Monday, March 12, 2018

More Cotton Mather... and a Beaver.

Sorry I'm late, I didn't want to come!

Here we are, front row, popcorn in hand...   This is what we have all been waiting for.   Two thesis's going toe to toe....   




I fully expect to be exposed as troll or C.I.A. disinfo agent after this is posted.   I hope that's not the case because if I get exposed one more time my goose is cooked.


I have looked at this a while back and found my own conspiracy triggers.    Lets get goin!!!

1717 - YALE 

How Yale became Yale. In some respects, it is surprising that Elihu Yale agreed to serve as benefactor for a college run by Congregationalist ministers in the New World.
Although he was born in Boston and his step-grandfather had helped found New Haven Colony, Elihu Yale was raised in Britain, and was both an ardent member of the Church of England and a loyal supporter of the Crown.
He was, however, an extremely wealthy man, who had amassed his fortune in India while working for the East India Company. Therefore, he was one of the people who was approached by Jeremy Drummer, an agent who was in England representing the Connecticut and Massachusetts colonies. Drummer persuaded Elihu Yale to donate 32 books to the Collegiate School (as it was then known) in 1713.
Just a few years later, dissatisfied with the school's site in Saybrook, Connecticut, the trustees of the Collegiate School began searching for a new home for the institution, preferably one with a central facility. In a bidding war with Hartford, the citizens of New Haven pledged 2,000 English pounds to the Collegiate School if it would relocate there.
In order to raise additional funds for this building, in 1718 the school's trustees asked Cotton Mather, a Harvard alumnus who was unhappy at having been passed over for the presidency of his alma mater, to approach Elihu Yale on behalf of the so-called "Academy of Dissenters" in New Haven.
In his letter, Mather suggested to the childless Elihu Yale that "if what is forming at New Haven might wear the name of Yale College, it would be better than a name of sons and daughters. And your munificence might easily obtain for you such a commemoration and perpetuation of your valuable name, which would indeed be much better than an Egyptian pyramid."
Elihu Yale responded by sending a gift of three bales of goods, 417 books, a portrait of King George I ("to remind them of their duties to the king," noted Schiff) and a set of royal arms, which was later destroyed during the American Revolution.
The bales of goods included 25 pieces of garlic (a kind of cloth), 18 pieces of calico, 17 pieces of worsted goods, 12 pieces of Spanish poplin, 5 pieces of plain muslin, and 2 pieces of black and white silk crepe.
"The black crepe was to make the tutors' robes," said Lorimer at the April 5 ceremony.
The sale of the textiles raised 562 English pounds for construction of the Collegiate School building, which was promptly renamed Yale College. "Although it may not seem like much today, Elihu Yale's gift was the largest received by Yale College for the next 100 years," said Lorimer.
The donated books were not sold, however, but kept for use by the college, noted Franklin in his remarks. "From the beginning, this institution has been an institution of books," he said. "It is interesting to note that the people who received these books, desperate though they were for money, never gave a thought to selling them."
- - - Judith Schiff
An Historical and Architectural Summary
The decision to move the Collegiate School to New Haven was made by a meeting of the General Assembly in the town in 1717, and was very likely influenced by the fact that a group of New Haven ministers already had construction of a college building underway, at the southwest corner of the present college and Chapel Streets. The long frame building with a single central cupola, containing dining hall/chapel, library and dormitories was torn down in stages in 1775 and 1782. Its appearance is known only through its representation on early maps, a schematic mid-18th century rear view and a rather distorted image of it in a circa 1745 print by James Greenwood, all in the Yale University Library. Upon completion of the building in 1718 the "Collegiate School" was renamed "Yale College".
By 1721 a college Rector's house was constructed by Henry Caner, builder of the college hall, on the south side of Chapel Street near the college (demolished in the 19th century).
By the middle of the 18th century the college had established itself, grown considerably in enrollment, and even attracted aid in the form of a gift of property from the Anglican philosopher Bishop George Berkeley. Under the strong leadership of Yale President [Reverend] Thomas Clap (1740-1766), The college obtained a modern charter, corporate status and two new buildings, Connecticut Hall (1750-1753) and a college chapel (1761-1763, demolished in 1893), which formed an incipient row behind the old hall, facing the Green. The buildings, in the Georgian style were among [the] first brick buildings in New Haven, even predating the brick meeting house on the Green, and provided an impressive new image for the college. In addition, the college chapel signified a major break from the city's church and church-run community.
The remains of the old college hall were taken down in 1782 when a new dining hall was built the same year, behind the brick buildings. Thus, by the end of the period, the college had a complex of buildings and the beginnings of a true campus.

