The Blurry Line Between Fact and Fiction in Alternative History

6/27/2013

Last night H2 ran an America Unearthed marathon. This is not news, but what is interesting is that I could tell (a) when it aired and (b) what episodes they showed from the comments that immediately started springing up on my blog. This deep level of interest fascinates me because the network shows Ancient Aliens much more yet I almost never receive an uptick in blog comments corresponding to repeat showings of Ancient Aliens. For some reason, people watching America Unearthed are much more interested in seeking out others’ opinions about the show and sharing their own outrage at its abuses or love of its attempt to create an alternative to mainstream history.

While the comments were the usual mixture of rationalists looking to see if someone had called out the show’s lies and believers accusing me of close-minded dogmatism and a vendetta against Scott Wolter (whom, I remind you, I have never met), I was thoroughly disheartened by this comment, in response to the “Chamber Hunting” episode:

I am sorry to say that I wasted time reading the first several paragraphs of this article. When was there some unwritten rule passed that anything you see on tv needs to be real. This is for entertainment, not a college thesis. Nothing you see on television is real, down to the crowds at award shows or tv specials.

I’m not sure I can add anything helpful here. The combination of fashionable cynicism and anti-elitism would be shocking were it not so common. The cynic argues that TV is not just capable of lies but composed primarily of them, and apparently should be, for “entertainment” is by definition the opposite of “information.” Worse, “entertainment” is what we give to the public, while facts are reserved for academics. But what gets my goat is the unstated assumption that the viewer does not deserve facts or truth, and that the viewer not only expects but requires lies. At least, then, the defender of America Unearthed recognizes it isn’t true.

It is precisely this uneasy blending of fact and fiction—along with the assumption that the masses can neither tell the difference nor care to—that underlies Theo Paijmans’s new article in the current edition of the Fortean Times, in which he plugs his new book Behind the Vril Society (Kroll, Aug. 2013), which I take to be a repudiation of his 2008 book The Vril Society, published by David Childress’s Adventures Unlimited. The 2008 book—unread by me—claimed in its book description to expose the inner workings of the Vril Society, an alleged order of occultists who pulled the strings in Nazi Germany. While I can find the older book listed on various databases, I can’t find anyone who has actually read it, which suggests to me that it was never actually published, perhaps due to Paijman’s new discoveries.

[Note: In the comments below Paijmans cites a 2003 French-language article, also unread by me, in which he says he first discussed the material from his current article. I do not know how that fits in with the 2008 book, unless, as I suspected before, the book description is a lie. Note, too, that in the paragraph below, Paijmans felt that I implied he plagiarized his article, while I was trying to be helpful by giving readers a link to where they could get the same information if they don't subscribe to Fortean Times.]

As Paijmans now claims in his Fortean Times article (whose information duplicates, nearly point for point, Wikipedia’s “Vril” article for those of you who don’t get the Fortean Times), this group never existed and was a product of the postwar imagination, invented by Jacques Bergier and Louis Pauwels in Morning of the Magicians (1960), and from whose non-historical speculation all later claims emerge. Nevertheless, esoteric Neo-Nazis and alternative historians continue to promulgate the belief that vril was real.

As I have discussed more than once before, vril was invented by Edward Bulwer-Lytton in The Coming Race (1871) and then picked up by Helena Blavatsky and the Theosophists, from whom it is transferred to Bergier and Pauwels. As I discussed before, Blavatsky’s role in this mess is extremely interesting—in ways Paijmans shortchanges in the Fortean Times article—because she essentially tried to subsume all of science fiction into Theosophy by claiming that science fiction writers connected, though only partially, to the esoteric forces she communicated with more fully (through fictional Ascended Masters and non-existent ancient texts). As she wrote in the Secret Doctrine: “Our best modern novelists, who are neither Theosophists nor Spiritualists, begin to have, nevertheless, very psychological and suggestively Occult dreams […] [T]he clever novelist seems to repeat the history of all the now degraded and down-fallen races of humanity.” (L. Ron Hubbard would later claim the same powers, and also claim science fiction writers had a partial and faulty race memory of ancient wonders.) In this, Blavatsky began to destabilize the distinction between science and science fiction, between history and mythology—something also seen in the contemporary claims for the reality of Atlantis—and thus, a century early, inaugurated what would become postmodernism’s attack on the authority of science.

