A helicopter flies over a section of Baltimore affected by riots. Recent unrest in Baltimore is the legacy of a century of federal, state and local policies designed to “quarantine Baltimore’s black population in isolated slums.”

Historian Says Don’t ‘Sanitize’ How Our Government Created Ghettos
interview with Richard Rothstein / May 14, 2015

Fifty years after the repeal of Jim Crow, many African-Americans still live in segregated ghettos in the country’s metropolitan areas. Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, has spent years studying the history of residential segregation in America.

We have a myth today that the ghettos in metropolitan areas around the country are what the Supreme Court calls ‘de-facto’ — just the accident of the fact that people have not enough income to move into middle class neighborhoods or because real estate agents steered black and white families to different neighborhoods or because there was white flight,” Rothstein tells Fresh Air’s Terry Gross. “It was not the unintended effect of benign policies,” he says. “It was an explicit, racially purposeful policy that was pursued at all levels of government, and that’s the reason we have these ghettos today and we are reaping the fruits of those policies.”

On using the word “ghetto”
One of the ways in which we forget our history is by sanitizing our language and pretending that these problems don’t exist. We have always recognized that these were “ghettos.” A ghetto is, as I define it, a neighborhood which is homogeneous and from which there are serious barriers to exit. That’s the technical definition of a ghetto. Robert Weaver, the first African-American member of the Cabinet appointed by President Johnson as his secretary of Housing and Urban Development, described many of the policies that I’ve described today in a book he published in 1948 calledThe Negro Ghetto. The Kerner Commission referred to the ghetto. This is a term that we no longer use because we’re embarrassed to talk about it, and we need to confront our history and stop sanitizing our language and talk openly about what we’ve done as a nation and what we need to do to undo it. And we can’t talk openly if we’re going to use euphemisms instead of being explicit about what the reality is.

On how the New Deal’s Public Works Administration led to the creation of segregated ghettos
Its policy was that public housing could be used only to house people of the same race as the neighborhood in which it was located, but, in fact, most of the public housing that was built in the early years was built in integrated neighborhoods, which they razed and then built segregated public housing in those neighborhoods. So public housing created racial segregation where none existed before. That was one of the chief policies.

On the Federal Housing Administration’s overtly racist policies in the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s
The second policy, which was probably even more effective in segregating metropolitan areas, was the Federal Housing Administration, which financed mass production builders of subdivisions starting in the ’30s and then going on to the ’40s and ’50s in which those mass production builders, places like Levittown [New York] for example, and Nassau County in New York and in every metropolitan area in the country, the Federal Housing Administration gave builders like Levitt concessionary loans through banks because they guaranteed loans at lower interest rates for banks that the developers could use to build these subdivisions on the condition that no homes in those subdivisions be sold to African-Americans.

On real estate agents’ practice of “blockbusting”
In the ghettos, government policy — municipal policy, for example — denied adequate services, garbage wasn’t collected frequently. African-Americans were crowded into neighborhoods in the ghetto because so much other housing was closed to them and as a result, housing prices in ghettos were much higher than similar housing in white areas. Rents were much higher than similar housing in white areas … because you had a smaller supply. It’s the basic laws of supply and demand. … So this created slum conditions. So when African-Americans managed to break out of those slums and buy a home in a neighboring area, whites could be persuaded that slum conditions were going to be brought with them. So the real estate agents would go into these neighborhoods and try to panic white families into selling their homes cheap to the real estate agents.

They used techniques: They would recruit blacks from the ghetto to walk around the neighborhood pushing baby carriages. They would phone call families in the white area and ask for names that were stereotypically African-American. … All intended to give the impression that this was rapidly turning into another black slum. The white families who panicked would then sell their homes to the real estate agents or the speculators at prices far below what they were worth. The speculators would then turn around and resell the homes to African-Americans at far more than they were worth because of the restricted supply, and this policy was called “blockbusting” and it was a policy that was condoned by state licensing boards throughout the country.

“Because Maryland was one of the few regions of the colonial United States that was already predominantly Roman Catholic, the apostolic prefecture was elevated to become the Diocese of Baltimore—the first diocese in the United States—on November 6, 1789.”

From Ferguson to Baltimore: The Fruits of Government-Sponsored Segregation
by Richard Rothstein  /  April 29, 2015

In Baltimore in 1910, a black Yale law school graduate purchased a home in a previously all-white neighborhood. The Baltimore city government reacted by adopting a residential segregation ordinance, restricting African Americans to designated blocks. Explaining the policy, Baltimore’s mayor proclaimed, “Blacks should be quarantined in isolated slums in order to reduce the incidence of civil disturbance, to prevent the spread of communicable disease into the nearby White neighborhoods, and to protect property values among the White majority.” Thus began a century of federal, state, and local policies to quarantine Baltimore’s black population in isolated slums—policies that continue to the present day, as federal housing subsidy policies still disproportionately direct low-income black families to segregated neighborhoods and away from middle class suburbs.

Whenever young black men riot in response to police brutality or murder, as they have done in Baltimore, we’re tempted to think we can address the problem by improving police quality—training officers not to use excessive force, implementing community policing, encouraging police to be more sensitive, prohibiting racial profiling, and so on. These are all good, necessary, and important things to do. But such proposals ignore the obvious reality that the protests are not really (or primarily) about policing. In 1968, following hundreds of similar riots nationwide, a commission appointed by President Lyndon Johnson concluded that “[o]ur nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal” and that “[s]egregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans.” The Kerner Commission (headed by Illinois Governor Otto Kerner) added that “[w]hat white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”

In the last 50 years, the two societies have become even more unequal. Although a relatively small black middle class has been permitted to integrate itself into mainstream America, those left behind are more segregated now than they were in 1968. When the Kerner Commission blamed “white society” and “white institutions,” it employed euphemisms to avoid naming the culprits everyone knew at the time. It was not a vague white society that created ghettos but government—federal, state, and local—that employed explicitly racial laws, policies, and regulations to ensure that black Americans would live impoverished, and separately from whites. Baltimore’s ghetto was not created by private discrimination, income differences, personal preferences, or demographic trends, but by purposeful action of government in violation of the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. These constitutional violations have never been remedied, and we are paying the price in the violence we saw this week.

Following the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, last August, I wrote The Making of Ferguson, a history of the state-sponsored segregation in St. Louis County that set the stage for police-community hostility there. Virtually every one of the racially explicit federal, state, and local policies of segregation pursued in St. Louis has a parallel in policies pursued by government in Baltimore. In 1917, the U.S. Supreme Court found ordinances like Baltimore’s 1910 segregation rule unconstitutional, not because they abridged African Americans’ rights to live where they could afford, but because they restricted the property rights of (white) homeowners to sell to whomever they wished.

Baltimore’s mayor responded by instructing city building inspectors and health department investigators to cite for code violations anyone who rented or sold to blacks in predominantly white neighborhoods. Five years later, the next Baltimore mayor formalized this approach by forming an official Committee on Segregation and appointing the City Solicitor to lead it. The committee coordinated the efforts of the building and health departments with those of the real estate industry and white community organizations to apply pressure to any whites tempted to sell or rent to blacks. Members of the city’s real estate board, for example, accompanied building and health inspectors to warn property owners not to violate the city’s color line.

In 1925, 18 Baltimore neighborhood associations came together to form the “Allied Civic and Protective Association” for the purpose of urging both new and existing property owners to sign restrictive covenants, which committed owners never to sell to an African American. Where neighbors jointly signed a covenant, any one of them could enforce it by asking a court to evict an African American family who purchased property in violation. Restrictive covenants were not merely private agreements between homeowners; they frequently had government sanction. In Baltimore, the city-sponsored Committee on Segregation organized neighborhood associations throughout the city that could circulate and enforce such covenants.
chicagoA 1939 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation “Residential Security Map” of Chicago shows discrimination against low-income and minority neighborhoods. The residents of the areas marked in red (representing “hazardous” real-estate markets) were denied FHA-backed mortgages.

Supplementing the covenants, African Americans were prevented from moving to white neighborhoods by explicit policy of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which barred suburban subdivision developers from qualifying for federally subsidized construction loans unless the developers committed to exclude African Americans from the community. The FHA also barred African Americans themselves from obtaining bank mortgages for house purchases even in suburban subdivisions which were privately financed without federal construction loan guarantees. The FHA not only refused to insure mortgages for black families in white neighborhoods, it also refused to insure mortgages in black neighborhoods—a policy that came to be known as “redlining,” because neighborhoods were colored red on government maps to indicate that these neighborhoods should be considered poor credit risks as a consequence of African Americans living in (or even near) them.

Unable to get mortgages, and restricted to overcrowded neighborhoods where housing was in short supply, African Americans either rented apartments at rents considerably higher than those for similar dwellings in white neighborhoods, or bought homes on installment plans. These arrangements, known as contract sales, differed from mortgages because monthly payments were not amortized, so a single missed payment meant loss of a home, with no accumulated equity. In the Atlantic last year, Ta-Nehisi Coates described how this system worked in Chicago. In summarizing her book, Family Properties, Rutgers University historian Beryl Satter described it this way:

Because black contract buyers knew how easily they could lose their homes, they struggled to make their inflated monthly payments. Husbands and wives both worked double shifts. They neglected basic maintenance. They subdivided their apartments, crammed in extra tenants and, when possible, charged their tenants hefty rents. …

White people observed that their new black neighbors overcrowded and neglected their properties. Overcrowded neighborhoods meant overcrowded schools; in Chicago, officials responded by “double-shifting” the students (half attending in the morning, half in the afternoon). Children were deprived of a full day of schooling and left to fend for themselves in the after-school hours.

These conditions helped fuel the rise of gangs, which in turn terrorized shop owners and residents alike. In the end, whites fled these neighborhoods, not only because of the influx of black families, but also because they were upset about overcrowding, decaying schools and crime. They also understood that the longer they stayed, the less their property would be worth. But black contract buyers did not have the option of leaving a declining neighborhood before their properties were paid for in full—if they did, they would lose everything they’d invested in that property to date. Whites could leave—blacks had to stay.

The contract buying system was commonplace in Baltimore. Its existence was solely due to the federal government’s policy of denying mortgages to African Americans, in either black or white neighborhoods. Nationwide, black family incomes are now about 60 percent of white family incomes, but black household wealth is only about 5 percent of white household wealth. In Baltimore and elsewhere, the distressed condition of African American working- and lower-middle-class families is almost entirely attributable to federal policy that prohibited black families from accumulating housing equity during the suburban boom that moved white families into single-family homes from the mid-1930s to the mid-1960s—and thus from bequeathing that wealth to their children and grandchildren, as white suburbanites have done.

As I described in the Making of Ferguson, the federal government maintained a policy of segregation in public housing nationwide for decades. This was as true in northeastern cities like New York as it was in border cities like Baltimore and St. Louis. In 1994, civil rights groups sued the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), alleging that HUD had segregated its public housing in Baltimore and then, after it had concentrated the poorest African American families in projects in the poorest neighborhoods, HUD and the city of Baltimore demolished the projects, and purposely relocated the former residents into other segregated black neighborhoods. An eventual settlement required the government to provide vouchers to former public housing residents for apartments in integrated neighborhoods, and supported this provision with counseling and social services to ensure that families’ moves to integrated neighborhoods would have a high likelihood of success. Although the program is generally considered a model, it affects only a small number of families, and has not substantially dismantled Baltimore’s black ghetto.

In 1970, declaring that the federal government had established a “white noose” around ghettos in Baltimore and other cities, HUD Secretary George Romney proposed denying federal funds for sewers, water projects, parkland, or redevelopment to all-white suburbs that resisted integration by maintaining exclusionary zoning ordinances (that prohibited multi-unit construction) or by refusing to accept subsidized moderate-income or public low-income housing. In the case of Baltimore County, he withheld a sewer grant that had previously been committed, because of the county’s policies of residential segregation. It was a very controversial move, but Romney got support from Vice President Spiro Agnew, who had been frustrated by unreasonable suburban resistance to integration and mixed income developments when he had been the Baltimore County Executive and governor of Maryland.

In a 1970 speech to the National Alliance of Businessmen, Agnew attacked attempts to solve the country’s racial problems by pouring money into the inner city as had been done in the Johnson administration. Agnew said that he flatly rejected the assumption that “because the primary problems of race and poverty are found in the ghettos of urban America, the solutions to these problems must also be found there… Resources needed to solve the urban poverty problem—land, money, and jobs—exist in substantial supply in suburban areas, but are not being sufficiently utilized in solving inner-city problems.” President Richard Nixon eventually restrained Romney, HUD’s integration programs were abandoned, Romney himself was forced out as HUD Secretary, and little has been done since to solve the urban poverty problem with the substantial resources that exist in the suburbs.

PDF of The Atlantic’s April 1972 profile of the Contract Buyers League.

Ten years ago, during the subprime lending boom, banks and other financial institutions targeted African Americans for the marketing of subprime loans. The loans had exploding interest rates and prohibitive prepayment penalties, leading to a wave of foreclosures that forced black homeowners back into ghetto apartments and devastated the middle class neighborhoods to which these families had moved. The City of Baltimore sued Wells Fargo Bank, presenting evidence that the bank had established a special unit staffed exclusively by African American bank employees who were instructed to visit black churches to market subprime loans. The bank had no similar practice of marketing such loans through white institutions. These policies were commonplace nationwide, but federal bank examiners responsible for supervising lending practices made no attempt to intervene. When a similar suit was filed in Cleveland, a federal judge observed that because mortgage lending is so heavily regulated by the federal and state governments, “there is no question that the subprime lending that occurred in Cleveland was conduct which ‘the law sanctions’.”

Baltimore, not at all uniquely, has experienced a century of public policy designed, consciously so, to segregate and impoverish its black population. A legacy of these policies is the rioting we have seen in Baltimore. Whether after the 1967 wave of riots that led to the Kerner Commission report, after the 1992 Los Angeles riot that followed the acquittal of police officers who beat Rodney King, or after the recent wave of confrontations and vandalism following police killings of black men, community leaders typically say, properly, that violence isn’t the answer and that after peace is restored, we can deal with the underlying problems. We never do so. Certainly, African American citizens of Baltimore were provoked by aggressive, hostile, even murderous policing, but Spiro Agnew had it right. Without suburban integration, something barely on today’s public policy agenda, ghetto conditions will persist, giving rise to aggressive policing and the riots that inevitably ensue. Like Ferguson before it, Baltimore will not be the last such conflagration the nation needlessly experiences.

Misteaching History on Racial Segregation: Ignoring purposeful discriminatory government policies of the past contributes to the ongoing achievement gap
by Richard Rothstein   /   December 12, 2013

This article first appeared in School Administrator.

To much of the public, it’s self-evident that public schools are “failing” when large achievement gaps separate middle-class white and low-income minority youth. Why, they ask, should skin color or family earnings affect whether children may benefit from effective teachers? Of course, minority or low-income status does not itself depress achievement, but on average, disadvantaged children achieve at lower levels. International tests confirm this in every industrialized country. Why is this so? Poor nutrition, inadequate health care, substandard housing and unstable families — all are factors that contribute to a child’s inability to learn at high levels. Each of these well-documented social class differences between middle-class and low-income students has a small effect on average performance, but their cumulative effect explains much of the achievement gap.

“Because of its strong Catholic identity and having been the mother diocese of many dioceses in the midwest, the archdiocese was often referred to as “the Rome of the west

Isolation’s Impact
The negative effects of racial and economic disadvantage are exacerbated when low-income black students are concentrated in segregated schools. Remediation becomes routine, and teachers must focus more on discipline and less on instruction, leaving them little time to challenge those exceptional students who can overcome personal, family and community hardships that typically interfere with learning. This isolation is a problem not only of poverty but of race. In urban areas, low-income white students are more likely integrated into middle-class neighborhoods and less likely to attend schools filled with other disadvantaged students. Nationwide, low-income black students’ isolation has increased. The share of black students attending schools that are less than 10 percent white increased from less than 34 percent in 1989 to 39 percent in 2007. In 1989, black students typically attended schools where 43 percent of students were low-income; by 2007, this grew to 59 percent. (Statistics provided by a 2009 report by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, Schools with poorly performing students cannot be turned around while they remain racially and socioeconomically isolated. The problems these students bring to school are so overwhelming that policy should never assume that even the most skilled faculty can overcome them. Schools certainly can make a difference, but they cannot fully erase damage caused by concentrated poverty and racial isolation.

Regulated Housing
Throughout most of the 20th century, federal policy created black ghettos in metropolitan areas by placing public housing for white and black families in separate neighborhoods; guaranteeing low-cost mortgages for white (but not black) families to move from this public housing and from other urban neighborhoods to all-white suburbs of single-family homes; establishing bank and savings and loan regulatory policies that included racial discrimination as part of sound lending policy; granting tax exemptions to organizations formed for the purpose of enforcing racial barriers and to other organizations (and churches) for whom this was also a purpose; and deliberately routing federal highways through cities to create racial barriers and segregation. State governments heavily regulated a real estate industry that sold and rented homes to whites in neighborhoods designated for whites, and (if at all) to blacks in neighborhoods designated for blacks. State prosecutors and local police tolerated, even encouraged, mob violence against African Americans who dared try to move into white-only neighborhoods.

High Court Ruling
Sociological, economic and historical research demonstrates that black student performance improves with integration, without any loss for whites. However, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 ruling, prohibited districts from taking race into account when assigning pupils to schools in an attempt to integrate. The decision arose from cases in Seattle, Wash., and Louisville, Ky., where the school districts used race as a factor to achieve diversity when assigning students to schools. Expressing the plurality opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that explicit racial integration was permissible only to remedy a previous explicit policy of segregation. He said that black students’ isolation today is not deliberate; rather, it results from de facto neighborhood segregation that arose from income differences, demographic trends, and choices of white and black families to live in same-race neighborhoods.

The dissent, by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, did not disagree on this point, arguing only that for de facto segregation, it is good public policy to permit districts voluntarily to integrate, even if not constitutionally compelled to do so. But segregation in Seattle and Louisville was no accident. It was created largely by public policy.

“Deputy sheriffs patrol a Chicago street in 1970 after a dozen Contract Buyers League families were evicted.” (Sun-Times Media)

In Seattle, subdivisions created by mega-builders (such as William Boeing) were financed by the federal government with racial restrictions, or designated for whites-only in plans approved by the city and county. In Louisville, when a pro-integration couple sold a home in their white neighborhood to a black purchaser, not only did police stand by during the ensuing riot, but prosecutors responded by trying, convicting and imprisoning the white seller for “sedition.”

Forgotten Practices
Both Roberts’ and Breyer’s opinions reflect colossal historical amnesia. In truth, neighborhoods across the nation in which our schools are located were segregated by purposeful federal, state and local government policy. Many such policies are no longer in force, but their effects endure. In 1954, the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, prohibited school districts from maintaining separate schools for blacks and whites. The decision was aimed at practices in the South and assumed that blacks and whites lived in the same neighborhoods and could attend the same schools if permitted to do so. But the Brown decision could do little to remedy segregation that results not from a racial pupil assignment plan but from geographic separation of the races. Busing is rarely a solution because distances between affluent white suburbs and urban black ghettos are now too great in many ­metropolitan areas.

Simply repealing the kind of school segregation policy banned by the Brown decision can integrate schools if districts draw integrated school attendance zones. But repealing an intentional residential segregation policy that already has led to substantial racial isolation accomplishes little, because once populations have been firmly established in separate areas, even modest integration could take decades if left to ordinary vacancies and in-migration. Consider the iconic Levittown suburb in Nassau County, N.Y. In 1947, a vast housing shortage existed for both black and white workers and returning war veterans. The federal government financed the Levitt company to construct 17,000 units. These Levittown homes were easily affordable, but the government explicitly prohibited Levitt from selling (or renting) to African Americans. (Similar federal restrictions applied to other projects, many obscure and some well known, like the giant Lakewood development south of Los Angeles and the Daly City suburb south of San Francisco, memorialized by Malvina Reynolds’ song about “ticky tacky” houses.)

An executive order by President Kennedy in 1962 and the 1968 Fair Housing Act repealed government policies requiring racial housing segregation. Yet although many black families in New York City and Nassau County need better housing, Levittown remains today less than 1 percent black, compared to the nearby Long Island town of Roosevelt, which is 79 percent black. In part, this is because white families fortunate enough to purchase Levittown homes in the 1940s and ’50s saw their equity appreciate more rapidly than their wages, so asset values helped propel them into the middle class. But by the time legal barriers to segregation fell, these homes were no longer affordable for working families, so African Americans were permanently excluded from the suburban boom and its amenities.

A Myth Perpetuated
That our segregation is de facto, not de jure (created by law and public policy) is an urban myth, shared by Supreme Court justices, national policymakers, legislators and educators. We continue to teach this myth in public schools, where social studies curricula characterize residential racial segregation as resulting only from private discrimination or as a purely random phenomenon. For example, in the more than 1,200 pages of McDougal Littell’s widely used high school textbook, The Americans, a single paragraph is devoted to “Discrimination in the North” in the 20th century. The book devotes one sentence to residential segregation: “African Americans found themselves forced into segregated neighborhoods,” with no further explanation of how this happened or who was responsible. Similar cover-ups characterize the textbooks of other publishers.

Superintendents cannot hope to narrow the achievement gap without integrating their student populations, and they cannot hope to do this until the neighborhoods from which students come are integrated. Although federal, state and local governments have many policy alternatives they could employ to promote residential integration, there is no popular support for such policies. This lack of public support is partly our own fault, because we fail to teach an accurate account of the segregation policies that were the most important determinant of our contemporary metropolitan landscape. As a result, the myth of de facto segregation endures. If we don’t teach students that residential segregation was unconstitutionally created by our government, and requires a constitutional remedy, how can we expect them, as adults, to act on this understanding?





Dr. Hubbard felt D.M.T. would be very valuable in psychiatry: “Even your bones feel good”

by Todd Brendan Fahey  /  High Times, November 1991

“You will not read about him in the history books. He left no diary, nor chatty relatives to memorialize him in print. And if a cadre of associates had not recently agreed to open its files, Captain Alfred M. Hubbard might exist in death as he did in life–a man of mirrors and shadows, revealing himself to even his closest friends only on a need-to-know basis. They called him “the Johnny Appleseed of LSD.” He was to the psychedelic movement nothing less than the membrane through which all passed to enter into the Mysteries. Beverly Hills psychiatrist Oscar Janiger once said of Hubbard, “We waited for him like a little old lady for the Sears-Roebuck catalog.” Waited for him to unlock his ever-present leather satchel loaded with pharmaceutically-pure psilocybin, mescaline or his personal favorite, Sandoz LSD-25. Those who will talk about Al Hubbard are few. Oscar Janiger told this writer that “nothing of substance has been written about Al Hubbard, and probably nothing ever should.”

The first visage of Hubbard was beheld by Dr. Humphry Osmond, now senior psychiatrist at Alabama’s Bryce Hospital. He and Dr. John Smythies were researching the correlation between schizophrenia and the hallucinogens mescaline and adrenochrome at Weyburn Hospital in Saskatchewan, Canada, when an A.M. Hubbard requested the pleasure of Osmond’s company for lunch at the swank Vancouver Yacht Club. Dr. Osmond later recalled, “It was a very dignified place, and I was rather awed by it. [Hubbard] was a powerfully-built man…with a broad face and a firm hand-grip. He was also very genial, an excellent host.” Captain Hubbard was interested in obtaining some mescaline, and, as it was still legal, Dr. Osmond supplied him with some. “He was interested in all sorts of odd things,” Osmond laughs. Among Hubbard’s passions was motion. His identity as “captain” came from his master of sea vessels certification and a stint in the US Merchant Marine.

At the time of their meeting in 1953, Al Hubbard owned secluded Dayman Island off the coast of Vancouver–a former Indian colony surrounded by a huge wall of oyster shells. To access his 24-acre estate, Hubbard built a hangar for his aircraft and a slip for his yacht from a fallen redwood. But it was the inner voyage that drove the Captain until his death in 1982. Fueled by psychedelics, he set sail and rode the great wave as a neuronaut, with only the white noise in his ears and a fever in his brain. His head shorn to a crew and wearing a paramilitary uniform with a holstered long-barrel Colt .45, Captain Al Hubbard showed up one day in ’63 on the doorstep of a young Harvard psychologist named Timothy Leary. “He blew in with that uniform…laying down the most incredible atmosphere of mystery and flamboyance, and really impressive bullshit!” Leary recalls. “He was pissed off. His Rolls Royce had broken down on the freeway, so he went to a pay phone and called the company in London. That’s what kind of guy he was. He started name-dropping like you wouldn’t believe…claimed he was friends with the Pope.”