c.1680-1739, was colonial agent for Massachusetts and Connecticut, born in Boston; son of Jeremiah Dummer (1645-1718). He saw little opportunity for business in Boston and settled in England, where he became a prosperous lawyer. He became the agent in England of Massachusetts (1710) and of Connecticut (1712). Dummer helped persuade Elihu Yale, a wealthy English merchant, to donate books and valuable goods to the Collegiate School of Connecticut--which was renamed (1718) Yale College. Dummer himself collected nearly 1,000 books, which were sent to this institution. His most important service for the colonies was his well-reasoned Defence of the New England Charters (1721), written to answer the attacks in Parliament. Because Dummer recommended and supported the appointment of the unpopular Samuel Shute as governor of Massachusetts, he was dismissed as colonial agent in 1721 by the Massachusetts General Court and in 1730 by Connecticut.

Wait a second...  Cotton Mather had a hand in Yale?   How come I have not heard that?  I have.  It's laying in plain site.
   
And what's this about?    Cotton Mather, a Harvard alumnus who was unhappy at having been passed over for the presidency of his alma mater, to approach Elihu Yale on behalf of the so-called "Academy of Dissenters"  in New Haven. 
What are they dissenting from???
That right there my friends is where I think we need to focus.

Let's jump forward to 1832.     After a scary operation involving the burglary of the SKULL and BONES temple I have unlocked secret secrets...  You ready?   One of the founders of Skull and Bones was...   a beaver.  (Skull and Beavers sounds so much better)  I mean a Mather.  Just this case alone shows a peppering of the ELITE families intermarried with the Mather family.   Right there you see the names Mather, Pomeroy, Goodrich, Ellsworth, Miller....   AKA the founders of Skull and Bones and a shit ton of lineage in the Boners.   Bush, Kerry, blah blah blah...  The Mather family sit near the head of the table, I guess behind the Russell and Taft families.  Maybe not, COTTON MATHER HELPED THE YALE LEGACY IN IT'S EARLIEST DAYS!!!   One more consideration is the fact that Fred Mather is a LINEAL DESCENDANT to Richard Mather: father to Increase Mather and Granddad to Cotton Mather, our hero.  This is not some poser hanging out on a branch somewhere, He shoots right down the line.  Let that sit in your gizzard.   


We get to dig into the same old lame ass conspiracy triggers...  yet again.    
To be honest, the Bonesbrigade never get tiring.   All you have to do is start looking into the years Antony C. Sutton gate keeps...  This is NOT one.   One of the many operations the Skull and Bones crew have pulled off was manufacturing "Conflict Thesis" through Bonesman Andrew Dickson White with the help of  John Draper.   It's seems to me that the "Witch Trials" for seeds to a yet to be sown garden...

Conflict thesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "conflict thesis" is a historiographical approach in the history of science which maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to public hostility. The thesis retains support among some scientists and in the public,[1] while most historians of science do not support the thesis, especially in its original strict form.[2][3][4][5]

The historical conflict thesis[edit]