Theosophy may have presented itself as the only authoritative combination of science and metaphysics, but at its core, it was a magical worldview that undermined science while acting in its name, dissolving the barriers between fact and fiction, truth and lies, and setting the stage for the 1960s revival of the same in the name of the New Age. Morning of the Magicians, as a resurrection and amplification of the Secret Doctrine by way of paranoid fantasy, is thus the most influential book of its era (giving rise to Chariots of the Gods, among others) as well as the single book more responsible than any other for creating the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-historical, conspiracy-mindset that passes today for popular history.

21 Comments

CFC

6/27/2013 09:19:44 am

It's a relief to know that curious viewers can find the mass of evidence you've put together on Wolter’s methods at this site.

Dave Lewis

6/27/2013 06:44:25 pm

I read The Coming Race years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it even though it didn't start with "It was a dark and stormy night...."

Thorwald C. Franke link

6/28/2013 08:14:41 am

I do not understand the statement on Atlantis. It is too easy to say that Atlantis is just fiction. Taking Plato *literally* leads to fiction (as well as with many serious historians ...). The key question is: Did Plato himself mean it as a fiction - or is it a distorted historical tradition and he really believed it as he pretends? This is not so easy to answer. Therefore, Atlantis is a bad example when it comes to science fiction and novels.

Varika

6/28/2013 11:41:52 am

Your reply is a perfect example, in my opinion, of what Jason means about the lines blurring. Atlantis only shows up in two PLAYS written by Plato, originally. Even if he was drawing on an older oral tradition--and there is no evidence of that--the plays are fiction. No one quotes Shakespeare as a reliable source for historic events, even when he wrote plays about events we KNOW took place, like the assassination of Julius Caesar. Even when there were real people who existed, both writers put whatever words they wanted in the mouths of those people on paper.

I don't understand why people have so much trouble believing that people before the Victorian period could possibly have created fiction and done it intentionally. You would think that the fact that Plato never even FINISHED the main play about Atlantis would have some weight. As for whether or not he "believed" it, I can't find any RELIABLE source that says he did; it was one of his CHARACTERS that said they did, and, well, I've written some in my life (not well and not published) and what comes out of a character's mouth is not precisely reflective of my own beliefs, but reflects more what is needed to move my story or dialogue along.

In short, in light of a complete lack of ANY other contemporary documentation, Atlantis is purely fiction.

Jason Colavito link

6/28/2013 01:52:40 pm

Try asking why the same people who want to read Atlantis as real somehow don't think much of Panchaea, an equally fictitious lost continent that Euhemerus also presented as a historical reality. The answers can be quite instructive.

6/29/2013 01:52:08 am

@Varika & Jason Colavito:
First let me express that my thesis here is only that the case of Atlantis is not an easy case because there could be a distorted tradition behind the story. NB: This claim is very reluctant and cautious. It has nothing to do with the usual Atlantis searchers' claims of "lost continents" which existed "9000 years" ago in the Atlanic Ocean, this is of course rubbish. -- Dear Varika, I am very unhappy with YOUR blurring of categories. You just cannot equate Shakespearean plays and Platonic dialogues. This equation is simply not true and thus it is not fair. Platonic dialogues are a genre on their own. And please be sure: If Shakespeare would be our *only* source on Caesar, we surely would try to extract historical details *even* from Shakespeare, as far as possible. -- Second, it is simply not true that Plato put "whatever words [he] wanted" in the mouths of others. Plato is neither a historian nor a poet. Let me repeat: Neither-nor. He is a philosopher and his style is known from many dialogues. (I would even dare to say your claim is not true for Shakespeare, but especially not for Plato.) Alas, this does not mean that there is any truth in it. But neither the opposite. Please be aware how Thucycides wrote the speeches in his work. They are "fiction", too, but at the same time, they are "real". These speeches were held indeed, but not literally. Thucycides composed the speeches later as he thought it would fit best to reality. -- Your last sentence: "in light of a complete lack of ANY other contemporary documentation, Atlantis is purely fiction" can be put into the trash can. This is not a reasonable way of concluding. If you don't know, you don't know. You can't say, if we don't know, then there is nothing behind. This is not allowed under the perspective of reason and reasonability. ----- Concerning Panchaea: Well, this is much more easy to decide, that's the difference. Panchaia is in many ways the opposite of Atlantis: Geographically it has a chance to exist, but surely not in its cultural context, it is a clear fiction. Not so with Atlantis. With Atlantis modern skeptics differ widely in their interpretation of the cultural context described by Plato (this reminds to the many places Atlantis searchers proposed) and there are even major parts where modern interpreters simply fail to give any interpretation: Because they make no sense under the perspective of an allegorical tale. -- In short: Atlantis could be fiction (yes!) but it is *not* easy to see this, therefore it is a bad example for fiction. I suggest to try with Panchaea as a better example instead. -- If you want to read on some academics who dared to ask the question whether there could be any distorted tradition in Plato's Atlantis account, please visit Atlantis minus Scout dot de. (The link behind my name here).

