYONE should read! Enjoy!
Zach’s book: https://zacharyhubbard.selz.com/item/…
Zach’s Patreon (thank you!): https://patreon.com/zacharykhubbard
Read and Watch more at GematriaEffect.news
Sub Zach’s BitChute page: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/JX77…
To get your hoodie follow these 2 steps:
1) Email name, size needed and address to: GENhoodies@gmail.com
2) Send $50 for Small, Medium, Large or XL or $60 for XXL –
Send money using Patreon, PayPal, CashApp, or Venmo PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme2/Zach… CashApp: $GematriaEffectNews VenMo: @Zachary-Hubbard-9 PO BOX 1967 Yakima, WA 98907
If you’re shipping a package to Zach’s PO BOX:
112 S 3rd St. Yakima, WA 98901-9998 PO BOX 1967
Related YouTube Channels: Kayla Decode Talker: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1hY…
Dan Behrendt: https://www.youtube.com/user/danbeartrap
Chigozie Truth: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgQM…
Use Gematrinator.com: http://www.gematrinator.com/calculato…
Gematria Database: http://kon5piracy.blogspot.com/
THANK YOU Zach for sending us this amazing book that EVERYONE should read! Enjoy!
Zach’s book: https://zacharyhubbard.selz.com/item/…
Zach’s Patreon (thank you!): https://patreon.com/zacharykhubbard
Read and Watch more at GematriaEffect.news
Sub Zach’s BitChute page: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/JX77…
To get your hoodie follow these 2 steps:
1) Email name, size needed and address to: GENhoodies@gmail.com
2) Send $50 for Small, Medium, Large or XL or $60 for XXL –
Send money using Patreon, PayPal, CashApp, or Venmo PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme2/Zach… CashApp: $GematriaEffectNews VenMo: @Zachary-Hubbard-9 PO BOX 1967 Yakima, WA 98907
If you’re shipping a package to Zach’s PO BOX:
112 S 3rd St. Yakima, WA 98901-9998 PO BOX 1967
Related YouTube Channels: Kayla Decode Talker: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1hY…
Dan Behrendt: https://www.youtube.com/user/danbeartrap
Chigozie Truth: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgQM…
Use Gematrinator.com: http://www.gematrinator.com/calculato…
Gematria Database: http://kon5piracy.blogspot.com/
SUMMARY OF THE QUESTIONS HITHERTO DISCUSSED
“Three decades later, of course, the world hasn’t come to an end; if anything, the planet’s ecological future has never looked so promising..”
The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why.
RONALD BAILEY | FROM THE MAY 2000 ISSUE REASON MAGAZINE
Thirty Years ago, 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. Fifth Avenue in New York City was closed to automobiles as 100,000 people joined in concerts, lectures, and street theater. More than 2,000 colleges and universities across America paused their anti-war protests to rally instead against pollution and population growth. Even Congress recessed, acknowledging that the environment was now on a political par with motherhood. Since that first Earth Day, the celebrations have only gotten bigger, if somewhat less dramatic: The organizers of Earth Day 2000, to be held April 22, expect 500 million people around the globe to participate in celebrations, workshops, and demonstrations. This year’s theme is “clean energy” and the master of ceremonies for the big celebration on the Washington Mall is none other than Leonardo Di Caprio.
The first Earth Day was the brainchild of Gaylord Nelson, the Democratic senator from Wisconsin. The moment was obviously ripe. Nelson had proposed a national “teach-in” on the environment in September 1969 and only eight months later, everything was in place for the single largest national demonstration in American history. Dramatic events such as the Cuyahoga River bursting into flame in 1969, the blowout of an oil well off Santa Barbara, and the “death” of Lake Erie due to pollution all fed Americans’ concerns. The sorry state of America’s environment hit home for me when, as a 16-year-old high school student from the mountains of Virginia, I visited George Washington’s home, Mt. Vernon, on a marching band trip. Bobbing in the nearby Potomac was a sign warning visitors not to come in contact with the water.
Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. “We have about five more years at the outside to do something,” ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The day after Earth Day, even the staid New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” Very Apocalypse Now.
Three decades later, of course, the world hasn’t come to an end; if anything, the planet’s ecological future has never looked so promising. With half a billion people suiting up around the globe for Earth Day 2000, now is a good time to look back on the predictions made at the first Earth Day and see how they’ve held up and what we can learn from them. The short answer: The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.
More important, many contemporary environmental alarmists are similarly mistaken when they continue to insist that the Earth’s future remains an eco-tragedy that has already entered its final act. Such doomsters not only fail to appreciate the huge environmental gains made over the past 30 years, they ignore the simple fact that increased wealth, population, and technological innovation don’t degrade and destroy the environment. Rather, such developments preserve and enrich the environment. If it is impossible to predict fully the future, it is nonetheless possible to learn from the past. And the best lesson we can learn from revisiting the discourse surrounding the very first Earth Day is that passionate concern, however sincere, is no substitute for rational analysis.
Imminent global famine caused by the explosion of the “population bomb” was the big issue on Earth Day 1970. Then–and now–the most prominent prophet of population doom was Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich. Dubbed “ecology’s angry lobbyist” by Life magazine, the gloomy Ehrlich was quoted everywhere. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” he confidently declared in an interview with then-radical journalist Peter Collier in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Ehrlich in an essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe!,” which ran in the special Earth Day issue of the radical magazine Ramparts. “By… some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
“The short answer: The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.”
“The central question is no longer `Can we produce enough food?’ but `What are the environmental consequences of attempting to do so?'”.
Although Ehrlich was certainly the most strident doomster, he was far from alone in his famine forecasts. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. In that same issue, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, wrote, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine” (emphasis in original). Ehrlich and others were openly contemptuous of the “Green Revolution,” underway in countries such as India and Pakistan, that had already nearly doubled crop yields in developing nations between 1965 and 1970. Ehrlich sniffed that such developments meant nothing, going so far as to predict that “the Green Revolution…is going to turn brown.” Such fears took form in such popular Zeitgeist movies as Soylent Green (1973), which envisioned a future of hungry masses jammed into overcrowded cities.
The Soylent Green crowd didn’t simply predict mass starvation. They argued that even trying to feed so many people was itself a recipe for disaster. As Lester Brown, a former U.S. Department of Agriculture agronomist who would later become far more prominent as the founder of the Worldwatch Institute, put it in Scientific American, “There is growing doubt that the agricultural ecosystem will be able to accommodate both the anticipated increase of the human population to seven billion by the end of the century and the universal desire of the world’s hungry for a better diet. The central question is no longer `Can we produce enough food?’ but `What are the environmental consequences of attempting to do so?'”
Even if somehow famine were avoided, what would the world’s population be in 2000? Peter Gunter predicted 7.2 billion. Ehrlich foresaw that “by the end of the century we’ll have well over 7 billion people if something isn’t done.” Brown agreed that “world population at the end of the century is expected to be twice the 3.5 billion of today.” In the April 21, 1970, Look, Rockefeller University biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Rene Dubos made the shocking suggestion that, “To some overcrowded populations, the bomb may one day no longer seem a threat, but a release.”
Time has not been gentle with these prophecies. It’s absolutely true that far too many people remain poor and hungry in the world–800 million people are still malnourished and nearly 1.2 billion live on less than a dollar a day–but we have not seen mass starvation around the world in the past three decades. Where we have seen famines, such as in Somalia and Ethiopia, they are invariably the result of war and political instability. Indeed, far from turning brown, the Green Revolution has never been so verdant. Food production has handily outpaced population growth and food today is cheaper and more abundant than ever before. Since 1970, the amount of food per person globally has increased by 26 percent, and as the International Food Policy Research Institute reported in October 1999, “World market prices for wheat, maize, and rice, adjusted for inflation, are the lowest they have been in the last century.” According to the World Bank’s World Development Report 2000, food production increased by 60 percent between 1980 and 1997. At the same time, the amount of land devoted to growing crops has barely increased over the past 30 years, meaning that millions of acres have been spared for nature–acres that would have been plowed down had agricultural productivity lagged the way Ehrlich and others believed it would.