John William Draper

Andrew Dickson White
In the 1800s the relationship between science and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional interactions were expressed in the past.[6] More specifically, it was around the mid-1800s that discussion of "science and religion" first emerged because before this time, "science" still included moral and metaphysical dimensions, was not inherently linked to the scientific method, and the term "scientist" did not emerge until 1834.[7] The scientist John William Draper and the writer Andrew Dickson White were the most influential exponents of the conflict thesis between religion and science. Draper had been the speaker in the British Association meeting of 1860 which led to the famous confrontation between Bishop Wilberforce and Huxley over Darwinism, and in America "the religious controversy over biological evolution reached its most critical stages in the late 1870s".[8] In the early 1870s Draper was invited by American science popularizer Edward Livingston Youmans (founder of Popular Science magazine) to write a History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), a book replying to contemporary issues in Roman Catholicism, such as the doctrine of papal infallibility, and mostly criticizing what he claimed to be anti-intellectualism in the Catholic tradition,[9] but also making criticisms of Islam and of Protestantism.[10] Draper's preface summarises the conflict thesis:
The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.[11]
In 1874 White published his thesis in Popular Science Monthly and in book form as The Warfare of Science:
In all modern history, interference with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evils both to religion and to science—and invariably. And, on the other hand, all untrammeled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed, for the time, to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good of religion and of science.[12]
In 1896, White published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, the culmination of over thirty years of research and publication on the subject, criticizing what he saw as restrictive, dogmatic forms of Christianity. In the introduction, White emphasized that he arrived at his position after the difficulties of assisting Ezra Cornell in establishing a university without any official religious affiliation.
James Joseph Walsh, M.D., the historian of medicine, criticized White's perspective as anti-historical in The Popes and Science: the History of the Papal relations to Science during the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time (1908),[13] a book dedicated to Pope Pius X:    THIS IS FREE FROM GOOGLE BOOKS.
the story of the supposed opposition of the Church and the Popes and the ecclesiastical authorities to science in any of its branches, is founded entirely on mistaken notions. Most of it is quite imaginary. Much of it is due to the exaggeration of the significance of the Galileo incident. Only those who know nothing about the history of medicine and of science continue to harbor it. That Dr. White's book, contradicted as it is so directly by all serious histories of medicine and of science, should have been read by so many thousands in this country, and should have been taken seriously by educated men, physicians, teachers, and even professors of science who want to know the history of their own sciences, only shows how easily even supposedly educated men may be led to follow their prejudices rather than their mental faculties, and emphasizes the fact that the tradition that there is no good that can possibly come out of the Nazareth of the times before the reformation, still dominates the intellects of many educated people who think that they are far from prejudice and have minds perfectly open to conviction.[14]
In God and Nature (1986), David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers report that "White's Warfare apparently did not sell as briskly as Draper's Conflict, but in the end it proved more influential, partly, it seems, because Draper's strident anti-Catholicism soon dated his work and because White's impressive documentation gave the appearance of sound scholarship".[15] During the 20th century, historians' acceptance of the conflict thesis declined until rejected in the 1970s. David B. Wilson notes:
Despite the growing number of scholarly modifications and rejections of the conflict model from the 1950's ... in the 1970s leading historians of the nineteenth century still felt required to attack it. ... Whatever the reason for the continued survival of the conflict thesis, two other books on the nineteenth century that were published in the 1970s hastened its final demise among historians of science ... 1974 ... Frank Turner ... Between Science and Religion ... Even more decisive was the penetrating critique "Historians and Historiography" ... [by] James Moore ... at the beginning of his Post-Darwinian Controversies (1979).[16]

Modern views[edit]

Academic[edit]

Historians of science today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (those involving Galileo and Darwin) in favor of a "complexity" model, because religious figures took positions on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved in discrediting religion.[17] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould said: "White's and Draper's accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and use the same myths to support their narrative, the flat-earth legend prominently among them".[18] In a summary of the historiography of the conflict thesis, Colin A. Russell, the former President of Christians in Science, said that "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship".[19]
In Science & Religion, Gary Ferngren proposes a complex relationship between religion and science:
While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.[20]
Some modern historians of science (such as Peter Barker, Bernard R. Goldstein, and Crosbie Smith) propose that scientific discoveries - such as Kepler's laws of planetary motion in the 17th century, and the reformulation of physics in terms of energy, in the 19th century - were driven by religion.[21] Religious organizations and clerics figure prominently in the broad histories of science, until the professionalization of the scientific enterprise, in the 19th century, led to tensions between scholars taking religious and secular approaches to nature.[22] Even the prominent examples of religion's apparent conflict with science, the Galileo affair (1614) and the Scopes trial (1925), were not pure instances of conflict between science and religion, but included personal and political facts in the development of each conflict.[23]

Galileo[edit]