6/29/2013 01:52:23 am

6/29/2013 01:53:10 am

@Varika & Jason Colavito:

First let me express that my thesis here is only that the case of Atlantis is not an easy case because there could be a distorted tradition behind the story. NB: This claim is very reluctant and cautious. It has nothing to do with the usual Atlantis searchers' claims of "lost continents" which existed "9000 years" ago in the Atlanic Ocean, this is of course rubbish. - Dear Varika, I am very unhappy with YOUR blurring of categories. You just cannot equate Shakespearean plays and Platonic dialogues. This equation is simply not true and thus it is not fair. Platonic dialogues are a genre on their own. And please be sure: If Shakespeare would be our *only* source on Caesar, we surely would try to extract historical details *even* from Shakespeare, as far as possible. - Second, it is simply not true that Plato put "whatever words [he] wanted" in the mouths of others. Plato is neither a historian nor a poet. Let me repeat: Neither-nor. He is a philosopher and his style is known from many dialogues. (I would even dare to say your claim is not true for Shakespeare, but especially not for Plato.) Alas, this does not mean that there is any truth in it. But neither the opposite. Please be aware how Thucycides wrote the speeches in his work. They are "fiction", too, but at the same time, they are "real". These speeches were held indeed, but not literally. Thucycides composed the speeches later as he thought it would fit best to reality. - Your last sentence: "in light of a complete lack of ANY other contemporary documentation, Atlantis is purely fiction" can be put into the trash can. This is not a reasonable way of concluding. If you don't know, you don't know. You can't say, if we don't know, then there is nothing behind. This is not allowed under the perspective of reason and reasonability. - Concerning Panchaea: Well, this is much more easy to decide, that's the difference. Panchaia is in many ways the opposite of Atlantis: Geographically it has a chance to exist, but surely not in its cultural context, it is a clear fiction. Not so with Atlantis. With Atlantis modern skeptics differ widely in their interpretation of the cultural context described by Plato (this reminds to the many places Atlantis searchers proposed) and there are even major parts where modern interpreters simply fail to give any interpretation: Because they make no sense under the perspective of an allegorical tale. - In short: Atlantis could be fiction (yes!) but it is *not* easy to see this, therefore it is a bad example for fiction. I suggest to try with Panchaea as a better example instead. - If you want to read on some academics who dared to ask the question whether there could be any distorted tradition in Plato's Atlantis account, please visit Atlantis minus Scout dot de. (The link behind my name here).

6/29/2013 06:08:26 pm

Thorwald, I don't dispute Plato as an amazing source for philosophy. However, the frameworks he used were still not a reliable historical source in any sense of the word. And yes, I still maintain that you have no way of knowing if anything stated by the characters in the dialogues came out of the mouths of real people or out of Plato's mind--if anything, that he was trying to convey a personal philosophical viewpoint makes it MORE likely, not less, that some or all of what was put on paper was his own words for his own ideas.

The definition of fiction includes things that have been made up "for purposes of argument or explanation." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiction?s=t) How do Plato's dialogues NOT fit into this definition? Keep in mind that we are discussing the FRAMEWORK, not the message. Also keep in mind that "fictional" and "entertainment" are not synonyms; fiction is still to this day often used instructionally as well as for entertainment. Therefore, the conclusion that since we ONLY see a mention of this place called Atlantis in a FICTIONAL work, Atlantis is fiction, is a perfectly logical conclusion. Narnia ONLY exists in the works of CS Lewis, despite his own reputation as a serious researcher, historian, and theologian; are you going to argue that "we don't know, so it might still be real" to that, too?

Furthermore, even if there were some "distorted tradition" as you claim there MIGHT be--and if there was, why do we see NO trace of it anywhere?--that still doesn't validate Atlantis as a place. At best, you might be able to say, "Oh, hey, that must be the source that Plato used to create Atlantis." Both Gotham City and Metropolis--clearly fictional cities--are based off of New York City, after all; it doesn't make them any less fictitious.

