A Course in Miracles: a CIA exercise in mind control?

Monday, 25 June 2007

 A Course in Miracles, published in 1975, is a book considered by its students to be their “spiritual path” – some have labelled it the “New Age Bible”. It has sold millions of copies. But could it have been part of a CIA mind control experiment? One of its authors, was a key MKULTRA scientist.

Its promoters describe it as “A Course in Miracles is a complete self-study spiritual thought system. As a three-volume curriculum consisting of a Text, Workbook for Students, and Manual for Teachers, it teaches that the way to universal love and peace – or remembering God – is by undoing guilt through forgiving others. The Course thus focuses on the healing of relationships and making them holy. A Course in Miracles also emphasizes that it is but one version of the universal curriculum, of which there are ‘many thousands.’ Consequently, even though the language of the Course is that of traditional Christianity, it expresses a non-sectarian, non-denominational spirituality. A Course in Miracles therefore is a universal spiritual teaching, not a religion.” According to Dr. Helen Schucman and the Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP), she and Dr. William Thetford “scribed” the book by means of a process coming from a divine source through a form of channelling, which Schucman referred to as “inner dictation”. Schucman described the divine source of her channelling as none other than the person of Jesus Christ – thus making one think that the notion that this is just a spiritual teaching “not a religion”, somewhat suspect.

The source of A Course in Miracles was said to be Jesus ChristChannellers of Jesus Christ would – perhaps should – be treated with suspicion. But amongst the usual list of possible explanations for mounting a hoax, “A Course in Miracles” has an unusual candidate: CIA sponsored mind control. Dr. William Thetford, co-scribe of the book, co-headed the CIA’s “Mind Control” MK-ULTRA SubProject 130: Personality Theory, while at Columbia University, between 1971 and 1978. His colleague on this project was David Saunders. Thetford’s Professional Bio, also available on the A Course in Miracles web site, makes reference to his involvement in a Personality Theory Research Project while Professor of Medical Psychology at Columbia University, but the information does not specifically cite this as a CIA MK-ULTRA SubProject – an omission we would expect to find. When we check dates, it is clear that A Course in Miracles was written in the middle of this project’s existence. The next question should therefore be whether it was part of this project. After all, the project addresses “personality theory” and the Course tackles how heal the personality.

Some might argue that though the book was published in 1975, the sessions predated Thetford’s involvement with the CIA in 1971. But can we be sure? The story goes that in late 1965, Schucman began to “channel” this voice in her head. From 1965 to 1972, Thetford directly assisted Schucman with the transcription of the first three sections of the work, which was in fact the great bulk of the material. But one year into his involvement with the CIA, in 1972, Thetford and Schucman were introduced to Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, whom they invited to assist with the editing that was required to render the rough draft of the ACIM manuscript into a publishable format. So though it is possible the actual sessions fell outside of Thetford’s MKULTRA employment, the promotion and publication fell squarely within it. Furthermore, it has been alleged that among the subjects deleted from the original versions were remarks concerning “the CIA.” When some of these original versions were first published on the Internet in the late 1990s, they were almost as quickly removed by a court injunction brought by none other than Wapnick himself.

The publisher of the Course was the Foundation for the Investigation of Para Sensory Phenomena. Some observers wonder whether this may have been funded by members involved with or employed by the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), Menlo Park, California, which at the time was home to the Remote Viewing project – itself sponsored by the CIA. One of the people with connections to SRI was Judith Skutch, the president and founder of the foundation. In 1973, Skutch was one of Uri Geller’s first supporters. According to Andrew Tobias, most of Geller’s private demonstrations were done in Skutch’s apartment and it was this foundation that put up $60,000 to pay for SRI’s further study of Geller. As it is now known that funding for such experiments also came from the CIA, we can of course wonder whether the Foundation was a front for the CIA… which would mean that it was the CIA itself who published “A Course in Miracles” in 1975. That would mean that the Course was from beginning to end a CIA affair.

ThetfordCould this couple have faked everything? Father Benedict Groeschel, a Catholic priest, knew Schucman both as a teacher and friend. He described William Thetford as “a mysterious character”, and “probably the most sinister person I ever met.” That is an interesting assessment. Only after he retired from teaching did Thetford’s Columbia colleagues (who knew him best as a rare-books expert) discover that during the years they worked with him, he had been employed as an agent of the CIA – one who was, among other things, present at the first fission experiment conducted by physicists assigned to the Manhattan Project. Thetford also was “the most religious atheist I have ever known”, Groeschel recalled. Equally, Groeschel uncovered that Schucman, though outwardly an atheist, had been an admirer of the apparition of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes – quite an uncommon fascination for a Jew. She was also embarrassed and feared, Groeschel remembered, that the book would create a cult, or a cult following, which of course it did. In her eyes, it was that “damned book”.