Did Leary believe him? “Well, yeah, no question.” The captain had come bearing gifts of LSD, which he wanted to swap for psilocybin, the synthetic magic mushroom produced by Switzerland’s Sandoz Laboratories. “The thing that impressed me,” Leary remembers, “is on one hand he looked like a carpetbagger con man, and on the other he had these most-impressive people in the world on his lap, basically backing him.” Among Hubbard’s heavyweight cheerleaders was Aldous Huxley, author of the sardonic novel Brave New World. Huxley had been turned on to mescaline by Osmond in ’53, an experience that spawned the seminal psychedelic handbook The Doors of Perception. Huxley became an unabashed sponsor for the chemicals then known as “psychotomimetic”–literally, “madness mimicking.” But neither Huxley nor Hubbard nor Osmond experienced madness, and Dr. Osmond wrote a rhyme to Huxley one day in the early 1950s, coining a new word for the English language, and a credo for the next generation: To fathom hell or soar angelic, Just take a pinch of psychedelic.


Those who knew Al Hubbard would describe him as just a “barefoot boy from Kentucky,” who never got past third grade. But as a young man, the shoeless hillbilly was purportedly visited by a pair of angels, who told him to build something. He had absolutely no training, “but he had these visions, and he learned to trust them early on,” says Willis Harman, director of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Sausalito, CA. In 1919, guided by other-worldly forces, Hubbard invented the Hubbard Energy Transformer, a radioactive battery that could not be explained by the technology of the day. The Seattle Post- Intelligencer reported that Hubbard’s invention, hidden in an 11″ x 14″ box, had powered a ferry-sized vessel around Seattle’s Portico Bay nonstop for three days. Fifty percent rights to the patent were eventually bought by the Radium Corporation of Pittsburgh for $75,000, and nothing more was heard of the Hubbard Energy Transformer.

Hubbard stifled his talents briefly as an engineer in the early 1920s, but an unquenchable streak of mischief burned in the boy inventor. Vancouver magazine’s Ben Metcalfe reports that Hubbard soon took a job as a Seattle taxi driver during Prohibition. With a sophisticated ship-to-shore communications system hidden in the trunk of his cab, Hubbard helped rum-runners to successfully ferry booze past the US and Canadian Coast Guards. He was, however, caught by the FBI and went to prison for 18 months. After his release, Hubbard’s natural talent for electronic communications attracted scouts from Allen Dulles’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Also according to Metcalfe, Hubbard was at least peripherally involved in the Manhattan Project. The captain was pardoned of any and all wrongdoing by Harry S. Truman under Presidential Pardon #2676, and subsequently became agent Captain Al Hubbard of the OSS. As a maritime specialist, Hubbard was enjoined to ship heavy armaments from San Diego to Canada at night, without lights, in the waning hours of World War II–an operations of dubious legality, which had him facing a Congressional investigation. To escape federal indictment, Hubbard moved to Vancouver and became a Canadian citizen.

Parlaying connections and cash, Hubbard founded Marine Manufacturing, a Vancouver charter-boat concern, and in his early 40s realized his lifelong ambition of becoming a millionaire. By 1950 he was scientific director of the Uranium Corporation of Vancouver, owned his own fleet of aircraft, a 100-foot yacht, and a Canadian island. And he was miserable. “Al was desperately searching for meaning in his life,” says Willis Harman. Seeking enlightenment, Hubbard returned to an area near Spokane, WA, where he’d spent summers during his youth. He hiked into the woods and an angel purportedly appeared to him in a clearing. “She told Al that something tremendously important to the future of mankind would be coming soon, and that he could play a role in it if he wanted to,” says Harman. “But he hadn’t the faintest clue what he was supposed to be looking for.”

In 1951, reading The Hibberd Journal, a scientific paper of the time, Hubbard stumbled across an article about the behavior of rats given LSD. “He knew that was it,” says Harman. Hubbard went and found the person conducting the experiment and came back with some LSD for himself. After this first acid experience, he had become a True Believer. “Hubbard discovered psychedelics as a boon and a sacrament,” recalls Leary. A 1968 resume states that Hubbard was at various times employed by the Canadian Special Services, the US Justice Department and, ironically, what is now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Whether he was part of the CIA mind-control project known as MK-ULTRA, might never be known: all paperwork generated in connection with that diabolical experiment was destroyed in ’73 by MK-ULTRA chief Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, on orders from then-CIA Director Richard Helms, citing a “paper crisis.”

Under the auspices of MK-ULTRA the CIA regularly dosed its agents and associates with powerful hallucinogens as a preemptive measure against the Soviets’ own alleged chemical technology, often with disastrous results. The secret project would see at least two deaths: tennis pro Harold Blauer died after a massive injection of MDA; and the army’s own Frank Olson, a biological-warfare specialist, crashed through a closed window in the 12th floor of New York’s Statler Hotel, after drinking cognac laced with LSD during a CIA symposium. Dr. Osmond doubts that Hubbard would have been associated with such a project, “not particularly on humanitarian grounds, but on the grounds that it was bad technique.”

[Note: Recently, a researcher for WorldNetDaily and author of a forthcoming book based on the Frank Olson “murder,” revealed to this writer that he has received, via a FOIA request of CIA declassified materials, documents which indicate that Al Hubbard was, indeed, in contact with Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and George Hunter White–an FBI narcotics official who managed Operation Midnight Climax, a joint CIA/FBI blackmail project in which unwitting “johns” were given drinks spiked with LSD by CIA-managed prostitutes, and whose exploits were videotaped from behind two-way mirrors at posh hotels in both New York and San Francisco. The researcher would reveal only that Al Hubbard’s name “appeared in connection with Gottlieb and White, but the material is heavily redacted.”]

Hubbard’s secret connections allowed him to expose over 6,000 people to LSD before it was effectively banned in ’66. He shared the sacrament with a prominent Monsignor of the Catholic Church in North America, explored the roots of alcoholism with AA founder Bill Wilson, and stormed the pearly gates with Aldous Huxley (in a session that resulted in the psychedelic tome Heaven and Hell), as well as supplying most of the Beverly Hills psychiatrists, who, in turn, turned on actors Cary Grant, James Coburn, Jack Nicholson, novelist Anais Nin, and filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. Laura Huxley met Captain Hubbard for the first time at her and her husband’s Hollywood Hills home in the early 1960s. “He showed up for lunch one afternoon, and he brought with him a portable tank filled with a gas of some kind. He offered some to us,” she recalls, “but we said we didn’t care for any, so he put it down and we all had lunch. He went into the bathroom with the tank after lunch, and breathed into it for about ten seconds. It must have been very concentrated, because he came out revitalized and very jubilant, talking about a vision he had seen of the Virgin Mary.”

“I was convinced that he was the man to bring LSD to planet Earth,” remarks, Myron Stolaroff, who was assistant to the president of long-range planning at Ampex Corporation when he met the captain. Stolaroff learned of Hubbard through philosopher Gerald Heard, a friend and spiritual mentor to Huxley. “Gerald had reached tremendous levels of contemplative prayer, and I didn’t know what in the world he was doing fooling around with drugs.” Heard had written a letter to Stolaroff, describing the beauty of his psychedelic experience with Al Hubbard. “That letter would be priceless–but Hubbard, I’m sure, arranged to have it stolen…. He was a sonofabitch: God and the Devil, both there in full force.” Stolaroff was so moved by Heard’s letter that, in ’56, he agreed to take LSD with Hubbard in Vancouver. “After that first LSD experience, I said ‘this is the greatest discovery man has ever made.'”

He was not alone. Through his interest in aircraft, Hubbard had become friends with a prominent Canadian businessman. The businessman eventually found himself taking LSD with Hubbard and, after coming down, told Hubbard never to worry about money again: He had seen the future, and Al Hubbard was its Acid Messiah. Hubbard abandoned his uranium empire and, for the next decade, traveled the globe as a psychedelic missionary. “Al’s dream was to open up a worldwide chain of clinics as training grounds for other LSD researchers,” says Stolaroff. His first pilgrimage was to Switzerland, home of Sandoz Laboratories, producers of both Delysid (trade name for LSD) and psilocybin. He procured a gram of LSD (roughly 10,000 doses) and set up shop in a safe-deposit vault in the Zurich airport’s duty-free section. From there he was able to ship quantities of his booty without a tariff to a waiting world.

Swiss officials quickly detained Hubbard for violating the nation’s drug laws, which provided no exemption from the duty-free provision. Myron Stolaroff petitioned Washington for the Captain’s release, but the State Department wanted nothing to do with Al Hubbard. Oddly, when a hearing was held, blue-suited officials from the department were in attendance. The Swiss tribunal declared Hubbard’s passport invalid for five years, and he was deported. Undeterred, Hubbard traveled to Czechoslovakia, where he had another gram of LSD put into tablet form by Chemapol–a division of the pharmaceutical giant Spofa–and then flew west.

Procuring a Ph.D. in biopsychology from a less-than-esteemed academic outlet called Taylor University, the captain became Dr. Alfred M. Hubbard, clinical therapist. In ’57, he met Ross MacLean, medical superintendent of the Hollywood Hospital in New Westminster, Canada. MacLean was so impressed with Hubbard’s knowledge of the human condition that he devoted an entire wing of the hospital to the study of psychedelic therapy for chronic alcoholics. According to Metcalfe, MacLean was also attracted to the fact that Hubbard was Canada’s sole licensed importer of Sandoz LSD. “I remember seeing Al on the phone in his living room one day. He was elated because the FDA had just given him IND#1,” says one Hubbard confidante upon condition of anonymity.

His Investigational New Drug permit also allowed Hubbard to experiment with LSD in the USA. For the next few years, Hubbard–together with Canadian psychiatrist Abram Hoffer and Dr. Humphry Osmond–pioneered a psychedelic regimen with a recovery rate of between 60% and 70%–far above that of AA or Schick Hospital’s so-called “aversion therapy.” Hubbard would lift mentally-disturbed lifelong alcoholics out of psychosis with a mammoth dose of liquid LSD, letting them view their destructive habits from a completely new vantage point. “As a therapist, he was one of the best,” says Stolaroff, who worked with Hubbard until 1965 at the International Federation for Advanced Study in Menlo Park, California, which he founded after leaving Ampex. Whereas many LSD practitioners were content to strap their patients onto a 3′ x 6′ cot and have them attempt to perform a battery of mathematical formulae with a head full of LSD, Hubbard believed in a comfortable couch and throw pillows. He also employed icons and symbols to send the experience into a variety of different directions: someone uptight may be asked to look at a photo of a glacier, which would soon melt into blissful relaxation; a person seeking the spiritual would be directed to a picture of Jesus, and enter into a one-on-one relationship with the Savior.

But Hubbard’s days at Hollywood Hospital ended in 1957, not long after they had begun, after a philosophical dispute with Ross MacLean. The suave hospital administrator was getting fat from the $1,000/dose fees charged to Hollywood’s elite patients, who included members of the Canadian Parliament and the American film community. Hubbard, who believed in freely distributing LSD for the world good, felt pressured by MacLean to share in the profits, and ultimately resigned rather than accept an honorarium for his services. His departure came as the Canadian Medical Association was becoming increasingly suspicious of Hollywood Hospital in the wake of publicity surrounding MK-ULTRA. The Canadian Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights had already discovered one Dr. Harold Abramson, a CIA contract psychiatrist, on the board of MacLean’s International Association for Psychedelic Therapy, and external pressure was weighing on MacLean to release Al Hubbard, the former OSS officer with suspected CIA links. Compounding Hubbard’s plight was the death of his Canadian benefactor, leaving Hubbard with neither an income nor the financial cushion upon which he had become dependent.

His services were eventually recruited by Willis Harman, then-Director of the Educational Policy Research Center within the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) of Stanford University. Harman employed Hubbard as a security guard for SRI, “although,” Harman admits, “Al never did anything resembling security work.” Hubbard was specifically assigned to the Alternative Futures Project, which performed future-oriented strategic planning for corporations and government agencies. Harman and Hubbard shared a goal “to provide the [LSD] experience to political and intellectual leaders around the world.” Harman acknowledges that “Al’s job was to run the special [LSD] sessions for us.” 

According to Dr. Abram Hoffer, “Al had a grandiose idea that if he could give the psychedelic experience to the major executives of the Fortune 500 companies, he would change the whole of society.” Hubbard’s tenure at SRI was uneasy. The political bent of the Stanford think-tank was decidedly left-wing, clashing sharply with Hubbard’s own world-perspective. “Al was really an arch-conservative,” says the confidential source. “He really didn’t like what the hippies were doing with LSD, and he held Timothy Leary in great contempt.” Humphry Osmond recalls a particular psilocybin session in which “Al got greatly preoccupied with the idea that he ought to shoot Timothy, and when I began to reason with him that this would be a very bad idea…I became much concerned that he might shoot me…”

“To Al,” says Myron Stolaroff, “LSD enabled man to see his true self, his true nature and the true order of things.” But, to Hubbard, the true order of things had little to do with the antics of the American Left. Recognizing its potential psychic hazards, Hubbard believed that LSD should be administered and monitored by trained professionals. He claimed that he had stockpiled more LSD than anyone on the planet besides Sandoz–including the US government–and he clearly wanted a firm hand in influencing the way it was used. However, Hubbard refused all opportunities to become the LSD Philosopher-King. Whereas Leary would naturally gravitate toward any microphone available, Hubbard preferred the role of the silent curandero, providing the means for the experience, and letting voyagers decipher its meaning for themselves. When cornered by a video camera shortly before this death, and asked to say something to the future, Hubbard replied simply, “You’re the future.”

In March of 1966, the cold winds of Congress blew out all hope for Al Hubbard’s enlightened Mother Earth. Facing a storm of protest brought on by Leary’s reckless antics and the “LSD-related suicide” of Diane Linkletter, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Drug Abuse Control Amendment, which declared lysergic acid diethylamide a Schedule I substance; simple possession was deemed a felony, punishable by 15 years in prison. According to Humphry Osmond, Hubbard lobbied Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, who reportedly took the cause of LSD into the Senate chambers, and emerged un-victorious. “[The government] had a deep fear of having their picture of reality challenged,” mourns Harman. “It had nothing to do with people harming their lives with chemicals–because if you took all the people who had ever had any harmful effects from psychedelics, it’s minuscule compared to those associated with alcohol and tobacco.”

FDA chief James L. Goddard ordered agents to seize all remaining psychedelics not accounted for by Sandoz. “It was scary,” recalls Dr. Oscar Janiger, whose Beverly Hills office was raided and years’ worth of clinical research confiscated. Hubbard begged Abram Hoffer to let him hide his supply in Hoffer’s Canadian Psychiatric Facility. But the doctor refused, and it is believed that Hubbard buried most of his LSD in a sacred parcel in Death Valley, California, claiming that it had been used, rather than risk prosecution. When the panic subsided, only five government-approved scientists were allowed to continue LSD research–none using humans, and none of them associated with Al Hubbard. In 1968, his finances in ruins, Hubbard was forced to sell his private island sanctuary for what one close friend termed “a pittance.” He filled a number of boats with the antiquated electronics used in his eccentric nuclear experiments, and left Dayman Island for California. Hubbard’s efforts in his last decade were effectively wasted, according to most of his friends. Lack of both finances and government permit to resume research crippled all remaining projects he may have had in the hopper.

After SRI canceled his contract in 1974 Hubbard went into semiretirement, splitting his time between a 5-acre ranch in Vancouver and an apartment in Menlo Park. But in 1978, battling an enlarged heart and never far away from a bottle of pure oxygen, Hubbard make one last run at the FDA. He applied for an IND to use LSD-25 on terminal cancer patients, furnishing the FDA with two decades of clinical documentation. The FDA set the application aside, pending the addition to Hubbard’s team of a medical doctor, a supervised medical regimen, and an AMA-accredited hospital. Hubbard secured the help of Oscar Janiger, but the two could not agree on methodology, and Janiger bowed out, leaving Al Hubbard, in his late 70s, without the strength to carry on alone. Says Willis Harman: “He knew that his work was done.”

The Captain lived out his last days nearly broke, having exhausted his resources trying to harness a dream. Like in the final fleeting hour of an acid trip–when the edge softens and a man realizes that he will not solve the secrets of the Universe, despite what the mind had said earlier–Hubbard smiled gracefully, laid down his six-shooter, and retired to a mobile home in Casa Grande, Arizona. On August 31, 1982, at the age of 81, Al Hubbard was called home, having ridden the dream like a rodeo cowboy. On very quiet nights, with the right kind of ears, you can hear him giving God hell.”


from Chapter 2 of Acid Dreams, The Complete Social History of LSD
by Martin A. Lee & Bruce Shlain  /  1985

“The stout crew-cut figure riding in the Rolls-Royce was a mystery to those who knew him. A spy by profession, he lived a life of intrigue and adventure befitting his chosen career. Born dirt poor in Kentucky, he served with the OSS during the Second World War and went on to make a fortune as a uranium entrepreneur. His prestigious government and business connections read like a Who’s Who of the power elite in North America. His name was Captain Alfred M. Hubbard. His friends called him “Cappy,” and he was known as the “Johnny Appleseed of LSD.” The blustery, rum-drinking Hubbard is widely credited with being the first person to emphasize LSD’s potential as a visionary or transcendental drug. His faith in the LSD revelation was such that he made it his life’s mission to turn on as many men and women as possible. “Most people are walking in their sleep,” he said. “Turn them around, start them in the opposite direction and they wouldn’t even know the difference.” But there was a quick way to remedy that—give them a good dose of LSD and “let them see themselves for what they are.”

That Hubbard, of all people, should have emerged as the first genuine LSD apostle is all the more curious in light of his long-standing affiliation with the cloak-and-dagger trade. Indeed, he was no run-of-the-mill spook. As a high-level OSS officer, the Captain directed an extremely sensitive covert operation that involved smuggling weapons and war material to Great Britain prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. In pitch darkness he sailed ships without lights up the coast to Vancouver, where they were refitted and used as destroyers by the British navy. He also flew planes to the border, took them apart, towed the pieces into Canada, and sent them to England. These activities began with the quiet approval of President Roosevelt nearly a year and a half before the US officially entered the war. To get around the neutrality snag, Hubbard became a Canadian citizen in a mock procedure. While based in Vancouver Where he later settled he personally handled several million dollars filtered by the OSS through the American consulate to finance a multitude of covert operations in Europe. All this, of course, was highly illegal, and President Truman later issued a special pardon with kudos to the Captain and his men.

Dr Ronald Sandison pioneered the use of LSD to treat British psychiatric patients.

Not long after receiving this presidential commendation, Hubbard was introduced to LSD by Dr. Ronald Sandison of Great Britain. During his first acid trip in I95 I, he claimed to have witnessed his own conception. “It was the deepest mystical thing I’ve ever seen,” the Captain recounted. “I saw myself as a tiny mite in a big swamp with a spark of intelligence. I saw my mother and father having intercourse. It was all clear.” Hubbard, then forty-nine years old, eagerly sought out others familiar with hallucinogenic drugs. He contacted Dr. Humphry Osmond, a young British psychiatrist who was working with LSD and mescaline at Weyburn Hospital in Saskatchewan, Canada. Like most other researchers in the field, Osmond was primarily interested in psychosis and mental illness. In 1952 he shocked the medical world by drawing attention to the structural similarity between the mescaline and adrenaline molecules, implying that schizophrenia might be a form of self-intoxication caused by the body mistakenly producing its own hallucinogenic compounds. Osmond noted that mescaline enabled a normal person to see the world through the eyes of a schizophrenic, and he suggested that the drug be used as a tool for training doctors, nurses, and other hospital personnel to understand their patients from a more intimate perspective.

Osmond’s research attracted widespread attention within scientific circles. The CIA, ever intent on knowing the latest facts as early as possible, quickly sent informants to find out what was happening at Weyburn Hospital. Unbeknownst to Osmond and his cohorts, throughout the next decade they were contacted on repeated occasions by Agency personnel. Indeed, it was impossible for an LSD researcher not to rub shoulders with the espionage establishment, for the CIA was monitoring the entire scene. [1]

Osmond’s reports also caught the eye of Aldous Huxley, the eminent British novelist who for years had been preoccupied with the specter of drug-induced thought control. In 1931 Huxley wrote Brave New World, a futuristic vision of a totalitarian society in which the World Controllers chemically coerced the population into loving its servitude. While Huxley grappled with the question of human freedom under pharmacological attack, he also recognized that certain drugs, particularly the hallucinogens, produced radical changes in consciousness that could have a profound and beneficial effect. Upon learning of Osmond’s work, he decided to offer himself as a guinea pig. Huxley seemed like the perfect subject. A learned man steeped in many disciplines, he was also gifted with a writer’s eloquence. Even if the drug confounded him, it would not tongue-tie him, for he was a glorious talker. But Osmond was still a bit apprehensive. “I did not relish the possibility, however remote, of being the man who drove Aldous Huxley mad,” he explained. His worries proved to be unfounded.

In May 1953, less than a month after the CIA initiated Operation MK-ULTRA, Huxley tried mescaline for the first time at his home in Hollywood Hills, California, under Osmond’s supervision. “It was,” according to Huxley, “without question the most extraordinary and significant experience this side of the Beatific Vision.” Moreover, “it opens up a host of philosophical problems, throws intense light and raises all manner of questions in the field of aesthetics, religion, theory of knowledge.” Huxley described his mescaline adventure in his famous essay The Doors of Perception (which took its title from the works of William Blake, the eighteenth-century British poet and visionary artist). With this book Huxley unabashedly declared himself a propagandist for hallucinogenic drugs, and for the first time a large segment of the educated public became aware of the existence of these substances. Not surprisingly, the treatise created a storm in literary circles. Some hailed it as a major intellectual statement, others dismissed it as pure quackery. Few critics realized that the book would have such an enormous impact in years to come.

In The Doors of Perception Huxley elaborated on Henri Bergson’s theory that the brain and the nervous system are not the source of the cognitive process but rather a screening mechanism or “reducing valve” that transmits but a tiny fraction of “the Mind-at-Large,” yielding only the kind of information necessary for everyday matters of survival. If this screening mechanism was temporarily suspended, if the doors of perception were suddenly thrust open by a chemical such as mescaline or LSD, then the world would appear in an entirely new light. When he looked at a small vase of flowers, the mescalinized Huxley saw “what Adam had seen on the morning of creation—the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence…flowers shining with their own inner light and all but quivering under the pressure of the significance with which they were charged…. Words like ‘grace’ and ‘transfiguration’ came to my mind.” Huxley obviously was not undergoing an “imitation psychosis.”

On the contrary, he contended that the chemical mind-changers, when administered in the right kind of situation, could lead to a full-blown mystical experience. He went so far as to predict that a religious revival would “come about as the result of biochemical discoveries that will make it possible for large numbers of men and women to achieve a radical self-transcendence and a deeper understanding of the nature of things.” Huxley recognized that the perceptions afforded by hallucinogens bore a striking similarity to experiences achieved without the use of drugs, either spontaneously or through various spiritual exercises.

His writings reflected more than a passing interest in nonchemical methods of altering consciousness, such as hypnosis, sensory deprivation, prolonged sleeplessness, fasting—techniques closely scrutinized by the CIA as well, but for vastly different reasons. Whereas the CIA sought to impose an altered state on its victims in order to control them, Huxley’s explorations were self-directed and designed to expand consciousness. He was well aware of the potential dangers of behavior modification techniques and constantly warned of their abuse. Thus it is ironic that he unknowingly consorted with a number of scientists who were engaged in mind control research for the CIA and the US military. [2]

While writing Heaven and Hell (the sequel to The Doors of Perception) in 1955, Huxley had his second mescaline experience, this time in the company of Captain Al Hubbard. They were joined by philosopher Gerald Heard, a close friend of Huxley’s. “Your nice Captain tried a new experiment—group mescalinization,” Huxley wrote to Osmond. “Since I was in a group, the experience had a human content, which the earlier, solitary experience, with its Other Worldly quality and its intensification of aesthetic experience, did not possess…. it was a transcendental experience within this world and with human references.” Later that same year, with the Captain again acting as a guide, Huxley took his first dose of LSD. Although he consumed only a tiny amount, the experience was highly significant. “What came through the closed door,” he stated, “was the realization—not the knowledge, for this wasn’t verbal or abstract—but the direct, total awareness, from the inside, so to say, of Love as the primary and fundamental cosmic fact. These words, of course, have a kind of indecency and must necessarily ring false, seem like twaddle. But the fact remains…I was this fact; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this fact occupied the place where I had been.”