Finally...where are the scholarly papers on the historical events described in Romeo and Juliet? If you have links--not analyses of the play, but papers trying to claim that Romeo and Juliet was a real event in the real Verona and here it is--I would love to see them. If Shakespeare was our ONLY source on Caesar, we would quite reasonably assume that Caesar was fiction, the way we do with Romeo and Juliet, or the lovers in A Midsummer Night's Dream, or the Merchants of Venice.

6/30/2013 03:24:29 am

@Varika:

You: "the frameworks he used were still not a reliable historical source in any sense of the word." ---- Not true, as John V. Luce pointed out (relying on historians), Plato was very reliable in retelling history where we can check this, such as the historical events told in the Laws.

You "MORE likely, not less, that some or all of what was put on paper was his own words for his own ideas." ---- Well, this is a possibility, not more. Additionally, to all what I already said, consider also this: Plato did not appear out of thin air. Many of his thoughts were thoughts of predecessors, his historical examples reliable, etc. etc. You can say that Plato's judgement on Atlantis is his own, this is safe to say.

You: The definition of fiction includes things that have been made up "for purposes of argument or explanation." ---- Of course, but some explanations work only, if they are true. Parables for example do not need to be true, they have their effect without own truth. Plato's cave works as an example without being a reality. Then there are stories, of which Socrates (as a person of a dialogue) says, that they are true(!), but it is not important that they are true, then there are ... etc. ... and in case of Atlantis it is allowed to ask the question whether this would work if it would be invented? You cannot proof political theory by making up history. Only proving in real history works. I always wondered how Atlantis skeptics imagine the effect of the story on ancient readers if they thougt it to be fiction - I personally imagine, that they simply laughed about it and ridiculed Plato, if it was fiction. But this was not the case. Plato was ridiculed for other things but not for having invented a fiction which proofs nothing.

You: "Therefore, the conclusion that since we ONLY see a mention of this place called Atlantis in a FICTIONAL work, Atlantis is fiction, is a perfectly logical conclusion." ---- Not at all. Really. Not at all. Is Caesar a fiction because he is mentioned in Shakespeare's works? (See also arguments below on this topic)

You: "Narnia ... ; are you going to argue that "we don't know, so it might still be real" to that, too?" ---- Narnia is clearly a PHANTASY world born from PHANTASY whereas Atlantis has no phantasy features from an ancient point of view (and what looks like phantasy from a modern (!) point of view can be a distorted tradition). I repeat: No phantasy but only typical errors of the ancient world. No fruits growing on their own, no fountains of milk and honey, no sourcerers and witches, no dragons. And the gods? Well, every ancient city has a founding myth, that does not count as phantasy (for Plato anyway not!).

Please do not confuse modern views and ancient views! This is heavily important!

You: "why do we see NO trace of it anywhere?" ---- Because the search was not done properly. Or scholars even did not search at all. I would say there are enough possibilities for traces to follow. What the result will be if followed - we will see.

You: "Both Gotham City and Metropolis--clearly fictional cities--are based off of New York City". ---- Yes, but is Atlantis "clearly fictional"? No. It is only clearly not real in a literal sense. Do we know the model? No. All in all with Atlantis it is *not* so easy to judge its status as fictional or real.

You: Finally...where are the scholarly papers on the historical events described in Romeo and Juliet?" ---- Would you please be so kind and stop ridiculing me? We talk on a serious topic. Thank you.

You: "If Shakespeare was our ONLY source on Caesar, we would quite reasonably assume that Caesar was fiction, the way we do with Romeo and Juliet" ---- No, I don't think so :-) Romeo and Juliet as well as a simply "good" vs. a "bad" city as stereotypes would be fictional. But Caesar as well as the Athens-Atlantis story are *no* stereotypic mythical topoi. They have their very own character. Atlantis is not only bad. And it has features which make no sense at all in the context of the "usage" of this story.

And by the way: If you declared Julius Caesar to be a fiction - you would be wrong, did you realize this?

6/30/2013 03:28:18 am

Thorwald, I can't agree with you that Plato's Timaeus and Critias fail to work if Atlantis were fictional; nor can I agree that political theory cannot be illustrated with fiction. Immediately Utopia comes to mind. By your logic, it sounds like you'd also be asking us to believe Utopia was a real place.

6/30/2013 03:40:38 am

@JasonColavito:

Jason: "Thorwald, I can't agree with you that Plato's Timaeus and Critias fail to work if Atlantis were fictional; nor can I agree that political theory cannot be illustrated with fiction."

