From: 00kjfehn@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Conspiracy to Destroy the Earth?
Date: 9 Nov 92 06:52:31 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

I found this in alt.slack...

It has some interesting sort of UL twist to it...

[commentary deleted]
>   Anyhow, after we separated, a few minutes later I ran into *another*
> guy, who was hurrying past until he saw me and stopped to say hello. I
> recognized him after a few moments: we had spoken in a cafe a few times -
> then he was telling me of the necessity of space colonization, so the
> human species doesn't have all of its eggs in one basket. We talked a bit,
> and then a bit longer (but it was mostly him talking and me listening),
> and I will have a go at summarizing what he told me:
>   He is now homeless - but he has a list of dozens of addresses that he
> tries to visit every day. Basically his aim is still to try to save some
> fraction of the human race from extinction, but his preferred means have
> changed and this time I got to hear more of his worldview. He began by
> saying how we're all living in a sick society, citing as an example an
> incident within the last few days where he had seen a street kid carrying
> several ?ounces of pure speed, who was handing it out to anybody who
> wanted it. "Now how do you think that sort of stuff gets on the streets?"
> he asked. After a few other examples, he went on to say that this overall
> sickness was largely attributable to universal corruption - "the police,
> the government minister, the US senate". "Kids don't believe the teacher,
> they don't believe the minister, they don't believe their parents. If you
> lie to a five or six-year-old, they may not really have an idea of what a
> lie is just yet, but they know they're being deceived."
>   He went on to say that a state of massive denial is near-universal -
> people don't want to see how bad things are, how bad they are getting, or
> what is just around the corner - which, he said, is nuclear Armageddon. He
> recounted a few stories about the way geopolitics supposedly really works;
> eg the Russians saying to the US, "OK, we give in, we surrender, just so
> we don't have to fight a war. But as the price you're going to have to
> support all these people that *we've* been supporting" - (I think he was
> talking about ex-Soviet Central Asia here) - "that's the price *you'll*
> have to pay for getting us to drink Coca-Cola and accept the rest of your
> shit." 
>   For me the most interesting geopolitical story he told was his version
> of China 1989. The US began by trying to entice China, with things like
> aerospace technology transfer, and later exchange student programs, all
> carefully calculated to try to spread the American system. "Several
> thousand exchange students were sent to China, and there were no
> restrictions on what they could take - sports cars, flashy clothes - and
> of course your ordinary Chinese hasn't seen anything like this..." (This
> is all meant to suggest what he said of course - it's not a word-for-word
> quote, I didn't have a tape recorder running.) Essentially, their presence
> was such a stimulus to the Chinese students, who in turn were a stimulus
> to the urban workers, that the 1949 "democracy movement" turns out to have
> been the result of American conspiracy. So *then*, the Chinese government
> "made a really heavy decision: they sent in the tanks, and they shot their
> own children, in order to send the message, that they were prepared to use
> the bomb." (ie "if they were prepared to do that to their own children,
> what would they do to America?") This action apparently reined in the
> interference of the American government in China.
>   Later on he briefly praised the virtues of Chinese civilization - "4000
> years; America is just 200 years old, it's just a little brat", and
> "they've never invaded or raped and plundered another people, they've been
> nonaggressive for four thousand years"; he even advised me to go to the
> library today and read some books on Chinese history. He then contrasted
> East with West, saying "the fucking American government, it's out of
> control..."
>   I don't know how clear all this sounds, but anyhow, his essential
> allegation is that there is an inner core of extremely powerful people in
> America who are planning to launch the missiles soon (when he mentioned
> this he would look at his watch, and say things like, "I hope we have at
> least two years" - I don't know why he looked to the watch, perhaps for
> dramatic emphasis). He told me that because of a 50-year secrecy act of
> some sort, you can't find out, say, who the first 300 people in the CIA
> were, since it is held to be a matter of national security. (This is where
> he gave me a recap of Oliver North's appearance before the US Senate -
> saying how North had said he was ordered to do what he did, but he
> couldn't say who gave him his orders, since he would then be executed for
> treason, and so the Senate agreed because North was thus following the
> letter of the law stating that you can't divulge these names.) And
> presumably it is these people who are the only ones who have the capacity
> to launch the missiles - and I think he assumes that they intend to do so
> because he can't see any other reason for continuing to produce them. And
> the fact that nobody even *knows* who the power-wielders are - he said -
> was why he was looking for schemes to make a safe haven for part of
> humanity to make it through a nuclear apocalypse, rather than trying to
> avert the missile-firing altogether.