Huxley and his LSD mentor were a most improbable duo. The coarse, uneducated Captain lacked elegance and restraint (”I’m just a born son of a bitch!” he bellowed), while the tall, slender novelist epitomized the genteel qualities of the British intellectual. Yet the two men were evidently quite taken by each other. Huxley spoke admiringly of “the good Captain” whose uranium exploits served “as a passport into the most exalted spheres of government, business, and ecclesiastical polity.” In a letter to Osmond he commented, “What Babes in the Wood we literary gents and professional men are! The great World occasionally requires your services, is mildly amused by mine; but its full attention and deference are paid to Uranium and Big Business. So what extraordinary luck that this representative of both these Higher Powers should (a) have become so passionately interested in mescalin and (b) be such a very nice man. ”

Despite their markedly different styles Huxley and Hubbard shared a unique appreciation of the revelatory aspect of hallucinogenic drugs. It was Hubbard who originally suggested that an LSD-induced mystical experience might harbor unexplored therapeutic potential. He administered large doses of acid to gravely ill alcoholics with the hope that the ensuing experience would lead to a drastic and permanent change in the way they viewed themselves and the world. (According to Bill Wilson, the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, the most important factor in recovery for alcoholics is “a deep and genuine religious experience.”) Once the individual’s rigidified notion of himself had been shattered, “extensive emotional reeducation” was much more likely. At this point the Captain took over. By using religious symbols to trigger psychic responses, he attempted to assist the patient in forming a new and healthier frame of reference that would carry over after the drug wore off. Hubbard found that everyone who went through this process seemed to benefit from it. A number of former alcoholics described their recovery as nothing short of “miraculous.” Buoyed by these results, the Captain proceeded to establish LSD treatment centers at three major hospitals in Canada, most notably Hollywood Hospital in Vancouver, where he resided.

Dr. Humphry Osmond was also working with alcoholics in Saskatchewan, but initially he approached the problem from a different vantage point. Osmond noted that some alcoholics decided to give up the bottle only after they “hit bottom” and suffered the withdrawal symptoms of delirium tremens. Could a large dose of LSD or mescaline simulate a controlled attack of the DTs? A “model delirium tremens,” so to speak, would be considerably less dangerous than the real thing, which normally occurs after years of heavy drinking and often results in death. Osmond’s hypothesis was still rooted in the psychotomimetic tradition. But then Hubbard came along and turned the young psychiatrist on to the religious meaning of his “madness mimicking” drug. The Captain showed Osmond how to harness LSD’s transcendent potential. Nearly a thousand hard-core alcoholics received high-dose LSD treatment at Weyburn Hospital, and the rate of recovery was significantly higher than for other forms of therapy—an astounding 50%.[3]
Osmond and his coworkers considered LSD the most remarkable drug they had ever come across. They saw no reason to restrict their studies to alcoholics. If LSD changed the way sick people looked at the world, would it not have as powerful an effect on others as well? With this in mind Osmond and Hubbard came up with the idea that LSD could be used to transform the belief systems of world leaders and thereby further the cause of world peace. Although few are willing to disclose the details of these sessions, a close associate of Hubbard’s insisted that they “affected the thinking of the political leadership of North America.” Those said to have participated in the LSD sessions include a prime minister, assistants to heads of state, UN representatives, and members of the British parliament. “My job,” said Hubbard, “was to sit on the couch next to the psychiatrist and put the people through it, which I did.”

Hubbard’s influence on the above-ground research scene went far beyond the numerous innovations he introduced: high-dose therapy, group sessions, enhancing the drug effect with strobe lights, and ESP experiments while under the influence of LSD. His impressive standing among business and political leaders in the United States and Canada enabled him to command large supplies of the hallucinogen, which he distributed freely to friends and researchers at considerable personal expense. “Cost me a couple of hundred thousand dollars,” he boasted. “I had six thousand bottles of it to begin with.” When Dr. Ross MacLean, the medical director at Hollywood Hospital in Vancouver, suggested that they form a partnership and set a price for administering LSD, Hubbard would hear nothing of it. For the Captain had “a mission,” as he put it, and making money never entered the picture.

Hubbard promoted his cause with indefatigable zeal, crisscrossing North America and Europe, giving LSD to anyone who would stand still. “People heard about it, and they wanted to try it,” he explained. During the 1950s and early 1960S he turned on thousands of people from all walks of life—policemen, statesmen, captains of industry, church figures, scientists. “They all thought it was the most marvelous thing,” he stated. “And I never saw a psychosis in any one of these cases.” When certain US medical officials complained that Hubbard was not a licensed physician and therefore should not be permitted to administer drugs, the Captain just laughed and bought a doctors degree from a diploma mill in Kentucky. “Dr.” Hubbard had such remarkable credentials that he received special permission from Rome to administer LSD within the context of the Catholic faith. “He had kind of an incredible way of getting that sort of thing, ” said a close associate who claimed to have seen the papers from the Vatican.

Hubbard’s converts included the Reverend J. E. Brown, a Catholic priest at the Cathedral of the Holy Rosary in Vancouver. After his initiation into the psychedelic mysteries, Reverend Brown recommended the experience to members of his parish. In a letter to the faithful dated December 8, 1957, he wrote, “We humbly ask Our Heavenly Mother the Virgin Mary, help of all who call upon Her to aid us to know and understand the true qualities of these psychedelics, the full capacities of man’s noblest faculties and according to God’s laws to use them for the benefit of mankind here and in eternity.” Like a molecule at full boil, the Captain moved about at high speeds in all directions. He traveled around the world in his own plane (he was a registered pilot and master of sea vessels), buying up LSD and stashing it, swapping different drugs, and building an underground supply. “I scattered it as I went along,” he recalled. With his leather pouch full of “wampum” he rode the circuit, and those on the receiving end were always grateful. “We waited for him like the little old lady on the prairie waiting for a copy of the Sears Roebuck catalogue,” said Dr. Oscar Janiger, a Los Angeles psychiatrist.

Dr. Janiger was part of a small circle of scientists and literary figures in the Los Angeles area who began to use psychedelics at social gatherings in the mid-1950s. In addition to Huxley and Gerald Heard, those who participated in these drug-inspired intellectual discussions included philosopher Alan Watts, deep-sea diver Perry Bivens, and researchers Sidney Cohen, Keith Ditman, and Arthur Chandler. This informal group was the first to use LSD socially rather than clinically. Captain Al Hubbard, the wandering shaman who visited southern California on a regular basis, supplied the group with various chemicals. “Something had to be done and I tried to do it, ” Hubbard explained. He was, in his own words, “a catalytic agent” who had a “special, chosen role.” While this is certainly an accurate appraisal, he was also another kind of agent—an intelligence agent—which raises some intriguing questions about what he was really up to.

After his legendary exploits with the OSS, the Captain continued to serve as an undercover operative for various agencies within the US government. He had many contacts with the FBI, for example, and he claimed to be a close friend of J. Edgar Hoover’s. “That old bugger was tough, really tough, ” Hubbard said with admiration. But when he tried to turn on the FBI chief, Hoover stubbornly declined. However, the Captain did manage to give the drug to “some top intelligence men in Washington, always with good results.” During the early 1950s Hubbard was asked to join the CIA, but he refused. “They lied so much, cheated so much. I don’t like ’em,” he snarled. “They’re lousy deceivers, sons of the devils themselves.” The Captain’s beef with the Agency stemmed in part from his unsuccessful attempt to secure back pay owed to him from his OSS days. “They crooked me,” he complained bitterly.

Hubbard was unkindly disposed toward the CIA for other reasons as well. Most important, he didn’t approve of what the Agency was doing with his beloved LSD. “The CIA work stinks, ” he said. “They were misusing it. I tried to tell them how to use it, but even when they were killing people, you couldn’t tell them a goddamned thing. ” (Hubbard was certain that Frank Olson was not the only person who died as a result of the CIA’s surprise acid tests.) “I don’t know how Al’s Washington affairs were done,” Dr. Osmond admitted. “He was one of those naturally brilliant wheeler-dealers.” Indeed, Hubbard seemed to have a knack for popping up in the most unpredictable places. He worked for the Treasury Department as a young man during the Capone days, busting moonshiners and gangsters who were smuggling liquor into the US from Canada.

Apparently he was able to ingratiate himself with both sides during Prohibition, as he subsequently became deputy chief of security for the Tropicana Hotel in Las Vegas. “Those Mafia men were always interesting to talk to,” Hubbard remarked, “but they never smiled.” The Captain also engaged in undercover work for a number of other government agencies, including the Federal Narcotics Bureau and the Food and Drug Administration tat a time when both organizations were assisting the CIA’s drug testing programs). During the mid-1960s he was employed by Teledyne, a major defense subcontractor, as “director of human factors research.” In this capacity Hubbard served as adviser and consultant to a combined navy and NASA project that involved testing the effects of psychochemical agents on a newly designed “helicopter avionics system.” Teledyne worked closely with various government organizations, including the CIA, to apply these techniques to additional areas of military interest.

While Hubbard was not a CIA operative per se, his particular area of expertise—hallucinogenic drugs—brought him into close contact with elements of the espionage community. The CIA must have known what he was up to, since Sandoz and the FDA kept the Agency informed whenever anyone received shipments of LSD. The Captain, of course, was one of their best customers, having purchased large amounts of the drug on different occasions. In a sense “the mysterious Al” embodies the irony and ambiguity of the LSD story as a whole. As one of his friends put it, “Cappy was sort of a double agent. He worked for the government, but in his own way he was a rebel.” Some call him a “witch doctor,” others describe him as “an incurable scoundrel.” A most unlikely combination of mystic and redneck, Hubbard above all remains an enigma. “Al Hubbard was a very strange man,” confided a fellow drug researcher, “but he probably knew more about LSD than anyone else in the world.” And while his tale has many gaps and fuzzy edges, this much can be established beyond a shadow of a doubt: his enthusiasm for LSD never waned. “Anyone who’ll try to tell me that this has all been a big hallucination has got to be out of their mind. . . . What I’ve seen with it has been the truth and nothing but the truth.” And as a parting shot he added, “If you don’t think it’s amazing, all I’ve got to say is just go ahead and try it.”

by   /  October 27, 2009

If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern. -Aldous Huxley

Alfred “Captain Al” Hubbard led a life that didn’t just border on the surreal, it was surreal. He was a onetime shyster inventor and brilliant if uneducated scientist. He was considered a demigod by some and a lunatic by others, and had innumerable brushes with the law. He was virtually unknown in his lifetime and remains so today although he was one of the most influential individuals in determining the course of American culture and innovation in the second half of the 20th century. This is because it was Hubbard and not author Ken Kesey and psychologist Timothy Leary who first introduced LSD to America.

The up-and-coming hackers in the computer world of the late 1950s believed that computers had enormous potential beyond processing bank checks and other mundane tasks, but they were divided into two camps. The mechanists were engineers interested in artificial intelligence; that is, building computers that could mimic the human mind, while the holy grail of the engineers who were humanists was developing small computers that would expand the mind. Among Hubbard’s adherents were key members of the latter group, and they succeeded in their goal through the sheer force of their personalities, brilliance and ingenuity, as well as the insights they gleaned from using LSD.

Scan of ARPANET logic map, circa 1969

In fact, these men, numbering about 30 in all, were to invent virtually all of the key components of the personal computer or laptop on which you are reading this post, from microswitches to microprocessors to multimedia, as well as the mouse you probably are using, and even ARPAnet, the precursor to the World Wide Web that has brought you and I together for these few minutes.

Ironically, the humanists who rode the first wave of the psychedelic movement received much of their funding from the Pentagon and NASA, branches of a federal government that in a few short years would attempt to crush that movement. It also is ironic that most of the innovations in computing that we take for granted today came not from the then dominant players like IBM, Burroughs, Electronic Data and Texas Instruments, where engineers were discouraged from thinking big about going small, but from start-ups in what would become known as Silicon Valley. These included Adobe, Cisco, Intel, and of course Apple, fledgling companies where engineers believed that not even the sky was the limit.

The story of Al Hubbard’s life is full of holes, contradictions and cul de sacs, as well as unverifiable claims that he worked with the Manhattan Project as a black-market uranium supplier and in a CIA mind-control program called MK-ULTRA as a psychotherapist. This short, stocky man with buzz-cut hair, a warm smile and twinkling eyes was known as “Cappy” by his friends and lived much of his life in the shadows by choice. One would never guess from what is known about his early years that he would become known as the “Johnny Appleseed of LSD.” Hubbard was born in 1901 in Kentucky, but little is known about his childhood. Although he had no scientific training, at age 18 he invented the Hubbard Energy Transformer. This radioactive battery-powered device could not be explained by the technology of the day. This is because it was not the perpetual motion machine that he claimed it to be and hadn’t actually propelled a ship around Portico Bay in Seattle nonstop for three days, as press accounts claimed. A Pittsburgh company bought 50 percent rights to the patent for $75,000, but nothing more was heard of the device.

Hubbard’s next job was as a taxi driver in Seattle during Prohibition. The pay was lousy, but he made a bundle off of an ingenious sideline — a sophisticated ship-to-shore communications system hidden in the trunk of his cab that he used to steer rum runners past the U.S. and Canadian coast guards. He was eventually arrested by the FBI and went to prison for 18 months.What Hubbard did during the 1930s remains a mystery, but during World War II scouts for Allen Dulles, director of the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA, were attracted to him because of his knowledge of electronic communications. As an OSS captain, Hubbard became involved in a scheme to ship heavy armaments from San Diego to Canada for transhipment to England, but when the possibly illegal operation became the subject of a Congressional investigation, he moved to Vancouver in British Columbia and became a Canadian citizen to escape indictment.

It was there that Hubbard founded a charter boat company, later became scientific director of a uranium mining company and later still owner of several uranium businesses. By age 50, he had realized his dream of becoming a millionaire, owned a fleet of aircraft, a 100-foot yacht and an island off of Vancouver. But he was miserable. “Al was desperately searching for meaning in his life,” according to a friend quoted by Todd Brendan Fahey in an essay on Hubbard. The friend claimed that an angel appeared to Hubbard during a hike and “told Al that something tremendously important to the future of mankind would be coming soon, and that he could play a role in it if he wanted to. “But he hadn’t the faintest clue what he was supposed to be looking for.”

That important something became evident in 1951 when Hubbard stumbled across an article in a scientific quarterly about the behavior of rats who were given LSD. Hubbard tracked down the person who had done the experiment, obtained some LSD from him and became a true believer after his first trip. It is claimed that Hubbard gave LSD to 6,000 people beginning in the early 1950s until it was outlawed in 1967. That too is unverifiable, but it is known that among the people who tripped on his acid were Bill Wilson, the co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, who experimented with the drug as a way to cure alcoholism, Aldous Huxley, the celebrated writer, parapsychologist and advocate of psychedelics, and actors Cary Grant, James Coburn and Jack Nicholson, novelist Anaïs Nin and filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, among other celebrities who were turned on by Beverly Hills psychiatrists supplied by Hubbard.

But it is Hubbard’s connection to those Silicon Valley whiz kids that we are focusing on here, and that brings us to Myron Stolaroff. Stolaroff was an assistant to the president for long-range planning at Ampex Corporation, which was a leading maker of magnetic reel-to-reel tape recorders and an incubator for pioneering engineers. Like Hubbard a few years earlier, Stolaroff felt that there was no spiritual center to his life. It was through an acquaintance that Stolaroff learned of a new drug called LSD and an unusual man from Canada who was administering the substance to Huxley and others. Stolaroff was skeptical, but then one day in 1956 he looked up from his desk at Ampex to see Hubbard standing in the doorway. Several weeks later, Stolaroff took 66 micrograms (a moderately heavy dose) of LSD-25 in Hubbard’s Vancouver apartment that had been manufactured by Sandoz, the Swiss firm where Albert Hoffman had stumbled upon the drug’s psychoactive properties in 1943. Stolaroff found his first trip to be a deeply religious event that took him far into his own unconscious mind and he returned to California an LSD zealot. Among the first people he turned on were engineers from Ampex and Hewlitt-Packard, and in the next few years the circle widened to include those 30 or so engineers, who included Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. Jobs has been circumspect about his use of LSD. But John Markoff, author of the fascinating What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry, recalls interviewing the notoriously prickly engineer-executive back in 2001 on the day that Apple had introduced its now ubiquitous iTunes media player. Jobs was in an especially bad mood, Markoff writes, but at the end of the interview he turned to a Mac and brought up onto the screen what is now known as the Classic iTunes view, a visualization feature that conjures up dancing color patterns that pulse in concert with the beats of the music. “It reminds me of my youth,” Jobs said with a slight smile.

Hubbard left behind his uranium empire and for the next decade traveled the world as a sort of psychedelic missionary. “Al’s dream was to open up a worldwide chain of clinics as training grounds for other LSD researchers,” recalls Stolaroff. His first stop was at Sandoz where he purchased a gram (roughly 10,000 doses) of Delysid, the company’s brand name for LSD-25, and began shipping it around the world. In 1957, Captain Hubbard became Doctor Hubbard after he procured a PhD in biopsychology from a diploma mill. He set up a wing at Hollywood Hospital in New Westminster, British Columbia for the study of psychedelic therapy for alcoholics, and obtained the first Investigational New Drug permit from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Hubbard left Hollywood after a dispute with the hospital director but landed on his feet when he was hired by the Stanford Research Institute of Stanford University, where has was assigned to the Alternative Futures Project, and later with the International Foundation for Advanced Study, Stolaroff’s project for research into the uses of LSD.

Beginning in 1961, four years or so before LSD would percolate up the peninsula to San Francisco, the foundation supervised about 350 trips. Among the travelers were Stewart Brand, the author and founder of the influential countercultural Whole Earth Catalog. Some of Hubbard’s ideas were far out, and included the grandiose idea that if he could provide a psychedelic experience to the executives of Fortune 500 companies, he would change the whole of society. In one such effort, he persuaded a ranking Ampex executive to make his the first psychedelic corporation. But as Jay Stevens writes in the edifying Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream, that things did not go well: “Although Myron Stolaroff had laid the groundwork perfectly, persuading Ampex’s new general manager to overlook Al’s flaws and give LSD a chance, the result was disastrous. The general manager was Jewish. The last thing he wanted to do was to look at pictures of Jesus Christ, but that’s what Hubbard kept waving at him.” Captain Al nevertheless recognized the potential psychic dangers of LSD as well as its benefits and he believed that acid should be administered and monitored by trained professionals.

Despite the amazing story of the Silicon Valley whiz kids, there is some question about whether LSD indeed enhances creativity. That was the case even before its widespread use and one reason that Hubbard was seen as a charlatan by some of the people he encountered. Indeed, the debate continues today over whether any chemical substances can do that. John Markoff writes in What the Dormouse Said that Kary Mullis, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry for the polymerase chain reaction, which he said came to him on one of his numerous LSD trips, is one of the few scientists to have explored the effect of psychedelic drug use. “Possibly the question is so cloudy because the psychic costs are potentially high,” writes Markoff. “Despite intriguing evidence of positive effects in the first years of LSD experimentation, there were also incidents of psychotic outcomes as well.” Hubbard refused the temptation to become a psychedelic philosopher king like Timothy Leary, who along with the possibly LSD-related suicide of Diane Linkletter, the daughter of media celebrity Art Linkletter, probably did more to prompt the feds to outlaw LSD than anyone else.

A Drug Control Amendment signed by President Johnson in 1967 declared LSD a Schedule I substance and even possession was a felony punishable by 15 years in prison. The FDA ordered the confiscation of all psychedelic stocks at laboratories and institutions, including Stolaroff’s foundation, and legend has it that Hubbard buried most of his own stash in Death Valley, California. Only five researchers eventually were permitted to continue their research, none of them associated with Hubbard and none using human subjects. In 1968, his finances in ruin, Hubbard was forced to sell his island for a pittance and in 1974 the Stanford Research Institute canceled his contract. Hubbard’s later efforts to get another Investigational New Drug Contract from the FDA failed although he had two decades of clinical documentation. His own health failing because of an enlarged heart, he went into semiretirement. “He knew his work was done,” said a friend. On August 31, 1982, Al Hubbard took his last trip, departing this mortal coil from the trailer park where he lived in Casa Grande, Arizona.


from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer   /  July 29, 1920
Hubbard Coil Runs Boat On Portage Bay Ten Knots An Hour; Auto Test Next

Alfred M. Hubbard, Seattle boy inventor of a device which for want of a better name he terms an atmospheric power generator, yesterday made good his prediction that he would drive a motorboat with the apparatus as a source of power. An eighteen foot boat, propelled by a thirty-five-horse power electric motor, which obtained its current from the Hubbard coil, was driven about Portage Bay on Lake Union.  Among those who witnessed the demonstration was a well-known local capitalist, the inventor’s father,William H. Hubbard, and a Post Intelligencer reporter. The boat traveled at a speed of between eight and ten knots–silently, except for the whirring of a chain belt which connected the motor with the propeller shaft.  When the chain belt was removed, the motor ran free at a speed estimated at 3,500 revolutions [the rest of this line is unreadable]

No Hidden Wires Found
To guard against the possibility of ordinary storage batteries concealed about the boat as a power source, instead of the Hubbard coil, both electric motor and coil were lifted free from their blocks, but no hidden wiring was revealed.  The coil used as a power unit was eleven inches in diameter and fourteen inches in length.  According to Hubbard, tests of the coil show a  current of 280 amperes and 125 volts, which, he pointed out was equivalent to approximately forty-five horse power, or sufficient to drive an automobile.  The current is pulsating. The electric motor was approximately twelve inches in diameter eighteen inches in length.  It had been reconstructed in order to be used with the Hubbard coil. After his ride in the strange powered craft the capitalist declared that he was frankly puzzled, but that he desired an electrical engineer in his employ to make an examination of the coil before he felt free to discuss it. Since last December, when the Post-Intelligencer first made public the claims of the youthful inventor, he has been more or less in retirement, perfecting his coil.  He took up his residence in Everett where, with the assistance of Everett backers he worked on his device.

A local capitalist agreed to witness a demonstration of the coil to determine its practicability as a power source.  The motorboat was fitted with blocks on which to rest the motor and the propeller shaft geared for a chained belt. When the motor was first tried out after its installation in the boat it ran backwards.  So involved are the connections between the motor and the coil that fully a half-hour’s experimentation was necessary before the motor shaft revolved in the right direction. That the capitalist was frankly skeptical of the device was plain when he,with two other passengers, boarded the boat at the Seattle Yacht Club wharf.  All the machinery that was visible was the coil and the motor, the latter plainly geared to the propeller shaft.  The boat shoved off, Hubbard threw the switch, and instantly the boat began to pick up speed. It circled about the bay and returned to the wharf, with never a slackening of speed. The wires connecting coil and motor had begun to heat under the excessive current, and, fearing that some part of the coil might give way under the extra heavy strain put on it, Hubbard declined to permit the motor to be run continuously for any length of time. It was tried out later several times, after brief periods which allowed the wires to cool, and its power apparently showed no diminution.  No instruments were used to test its wattage.

The capitalist admitted that the demonstration intrigued his interest, but that he would wait for his expert’s opinion before discussing it. Following the demonstration, the young inventor declared that within a few days he expected to drive an automobile with the coil as a power unit. The Coil used yesterday had been built especially for the demonstration, and is nearly twice the size of the coil Hubbard used in his demonstration last winter.  The large coil cost approximately $90 to construct.  The inventor says that so far as he has been able to learn its life as a power unit is indefinite.  He declared that a coil large enough to drive an airplane would be no more than three times the size of the coil used yesterday, and that a machine thus equipped could fly around the world without stopping, so far as the power supply is concerned. While the device has been patented, the claims for it are so broad that Hubbard says he does not feel safe in making public his secret.

In general, he says, it is made up of a group of eight electro-magnets, each with primary and secondary windings of copper wire, which are arranged around a large steel core.  The core likewise has a single winding.  A coil thus constructed, he says, is lifeless until given an initial impulse.  This is done by connecting the ends of its windings for a fraction of a second to an ordinary [two words unreadable R.L.R.] -ing circuit, he says. The manner of this momentary charging, however, constitutes the principal secret of the device, according to the inventor, who says that while machinists have built a number of coils for him under his direction, they have been unable to “start” them.  In the event the power of the coil should diminish, it can be rejuvenated in less than a second, Hubbard says.

from the Seattle Post Intelligencer / February 26, 1928
Hubbard Believes Mystery Motor Based On His Own Invention
Ex-Dry Agent says he worked out secret of utilizing radium power in 1919
by R.B.Bermann

Alfred M. Hubbard, the youthful stormy petrel of the Seattle branch of the federal prohibition office, may possibly be the discoverer of at least the basic principle behind the [Hendershot] “fuelless motor” which was demonstrated for the first time in Detroit last week, and which is attracting the attention of such aeronautical experts as Col. Charles A. Lindbergh and Maj. Thomas G. Lanphier. This was claimed by Hubbard himself yesterday. While he said that he has been able to learn none of the details in connection with the Detroit demonstration, he declared that he was inclined to suspect very strongly that the motor was simply a development of the apparatus which e himself demonstrated in Seattle as early as 1919.

