“Scarcely had he finished speaking all these words when the ground under them burst asunder, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households; all Korah’s people and all their possessions. They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them; the earth closed over them and they vanished from the midst of the congregation. All Israel fled at their shrieks, for they said, ‘The earth might swallow us!’
And a fire went forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense.
The O’Briens’ comments are worth citing at length:What can we possibly make out of this incredible narrative? The killing of two hundred and fifty men was a form of execution which is becoming commonplace in this account — brought about by flame spurting from Yahweh or, more likely, from some weapon which he held in his hand. This was not a bullet-laden gun, because he had used it to burn up the meat and fat on the range in a peaceable, but dramatic, demonstration of his powers; it was a weapon that generated intense, and localized, heat. Perhaps it was in the same category as the laser equipment which our own technology is now beginning to perfect.
But the swallowing up of the three men’s families, with tents and belongings, appears to have been an event of an entirely different kind. Earthquakes in which local tension rifts cause linear openings in the ground several metres across are comparatively common, and there have been cases where subsequent movement has closed a rift, again. But it would ask too much of coincidence for a local tremor to have selected just those people who had incurred Yahweh’s displeasure — to have dropped them into the depths and to have closed up, again.
Of course, it would be less of a coincidence if a local earthquake had occurred which swallowed up a portion of the Israeli camp, including some of the insubsordinates’ families at, or near, the time when Yahweh destroyed the two hundred and fifty men with censers. History, or even a contemporary chronicler, might have connected the two events. Certainly, the area in which the Israelites were wandering was prone, geologically, to tension rifting of the type described. This may have been the explanation, but an alternative should be considered which would be practicable in terms of modern technology, given sufficient energy.
Yahweh appears to have been in possession of a weapon capable of exuding intense heat, possibly to the extent that localized vaporization occurred. It would follow that his aerial craft might have possessed an even more powerful weapon. If such had existed, and had been used selectively to obliterate the families, the path of the beam might have left a furrow on the ground which the stunned community might have convinced themselves, later, had been caused by the ground opening and closing.
But whichever cause we attribute to the deaths, we are beginning to be sickened by the carnage apparently needed to correct a ‘stiffnecked people,’ who had had little or no say in formulating the Covenant that they were being forced to observe. Indeed, the complete lack of feeling for the suffering of the innocent — wives, elderly people and little children — argues a monstrous megalomania such as has only been attributed to a handful of human leaders in the world’s history.197
In other words, the admission or assumption of a technology in play and used by Yahweh to enforce his will on the Hebrews changes the nature of how one reads the text, with the consequences that his “moral” character is no longer so easily rationalizable along the lines of theological piety. More importantly, the admission of such a context also argues that such demonstrations were in part technological, and in part psychological and sociological techniques to keep the Hebrews in a state of fear and compliance. In short, they argue that such incidents — while revelatory of his character — are also possibly demonstrations of mind manipulation techniques by the old tried and true method of all despots: terrorism.
b. An Indefensible Act: Impalings
To drive these points home, the O’Briens refer to one final set of incidents from Numbers 25:3–5 (citing the Jerusalem Bible translation):“With Israel thus committed to the Baal of Peor, the anger of Yahweh blazed out against them.
“Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Take all the leaders of the people. Impale them for Yahweh here in the sun; then the burning anger of Yahweh will turn away from Israel.’ Moses said to the Judges in Israel, ‘Every one of you must put to death those of his people who have committed themselves to the Baal of Peor.’
The O’Briens mince no words in what they think of this horrible sentence:If we are correct in our interpretation of impaling, this was the most barbarous, and inhuman, form of fatal torture known to man. Its description, let alone its practice, should have no place in a civilized document....
We cannot stress too strongly that by this one declaration of intent, Yahweh put himself beyond the pale of civilized behavior; all his cruel acts, all his murders, were insignificant beside this one, appalling judgement. It is true that, as far as we know, there is no record of the order being carried out; but the mere contemplation of such acts is as wicked as their execution. That they should fall within the repertoire of an advanced and self-styled compassionate Being gives reason for a very uneasy concern. And if I were given one wish — it would be that every priest who called on his congregation to worship the ‘Great Jehovah’ should be called before his Bishop, and instructed to place the real facts concerning this monster in front of his congregation.198
The O’Briens are also quick to take issue with Moses’ defense for Yahweh’s various actions: “Learn from this that Yahweh your God was training you as a man trains his child.”199 However, “it was not an apologia that we would find possible to accept: not sparing the rod is one thing, but wholesale slaughter is entirely different.”200
5. An Inhuman Face?
What was the source of all this inhumanity? The source, according to the O’Briens, was very simple: Yahweh was not human. Commenting on the fact that Yahweh kept his face hidden from men, they mention two possibilities for the strange behavior:a. that Yahweh kept his face covered, in the close proximity of men, as a protection against human-carried bacilli, or
b. that Yahweh’s face was so different from a human face that the revealing of it would cause alarm, or distress.201
The O’Briens clearly favor the latter alternative, for they note that if one interprets Yahweh as an actual physical being, then his longevity over time also accounts for his consistent agenda over several generations and his willingness to extend the Wandering until a new generation of Hebrews had matured, one that had not known life in Egypt, one that would be more compliant.202
6. The Tabernacle: Yahweh’s Mobile Palace
But was Yahweh in fact a physical, real being?