What’s the world population? Rather than 7 billion people inhabiting the earth by 2000, there are 6 billion–nearly 30 percent fewer than predicted. That’s because total fertility (the number of children a woman has over the course of her lifetime) has been dropping nearly everywhere on the planet since 1970. In fact, it has dropped from around 6 children per woman in the 1960s to around 2.8 today–and shows no signs of stopping. Total fertility rates for 79 countries, including the United States, are below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. If present trends continue, it looks like the U.N. low-variant population growth projection is likely, which means that world population will like-ly peak at around 8 billion in 2040 and then begin to decline. It is true that the AIDS pandemic has cut average life expectancy in more than 30 countries since 1990, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite AIDS, however, the World Health Organization expects life expectancy in the developing countries to increase from 65 years to 73 years by 2020. (It’s worth noting that any effective treatment for AIDS–a vaccine, say–will most likely emerge from laboratories and pharmaceutical companies, two stock villains in the standard environmentalist morality play, in the rich countries.)
Where did the doomsters go wrong? They assumed that overpopulation drives world hunger. To the extent that such conditions exist in certain places, the real culprit was–and is–poverty. “The images evoked by the term overpopulation–hungry families, squalid, overcrowded living conditions, early death–are real enough in the modern world, but these are properly described as problems of poverty,” explains Harvard population researcher Nicholas Eberstadt. “Poverty, like all other possible human attributes, is represented in individual members of a population. It is an elementary lapse in logic to conclude that poverty is a `population problem’ simply because it exists.
It is now evident that countries undergo various environmental transitions as they become wealthier. Fortune’s special “ecology” edition in February 1970 was far more prescient than the doomsters when it noted, “If pollution is the brother of affluence, concern about pollution is affluence’s child.” In 1992, a World Bank analysis found that concentrations of particulates and sulfur dioxide peak at per capita incomes of $3,280 and $3,670, respectively. Once these income thresholds are crossed, societies start to purchase increased environmental amenities such as clean air and water.
In the U.S., air quality has been improving rapidly since before the first Earth Day–and before the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. In fact, ambient levels of particulates and sulfur dioxide have been declining ever since accurate records have been kept. Between 1960 and 1970, for instance, particulates declined by 25 percent; sulfur dioxide decreased by 35 percent between 1962 and 1970. More concretely, it takes 20 new cars to produce the same emissions that one car produced in the 1960s.
Similar trends can be found when it comes to water pollution. The warning sign is gone from the Potomac and I can swim and fish in that river again. Lake Erie once again supports a $600 million fishing industry, and an upscale shopping and entertainment district now lines the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland. The EPA estimates that between 60 percent and 70 percent of lakes, rivers, and streams meet state quality goals. That’s up from about 30 percent to 40 percent 30 years ago.
Since 1972, the United States has invested more than $540 billion in water pollution control efforts, according to the Pacific Research Center. In 1972, only 85 million Americans were served by sewage treatment plants. Since then, some 14,000 municipal waste treatment plants have been built and 173 million Americans are served by them. Similar air and water quality trends can be found in other developed countries as well.
Most environmental problems occur in what are called “open-access commons”–that is, any member of the public may use the resource without paying anyone else for it. Typically, open-access commons still exist as relics of a time when the resource was abundant relative to the number of people using it. If only you and a couple of neighbors lived along a river, you could all dump your sewage in the river because it would naturally purify itself. The same goes for forests–homesteaders could chop them down because there were millions of acres more to be had.
With open-access commons, if you don’t use the resource for your own benefit, other people will and you’ll simply lose out. The prototypical example of an open-access commons is the old-fashioned village sheep meadow. Because everyone in the village has the right to put sheep on the meadow, each villager has an incentive to put extra sheep on the meadow in order to enrich himself. However, if every villager chooses to add sheep, then the meadow will be destroyed by overgrazing and all villagers will suffer the consequences.
