Mind Control Forum |
| Archives | News | Resources | Search | Victims |
William Thomas Sherman
E-mail: GunJones1@aol.com
1604 NW 70th St.
Seattle, WA 98117
206-784-1132
Updated in February 1998
The following is an account and examination of my being made victim of clansdestine harrassment and violence spanning over the past five years. Because the nature of these experiences are very unusual, it is not sufficient to merely put together a summary list of events with dates times, personages and brief descriptions of the events. Rather, inasmuch as there are not a few points and questions which are unknown and unsolved, a certain amount of speculation is necessitated. In cases of crime solving, this, of course, is not at all rare. When, for example, an police officer is looking into a particular crime, despite all that he might already easily know or find out, there will often be questions as to fact he will still stand in need of answers to. What he cannot obtain by obvious evidence requires further investigation, theorizing and gathering of evidence. So it is here with my case. What then I have tried to do is present that which I know in point of fact to be the case with evidence at my disposal, followed by an inquiry into questions yet unanswered, some speculation on my part, and then some evidence of a more indirect or circumstantial nature to support such conjecture.
The outline then of this document is :
I. Personal narrative of eventsII. Answers to commonly asked questions and objections regarding these events
III. Conclusion
Appendix. Samples of my writing (the relevance of which will be pointed out later)
What do I hope to accomplish by bringing this to the attention of yourself and others?:
Before proceeding, let me one point out of the way which will invariably arise, which might, and not so strangely, be used to attempt to discredit me is the use of the notion of "conspiracy." In this day and age such a word is commonly viewed with great derision and scoffing. Am I suggesting that the crimes I allege are some how a product of a "conspiracy" of some sort? If by conspiracy one means something premeditated and carried out in secret by a group of people, the answer is - yes. In recent years the subject of conspiracies of various sorts have arisen, and most of the time such conjectures, whether rightly or wrongly, are dismissed as paranoia or foolishness. Let me point out to those hasty to brush aside the potential reality of any conspiracy, that a conspiracy is nothing more than a crime carried out by two or more people in secret. What is so necessarily strange or impossible about such a thing? From a criminal stand point, it makes perfect sense for a group of criminals - driven by greed, hate, envy, perversion, scapegoating, cruelty, etc. - to operate on the basis of such a method, does it not? But does that mean all suggestions of conspiracy are valid? Of course not. How then do we know whether a suggested of conspiracy is justified? Only by a careful, skeptical, yet open minded examination of the facts and arguments presented. With respect to my own case, much of what I am going to say is indeed going to sound quite incredible and hard to believe. However, I would ask you to give me a fair and full hearing before jumping to conclusions, because if what I say is true the implications are extremely damning, disgusting and outrageous - to say the least. If I am wrong or deluded, well, perhaps, if nothing else you might find this merely an interesting story. Whatever the case, I have encountered people who believe me or and people who would say I am crazy, but no one has yet called me a liar. And just in case you are wondering, no, I will not, in what follows, be making references UFOs or the theories regarding assassinations of notable figures.
What might make a conspiracy possible are bribery; intimidation; despotism viewing itself as benign; immoral activity carried out under the cloak of otherwise legitimate authority; emotions of contempt (similar to those which prompt scapegoating); deal cutting; blackmail; and old-fashioned machiavellianism. This reminder helps us to understand some of the possible elements which might make any given conspiracy successful. A conspiracy exposed is no longer a conspiracy, it then becomes a known crime. Is it any wonder then that the term is not often given credence: it is nothing more than a crime which is undiscovered. The Holocaust, for example, was a conspiracy, that is until it became revealed to the world at large.
Despite then its current disrepute as a concept, I see no reason pretend that conspiracies are of necessity some how impossible, or attempt to dance around using the term. I would insist however that we not judge on the basis of the word, but on a clear and detailed understanding of the pertinent facts.
Finally with respect to the terms "paranoid" or "loony," (the use of which are to be expected from some), I ask the reader in all honesty when, in recent years, has a person manifesting pronounced distrust, suspicion or disapproval of the "establishment" (that is, those in power), NOT been saddled with such a label? Are we to automatically conclude that just about anyone who would accuse those in power of outrageous wrong doing are somehow by definition someone who is mentally ill? Is it not, after all, a common tactic of some to apply such labels as "paranoid" or "loony" in order to discredit someone for political or legal reasons? And is the use of such labels often not the result of judicious or thoughtful assessment, but instead simply a condescending and convenient form of name calling to distract from the name-calling party's inability to come up with a sound argument to refute their opposition? We can only truly know by means of a fair and intelligent examination of any particular case. Any other approach, given the seriousness of the charge, can only be deemed, at best, irresponsible.
I earnestly appeal then to person reading this not to be hasty or judge on the basis of surface or fragmentary impressions, but rather to arrive at their conclusion based on rational scrutiny, and an impartial weighing of specific facts, allegations, and arguments.
*Note. The following narrative is primarily concerned with presenting a general account of events and occurrences. During the course of reading it, the reader will quite naturally have questions. For these, I refer them to the "Commonly Asked Questions" section of this document. These questions are very important for purposes of arriving at a fair assessment and it is necessary to have a look at these after going through the narrative itself.
The memory of what I have been put through is very painful merely to recall, on top of which the number of incidences of dirty trick violence perpetrated on me is so numerous I don't think I could remember them all even if I wanted to. I hope therefore you will pardon certain precision with regard to dates, since pre-occupied as I was with just trying to physically and mentally survive what I was being put through, I often times was in no position or condition to be taking notes, nor, needless to say, was it in the interest of my perpetrators to facilitate my doing so. For the time being then, the account given here does contain enough to provide anyone with information about the nature and circumstances of the crimes I have been made a victim to. This case, unfortunately, is a bit more complicated than no doubt people, in general, would care for it to be. But then, I would argue, does not such complexity help the criminals to muddy their tracks, thus making it all the more easier to conceal their wrong doing? I have done my best to make this business as orderly, straight forward, and easy to understand as is, under the circumstances, possible.
***
An author/historian from Seattle, I have written for Classic Images, a film history magazine, and in 1994 published a book entitled, "Mabel Normand: A Source Book to Her Life and Films."(Mabel Normand, by the way was a silent film actress) In late April of 1992, in order to do research for the aforesaid source book, I left Seattle and moved to the Echo Park area of Los Angeles. For while things went smoothly, yet as time passed a few odd events occurred. In one instance, at 12:30 a.m., an LA Police helicopter hovered over my backyard and shined a flood light over the yard and in my house (why? I haven't the foggiest). Awoken I came outside, and gestured to them with my arms as if to ask what was going on? They continued hovering and shining the search light on me. This continued for a couple minutes, till exasperated I went inside to get my camera. Only when I came back out and I pointed it at them did they speed away (towards Sunset Blvd. - a few blocks down from where I was living.) But more disturbingly, there were signs on a t least two or three occasions that it looked as though my apartment at 1377 Lucille Blvd., which consisted of the back bottom portion of house, had been broken into. Some of my things looked as if they had been gone through, and my three cats - which is very unusual for them, - were all hiding as if they had been frightened. I called to have a police officer come and take a report of breaking and entry. To be brief, he said that because there was no clear evidence of break in he could not file a report. Needless to say I was not all that please with this response, but what could I do? I did ask him however if he would at least write me a little note to say that he had been there to investigate. To this he agreed.
Other than these, nothing overtly bad or particularly strange, at least worth mentioning, occurred during most of my stay.
Then on a Sunday in early October I attended a musical concert at the Roxy on Sunset Blvd. Prior to this concert I ate at the Spaghetti Factory located, as I recall, on Santa Monica Blvd. My meal there consisted of spaghetti and a glass of wine. Afterwards at the concert itself, I had a diet coke. At first I enjoyed the concert very much, the group performing was an English pop-group Shakspear's Sister. However during the course of the show I suddenly began to feel very ill, and for no apparent reason started to sweat uncontrollably. While it is true the club atmosphere was rather stuffy, this no way seemed to explain why I was, in a gradual flash as it were, render inexplicably queasy and absolutely drenched with perspiration. Prior to the concert I was in the best of health and spirits and the onset of my discomfort came as a great surprise, as I was up to that moment in excellent health. What was the cause of this strange, sudden malady? I honestly could not, giving my full assurance say, either then or presently. However it must be mentioned as it was the first case of something happening to my body.