To this the O’Briens answer a resounding “yes” and point to the Tabernacle itself as the strongest argument for this view:Whatever the reason, the expressed desire for a ground-based dwelling is the most telling factor in the argument in favour of the physical nature of Yahweh — that his craft was not suitable for a lengthy sojourn in the Wilderness.
In our own environment, much can be surmised of a man, or a family, from the house in which they live. Their level of prosperity, their tastes and interests, and even their statures, can be assessed from its appearance and dimensions, and the nature and positions of its furnishings. For example, a highchair would indicate the presence of a young child; and a wall shaving-mirror, by its position, will often indicate the height of the man who uses it.... The writer of the Book of Numbers was well aware of this correlation when he indicated the size of the giant Og, King of Bashan, by giving the dimensions of his bed.203
Following this biblical methodology, the O’Briens take note of the sheer size of some of the portions of the Tabernacle, particularly those in which Yahweh was said to dwell, or in which he met with the Hebrew leaders. They come to an astonishing, and disturbing, conclusion:We have already made it clear that we consider Yahweh to have been a solid physical Being with appetites that required attention like any human; and such a view is consistent with the accounts
of the life-styles of the [Anunnaki]. We do not believe that it would be rational to ignore the evidence that points to the Tent being a functional desert dwelling for a Being requiring food and drink, a place in which to work and confer, and a private sanctuary in which to rest. Nor do we wish to avoid the deduction that Yahweh was a being of exceptional size by human standards. If the Ark were used for sitting upon; and if the Table were used from cushion level, in desert style, then considering the great height of the Tent walls, Yahweh should have been at least 2.4m (8 feet) tall and, possibly, as much as 4m (13 feet). A height within this range, but nearer the higher figure, would be completely compatible with the Tent, and its furnishings.204
Yahweh, on this view, was thus a giant, and as giants were, in the Bible, the hybrid offspring of “the sons of God” and human women,205 the implications of their remarks are clear: Yahweh may himself have been one such offspring!
Taking this method to its logical conclusion, they observe that the appointments of the Tabernacle reveal his opulent tastes,206 and that its very construction reveals an individual of an exacting nature,207 while the Tabernacle itself has all the standard characteristics of an actual dwelling.208 On this view, the Law itself changes, for it is re-secularized as simply the embodiment of Yahweh’s idiosyncrasies,209 and the dietary laws come to be reinterpreted as not cultic, but merely culinary.210
7. The Urim and Thummin: More Technology?
As a final argument that Yahweh has access to extraordinary technologies by which he intimidates, and stays in contact with, the Hebrews, the O’Briens mention Aaron’s Urim and Thummim, and give a uniquely Sumerian explanation for them:By the time of Saul, the terms Urim and Thummim had become so debased that they were used for the casting of lots; they were pressed into use as an oracle in the absence of Yahweh, and our tossing of ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ is possibly a relic of this ancient practice.
The important point, here, is that the later Hebrew priests used Urim and Thummim as a symbolic method of communicating with Yahweh, even as dried yarrow stalks, in combination with the I Ching, have been used by the Chinese. At the time of Saul, they may have been small sticks, pebbles or dice (all of these have been suggested) with ‘yes’ and ‘no’ connotations, which were picked out, at random, from the pocket of the ephod.
The practice may have been a tribal memory of a more technical method used by Aaron for communication with Yahweh, the instruments of which were no longer available. Following this argument, the use in the desert should have been for direct communication with Yahweh, there being no necessity to cast lots to obtain his decision. Such a communication could have been in two forms: one, to enable Yahweh to summon Aaron to the Tent from the father reaches of the Camp and, two, a system by which Aaron could communicate with the aerial craft during Yahweh’s periods of absence.
As there is no satisfactory interpretation of Urim and Thummim to be had from Hebrew etymology, there is a case for referring back to the Sumerian syllabic equivalents. A tentative analysis is as follows:HEBREW: Urim or U’rim
SUMERIAN: u = ‘height’: rim = ‘reduce’ or ‘shorten.’
HEBREW: Thummim or Thum’min
SUMERIAN: tum = ‘bring’: min = ‘Shamash’ or ‘20.’
The (Anunnaki) hierarchy were ranked by numbers (tens), and 20 was Shamash’s number.
From this analysis, it may be suggested that, in Sumerian, u-rim could have meant ‘height-reducer’ or ‘distance-shortener’; similarly, tum-min could have meant ‘Shamash (or Yahweh)-bringer.’