In a related way, people dump sewage into rivers or pump smoke into the air because no one “owns” a river or the air in a traditional sense. We might say that the public “owns” rivers and airsheds, but none of us individually has much of an incentive (or an ability) to stop others from emitting excessive pollutants. Such open-access commons are at the center of most instances of environmental problems today, from the deforestation of tropical rainforests to the potential loss of biodiversity to the depletion of open-sea fisheries.
There are two basic ways to address the environmental problems caused by open-access commons. The favored way has been traditional, top-down political regulation, in which an agency prescribes specific pollution-control technology and monitors output. Depending on the situation, this method can score some quick improvements–the shift from leaded to unleaded gasoline had a huge impact on air quality, for instance. But it’s more typically slow, costly, and subject to the endless wrangling of interest groups seeking special exemptions and protections. What’s more, because it enforces a single standard, it discourages the innovation and experimentation that often lead to new, more environmentally sound ways of doing things. For example, the Clean Air Act effectively mandated that electric utilities use smokestack scrubbers to reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions when other alternatives, such as a switch to burning cleaner coal, would have reduced emissions even further and more cheaply, too.
The other approach to open-access commons harnesses both the creativity of markets and the power of privatization. An overall level of acceptable pollution is set, a market is created through tradeable permits, and then firms are allowed to pursue various means to reach the goal. We find fast, cheap, and efficient environmental improvements where this approach has been tried. In the U.S., for instance, sulfur dioxide emissions have been cut much faster and at less cost since the creation of a (very imperfect) market for such emissions (see “Selling Air Pollution,” May 1996). Fisheries in New Zealand and Iceland have dramatically rebounded since they were essentially privatized. And one of the chief reasons that forests are expanding in the U.S. and Europe is because landowners have secure property rights to them. Such gains are not mysterious: If you own a resource, you’re far more likely to use it efficiently.
Perversely, many environmental activists still fault markets for not properly valuing “natural capital” or “ecosystem services” and they continue to call for placing more resources in public hands. In effect, they want more open-access commons. But if no one has to pay for the use of a resource, then they consider it to be free. The way to take environmental goods into account is exactly the way we take all other goods into account–we put them into the market where people have to pay for what they use.
At Earth Day 1970, many Americans feared that synthetic chemicals, especially pesticides, were killing them. No culprit was more singled out than DDT, a pesticide that had been first used in 1946. The World Health Organization originally hailed it as a miracle that had drastically reduced deaths from malaria; its inventor, Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Muller, was honored with a Nobel Prize in 1948.
By 1970, however, DDT had emerged as the symbol of all that was wrong with the modern world. DDT had been implicated in the decimation of several bird species due to egg-shell thinning. It was also alleged to cause several human cancers, including breast cancer. DDT was banned in the U.S. by the EPA in 1972; other countries soon followed suit.
Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” In his “Eco-Catastrophe!” scenario, Ehrlich put a finer point on these fears by envisioning a 1973 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare study which would find “that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.”
Keying off of Rachel Carson’s claims about the dangers of synthetic chemicals in Silent Spring (1962), Look claimed that many scientists believed that residual DDT would lead to an increase in liver and other cancers. Cornell University ecologist Lamont Cole warned an Earth Day audience at Kearney State College in Nebraska that, “We are releasing into the environment more than 500,000 different chemicals.” “There is one good thing about the blighting of our environment, that is, that Americans don’t have to worry about cannibals anymore,” said social critic Herbert Muller in The New York Times. “We’ve all become inedible, there’s too much DDT in us.”
Contrary to the conventional wisdom at Earth Day 1970, there’s a broad consensus that exposure to synthetic chemicals, even pesticides, does not seem to be a problem. In 1996, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, in a comprehensive report called Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet, concluded that levels of both synthetic and natural carcinogens are “so low that they are unlikely to pose an appreciable cancer risk.” The National Cancer Institute reports that “increasing exposure to general environmental hazards seems unlikely to have had a major impact on the overall trends in cancer rates.” “Pollution appears to account for less than 1 percent of cancer,” concludes University of California biologist and cancer researcher Bruce Ames.