Galileo before the Holy Office, a 19th-century painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury
The Galileo affair is one of the few examples commonly used by advocates of the conflict thesis. Maurice Finocchiaro writes that the Galileo affair epitomizes the common view of "the conflict between enlightened science and obscurantist religion," and that this view promotes "the myth that alleges the incompatibility between science and religion." Finocchiaro writes, "I believe that such a thesis is erroneous, misleading, and simplistic," and refers to John Draper, Andrew White, Voltaire, Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Karl Popper as writers or icons who have promoted it.[24] Finocchiaro also describes as mythical the notion that Galileo "saw" the earth's motion, since this direct observation was only possible in the 21st century, and the idea that Galileo was "imprisoned," since he was "actually held under house arrest."[24] He notes that the situation was complex and objections to the Copernican system included scientific, philosophical, and theological arguments.[24]
The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610,[25] culminating with the trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for his support of heliocentrism.[26] In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, namely the phases of Venus and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543). Galileo's initial discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be formally heretical. Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.[27]
Pope Urban VIII had been an admirer and supporter of Galileo, and there is evidence he did not believe the inquisition's declaration rendered heliocentrism a heresy. Urban may have rather viewed Heliocentrism as a potentially dangerous or rash doctrine that nevertheless had utility in astronomical calculations.[24] In 1632 Galileo, now an old man, published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was popular. Pope Urban VIII had asked that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book, and were voiced by a character named Simplicio who was a simpleton.[28][29] This angered the Pope and weakened Galileo's position politically.[30]Responding to mounting controversy over theologyastronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo's Dialogue was banned, the publication of his past or future works forbidden, he was ordered to "abjure, curse and detest" heliocentric ideas.[31] Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.[32]
Observations that favored the Copernican model over the Ptolemaic or other alternative models accumulated over time:[24] the emergence of Newtonian mechanics later in the 17th century, the observation of the stellar aberration of light by James Bradley in the 18th century, the analysis of orbital motions of binary stars by William Herschel in the 19th century, and the accurate measurement of the stellar parallax in 19th century.[33][34] According to physicist Christopher Graney, Galileo's own observations did not actually support the Copernican view, but were more consistent with Tycho Brahe's hybrid model where the Earth didn't move, and everything else circled around it and the Sun.[35] Copernicus' work De revolutionibus remained on the Index of banned books until 1758.[36]

Scientist and public perceptions[edit]

This thesis is still held to be true in whole or in part by some prominent contemporary scientists such as Stephen Hawking who has said "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."[37] Others, such as Steven Weinberg, grant that it is possible for science and religion to be compatible since some prominent scientists are also religious, but he sees some significant tensions that potentially weaken religious beliefs overall.[38]
A study done on scientists from 21 American universities showed that most did not perceive conflict between science and religion. In the study, the strength of religiosity in the home in which a scientist was raised, current religious attendance, peers' attitudes toward religion, all had an impact on whether or not scientists saw religion and science as in conflict. Scientists who had grown up with a religion and retained that identity or had identified as spiritual or had religious attendance tended to perceive less or no conflict. However, those not attending religious services were more likely to adopt a conflict paradigm. Additionally, scientists were more likely to reject conflict thesis if their peers held positive views of religion.[39]
Science historian Ronald Numbers suggests the conflict theory lingers in a popular belief, inclusive of scientists and clerics alike, that history reflects an intrinsic and inevitable intellectual conflict between (Judeo-Christian) religion and science, a misconception perpetuated by the polemics surrounding controversies like creation–evolutionstem cells, and birth control.[40] Some scholars such as Brian Stanley and Denis Alexander propose that mass media are partly responsible for popularizing conflict theory,[41] most notably the Flat-earth myth that prior to Columbus people believed the Earth was flat.[42] David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge Earth's sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[42][43] Numbers gives the following as mistakes arising from conflict theory that have gained widespread currency: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences".[40] Some Christian writers, notably Reijer Hooykaas and Stanley Jaki, have argued that Christianity was important, if not essential, for the rise of modern science. Lindberg and Numbers, however, see this apologetical writing as lacking in careful historical study and overstating the case for a connection.[44]
Research on perceptions of science among the American public concludes that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science, and that they have no differences with nonreligious groups in propensity to seek out scientific knowledge, although there may be epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets.[45][46] The Pew Center made similar findings and also noted that the majority of Americans (80–90%) strongly support scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists.[47] Even strict creationists tend to express very favorable views towards science.[48] A study of US college students concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than vice versa.[49] 

I'm not sure how many times I've linked folks to the Conflict Thesis that originated with Andrew Dickson White, through the 

"ACADEMY OF DISSENTERS"!!!!~!!!! and SKULL AND BONES !!!!@!!!!founded partially by Frederick MATHER!!!!$!!!!

but it might be important.   The picture gets less blurry as you approach logic and alleged history.
Here are some more conflicts that reverberate from "Conflict Thesis"chocked with conspiracy triggers...  Satan the great boogie man... I guess Satan and Science have to be interchangeable for this to be the case and I think that would be an easy connection so make so I'll skip it.   
Jack Parsons

Jump to the 80's...