In the following week I did not feel very well. I attributed this to simple fatigue. Then on one day in the week I ate at the Milano restaurant, on Alessandro Blvd I believe, and thought a proper meal would do me good. Instead I became dramatically worse. I began to experience very extreme constipation, a condition which I had never suffered in any way shape or form prior to this, such that it became impossible for me to go to the bathroom. As well, to my shock I discovered that my sexual organ felt as though frozen, would not function other than to urinate. My breathing became more difficult. Hoping that all this was simply some temporary malady brought on accidentally - I was not then suspicious of it being the result of someone's deliberate intent, I rested for a few days hoping it would go away. But it didn't, and by the end of the week it finally became obvious that I needed to go to a hospital or clinic. I hadn't been able to go to the bathroom, other than to urinate for almost an entire week! On Saturday morning I called a friend and asked him if he knew a clinic or doctor he could recommend. I will omit his name here out of courtesy - he is a rather old gentleman, but will provide it if requested. He arrived to pick me up, and we looked around for the nearest clinics. Unfortunately, after a lengthy search, every medical clinic we encountered on Sunset was closed! Why this was so I did not then nor now know why. In any case, my friend suggested the Queen of Angels Hospital on Vermont Ave. To this I agreed. (note. This same Queen of Angeles hospital was, as I later heard, afterward shut down and converted into a drug and alcohol rehab center).
We arrived at the emergency room of the Queen of Angels Hospital at around 10:00 a.m. I signed in and was told to wait. After sitting in the waiting area for five hours, during which time I felt fairly miserable, I was finally admitted about 3 p.m. to the Emergency room. There it was all a hub of noise and doctors, and cadets of some sort (police, medical, or police/medical I don't exactly remember, they were wearing Navy blue cover suits) were running about - the place gave the appearance of being busy. I was assigned a bed behind some portable curtains, give a smock and told to undress. There were at least two policemen present in the room who apparently were waiting while someone in their custody was being treated. No one could see in or out of the curtained area I was located, except very slightly through breaks where the curtains formed into corners.
After a doctor, I forget which one, briefly heard what was ailing me, he left and different staff persons came and took my blood pressure. My blood pressure was registered clumsily at least three times by different persons while I waited for a doctor proper to return. At the time, I thought the repetition of this same procedure by different persons, including at least one "cadet," was rather incompetent.
Finally, Dr. Elmer Eley (note. Despite the fact that the person who ultimately signed my medical report, which I later obtained a copy of was a Dr. Phillip Fagan, I only later discovered that the physician who actually examined me was not Dr. Fagan, but rather Dr. Eley - Fagan having been at no time present), a rather muscular, middle aged, black male with a moustache, came into my spot to check my breathing with a stethoscope. Customarily, it has been my experience that when this procedure is done the patient is either standing or sitting up. Dr. Eley had me lie back on the bed/examination table and told me to breath as he applied his instrument. As he came to the area upward to the left of my heart, he made a pointed clenched fist and suddenly and with thoughtful and quick deliberation PUNCHED me below my left shoulder! I was so shocked by it I didn't know what to say or could think what could account for his doing it. Finishing up, he asked a few questions and left me. I waited a while longer very much perplexed. Then a middle aged female staff member with short, light colored hair came in by herself into my spot. Holding a hypodermic needle filled with a brown/yellowish liquid in her hand, she told me to roll over as she administered its contents to me. Simply assuming she knew what she was doing, desperate to be rid of the "chill" that suffused my groin, and without questioning I simply acquiesced and without informing me of what I was being given, she injected me. She then departed and I was again left to wait.
Note. About a couple months after these incidences, I made a report to the Los Angeles Police Dept. of assault by Dr. Eley, i.e. being deliberately punched in the shoulder. Although every medical expert I have spoke to denies punching someone in such a manner has any medical relevance or value, the LAPD refused to investigate my charge, on the grounds that they didn't know such a "punch" was not medical in nature - this was their response even after I had informed them that all the aforementioned doctors I had spoke to said it was not.
As I sat there I gradually began to feel what was apparently the "medication" taking effect I suddenly began to have great lapses in my train of thought and suddenly found it difficult to form words. It is all somewhat difficult to describe except to say that it felt as though I had been given a very, very strong narcotic of some kind. By this time, I became very fearful, after being punched and now this apparent drugging, and didn't quite know what to do. Each time I tried to get hold of a staff member for help I was very rudely told to wait. For the next three or four hours I lay on my bed waiting for one of the doctor's to return, during which lengthy time feeling utmost distress at my situation. I literally felt and thought I could very well die then and there, due to the effects of being punched in the heart, and the mind altering injection.
By eight o'clock p.m., a Dr. Eley gave me a bottle of liquid laxative and directions to buy antihistamine. Without ever telling me once what might be ailing me, or saying whether the problem with my groin was cured or not, he finally released me. Naturally, by this time I was dying to get out of there, so I didn't to trouble to ask him about what condition was. In any case, he made it so very clear that he was busy, that even if I had tried to get him to talk for more than one or two minutes he would have put me off or casually allowed himself to be distracted. He was not entirely unsympathetic when I spoke with him, only he would not stay to answer what seemed to me were very pertinent and straight forward questions. Given the inordinately prolonged amount of time spent seriously dealing with my case one would have thought I should have been there no more than ten or fifteen minutes, been on my way, while freeing the "doctors" to devote their time, and my bed, to other cases. Instead it took around four hours for me to simply wait around to get a bottle of laxative and directions to get antihistamine.
The next day I returned to the hospital to complain and make inquiries. I asked to know what it was I had been injected with. After a lot of running around for an answer a staff person showed me a document of some kind with "Penheglian" written on it, that presumably being the medication. My current records mention "Phrenegan," but this was not what was originally written on the document. To add to this, the Queen of Angels staff, maugre my inquiries, never explained what the Phrenegan, assuming that was what I was even injected with, was for, or exactly why it was administered to me. At that return visit the doctor's name then was given to me as "Herb" Fagan, as mention it was Dr. Eley who actually treated me, not Dr. Fagan. (Note. AT THE TIME, I sometimes smoked marijuana so the reference was not lost on me, "Herb" being a colloquialism used to denote it) This was written on this same document. I then got a senior staff person of some kind and sat down with her and told her what happened. After hearing my story, she politely told me that this was a "good" hospital and that they didn't do things like that. I then requested my medical records and was sent to the records division. Once there, they told me that my records weren't ready and that I would have to come by on another occasion.
Disgusted and frankly now a little fearful, I shortly after all this, Columbus day as I recall, I left Los Angeles and came back to Seattle. Not surprisingly, after what I'd been through, I did not feel comfortable remaining in Los Angeles. Although the laxative seemed to cure my constipation, I still had difficulty breathing and was feeling the effects of Dr. Eley's having punched me. At the time, it felt as though my heart had been injured, hence my feeling that I might die, which I mentioned before. When I'd returned here, however, I went to a clinic. My injury was diagnosed as damaged muscle within my left shoulder and they prescribed Advil, which had the desired effect of alleviating the pain.
Quite obviously, I had absolutely no idea of expecting anything remotely like this to happen when I went to a hospital. I had always hitherto thought ordinary doctors were generally responsible professionals who one could put their trust in. Imagine than my inexpressible horror and dismay to have underwent what I've described.
Understandably apprehensive for my safety, I returned to Seattle shortly after this incident in the Queen of Angels hospital, thinking that I was finally safe. I should note that after I came back from the hospital, I found indications that someone had been in my home again. This time, the note the police officer I had make and sign, when he came to investigate my report of breaking and entry was discovered missing (as well as the original copy of my birth certificate.)