To be sure, the total number of cancer cases in the population did go up from 1973 to 1990, but cancer death rates declined owing to better medical treatments. Cancer incidence went up for some very prosaic reasons: We smoke too much tobacco, we eat too much fat, and we sunbathe excessively. We also live longer and cancer is primarily a disease of old age. In the U.S. since the early 1990s, both the incidence of cancer and deaths from cancer have been declining, not rising. Some analysts, such as Gregg Easterbrook, have recently hinted that this decline in cancer rates is the result of reductions in the amount of toxins released into the environment. Actually, a good bit of the improvement in cancer rates can be attributed to the decline in the number of smokers in the U.S.
Never mind. Cancer is scary enough (and ubiquitous enough–about one-third of Americans will get some sort of cancer during their lifetimes) that it still serves as a good tool for frightening people about alleged environmental contamination. Just this past January, Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown ominously noted, “Every human being harbors in his or her body about 500 synthetic chemicals that were nonexistent before 1920.” So what? Considering that American lifespans have increased by 20 years, from an average of 56 years in 1920 to 71 years in 1970 to 76 years today, one might be tempted to argue that those synthetic chemicals are prolonging our lives. Certainly, they’re not causing damage. Just last year, the National Research Council issued yet another report that found no evidence that synthetic chemicals are causing higher rates of cancer, birth defects, and other problems alleged by Brown.
Meanwhile, banning DDT allowed a resurgence of malaria-carrying mosquitos worldwide. The Malaria International Foundation estimates that there are between 600 to 900 million cases of malaria a year and that about 2.7 million people die of it annually. Spraying DDT had cut malaria deaths from 4 million annually in the early 1940s to 1 million in the 1960s.
Beyond anxiety over population, pollution, and pesticides, even more speculative concerns were on display at the first Earth Day. Many of these fears–especially the supposed depletion of nonrenewable resources, ostensibly disappearing biodiversity, and apparent global climate change due to human activity–have come to figure far more prominently in our current environmental debates.
The depletion of nonrenewable resources wouldn’t take center stage until the publication of the infamous Limits to Growth report to the Club of Rome in 1972. The limits-to-growth thesis got a huge boost when oil prices spiked during the Arab oil embargo. But on Earth Day 1970, there were already intimations that this would become a major theme of subsequent celebrations.
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones,” warned Sierra Club director Martin Litton in Time’s February 2, 1970, special “environmental report.” Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” Later that year, Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
Of course this didn’t happen. The prices of all metals and minerals have dropped by more than 50 percent since 1970, according to the World Resources Institute. As we all know, lower prices mean that things are becoming more abundant, not less. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that at present rates of mining, reserves of copper will last 54 years; zinc, 56 years; silver, 26 years; tin, 55 years; gold, 30 years; and lead, 47 years. What about oil? The survey estimates that global reserves could be as much as 2.1 trillion barrels of crude oil–enough to supply the world for the next 90 years. These reserve figures are constantly moving targets–as they get drawn down, miners and drillers find new sources of supply or develop more efficient technologies for exploiting the resources.
Worries about declining biodiversity have become popular lately. On the first Earth Day, participants were concerned about saving a few particularly charismatic species such as the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. But even then some foresaw a coming holocaust. As Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Writing just five years after the first Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich and his biologist wife, Anne Ehrlich, predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
There’s only one problem: Most species that were alive in 1970 are still around today. “Documented animal extinctions peaked in the 1930s, and the number of extinctions has been declining since then,” according to Stephen Edwards, an ecologist with the World Conservation Union, a leading international conservation organization whose members are non-governmental organizations, international agencies, and national conservation agencies. Edwards notes that a 1994 World Conservation Union report found known extinctions since 1600 encompassed 258 animal species, 368 insect species, and 384 vascular plants. Most of these species, he explains, were “island endemics” like the Dodo. As a result, they are particularly vulnerable to habitat disruption, hunting, and competition from invading species. Since 1973, only seven species have gone extinct in the United States.