Driven By Radium
In 1919 Hubbard represented the apparatus as being capable of extracting electrical energy directly from the air, but he admitted yesterday that this had been merely a subterfuge to protect his patent rights, and that, as a matter of fact, it had been a device for extracting electrical energy from radium, by means of a series of transformers which stepped up the rays. He declined to go into detail in regard to the exact manner in which he managed to extract power from radium — but said that, so far as he had been able to determine, there was no great difference between the Detroit machine and his. “I never heard of this Lester J. Hendershot, the Pittsburgh electrical engineer who is demonstrating the motor”, Hubbard said, “but it must be remembered that I worked on the invention for two years in Pittsburgh — in 1921 and 1922. It was a Dr. Greenslade who represented the people who were financing me at the time — but, of course, if the people who bought out most of my interest in the invention were to bring it out as their own machinery, they would probably do it through a man with whom I had never worked. I was employed by the Radium Chemical Company at the time I was working in Pittsburgh”.

Sold Interest
While Hubbard declined to disclose the exact amount that he had received for his invention, he made it clear that he had sold out a 75% interest in what may prove to be the greatest scientific revelation of the ages for little more than a mess of potage. “When I made my discovery”, he said, “I was only 16 years old and, until that time, I’d never even had an ice cream soda. So you can imagine that a couple of thousand dollars looked mighty big to me. I never hesitated for an instant when the people who were financing me insisted on taking a [missing text] kept demanding more and more of my rights.

Just Quit Cold
“But, at last, along in 1922, I suddenly came to the realization that if I acceded to their latest demand I’d have only 20% interest left, so I just quit them cold”. Hubbard asserted that he has no intention of bringing any legal action against Hendershot or his associates for the present, at least. “If he really is using my idea”, Hubbard said, “and if it proves practical, it’s so big that 25% — or 2% — will bring in more money than I can ever possibly use. So I am not worried … [missing text] when he went to work for the Pittsburgh people. Hubbard went into retirement along with his motor for some time, but he made a dramatic return to Seattle and public attention a few years ago, when he was indicted for liquor conspiracy with Roy Olmstead, then acclaimed as the bootleg king of the Northwest. Hubbard was duly arrested but, on the eve of his trial, the indictment against him was dismissed and it later came out that, while associated with Olmstead, he had turned government informer. Some time after this he came out in the open as a frankly avowed prohibition agent.

The Changing Images of Man (PDF)
Changing Images 2000 by Thomas J. Hurley (PDF)

Sometimes it can take months for the meaning of a sentence to really sink in. It’s been months since we got a PDF copy of the legendary “Changing Images of Man” document from Stanford Research Institute, and having read it through several times I feel safe saying the book exceeded my expectations. However, unpacking all the information — especially in terms of it’s connections with contemporary events, then and now — has proven to be a much larger, longer task. Consider the “alternative methodology” behind the project itself:

First, we attempted to identify and assess the plausibility of a truly vast number of future possibilities for society. We next followed a method of analysis that determined which sequences of possible futures (that is, which “alternate future histories”) appeared to be the most plausible in light of human history and to most usefully serve the needs of policy research and development. Lastly, we derived a variety of policy implications, some of which dealt with how best to continue this type of inquiry.

Without the context, without knowing these people and how they work and what they talked about, it’s difficult to really decipher a paragraph as apparently clear as that one. What was the “method of analysis” in the second step? They never say, but take note of the term they use in quotes: “alternate future histories.”

Let me quote from Jim Keith’s excellent book Mind Control, World Control, from Chapter 12, which discusses the spread of LSD and the role of OSS/CIA agent Al Hubbard:

One associate of Hubbard’s was Willis Harman at the Stanford Research Institute. SRI had earlier received grants from the US Army to research chemical incapacitants. When visited by a representative of the underground press at SRI, Harman told the man, “There’s a war going on between your side and mine. And my side is not going to lose.”

For the record, that “representative of the underground press” was Michael Rossman of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. Anyways, according to Keith, Willis Harman hired Al Hubbard in 1968 as a “Special Investigative Agent.”

It’s worth noting that according to Todd Brendan Fahey’s classic article on Hubbard, The Original Captain Trips, Hubbard was (at least officially) hired as a security guard. It was Fahey’s article that abruptly came back to me today, especially the following lines:

Hubbard was specifically assigned to the Alternative Futures Project, which performed future-oriented strategic planning for corporations and government agencies. Harman and Hubbard shared a goal “to provide the [LSD] experience to political and intellectual leaders around the world.” Harman acknowledges that “Al’s job was to run the special sessions for us.”

Of course, this is decades ago, and juxtaposed quotes are proof of nothing. But there’s that weird term again, this time slightly different: “the Alternative Futures Project.”

When you look for a formal program by that name, you’re led not to the Stanford Research Institute, but the University of Illinois, where Charles Osgood and Stuart Umpleby wrote a report entitled “A Computer-based Exploration of Alternative Futures for Mankind 2000.” The report was included in the book Mankind 2000, which is full of rather disturbing quotes like this one:

“In the organization of a civilization of the future we anticipate that the individualistically-oriented man will become an anachronism. Indeed, he will be viewed as a threat to the group organization as well as to his fellow man. Hence, as stated, he in all likelihood will have few individual expectations. While such a picture may not be pleasant to comtemplate, when viewed with our present orientation and value judgement, we would be amiss to deal with unrealistic imagries that would blind us to future reality.”

This kind of stuff could almost be comic relief. After all, a computer program about the future had a lot of time and money invested in it, and when they ran the program, it said the future would be a lot like a computer program. If you’re not familiar with the phrase garbage in, garbage out, now is a good time to get familiar. What keeps this material from being funny is the line that comes right after the quote above, which sounds more or less exactly like the conclusion of Changing Images of Man:

The new world of the closed, automatic system will necessitate a radical change in the political, technologic, and social thinking. All too often, however, we remain bound by the conventional tenets and wisdom of past generations. The cyber-cultural revolution is changing all this.

The Alternative Futures project at the University of Illinois was funded by the same people who paid for SRI’s work: the Charles F. Kettering Foundation. Kettering was big on “the vision thing” during the 60s and 70s — they were looking everywhere to get an edge on futurism, putting a lot of money in very “out there” places.

…and for what it’s worth, the folks at SRI were very much out there. “Changing Images” co-author O.W. Markley left behind a very curious paper entitled “Visionary Futures”that outlines some other SRI “alternative methodologies” — including “channeled material in the book Seth Speaks, by Jane Roberts (1972).” This is the same SRI who employed top Scientologists, Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann, to develop their Remote Viewing program. That doesn’t mean they’re jackasses or something — it means that SRI gets paid, very well, for being very much out there. It’s what people depend on them for, then and now. Anyone exploring Changing Images of Man should bear Willis Harman’s words in mind: There’s a war going on between your side and mine. And my side is not going to lose.



the Exchange Stabilization Fund
by Catherine Austin Fitts  /   May 3, 2010

“…One of my favorite money laundering stories is told by Christopher Simpson, in his marvelous book Blowback, regarding one of the first Exchange Stabilization Fund slush fund operations after WWII. The ESF is a fund run by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the Secretary of the Treasury.  According to Simpson, this first operation, run from offices of Allen and John Foster Dulles at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York, used monies seized by the Nazis from Jewish victims and then seized from the Nazis by the Allies (and not returned to the victims), to rig the Italian elections for the conservatives at the request of the Vatican…”

Sullivan – Cromwell, the Dulles brothers, Nazi loot; a Secret Slush Fund and The Roll of The New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Joseph P. Farrell on Funding Black-Budget Exotic Technology and Breakaway Civilization
by amunaor  /   April 24, 2014

“Following WWII, having laundered some of the Nazi money seized from the Jews, that’s come back from Switzerland, was placed into The ‘Exchange Stabilization Fund’, which in the United States is the mother of all slush funds. The Exchange Stabilization Fund is run by the New York Fed, as agent for the Secretary of Treasury, it doesn’t go through any governmental bureaucracy, it goes directly to the Secretary of the Treasury. Financial power, Sullivan – Cromwell had/has a very big hand in this. The newly formed CIA, having received a request from the Vatican to rig the Italian elections, dove into this secret slush fund to fulfill the Vatican’s request.

The history of America is the story of how it continues to replenish this secret slush fund of WWII Nazi loot. The last round of bailouts, they got it all. While deals were being struck between Allen Dulles and General Reinhardt Gehlen, there was something else going on towards the tail end of WWII within American intelligence and that is what was to become the institutionalization of covert operations after the war, which was a nexus of American covert ops and this hold over Nazi organization, resulting in the rise of the current Fascist atmosphere we now find ourselves in. Towards the end of the war the Nazi’s were driving the division of the spoils, with the topflight, cream of the crop were ferreted into US institutional hierarchies, commandeering key segments the Military Industrial Complex, setting up a balance of tension between east and west….a tension utilized by the Nazi’s to exploit an arms buildup in the west.”

“This is a very interesting video series by Eric deCarbonnel of Market Skeptics about the Exchange Stabilization Fund. It is a look into the secret slush fund that operates trillions of dollars of with no oversight.

by Tyler Durden / 01/01/2012

“When it comes to the fabled President’s Working Group on Capital Markets, also known as the Plunge Protection Team, the myths about the subject are certainly far greater than any underlying reality. To be sure, vast amounts of popular folkflore has been expounded into the public arena, with most of it being shot down simply due to it assuming conspiracy theories of such vast scale that the human mind is unable to grasp the complexity, and ultimately the inverse Gordian Knot makes an appearance with the claim that vast conspiracies are largely untenable simply because it is impossible to keep a secret from so many people for so long. Yet what if the secret is not a secret at all but is fully out in the open, and is only a matter of interpretation, and contextualizing? Why just 3 years ago it would appear preposterous to allege the capital markets are a ponzi and that the Fed does everything in its power to keep stocks higher. Well, what a difference three years make: now the Chairman himself in a Washington Post OpEd has admitted that the sole gauge of Fed success is the loftiness of the Russell 2000, neither unemployment nor inflation really matter now that the Fed’s third mandate has been fully whipped out. Furthermore, Keynesian economics, and the entire top echelon of the educational system have also been accurately represented as a paradigm which merely perpetuates the status quo as the alternative is the realization that the whole system is a house of cards.

As for the global capital markets being nothing short of a ponzi, we merely point you to the general direction of Europe, the ECB and the continent’s banks, where the monetary interplay is nothing short of the world’s biggest pyramid scheme. Yet the PPT, or whatever it is informally called, does not exist? Consider further that only recently did it become known that the former SecTres Hank Paulson himself was exposed as presenting material non-public information to a bevy of Goldman arb desk diaspora hedge funds, headed by with none other than the head of the President’s Working Group on Capital Markets Asset Managers committee David Mindich. So, if contrary to all the evidence that there is some vast underlying pattern, if not a conspiracy per se, one were to take the leap of faith and take the next step, where would one end up? Well, most likely looking at the Exchange Stabilization Fund, or ESF, which Eric deCarbonnel has spent so much time trying to unmask. Is it possible that the ESF, located conveniently at the nexus between US monetary policy, foreign policy and last but not least, a promoter of the interests of the US military-industrial complex, is precisely the  organization that so many have been trying to expose for years? Watch and decide for yourself.

As a reminder deCarbonnel is not some tinfoil hat clad sub-basement dweller – it was his input that led us to the realization that in attempting to control the Treasury curve, the Fed will, and already has, experiment with selling puts on various Treasury maturities in an attempt to generate reflexivity whereby the synthetic determines the value of the underlying (something ETFs are now doing so very well), the value naturally always being higher, higher, higher irrelevant of what underlying demand there is (and as we showed last week, with a record amount of international outflows in the past month, the demand, at least from abroad, is just not there). So what does Eric assert?

Quite a bit as it turns out. “It is impossible to understand the world today without knowing what the ESF is and what it has been doing. Officially in charge of defending the dollar, the ESF is the government agency which controls the New York Fed, runs the CIA’s black budget, and is the architect of the world’s monetary system (IMF, World Bank, etc). ESF financing (through the OSS and then the CIA) built up the worldwide propaganda network which has so badly distorted history today (including erasing awareness of its existence from popular consciousness). It has been directly involved in virtually every major US fraud/scandal since its creation in 1934: the London gold pool, the Kennedy assassinations, Iran-Contra, CIA drug trafficking, and worse…

So while nursing that New Year’s Day hangover, take some time and watch this series of videos. If nothing else, even if they are merely the extended ramblings of some person that one can quickly dismiss as just the latest fringe lunatic, they do present an alternative reality to what so many may be accustomed to. After all at the end of the day imagination, the ability to think outside the box, and to see patterns where previously there were none, is the greatest threat to the falling and declining status quo by far.”

Husband of Mary (Polly) Knowles, a dedicated arts philanthropist and legendary Washington hostess.

The Exchange Stabilization Fund Role In Financing CIA Covert Operations
by Eric deCarbonnel  /  September 4, 2010

The Presidential Slush Fund: The inside story of how the fund established to help stabilize the dollar, supplemented by enemy assets during World War II, financed the first U.S. covert operations after the Cold War.

Over the centuries, as every graduate student of history knows, presidents and potentates have had their slush funds to carry out discreet activities of statecraft that they would prefer not to explain in public. In the United States, the practice started with George Washington himself, and for his purposes he seemed to manage quite well with disbursements in the hundreds of dollars. By the middle of the twentieth century, with the United States emerging as a global power and heading into a cold war with international communism, the covert doings of ages past were growing into an art form of intelligence — and a major arm of foreign policy. On June 18, 1948, the National Security Council of the Truman administration secretly approved its Directive 10/2, a clandestine program for infiltration, sabotage, and subversion of the newly imposed communist regimes of Eastern Europe.

Since both the new Central Intelligence Agency, established barely a year before, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were skittish about entering into the uncharted waters of covert action on such a scale, Truman’s NSC created a new government agency to do the job that the top policymakers felt had to be done if the world was to be saved from communism. The new creation was called the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC), an opaque label for the command headquarters running operations for which, the NSC mandated, the United States government could “plausibly disclaim any responsibility.” (This was the origin of the doctrine, later infamous as its cynicism became all too evident, of “plausible deniability.”) Recruitment of agents to parachute behind the Iron Curtain, their training, and logistical support became the secret mission assigned to a creative and energetic New York lawyer and World War II intelligence veteran named Frank G. Wisner.

Wisner’s obvious first task, before any of the skullduggery could be mounted, was to scrounge up the cash to pay for it all. For this, the NSC blithely had made no provision. And it had to be cash on trust; the purposes for which it would be disbursed could not be openly described. “The heart and soul of covert operations” Wisner learned from his savvy legal counsel, Lawrence Houston, is “provision of unvouchered funds, and the inviolability of such funds from outside inspection.” Thus was the notion of a slush fund expressed in bureaucratic parlance. Traditionally, appropriations for secret operations are buried on innocuous lines of other agencies’ budgets as submitted to Congress. The semblance of legal accountability is preserved, without wide disclosure of exactly how these funds are to be used. In 1948, with Truman and his NSC pressing him for immediate action, Wisner could not wait for a congressional appropriation procedure, however circumspect.

The State and Defense departments, for all their endorsement of Wisner’s mission, were not about to part with any of their own appropriated funds for some nefarious new venture. Wisner cobbled together what his officers called “tenuous understandings” with key members of Congress, the General Accounting Office, and other government departments to locate obscure accounts that his agency could draw upon without having to answer for it in public.

He found his first tempting target in an extraordinary and (at the time) little-noted account accumulating out of sight in the Department of the Treasury known as the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). Established in 1934, this ESF had provided the then extravagant fund of $2 billion in working capital before World War II, for short-term currency trading to stabilize the value of the dollar in world trade. Then, in 1941, War Powers legislation designated this convenient accounting device as the holding pool for captured enemy [Nazi stolen] assets and other monies being smuggled out of Europe.

After the war, the bulk of the ESF was transferred to the new International Monetary Fund as America’s capital contribution. But a relatively small portion, $200 million, was retained in the Treasury. As Congress was much later told, this would serve to help in the “reconstruction and rehabilitation of war-torn countries.” Exactly how it would so help was not specified, nor indeed, under the founding mandate, did it have to be. One special feature about the ESF was particularly enticing to Wisner and his financial officers, and their counterparts in Truman’s White House, as they scoped out possibilities for seed money to get the OPC’s clandestine operations up and running. From its origin, the ESF had been endowed with a provision which made financial sense at the time, but was also well suited to the funding of secret operations, never contemplated when the measure was enacted.

Currency trading and hedging tactics required “a high degree of flexibility and discretion,” Congress noted in setting up the fund. “Operations for the account of the ESF are likely to be highly sensitive, requiring a substantial degree of confidentiality.” Thus, Congress placed the fund “under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, whose decisions shall be final and not be subject to review by any other official.” For Wisner and his OPC, this extravagant freedom from scrutiny, enshrined in law, was nothing short of ideal. A reported $10 million was quickly signed over to the OPC; no outside accounting was required or made. Lest this old device ever be challenged, Wisner sought the specific concurrence of the NSC after his first year of operations that financial measures could “jolt” the communist bloc, with repercussions “bound to be felt in the political, military and cultural spheres.” Use of the ESF was thus brought within the OPC purview. Since Congress had already stated that ESF disbursals were not proper subjects for scrutiny, neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives bothered to hold any hearings in the formative years of the Cold War on the confidential accounts of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. It was the slush fund established to help stabilize the dollar in world trade, then supplemented by enemy assets during World War II, that started the United States off on the first covert operations of the cold war.

My reaction: When you realize that the Exchange Stabilization Fund runs the CIA’ s black budget, a lot of things start to make sense. Some of the big implications of this:
1) Without covert financing provided through the ESF, there is no covert wing of the CIA.
2) The CIA’ s worst secrets are buried in the ESF, and the fate of covert wing of CIA and ESF are therefore linked
3) By arranging covert funding and keeping its secrets, the ESF exerts enormous influence on the CIA.
4) The resources of the CIA, such as the propaganda networks set up during the cold war, are therefore at the disposal of the ESF.
Conclusion: The Exchange Stabilization Fund, operating through New York Fed with the CIA at its command, is the most powerful institution in the world.

“As Evan Thomas reported in The Very Best Men, the OPC’s charter gave it responsibility for “propaganda, economic warfare; preventative direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.” The U.S. government would “disclaim any responsibility” of the OPC’s missions.”

Retrobituaries: Frank Wisner, Father of American Covert Operations
by David W Brown  /   February 27, 2013

When the Central Intelligence Agency was established in 1947, its founding officers had to figure out how to build a global network of spies, run secret missions, overthrow governments, and recruit agents. It’s not like other countries were lining up to teach the United States the finer points of espionage, so those first CIA men had to be really smart or slightly crazy. Frank Wisner, the father of American covert operations, was both. Wisner was a genteel lawyer from Mississippi who grew bored with office life and joined the Navy. After Pearl Harbor, he found himself in the Office of Strategic Services, where he spied behind enemy lines, eventually becoming head of OSS operations in southeastern Europe. When the war ended, the OSS was shut down and Wisner returned to the soul-draining doldrums of office life.

It wasn’t long before the United States recognized the obvious mistake it had made in shutting down its intelligence capabilities. Worse yet, the few offices still around with any sort of proficiency in covert action were just too accountable. The State Department didn’t want anything to do with these precursors to the CIA, fearing that some blown secret mission might cripple diplomacy. The Defense Department preferred to save its dirty tricks for times of war. The FBI hated them because they didn’t want competition. When Truman signed the CIA into existence, the new agency found a similar reception. Would the National Security Council really want to explain to the press why some official had to be bribed or some foreign election had to be subverted? Frank Wisner, who was part of the small network of OSS hands eager to get back in the spy game, had a solution to the problem. He wanted to start yet another secret agency—this one accountable to virtually no one.

There’s a general rule in secret operations: If it has a bland name, it’s important. That’s why when you read about something called the Mission Support Activity, your eyes glaze over before you realize that you’re reading about the Joint Special Operations Command’s special mission unit for intelligence commandos. The Defense Mobilization Support Planning Activity? They plan for apocalyptic scenarios and continuity of government. The Combat Applications Group does not write database software for infantry supply clerks; it is better known as Delta Force. Frank Wisner’s new agency was called the Office of Policy Coordination, which should tell you an awful lot about its business. As Evan Thomas reported in The Very Best Men, the OPC’s charter gave it responsibility for “propaganda, economic warfare; preventative direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.” The U.S. government would “disclaim any responsibility” of the OPC’s missions.

Wisner’s office would be attached to the CIA only on paper, and strictly for funding and quarters. It would nominally report to a senior State Department official. The OPC’s mission was to take on the Soviet Union, and right from the start, the Pentagon—gearing up for World War III—wanted everything from insurgencies in Western Europe to sabotaging the entire Soviet air force, and it wanted them now. The OPC had a staff of 10, so this wasn’t likely to happen. Wisner focused his efforts on psychological warfare, most notably through Operation Mockingbird, wherein the OPC sought to influence foreign media—and who better to plant propaganda than the press itself? According to Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, “By the early 1950s, Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles.” The program successfully inserted countless pro-American news stories into coverage while suppressing reporting that might be embarrassing to the country. The program lasted through 1971. (Mockingbird wasn’t the OPC’s only psychological operation, and Wisner’s office had a great sense of humor. As previously described at Mental Floss, one of their more brilliant, but alas, never executed, operations involved airdropping enormous condoms labeled “medium” behind the Iron Curtain, as a way of demonstrating the anatomical superiority of the American fighting man.)

To confront Soviet aggression, Wisner eventually organized a secret army in Europe. Five thousand refugees volunteered to be part of a “post-nuclear guerrilla force,” which was just what it sounds like—Fallout: New Stalingrad. He orchestrated a massive spy ring, many of whose members were tasked with parachuting into Soviet territory and gathering intelligence. For months, waves of airborne spies in mission after mission landed, and each was killed straightaway. “The only thing they’re proving is the law of gravity,” said one CIA officer. It was an exhausting, stressful, and almost impossible job. To give some idea of how aggressively Wisner worked to build his spy network and subvert the Soviet Union, when the OPC was finally and officially absorbed into the CIA as the Directorate of Plans, it dwarfed the rest of the Agency, and consumed 75 percent of the CIA budget. Wisner was placed in charge of this new branch, and was beginning to find some real successes. On his watch, the CIA overthrew the governments of Iran and Guatemala—the only two such successes in the Agency’s history.

It’s worth noting that Wisner was the Christopher Hitchens of his day—a relentless charmer and bon vivant who threw all the best parties with the most interesting, powerful, and influential guests. This had the effect of keeping the money flowing while allowing Wisner to influence and backchannel policy decisions. Recalled one CIA officer, “I would be at a meeting where it was obvious that the decision had been made the night before at a dinner party.” Still, the job’s toll on Wisner was becoming apparent. He worked tirelessly during the Hungarian Uprising in 1956 to roll back Soviet expansion, but was largely ignored for fear of triggering a nuclear war. The results were horrifying—2500 Hungarians were killed, 200,000 were forced to flee their country, and tens of thousands were arrested and imprisoned. “All these people are getting killed,” Wisner later said, “and we weren’t doing anything, we were ignoring it.”

He didn’t take it well. While it’s reductive to say the aftermath drove Wisner mad, it’s fair to say that it didn’t help matters. He eventually had a breakdown, was hospitalized, and received an aggressive course of electroshock therapy. Afterward, he obviously wasn’t equipped to go back to the Directorate of Plans, so he was made the station chief in London. He retired in 1963, and committed suicide with a shotgun in 1965. Desmond FitzGerald, a deputy director of the CIA, remembered him as a “watchmaker in Detroit” on whose shoulders it fell “far more than any other man, to build our defenses from the ground up and with all speed.”