Still suffering from the punch by Dr. Eley (I thought, mistakenly, that my heart had been injured - it turned out rather to be some lower shoulder muscles), I stayed at my father's house, in Seattle, where I had lived prior to going to Los Angeles. Though he took, he took me in there was certain unaccountable hostility toward me. And after I got through telling him and my brothers what had happened to me, far from getting any sympathy, they summarily pronounced me crazy. Yet in contradiction of this, one of my brothers blamed me for some how putting them in danger by coming back. While on the one hand dismissing my story, he then faulted me for potentially putting them at risk - in other words he was contradicting himself. This unwelcome and contentious reception very much suprised me. Rather than go back to my old room, which was then occupied by one of my brothers, I was put in the attic to stay.
In late October, I suffered what I felt at the time and to this day believe was poisoning. I was watching the Presidential debates one evening and upon drinking some coke from a bottle, which had already been opened, at my father's house. I began to feel the extreme effects what seemed like a street drug of some kind, possibly speed. Why or how this could happen I have no explanation. The coke was a 16 liter plastic bottle with the top off and three fourths full resting by my father's couch which I matter of faculty drank out of without having any reason to think there would be something wrong with it. Whatever the cause - whether the coke or something else - I was rendered suddenly and inexplicably ill in a manner which made me feel I had ingested a foreign substance resembling speed in its effects. At the time I was taking Sudafed, and later at the hospitals directions Benadryl, both antihistamines, for some difficulty I was having in breathing. However, the last time I had taken this was the night before, and didn't see any connection between how I was feeling at the time and this medication.
As the hours passed and I grew worse, it became necessary for me as I felt to seek medical assistance and the first place I thought of was the University of Washington Medical Center.
[PLEASE NOTE, copies of these records are enclosed with this letter.]
10/27/92, 1st visit to the University of Washington Medical Center - Physician: Dr. Stephen Burns- I had myself admitted to the ER. and to start out with was questioned, had my blood pressure and temperature taken. I was hooked up to an EKG machine, the tapes and wires attached to my chest area. Some time during the course of my time on the examination table I blacked out. Whether this blacking out was due to fatigue or what I do not know. In any case, I was rendered unconscious for a unknown duration, at the most an hour or two. I don't know. After I left the ER I went home to go to bed. Because I was so tired, it was very early in the morning by this time, I did not bother to get undressed when I went to bed. When I awoke the next day to take a shower upon undressing I found an EKG tape attached to my scrotum. The only logical explanation for how it could have got there was that someone, apparently on the ER staff placed it there during the time I was unconscious. This at least seems to be the logical conclusion. Yet because I was unconscious when it happened I cannot say that I unequivocally know that this in point of fact is what took place, let alone who the individual might have been. Nevertheless, given the staff's peculiar and ingenuous behavior and mistreatment of me in other ways and the fact that I could not have acquired such medical tape from another source, I personally am convinced that this is what happened.
The record of this visit reports a tightness in my shoulder I was feeling as the cause of my complaint without any reference to my stating I felt I might have been poisoned. While the pain described regarding some strained muscle in my left shoulder, this pain was not the single cause of my visit.
On a second occasion I again felt as though I had been poisoned after eating something from the refrigerator. (And no, it is not lost on me that it should normally seem very odd that I should suffer poisoning so close upon the first incident) Whether I was intentionally or inadvertently poisoned, I don't presume to say. It was around this time in the media that stories came out about the E coli bacteria and Sudafed tampering. All I can say is that my physical constitution was such that I felt as though I had been poisoned, nor did I have reason than or now to believe otherwise. This time, as with each such occasion, the effects of the poisoning were similar to the effects of a street drug, in this second instance pscillocibic mushrooms. Back in high school I had on at least two occasions taken these so know how these effect a person. Be this as it may I returned again to the ER. Although I did, of course, have some misgivings after what happened on my first visit, I was willing to give the hospital the benefit of the doubt since there did not then seem any ostensible reason for why such people would violate the law, let alone human decency, in order to hurt me. I also thought as well at the time that even given that wrongdoing had been done to me, i.e. the tape found on my scrotum, there would be no reason to believe that such an gross outrage could possibly be repeated. Lastly, being puzzled by the tape, I suppose a part of me wanted to see how they would react when they faced me again. Having said this, however, my ailment was genuine and my curiosity and indignation with respect to the tape itself was not itself what caused me to return to the UW Medical Center for medical attention.
10/30/92, 2nd visit to the UW Medical Center - Physician: Dr. McMullen. This visit, as I recall, was uneventful as far as misconduct is concerned, except that I was not given a proper prescription for the medication I was given. The problem was that no where in writing was it indicated what the dosage the medication was to be taken. I retained a good deal of evidence on this point, including the medication itself which I decided that I would, not knowing the dosage, not take. I had the original "prescription" as well. Yet for reasons unknown to me, these, as well of my Queen of Angels records, vanished from a specific storage place of mine, and I cannot explain or account for what happened to them. Due to present lack of evidence then, I will keep things simple by not making anything of this particular charge about the prescription.. If others would like to know more, however, I will be happy to elaborate.
11/13/92, 3rd visit to UW Medical Center - Physician: Dr. Weaver. On a third occasion I again inexplicably felt the sudden effect of having been poisoned. As with the prior instances, I cannot give an explanation about why this was taking place only that it was. The nature of the third poisoning was unlike the previous `poisonings' or anything I had ever experienced before and am consequently at a loss to what I can liken it except to say it seemed like a street drug. Yet, as mentioned earlier, whatever the cause for this and all mentioned instances of sudden, acute ill health, this is not the primary subject of my letter. Rather it is how the hospital treated my case.
At some point early on in this third visit, I was brought into a small examination room and was told to lay flat on the examination table, which I did. A male staff member with blonde hair and glasses, after doing some routine checking, including some extensive looking into my ear of all places, proceeded to feel out my entire body. Now not surprisingly the experience of involuntarily being made to feel the effects of a drug is an extremely traumatic thing, as I would hope would be self-evident, and this made me malleable. I assumed the doctor or staff person knew what they were doing so I did not protest. He never said he was giving me a massage and I presumed he was engaged in a legitimate examination. The only problem is how slowly and deliberately feeling out my entire body is a proper method for dealing with a poisoning. I am no expert, so I could be wrong about this. I can say however that the experience made me feel extremely violated as much as if I had been physically molested.
Prior to going into the ER, I had called the Seattle Police Department to make what was now clearly an overdue report about having been poisoned. Not long after the "examination" described above, a police officer arrived. This Officer's name was Underwood, badge no.#682. After staying to listen to me for at most two or three minutes, he told me in effect that "he didn't have time for this" and ran out without allowing me to state what had happened as far as the poisoning was concerned, let alone file a report. Months later I filed a complaint against the officer with the Police Department Internal Investigations. My Contact Log File number is CL#93-227. After some letter writing I spoke with the officer's supervisor. He, in sum, stated that while the officer acted improperly in running out on my complaint it was not bad enough to require disciplinary action. The reason for this in turn was because the ER staff had discredited me with the officer without my knowledge, thus putting themselves in a position to deny me my civil rights. I only found out about this after I made my report to Internal Investigations. If the ER staff, for whatever reason, didn't want to treat me as my case required there was no reason whatsoever for them to have interfered with my simply making a report to the police.
Later I spent a lot of time talking with Dr. Weaver who insisted I was a lunatic while at the same time refusing (except until the last minute) to give me a blood or urine test to determine if I was enduring the effect of an unhealthy, foreign substance. At the same time as he insults me, he effectively denies me the very means by which I could verify the nature of my complaint. It says on the hospital file for this visit that I was given a toxicological test. This I assume refers to a last minute urinalysis that was hastily done. It is true my urine was taken, but only as a last gesture on their part to show that some test had been taken. Even if the test was legitimate why hadn't it been done on the two prior visits, and why only on the third visit only after repeated requesting and finally insistence on my part that it be done? It would seem clear to me from this that having initially diagnosed my case as psychological in origin it was in their vested interest to deny the possibility of my having actually ingested a foreign substance, and in this way cover for their mistake on my first two visits. For even if I been poisoned in actuality only once, let alone three times, this would not have reflected well on the ER staff's conduct, needless to say.