What mostly accounts for relatively low rates of extinction? As with many other green indicators, wealth leads the way by both creating a market for environmental values and delivering resource-efficient technology. Consider, for example, that one of the main causes of extinction is deforestation and the ensuing loss of habitat. According to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, what drives most tropical deforestation is not commercial logging, but “poor farmers who have no other option for feeding their families than slashing and burning a patch of forest.” By contrast, countries that practice high yield, chemically assisted agriculture have expanding forests. In 1920, U.S. forests covered 732 million acres. Today they cover 737 million acres, even though the number of Americans grew from 106 million in 1920 to 272 million now. Forests in Europe expanded even more dramatically, from 361 million acres to 482 million acres between 1950 and 1990. Despite continuing deforestation in tropical countries, Roger Sedjo, a senior fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future, notes that “76 percent of the tropical rain forest zone is still covered with forest.” Which is quite a far cry from being nine-tenths gone. More good news: In its State of the World’s Forests 1999, the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization documents that while forests in developing countries were reduced by 9.1 percent between 1980 and 1995, the global rate of deforestation is now slowing.
“The developed countries in the temperate regions appear to have largely completed forestland conversion to agriculture and have achieved relative land use stability. By contrast, the developing countries in the tropics are still in a land conversion mode. This suggests that land conversion stability correlates strongly with successful economic development,” concludes Sedjo, in his chapter on forestry in The True State of the Planet, a collection of essays I edited. In other words, if you want to save forests and wildlife, you had better help poor people become wealthy.
Of course, the biggest environmental crisis facing humanity nowadays is supposed to be global warming. Not surprisingly, worries about the future climate were a common theme among alarmists on the first Earth Day. However, they couldn’t agree on what direction the earth’s temperature was going to take.
“The greenhouse theorists contend the world is threatened with a rise in average temperature, which if it reached 4 or 5 degrees, could melt the polar ice caps, raise sea level by as much as 300 feet and cause a worldwide flood,” explained Newsweek in its special January 26, 1970, report on “The Ravaged Environment.” In the service of balance, however, the magazine also noted that many other scientists saw temperatures dropping: “This theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.”
Kenneth Watt was less equivocal in his Swarthmore speech about Earth’s temperature. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Watt was wrong. Global temperatures didn’t fall, and fears of a new ice age dissolved like frost on an early-autumn morning. Since 1988, when government climatologist James Hansen testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resource committee that he had detected global warming, climate doomsters have switched almost entirely to worrying about global warming. The theory is straightforward–burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun and re-radiates it, heating up the atmosphere.
It’s generally agreed that the earth’s average temperature has indeed gone up by 1 degree Fahrenheit or so in the past century. The question now is, How much man-made warming can we expect in the 21st century? Computer climate models originally predicted that atmospheric temperatures might increase between 3 to 5 degrees centigrade by 2100. However, as the models have been refined, their estimates of how much warming might occur have been declining–the range is now down to 1.5 degrees centigrade to 3.5 by 2100. A recent report from the National Research Council noted that “the surface apparently warmed by 0.25 C to 0.4 C since 1979.” Remarkably, the NRC panel also estimates the change in the temperature of the atmosphere as being between 0 C to 0.2 C during the same period. In other words, the atmosphere may not have warmed at all since 1979. This is an odd conclusion because the climate computer models have never predicted that the surface would warm first or faster than the atmosphere–in fact, they predict the opposite. Consequently, this gap between surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures calls the predictive accuracy of the models into serious question.
That doesn’t give many doomsters pause. In February, climatologist Tom Karl of the National Climate Data Center issued a study suggesting that global warming is speeding up. In 1997 and 1998, argues Karl, there were 16 consecutive months in which “we were breaking the previous year’s all-time global high temperature record.” However, University of Virginia climatologist Patrick Michaels (who receives some funding from fossil fuel companies) points out that those 16 months of record high temperatures occurred during the big 1997-1998 El Niño in the Pacific Ocean. During El Niños, water from the western Pacific Ocean spreads eastward, dramatically warming the normally cold waters off the coast of South America and thus boosting average global temperatures. Temperatures have now dropped back to where they were before the El Niño occurred. El Niños are not predicted to be affected by any man-made global warming.