Answer: I agree that you can illustrate political theories with fiction. But this is precisely not what Plato does. He says, it is real. He would be highly ridiculous in the eyes of his readers if this was not the case. He connects his story unevitably with real places, Athens in the first place. I am not alone with the opinion that Plato clearly thought this primeval history to be real.

Jason: "Immediately Utopia comes to mind. By your logic, it sounds like you'd also be asking us to believe Utopia was a real place."

Answer: Again, no. Because Utopia is clearly a fictional work. Why? Because it is highly symbolical and allegorical. It is for 100% a satire on Thomas More's present-day England. The same cannot be said for Atlantis, as already pointed out. And by the way: If Thomas More claimed his Utopia to be real, how ridiculous that would have been?! He clearly pointed out that it was ou-topia = no-place. Plato had done the same, if it was fiction in his eyes, as he did indeed with many other stories. But not with this one. Here he stubbornly said: It is true. And no, to add this, too: He did this not in an exaggerated way so that it would become clear to everybody: This is fiction. He did it factually.

I have a certain understanding that this discussion is out of scope for you: The usual Atlantis searcher searchers for things surely not real. Let me say it this way: If I could find Atlantis under the described terms, the usual Atlantis searcher would never accept that I found it. And the usual skeptic would agree with the usual searcher! Strange situation where I am in ... :-)

Paul Cargile

6/30/2013 05:47:22 am

If Atlantis was a real place and as magnificent as Plato asserts, it is reasonable to believe there would have been other historical references to it by those that lived near it doing trade, those that attempted to invade it, and or those that were invaded and conquered by it.

The other option if it was real is that it wasn't that significant, and was either a coastal city or island in the Mediterranean that was devastated by a geological event. Or as some think, Malta.

RLewis

6/28/2013 01:50:38 pm

...just my 2-cents worth for why you receive many more posts for AU vs AA.
The Ancient Alien claims have been around since the seventies and fully debunked many, many times. I can never get through a full episode without getting completely bored with the obvious twisting of facts and outright lies. Similarly, there are multiple showings of Big Foot and Ghost Hunter programs shown each week - but I bet they don't generate much discussion. It's just the same old close-encounters stories from attention-hunting, dubious second-hand sources and "did-you-hear-that?" lead-ins to the next commercial.
Wolter's claims are comparatively newer (at least to me). It's kind of fun to finally hear some NEW ridiculous theories. Although they easily fall apart when brought into the first ray of sunlight, they are at least somewhat different.
I have no explanation as to why AA is so popular, but my guess is that the audience is 90% staunch believers and the skeptics abandoned it long ago. AU probably has a higher percentage of skeptical viewers at this point (generating more traffic at this site).

6/29/2013 03:18:11 am

What is interesting is the absurd claim that because something on television is deemed entertainment, its content cannot be refuted or rebutted. It most certainly can and should.

And who is entertained?

I'm not. When you know you are presented with lies, it's hard to watch. The fiction holds no interest to me when I know they are having their dirty way with history.

If you know history and aren't entertained, then that leaves the people that don't know history to be entertained. Obviously these people have some interest in the history being presented to bother with watching the programs. Viewers put their trust in a channel that calls itself "History" to tell them the truth about history. What History Channel and H2 are guilty of is breaking the public trust by presenting ideas while having no intention of offering the opposing view point. There may be credible shows on both channels, but they come under suspicion because of Ancient Aliens and America Unearthed. It's easy to get suckered into believing the legitimacy of these claims because of prior trustworthy programs.

Blogs such as this have an immense value in exposing the fiction, false claims, and outright hoaxes. If anyone has a worldview in jeopardy of being fractured because of Jason's blog, they need to seriously question their worldview.

Theo Paijmans

7/2/2013 08:23:30 am

Jason,

There are a number of errors in your treatment of my Vril Society article.

Basically, it is a continuation (with new discoveries) of my 36 page paper 'La société du Vril, Apocryphe et Ténèbreuse', published in La Gazette Fortéenne, vol. 2, 2003, on pages 292-328.

Had you been familiar with this paper of mine, you would have known that I do not 'now' claim, but have for more than 10 years been following the same path.

Also, the Vril Wikipedia entry you cite was published, as its history shows, in 2004, so, after my French Vril Society paper.