Dr. Weaver, a young man who from my experience with him gave the frank impression of being an individual possessed of an immature and superficial intellect with an exaggerated sense of his own professional wisdom, described me as suffering from "paranoid delusion." Well, there are at least two things wrong with his assessment. My statements with respect to my speculation then as to what might have been the origin of my poisoning have been distorted to make it sound as though I left no room for doubt. In point of fact, I never at any time said I was certain as to the cause of why I had ostensibly been poisoned and merely offered when asked what I felt was a possible interpretation of what had occurred. The doctor's report on the other hand would seem to suggest that I had some definite and conclusive notion as to the reason for my apparently having been poisoned when in fact I had no such definite or conclusive notion. Finally, as stated before, never once could the doctor explain why I had all along been denied a urinalysis.
A word in conclusion about the "poisonings." Now four separate and distinct poisonings in the course of less than two weeks would seem to stretch the credulity of some, and I am amply aware of this. If someone prior to my experiencing it would have asked me what I thought was the probability of such a thing taking place, I would have said I thought it highly unlikely. Indeed to this day I cannot claim to be able to explain or understand it all. Yet just because something sounds improbable does not make it impossible. The palpable and physical sensations of separate poisonings did take place, and I don't have the least doubt in my mind about this fact. To put this another way, I am absolutely certain that my ailments were not in any way the product of delusion or hallucination, or psychological indisposition and am outraged then and now that they were treated as such without proper chemical tests having been made. If we grant, just for the sake of argument, that I had indeed been poisoned as I claim, how could I possibly have presented or handled my case differently then I did? Imagine what it would feel like if one had actually been poisoned, yet upon seeking a physician was told one was "crazy." Well, this is precisely what happened, and I don't know what is worse, the actual poisonings or being treated as I was by the hospital under those circumstances.
Within the last four months, I reported what happened to the University Hospital Administration, and my complaint was directed to Leah Kliger. My purpose in contacting her was not to cast blame upon the hospital itself but that part of the staff I did encounter. I called her in June, and after she requested it I sent her a letter providing the essential details of what took place. I waited a week or two for a response, then called her office and was told she went on vacation. I waited a few more weeks I was not able to reach her, and it soon became obvious that the reason for this is that she refused to speak with me. On a second or third call to her office I was told a letter had been sent me. This letter was brief and advised me to seek psychiatric help. There is simply no excuse for the arrogance and flippancy of her `letter,' even if she were correct in her assessment. I would receive better courtesy and sensitivity from an employee working for 6.00 an hour at Burger King. Really now, THIS is health "care?" Coming from someone in charge of hospital complaints it is irresponsible and childish in the extreme. Naturally, one could not presume that she would necessarily take for granted the truth of my story, yet there was no reason that she should treat my after all serious complaint in this thoughtless and frivolous manner. Simple answers to a few questions hardly seems like much to ask. I find it disconcertingly ironic that at least four major Washington or Seattle area medical organizations whom I inquired with prior to writing this had hardly a clue as to whom one would report a complaint of staff misconduct at a hospital. I site this example, in some detail, as typical of the cavalier and condescending attitude I met with when trying to bring my problem to attention of those who might be in a position to help remedy my situation.
Organizing and recalling this information has been very trying and time consuming. I am far from affluent and cannot afford to hire an investigator or attorney. Even if I weren't handicapped financially as I am, I am fully aware of the obstacles I confront in persuading others to have to face, such as the somewhat absurd nature of my story and the power and resources of the organization at whom my complaint is directed. Nevertheless, what I have said is true, and I believe that even a superficial, if at least honest, inquiry and investigation will clear up much of the mystery that has arisen as a result of these events.
A close examination of the medical records drawn up by Dr. Burns and Dr. Weaver reveals that a deliberate and conscious effort is made in them (if one read the handwriting) to discredit me and not in the least is there any consideration of the possibility that my supposition of being poisoned had any merit whatsoever. In each case, without there having been any chemical or urine test done to ascertain whether there was a foreign substance in my system as I claimed, it is assumed that what I was suffering was merely a disillusion of some kind.
I had no reason to think prior to my visits that I would receive anything but professional, intelligent and ethical care and treatment from the University Medical Center ER, but unfortunately in this I turned out to be much mistaken. It did not occur to me that it would be possible that something similar to what had happened at the Queen of Angeles could be repeated all the way back up here in Seattle.
********
It is at this juncture of my account that I come to what, to many, is perhaps the most extraordinary of all the events and strange occurrences of which I speak. ("It must be very bizarre indeed!", I can hear you say, after what you have just read). Because it concerns something which is outside the experiential purview or expectation of the vast majority of people, it is very difficult to discuss. On top of which, if what I say is taken the wrong way, it will very likely, as has happened in the past, it will, by some, be used to discredit anything I might say. Therefore, I particularly beg your patience and open-mindedness then in considering what I realize to many will sound outlandish in the extreme, yet which, nevertheless, is very real.
Following shortly upon the aforementioned events at the University of Washington Medical Center, I found myself being made the "guinea pig" or in otherwise victim of some sort of mind control/torture technology.
Before scoffing as some immediately will at such a claim, let the thoughtful, objective, and honest ask two simple questions:
If the answer is yes to both these questions, then one can be no question as to whether such a thing as mind control/torture technology is possible. When I first found myself a victim of it, I did not know that mine was not merely an isolated case. However, in Feb. 1996, I discovered there WERE more victims of this, and similar technologies, and that there are mounds of evidence to establish its existence to anyone willing to look at it. In Appendix A of this document, you will find what are only mere fragments of what is available in the way of evidence, history, and testimony concerning the inhuman application of technology to experiment of, torment and, in effect "imprison" people. For suggesting such a thing, there are obviously many who will instantly denounce me as some sort of crack pot - this is to be expected. Yet I would respond by saying, after the reader has completely read my narrative, look over all this material, and judge honestly and intelligently whether there is not after all something to what I claim. Who, for example, would otherwise have believed the non-consensual testing of tens of thousands of citizens in the fifties with radiation; the MKULTRA mind control experiments in the 50s and 60s; the non-consensual testing of LSD on U.S. service personnel during the Vietnam war, or the Tuskeegee syphilis treatment which lately got into the news - could ever have taken place? Yet all of these, albeit many years later, are indisputably now part of the public record. Since those experiences, research and technology has only become more sophisticated, and certainly there has been no dramatic increase in public and private ethics and morals - to put it mildly.
Essentially, the technology that is used can be described as follows:
One can tell they're not ordinary dreams because, unlike ordinary dreams, they are so frequent, drawn out for an unnaturally long period of time, and carefully orchestrated. They usually take the form of propaganda, sometimes trying to shame me about drugs, or something I did wrong in the past. In other instances the dreams are used to attempt to degrade me, to shock me, mock me and my values, intimidate, or even attempt to flatter or be friendly to me. True, all of us have had nightmares, yet these "nightmares" have the unusual distinction of resembling some of the distasteful and obnoxious rubbish that often comes out of Hollywood movie studios and television. Prior to being subject to this "torture", I rarely could ever recall even one out of ten of the dreams I had while sleeping. Yet after the introduction of this device into my life, I recall, whether I want to or not, the vast majorities of these. And these dreams, which I endure DAILY (yes, Daily!), are so pronounced and often of considerable duration that if I did wanted to, I could probably recall the contents of even more of them. Contrast this with before 1992 when I would perhaps, on average, remember a dream I had once every one or two months.
Other aspects which have, on various occasions, marked these dreams as being of artificial origin are presence of luminous phosphorescent colors; distorted and warped facial images (e.g. a very long nose, or bulging forehead - I later saw a computer program that i sable to do this with photographic images); 3- D images which make objects looks like they are "coming at me." NONE of this phenomena ever occurred to me in a dreams prior to late Fall of 1992.