TUNNELS between the VAULTS
by Tyler Durden on 03/02/2013

“…as a result of our cursory examination, we have learned that the world’s largest private, and commercial, gold vault, that belonging once upon a time to Chase Manhattan, and now to JPMorgan Chase, is located, right across the street, and at the same level underground, resting just on top of the Manhattan bedrock, as the vault belonging to the New York Federal Reserve. At this point we would hate to be self-referential, and point out what one of our own commentators noted on the topic of the Fed’s vault a year ago, namely that: “Chase Plaza (now the Property of JPM) is linked to the facility via tunnel… I have seen it. The elevators on the Chase side are incredible. They could lift a tank. … but we won’t, and instead we will let readers make up their own mind why the thousands of tons of sovereign gold in the possession of the New York Fed, have to be literally inches across, if not directly connected, to the largest private gold vault in the world.






the WASHING of the LIONS

“During the 18th and 19th centuries a popular prank in London involved inviting unsuspecting victims to come view the annual ceremony of washing the lions at the Tower of London. Early versions of the prank promised the curious that the lions were going to be washed in the moat. Later versions told the gullible to seek entrance to the Tower at the “White Gate” (there being no such gate). Whatever the details were, the hopeful sightseers would make the journey to the Tower in vain, because there was no annual lion-washing ceremony. This prank is best known as an April Fool’s Day joke. In fact, a report of it being perpetrated in 1698 is the earliest recorded example of an April Fool’s Day prank. The April 2, 1698 edition of Dawks’s News-Letter reported that “Yesterday being the first of April, several persons were sent to the Tower Ditch to see the Lions washed” (Notes and Queries, 1913, 357). In 1887, a correspondent to the journal Notes and Queries speculated that the prank “originated from a custom of the warders formerly deriving perquisites from the liberality of country gobemouches, who ‘tipped’ them to ‘see the white bears fed.’” The washing-the-lions prank falls into the broad category of “sleeveless errand” pranks—more commonly referred to today as “wild-goose chases.” A sleeveless errand involves sending a victim on a fruitless quest in search of an item, or event, that does not exist.

Christians being fed to the court lions at a Roman colosseum

Where Does April Fools’ Day Originate?
by Talal Al-Khatib  /  April 1, 2013

Figuring out the origins of the holiday can be as tricky as getting to the source of a joke. The most common theory about the earliest April Fools’ celebrations goes like this: In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII issued a papal bull decreeing a new standard calendar for Christian Europe that would take his name and centuries later become the standard internationally in the 21st century. Prior to the 15th century, Europe’s nations and city states operated using the Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar moved the date of the new year from April 1 to January 1, among other changes. Catholic monarchies were naturally its earliest adopters, though Protestant nations later followed suit. Given the nature of the reform, both in terms of communicating such a fundamental change to a large population and dealing with critics of the new calendar, some Europeans continued to celebrate the new year between March 25 and April 1. April fools were those who still celebrated the holiday in the spring, and were the subject of pranks and ridicule by those who observed the new year months ago.

That’s just one theory for the origin of the holiday, however. Other occasions resembling April Fools’ Day preceded the more contemporary incarnation by centuries. Ancient Romans held a festival known as Hilaria. The occasion was used to celebrate the resurrection of the god Attis. Hilaria, of course, resembles the word hilarity in English. The modern equivalent of Hilaria is called Roman Laughing Day. Other non-Western cultures have their own traditions similar to April Fools’ Day as well. In India, Holi, a colorful Hindi festival that frequently entices non-Hindi participants to join in, often is celebrated by people playing jokes and throwing colorful dyes on each other. Persian culture also has a holiday with a similar theme, known as Sizdahbedar. On this day, which typically coincides with April Fools’ Day itself, Iranians play pranks on one another.

April Fools’ Day: The uncertain origins of a foolish day
by David Johnson and Shmuel Ross

April Fools’ Day, sometimes called All Fools’ Day, is one of the most light-hearted days of the year. Its origins are uncertain. Some see it as a celebration related to the turn of the seasons, while others believe it stems from the adoption of a new calendarAncient cultures, including those of the Romans and Hindus, celebrated New Year’s Day on or around April 1. It closely follows the vernal equinox (March 20th or March 21st.) In medieval times, much of Europe celebrated March 25, the Feast of Annunciation, as the beginning of the new year. In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordered a new calendar (the Gregorian Calendar) to replace the old Julian Calendar. The new calendar called for New Year’s Day to be celebrated Jan. 1. That year, France adopted the reformed calendar and shifted New Year’s day to Jan. 1. According to a popular explanation, many people either refused to accept the new date, or did not learn about it, and continued to celebrate New Year’s Day on April 1. Other people began to make fun of these traditionalists, sending them on “fool’s errands” or trying to trick them into believing something false. Eventually, the practice spread throughout Europe.

april fish
A French “poisson d’Avril” or “April Fish” postcard.

Problems With This Explanation
There are at least two difficulties with this explanation. The first is that it doesn’t fully account for the spread of April Fools’ Day to other European countries. The Gregorian calendar was not adopted by England until 1752, for example, but April Fools’ Day was already well established there by that point. The second is that we have no direct historical evidence for this explanation, only conjecture, and that conjecture appears to have been made more recently. Another explanation of the origins of April Fools’ Day was provided by Joseph Boskin, a professor of history at Boston University. He explained that the practice began during the reign of Constantine, when a group of court jesters and fools told the Roman emperor that they could do a better job of running the empire. Constantine, amused, allowed a jester named Kugel to be king for one day. Kugel passed an edict calling for absurdity on that day, and the custom became an annual event. “In a way,” explained Prof. Boskin, “it was a very serious day. In those times fools were really wise men. It was the role of jesters to put things in perspective with humor.” This explanation was brought to the public’s attention in an Associated Press article printed by many newspapers in 1983. There was only one catch: Boskin made the whole thing up. It took a couple of weeks for the AP to realize that they’d been victims of an April Fools’ joke themselves.

Spring Fever
It is worth noting that many different cultures have had days of foolishness around the start of April, give or take a couple of weeks. The Romans had a festival named Hilaria on March 25, rejoicing in the resurrection of Attis. The Hindu calendar has Holi, and the Jewish calendar has Purim. Perhaps there’s something about the time of year, with its turn from winter to spring, that lends itself to lighthearted celebrations. April Fools’ Day is observed throughout the Western world. Practices include sending someone on a “fool’s errand,” looking for things that don’t exist; playing pranks; and trying to get people to believe ridiculous things. The French call April 1 Poisson d’Avril, or “April Fish.” French children sometimes tape a picture of a fish on the back of their schoolmates, crying “Poisson d’Avril” when the prank is discovered.

Commission for the Reform of the Calendar (Pope Gregory XIII Presiding), 1582

Curious History of the Gregorian Calendar : Eleven days that never were
by Ben Snowden

September 2, 1752, was a great day in the history of sleep. That Wednesday evening, millions of British subjects in England and the colonies went peacefully to sleep and did not wake up until twelve days later. Behind this feat of narcoleptic prowess was not some revolutionary hypnotic technique or miraculous pharmaceutical discovered in the West Indies. It was, rather, the British Calendar Act of 1751, which declared the day after Wednesday the second to be Thursday the fourteenth. Prior to that cataleptic September evening, the official British calendar differed from that of continental Europe by eleven days—that is, September 2 in London was September 13 in Paris, Lisbon, and Berlin. The discrepancy had sprung from Britain’s continued use of the Julian calendar, which had been the official calendar of Europe since its invention by Julius Caesar (after whom it was named) in 45 B.C. Caesar’s calendar, which consisted of eleven months of 30 or 31 days and a 28-day February (extended to 29 days every fourth year), was actually quite accurate: it erred from the real solar calendar by only 11½ minutes a year. After centuries, though, even a small inaccuracy like this adds up. By the sixteenth century, it had put the Julian calendar behind the solar one by 10 days.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordered the advancement of the calendar by 10 days and introduced a new corrective device to curb further error: century years such as 1700 or 1800 would no longer be counted as leap years, unless they were (like 1600 or 2000) divisible by 400. If somewhat inelegant, this system is undeniably effective, and is still in official use in the United States. The Gregorian calendar year differs from the solar year by only 26 seconds—accurate enough for most mortals, since this only adds up to one day’s difference every 3,323 years. Despite the prudence of Pope Gregory’s correction, many Protestant countries, including England, ignored the papal bull. Germany and the Netherlands agreed to adopt the Gregorian calendar in 1698; Russia only accepted it after the revolution of 1918, and Greece waited until 1923 to follow suit. And currently many Orthodox churches still follow the Julian calendar, which now lags 13 days behind the Gregorian.

Why So Difficult?
Since their invention, calendars have been used to reckon time in advance, and to fix the occurrence of events like harvests or religious festivals. Ancient peoples tied their calendars to whatever recurring natural phenomena they could most easily observe. In areas with pronounced seasons, annual weather changes usually fixed the calendar; in warmer climates such as Southern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, the moon was used to mark time. Unfortunately, the cycles of the sun and moon do not synchronize well. A lunar year (consisting of 12 lunar cycles, or lunations, each 29½ days long) is only 354 days, 8 hours long; a solar year lasts about 365¼ days. After three years, a strict lunar calendar would have diverged from the solar calendar by 33 days, or more than one lunation. The Muslim calendar is hence the only purely lunar calendar in widespread use today. Its months have no permanent connection to the seasons— Muslim religious celebrations, such as Ramadan, may thus occur at any date of the Gregorian calendar. The phases of the moon have nonetheless remained a popular way to divide the solar year, if only because a 365¼-day year doesn’t exactly lend itself to equal subdivision (the 71¼-day month has yet to find favor among menologists). To compensate for the difference in the solar and lunar year, calendar makers introduced the practice of intercalation—the addition of extra days or months to the calendar to make it more accurate. The semilunar Hebrew calendar, consisting of twelve 29- and 30-day months, adds an intercalary month seven times every 19 years (which explains the sometimes confusing drift of Passover—and consequently Easter— through April and March).

Best of All Possible Calendars?
Despite its widespread use, the Gregorian calendar has a number of weaknesses. It cannot be divided into equal halves or quarters; the number of days per month is haphazard; and months or even years may begin on any day of the week. Holidays pegged to specific dates may also fall on any day of the week, and vanishingly few Americans can predict when Thanksgiving will occur next year. Since Gregory XIII, many other proposals for calendar reform have been made. In the 1840s, philosopher Auguste Comte suggested that the 365th day of each year be a holiday not assigned a day of the week. The generic “Year Day” would allow January 1 to fall on a Sunday every year. Needless to say, this clever solution was not widely embraced. The French Revolution also saw an attempt at the introduction of a new calendar. On October 5, 1793, the revolutionary convention decreed that the year (starting on September 22, 1792—the autumnal equinox, and the day after the proclamation of the new republic) would be divided into 12 months of 30 days, named after corresponding seasonal phenomena (e.g. seed, blossom, harvest). The remaining five days of the year, called sans-culottides, were feast days. In leap years, the extra day, Revolution Day, was to be added to the end of the year. The Revolutionary calendar had no week; each month was divided into three decades, with every tenth day to be a day of rest. This straightforward calendar, however, perished with the Republic.

The Gregorian Calendar

How do we keep track of time? When do we plant our crops, how do we know when to observe religious holidays? Societies need some way to keep track of time, and complex calendars (the word comes from the Roman term for the beginning of the month) were developed early in human history. In agricultural societies the seasonal cycle of the Sun is crucial, but for shorter periods the lunar cycle suggests itself as well. Historically the problem was that the year does not contain a whole number of days or months. The mean interval between successive vernal equinoxes (365.2424 days), is about 11 minutes less than 365 1/4 days; the synodic period of the Moon (the time between successive full moons or new moons) is about 29 1/2 days, and thus 12 months add up to about 354 days. Constructing a calendar that incorporates both the movements of the Sun and Moon is therefore not a simple business. Various solutions have been tried. The Egyptian calendar was perhaps the simplest solution. The year was made up of twelve months of thirty days each, and five days were added at the end. Since this meant an error of about 1/4 day per year, the starting date of the year slowly drifted forward with respect to the seasons until after 1460 years it had returned to where it started. The rising of the Nile, the crucial event in the Egyptian agricultural cycle, was predicted by the heliacal rising of Sirius,[1] the brightest star in the heavens. No attention was paid to the Moon.

Most cultures in the ancient Near East relied on a calendar in which months had alternating lengths of 29 and 30 days and added a month about every third year. Thus, in ancient Israel the elders added an extra month of 29 days every third year after the sixth month (Adar). But these 29 days would not make up entirely for the entire deficit of 3 x 11 1/4 days, and therefore in some years two extra months had to be added. In the Greek city states months were added haphazardly as needed and no consistent system of intercalation was ever developed. The most sophisticated system of keeping the motions of both the Sun and Moon harnessed in a single calendar was developed in Mesopotamia. By the Persian period, ca. 500, the system incorporated the so-called Metonic cycle (we name it after the Greek Meton, ca. 425 BCE) in which the following relationship is used: 19 solar years contain 6939 3/4 days; 110 months of 29 days plus 125 months of 30 days add up to 6940 days. 19 years, then, contained 235 months, and starting in (on our calendar) 499 BC, the calendar in that part of the world was regulated on a cycle of intercalating 7 extra months in 19 years, as shown in the following scheme (in which a dash indicates a year of 12 months and a VI or XII indicated a year in which a month was added after the sixth or twelfth month): – – XII – – XII – XII – – XII – – XII – – VI – XII

After a few irregularities, starting in 384 BCE, this scheme was rigorously adhered to, through the Greek and Roman conquests, until 75 CE, when cuneiform texts ceased. For convenience, the month was usually subdivided into smaller time periods. The Greeks divided the month into three periods of ten days, but a division of seven days was older and more common in the Near East. We find the seven-day week already in Genesis. The names that we assign to the days have their origin in the division of the day into 24 hours, which originated in Egypt. In the Hellenistic period (300 BCE – 100 BCE) it became common to assign a ruling planet (including the Sun and Moon) to each hour of the day. The common order of the wandering heavenly bodies was Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon. The first hour of the first day was assigned to the Sun, the second to Venus, the third to Mercury, etc., repeating the cycle in the order given above. The 24th hour was thus assigned to Mercury and the first hour of the second day to the Moon.

Naming the days after the planets that rule their first hours, we thus arrive at the sequence Sun’s day-Moon’s day-Mars’s day-Mercury’s day-Jupiter’s day-Venus’s day-Saturn’s day.[2] The modern English variations on these names are due to substituting Nordic or Saxon gods for some of the Roman names: Tiw for Mars, Wotan for Mercury, Thor for Jupiter, Frigg for Venus. Our civil method for reckoning time, then has a mixed origin. Our division of the hour into minutes and seconds is derived from the sexagesimal system of the Mesopotamians; the division of the day into 24 hours originated with the Egyptians; the seven-day week originated in the ancient Near East, while the names are derived from a Greek convention developed during the Hellenistic period. Our calendar is based on the motion of the Sun alone, but our various religious calendars are based on a combination of the motions of the Sun and Moon. Our civil calendar derives from the Romans with some alterations. Its origin is described nicely in the “Calendar” article in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1910), which reads in part:

The civil calendar of all European [and American] countries has been borrowed from that of the Romans. Romulus[3] is said to have divided the year into ten months only, including in all 304 days, and it is not very well known how the remaining days were disposed of. The ancient Roman year commenced with March, as is indicated by the names September, October, November, December, which the last four months still retain. July and August, likewise, were anciently denominated Quintillis and Sextillis, their present appellations having been bestowed in compliment to Julius Caesar and Augustus. In the reign of Numa[4] two months were added to the year, January at the beginning and February at the end; and this arrangement continued till the year 452 BC., when the Decemvirs[5] changed the order of the months, and placed February after January. The months now consisted of twenty-nine and thirty days alternately, to correspond with the synodic revolution of the moon [full moon to full moon], so that the year contained 354 days; but a day was added to make the number odd, which was considered more fortunate, and the year therefore consisted of 355 days. This differed from the solar year by ten whole days and a fraction; but to restore the coincidence, Numa ordered an additional or intercalary month to be inserted every second year between the 23d and 24th of February, consisting of twenty-two and twenty-three days alternately, so that four years constituted 1465 days, and the mean length of the year was consequently 366 1/4 days. The additional month was called Mercedinus or Mercedonius, from merces, wages, probably because the wages of workmen and domestics were usually paid at this season of the year. According to the above arrangement, the year was too long by one day, which rendered another correction necessary. As the error amounted to twenty-four days in as many years, it was ordered that every third period of eight years, instead of containing four intercalary months, amounting in all to ninety days, should contain only three of those months, consisting of twenty-two days each. The mean length of the year was thus reduced to 365 1/4 days; but it is not certain at what time the octennial periods, borrowed from the Greeks, were introduced into the Roman calendar, or whether they were at any time strictly followed. It does not even appear that the length of the intercalary month was regulated by any certain principle, for a discretionary power was left with the pontiffs,[6] to whom the care of the calendar was committed, to intercalate more or fewer days according as the year was found to differ more or less from the celestial motions. This power was quickly abused to serve political objects, and the calendar consequently thrown into confusion.

By giving a greater of less number of days to the intercalary month, the pontiffs were enabled to prolong the term of a magistracy or hasten the annual elections; and so little care had been taken to regulate the year, that, at the time of Julius Caesar, the civil equinox differed from the astronomical by three months, so that the winter months were carried back into autumn and the autumnal into summer. In order to put an end to the disorders arising from the negligence or ignorance of the pontiffs, [Julius] Caesar abolished the use of the lunar year and the intercalary month, and regulated the civil year entirely by the sun. With the advice and assistance of Sosigenes,[7] he fixed the mean length of the year at 365 1/4 days, and decreed that every fourth year should have 366 days, the other years having each 365. In order to restore the vernal equinox to the 25th of March, the place it occupied in the time of Numa, he ordered two extraordinary months to be inserted between November and December in the current year, the first to consist of thirty three, and the second of thirty-four days. The intercalary month of twenty-three days fell into the year of course, so that the ancient year of 355 days received an augmentation of ninety days; and the year on that occasion contained in all 445 days. This was called the last year of confusion. The first Julian year commenced with the 1st of January of the 46th before the birth of Christ, and the 708th from the foundation of the city. In the distribution of the days through the several months, Caesar adopted a simpler and more commodious arrangement than that which has since prevailed. He had ordered that the first, third, fifth, seventh, ninth, and eleventh months, that is January, March, May, July, September and November, should have each thirty-one days, and the other months thirty, excepting February, which in common years should have only twenty-nine day, but every fourth year thirty days. This order was interrupted to gratify the vanity of Augustus, by giving the month bearing his name as many days as July, which was named after the first Caesar. A day was accordingly taken from February and given to August; and in order that three months of thirty-one days might not come together, September and November were reduced to thirty days, and thirty-one given to October and December. For so frivolous a reason was the regulation of Caesar abandoned, and a capricious arrangement introduced, which it requires some attention to remember. [8]

The additional day which occurred every fourth year was given to February, as being the shortest month, and was inserted in the calendar between the 24th and 25th day. February having then twenty-nine days, the 25th was the 6th of the calends of March, sexto calendas; the preceding, which was the additional or intercalary day, was called bis-sexto calendas,–hence the term bissextile, which is still employed to distinguish the year of 366 days. The English denomination of leap year would have been more appropriate if that year had differed from common years in defect, and contained only 364 days. In the modern calendar the intercalary day is still added to February, not, however, between the 24th and 25th, but as the 29th. Although the Julian method of intercalation is perhaps the most convenient that could be adopted, yet, as it supposes the year too long by 11 minutes 14 seconds, it could not without correction very long answer the purpose for which it was devised, namely, that of preserving always the same interval of time between the commencement of the year and the equinox.

Bill Donahue

Sosigenes could scarcely fail to know that this year was too long; for it had been shown long before, by the observations of Hipparchus [ca. 125 BCE], that the excess of 3651/4 days above a true solar year would amount to a day in 300 years. The real error is indeed more than double of this, and amounts to a day in 128 years; but in the time of Caesar the length of the year was an astronomical element not very well determined. In the course of a few centuries, however, the equinox sensibly retrograded towards the beginning of the year. When the Julian calendar was introduced, the equinox fell on the 25th of March. At the time of the Council of Nicea, which was held in 325, it fell on the 21st . . . .

The Julian Calendar was naturally adopted by the successor of the Roman Empire, Christian Europe with the Papacy at its head. By about 700 CE it had become customary to count years from the starting point of the birth of Christ (later corrected by Johannes Kepler to 4 BCE). But the equinox kept slipping backwards on the calendar one full day every 130 years. By 1500 the vernal equinox fell on the 10th or 11th of March and the autumnal equinox on the 13th or 14th of September, and the situation was increasingly seen as a scandal. The most important feast day on the Christian calendar is Easter, when the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ are celebrated. In the New Testament we find that Christ’s crucifixion occurred in the week of Passover. On the Jewish calendar, Passover was celebrated at the full moon of the first month (Nissan) of spring. In developing their own calendar (4th century CE), Christians put Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.

If the equinox was wrong, then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day. Most other Christian observances (e.g., the beginning of Lent, Pentecost) are reckoned backward or forward from the date of Easter. An error in the equinox thus introduced numerous errors in the entire religious calendar. Something had to be done. After the unification of the Papacy in Rome, in the fifteenth century, Popes began to consider calendar reform. After several false starts, a commission under the leadership of the Jesuit mathematician and astronomer Christoph Clavius (1537-1612) succeeded. Several technical changes were instituted having to do with the calculation of Easter, but the main change was simple. In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII (hence the name Gregorian Calendar) ordered ten days to be dropped from October, thus restoring the vernal equinox at least to an average of the 20th of March, close to what it had been at the time of the Council of Nicea. In order to correct for the loss of one day every 130 years, the new calendar dropped three leap years every 400 years. Henceforth century years were leap years only if divisible by 400. 1600 and 2000 are leap years; 1700, 1800 and 1900 are not.

The new calendar, although controversial among technical astronomers, was promulgated from Rome and adopted immediately in Catholic countries. Protestant countries followed suit more slowly. Protestant regions in Germany, and the northern Netherlands adopted the calendar within decades. The English, always suspicious of Rome during this period, retained the Julian Calendar. Further, while others now began the new year uniformly on 1 January, the English began it on 25 March (an older custom). Now, for example, the date 11 February 1672 in England was 21 February 1673 on the Continent. After 1700 in which the Julian Calendar had a leap year but the Gregorian did not, the difference was eleven days. The English and their American colonies finally adopted the Gregorian Calendar in the middle of the eighteenth century. George Washington was born on 11 February on the Julian Calendar; we celebrate his birthday on 22 February.

Note, finally, that the Gregorian Calendar is useless for astronomy because it has a ten-day hiatus in it. For the purpose of calculating positions backward in time, astronomers use the Julian Date.

2015 Phases of the Moon
Universal Time


       d  h  m          d  h  m          d  h  m          d  h  m

                                  JAN.   5  4 53   JAN.  13  9 46
JAN.  20 13 14   JAN.  27  4 48	  FEB.   3 23 09   FEB.  12  3 50
FEB.  18 23 47	 FEB.  25 17 14	  MAR.   5 18 05   MAR.  13 17 48
MAR.  20  9 36	 MAR.  27  7 43	  APR.   4 12 06   APR.  12  3 44
APR.  18 18 57	 APR.  25 23 55	  MAY    4  3 42   MAY   11 10 36
MAY   18  4 13	 MAY   25 17 19	  JUNE   2 16 19   JUNE   9 15 42
JUNE  16 14 05	 JUNE  24 11 03	  JULY   2  2 20   JULY   8 20 24
JULY  16  1 24	 JULY  24  4 04	  JULY  31 10 43   AUG.   7  2 03
AUG.  14 14 53	 AUG.  22 19 31	  AUG.  29 18 35   SEPT.  5  9 54
SEPT. 13  6 41	 SEPT. 21  8 59	  SEPT. 28  2 50   OCT.   4 21 06
OCT.  13  0 06	 OCT.  20 20 31	  OCT.  27 12 05   NOV.   3 12 24
NOV.  11 17 47	 NOV.  19  6 27	  NOV.  25 22 44   DEC.   3  7 40
DEC.  11 10 29	 DEC.  18 15 14	  DEC.  25 11 11

found at

[1]The time of year when Sirius comes out of the rays of the Sun and is first visible on the eastern horizon at sunrise.
[2]See Otto Neugebauer, The Exact Science in Antiquity, 2d ed. (Providence: Brown University Press, 1957), pp. 82-86.
[3]Legendary founder and first king of Rome, ca. 750 BC.
[4]Numa Pompilius, second legendary king of Rome, ca. 700 BC.
[5]Decemviri: any college of ten magistrates in ancient Rome. The most famous college was the decemviri legibus scribendis, or the “composers of the Twelve Tables,” who ruled Rome absolutely for a few years around 450 BC.
[6]Roman high priests.
[7]A Greek astronomer and mathematician who flourished in the first century BC None of his writings have survived and we know about him only through the writings of Pliny (d. 79 AD). Pliny tells us that Sosigenes was consulted by Julius Caesar about the calendar (Natural Histories, xviii, 25).
[8]Thirty days has September, April, June, and November . . .