McMartin preschool trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virginia McMartin during the McMartin preschool trial
The McMartin preschool trial was a day care sexual abuse case in the 1980s, prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney Ira Reiner.[1] Members of the McMartin family, who operated a preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, were charged with numerous acts of sexual abuse of children in their care. Accusations were made in 1983. Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987, and the trial ran from 1987 to 1990. After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. When the trial ended in 1990, it had been the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history.[2] The case was part of day-care sex-abuse hysteria, a moral panic over alleged Satanic ritual abuse in the 1980s and early 1990s.


We all know the story.   I'm not here to bring up the validity of the trial or the influence of real Satanism just show a pattern.   Undeniably this trial went to shit once the Satanic element was introduced.   Media drilled the idea that narrow minded, simple, superstitious Christianity (implied when Satan enters the building)  was at fault for the witch hunt... They did so by bringing Satan into the narrative...sound familiar?   Is this case  a beneficiary of the original psy-op ran in Salem?  
Not sold yet?

A Modern Day Witch Hunt Comes Back to Salem

Damien Echols, one of the West Memphis Three, moved to Salem, Mass. seeking acceptance and the quiet life. Then a post popped up on an Internet message board with his name inside of it and this headline: "Is a child murderer living in Salem?"

Once again Satan kicks the competitions ass and these lads are let out because of the witch hunt.   

WAIT!!!  WHAT'S THIS???   
SALEM, Mass. — Word is the quaint New England town wasn't big enough for the both of them—two men, who, in many ways, had much in common: links to Satanism, best-selling books and a certain celebrity aura.
"I'd like to think I ran him out of town," boasts Mike Blatty, whose father, William Peter Blatty, wrote the Exorcist.
He is speaking of Damien Echols, one of three men known as the "West Memphis Three," who were convicted of killing three children in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993. Echols spent 17 years on death row before he was released in 2011. He had moved here seeking acceptance and the quiet life. He did not get it, and last month he and his wife sold their house and moved to New York City.
The freeing of Echols was the highest-profile release of a death row inmate in recent decades. For many, his hard-won freedom speaks of resilience and redemption in the face of a gross miscarriage of justice.  
 AKA WITCH HUNT! 
But Blatty believes Echols is guilty, and he has been vocal about it.
He first found out that Echols had moved to Salem from a Boston Globe story, replete with a photo of Echols—"with his long hair and dark glasses, looking like a romantic figure" posing in front of a cemetery. "I felt like a fraud was being perpetrated upon my town," he said. "Here was this multiple child killer being treated like a celebrity."
To make his point, Blatty took to an electronic bulletin board called Salemweb and began posting about Echols, including the question that started it all: "Is a child murderer living in Salem?" Almost 2500 posts later, the threads about Echols outpace the municipal notices about street cleaning and requests for restaurant recommendations.
"I didn't like it, but it's a question of free speech," said Salemweb's owner, Barbara Wuertz. "People can be very cruel."
She said a member of Echols' criminal defense team, Lonnie Soury, contacted her. She said that, "Damien and his wife were not happy about this."
Click the link for the rest of the story...    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a29142/witch-hunt-in-salem/
This is a cool story.   Blatty trolled Echols out of town???    

Who is William Peter Blatty?

William Peter Blatty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Peter Blatty
William-Peter-Blatty-2009.jpg
Blatty in 2009
BornJanuary 7, 1928
New York City, U.S.
DiedJanuary 12, 2017 (aged 89)
Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.
OccupationNovelist, screenwriter, film director
Alma materGeorgetown University
George Washington University
GenreHorror, drama, comedy
SpouseJulie Witbrodt (m. 1983)
Children7
William Peter Blatty (January 7, 1928 – January 12, 2017) was an American writer and filmmaker[1] best known for his 1971[1] novel The Exorcist and for the Academy Award-winning screenplay of its film adaptation. He also wrote and directed the sequel The Exorcist III.[1] After the success of The Exorcist, Blatty reworked Twinkle, Twinkle, "Killer" Kane! (1960) into a new novel titled The Ninth Configuration, published in 1978. Two years later, Blatty adapted the novel into a film of the same title and won Best Screenplay at the 1981 Golden Globe Awards. Some of his other notable works are the novels Elsewhere (2009), Dimiter (2010) and Crazy (2010).
Born and raised in New York City, Blatty received his bachelor's degree in English from Georgetown University in 1950, and his master's degree in English literature from the George Washington University. Following completion of his master's degree in 1954, he joined the United States Air Force, where he worked in the Psychological Warfare Division. After service in the air force, he worked for the United States Information Agency in Beirut.