Another very telling aspect of these "productions" is that they have often included appearances by celebrities (or at least images which give the appearances of being such, for example computer generated images:)
Some of those persons who have "appeared" in these "dream productions" are:
There have been MORE “celebrities” than even this extensive list, yet I hope this catalog will suffice for the purpose at hand.
Now it would simply be far too incredible for someone to have naturally occurring dreams in which such a list of celebrities appeared - even if they were mentally ill!
Lastly, another feature of this technology is to inflict physical pain on any and every part of my head above the level of the ears. So for example, one day I might feel intense pain in my frontal lobe area, another day its opposite side of my brain; in the back of the head, in front; or any particular area on top of my head! Now granted I am no doctor, but who ever heard of a head pain - going on for a period of 5+ years which could, as it were, travel in such a manner!
Assuming that I am not lying, I submit therefore this example of "celebrity appearances" as convincing proof of the reality this technology. If on the other hand, somebody thinks I am lying, then let them give me a lie detector test! I am more than happy to oblige them
*****
It is very painful to recount all that has happened to me in the last five+ years. Yet as much as I have enumerated here, what I have so far presented HARDLY TELLS THE HALF OF IT! For various reasons, not least of which is keeping this narrative manageable to readers, it has not been possible to go over all that has transpired in the way of violence, harassment and dirty tricks that I have been subject to - the primary purpose of which seems to make me into a basket case, and thus making any complaints I make discreditable. It ought to be mentioned that in early 1993 I was living at 7501 30th N.E. in Seattle, and then in 1995 moved to 1604 NW 70th where I currently reside.
The following are SOME of these other occurrences which might be noted in passing.
While I could not categorically deny this possibility with respect to the back incident, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the throat "zapping" is the work of these hi-tech hooligans. And even with respect to the back incident, I am not all that less certain as to its origin.
During the course of my ordeal, particularly in the first two years (1992-93) I contacted the California State Medical Board, the Los Angeles Police Department, LA Chief of Police Willie Williams, the LA County Hospital Licensing, US Attorney General's Office (both in Los Angeles and Seattle), the ACLU, the Seattle Police Department, the Washington State Medical Board, my representatives in the Washington State Legislature, and private attorneys, all to little or no avail. For the most part the people I have dealt with have been cavalier, callous, curt, illogical, disdainful and simply dishonest. It is only now in 1998, that I am making another focused effort to bring this matter up with a variety of individuals, groups, agencies and organizations.
Not long upon returning from Los Angeles I returned to work as a supply/mail room person in the University of Washington Dept. of Education (Miller Hall) for about six months - where I had been employed previous to going to Los Angeles. Because of experience at the UW Hospital, I did not feel right in my conscience to be continuing to work, and after six months I quit. After this I did not work for a couple months, and then after moving to Ballard I drove a taxi for a few about two years. Finding the strain of working along with what I was going through too much to be saddled with, and at the special prompting of my father, in about the Spring of 1995 I applied for government disability. I received this disability under the premise - though this certainly was not my intention when my claim was presented - of being labeled a nut case. I have been living on this disability since that time. The government appointed psychiatrist I required for approval of my application, Dr. C. Richard Johnson, whether through honest or bad intention, arrived at this finding after a half hour interview with me. I, of course, object to this "diagnosis" - but I am at present simply too poor to contest it, and am in no position to risk losing my only real source of income. It might finally be noted, however, that Dr. Johnson did admit, after my pressing him on the point, that it was possible that he could be wrong.
I might, just to be open-minded, be willing to consider this as a real possibility but for the fact that I have been though so much that ascribing most or all of them to delusions is simply ludicrous. Even if, just for the sake of argument, we say I were suffering from some naturally occurring mental ailment that would hardly explain a fraction of all that I have referred to as taking place, e.g. being punched by a physician, having scars on my inner thigh and abdomen, my cat being found traumatized, etc., etc., etc. As well as this, the mind torture technology that I allege manifests certain characteristics that defy mental illness as an explanation, for example, with respect to the "dream productions", the presence of innumerable celebrities, their nature as propaganda, computer-like graphics, 3-D images, etc.
On top of all this, if I were crazy, why is it I am only crazy about this one thing - namely a catalog of violence being perpetrate against me, and have such a track record of evidence to back much of it up? Prior to 1992 I never had problems remotely like these I have presented here. Why then in that year, should they all the sudden start happening to me in such an overwhelming onslaught? As can be seen from my narrative I do not casually jump to conclusions, but instead use a careful approach by which I simply describe the particular phenomena or event, and if I don't know the answer for its taking place suggest a variety of possible explanations without dogmatically affirming one or the other. Now is this an approach a delusional person would use?
Yet despite all this, I ask no one to simply take me at my word. That someone would initially withhold agreement with me, given the bizarre nature of what I allege is perfectly understandable and not at all strange. However, in all fairness no one can rightly come to a sound conclusion with respect to these matters unless they approach them disinterestedly, honestly, and a close examinations of the details. It is an irresponsible, incompetent, or corrupt person on the other hand who will give a mere few minutes of attention to these matters, and then feel they know enough to casually brush these things all aside as being merely a product of someone's over-wrought imagination.
There is simply far too much that requires explanation.
The simple answer to this, is that there it is it possible in a few rare instances that something I ascribe to deliberate wronging - such as a particular illness for example - might be after all the result of mere happenstance. Nevertheless, having said this, if such has occurred, these, I would maintain, are, at best, isolated exceptions.
This is a very hard question to address, because any suggestion I give must of necessity be based on speculation. Unless these people themselves were to fess up or someone were to testify against them, how after all could I possibly know with certainty as to the who and why given such an extremely bizarre set of circumstances?
Having had much time to reflect on this matter for some time now, however, some POSSIBLE explanations MIGHT be (or might not be!) these:
I am poor and alone, and yet - without meaning to seem boasting - a person possessing a stronger than average intellect, power of understanding, and extensive knowledge base. In many ways this makes me a perfect target were any one of these explanations accurate.
There might be other possibilities, but even so, it must be emphasized that any suggestions at the present time can only be viewed as conjecture.
Or in other words, on the moral and psychological level what could have motivated such numbers of persons to collaborate in an enterprise so perfectly rotten? This is an intriguing question and serves more than a cursory response.
We live in an era when due to the phenomenal changes and advances in technology, moral gray areas have been created for many people. This compounded by the extraordinary rise in selfishness and materialism in the past few decades has often times created situations of the most insane kind of ethical anarchy, which has become the breeding ground from which the behavior and activities I have described ( in large measure anyway) has arisen. When I reflect on the character of perpetrators and collaborators of these violent crimes, the first thing that comes to mind is how they have, individually and collectively, embodied an assortment of various forms of moral decrepitude: (in no particular order) cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice, greed, dishonesty, perversion, and unbridled arrogance. Were these tendencies to be melted down into one type I would call that type a "Machiavellian Joker."
These are people for whom power, whether political, financial or technological, has simply gone to their head to such a pitch as to transform them into amoral, out of control, maniacs. "Power tends to corrupt..."
This may be true, one might say, with respect to some person in positions of great power, but what about the more ordinary type of citizen? Why would they be involved?
The answers to this, simply speaking, would be a combination of: bribery, intimidation, being incited to hatred (say, for example, in the form of scapegoating), and or being brainwashed into believing what they are participating in somehow serves a legitimate purpose.
Violent criminals have often testified about obtaining a sense of sexual gratification while and after having committed serious acts of violence. Such persons far from being ashamed of their misdeeds - even if it were murder - will view what they did as some kind of "achievement." Not long ago Karla Faye Tucker, the famous woman inmate on Texas' death row, described that during and shortly after committing her crimes, she experienced sexual satisfaction and pride at what she had done.
This kind of mentality, I am sure, has played some part in the psychological and emotional motivations of some of these people who have victimized me.
Also the people in charge of these activities operate on two principles, namely that a) excess engenders insensitivity in people, and b) that when people see an isolated person in trouble at the hands of apparent overwhelming force they will abandon that person and not step in to help or object no matter how unjust the situation. In other words "better him then me, plus if I join in against him then this sort of thing will be less likely happen to me."