Was Schucman the unknown victim, or active participant, in a government-sponsored experiment? As an associate professor, she definitely had the intelligence to figure whether or not she was abused. Furthermore, J.W. Gittinger was the primary personality assessor for MKULTRA. He pioneered scientific methods to enable him to identify the most susceptible types of personalities for Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, one of the leading scientists on the MKULTRA project. Gittinger’s work eventually surfaced as his “Personality Assessment System” (PAS). Two years after Schucman went to work for Thetford, they co-authored a paper on Gittinger’s PAS, suggesting they at least knew of him… or may even have written this paper within the framework of the MKULTRA project.

So could the book be part of some mind control experiment? Author and Yogi Joel Kramer states that the Course could be considered a classic authoritarian example of programming thought to change beliefs. Long time teacher of the Course, Hugh Prather, notes that the Course students often become, “far more separate and egocentric”, with many ultimately, “[losing] the ability to carry on a simple conversation”. He admits that he and his wife Gayle, “had ended up less flexible, less forgiving, and less generous than we were when we first started our path!” Furthermore, the book starts off as a psychic channelling session and this is an area that the CIA was involved with in the 1970s. So not only was Thetford an MK-ULTRA employee, the book itself, and the method in which it is said to have come about, also fits a CIA area of interest.

SchucmanWhile occult phenomenon has long been ridiculed by the scientific establishment, the CIA seriously entertained the notion that such phenomena might be highly significant for the spy trade. The Agency speculated that if a number of people in the US were found to have high ESP capacity, their talent could be assigned to specific intelligence problems. In 1952, the CIA initiated an extensive program involving the search for, and development of, exceptionally gifted individuals who could approximate perfect success in ESP performance. The Office of Security, which ran the ARTICHOKE project, was urged to follow all leads on individuals reported to have true clairvoyant powers so as to be able to subject their claims to rigorous scientific investigation. The CIA began infiltrating séances and occult gatherings during the 1950s, which may explain why they were interested in a bizarre UFO/medium case in Maine in 1959. A memo dated April 9, 1953, refers to a domestic – and therefore illegal – operation that required the planting of a very specialized observer at a séance in order to obtain a broad surveillance of all individuals attending the meetings. During the late 1960s, the CIA experimented with mediums in an attempt to contact and possibly debrief dead CIA agents. These attempts, according to Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking CIA official, were part of a larger effort to harness psychic powers for various intelligence-related missions (PROJECT SCANATE) that included utilizing clairvoyants to divine the intentions of the Kremlin leadership. Early in 1981, a well-known syndicated columnist Jack Anderson said, “my associate and I revealed a Pentagon secret that raised eyebrows from coast-to-coast. To the sceptics who wrote in, no, we don’t take hallucinogens. The Pentagon and the Kremlin are, indeed dabbling in the black arts, they are seriously trying to develop weapons based upon extrasensory perception…”. A Course in Miracles seems to have been a part of this psychic warfare… the question is: what was its intended purpose?

http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/104/37/

8 Comments

Filed under Conspiracy/Coincidence, Metaphysical/Religion/Secret Societies/, Social/Society

8 responses to “A Course in Miracles: a CIA exercise in mind control?

  1. Pingback: Henry Makow Ph.D. Interview LIVE on camera – NWO, Hitler, Putin, Obama, Feminism & the New Age | Alexander Gottwald

  2. Pingback: Henry Makow Ph.D. LIVE vor der Kamera – NWO, Hitler, Putin, Obama, Feminismus & New Age | Alexander Gottwald

  3. Pingback: Henry Makow Ph.D. LIVE vor der Kamera – NWO, Hitler, Putin, Obama, Feminismus & New Age

  4. Pingback: Joss Whedon, Firefly, Serenity, and the Communitarian Agenda | Divine Pollination Hive

  5. I take exception to the referring of Helen as a Jew. Both her parents were half Jewish and non observant. Her mother read from the writings of the Christian Scientists. In order for this to be a CIA creation they would have had to do something to Helen as she did the writing. I’m not a follower of any of these so don’t have a dog in the fight. Chances are that Helen was having a spiritual emergency which is essentially psychotic. Any savvy person knows that CIA spooks are nuttier than a good fruitcake. They wasted multi millions probably billions of dollars on such absurd things as distant viewing. None of the expenditures yielded anything worthwhile. I think this is just another witch hunt.

  6. S

    I don’t understand how something promoting forgiveness and love can be labeled ‘demonic’ (by the religious) and some sort of evil CIA mind control scheme by the uber paranoid?

    While I’m disinclined to jump on any bandwagon (including this one), the fear factor of anything new or unknown – ever had at work – never ceases to amaze me.

    • A Course in Miracles has brought me happiness. If that is what you are in pursuit of, perhaps you should give it a try. Happiness will never come from conspiracy theories, bashing others, or creating conflict.

  7. Mary Hall

    You can’t make extreme statements like, “One of its authors, was a key MKULTRA scientist” without some evidence to back it up. It seems your whole argument rests on this one unsubstantiated claim. That makes for a very unsound, invalid argument.