>   He used the phrase "the serpent's head" a few times, as in "You have to
> find the serpent's head and chop it off, if you want to do it that way."
> He said thousands of people around the world were trying to find out who
> these top people were, but "they went underground 20 years ago... And
> these are really ruthless people. They shot their own president on TV,
> after all!" I am pretty sure he said at one point that he knew seven
> people who had been shot dead in the course of such investigations (as he
> was talking, he was contantly looking around us to see if anyone was
> approaching). Whether these seven were people he knew personally, I'm not
> sure. 
>   I briefly mentioned the Internet, saying "couldn't you reach all these
> millions of people you say you can't work out how to reach, by putting
> your information out there". In trying to explain the net, I said that it
> was a computer network linking mostly universities all over the world. He
> said, in effect, that it was still probably not enough - that you could
> tell all the college students the truth, and people would just panic
> ("You'll probably start to panic when you realize how bad thngs are", he
> warned me at the beginning; and indeed I was shivering violently
> throughout a lot of the conversation, but I think that was because I was
> standing there in the cold in just shirt, shorts and thongs.) "The
> students might try to start a revolution, but in that case the people who
> run the show would just go ahead with their plans now, rather than later."
> "On the bases where they have these weapons stationed, once they're
> getting ready to launch, those places are completely sealed off - no
> communications from the outside world. They wouldn't know what was going on."
> This is why he emphasized the necessity of finding "the head of the
> serpent" - if you knew who the conspirators were, and got the names to the
> right people, they could perhaps stage a coup and head the thing off. But
> he saw no way of finding out who they were. When I said, well isn't it
> better to give it a go, rather than say, I can't stop the bombs from going
> off, I'll try to save a few at least; he said no - if people are gong to
> die, you should let them die peacefully, rather than have them spend their
> last days in panic and terror. After all, when "5000" bombs went off it
> would be "like the planet passing through the sun" - "all the oxygen in
> the atmosphere being destroyed". I had to this point not expressed any
> criticisms of what he had said, simply in order to find out what he might
> say, but the idea that after such an event everything would be over and
> done with stuck me as absurd. "It might be over quickly in the major
> population centres, where the bombs go off directly overhead, but if
> you're outside..." In any case, I didn't get much of a chance to argue
> this, because at this point *another* guy happened along, who overheard us
> talking about bombs, and said "You have more to worry about than atomic
> bombs these days... There's the electromagnetic bomb." When I asked him
> what that might be, he said it "used" electromagnetic radiation to "turn
> one atom into another". "It's a bit like alchemy." I asked him for
> details, and he said "It changes the number of electrons that the atom can
> hold... You happen to have run into a drunken physicist." The first guy
> said, "Oh well, I don't want to hear about it if there's something even
> worse, it doesn't change our situation..." and said something about the
> importance of dealing with the conspiracy behind the weapons machine. The
> second guy said, "Oh well, if you're talking about conspiracies, the
> military-industrial complex isn't the *real* one", and I said, "So what
> is? The Committee of 300?" but it turned out he just meant the Masons.
> "You don't get anywhere in US politics without being a Mason." (The first
> guy had already said that *they* have lookouts everywhere, in the fof
> organizations which are backing or banking the group which is planning to
> use the bombs: such groups include the Illuminati, the Masons, the Roman
> Catholic Church...)
>   At this point I coldn't stand the cold any more and didn't want to
> pursue any of these matters right there and then, partly because I wasn't
> sure *where* I would want to start asking for clarifications,
> justifications, etc. So I simply got the second guy's number (I haven't
> yet phoned him; it's now only 9 am); and I may well run into the first guy
> again, if I keep my eyes open.
>   Okay. I have basically attempted to describe what I heard without
> inserting too many critical comments. About the only factor I haven't
> mentioned so far, I think, is that the first guy also said a few times that
> he thought the whole thing was probably Satanic ("this is the devil's
> planet now"), which I guess means that he has an outlook similar to that
> expressed in (for example) the Australian book "The Cosmic Conspiracy",
> which alleges that human geopolitics is a battleground for cosmic forces
> of Good and Evil (not a rare claim, actually). Anyhow, if you inhabit a
> reality-tunnel anywhere near that of consensus reality, you can probably
> think of lots of reasons not to believe this world-picture. I know I can
> think of all sorts of arguments against the idea of a (possibly satanic)
> conspiracy to bring about a nuclear apocalypse. But, I also recognize that
> my major motivation in thinking up counter-arguments is simply that I do
> not *want* to believe in such a conspiracy, since to put it mildly it
> makes life somewhat more difficult. What future for extropian hopes such
> as indefinite life extension wheneverything's gong to go up in a few years
> anyway? And the problem is, how can anyone who is *not* a member of the
> hypothetical conspiracy prove that the conspiracy is *not* there, unless
> they actually are part of the "inner core"?