In any case, whatever global warming is occurring is apparently being channeled into winter nights. Summer daytime temperatures do not appear to be warming. Warmer winter nights are far less of a threat to the natural world and humanity than higher summer temperatures. Are our coasts about to be inundated by rising seas due to melting ice caps? The best guess from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that the sea level might rise about 8 inches by 2100. While this may seem troubling, keep in mind that sea levels rose by about 6 inches over the last century.
Indeed, a far greater threat for the next century comes from environmental activists. To counteract global warming, they essentially want to plan the energy future of the entire world for the next 100 years. They are enacting the plan through the U.N. Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. The absurdity (and arrogance) of that type of planning becomes clear when one imagines the same exercise taking place in 1900. The best scientific panel available in 1900 would simply not have been able to plan for millions of automobiles and trucks, ubiquitous electric lighting in millions of houses and office buildings, fuel for thousands of jet planes, and millions of refrigerators, air-conditioners, and the like. Virtually none of the devices on this nearly endless list had even been invented by 1900. Given the increasing rate of technological innovation, we undoubtedly have even less chance of foreseeing the future than people in 1900.
How did the doomsters get so many predictions so wrong on the first Earth Day? Their mistake can be handily summed up in Paul Ehrlich and John Holdern’s infamous I=PAT equation. Impact (always negative) equals Population x Affluence x Technology, they declared. More people were always worse, by definition. Affluence meant that rich people were consuming more of the earth’s resources, a concept that was regularly illustrated by claiming that the birth of each additional baby in America was worse for the environment than 25, 50, or even 60 babies born on the Indian subcontinent. And technology was bad because it meant that humans were pouring more poisons into the biosphere, drawing down more nonrenewable resources and destroying more of the remaining wilderness.
We now know that Ehrlich and his fellow travelers got it backwards. If population were necessarily bad, then Brazil, with less than three-quarters the population density of the U.S., should be the wealthier society. As far as affluence goes, it is clearly the case that the richer the country, the cleaner the water, the clearer the air, and the more protected the forests. Additionally, richer countries also boast less hunger, longer lifespans, lower fertility rates, and more land set aside for nature. Relatively poor people can’t afford to care overmuch for the state of the natural world.
With regards to technology, Ehrlich and other activists often claim that economists simply don’t understand the simple facts of ecology. But it’s the doomsters who need to update their economics–things have changed since the appearance of Thomas Malthus’ 200-year-old An Essay on the Principle of Population, the basic text that continues to underwrite much apocalyptic rhetoric. Malthus hypothesized that while population increases geometrically, food and other resources increased arithmetically, leading to a world in which food was always in short supply. Nowadays, we understand that wealth is not created simply by combining land and labor. Rather, technological innovations greatly raise positive outputs in all sorts of ways while minimizing pollution and other negative outputs.
Indeed, if Ehrlich wants to improve his sorry record of predictions and his understanding of how to protect the natural world, he should walk across campus to talk with his Stanford University colleague, economist Paul Romer. “New Growth Theory,” devised by Romer and others, shows that wealth springs from new ideas and new recipes. Romer sums it up this way: “Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding. Possibilities do not add up. They multiply.” In other words, new ideas and technological recipes grow exponentially at a rate much faster than population does.
“I’m scared,” confessed Paul Ehrlich in the 1970 Earth Day issue of Look. “I have a 14 year old daughter whom I love very much. I know a lot of young people, and their world is being destroyed. My world is being destroyed. I’m 37 and I’d kind of like to live to be 67 in a reasonably pleasant world, and not die in some kind of holocaust in the next decade.” Ehrlich didn’t die in a holocaust, and the world is far more pleasant than he thought it would be. It is probably too much to hope that abashed humility will strike him and he’ll desist in bedeviling the world with his dire and consistently wrong predictions. He’s like a reverse Cassandra –Cassandra made true prophecies but no one would listen to her. Ehrlich makes false prophecies and everyone listens to him.