Though I cannot claim to be able to prove such, I do think there is good reason to believe this to be the case. Certainly, there have been many incidents and circumstances to warrant such a suspicion. But why would they collaborate with such a scheme? Firstly, it ought to be pointed out that I am something of the black sheep of my family - and I don't believe any of my family would contradict this. Secondly, there is a history in my family of my being either harassed, and when I was younger, of being beat up. The latter would sometimes even take place with my father inciting one of my brothers to do this (I have three brothers and one sister). Usually, these disputes arose out of some manner of silliness that became blown way out of proportion. No matter how much I tried to keep to myself, our home was such of constant petty bickering and quarreling that trouble was bound to come my direction - whether in some way it was warranted (such as, for example, my smoking pot) or not.
If then my family became pressured either by bribery or intimidation, it is not that hard for me to conceive of their "selling me out" - at least to some greater or lesser extent. Admittedly, their possible involvement in such a thing as that which I have been discussing undoubtedly shocked and appalled me - it still does - yet I realize at the same time that such betrayal is not entirely unprecedented. In my experience of knowing them, they are not such as to stand firm to ideals or principles when the possibly of reaping monetary gain, or of maintaining a sense of security from worldly harm are at stake. This characterization will not be viewed kindly by some, yet, based on years of knowing them, I think it is essentially a true and accurate one. Having said this, I do not hate my family or blame them for all of that has happened, rather I would view their worser tendencies to have been exploited and taken advantage of by those who are the real perpetrators - as has been the case with many others.
Incidentally, my father is a great one for himself taking, and advocating others take, psychiatric medication.
How could these events have been brought about? This is very difficult for me to say. The simple answer is that I frankly don't know. But here is one possible scenario. Through my writings protesting animal experimentation and making ridiculing amoral science (among other social issues), I gained a name with some people. With the publication in 1990 when my lengthy four part article on silent film actress Mabel Normand I was able to reach an international audience with my work. As with the earlier pieces my writing would be viewed as acerbic by some, particularly in my criticism in that series of a certain well known and established Pulitzer Prize winning theater and film critic, so that once more I gained a name for myself with some people. If we grant as well the hypothetical possibility of my somehow coming into considerable money (say an inheritance, for example), the need for some people to "get me" becomes more evident.
The next step was to embarrass and make a fool out of me, i.e. "teach me a lesson." "These people" did some checking to get some dirt on me, found out for example that I smoked pot and occasionally frequented hookers,. They then, making contacts with my family, proceeded to set me up (with the Bowers girls, for example - see item 8f. below) to entrap and arrange to get me into more wrong doing. When they thought they had gathered enough to make my life miserable they then "let loose."
As to who "they" are, again, I cannot say that I know with absolutely certainly. My GUESS is that they are some VERY rich persons, perhaps locals, with very good friends in Hollywood and the certain important person in high office, who have acted in cahoots with them. But having said this, let me emphasize that this is can only speculation on my part.
Although these people have been fairly vicious and cruel all the way through, I do believe that they would have gone easier on me if only I had been in awe of and bowed in submission to them. Indeed, I would go so far as say they would have liked to be my friend had I been cowed and resigned myself to their "almighty" power. Yet as this way of seeking remedy was for me out of the question, and I continued and have continued to resist and view them with justifiable contempt, it was their conclusion that I only deserved to be "punished" all the more.
The excess and extremism these people have engaged in is explained as a result of satisfying four purposes: a) knocking me senseless, and therefore in some way incapacitating me, b) making my experience so unbelievable that I will be discredited if I tell about it, c) simple sadisim, revenge, frustration on their part, d) numbing people who know about what was going on into insensitivity (i.e. extremism of something makes some people insensitive to its wrongness).
Though I did try on a number of occasions to bring some of these events, the hospital incidences in particular to the proper authorities, I received no real, at best negligible, response.
On top of it, with a story like this, how easy do you think it is to write about it in such a way that people (at least those already unacquainted with this type of skullduggery) will believe me?
Yes, many of my allegations can be proved if someone who was honest would simply go and attempt to investigate them.
Here are some things which might be looked into to help verify my claims.
Perhaps the lesson that has struck me most emphatically as a result of these experiences is that there are some people of wealth and power in this society who simply take it for granted that they are above
law when they take it upon themselves to square off against a poor person - particularly if that poor person happens to be alone and outspoken. And in this these people of power are not altogether mistaken. The doctors, police, and government officials will not go to the aid of the poor person if it means risking the antipathy, or being alienated from , of a given "Mister(s) Rich" and his friends.
As complicated as my story is, there are not a few things that could most easily have been determined if someone had gone to the trouble to investigate. But no one has. At the same time their are some obvious holes in the excuses of my opponents. For example, why was I not given a pharmacological test when I claim to have been poisoned. Even if, for the sake of argument, I was delusional, this would not necessarily have precluded me from the possibility of having been poisoned. So why no test?
While I don't expect people to shed tears for me personally - nor would it really help me at all if that was all they did, I do hope people would take at least a little time to stop and think about what the implications are for their community and society if what I allege is true. If it is me today, who might it be tomorrow? Your child, nephew, or grandchild perhaps? And of what value are our laws and morals with respect to violent crime if in a given instance, they all can be effectively brushed aside simply because the perpetrator consists of a group of very wealthy persons, and the victim, by contrast, is a poor one?
Whenever anyone claims that those in power might, in certain instances, be secretly engaged in wrong doing the typical response is that people who suggest such a thing have psychological problems. Yet for at least a half century numerous cases have been brought to light of wrong doing years after the fact. Again we can look to the MKULTRA program, the Tuskeegee syphilis testing, the cover up surrounding the Gulf war syndrome, and on and on we could go (see Appendix A). Yet no matter how many of these kinds of cases are brought to light - and then only many years later as a result of the zealous work of activists - we are still told, that people in power to do not do bad things. We are told that they are above suspicion; that they can do no serious wrong; that we can invariably trust them; and that anyone who would accuse them of serious wrong doing must of necessity have some kind of mental problems.
It seems to me a person, in our day and age, is a liar or a fool to underestimate the effect power can have in corrupting people. And to pretend that such persons, because of their prestigious position or professional vocation, will be of necessity be prevented from doing serious wrong because of an "inborn" sense of decency and fairness are living in a fantasy world.
We live in cynical, mercenary, and ethically relativistic times, and the idealists or moralists among us, who occupy positions of power, are not the rule, but rather the exception.
Understand this, and you can begin to understand most all of what I have been saying here.
Inasmuch as it is part of my claim that a very possible reason for my being targeted is my capacity to effectively analyze, criticize, and poke fun at wrong doing by some of those in power, and many of the cultural and social myths and wrong doing of our day - which some might resent - I thought it proper to provide here some random samples of my writing on assorted topics. Some of my views might be found disagreeable to some readers. I cannot help this. Yet be this as it may, I do hope that such persons will not be so low and contemptible to use their disapproval of me personally or my views as an excuse to condone or look away from what is nothing less than a shameless and barbaric atrocity.
Lastly, I think it is fairly clear, after reading these pieces (more are available for those that are interested) how much easier it is for my opponents to do these I have described, and in doing them discredit me, rather than for them to have to be able to come up with facts or logic to refute my arguments.
This is known as cheating.
It is not dialectical materialism, nor the working of an amoral universal Will, or the random conflict of matter attempting to supersede itself that is the linking thread of all history. The most fundamental conflict and question which has always confronted us is simply this: Is God? Or is (fill in the blank) God? Despite what some pretend or are deluded into thinking, one cannot get out of making one choice or the other.
This is true of all the world's cultures and civilizations, not just the Judeo-Christian west. God has revealed himself to all the worlds peoples in various ways, and people have had to choose, in one form or other, between God and evil. For myself Christ Jesus is the supreme revelation, and I know this by faith, so I cannot ask you to accept it except on faith as well. Christians is who say all other revelation other than their own is false are much mistaken to think God has not reached out to or provided Himself to others peoples throughout history. For example, God communicates to all of us in logic, (which is an offshoot of Logos for you Christians), in beauty, harmony, compassion, courage and self-sacrifice. Has God completely deprived the non-Judeo Christian world of these? When those professed Christians, as good as their intentions might be, would bully people into thinking that God has only spoken to us through Christ, what do they only succeed in doing but driving people way from Him, or having other embrace him out of the fear of a despot? Christ is not a despot.