Gregorian Reform of the Calendar: Proceedings of the Vatican Conference to Commemorate its 400th Anniversary, 1582-1992, ed. G. V. Coyne, M. A. Hoskin, and O. Pedersen (Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Specolo Vaticano, 1983). Jean Meeus and Denis Savoie, “The history of the tropical year,” Journal of the British Astronomical Association, 102 #1 (1992): 40-42






“April 14, 1865, Lewis Powell arrived at Secretary of State William Seward’s home. Seward was recuperating from a carriage accident and Powell claimed he had a delivery of medicine. Seward’s son Frederick denied Powell entrance into his father’s bedroom, but Powell was determined to finish his mission and beat Frederick Seward severely, entering William Seward’s bedroom and slashing his throat twice. Seward’s son Augustus struggled with Powell but he broke free and escaped from the house, where David Herold was waiting with their horses.”

“On the evening of the 14th, Booth had called at the Kirkwood House, where Vice-President Johnson was stopping, and left a card on which was written: “Don’t wish to disturb you. Are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth.”


“A sampling of expulsions of Jesuits from various nations (listed chronologically according to the 1st year of expulsion by various nations: in some cases the monarch who ordered the expulsion is listed):

1579, 1581, 1586, and 1602 – Elizabeth I, Queen of England
1604 – James I, King of England [This was the 5th expulsion of the Jesuits from England!]
1614 – Japan
1618 – the Kingdom of Bohemia
1716, 1783 – China
1719 – Peter the Great of Russia
1759 – King Joseph I of Portugal [He believed the Jesuits attempted to assassinate him in 1758.]
1764 – King Louis XV of France
1816 – Russian Czar Alexander I [He expelled the Jesuits from Moscow and St. Petersburg.]
1820 – Russian Czar Alexander I [He expelled the Jesuits from all of Russia.]

1820, 1835, 1868 – Spain
1834 – Portugal [2nd expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal]
1848 – Switzerland
1848, 1859 – Italy
1872 – Guatemala
1872 – German-Prussian Empire
1873 – Mexico
1874 – Brazil
1875 – Ecuador and Columbia
1880, 1901 – France [2nd and 3rd expulsions of the Jesuits from France]
1884 – Costa Rica
1901 – Portugal [3rd expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal]

Jesuits assassinating Henry IV
“This is the moment a drifter by the name of François Ravaillac seizes to strike. Then a group of armed men appear out of nowhere to kill the assassin on the spot, but one of the King’s attendants, the Baron de Courtomer, has enough presence of mind to disperse the men by telling them Henri is safe. Ravaillac can then be arrested and questioned. The man is clearly unbalanced. He sought to take orders, first with the Feuillants, then with the Jesuits, rejected by both on account of his hallucinations, which he believed to be religious visions. The investigation is suspiciously hasty: only 13 days between the crime and the execution of the assassin! Ravaillac himself insists under torture that he has no accomplices, but when he is drawn and quartered on the 27th of May, he exclaims “I was deceived when they persuaded me that my deed would be well received by the people.” 

NOTE: The Jesuits were expelled from England five times! The Jesuits were also expelled three times from predominantly Roman Catholic Spain, three times from predominantly Roman Catholic Portugal, and three times from predominantly Roman Catholic France! The Jesuits were also expelled numerous times from various predominantly Roman Catholic countries in South and Central America. Why were the Jesuits expelled so many times from so many nations of the world? Let us here repeat a quotation by Canadian author and historian J.E.C. Shepherd that was given earlier in this newsletter – a quotation that provides us with the answer:  “Between 1555 and 1931 the Society of Jesus [Ed.: i.e., the Jesuit Order] was expelled from at least 83 countries, city-states and cities, for engaging in political intrigue and subversive plots against the welfare of the State, according to the records of a Jesuit priest of repute [Ed.: i.e., Thomas J. Campbell]. Practically every instance of expulsion was for political intrigue, political infiltration, political subversion, and inciting to political insurrection. – J.E.C. Shepherd (“The Babington Plot”; 1987; Wittenburg Publications, Toronto, Canada; Page 12)

“Regarding the conspirators who killed Abraham Lincoln, United States General Baker stated for the record: “I mention, as an exceptional and remarkable fact, that every conspirator, in custody, is by education a Catholic.”

Lincoln’s assassins unhooded / May 2, 2013

“For those unfamiliar with these facts, be sure to visit the article at this link. Keep in mind that you can secure photo books by the Civil War photographer, Matthew Brady, that show photos of these facts.  One interesting and pivotal point in the history of Lincoln’s assassination is when John Wilkes Booth visited a Catholic church in Bryantown and was introduced to Dr. Samuel Mudd in November 1864 as you can read in another article at this link.  Another interesting detail is how the Catholic Church helped arch-conspirator John Surratt to escape the manhunt for Lincoln’s assassins as you can read in the article at this link. You can also read about such facts in numerous old history books, some of which this author mentions.

Edman Spangler was employed at Ford’s Theatre. On April 14, 1865 it was his job to prepare the presidential box for the evening’s performance. While John Wilkes Booth attacked President Lincoln, Spangler attended to Booth’s horse then he later placed himself by the theatre’s back door to help aid Booth in his escape.”

Burke McCarty’s book at this link, written shortly after the tragic assassination of Lincoln, tells how the Georgetown Jesuits sat in the courtroom in Washington, D.C. during the trial, monitoring the jurors who testified for or against John Surratt.  It also tells how priests were discussing the assassination of Lincoln before it even took place. Furthermore, C.T. Wilcox was able to obtain documents from that era of history, and you can hear about how he secured the historical evidence in the video interview at this link and you can also read his website at this link and order his eye-opening book, available on his website or go to for a copy at this link, although it’s not always in stock.

His book describes the full details of how the American republic was targeted by the Vatican and has been slowly transformed over the past century into the failing republic that she is today. A sample chapter including photos is available of his book at this link.  A PDF copy of one of his books, which is missing all the photos but still has some of the text, is also available at this link.  In an article on the website of popular talk show host , C.T. Wilcox is stated as saying: “In 1822 the Roman Catholic Monarchies of Europe conspired with the Vatican to destroy the concept of popular government, as found in the experiment of the United States, by means of infiltration, subversion and corruption,”
While pretending to partner with America, is not the European Union benefiting from the demise of the United States as we write these very words?

As America continues to play the war machine for the Old World Order, are not these nations more and more resembling two iron feet mixed with clay planted firmly on each side of the Atlantic Ocean, reminiscent of a prophecy in the Book of Daniel chapter two? America continues to spill her solders’ blood in further imperialistic conquests, and spends all the country’s money, while her CIA, started by a Vatican Knight with Catholic Nazi scientists and intelligence officers, incurs the wrath of the world by toppling governments, rigging elections, and assassinating world leaders as her quest for world domination continues.

Meanwhile, the Pope wags the naughty finger at America and talks of peace and denies her multiple and massive connections to all the blood-letting, and still meets secretly with the President of the United States and encourages America to self-destruct by suggesting to the U.S. President that socialism be exalted, guns be controlled and that a world leader is needed.  Can all we all guess who the Pope might have in mind for this global world leader he thinks is needed?

Another very thought-provoking article at this link shares a good deal of history on this issue and states: “Not long after Lincoln’s assassination, the U.S. Government broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican on 30th June 1867 … Lincoln’s assassination was found by the Tribunal to have been perpetrated by eight Catholics, several of whom were held by the Tribunal to have been under the influence of the Jesuits and one of whom (John Surratt) was found to have been working for months in Rome as a Zouave (a personal bodyguard in the paid service of the Pope) “under the false name of John Watson.”

Charles Chiniquy: “My dear President, I must repeat to you here what I said in 1856. My fear is that you will fall under the blows of a Jesuit assassin if you do not pay more attention than you have done, till now, to protect yourself…”

Abraham Lincoln:You are not the first to warn me against the dangers of assassination. My ambassadors in Italy, France, and England, as well as Professor Morse, have many times warned me against the plots of the murderers, which they have detected in those different countries. But I see no other safeguard against those murderers but to be always ready to die…”

“As German Cardinal Walter Kasper said in a speech on Pope Francis at The Catholic University of America, “[Francis] does not represent a liberal position, but a radical position, understood in the original sense of the word, as going back to the roots, the radix.”

Samuel F.B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph (which made possible the internet): “And do Americans need to be told what JESUITS are? If any are ignorant, let them inform themselves of their history without delay; no time is to be lost; their workings are before you in every day’s events; they are a SECRET SOCIETY, a sort of Masonic order with super added features of revolting odiousness, and a THOUSAND TIMES MORE DANGEROUS.”

“Ronald Reagan was the President who restored diplomatic ties with Rome under the disguise of a being a “Protestant” and under guise of being a popular, conservative President who nobody would suspect. Reagan’s parents are buried in a Catholic cemetery today.”

“It has been told to us, coming from what we believe to be true authority, that Booth, about three weeks before he committed the crime, was admitted to the Roman Catholic Church, and privately received the sacraments from no less a personage than Archbishop Spaulding himself, which he did to silence any conscientious scruples that he might have in taking Abraham Lincoln’s life…”

“Passage Through Baltimore”
: President-elect Lincoln depicted ignominiously hiding in a cattle car by Adalbert J. Volck, 1863

“…and it was but a short time after that Archbishop Spaulding received a donation of funds for the specific purpose which was to uniform and equip a military body in the same manner and style as the Papal Guard at Rome. The uniforms, muskets, cartridge boxes and belts all bearing the Papal coat of arms and consecrated by the pope himself, were sent to Archbishop Spaulding at Baltimore… The entire diocese… was rebel to the core and fierce in its hatred of Lincoln.” – Edwin A. Sherman, “Engineer Corps of Hell”, page 213

John Surratt was scurried out of the United States with the help of Catholic priests in Canada, from where he fled to Italy. He is shown here in uniform as a member of the Pope’s bodyguard militia known as Papal Zouaves.”

Diary of John Surratt – “November 2, 1865. — Conversed with Mr. A. to-day. He says Paris will ruin me, as I have already been recognized more than once. I think ____ and the rest would like to get rid of me. They know that if I was out of the way, there would be none left to betray them. Although not the actual assassins, they had more to do with it than they would like known, especially ______, of New York. A wants me to go to Rome and join the Papal Zouaves. I could then be better protected, and money could reach me as well there as in Paris.”

Interview with Author Paul Serup / October 2013

TAEM – Author Paul Serup’s work encompasses all these qualities. As an independent author and researcher he has spent many years studying a case that has haunted America’s history since the Civil War. Paul, tell us a little about yourself and your work as a researcher.
Paul Serup– I have loved reading from an early age and am fascinated with history. As it has been said, real life is often so much more interesting than fiction. As you mentioned, I am an independent research and author, based in central British Columbia, Canada. It is very nice part of the world, but somewhat removed from important repositories of information like the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library etc, so doing research in the area I have, has been a challenge. I hold the record, the last time I checked, for the amount of inter-library loans at the library of the city where I live, while researching the book. There is, however, no substitute for having boots on the ground and doing research on location, although travel is expensive.

TAEM– You started your recent book, Who Killed Abraham Lincoln? while reviewing the life of Father Charles Chiniquy. Tell us about him and why you decided to look into his work.
PS– To answer your second question first, in 1986, I read Chiniquy’s autobiography, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome and I was stunned, in particular, by his assertion that the Jesuits were ultimately behind the Lincoln assassination. I became very curious about him and so I started to do research on who he was, what sort of reputation he had, and what place he had, if any, in history. That is essentially what initially motivated me and I began my research with no plans for a book or anything of the sort. Charles Chiniquy was born in the Canadian province of Quebec, into the Roman Catholic religion in 1809, the same year Abraham Lincoln was born. As a child, he learned the Bible at his mother’s side, and as he grew up, he aspired to the Catholic priesthood. Although he struggled with the instruction he received, feeling that there was major disagreement between the teachings of the Catholic Church and what the Bible and logic told him, he finished his training and was ordained a priest in 1833. Through the influence of a Protestant doctor he met while ministering at the Quebec Marine Hospital, Chiniquy became convinced of the damage that alcohol does to individuals, and society in general, and so started a temperance society. He was very successful in his efforts and by the mid-nineteenth century, he had persuaded roughly half of Quebec to give up drinking. At the time, most households in the province had a portrait of the eloquent “Apostle of Temperance”, as he was called. In 1851, he accepted the summons of Bishop Vandeveld, the second bishop of Chicago, to establish a French-Canadian Catholic settlement on the unsettled prairie of Illinois. He was again successful in doing so, but when a new bishop came to Chicago, Anthony O’Regan, Chiniquy found himself in a very public struggle with the tyrannical O’Regan. He also found himself a target of a prominent Catholic named Peter Spink, who began an unsuccessful prosecution of him, through two court terms in 1855 in Kankakee.

TAEM– He left the Catholic Church for the Protestant religion. What motivated him to do so?
PS– Although he struggled to remain a Catholic, changing the religious order he ministered in and the place where he served: the gap between what the Catholic Church preached and what it practiced, the division between the teachings of Catholic theologians and what the Bible stated, eventually caused him the leave the religion he was raised in and become a Protestant. After his tremendous colision with Chiniquy, Bishop O’Regan was summoned to Rome and removed as bishop of Chicago. The final straw for Chiniquy and the Catholic Church, was when the successor of O’Regan, Bishop Smith of Dubuque, asked for Chiniquy and the people of his colony to give a written canonical declaration of submission to him. They promised to obey the bishop in everything he asked as long as it was in accordance to the Word of God. When the bishop told Chiniquy he had to submit unconditionally, Chiniquy refused to do so.

The bishop then told Chiniquy that he could no longer be a Catholic priest and Chiniquy left the Church. Though Chiniquy was initially very alarmed at having left the Church he had been born in, he felt God show him that, like Luther, he could be saved and have a relationship with God by faith, in Jesus Christ, not by trying to keep a system of religious laws. A thousand of his fellow colonists followed him out of the Roman Catholic Church immediately and eventually most of the colony left the Church to become Protestants. Charles Chiniquy went on to become world famous as he spent the rest of his life trying to win Roman Catholics to the Protestant faith. His life was very eventful. Although he endured a number of law suits, riots, stonings, and attempts on his life at the hands of Catholics, he lived to his ninetieth year.

TAEM– Please tell our readers about his friendship with Lincoln, and how he first met him.
PS– After he had won his second battle with Peter Spink in Kankakee, he was greatly discouraged to hear that Spink had successfully petitioned for a change of venue, as it would make Chiniquy’s defense much more difficult. A stranger approached him and told him his struggle was larger than he knew. He said that the bishop of Chicago, who wanted to silence him, was really behind the prosecution. The stranger recommended that he hire Abraham Lincoln, whom he called the best lawyer and most honest man in Illinois, to defend him. Chiniquy sent a telegram to Lincoln and soon received word that Lincoln would help. He first met the future President at the beginning of the spring court session at Urbana in 1856 and they went through this court battle and another in the fall together. The fall court action in which Lincoln defended him was the most high profile libel case in the popular Springfield attorney’s career.

Big crowds came, not because Lincoln was involved but because Chiniquy was. Charles Chiniquy said he was filled with admiration for Lincoln the moment they first met. At the conclusion of the case, Lincoln said he was amazed at how Chiniquy had been persecuted and hoped that he could be counted as one of Chiniquy’s most devoted friends. Chiniquy said that Lincoln’s services were worth at least two thousand dollars but Lincoln refused to accept anything except fifty dollars, saying he had defended Chiniquy less as a lawyer than as a friend. Chiniquy visited President Lincoln three times in the White House and the last visit is actually reported in a letter, by Chiniquy, published in the Chicago Tribune in August 12th, 1864, while the 16th President remained in office. It is published in its entirety in my book. The letter is a fascinating glimpse into the Lincoln White House and into Chiniquy’s friendship with the President. Chiniquy’s great admiration for Lincoln is clearly evident. Strong evidence shows that Chiniquy was actually Abraham Lincoln’s closest friend.

Barack Obama, Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Republican candidate Mitt Romney laugh together at the Oct. 18, 2012 Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner [photo Mario Tama]

TAEM– Tell us of your endeavors to research his claim of the conspiracy behind the President’s assassination.
PS– I have researched Chiniquy’s assertions from Minnesota to New York, through institutions such as the Library of Congress, the National Archives, other libraries, archives, collections, cemeteries, and careful review of essentially all of the relevant documentation available, it has not been possible to find any part of the ex-priest’s book where it appears certain that he made a significant error regarding historical fact. I found newspaper articles in Minnesota that reported on the murders of Lincoln and Secretary of State Seward being spoken about, hours before they were attempted, in a solidly Roman Catholic village in the state, many miles from the nearest rail or telegraph line.

Charles Chiniquy talked about them, but I believe these articles have not be found and published before I did in my book. As you likely are aware, it was not just Lincoln who was slated for assassination. It was also the Vice-President, the Secretary of State and General Grant. The last case that Lincoln defended Chiniquy in was ended by the appearance of a young woman, Philomene Moffat, who had direct evidence that a Catholic priest who had testified against Chiniquy had committed perjury. In my research of this woman, which took me through a couple of Chicago cemeteries, I found two of her living descendants, on in the state of New York and one in Utah. They, unfortunately, had essentially no information to add.

TAEM– How many years have you worked on this, and what obstacles have you encountered.
PS– I researched and wrote on this over a period of twenty two years. Something like six or seven years into my research, I believe, I read a paper by Joseph George Jr., published in the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society. I am not sure exactly when I first read it because, as I mentioned, I had no plan of doing anything with the research at the time so I took no note of when it happened. In any event, the paper was entitled: “The Lincoln Writings of Charles P. T. Chiniquy“, and was published in the February 1976 issue of this journal. At the time, George was the chair of the history department of Villanova University. The paper stopped me in my tracks as it directly stated, in this historical journal, that Chiniquy was wrong and not to be believed. The tone was so final, conclusive, and coming from the chair of a history department of a fairly well known university, I was disappointed to conclude that Chiniquy was therefore simply wrong. As I had traveled, gone to Chicago and other places and done some years of research, I picked up the material again, after a year or so, to go over and see exactly where Chiniquy went wrong. As I did so, I was surprised to find that when his paper was closely examined, this university professor had made numerous errors of historical fact, and reason and had misquoted Chiniquy. I found that in finality, it was Joseph George that shouldn’t be trusted, and not Charles Chiniquy. I then started my research again. The critique of George’s paper is in book.

TAEM– Do you believe that there may be an ulterior motive to his accusation.
PS– No, I do not believe so. As I mentioned, I examined Joseph George’s criticism of Chiniquy and what he wrote and found George’s negative assessment of the ex-priest to be without merit. I also examined the criticism of four others who were critics of Chiniquy. Three were academics and the other one was a Jesuit priest. Even after his death, when he can no longer defend himself, they were unable to successfully convict him of any wrong-doing. If one looks at his treatment by his contemporaries in the press such as the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times, it is very interesting. They treat him as the celebrated, world famous clergyman that he was, not as someone who personally had a axe to grind regarding the Church of Rome.

TAEM– What are your assumptions of the case’s outcome?
PS– I hope that more thinking Americans will consider what I have found and if they do, they will gain new insight into the motivation of those took part in the Lincoln assassination conspiracy and the role of the Roman Catholic Church in this famous cold case.


A sampling of leaders whom the Jesuits and their agents plotted against, and/or attempted – but failed – to assassinate – at least initially (in chronological order):

NOTE: It is important to remember, when reading this sampling of various leaders against whom the Jesuits and their agents plotted, that Jesuit-controlled Papal Rome hates (with a purple passion) civil and religious liberty – and strives to have a “monopoly” on religion in any nation where she has sufficient power and influence to force the State to make Roman Catholicism the official State religion (to the exclusion of all others)!

1571, 1583, 1586, and 1588Queen Elizabeth I of England: These years all saw failed attempts by the Jesuits to remove Queen Elizabeth I of England from her throne through Jesuit-instigated plots of assassination and/or rebellion in order to restore the pope’s “temporal power” in England. (Queen Elizabeth I was a strong Protestant ruler who opposed Jesuit efforts to place her beloved people once again under papal tyranny and despotism. Queen Elizabeth I had greatly angered the Jesuit Order by expelling the Jesuits from England in 1579.)

1582William I, Prince of Orange and Duke of Nassau: The first attempt on the life of William I, Prince of Orange was made by a Jesuit “tool” by name of John Jauregay, who was under the direction of a Jesuit who went by the name of Juan de Ysunka. On May 18, 1582 Jauregay shot a ball at point-blank range that penetrated just below William’s right ear. William I miraculously survived this attempted assassination, and Jauregay ended up getting hacked to death by a number of William’s dinner guests. (William I, Prince of Orange would two years later finally meet his end at the hand of an assassin, Balthazar Gerard [one book has “Gerhard”] – another Jesuit “tool” – who shot him with three poison-tipped bullets. William of Orange was greatly hated by the Jesuits because he had broken the pope’s “temporal power” over Holland.)

1857U.S. President James Buchanan: An attempt was made to poison President Buchanan to death on February 23, 1857 at the National Hotel in Washington, D.C. (Thirty-eight individuals died as a result of arsenic poison that was put in the sugar that was placed at the tables where President Buchanan and his supporters sat.) President Buchanan barely survived the poisoning, and did so only because he informed his doctors that arsenic had probably been used in this attempt to assassinate him. This attempt on President Buchanan’s life was the result of his refusal to make war on those southern states that were threatening to leave the Union – thus temporarily thwarting the Jesuits’ efforts to foment the American Civil War in order to split the Union. (President Buchanan was also a strong advocate of States’ rights!)

1866, 1879 and 1880Czar Alexander II: Unsuccessful attempts by Jesuit “tools” to assassinate Czar Alexander II were made in all three of these years. The Jesuits wanted Alexander II dead because he had twice broken diplomatic relations with the Papacy, and because he had supported the Union during the American Civil War of 1861-65. (Jesuit-controlled Papal Rome had supported the Confederacy.) Alexander II had sent part of the Russian fleet to U.S. shores and had placed those ships under the direct command of President Lincoln. This action kept France and England from coming in on the side of the Confederacy – and thus helped Lincoln to preserve the Union! (“Tools” of the Jesuits succeeded in assassinating Alexander II in 1881.) ”

“Execution of Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt on July 7, 1865, at Fort McNair

Hanging of Conspirators in Lincoln Assassination

“The assassination of United States President Abraham Lincoln took place on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, as the American Civil War was drawing to a close. The assassination occurred five days after the commanding General of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee, surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant and the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln was the first American president to be assassinated. The assassination was planned and carried out by the well-known stage actor John Wilkes Booth, as part of a larger conspiracy in a bid to revive the Confederate cause. Booth’s co-conspirators were Lewis Powell and David Herold, who were assigned to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward, and George Atzerodt who was to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson. By simultaneously eliminating the top three people in the administration, Booth and his co-conspirators hoped to sever the continuity of the United States government.

Lincoln was shot while watching the play Our American Cousin with his wife Mary Todd Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. on the night of April 14, 1865. He died early the next morning. The rest of the conspirators’ plot failed; Powell only managed to wound Seward, while Atzerodt, Johnson’s would-be assassin, lost his nerve and fled Washington. In March 1864, Ulysses S. Grant, the commanding general of all the Union’s armies, decided to suspend the exchange of prisoners-of-war. Harsh as it may have been on the prisoners of both sides, Grant realized the exchange was prolonging the war by returning soldiers to the outnumbered and manpower-starved South. John Wilkes Booth, a Southerner and outspoken Confederate sympathizer, conceived a plan to kidnap President Lincoln and deliver him to the Confederate Army, to be held hostage until the North agreed to resume exchanging prisoners. Booth recruited Samuel Arnold, George Atzerodt, David Herold, Michael O’Laughlen, Lewis Powell (also known as “Lewis Paine”), and John Surratt to help him. Surratt’s mother, Mary Surratt, left her tavern in Surrattsville, Maryland, and moved to a house in Washington D.C., where Booth became a frequent visitor.

In late 1860, Booth reportedly was initiated in the pro-Confederate Knights of the Golden Circle in Baltimore. He attended Lincoln’s second inauguration on March 4, 1865, as the invited guest of his secret fiancée Lucy Hale, daughter of John P. Hale, soon to become United States Ambassador to Spain. Booth afterwards wrote in his diary, “What an excellent chance I had, if I wished, to kill the President on Inauguration day!” Meanwhile, the Confederacy was falling apart. On April 3, Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital, fell to the Union army. On April 9, the Army of Northern Virginia, the main army of the Confederacy, surrendered to the Army of the Potomac at Appomatox Court House. Confederate President Jefferson Davis and the rest of his government were in full flight. Despite many Southerners giving up hope, Booth continued to believe in his cause.