What weight can be put on this analysis is uncertain; all that can be stated is that it should be borne in mind, as an unsubstantiated speculation, that the Urim and Thummin may have been small, technical devices for effecting communication at a distance, between Aaron and Yahweh. And very useful they would have been. If the Sumerian interpretation should be correct, we could consider the Thummim as a distant alarm call.211
Whatever one may make of these Sumerian conjectures, one episode from Numbers 12:1–16 does suggest the use of a technology in play, this time to eavesdrop and, again, to cow the Hebrew leaders. The episode concerns Aaron and Miriam criticizing Moses. At this point, Yahweh, hovering above in his pillar of cloud and fire, immediately orders the three to appear before him in the Tent of Meeting. The technological possibilities are evident from the narrative, according to the O’Briens:Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses, and Yahweh heard it and, peremptorily, ordered them to the Tent of Meeting. The narrative has the air of instant action. The culprits were talking outside the Tent, probably away in the camp, somewhere. Yahweh was up in the aerial craft, and yet he overheard their conversation and could communicate with them immediately.
Surely, the explanation should like in the fact that it was Aaron who carried the Urim and Thummim. Is it so unlikely that it was through these instruments that communication occurred? Is if not less likely that it was some form of extra-sensory perception on the part of Yahweh? Perhaps, Aaron made an unfortunate mistake; three thousand years later, the President of the United States, in India, was to be the victim of a similar technical error — the microphone that, inadvertently, was left switched on. Or, perhaps, in Aaron’s case, the microphone could not be switched off; perhaps he was permanently ‘bugged’ without being aware of it.212
Given all the assumptions of a technology in play and their analysis and understanding of Yahweh’s character, bugging Aaron would be consistent with such an individual and his desire to maintain a tight grip on the intermediaries between him and the Hebrew people, and to stamp out dissention.
8. The Shining Ones and the Possible Agendas
So what, at this point, do we have? And how does all this analysis of Yahweh and his behavior fit into the context of mind manipulation? And what, if any, agendas does it imply? In order to understand the O’Briens’ argument it is first necessary to understand that they assume the basic historicity of the account that they reinterpret. Once this is done, their argument boils down to four points:1. Yahweh is a physical being, not a spiritual one, or a deity in the conventional sense;
2. As such, Yahweh is also apparently a long-lived being, whom they interpret in consonance with similar long-lived beings in the ancient Sumerian tablets. This longevity accounts for his willingness to forego immediate conquest of Canaan in favor of letting the older generation “die off”;
3. Assuming his physicality, they argue that the Tabernacle is most fit for a being of very large stature, i.e., a giant, one of the very offspring of the “sons of god and daughters of men” spoken of in Genesis 6, and that as such, Yahweh is possibly one of the “fallen Watchers” that will be dealt with in this book in part two;
4. Yahweh uses his technologies and his behavior to cow the Hebrews into unquestioning obedience of his orders, no matter how they might go against the normal urges of human conscience.
With this in mind, it is worth taking a closer look at Yahweh’s behavior in the light of some of the techniques of mind manipulation, for therein is disclosed the possibility that it was nothing but an agenda all along.
9. “Reverse Depatterning,” Psychic Driving, and the Stockholm Syndrome
The behavior of Yahweh, viewed in the light of the techniques of mind manipulation, resemble nothing so much as those of (1) a “reverse Depatterning” based on sleep and rest deprivation, (2) “Psychic Driving,” and (3) the well-known Stockholm Syndrome.
“Psychic Driving” and “Depatterning” are the rather euphemistic names given to two techniques of mind manipulation by their “inventor,” psychiatrist Ewen Cameron, during his secret work for the CIA’s top secret MKULTRA mind control program.213 Cameron, known to his colleagues as an impatient man, had little use for the time-consuming methods of Freudian psychotherapy to achieve results in patients.214 Instead, he developed a technique that he called “depatterning,” designed to cure schizophrenic patients of the patterns of schizophrenic behavior, if not cure them of the disease itself. This treatment consisted of end
less days — usually up to 30 — of endless sleep, induced by a potent cocktail of sedatives administered several times a day, along with a regimen of electroshock “therapy” that was administered at least three times a day.215 His goal was to induce essentially a tabula rasa in the mind of his patients, which could then be remolded with behavioral patterns derived from “psychic driving.”
For as much as 16 hours a day, while patients lay in a drug-induced “stupor” again brought about by a potent cocktail of sedatives, patients would hear messages played over and over, repeatedly, as they tried to rest. This began with several weeks’ “treatment” of this process, with the initial stage being a “negative” stage where the patient was played messages reinforcing their failures and guilt.216 After this “guilt reinforcement” phase, Cameron would then switch them over to another two to five weeks of “positive reinforcement,” utilizing the same drug-induced stupor and repeated recorded messages designed to induce new patterns of behavior.217
Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men: The Surviving Elites of the Cosmic War and Their Hidden Agenda Page 13