Some intellectuals and moderns will be turned off by the approach of faith in God and say, we have heard all this before. I would respond by saying truth is eternal and unchanging, you cannot expect it to come as an anticipated discovery, despite our unquenchable desire for novelty. As well, to say that I believe in God is to humble myself. This is the key. The opposite of which, making oneself God, is the natural consequence of any and all systems which disavow God.
It makes no sense to speak of morality without God, because any system of morality invokes some sort of God as its authority, Reason, Nature, the state, the community, yet as well intention as such proposals might be they are always reduced to the authority of some human being - that is someone who is flawed, and in some degree, however small it might be, given to some degree of wrong doing. Such human based systems of morality invariably become corrupted by human pride because they see nothing superior to itself than human thought and achievement. It is false pride of course that is the downfall of man.
What has atheistic scientific Progress and Enlightenment meant actually done for the happiness of mankind? Despite high ideals whose purpose is to bring us to a civilized morality, the result has been the degradation of life, and often the preaching of a doctrine of meaningless (a doctrine held in ancient times by only by a few scattered isolated philosophers), despair, anarchy and fascism. Nevertheless when we talk about the likes of Voltaire, Nietzche, Herbert Spencer we must not dismiss all that they have to say as bad. A person who loves truth will read them thoughtfully and extract that which is good and discard what is false. Similarly, not all assume that because a person professes faith in God that all they say is true, we must weight with our minds and hearts what they say, preserving what is true and discard what is false. A person of faith, as wise and good as they might be, is a person who believes in God and not God himself, and we ought never lose sight of this very important distinction - something not as obvious to many people as one would desire.
We see cruelty, suffering, poverty and injustice. But what is the greatest true cause of it all? I see a beautiful world, its plant life its, animals, and (at least potentially) people. Yet if there were no people at all on the planet seems that things would work out fairly harmoniously, and such suffering that existed would be relatively infrequent, brief and incidental. It is not God, not Life, not Nature that is the bringer of untold misery and ugliness. Rather it is the ego, greed and arrogance of Man. To rid our selves of what is wrong in the world we must rid ourselves of false human pride, and humbly submit ourselves, without reservation, to God. We do this by loving Him, our Neighbor, and I would add as well logic and truth. It is much mistaken to think liars and fraudulent people can truly love. Who, after all, is the Prince of Lies?
But we cannot legislate or brain wash people into faith. It is something people can only accept it by their own free choice, otherwise it is not faith. As individuals, we must freely choose to pursue that which is good, we must freely to choose to love and stand humble before God. If we make this choice only then can we hope to achieve anything vaguely resembling true peace, justice, happiness and prosperity.
Although 20th century has been as science and technology oriented as any hundreds years, we could hardly call ours an Age of Reason. This would seem to rather oddly imply that one can be irrational and still do and be a devotee of science. No rather than a desire for a reason based search for the order of things, the driving impetus behind science and technology in modern times, has been the dogma of materialism.
Materialism, to those unfamiliar with concept, is the belief that everything can be reduced to some form of matter, and that the actions and events which take place in the world occur as a result of discovered, or potentially ascertainable, physical mechanisms.
Science in the hands of materialists is often notable for its insisting on certain conclusions as being true without a theory having been yet proven - something not untypical for the irrational religious fanatic. Science as practiced by the Nazi, the Orkons, certain evolutionists, are instances of such. The Nazi's, for example believed in racial supremacy and thought such a theory could be demonstrated by science. Consequently, they assigned scientists to research and experiments to prove their belief. While, scientifically speaking, it is perfectly correct to test a theory, the method falls down when counter evidence is censored, ignored or quietly discarded in a waste paper basket. This has all too often been the "science" of the materialist.
Among the founders of modern materialism, were the French philosophes Diderot, D'Alembert, La Mettrie. They were person who often raised quite legitimate objections to the status-quo, but who themselves followed this by propping up as indisputable fact or ways of understanding, specious or error filled notions of their own. Reading about them one gets the somewhat amusing impression of put upon precocious adolescent school children rebelling against the despotic, hypocritical old school master (in this case the then established views on religious faith, particularly as practiced in 18th century France, and the theological philosophy of scholasticism). Though they might have to they may have been quite justified to a significant extent in such rebellion, it did not necessarily follow that they themselves were more wise, or better knew the way to truth.
Materialism as a system of belief have been effectively debunked by the likes of Kant, Bergson, James, Russell to name a prominent few. Very briefly, just a few of the points raised by these thinkers are as follows. a) Materialism cannot account for logic and mathematics. b) Science observes isolated phenomena, whereas materialism is a system of belief not founded in science but philosophical conjecture. c) The only truly honest philosophy of science is a general skepticism overseeing practical conclusion reaching. In this way, materialism presumes more then science can honestly ever claim. d) The adoption of materialism implies the heavy watering down, if not complete abandonment of morality and spirituality. There are others one could list but they would take up more space then I intend to use here. I hope therefore this little list will suffice for this present purpose. Those interested in a deeper examination can study or peruse thinkers such as those mentioned above.
If materialism is so flawed why then has it been so widely embraced? One explanation is that it answers the "common sense" of the unthinking person. It is interesting in this regard that materialism is not merely the faith of would be sophisticates but of many an intellectual Neanderthal. Of course, much of this has to do with simple brain-washing and cajoling. But more deeply then this is a desire to abolish traditional morals and religion (thus excusing or justifying many of the sins they hold dear) and to establish man as God. These are the motives. Materialism then becomes the validating faith. Science, they then maintain, will establish this belief irrefutably.
There is no denying there is a certain mechanistic character to biology. But to say this explains all is an overstatement, and the fatal error of materialism. Some choose materialism because they find themselves very stiff and mechanical, lacking in spirit, positive passion and imagination. Behaviorist B. F. Skinner in the early years of his career tried to be a poet. It was only after failing in this that he turned to a career in science. One is reminded of Hephaestus' and his revenge.
"All people are machines," we might say. "Yet some people are more machine like than others. One finds it is very frequently these latter sort who would insist that we adopt materialism."
Another appeal of materialism is its denying the importance of the individual. If individual can be categorized as mere conglomeration of matter then his significance is substantially, if not entirely, negated. What this view in practice means is that a person's importance, rights, prestige and privileges are largely gauged according to how much money or means of violence are available to them. That this approach should finds ready adherents ought come as no surprise. Some of this now fading century's most notable political and cultural figures fit this sort. These I believe you can name yourself.
Perhaps the most harmful area of materialism on peoples lives has been in the effects of clinical psychology, psychiatry, and psycho-analysis (hereafter encompassed under "clinical psychology.") Clinical psychology, et. al. are materialism's answer to the problem of morality. Human being are things that behave a certain way, and our expert will then attempt to explain such behavior in a manner not much different from explaining the workings of an automobile. No one is permitted, however, is explain how the expert works.
While it is true that clinical psychology is not without its good points, and valuable in cases of very extreme pathology like schizophrenia, dementia, or unhealthy behavior resulting from physical damage to the brain, these are the unusual exception. Most of clinical psychology has about as much credibility as a cult like Scientology. Yet at least Scientology is not instituted by courts and government as an official dogma used to control, character assassinate, and sentence people. Countless numbers of peoples lives have been harmed, ruined or destroyed by these crackpots, nitwits and charlatans - take your pick - who have served as the priesthood of materialism.
One of the most deeply rooted fallacies of clinical psychology is it insistence that behavior is almost completely centered in the brain, while ignoring the role of the heart, soul and spirit. "Oh but we do talk about emotions and morality, even religion" protests the psychologist. Yes, but only enough to dissect and trivialize these things to a point that they become empty, meaningless mechanisms of biology and sociology.