On April 11, 1865, two days after Lee’s army surrendered to Grant, Booth attended a speech at the White House in which Lincoln supported the idea of enfranchising the former slaves. Furiously provoked, Booth decided on assassination. Reportedly he said: “That means n*gger citizenship. Now, by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever give.” On April 14, Booth’s morning started at the stroke of midnight. Lying wide awake in his bed at the National Hotel, he wrote his mother that all was well, but that he was “in haste”. In his diary, he wrote that “Our cause being almost lost, something decisive and great must be done”. At around noon, while visiting Ford’s Theatre to pick up his mail (Booth had a permanent mailbox there), Booth learned from the brother of John Ford, the owner, that the President and General Grant would be attending the theatre to see Our American Cousin that night. Booth determined that this was the perfect opportunity for him to do something “decisive”. He knew the theater’s layout, having performed there several times, as recently as the previous month.

Papal Zouave, Montreal, QC, 1868

That same afternoon, Booth went to Mary Surratt’s boarding house in Washington, D.C. and asked her to deliver a package to her tavern in Surrattsville, Maryland. He also requested Surratt to tell her tenant who resided there to have the guns and ammunition that Booth had previously stored at the tavern ready to be picked up later that evening. She complied with Booth’s requests and made the trip, along with Louis J. Weichmann, her boarder and son’s friend. This exchange, and her compliance in it, would lead directly to Surratt’s execution three months later. At seven o’clock that evening, John Wilkes Booth met for a final time with all his fellow conspirators.

Booth assigned Lewis Powell to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward at his home, George Atzerodt to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson at his residence, the Kirkwood Hotel, and David E. Herold to guide Powell to the Seward house and then out of Washington to rendezvous with Booth in Maryland. Booth planned to shoot Lincoln with his single-shot derringer and then stab Grant with a knife at Ford’s Theatre. They were all to strike simultaneously shortly after ten o’clock that night. Atzerodt wanted nothing to do with it, saying he had only signed up for a kidnapping, not a killing. Booth told him he was in too far to back out.

Within half an hour of his escape on horseback from Ford’s, Booth crossed over the Navy Yard Bridge and out of the city into Maryland. David Herold made it across the same bridge less than an hour later] and rendezvoused with Booth. After retrieving weapons and supplies previously stored at Surattsville, Herold and Booth went to Samuel A. Mudd, a local doctor who determined that Booth’s leg had been broken and put it in a splint. Later, Mudd made a pair of crutches for the assassin. After spending a day at Mudd’s house, Booth and Herold hired a local man to guide them to Samuel Cox’s house. Cox in turn took them to Thomas Jones, who hid Booth and Herold in Zekiah Swamp near his house for five days until they could cross the Potomac River. On the afternoon of April 24, they arrived at the farm of Richard H. Garrett, a tobacco farmer. Booth told Garrett he was a wounded Confederate soldier.

American Zouave ambulance crew demonstrating removal of wounded soldiers from the field, during the American Civil War.”

Booth and Herold remained at Garrett’s farm until April 26, when Union soldiers from the 16th New York Cavalry arrived at the farm. The soldiers surrounded Booth and Herold in the barn. Herold surrendered, but Booth refused to come out when the soldiers called for his surrender, stating boldly, “I will not be taken alive!” Upon hearing this, the soldiers set fire to the barn. Booth scrambled for the back door, brandishing a rifle in one hand and a pistol in the other. He never fired either weapon. A soldier named Boston Corbett crept up behind the barn and shot Booth in the neck, severing his spinal cord. Booth was carried out onto the steps of the barn. A soldier dribbled water onto his mouth. Booth told the soldier, “Tell my mother I die for my country.” In agony, unable to move his limbs, he asked a soldier to lift his hands before his face and whispered as he gazed at them, “Useless…Useless.” These were reported as his last words. Booth (allegedly) died on the porch of the Garrett farm two hours after Corbett had shot him. The rest of the conspirators were arrested before the end of the month, except for John Surratt, who fled to Quebec. There he was hidden by Roman Catholic priests.

In the turmoil that followed the assassination, scores of suspected accomplices were arrested and thrown into prison. All the people who were discovered to have had anything to do with the assassination or anyone with the slightest contact with Booth or Herold on their flight were put behind bars. Among the imprisoned were Louis J. Weichmann, a boarder in Mrs. Surratt’s house; Booth’s brother Junius (playing in Cincinnati at the time of the assassination); theatre owner John T. Ford, who was incarcerated for 40 days; James Pumphrey, the Washington livery stable owner from whom Booth hired his horse; John M. Lloyd, the innkeeper who rented Mrs. Surratt’s Maryland tavern and gave Booth and Herold carbines, rope, and whiskey the night of April 14; and Samuel Cox and Thomas A. Jones, who helped Booth and Herold escape across the Potomac.

Le Curé Barrette avec des Zouaves pontificaux

Eight suspects were tried by a military tribunal ordered by then-President Andrew Johnson on May 1, 1865. The nine-member commission was presided over by Major General David Hunter. The other eight voting members were Major General Lew Wallace, Brigadier Generals Robert Sanford Foster, Thomas Maley Harris, Albion P. Howe, and August Kautz, Colonels James A. Ekin and Charles H. Tompkins, and Lieutenant Colonel David Ramsay Clendenin.

The prosecution team was led by U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt, assisted by Congressman John A. Bingham and Major Henry Lawrence Burnett. The fact that they were tried by a military tribunal provoked criticism from both Edward Bates and Gideon Welles, who believed that a civil court should have presided. Attorney General James Speed, on the other hand, justified the use of a military tribunal on grounds that included the military nature of the conspiracy, that the defendants acted as enemy combatants and the existence of martial law in the District of Columbia.

The odds were further stacked against the defendants by rules that required only a simple majority of the officer jury for a guilty verdict and a two-thirds majority for a death sentence. Nor could the defendants appeal to anyone other than President Johnson. All of the defendants were found guilty on June 30. Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, David Herold, and George Atzerodt were sentenced to death by hanging; Samuel Mudd, Samuel Arnold, and Michael O’Laughlen were sentenced to life in prison. Oddly, after sentencing Mary Surratt to hang, five of the jurors signed a letter recommending clemency, but Johnson refused to stop the execution.”

“As reported by the Daily Kos in the article at this link, did not the Congress under Reagan’s leadership also repeal the 1867 Act (meant to penalize the Vatican because of their attempt to assassinate Lincoln a couple of years prior to that act being passed)? Were Reagan’s and the Vatican’s policies almost identical as shown in the article at this link? Who really created Reagan’s policies?”


“On November 22nd, 1983, Ronald Reagan signed an accord with the Vatican State, and recognized this Nation with full diplomatic relations and an exchange of Ambassadors at the highest level, “Pro Nucio.” Diplomatic relations had been severed on June 13th, 1867 over Vatican involvement and engineering in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

Pub. L. 98-164, title I, Sec. 134, Nov. 22, 1983, 97 Stat. 1029, provided that: “In order to provide for the establishment of United States diplomatic relations with the Vatican, the Act entitled ‘An Act making Appropriations for the Consular and Diplomatic Expenses of the Government for the Year ending thirtieth June, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, and for other purposes’, approved February 28, 1867, is amended by repealing the following sentence (14 Stat. 413): ‘And no money hereby or otherwise appropriated shall be paid for the support of an American legation at Rome, from and after the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven.’.”

by Phil Jayhan  /  February 21st, 2007

“That papal Rome was responsible for the assassination of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln no doubt seems to most people a rather far-fetched allegation. Nevertheless, on this page (including links) is presented evidence that leaves little doubt that the allegation is in fact true. While ‘Pius’ IX didn’t personally pull the trigger, several of the conspirators were not merely Roman ‘catholics’, but were schooled by the Jesuits who have long been advocates of regicide; the southern confederacy was linked heart and soul with popery; the ‘pope’—both shortly before and after the Lincoln assassination—made public pronouncements that were fiercely in opposition to protestant American constitutional liberty, and in favor of slavery; conspirator John Surratt fled after the crime with the aid of Roman priests to the Vatican for refuge; and President Lincoln was warned by letters from at least two individuals before the assassination to be on guard for his life against Roman ‘catholic’ assassins. Please read on for the specifics.

In her book, The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Burke McCarty begins by tracing the roots of papal antipathy toward popular (as opposed to monarchical, or ‘divine right’) government as far back as the Congresses of Vienna (Austria, 1814-15) and Verona (Italy, 1822). Part of the purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to restore the monarchies that had been deposed by Napoleon and the French Revolution. The papacy was represented at that congress by legate Cardinal Consalvi, and recovered the papal states, excluding any former territory in France.

The Secret Treaty of Verona evidences this pro-monarchical (divine right) theme. This was entered into the Congressional Record of April 25, 1916, by Senator Robert L. Owen. That the papacy was intimately involved in these congresses is proven by this quote from Article 3 of the Treaty: “… the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations.” The potential, and the perceived intent, for these European alliances to threaten popular government in the U.S.A. was the basis of the Monroe Doctrine. That McCarty had credible understanding of her subject is shown by the fact that in her book, published in 1924 (17 years before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor), she writes: “The next step in the Vatican’s Great Scheme is to make war between this country and Japan after the latter country has been placed under full dominance of the Jesuits.” (chapter 1)

McCarty goes on to document the evidence that proves that papal Rome and the Jesuits were intimately involved in the Lincoln assassination (1865), as well as in the assassinations of at least 2 other U.S presidents, and the attempted assassination of another:

1.) President William Henry Harrison (1841), who made his position clear in his inaugural address with these words: “We admit of no government by divine right, believing that so far as power is concerned, the beneficent Creator has made no distinction among men; that all are upon an equality, and that the only legitimate right to govern, is upon the express grant of power from the governed.” He was poisoned to death within less than 6 weeks.

2.) President Zachary Taylor (1850), who determined to preserve the Union against those forces seeking to divide it.

3.) President James Buchanan (1857, attempted assassination), who favored the North, and opposed the Jefferson Davis party on the slavery issue. Poisoned, along with about 50 others, of which 38 died, in 1857.

4.) President Abraham Lincoln (1865), murdered by John Wilkes Booth, tool of a papal/Jesuit conspiracy, as proven in McCarty’s book.

McCarty traces conspirator John Surratt, after the Lincoln assassination, to Canada, where he hid for a time in the care of Roman priests, and on to Rome, where he was found in the service of the papal army under an assumed name, and from whence he was demanded to be extradited to the U.S. for trial. However he was allowed to escape by his papal military guard. He then boarded a steamer for Egypt, where he was aprehended by an American agent.

At least three of the convicted conspirators, David Herold, Samuel Mudd, and Samuel Arnold, were alumni of Jesuit Georgetown University. This is acknowledged in the Georgetown Library Associates Newsletter, #67, Spring, 2003, under the heading Did John Wilkes Booth ever attend Georgetown?, wherein it is stated: “Although the Archivist has heard repeated suggestions that Booth not only attended Georgetown but founded Mask and Bauble while a student, the Archives contains nothing to confirm this. The suggestions may have arisen because there were connections between Georgetown and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In fact, of the eight people convicted in the assassination conspiracy, three were Georgetown alumni.

“…the final result transcends propaganda, to remain a thrilling work of art.”

David Herold, who attended the College from 1855-1858, was hanged for his role. He not only guided Lewis Paine to Secretary of State William Seward’s house where Paine attempted to stab Seward to death, but helped the injured Booth to escape after Lincoln’s shooting. Samuel Bland Arnold, who attended 1844-1845, had been part of a previous conspiracy with Herold to kidnap Lincoln and was sentenced to life imprisonment, as was Dr. Samuel Mudd, a student from 1851-1852, who set Booth’s broken ankle. Arnold and Mudd were pardoned by Andrew Johnson in 1869.

Conspirator John Surratt, who escaped conviction by flight, was an alumna of St. Charles College, founded by the Sulpicians, who also helped the Jesuits establish Georgetown University. As stated in Georgetown Magazine, July 1977, They Came to Georgetown: The French Sulpicians: “In its first two decades, Georgetown drew heavily on the abilities—and availability—of French Sulpician priests and seminarians.” The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says, under the topic Maryland: “From the time of the first Jesuit missionaries Catholic effort for sound education has been constant. To further the organization of a native clergy Bishop Carroll secured the services of a number of Sulpicians, who on 3 October, 1791, began St. Mary’s Seminary, Baltimore…. Under the same direction St. Charles College, Ellicott City, was founded in 1830. Georgetown University (q. v.) was founded in 1778, and in its first years some of the Sulpicians assisted as professors in the work of the institution, carried on by the Society of Jesus. The Sulpicians, in fact, sprang out of a Jesuit root, as their founder Jean-Jacques Olier was educated by the Jesuits in his youth.”

John Surratt’s mother and fellow-conspirator, Mary Surratt, who was convicted and hanged for her part in the conspiracy, was a devout papist, who attended Mass regularly. She viewed John Wilkes Booth’s murderous act as the work of God, as she said to her daughter, “Booth was an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this wicked and licentious people.” It was in her home that the plot was developed, and she aided in its execution by making preparation, before the assassination, for the imminent flight of Booth and Herold. President Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, said of her, “Mrs. Surratt kept the nest that hatched the egg”.

Booth himself expressed sentiments similar to Mary Surratt’s when he entered into his diary on April 21, 6 days after the murder, “Our country owed all our troubles to him, and God made me the instrument of His punishment.” John Wilkes Booth was first introduced to his fellow conspirator, Samuel Mudd, at the Bryantown Catholic Church at Sunday morning Mass, as there is abundant testimony in the conspirators’ trial documents. Tidwell writes of Booth, in Come Retribution, p. 254: “The records of St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church show that John Wilkes Booth was baptized by the rector, Libertus Van Bokkelen on 23 January 1853. No record of confirmation has been found. There are unverified reports that in the last year or so of his life, Booth flirted with Catholicism.”

NSA: The ultimate confessional booth

Burke McCarty, in chapter 7 of her book mentioned above, includes a letter she received from Rear Admiral Geo. W. Baird, U.S.N. retired, in which he tells how he helped to identify Booth’s body, saying: “I was called on board the Montauk by Lieut. W. W. Crowninshield, to identify the body of John Wilkes Booth, which I did. I noticed a piece of cord about the size of a cod line on his (Booth’s) neck and invited Crowninshield’s attention to it, who pulled it out and on it was a small Roman Catholic medal. Surgeon General Barnes arrived at that moment and probed the wound in Booth’s neck.”

Former Roman priest Emmet McLoughlin, in his book An Inquiry Into the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, p. 50, gives a bit of telling information about the influence of Georgetown on its students:The Jesuit-controlled Georgetown University, oldest Catholic college in the United States, had 1500 graduates and students of military age in 1861. Of these, 951 joined the armies of the Confederacy, while only 210 were loyal to the American government. (citing Arizona Register, April 21, 1961). This is especially telling in light of the fact that Maryland, where Georgetown was located, remained loyal to the Union.

Religious Affiliations of the Current U.S. Supreme Court
“With six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court, with four of them (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) theologically and intellectually and politically conservative as only well-educated Catholics can be, it is not unfair to characterize the legal conservative movement led by these justices as medieval in its intentions and Jesuitical in its methods.”

Jesuit College and University Alumni/ae in the Obama Administration and 113th Congress
“President Obama’s Intelligence Team: on the far right, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (Alma Mater at Catholic St. Mary’s University, Texas).  Also attending are, clockwise from left, Robert Cardillo, formerly Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), now Director of National Intelligence for Intelligence Integration (schooled at Jesuit Georgetown University). Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon (attended La Salle Academy, earned a B.A. at the Catholic University of America in 1977).  Donilon is connected to the Biden family.  Not pictured is Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States, (as a youth Biden attended Archmere Academy, a Roman Catholic college preparatory school and he has received honorary degrees from Jesuit University of Scranton, and Jesuit Saint Joseph’s University). Rodney Snyder, Senior Director for Intelligence Program (no BIO available). John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (attended private catholic schools from his youth, is Alma Mater at Jesuit Fordham University and is former CIA). Finally, National Security Advisor General James L. Jones (Alma Mater Jesuit Georgetown University).”

The Jesuits have, from their inception and throughout their history, been teachers and advocates of regicide or, euphemistically, tyrannicide. Because there is so much evidence of this in their writings, some of it is included here on a separate page. These teachings could easily have been viewed as applicable to Lincoln in the mentality of the loyal Confederate, many of whom viewed him as a tyrant. Consider, e.g., Booth’s cry of sic semper tyrannis (thus always to tyrants) after he fired the fatal shot. Lincoln was, among other things in their eyes, taking away their slaves, which they viewed as their ‘property’, etc. In

1867, approximately 2 years after Lincoln was assassinated, the U.S. State Department published a book titled “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Late President of the United States of America, and the Attempted Assassination of William H. Seward, Secretary of State, and Frederick W. Seward, Assistant Secretary, on the Evening of the 14th of April, 1865. Expressions of Condolences and Sympathy Inspired by These Events.” The book is a collection of expressions of condolence and solace received from all over the world after President ‘Honest Abe’ Lincoln was despicably murdered in cold blood from behind his back while he sat with his wife enjoying some relaxation from his arduous duties, having just prevailed in the long and drawn-out struggle to preserve the Union and abolish slavery. These condolences were received from governments of nations, states, cities and towns, from churches and synagogues, from societies, fraternities, lodges and clubs, from labor unions and business associations, from schools and colleges—from every corner of the world. They are all translated into English.

This reader was moved to near incessant weeping to read the unanimity of the most sincere and deeply heartfelt sentiments of admiration and eulogy for Mr. Lincoln and the cause for which, in the end, he gave his life—the expunging of cursed slavery from a society founded on liberty and equality. While I did not take the time to read every word on every page, I did scan over each page looking for material of interest for the topic addressed here. What I found was that, to the guilt of papal Rome in the Rebellion and the assassination, was borne ample testimony, by their silence. While there were condolences from a large number of ‘protestant’ churches, conferences, councils, etc.—many of them with lengthy and moving expressions of admiration for Mr. Lincoln, including a thorough knowledge of his public life and conduct in office—there was not a single official word from the Vatican.

Rufus King, legate of the U.S. at Rome, in a correspondence of May 6, 1865 with William Hunter, Acting Secretary of State for the U.S., included in a single short paragraph of three sentences the fact that he had had an “official interview” with Cardinal Antonelli wherein Antonelli had taken the opportunity to express his and the papal “horror” at the assassination, and “begged” King to “make known these sentiments to the authorities at Washington” (p. 685). This sort of second-hand expression of sympathy does not bespeak sincerity or earnestness, and was but minimal, obligatory, and empty. And not only was the Vatican entirely silent; but I did not find a single word from a ‘catholic’ church, school, fraternity, club, or group of any sort—not a one! Thousands and thousands of people across the world were moved to express their condolences and solidarity with the people of the United States in the time of their tragic loss; but not one ‘catholic’ is recorded as having done so. That is because, as is clearly and thoroughly demonstrated on this page, the sentiments of papists were wholeheartedly with the Southern Confederacy and against ‘Lincoln & Co’. The reason for that is because the papacy has always been, and will always be, the enemy of free governments—for their goal has always been, and will always be, to enslave the world to themselves. They profess to speak in the name of Him Who is the Light of the world and Who came to give to men the truth that would set them free; but by their corrupted ‘gospel’ they enslave their adherents in darkness and deceit and idolatry.

Further, along with the manifold expressions of condolence for the people of the U.S.A., and of the universal execration of the assassins, was continually expressed the congratulatory and joyous regard for the banishing of the blight of slavery from American society. These were the sentiments of like-minded and enlightened people from around the world who, though distant geographically, were united in their hearts with the American people in their struggle. Contrast these sentiments with those of the papacy which, barely a year after Lincoln—’first in peace and in the hearts of his countrymen’—was murdered by an assassin drunken on the spirit of slavery, published its doctrine clearly in the defense of slavery (see Pius IX, Instruction 20, below). While I cannot publish the entire book of condolences here due to the size of the PDF file, I have typed out some of the expressed sentiments of the citizens of Italy which, obviously, are quite different from those of papal Rome. Read them. Brigadier General (brevetted Major General) Thomas M. Harris was a member of the military tribunal which tried and convicted the conspirators.

He wrote a book titled Assassination of Lincoln, A History of the Great Conspiracy (1892), and, later a tract titled Rome’s Responsibility For The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln (1897). Chapter XVIII of the book, describing the flight and capture of John Surratt, says this in part: “At this point we meet with a new element amongst the Canada conspirators, viz., the Roman Catholic priesthood. Porterfield had arranged with Father Boucher to take his charge [John Surratt] in custody, and keep him concealed. This Father was rector of the parish of St. Liboire, a newly-settled place, about forty-five miles from Montreal—an out-of-the-way place, and so a good place in which to hide him away. The arrangements had been made in advance with this Father to take charge of Surratt, and keep him secreted at his house. He was conveyed there by one Joseph F. Du Tilley, who seems to have been priest Boucher’s right hand man.

The stratagem to get him away from Montreal was as follows: two carriages drove up in front of Porterfield’s house late in the afternoon, when two persons, dressed as nearly as possible alike, went out together; one of these got into one of the carriages, and the other into the other, when they drove away in different directions. Father Boucher appeared at the trial of Surratt as a voluntary witness for the defense, and without any apparent sense of shame convicted himself, by his own testimony, of being an accomplice after the fact. We think that the testimony he gave warrants the conclusion, also, that another priest, Father La Pierre, placed himself in the same category. Both of these Fathers took Surratt into their houses, and kept him concealed,—the first for three, and the latter for two months,—knowing him to be charged with being a conspirator to the assassination of the President of the United States.”

Papal Zouaves pose in 1869

Surratt is next found in Italy, in the army of the Pope, where he had enlisted as a soldier in the ninth company of Zouaves about the middle of April, 1866. He had found friends after his escape from Washington, who had supported him, kept him secreted, watched over his safety, planned his trip from Montreal to Italy, and furnished him money for the expenses of his journey; friends who, no doubt, were accomplices before, as well as after, the fact, for we find them waiting and watching for his return to Montreal after the assassination, and ready to hurry him off into seclusion. He was to them a stranger; only known to them as a fugitive from his country, charged with the highest crime that a man could commit,—a blow at the nation’s life, by murdering the nation’s head,—a crime against liberty and humanity. These could not have been his friends for mere personal reasons, but from sympathy in the general purpose of this great crime,—the subversion of our free institutions.

A portion of the tract, speaking of Rome’s likely involvment and leadership in the plot, reads: “It was Abraham Lincoln, it is true, that was slain, but it was the life of the nation that the blow was aimed at. The scheme to aid the rebellion by the assassination of the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the General in command of our armies, was concocted by the emissaries of the rebel government, who kept their headquarters in Montreal, Canada. These emissaries held a semi-official relation to the Confederate government. The whole run of the evidence makes it clear that the Roman Hierarchy kept itself in close relations with these emissaries; and it is highly probable, from a consideration of all of the facts, with the head of the government in whose service they were employed also. It kept itself in these close relations for a purpose, and was most likely the original source of the inspiration of the assassination plot.”

In his book, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, (first published 1886), chapters 59-61, ex-Roman priest Charles Chiniquy, who was personally acquainted with President Lincoln, details his belief of the intimate involvement of the Jesuits in the Lincoln assassination plot. Lincoln had clearly and publicly voiced his opposition to the barbaric decision of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford, which majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney (who, at the time, was the first and only papist ever appointed to the Court), and which declared that “… the enslaved African race were not intended to be included …” in the phrase of the Declaration of Independence “… all men are created equal …”, but were “…beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery…”. That Roman ‘catholic’ sympathies were, for the most part, wholly aligned with the Southern Confederacy and in agreement with the Dred Scott decision is made clear in this study by Dr. Patrick Carey, published in The Catholic Historical Review, vol.88, April, 2002. Further, Lincoln had bested the papist Stephen A Douglas in their series of debates, and beaten Douglas at the polls in the bid for the presidency.