Early life[edit]

Blatty was born on January 7, 1928, in New York City.[2][3] He was the fifth and youngest child of Lebanese immigrants,[3][4] Mary (née Mouakad), a devout Catholic and the niece of a bishop, and Peter Blatty, a cloth cutter.[5][6] His parents separated when he was a toddler.[3] He was raised in what he described as "comfortable destitution" by his deeply religious mother, whose sole support came from peddling homemade quince jelly in the streets of Manhattan;[3][5] she once offered a jar of it to Franklin D. Roosevelt when the President was cutting the ribbon for the Queens–Midtown Tunnel, telling him, "For when you have company."[7] He lived at 28 different addresses during his childhood[5] because of nonpayment of rent.[8] "We never lived at the same address in New York for longer than two or three months at a time," Blatty told The Washington Post in 1972. "Eviction was the order of the day."[3] Blatty's mother died in 1967.[5]
He attended Brooklyn Preparatory, a Jesuit school, on a scholarship and graduated as class valedictorian in 1946.[5][9] He later attended Georgetown University on a scholarship,[5]where he earned his bachelor's degree in English in 1950.[3][10] Those years at Georgetown were probably the best years of my life, Blatty said in 2015. Until then, I’d never had a home.[3] While studying for his master's degree at George Washington University, Blatty took menial jobs.[6] Initially unable to find a job in teaching, he worked as a vacuum cleaner door-to-door salesman, a beer truck driver,[3] and as a United Airlines ticket agent.[2] He earned his master's in English literature from the George Washington University in 1954.[3][10] He then enlisted in the United States Air Force,[2][3] where he ultimately became head of the Policy Branch of the USAF Psychological Warfare Division.[11]
Mustering out of the Air Force, he joined the United States Information Agency and worked as an editor based in Beirut, Lebanon.[2][5] Eventually, his writing talent emerged, and he began submitting humorous articles to magazines.

The guy who brought us The Exorcist was a Lebanese Jesuit and  head of the Policy Branch of the USAF Psychological Warfare Division....

‘The Exorcist’ Controversy: Film Used Tactics Previously Tested by US Government to Scare Audiences...


Don't be fooled by this story either.   The psychological operations were much deeper. This guy has given form, shape, and appearance to the devil...  

This is huge!!!   Think about who gave us Aiwass/Lam; Crowley.   L. R. Hubbard brought us Xenu.   ALL OF THESE GUYS WERE IN INTEL AND GAVE SHAPE, FORM AND APPEARANCE TO THE SAME THING.   THE DISCORDIAN CHESSBOARD IS STARTING TO LEAN.

And Blatty's wife Mary carried the maiden name Mouakad...   Almost positive this is the same Mouakad family related to,,,

Germanos Mouakkad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Germanos Mouakkad (born April 1853 in Damascus, Syria - died on 11 February 1912 in Beirut) was a Melkite priest and bishop of the Melkite Greek Catholic Archeparchy of Baalbek.

Life[edit]

Germanos Mouakkad was born in the beginning of April 1853, son of Issa Mouakkad and his wife Marie Kayata. His parents were Melkites. [Melkites view themselves as the first Christian community, dating the Melkite Church back to the time of the Apostles.] At his baptism he received the name Joseph. Up to the age of twelve, he attended a Christian school in his home parish, after which he worked as an assistant to a merchant.
At sixteen he became—against the fierce resistance of his mother—a novice in the monastery of the Holy Savior, where a monk named Ignace accepted him. After spending some years with Joseph Bakos studying philosophy, he was ordained by Clément Bahous priest and served as chaplain in Cairo and Damascus. From 1880 to 1886 Mouakkad was Patriarchal Vicar of the Melkite Patriarch of Jerusalem. On 16 March 1886, he received the episcopal ordination and was—now called Germanos—Bishop of the Eparchy of Baalbek. In 1896 Mouakkad received during his stay in Rome by Pope Leo XIII's permission, a medal for missionary priests and in 1903 established a missionary company to priests called Missionary Society of St. Paul (fr) in Harissa, Lebanon.[1]
Germanos Mouakkad died on February 11, 1912 in a French hospital in Beirut from the effects of long-term illness.   

TO BE CONTINUED

http://www.puritanpublications.com/store/products/a-discourse-on-the-damned-art-of-witchcraft-by-william-perkins-1558-1602/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Science

http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44574368.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=lmNkAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q=Hubbard&f=false

https://archive.org/stream/genealogyofmathe00math/genealogyofmathe00math_djvu.txt