There’s much to celebrate on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. Indeed, one of the chief things to get happy about is that the doomsters were so wrong. Civilization didn’t collapse, hundreds of millions didn’t die in famines, pesticides didn’t cause epidemics of cancer, and the air and water didn’t get dirtier in the industrialized countries.
On the occasions when they admit things have gotten better, doomsters will claim whatever environmental progress has been made over the past 30 years is only a result of the warnings that they sounded. One of the more annoying characteristics of activists such as Ehrlich and Lester Brown is the way in which these prophets of doom get out ahead of a parade that has already started. When things get better, they claim that it’s only because people heeded their warnings, not because of longstanding trends and increased efficiencies. As a result, there is always the danger that governments may actually enact their policies, thereby stifling technological progress and economic growth–and making the world worse off. Then the doomsters would be able to say “I told you so.” So good or bad, they get to claim that they were right all along.
What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Here are my predictions: As the International Food Policy Research Institute projects, we will be able to feed the world’s additional numbers and to provide them with a better diet. Because they are ultimately political in nature, poverty and malnutrition will not be eliminated, but economic growth will make many people in the developing world much better off. Technological improvements in agriculture will mean less soil erosion, better management of freshwater supplies, and higher productivity crops. Life expectancy in the developing world will likely increase from 65 years to 73 years, and probably more; in the First World, it will rise to more than 80 years. Metals and mineral prices will be even lower than they are today. The rate of deforestation in the developing world will continue to slow down and forest growth in the developed economies will increase.
Meanwhile, as many developing countries become wealthier, they will start to pass through the environmental-transition thresholds for various pollutants, and their air and water quality will begin to improve. Certainly air and water quality in the United States, Europe, Japan, and other developed countries will be even better than it is today. Enormous progress will be made on the medical front, and diseases like AIDS and malaria may well be finally conquered. As for climate change, concern may be abating because the world’s energy production mix is shifting toward natural gas and nuclear power. There is always the possibility that a technological breakthrough–say, cheap, efficient, non-polluting fuel cells–could radically reshape the energy sector. In any case a richer world will be much better able to cope with any environmental problems that might crop up.
One final prediction, of which I’m most absolutely certain: There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.
True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is as that which is below, and that which is below is as that which is above, for the performance of the miracles of the One Thing. And as all things are from One, by the mediation of One, so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father, the Moon its mother, and the Wind carries it in its belly, its nurse is the Earth. This is the father of all perfection, or consummation of the whole world. Its power is integrating, if it be turned into earth.
Thou shalt separate the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross, suavely, and with great ingenuity. It ascends from earth to heaven and descends again to earth, and receives the power of the superiors and of the inferiors. So thou hast the glory of the whole world; therefore let all obscurity flee before thee. This is the strong force of all forces, overcoming every subtle and penetrating every solid thing. So the world was created. Hence were all wonderful adaptations, of which this is the manner. Therefore am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. What I have to tell is completed, concerning the Operation of the Sun.
Good opinion – resource article…..
“An Alchemical Marriage is one of the Universe’s most incredible magic tricks!
To be an alchemist means you have the power to transmute something ordinary into something spectacular in a seemingly mysterious way.
Some people are alchemists in their own right; others hook up with one or two people can form a union and become an alchemic marriage together.
It is a union intentionally set for both of you to meet at a specific time for a specific reason.
Once you face and engage in alignment, chakras to chakras, the spiritual and romantic energy between the two is a preview of the power you share. . . “
Click link above for more and explore their website as well.
Mark Passio explains how Rights are most easily understood when they are considered though APOPHATIC INQUIRY. This process helps us to understand what a Right actually is by understanding which actions are NOT Rights because they cause harm to others. This is an excerpt from Mark Passio’s lecture entitled: “Natural Law – The REAL Law Of Attraction And How To Apply It In Your Life.” which can be found HERE