    You wrote, “Thetford’s Professional Bio, also available on the A Course in Miracles web site, makes reference to his involvement in a Personality Theory Research Project while Professor of Medical Psychology at Columbia University, but the information does not specifically cite this as a CIA MK-ULTRA SubProject – an omission we would expect to find.”

    This doesn’t prove anything. Wow, imagine. A psychologist studying personality theory. Shocking. That must mean he’s doing nefarious mind control work with the CIA!

    You wrote, “When we check dates, it is clear that A Course in Miracles was written in the middle of this project’s (MK-ULTRA) existence. The next question should therefore be whether it was part of this project. After all, the project addresses “personality theory” and the Course tackles how heal the personality.”

    I noticed you wrote, “The next question should therefore be whether it was part of this project.” And then you go on to “answer” this question through making loose connections without any evidence whatsoever. And you make conclusions based on these tenuous connections and consider the question “answered.” You didn’t answer anything. You just made a completely unsubstantiated conclusion. And then you go on to misrepresent the Course in Miracles with this statement, “the Course tackles how to heal the personality.” No it doesn’t. Did you even read the book? How can you genuinely critique a book you didn’t even read? Any Course student with a basic understanding of the book knows you can’t “heal” personality. Personality is an illusion, being an aspect of the ego. You don’t heal illusion. You set it aside and let the truth be what it is. If you have a problem with this concept, that’s fine. At least you would be critiquing the course in a valid, genuine way instead of the fallacious nonsense you are presenting here.

    You wrote, “Dr. William Thetford, co-scribe of the book, co-headed the CIA’s “Mind Control” MK-ULTRA SubProject 130: Personality Theory, while at Columbia University, between 1971 and 1978.”

    Where is the citation? Where did you get this information? This seems like a very foundational part of your argument, I would think you would want to cite it.

    You wrote, “Furthermore, it has been alleged that among the subjects deleted from the original versions were remarks concerning “the CIA.” Alleged? Alleged by whom? Anybody can “allege” anything they want. It doesn’t mean anything. Why would you even include it in your argument? Seriously, you need to take a philosophy course or some kind of course that actually teaches you how to present a valid argument! This is ridiculous.

    You can’t throw things out there and make absolute conclusions without backing it up. The only people you are going to convince with this so-called “argument” are people who want to believe it, not anybody who has a sincere interest in the actual truth.

    Since it’s obvious you can’t prove William Thetford was involved with MKULTRA, or even give a valid argument for this claim, your next logical step would be to use the text itself to prove your point that it is designed for some kind of nefarious mind control. But I’m not seeing that argument either. I should think if the text was “written by the CIA” you could use the text itself to prove your point. It’s telling you don’t use the text at all! Your argument couldn’t be more ad hominem if you tried. And the one time you actually referenced the book itself, you misrepresented it!

    Your argument is so sloppy, so intellectually undisciplined, so full of fallacious and nebulous connections and invalid conclusions that it could seriously be used in a philosophy course to teach the students the true meaning of ad hominem, strawman, and a multitude of other logical fallacies.

    Also, just because Helen felt the voice who wrote the Course was Jesus, doesn’t mean there is any religious connotation. I really don’t understand your connection there. What religion? Christianity? I mean, that’s silly. Christians don’t have exclusive claim on Jesus. I believe many of the things Jesus spoke of in the Bible but I’m not a Christian. You don’t have to be a Christian to believe in what Jesus taught. I would say Christianity is a particular interpretation of the teachings in the Bible. Not everybody agrees with that interpretation, something some Christians conveniently forget. Christianity, as a religion, is a particular “packaging” of a thought system based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. As much as some Christians would like to egotistically believe they have the exclusive claim to understanding and truth based on the Bible, they would be wrong. It’s all subjective. It can’t be otherwise. That’s just how it is. But that’s what dogmatic thinking is about. You read a book and then you think only you and your community has the truth about it. But you don’t.

    You might come to the conclusion (since you like to come to unfounded conclusions, obviously) that I am writing this because I am defending the Course in Miracles. But you would be wrong. I am defending intellectual discipline and rational thinking. If the Course in Miracles did not stand up logically, I’d toss it. I can see through irrational arguments like yours a mile away. Besides the fact that you didn’t prove any of your points, your basic argument is ad hominem and fallacious to begin with! Seriously, if you want to attack the Course in Miracles, attack the book itself. Present some parts of it you take objection to. That would be honest, at least. A lot of people have issues with the content of the book. That’s fine. Attack that, why not?

    Seriously, why have you made this strawman about the Course in Miracles if the book itself is so vulnerable to an argument against it?

    The amazing irony in this post is you are the one clearly attempting mind control because you are attempting to manipulate academically uneducated individuals who don’t know the difference between a sound, valid argument from a completely specious argument. And they will eat it up because they haven’t got the intellectual discipline needed to see right through your nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s