Inasmuch as the heart rules the body, our faith must rule us. A person might be brain dead, yet still live. On the other hand, a person whose heart ceases to pump blood cannot live.
If someone is in need of counseling they ought to see a saintly person or someone who has suffered greatly. So said Bishop Sheen. What priceless wisdom this is beside the folly of someone paying $150 to $300+ an hour talking to a psycho-analyst who, emotionally, cares very little about someone's well being and who will, at the very best, end up only wasting that person's time and money.
Another problem with clinical psychology is the question of what is desirable or healthy behavior? Here we see the obvious infringement of psychology on morality. The practical answer given to this question is that desirable behavior is determined by the state of the community. There are otherwise no absolutes to what is "right" behavior. Indeed for the materialist it makes no sense to talk about "right" in the first place. To him such a term is an unsubstantiated fiction. The implications of such an approach to morality it is not too difficult to imagine.
Legitimate psychology is the province of the philosopher, novelist, painter, dramatist, sculpture, etc. It is a high art, not an application of recipes, formulas, and artificial mechanical rules by someone who merely took some classes and passed some college tests. And even when, say a novelist, reaches a conclusions with respect to an individual, such assessment are assumed to be subjective, and liable to modification and perspective. They provide us insight, but they cannot account for all that a person is. When general conclusions are made about thinking processes, say with a philosopher, they are exactly that - general - and by their nature they cannot be considered exact or precise. The truth legitimate psychologists bring out, we can take or leave as we find them useful or they aid our understanding. No dramatist or painter ever was in a position to prescribe drugs or have someone hospitalized or committed. Yet how much, much more we can learn and benefit from a (merely) "good" artist than even the "greatest" of psychiatrists.
Clinical psychology has given us a large number of terms which have passed into common usage. In the sense that extending the language is worthwhile, this has been, to a considerable extent, a good thing. Yet it can and has become something very harmful when words which at their most proper application are vague approximations are thought to be precise diagnoses requiring little or no qualification. We are all of us familiar with the use of such terms in a way that is disguised as disinterest assessment, but which is usually nothing more a form of cheap name calling.
Clinical psychology proceeds on a method which does not fully examine its own assumptions, and rarely do others bother to examine them either. Listen to a clinical psychologist, speaking generally or in examining an individual, sometime and see if you cannot spot the identify the casual assumptions they are operating under. If you chance to do so you will discover that clinical psychology, in particular psycho-analysis, is by and large really nothing more than a kind of applied subjectivity and half baked science.
Except with respect to cases of those with undeniably overt and serious illness, issues such as what is healthy behavior, or happiness be determined by empirical examination. They are a matter of individual conscience, not societal or expert fiat. As Bertrand Russell said "one cannot derive an ought from a what." In what way then can the supposed science of clinical psychology presume to restore their patients to an "ought," if what they are doing is "science?"
Clearly it is the intent of powerful forces, those who would monopolize people's lives, to endeavor to place an officialdom of experts in charge of deciding what "ought" should be, force this on people, rather than fully recognizing their right to assert their free conscience on the basis of God and faith. In this way a dissident, "trouble maker," a radical, a person of faith, or an individual opposed to government corruption - even though as sane as anyone else - can, by such a system, be discredited as a loony. This would-be usurpation of morality then, is primary reason for the establishment of clinical psychology as the established cult of our society (again, that is those forms of clinical psychology not related to extreme pathologies).
Life is not a "THING." Yet if we embrace materialism this is the necessary implication of such a belief.
There are other ways of 'knowing," IN ADDITION, to empirical knowledge. There is the mutual understanding, in not strictly knowledge per se, made possible by logic and mathematics. Previously I mentioned faith, which again, is something people are free to accept or reject. As well, there is intuition. There is knowledge of the heart. All these latter, are of course subjective, yet what one single person does to some extent form their judgment of the basis of them - including the materialists? And while we can't appeal to them in objective discourse, the same way we can appeal to empirical knowledge, does it necessarily follow that they can have NO validity?
The day to day practice and custom of all of humanity, since time immemorial, leaves the answer to this question beyond dispute.
"Not all men are vicious; some overcome vice; some, the better sort, are never attacked by it; and those who master it win by means of that in them which is not material." - Plotinus
What are the value of honors, prestige, celebrity in a culture where fair play and real competition are stifled or non-existent? Does anyone of intelligence actually believe that all those persons touted as celebrities and our cultural leaders - whether in government, business, the arts, media - obtained such positions primarily by dint of merit? Do we not after all really live in the a system not that dissimilar to what they had in the former Soviet Union where party membership, and party decisions, are the basis of (whether governmental, cultural, or otherwise) societal structure and power - not popular consensus, proven ability, or open competition?
Personally, I find it very hard to believe that people who are presented
as the nation's best and brightest are truly that. Rather they occupy the
post of prestige they do according to their position in the "party" - a system
based on money, behind-kissing, and conformity to an arbitrary, monopolistic
order. Is it therefore not often times the case that to be honored in this
culture, far from being to a persons credit, is, in reality, to their disgrace
- both as a citizen and human being.
For most of history the vast majority of ancient cultures engaged in some form of blood sacrifice, that is the offering of a murdered victim, be it human or animal, to some god or demon. This has gone on for thousands of years, while by contrast the idea of not openly making such offerings is a relatively new one.
Is it possible this need to appease the god or demon by means of blood sacrifice has not, by and large, really gone away or disappeared at all, but that it is still practiced, although in more subtle forms, and that the source for such behavior still lies deep, latent in the psychological and spiritual natures of individuals and indeed whole peoples?
Take revenge. Animals have no notion of such an instinct, yet we humans are all of us are quite familiar with it. Where did it come from?
If, for example, we go look at Greek drama, oftentimes a character in a play who desires revenge is motivated to this position in order to propitiate a god, as much as to satisfy some personal rage. We don't have gods today, at least not in the traditional sense, yet it is as if when people want revenge it is to appease some angry demon. "Justice demands it," (i.e. revenge) you might hear someone say. Is it possible then that this tendency for revenge is the result of thousands of years of inculcation and conditioning, handed down, spiritually and biologically, to us through the experience of generations upon generations of our ancient ancestors?
One can peruse much ancient literature and find many instances where there might sacrifices on the level of an extravaganza. Hundreds of bulls, sheep or goats would gathered for a ceremony, slaughtered and put up on altars as offerings to deities.
What might the effect of thousands of years of such practices had on the human psyche and soul? Imagine if you will generations of your ancestor attending such a spectacles and the effect it would have on their view of life and the world. There was hardly a place on the globe among primitive societies where such rituals were not a regularly accepted thing.
Did the forces which prompted such "holocausts" then simply disappear? Will we say that what moved or ancestors to behave in this manner has vanished from us entirely. Or has the need to appease the god or demon taken on different form when we talk about revenge, indulge cruelty, eating animals and experimenting on them, cruel spectacles of public scapegoating, child abuse, human experimental victims, victims of mass slaughters, etc.
The ancient Israelites it will be pointed out had animal sacrifices. But could this not be view as a step forward, that is contrasted with the immolation of human children carried on by their neighboring cultures - and in that relative sense a major kind of progress?
Among the very first to question the wisdom of such blood offerings and sacrifices were the early Greek philosophers Heraclitus and Xenophanes. Yet there views had little impact beyond the circle of some enlightened Greeks thinkers.
It was only when Jesus Christ offered himself as the ultimate and final blood sacrifice that this practice - in its overt form - really began to die out.
It would have died out completely to this day had civilization fully and wholeheartedly accepted him, and adopted his teaching as well. But, unfortunately, people are reluctant to do this.
And the killing goes on. Not in its overt, traditional form, but working through our latent consciousness.
People will not be fully cured of these tendency, this need to appease the god or demon, until they truly accept, worship and embrace Jesus Christ - and his teachings. Any and all advances in modern technology and science, or in social or political reform, cannot change this fact.
But people there are people who will not accept Christ Jesus. There are people who refuse to accept him.
And so it is - whether on the streets, in the laboratories, in the abattoirs, in households, in the villages - the killing goes on and the slaughter continues.
|