I fail to see therefore, in connection with my French paper, how I should follow a Wikipedia entry, when the rudimentary elements of what I wrote in 2003 and now in FT were already published in a chapter in a book by me in 1998.

You leave out the most important discovery in my FT article: that I have access to the archive of the RAG and that I divulge the true name of the anonymous Johannes Taufer who wrote Vril Die Kosmische Urkraft, etc.

I mention my forthcoming book on this topic -as well as the publisher and a tentative publication date. It makes me wonder if you read my article at all.

In regards to Blavatsky, I wrote about her and proto-science fiction in 1998.

I am all in favor of honest and critical debate, but the errors such as I pointed out above should not enter the fray.

Best regards,

Theo Paijmans

7/2/2013 11:41:33 pm

Theo, my apologies on the publisher name. I will fix that, of course. That was an oversight on my part.

I did not imply you copied from Wikipedia. I provided the link as a service for readers who did not have access to your article so they could become familiar with the material about Vril.

What difference does the identity of Taufer make? It does not suddenly make the Vril Society real, and is therefore irrelevant to my discussion of the blurry line between sci-fi and pseudoscience.

I have no way of knowing about material you covered in a French language article a decade ago, nor would most of your English-language readers, so my statements about the content of this particular article are not incorrect. Your current article does not offer much about Blavatsky. This is like asking you to have reviewed my "Cult of Alien Gods" and "Knowing Fear" before stating that I do not read the material I write about.

Can you please explain your Vril book of 2008 and why it was described as accepting the claims that the Vril Society was real? Is that just David Childress (the listed publisher) making something out of nothing?

Peter link

2/25/2014 01:37:53 am

Fortean Times, p.44

http://issuu.com/theaanz/docs/fortean_times_2013-07

I would be interested in actually reading the books by Paijmans.
But as the author of this blog stated last year: so far nothing has been published.

Dameon Keller link

6/29/2016 05:52:29 pm

Bulwer-Lytton did not "invent" Vril. The term was first used by Jacolliot, as noted in "The Morning of the Magicians," by Willey Ley, when interviewed by the authors, who also did not get it "passed down" from Blavatsky. Your timeline is full of incorrect assumptions about several books you have never read. It's most likely you have not read Paijman's book for the same reasons I have not - it was never published, he claims it will be this year, but still has not seen a bookshelf, despite having been issued an ISBN and cover art over 8 years ago. In fact, should it ever be published, the tag-line "over two decades of research" will have to be replaced with "over three..." As far as the existence of the group, I'll leave you to ponder the notion that no such group has ever gone by one name alone, as "a rose by any other name..." You apparently haven't ever researched anything other than the word "Vril" and only read the Wiki and related shallow summaries. If I'm wrong in that assumption, my apologies, but that is the result of the impression this article leaves me with.

Peter

6/30/2016 01:21:06 am

Sounds like you should write a book or article concerning Vril etc. That would be interesting.

I tried to ask Paijman about his book in the past, but got no reply.

6/30/2016 11:30:14 pm

Same here Peter, regarding Paijmans - I even called his publisher, who claimed no knowledge as to why the book was never published 8 years ago...I did write about it, a bit, in my first book, "Sound's Good! The Spiritual Science of Sound & Vibration," which I published in 2014. "Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know," the saying goes, and so I don't say much. I will say that I do own and have read Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine," also "The Morning of the Magicians," and "The Coming Race" and other Bulwer-Lytton works. As well as much more, including Paijman's "John Worrel Keely - Free Energy Pioneer," which I highly recommend. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that he would finally publish the "Vril Society" book, in June 2016, but June is pretty much over and no sign of it yet. He also says that the startling truth is that they DON'T exist, which is not at all surprising that he would say that. Perhaps the book fell into the same hole as Jonathan Winters' "non-existent" video disclosing the location of the base in South America. After that History Channel episode Paijman's did, with that alleged "historian" Michael something - I mean ugh...anyway...As an author, Paijmans has already taken a similar career turn as Winters, so, again, not surprising, albeit disappointing. Understandable though, as I too have been advised to NOT publish a book on the subject, and though it's already written, I won't be publishing it, at least until I'm certain that the timing is right. Since apparently no one here has read it, in "The Secret Doctrine," Blavatsky stated that "The world is not yet ready for Keely's Vril." I asked Dale Pond, who continues his work, if now, 100 years later, is the world ready? "I don't know," he solemnly replied, but I knew he meant, "Not most of it." So we'll just keep it to ourselves, for now.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.