Prior to Lincoln’s election, he was warned in a letter by Oliver H. P. Parker, that Mr. Parker’s “very thorough private investigation” had revealed that the deaths of former presidents William Henry Harrison (1841), and Zachary Taylor (1850), had been assassinations, and that the near death of former president James Buchanan (1857) had been an attempted assassination. Further, that these assassinations were the work of pro-slavery, Roman ‘catholic’ elements in the country. Mr. Parker makes repeated mention of his suspicion that the ‘Borgias’ were responsible. (The Borgias are an Italian crime family intimately connected with the Vatican, having seated three of their own as popes and eleven as cardinals.) Parker closes his letter by cautioning Lincoln: “Therefore your salvation is caution, and vigilance;—In the selection of your servants be careful not to have any Roman Catholics or Papists about you have none but American born, black and white and have nothing but Protestants, about you, and then I will feel as though you will be comparatively safe.”

In September, 1863, the president of the Southern Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, appointed Dudley Mann as a special envoy to deliver a letter to the Vatican. The Confederate States were hoping to obtain recognition from the Vatican, which would be a great step forward in their cause. Mr. Mann proceeded to Rome, where he met with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Antonelli, as related in this letter to J. P. Benjamin. An excerpt of the letter: “His Eminence then remarked that he could not withhold from me an expression of his unbounded admiration of the wonderful powers which we had exhibited in the field in resistance to a war which had been prosecuted with an energy, aided by the employment of all the recent improvements in the instruments for the destruction of life and property, unparalleled, perhaps, in the world’s history. He asked me several questions with respect to President Davis, at the end of which he observed that he certainly had created for himself a name that would rank with those of the most illustrious statesmen of modern times. He manifested an earnest desire for the definitive termination of hostilities, and observed that there was nothing the government of the Holy See could do with propriety to occasion such a result that it was not prepared to do.”

Mr. Mann then met with the ‘pope’ as related in this letter to Mr. Benjamin. The ‘pope’ expressed approval of the cause for which the Confederacy was contending, and invited Mr. Mann to remain with him in Rome for several months. Excerpts of the letter: “His Holiness received these remarks with an approving expression. He then said that I had reason to be proud of the self-sacrificing devotion of my countrymen from the beginning to the cause for which they were contending.” His Holiness now observed: “I will write a letter to President Davis, and of such a character that it may be published for general perusal.” I expressed my heartfelt gratification for the assertion of this purpose. He then remarked, half inquiringly: “You will remain here for several months?” Mr. Mann then had a second meeting with Cardinal Antonelli, as related in this letter. Representatives of the United States had noticed and protested the friendly acquaintance and hospitality being extended to the Rebel government representatives. Cardinal Antonelli stated that he intended to offer special protection to the “Rebels”. Also Mr. Mann believed that the Rebel government had been virtually recognized by the Vatican.

Excerpts from the letter: “He took the occasion to inform me, at the commencement, that the acting representative of the United States had obtained an interview of him the day before to remonstrate against the facilities afforded by the government of the holy see to “Rebels” for entering and abiding in Rome; and that he, the cardinal, promptly replied that he intended to take such “Rebels” under his special protection, because it would be making exactions upon elevated humanity which it was incapable of conscientiously complying with, to expect them to take an oath of allegiance to a country which they bitterly detested. … We have been virtually, if not practically, recognized here. While I was in the foreign office the day before yesterday, foreign ministers were kept waiting for a considerable length of time in the antechamber in order that my interview might not be disturbed. Frequently the cardinal would take my hand between his and exclaim: “Mon cher, your Government has accomplished prodigies, alike in the cabinet and in the field.”

“He [Antonelli] is bold, courageous, resolute, and is a great admirer of President Davis … The ‘pope’ responded with a letter to Davis in which he addresses him as “Illustrious and honorable sir”, and as the “President of the Confederate States of America”. However, it seems that the letter came short of giving formal recognition to the Confederacy. Nevertheless, Mr. Mann believed that it was essentially a formal recognition, as stated in this letter. Excerpts: “In the very direction of this communication there is a positive recognition of our Government. … It is addressed “to the Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.” … Thus we are acknowledged, by as high an authority as this world contains, to be an independent power of the earth.”

However, Mr. Benjamin informs Mr. Mann in this letter that while the papal letter was producing a “good effect”, it wasn’t viewed as a formal recognition of the Confederacy. Excerpts: “The President has been much gratified at learning the cordial reception which you received from the Pope, and the publication of the correspondence here (of which I send you a newspaper slip) has had a good effect. Its best influences, as we hope, will be felt elsewhere in producing a check on the foreign enlistments made by the United States. As a recognition of the Confederate States we can not attach to it the same value that you do, a mere inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations, possessing none of the moral weight required for awakening the people of the United States from their delusion that these States still remain members of the old Union. … an intestine or civil war, as it is termed by the Pope. This phrase of his letter shows that his address to the President as “President of the Confederate States” is a formula of politeness to his correspondent, not a political recognition of a fact. None of our public journals treat the letter as a recognition in the sense you attach to it … .” Then, in this letter by Cardinal Antonelli to the CSA Commissioners, there is the suggestion of ‘recognition’ in that he makes mention of “… the most bloody war which still rages in your countries … .”—as though the Union and the Confederacy were now two separate countries.

In this letter Mr. Mann states his intention to proceed to London for the purpose of expanding the influence of the papal recognition. And in this letter he mentions his perception that the public sentiment in Italy was turning in favor of the Confederacy. Excerpts: “Throughout Italy, as far as I was enabled to ascertain from my bankers and numerous other intelligent individuals, enlightened public sentiment is beginning steadily to array itself against “Lincoln and Company,” … . The impious comparison which he [Garibaldi] made of Abraham Lincoln to Jesus Christ has damaged largely his reputation in all Catholic circles while it has popularized our cause. After its [the papal letter] careful perusal, they united in opinion that its early publication on this side of the Atlantic was of almost paramount importance to the influencing of valuable public opinion, in both hemispheres, in our favor. … the direction [of the papal letter], which in itself was positive recognition.”

N. Ireland struggles to confront Catholic Church’s enslavement of thousands of women

Mr. Benjamin states in this letter to Mr. Slidell the positive effect (for the Confederacy) the papal letter was having, and the hoped for effect on papists in the North. Excerpts: “I take it for granted that you have seen the correspondence between the President and the Pope, but enclose it, as published here, with the translation made in the Department of the Pope’s letters. The effect on our people has been good, and we hope that some benefit will be experienced from this correspondence in the influence excited on Roman Catholics in the North. Another Confederate envoy to Europe and the Vatican was Archbishop Patrick Neisen Lynch of Charleston. The Knights of Columbus Council which bears his name says this of him: “Father Lynch was elevated to the Episcopate as the 3rd Bishop of Charleston in 1858. His Episcopate would be particularly noteworthy because Bishop Lynch enjoyed the distinction of being a close friend and confidant of Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America. Because of this relationship, President Davis would appoint Bishop Lynch Ambassador Plenipotentiary of the Confederacy to Europe. In his roll as Davis’ Special Envoy, Bishop Lynch traveled to the Vatican and the Courts of Europe to plead the cause of the Confederacy for the express purpose of securing for it diplomatic recognition. He was very nearly successful when the war ended and Bishop Lynch found himself stranded in Europe as the Federal Government had denied him permission to return the United States and had, in fact, petitioned the Vatican to assign to a post in Europe to prevent his return to Charleston.”

At the outbreak of the war, Lynch was the bishop of Charleston and the editor of the first ‘catholic’ newspaper in the U.S., the United States Catholic Miscellany. At the beginning of 1861, it was re-named the Charleston Catholic Miscellany to reflect the secessionist views of its authors and subscribers. This was made clear in the words of its then editor: “The American Catholic Historical Society tried to credit the title change to the paper’s smaller range, noting that Georgia had become its own diocese in 1850, but the editor, Father James Corcoran, made no bones about the reason for the change. He wrote that he could no longer tolerate “those two obnoxious words (i.e.: United States), which being henceforth without truth of meaning would ill become the title of the paper.” [1997-98, The Diocese of Charleston]

New Advent (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia says of Lynch: “Towards the end of the war Bishop Lynch went to Europe as the accredited representative of the Confederacy on a confidential mission.” The Augusta Chronicle says of him: “Patrick Lynch, another Irishman who became bishop, was raised in Charleston, the son of a slave owner. As bishop, he owned 100 slaves himself. Although he believed it was wrong to trade, abuse or neglect slaves, he defended slavery as a part of the culture and economy. When South Carolina broke with the Union, he pledged his allegiance to his state and then to the Confederacy.” The Confederacy sent him to the Vatican as its representative, but the Vatican did not recognize him. Instead, it gave him a new set of vestments and told him to go home. After the South lost the war, he was barred from entering the United States. It took months to get a pardon from President Andrew Johnson to allow his re-entry. [The Augusta Chronicle]

The diplomatic correspondence between the Papal States and the United States in that day adds some color to this: “Bishop Lynch of Charleston S. C., late Confederate Agent, is still here. I had an interview with him, at his request, a short time since. He admitted that the cause of the South was hopeless, expressed a wish to return to his home and post of duty and asked me on what terms he could be re-admitted into the United States. I told him that the first thing to be done was to take the oath of allegiance and make his peace with the Federal Government. This he was ready and willing to do, if that would suffice; but he seemed apprehensive that if he returned to America he might be proceeded against criminally. I told him that the President’s Proclamation, which was daily expected, would no doubt contain full information on this point. The Proclamation has since arrived and Bishop Lynch, I understand, considers himself included in the list of “exceptions”.”

[footnote: Johnson’s Proclamation of May 29, granting amnesty and pardon to all who participated in the Southern cause, excepting certain classes. citing Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VI, 308. United States Ministers to the Papal States, Instructions and Despatches 1848-1868, edited by Leo Frances Stock, Ph.D, LL.D,  1933, American Catholic Historical Society, p. 342-43, Letter No. 42. of Rufus King (U.S. legate at Rome) to William H. Seward (U.S. Secretary of State), June 24, 1865]

Bishop Lynch is very anxious to get back to Charleston, but very apprehensive that he may be held to account for his “sayings and doings”, as an avowed Confederate agent. The “supplies”, I suspect, have given out and the Bishop, who “entertained” a good deal, last year, by way of creating a “public opinion” in favor of the South, is now, I understand, a “guest” of the Propaganda and without “visible means of support.”
[Ibid., p. 344, Private letter of Rufus King (U.S. legate at Rome) to William H. Seward (U.S. Secretary of State), June 26, 1865[

T. Soutter was sent to Rome with a dispatch for Lynch, who was gone; whereupon he delivered the letter directly to Cardinal Antonelli, who was entirely familiar and sympathetic with the Rebel cause, desiring their success. Soutter describes the meeting in a letter to John Slidell. Excerpts of the letter: “Immediately on my arrival here I sought the residence of the Right Rev. Bishop Lynch and learned that he had left Rome, to be absent several weeks… Accordingly I waited on the cardinal at the appointed hour and he gave me a most cordial greeting, shaking my hand warmly, and, leading me to a seat near his desk, he at once entered upon the discussion of the affairs of the Confederate States. He made no secret of his sympathy with our cause and had not the slightest hesitation in saying he desired our success. … I was more than gratified with the great interest he manifested in the cause dear to our hearts.”

In this letter, J. P. Benjamin commissions John Bannon (Roman Priest) to go to Ireland for the purpose of discouraging the Irish from immigrating to the North, lest they serve in the Northern Army. He also suggests that Mr. Bannon might visit the ‘pope’ at Rome in order to receive his assistance and blessing for the mission. Excerpt: “If, in order fully to carry out the objects of the Government as above expressed, you should deem it advisable to go to Rome for the purpose of obtaining such sanction from the sovereign pontiff as will strengthen your hands and give efficiency to your action, you are at liberty to do so, as well as to invite to your assistance any Catholic prelate from the Northern States known to you to share your convictions of the justice of our cause and of the duty of laboring for its success.”

This letter from Confederate Major-General T. J. ‘Stonewall’ Jackson to Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston shows that they were working in concert with papal priests. He writes: “I have taken special pains to obtain information respecting General Banks, but I have not been informed of his having gone east. I will see what can be effected through the Catholic priests in Martinsburg.” John E. Tallon M. D. (Surgeon in the U. S. Army) wrote in this letter to President Lincoln: “The Roman Catholic Clergy of Louisiana generally, I believe are Rebels at heart …”

That the papal priests and the Irish ‘catholics’ generally sided with the South is shown in this letter from S. C. Hayes to Jefferson Davis, in which he writes: “I mention these circumstances to show you that the great body of Irish at the North feel a deep interest in our success, more especially in Pennsylvania, where they have been subjected to bitter persecution. Although I am an elder in the Presbyterian Church, yet I had conversations with quite a number of Roman Catholic priests at the North, all of whom, with one exception, expressed the utmost confidence and sympathy in our success. Also in this letter from Major Jos. Darr to Lieutenant Colonel W. H. Chesebrough, in which he says of Daniel O’Connor, Roman priest and prisoner: “… he does not hesitate to follow in the footsteps of his bishop and declares his sympathy with the rebels while claiming that he is not an American citizen.”

Also in this letter from Joshua Fiero, Jr. (Captain and Provost-Marshal, North) to Colonel James B. Fry (Provost-Marshal-General, North). Excerpts: “… both localities largely settled by the Irish people. This resistance was mostly made by the Irish women. I called upon the Catholic priest, who assured me that all he could do to restore order should be done. After this better order prevailed. … a meeting was held last night attended by some 300 persons, mostly Irish, who hurrahed for Jeff. Davis and Lee, and voted to resist the draft.” Further evidence of Roman ‘catholic’ sympathy with the South is shown in this letter from Jo. O. Shelby (Brigadier-Genreral) to Lieutenant-Colonel L. A. Maclean, in which he states: “I find that this settlement [Westphalia] is Catholic and composed of Southern sympathizers.”

The Southern Army made it a practice of enlisting its Roman ‘catholic’ prisoners of war into its own ranks, as shown by this letter from Jno. Blair Hoge (Major and Assistant Adjutant-General) to Major-General D. H. Maury, in which he writes: “… relating to the subject of recruiting prisoners of war … by recruiting chiefly among Catholic Irish and other foreigners and obtaining the influence of the Catholic priesthood they may secure faithful soldiers.” As to the material to be received as recruits, it is recommended that Catholic Irish be preferred, and next to them other foreigners. Further evidence of this is found in this letter of J. A. Seddon (Secretary of War) to General M. J. Wright in which he writes, regarding 1,000 or more catholic Irish who wished to enlist in the Confederate Army: “The enlistment of Irish and other foreign prisoners, as proposed, is sanctioned.” And in this letter, Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War, North) authorizes Governor Morton (of Indiana) to release 200 ‘catholic’ Confederate prisoners, and to enlist them into the Northern Army. The absence of Roman clergy in the Northern forces is shown in this letter from Major-General W. T. Sherman to Admiral D. D. Porter, wherein he writes: “… don’t believe a single Catholic priest is in our fleet; have sent to enquire, but the answer comes back from each division, None.”

Approximately four months prior to the assassination, ‘Pope’ Pius IX had declared papal Rome’s official position to be at odds with Protestant America and the liberties secured by the U.S. Constitution in his ‘Syllabus of Errors‘ (December 8, 1864):

Some excerpts:

  1. [It is error to believe that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
  2. [It is error to believe that] Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.
  3. [It is error to believe that] The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.
  4. [It is error to believe that] The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect.
  5. [It is error to believe that] Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.
  6. [It is error to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.
  7. [It is error to believe that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.
  8. [It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.
  9. [It is error to believe that] Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. [The meaning of this is: that it is the view of the Vatican that freedom of worship, and freedom of speech, tend to corrupt the morals and minds of the people and to propogate indifferentism.]

A little more than two months before the assassination, Lincoln received a letter from Louisa Harrison warning him to be on guard against Roman Catholic assassins. It appears that all links to this letter at the Library of Congress are temporary, and thus a link cannot be posted here. The letter can be viewed in photographic format at the Lincoln Papers site by entering “Louisa Harrison” into the ‘keyword’ search. Be sure to set the search filter to “match this exact phrase”. (click on the “Archival grayscale/color (JPEG – 203K)” link for a more readable image.) A portion of it reads: “Do you Sir, not forsee some danger from Catholicism—spread as its members are—all over the Union. They follow and obey their Priests implicitly. And they again their Head—so that one man can cause the uprising of this entire Body of Secret sworn ? —sworn to destroy the Heretic and think that they are doing God service!

The letter tells the story of how an associate of the writer had once seen a new RC church and observed them unpacking and polishing weapons in the basement; and heard talk of the ‘Catholics’ rising up to massacre the Protestants. The letter states that there was much talk of a report that the uprising was to be on March 10th (Lincoln was assassinated April 14). Near the end of the letter, it says: I know the Lord is able to put to flight the armies of the Ailen (sic, alien). And if they are plotting a midnight assassin on so stupendous a scale—my trust is that He will lay his hand on all the Leaders.…”

About fourteen months after the assassination of Lincoln, ‘pope’ Pius IX stated the papal position on slavery, which was virtually in agreement with the position of the Southern Confederacy: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.” [Pius IX, Instruction 20, June 1866]

The evidence is overwhelming that Roman ‘catholics’, under the leadership of their clergy and, ultimately, the ‘pope’, were in favor of the Southern Confederacy and opposed to “Lincoln & Co.”. That the assassination of Lincoln was not the work of John Wilkes Booth acting alone, but was a conspiracy that traces back to the Vatican—to which John Surratt fled for refuge—is borne out by abundance of evidence. And even if some of that evidence is but circumstantial, it is weighty, and compelling. In the end, the reader must draw his or her own conclusions. But the facts are, and will remain, inescapable.”

Solving Lincoln’s Assassination
by Steven Hagern  /   September 12, 2014

I tinkered around conducting my own deep political research for years, but it wasn’t until I began the study of secret societies that I made any real headway. My big breakthrough was exploring connections between the Sicilian men-of-honor society and the Central Intelligence Agency, two secret societies that plotted to assassinate Fidel Castro. But after JFK called off that murder, the same team assembled to kill Castro ended up killing Kennedy. If Congress ever holds a real investigation, this is the reality that will emerge, although I suppose the instigators will be long dead by then.

I could write about 9/11 today, after all it is the anniversary, but my musing on that subject don’t attract much attention and offend those who prefer to keep their heads in the sand. I’m sure Facebook downgrades 9/11 posts anyway, unless they support the official story. There’s so much mud in the water and games being played regarding 9/11 that it’ll probably take another 13 years for enough real evidence to emerge to start pointing fingers at the true culprits, though I am certain 9/11 was staged to jump-start two wars that killed over two million people and made billions for the military-industrial complex, while suspending most of our Constitutional rights, because that’s the way deep politics works.

You can’t understand the Lincoln assassination without understanding the Knights of the Golden Circle, one of the more powerful secret societies in America at the time of the assassination. Funny how almost nothing has been written about the Knights, although their existence was well-established before the Civil War. Apparently, the organization grew out of Southern Rights clubs in the South who wished to open up more territory to slavery. These secret clubs financed slave ships that continued to illegally abduct Africans after the slave trade was officially abolished in 1808. In 1844, the War with Mexico was championed by these clubs because they desired to invade Mexico so it could be carved-up into slave states to insure the balance of power in Congress remained with the South.


In 1855, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio, named George Bickley organized the Southern Rights movement into the highly secretive Knights of the Golden Circle (K.G.C.), a volunteer militia initially formed for a new invasion of Mexico. Eventually, tens of thousands joined the society, and many came from Northern states. A secret history of the society was written in 1861 and appeared a few years ago online here.

But only three years after the Civil War commenced, the K.G.C. was exposed. Some were leading pro-slave “peace movements” while others were acting as spies and dirty tricks operatives for the Confederacy.

The Army spent months investigating the K.G.C. and the Judge Advocate General eventually produced an exhaustive report titled: “The Order of American Knights”, alias “The Sons of Liberty:” A Western Conspiracy in Aid of the Southern Rebellion, published by the Union Congressional Committee, Washington D.C., 1864. Among other things, the report identified most of the state leaders in the North and claimed Clement Vallindigham, leader of the Copperhead Democrats in Ohio, was the society’s Supreme Commander. Vallindigham had been a member of Congress, but after he lost his seat, President Lincoln had him deported to South Carolina as an enemy alien. You can read the Congressional report here.

Screen Shot 2014-09-11 at 6.56.59 AM

Isn’t it odd that none of Lincoln biographies or recent films mention K.G.C.? In the 1930s an amateur historian and chemistry professor in Chicago put forth the theory that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was involved in the Lincoln assassination and played the crucial role in covering up the true origins of the plot. After Lincoln’s death, Stanton seized all power in Washington D.C. and took charge of the investigation and ran a military court that swiftly hung some minor players. What nobody seems to mention, however, is that Stanton and Vallindigham were very close personal friends, and that Vallindigham funded Stanton’s rise in politics. Booth’s induction into the K.G.C. is well documented and Booth may have been following instructions from Vallindigham, who had one of the biggest axes to grind against Lincoln.

The transcripts of the trial are available online, or you can watch Robert Redford’s film The Conspirator, which focuses on Mary Surratt, who was targeted as chief patsy and swiftly hung. Her son John was studying to be a Catholic priest but instead joined the K.G.C. He became one of the primary couriers for the Confederacy during the war, and was involved in the K.G.C. plot to kidnap Lincoln so he could be traded for Confederate prisoners of war. But when the kidnap plan shifted to murder, Surratt fled to Canada, where he remained in hiding while his mother was tried and hung as chief patsy.

Surratt was such a devoted Catholic he volunteered to defend the Papal States during the final years of their existence. Eighteen months after his mother was hung, however, he was spotted in Egypt and escorted back to America to stand trial still wearing his Papal Zouave uniform. Fortunately for Surratt, a law had just been passed forbidding military courts from trying civilians so the government was unable to secure his conviction, although Surratt freely admitted associations with Booth, he claimed no part of the murder and most of the jury believed him. Later on, Surratt would publish his diary and the most astonishing thing was his frequent mentions of the K.G.C. on almost every other page. You can read the diary here.

Since Stanton was head of the investigation and running the country under martial law at the time, one wonders why the K.G.C. was never mentioned in the trial, why Booth was executed instead of being brought in for interrogation, and why 15 pages of Booth’s diary disappeared immediately after Stanton got control of the manuscript. If I had to make a guess, I’d say the Civil War was fomented by British interests that also led the abolitionist movement from their headquarters in Boston. After the war, certain business interests wanted to pillage the South for exploitation, something Lincoln was strongly opposed to. Killing Lincoln was not in the best interests of the South, but was in the interest of certain business alliances. After Lincoln’s death, Stanton engaged in a vicious power struggle with President Andrew Johnson, someone who’d also been slated for assassination but survived.

There’s another thread to this saga that involves Freemasonry. Albert Pike, the most powerful Mason in America, was from Boston, but moved to Arkansas during the war, where he became a general for the Confederacy and organized Native Americans to conduct terror raids on Northern civilians. Just as British and American officers met frequently during the Revolutionary War in Masonic lodges (and sometimes on the eve of a battle), it’s safe to assume Masons on both sides of the Civil War held discussions in their temples throughout the warAlbertPikeYounger

Freemasonry has always been a refuge for spies. Immediately after Lincoln’s death, Pike went from hiding out in Canada, to being awarded full masonic honors inside the White House by the deeply masonic President Andrew Johnson, who pardoned Pike for his war crimes and may have helped erect a statue to him in Washington. Consider that Stanton was a devoted Freemason. Also consider the one man brought in to testify against Mary Surratt was a clerk who worked for Stanton at the Department of War.

Consider Stanton placed John Frederick Parker as the sole bodyguard for Lincoln that fateful night even though Lincoln had been having nightmares about being assassinated for three nights running and expressed these fears to Stanton and requested additional protection. Since Parker had a reputation for visiting brothels, sleeping on duty and drinking heavily, he seems like an odd choice. Parker abandoned his post and went across the street for drink in a tavern where Booth was also imbibing before Booth strolled across the street to execute the undefended President.

Consider that Stanton closed every bridge out of Washington immediately after the assassination, save one, which turned out to be the bridge used by Booth and his confederates. Consider the public telegraph lines in Washington went dead for two hours immediately after the assassination, leaving Stanton in control of the only working telegraph line in and out of the city. Although all the films show Booth jumping to the stage and yelling “sic semper Tyrannis,” in his final diary entries Booth claimed to have shouted those words immediately before firing the shot.


Final note: When conducting operations on a national/international levels, secret societies can manifest dialectical systems. By founding terror groups, they capture centers of gravity and place gatekeepers at key strategic positions in the coming conflict. Just as the abolitionist movement had deep pockets plus the insane John Brown on their side, a complimentary and similarly violent pro-slavery movement may have been manifested so the coming clash of cultures could be more effectively mined for profit. William Quantrill would be the insane terrorist on the flip side. I sense this may be the way secret societies have played their games for centuries.