>   You can remove the part about Satanism and still retain the idea of a
> conspiracy whose aim is global genocide. This idea I have actually seen
> expressed before, in the final chapter of "High Weirdness by Mail", of all
> places. In stark contrast to the cuttingly sarcastic reviews which make up
> 90% of the rest of the book, that whole last chapter is devoted to
> excerpts from a newsletter called "Further Connections" put out by Waves
> Forest (PO Box 768, Monterey CA 93940, USA). Here are Ivan Stang's comments:
>   "One of the Robin Hoods of suppressed data. Anyone who wants to
> seriously look into the possibility that major scientific breakthroughs
> ARE being hidden by THEM owe it to themselves to send for his info, which
> includes listings and addresses for many fringe research groups not
> covered in this book. Not funny at all... horrifying, yes;
> outlandish-sounding, HELL yes; but funny, no. Very persuasive, sobering,
> almost poetic essay/rants with attached bibliographies on the various
> technologies and metaphysical discoveries. Be prepared, however, for some
> real shocks to your programming. $4 should cover expenses for the first
> mailing, which contains more than 400 sources. A penny a source, folks.
> You gonna pass it up? *Huh, boy?*" (I have sent away for this mailing
> myself; no response so far.)
>   And some words from Waves Forest:
>   
>   Imagine you are among only a few hundred masters of a whole planet's
> resources, with five billion slaves surronding you, many in bad shape
> because you've mishandled some resources, many others starting to wake up
> to the situation. In your attempts to strengthen your psition you have
> seriously mistreated a lot of them, or hired others to do so, and you are
> slowly losing the struggle to keep the extent of your crimes and cruelties
> a secret.
>   If you were in such a position, would it feel safe to share with all
> citizens the advanced technolgies developed in your top-secret "defense"
> laboratories? Some of these discoveries could free mankind from dependence
> on your resource monopolies, and provide tools for a mass uprising and
> overthrow of your regimes.
> 
>   When a man does something his fellows would strongly object to, and
> decides to keep the misdeed a secret, he mentally withdraws somewhat from
> the others, because now he has to watch himself to make sure doesn't
> mention what he did. More misdeeds bring on further withdrawal. The
> intensity of the misdeeds and the secrecy surrounding them can increase to
> astonishing proprtions.
>   It has actually reached the point where certain very powerful men, to
> ensure their presonal safety and the perpetuation of their empires, plan
> to kill off two thirds of the world's population and overtly enslave the rest.
>   Since most of the general public just somehow doesn't feel right about
> genocide, the blatant exterminations of the '30s and '40s have been
> replaced by artificially induced wars, plagues, accidents, and "natural"
> disasters.
>   Earhquakes can be induced artificially by precise placement and timing
> of nuclear "tests". The shock waves sprad out over the globe, then
> recombine at various harmonic intervals around the sphere to deliver a
> strong jolt at the desired location within forty-eight hours of the
> initial blast.
> 
>   So there it is again, the idea that "certain very powerful men... plan
> to kill off two thirds of the world's population and overtly enslave the
> rest." Hell, I recall a similar idea - although the motivation here was a
> religious/occult hope of achieving immortality - on the part of the Saures
> in "Illuminatus!"
>   So what I want to know is this. Where did this idea originate? Does
> anyone know more about Waves Forest, about the secret 600 at the top of
> the CIA, about the logistical problems of organizing such a conspiracy, of
> what forms this idea has taken, who communicates it, who argues against it?
> 
> PS: If the "first guy" of my story is in fact wholly correct, and some
> member of the Conspiracy reads this post, then according to the argument
> he gave the bombs will be set off now rather than later...
> 
> PPS: I have just recalled another anecdote from the same guy's monologue.
> He said he approached a few US sailors (on shore leave here, I presume)
> with a similar set of claims and ideas, and asked what they thought of it;
> and one guy said, "Well, if I was to give you my opinion I would probably
> agree, and probably so wold my friends, but we can't give you opinions
> because when we join the Navy we sign a little piece of paper that
> forbids us from expressing political opinions, and we'll get shot for
> treason if we violate that paper..." This is one claim (amongst many!) of
> which I am sceptical - can anyone confirm or deny this? I can imagine a
> courtmartial, dishonourable discharge, etc - but execution?